The relationship between Walter Ulbricht, the East German leader, and Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Premier, was often fraught with tension. This was particularly true during the Berlin Crisis of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Khrushchev's anger frequently flared, often directed at Ulbricht's perceived failures in solidifying communist control in East Germany and managing the complex situation surrounding Berlin. So, how did Ulbricht respond to this volatile anger?
Understanding the Context: Khrushchev's Frustrations
Khrushchev's anger stemmed from several key factors:
-
The Berlin Wall: While Khrushchev is often credited with the idea, the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 was largely a response to the massive exodus of East Germans to the West through Berlin. This represented a significant blow to the prestige and stability of the GDR (German Democratic Republic). Khrushchev likely felt Ulbricht had been slow to address the problem effectively.
-
Economic Difficulties in East Germany: The East German economy struggled significantly compared to its West German counterpart. This economic disparity fueled discontent and further emigration, which frustrated Khrushchev’s goals for a strong, unified communist bloc in Eastern Europe. Ulbricht was ultimately responsible for the performance of the GDR economy.
-
Ulbricht's Stubbornness: Ulbricht was known for his hardline communist stance and was not always receptive to Khrushchev's suggestions or directives. This stubbornness often exacerbated already tense situations. Khrushchev likely saw Ulbricht as inflexible and unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances.
Ulbricht's Responses: A Delicate Balancing Act
Ulbricht's responses to Khrushchev's anger were a complex interplay of appeasement, justification, and occasional defiance. He navigated a precarious situation, needing to retain Khrushchev's support while simultaneously maintaining his own authority within East Germany.
Appeasement and Conformity:
-
Following Orders (Mostly): While Ulbricht possessed a degree of independence, he largely followed Khrushchev’s directives regarding the Berlin Wall and other crucial decisions regarding the GDR. This demonstrated his willingness to comply and avoid further inciting Khrushchev's wrath.
-
Public Demonstrations of Loyalty: Ulbricht consistently emphasized his loyalty to the Soviet Union and the socialist cause. This public display of fealty aimed to mitigate Khrushchev's concerns about Ulbricht's reliability.
Justification and Defense:
-
Highlighting Achievements: Ulbricht defended his actions by highlighting positive developments within East Germany, such as industrial growth (however limited) and the establishment of a socialist state. He attempted to portray a more optimistic narrative to counter the negative aspects that fueled Khrushchev's ire.
-
Shifting Blame: In some instances, Ulbricht subtly shifted blame for difficulties onto external factors, such as Western interference or the inherent challenges of building socialism. This was a tactic to deflect criticism while maintaining a level of control.
Calculated Defiance:
-
Maintaining Independent Actions: Despite his overall conformity, Ulbricht maintained a degree of independent action in managing East Germany's internal affairs. He resisted any complete subordination to Soviet dictates where he perceived it to be detrimental to his own power base.
-
Strategic Silence: In certain instances, Ulbricht opted for strategic silence rather than engaging in direct confrontation with Khrushchev's pronouncements. This passive resistance allowed him to preserve his autonomy without causing an immediate crisis.
Conclusion: A Complex Dynamic
The relationship between Ulbricht and Khrushchev was undeniably tense, shaped by mutual interests, disagreements, and personal dynamics. Ulbricht’s response to Khrushchev's anger was never straightforward but rather a carefully crafted strategy, balancing appeasement with a degree of independent action. While he often adhered to Moscow’s directives, he also demonstrated an ability to protect his own authority and navigate the complex political landscape of the Cold War. Understanding this delicate dance provides crucial insight into the intricacies of the Berlin Crisis and the power dynamics within the Eastern Bloc.
