The Degree of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Degree of 'Peaceful Coexistence'

Background to peaceful coexistence

Following the suppression of the Hungarian and Polish uprisings in 1956, the Soviet position in Eastern Europe became more secure. Should further unrest have occurred in the region, the West would not intervene. Eastern Europe remained under firm Soviet authority.

The Hungarian uprising was reduced to a debating matter at the United Nations, demonstrating that the UN would not interfere in Eastern European affairs. Any movement towards genuine peaceful coexistence was therefore undermined. However, the risings revealed a genuine need for social and political reform across Eastern Europe—a reality recognised by both the USSR and national communist governments in the region.

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party, February 1956

In February 1956, the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union convened. This meeting marked an important change in the USSR's approach to international relations. Khrushchev abandoned the conventional Marxist-Leninist position that war between socialist and capitalist camps was unavoidable. He argued that communism had grown powerful enough to triumph without resorting to war.

Under this new thinking, communist states within the Soviet Bloc could concentrate their resources on internal improvements and economic progress, rather than preparing for an ideological war against the West. In his speech to the Congress, Khrushchev stated:

"We want to be friends with and cooperate with the United States in the effort for peace and security of the peoples. If good relations are not established between the Soviet Union and the United States, this will lead to an arms race on a still greater scale. The Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems remains the general line of our country's foreign policy. The principle of peaceful coexistence is gaining increasingly wider international recognition. And this is logical, since there is no other way out of the present situation. Indeed, there are only two ways; either peaceful coexistence or the most devastating war in history. There is no third alternative."

This declaration presented peaceful coexistence as the only rational path forward, given the catastrophic potential of nuclear war.

Khrushchev's foreign policy imperatives

Khrushchev operated according to several clear objectives that shaped Soviet foreign policy during this period:

• The Soviet Union had to remain the unchallenged leader of the socialist community, both within Eastern Europe and when facing growing competition from China and its leader, Mao Zedong
• A firm grip had to be maintained over the Eastern Bloc satellite states
• Germany must be prevented from rearming and becoming a future threat to the Soviet Union
• The USSR had to continue expanding its nuclear capability and thereby remain firmly implanted in the nuclear arms race between East and West
• Spending on military security, including Soviet conventional forces in Eastern Europe, needed to be reduced
• International tension had to be defused and care taken to avoid unnecessarily provoking the USA

The strategic rationale for peaceful coexistence

This final point about defusing tension underpinned the aims of the Soviet Union under Khrushchev's leadership. Post-Stalinist Soviet leaders proposed meeting and countering the growing power of the USA through a policy of peaceful coexistence—the principle that states with different social and economic systems could exist side by side without war, cooperating where possible whilst maintaining their ideological differences.

Stalinist aggression had led to an escalation of expenses and government debt at a time when Khrushchev wanted to concentrate Soviet resources on domestic developments. Despite a genuine desire for the export of revolution, Khrushchev understood—perhaps better than his American counterparts—the potential catastrophic risks of nuclear war.

He therefore adopted the policy of peaceful coexistence, which involved engaging the USA in diplomacy to diffuse tensions where possible and prevent direct confrontation. This mood of cooperation first became visible over the future of Austria.

The Austrian State Treaty, 1955

Soviet policy towards Austria had been closely linked to policy towards Germany. Immediately after the end of the war, the USSR had favoured a unified German state that was neutralised and could offer no threat to the Soviet Union. Like Germany, Austria had been divided into occupation zones, and the USSR had focused on receiving economic aid from Austria as they had from the Soviet Zone of Germany.

To some extent, Austria had the potential to become as great an issue dividing East and West as Germany had been until 1949. Austrian leaders in the Western Zones promoted the idea that Austria could easily be absorbed into the Soviet sphere of influence in the way that Czechoslovakia had been a few years earlier. Some observers even referred to Austria as 'Europe's Korea'.

By 1955, the USSR began to show serious intentions of embarking on negotiations over the future of Austria. By May 1955, the four occupying powers had reached agreement in the form of the Austrian State Treaty—a formal agreement between states that creates legally binding obligations under international law. It led to the withdrawal of all occupying powers and the declaration that Austria would be a neutral state. This was in line with the USSR's willingness to accept both Finland and Yugoslavia as neutral states and therefore not liable to be subjected to joining the Soviet sphere of influence.

This agreement showed a genuine intent towards mutual cooperation between the Cold War powers. It also removed a major source of potential conflict. Agreement over Austria eased the tension towards further cooperation between East and West. Following this agreement, the Western powers removed their occupation forces from West Germany. This cooperation consolidated the East-West position and was very much the essence of peaceful coexistence.

The next step in this process was taken with the decision to resume summit diplomacy—high-level international meetings bringing together leaders who could collectively negotiate outcomes that could be implemented. Summit meetings represented the opportunity for Cold War states to work together to create solutions rather than smaller alliance groups that competed against each other.

---