Soviet Control of Eastern Europe
Morality versus American National Interest
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7967306 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Roy E Licklider, Roy Licklider (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1976 |
| Volume | 91 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 619-624 |
| Publication date | 1976-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Political Science Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0032-3195 • E-ISSN: 1538-165X |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2148797 |
| OpenAlex | W2317722315 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
The American policy of opposing Soviet control of Eastern Europe has not been seriously questioned, probably because morality (encouraging self-determination) seems to coincide with national interest (weakening Soviet power). This article contends, however, that the primary American national interest in Eastern Europe is the prevention of thermonuclear war. Eastern Europe without tight Soviet control would be very unstable due to disputes between the Eastern European countries, problems of national minorities within such countries, and governments without popular legitimacy. A few of these participants might invite outside assistance. Given the importance of Eastern Europe, some of these invitations would be accepted by the Soviet Union and/or Western Europe. The other side would intervene in turn, and the United States would be drawn into a superpower confrontation with a very real risk of war. If these assumptions are sound, it is in the American national interest to keep the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The usual moral argument for opposition to Soviet domination is simply that the peoples of Eastern Europe are entitled to self-determination, that this right is denied to them by Soviet control (as shown most clearly in the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian revolts), and that therefore Soviet control should be opposed. The realpolitik arguments are somewhat more complex: removal of Soviet control would deny valuable human, material, and industrial resources to the Soviet Union; would make it more vulnerable to pressure from abroad; would encourage nationality groups within the Soviet Union to push for self-determination, further weakening the government; and would be a major propa
Development economics · Economic history · Economics · Morality · National interest · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Eastern European Communism and Reforms · History · Law
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,07 |
| Citation span | 1997 - 2001 (5) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |