No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
The Soviet-Yugoslav dispute and the subsequent defection of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the ranks of the Cominform early in 1948 took the world by surprise. This surprise was in itself indicative of our belief that Stalinist control was to be taken for granted at least in the areas where the local Communist parties had come to power through direct or indirect help from the Soviet Union and particularly from the Red Army. Even when no such help had been given, the ideological affinities of Communist states and their need of alliances to preserve the Communist power structures would lead, it was believed, to a tightening of relations with the Soviet Union and to Soviet predominance. In other words, we tended to accept without question the premises of Stalinism.
1 Wolfe's, BertramThree Who Made a Revolution (New York, 1948)Google Scholar and Deutscher's, IsaacStalin: A Political Biography (New York and London, 1949)Google Scholar are good introductions to the study of Stalin and Stalinism.
2 Fischer, Ruth, Stalin and German Communism, Cambridge, Mass., 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 It met only three times after Lenin's death and was disbanded during the war.
4 Walter, Gerard, Histoire du Parti Communiste Français, Paris, 1948.Google Scholar
5 Particularly Kennan's, George article, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Foreign Affairs, XXV, No. 4 (July 1947), 566–82Google Scholar; Moore, Barrington, Soviet Politics: The Dilemma of Power, Cambridge, Mass., 1950Google Scholar; and Leites, Nathan, The Operational Code of the Politburo, New York, 1951.Google Scholar
6 Loc. cit., p. 569.
7 Op. cit., Chapter 17.
8 ibid., pp. 393 and 394.
9 Ulam, Adam B., “The Crisis in the Polish Communist Party,” Review of Politics, XII, No. 1 (January 1950), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute: Text of the Published Correspondence, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London and New York, 1948, p. 19.
11 Ulam, Adam B., “The Cominform and the People's Democracies,” World Politics, III, No. 2 (January 1951), 200–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 This is only a selected bibliography: Bourdet, Claude, Le Schisme Yougoslave, Paris, 1950Google Scholar; Korbel, Josef, Tito's Communism, Denver, Colo., 1951Google Scholar; Clissold, Stephen, Whirlwind, London, 1949Google Scholar; Armstrong, Hamilton F., Tito and Goliath, New York, 1951Google Scholar; Warriner, Doreen, Revolution in Eastern Europe, London, 1950Google Scholar, particularly Chapters II, III, and IV.
13 The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute, op. cit., p. 35.
14 ibid.
15 Armstrong, op. cit., Chapters IV and V; also Clissold, op. cit., Chapter XIV.
16 Quoted in Kardelj, Edward, On People's Democracy in Yugoslavia, New York, 1949, p. 13.Google Scholar
17 ibid., p. 14.
18 Tzainin, I. D., “Democracy of a Special Type,” The Soviet State and Law, No. 1 (1947), p. 12.Google Scholar
19 See Wolfe, , op. cit., Chapter XXXIII.Google Scholar
20 Burdzalov, , “On the International Significance of the Historical Experience of the Bolshevik Party,” Bolshevik, No. 17 (1948), p. 51 and passim.Google Scholar
21 See his “Report to the Fifth Congress of the Bulgarian Workers' Party,” in The Current Digest of the Soviet Press (1st Quarter, 1949), pp. 32–34.
22 Quoted in Kardelj, , op. cit., p. 30Google Scholar, from Sbap Nep (January 16, 1949).
23 See the bibliography given in note 12.
24 The most important in chronological order are, for 1948: The Report of the Fifth Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, New York; Tito, On Nationalism and Internationalism, Belgrade; Kidric, On the Construction of Socialist Economy in the FPRY, Belgrade. For 1949: Popovic, Melentije, Des Rapports Economiques entre Etats Socialistes, ParisGoogle Scholar; Kardelj, Edward, On People's Democracy in Yugoslavia, New YorkGoogle Scholar; Djilas, Milovan, Lenin on Relations Between Socialist States, New YorkGoogle Scholar; Tito, , Political Report to the Third Congress of the People's Front, New YorkGoogle Scholar; Kardelj, Edward, Yugoslavia's Foreign Policy, Belgrade. For 1950Google Scholar: Ales Bebler, , La Classe Ouvrière et le Principe de la Souveraineté du Peuple dans les Rapports Internationaux, ParisGoogle Scholar; Djilas, Milovan, On New Roads to Socialism, BelgradeGoogle Scholar; Tito, , Les Usines aux Ouvriers, Paris.Google Scholar
25 Kardelj, , On People's Democracy, op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar
26 Popovic, op. cit., passim.
27 Kidric, , op. cit., pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
28 Tito, , On Nationalism and Internationalism, op. cit., p. 14.Google Scholar
29 Stalin, , Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (Marxist-Leninist Library, Vol. XXXIII), New York, 1935.Google Scholar
30 Djilas, On New Roads to Socialism, op. cit., passim.
31 ibid., p. 11.
32 ibid., pp. 10–18: “… the internal contradictions between bureaucratic centralism and the direct producers, that is, the people, inevitably developed into conditions of socialist encirclement, into external contradictions, into a conflict between bureaucratic imperialism and the aspirations of the people for a free and equal life” (p. 18).
33 Tito, , Les Usines aux Ouvriers, op. cit., p. 21.Google Scholar