AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why most eastern and southeastern European successor states moved away from parliamentary democracy after World War I
- Identify key examples of authoritarian rule in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states
- Distinguish between authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism
- Explain why the Great Depression, nationalism, ethnic tension, and anti-communism weakened democracy
- Describe why **Czechoslovakia** remained the main democratic exception for most of the interwar period
- Use specific evidence, dates, and leaders in SAQ, DBQ, and LEQ responses on interwar Europe

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand why interwar eastern Europe turned authoritarian, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German, and Ottoman Empires created new or reshaped **successor states**
- Identify why most of these states had weak parliamentary systems and fragile democratic traditions after **1918**
- Explain how **ethnic conflict**, border disputes, agrarian economies, and fear of communism undermined democracy
- Know key examples: **Poland 1926**, **Hungary 1920**, **Yugoslavia 1929**, **Romania 1938**, **Bulgaria 1934–1935**, and authoritarian turns in the Baltic states
- Understand that **Czechoslovakia** was the main democratic exception until the late **1930s**
- Explain the difference between **authoritarianism**, **fascism**, and **totalitarianism**
- Analyse continuity and change: initial democratic experiments after World War I gave way to authoritarian consolidation by the 1930s

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did so many eastern European states fail to preserve parliamentary democracy after **1918**?
2. What happened in **Poland in 1926** and **Yugoslavia in 1929**?
3. Why is **Czechoslovakia** usually treated as the major exception in interwar eastern Europe?
4. What is the difference between an **authoritarian** regime and a **fascist** one?
5. How did the **Great Depression** strengthen anti-democratic politics in the region?

## Introduction

After World War I, much of eastern and southeastern Europe looked as if it might become more democratic. Old empires had collapsed, new states had appeared, and ideas of national self-determination were widely discussed. Yet by the 1930s, most of these new or enlarged states had abandoned liberal parliamentary politics and turned toward some form of dictatorship.

This matters for AP European History because the exam often tests causation, comparison, and exceptions. You need to know not just that democracy failed, but why it failed in most of the region and why **Czechoslovakia** lasted longer than its neighbors.

> **Key Term: successor states**
> States created or reshaped after World War I from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German, and Ottoman Empires.

### Why democracy was fragile in the successor states

The biggest mistake students make is to assume that these states simply "chose fascism." In most cases, the path was less ideological and more structural. These countries inherited weak institutions, unresolved frontiers, divided populations, and poor economies. That made parliamentary government hard to sustain.

Many of the new states were **multiethnic**. Borders drawn after World War I often did not match where peoples actually lived. Poland included Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, and Germans. Yugoslavia combined Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others. Czechoslovakia included Czechs, Slovaks, and a large Sudeten German minority. In theory, parliaments could mediate such tensions. In practice, ethnic parties often deepened them.

> **Key Term: parliamentary democracy**
> A political system in which elected representatives make laws and governments depend on support from a parliament.

Weak democratic tradition also mattered. In western Europe, parliamentary institutions had longer histories. In much of eastern Europe, modern representative government was newer and less rooted. Elites such as army officers, landowners, and monarchs often did not trust mass politics. They feared that unstable coalition governments would produce disorder.

Fear of socialism and communism was another major cause. The Russian Revolution of **1917** frightened conservatives, landlords, churches, and middle classes across Europe. In states with large peasant or worker populations, elites often preferred a strong ruler to the risk of left-wing revolution. This is why many interwar dictatorships were conservative and anti-communist before they were anything else.

Economic weakness intensified every political problem. Many successor states were largely agrarian. They lacked the industrial depth of major western states and were vulnerable to trade shocks, debt, and falling prices. When the **Great Depression** hit after **1929**, confidence in parliamentary governments collapsed even further. People who already doubted democracy now saw it as ineffective.

Cause and effect is key here:

- weak institutions made coalition politics unstable
- ethnic division made compromise harder
- economic hardship made governments unpopular
- fear of communism pushed elites toward repression
- the Depression made "order" seem more appealing than freedom
  > **Test Tip:** In an LEQ or SAQ, do not give a one-cause answer. A stronger response links at least three causes, such as weak democratic traditions, ethnic conflict, and the Great Depression.

### How eastern Europe turned authoritarian: country examples

The safest AP generalisation is this: most successor states became **authoritarian**, but not all became fully fascist. Specific examples matter.

In **Hungary**, **Miklós Horthy** became regent in **1920**. Hungary remained formally a kingdom, but it had no king, which is why historians sometimes call it a "kingdom without a king." Horthy's regime was conservative, nationalist, and anti-communist. Parliament still existed, but real power remained tightly controlled by elites. This was not initially a mass fascist revolution. It was an authoritarian order meant to restore stability after war, revolution, and territorial losses.

In **Poland**, **Józef Piłsudski** carried out the **May Coup of 1926**. He argued that parliamentary politics were corrupt and ineffective. His system became known as **Sanacja**, meaning a "cleansing" of political life. Elections continued, but real competition narrowed and executive power increased. Poland did not become a total one-party state, but it clearly moved away from liberal democracy.

> **Key Term: authoritarianism**
> A political system in which power is concentrated in one ruler or a small elite, political opposition is restricted, and civil liberties are limited.

In **Yugoslavia**, ethnic conflict was central. The state had been created in **1918** as a South Slav kingdom, but its peoples did not share equal views of power. Serbian dominance angered Croats and others. In **1929**, **King Alexander I** abolished the constitution, dissolved parliament, and created a **royal dictatorship**. He hoped stronger central rule would impose Yugoslav unity. Instead, repression deepened resentment.

> **Key Term: royal dictatorship**
> An authoritarian regime in which a monarch suspends or bypasses parliamentary government and rules directly.

In **Romania**, political life became increasingly unstable during the 1930s. The monarchy, traditional parties, and the far right all competed for power. In **1938**, **King Carol II** established a royal dictatorship. One reason this matters for comparison is that Romania had a genuine fascist movement, the **Iron Guard**, but the king's regime was not simply identical to it. That shows how authoritarian rulers often tried to contain fascists even while borrowing some of their methods.

In **Bulgaria**, parliamentary rule weakened through coups and royal intervention. A coup in **1934** undermined party politics, and by **1935** **Tsar Boris III** had consolidated authoritarian control. Again, this was a monarchy-centered dictatorship rather than a full fascist mass-party state.

The **Baltic states** followed a similar pattern:

- **Lithuania** turned authoritarian under **Antanas Smetona** after the **1926** coup
- **Estonia** moved under **Konstantin Päts** in **1934**
- **Latvia** moved under **Kārlis Ulmanis** in **1934**

These governments justified dictatorship as a defense against instability and extremism. Their rhetoric stressed order, unity, and national survival.

> **Test Tip:** If a question asks for examples, do not just list countries. Pair each state with a leader and date: Piłsudski **1926**, Horthy **1920**, Alexander I **1929**, Carol II **1938**.

### Authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism: do not confuse them

This distinction is one of the most useful in Unit 8. Many students write that "eastern Europe became fascist." That is too broad.

> **Key Term: fascism**
> A radical ultranationalist ideology that opposes liberal democracy and often uses mass mobilization, violence, and leader worship to create national rebirth.
>
> **Key Term: totalitarianism**
> A system that seeks to control nearly all aspects of life, including politics, culture, education, media, and private belief.

Most interwar eastern European regimes were **authoritarian**, not fully fascist and not fully totalitarian. Why?

First, many were conservative and defensive, not revolutionary. They wanted obedience, not total social remaking. Horthy in Hungary and Alexander in Yugoslavia were trying to preserve order and state power, not build a new mass ideological society like Hitler sought in Germany.

Second, many lacked the full machinery of fascism: a single dominant mass party, constant mobilization, and a sweeping vision of national rebirth led by a cult figure. Some copied fascist methods such as censorship, paramilitary pressure, and anti-communist rhetoric. But copying methods is not the same as becoming fully fascist.

Third, most did not reach the level of totalitarian control seen in **Stalin's USSR** or later in **Nazi Germany**. Those systems aimed to shape thought, culture, youth, and everyday life. Most eastern European dictatorships did not exercise that degree of penetration into society.

A useful comparison:

- **Authoritarian** regimes want obedience and order
- **Fascist** regimes want mass activism and national rebirth
- **Totalitarian** regimes want near-total control over society and belief

Romania is a good case for complexity. It had both a royal authoritarian dictatorship and a strong fascist movement. That means an exam answer can earn sophistication by showing overlap without collapsing all anti-democratic politics into one category.

### Why Czechoslovakia was the major exception

Czechoslovakia is the key exception you must know. It remained a parliamentary democracy for most of the interwar period, unlike most of its neighbors.

Why did it hold out longer?

First, it had a stronger industrial economy, especially in **Bohemia** and **Moravia**. A stronger economy tends to support a larger middle class, more urban life, and more administrative capacity. That gave democracy a better base.

Second, its political leadership was more committed to constitutional rule. Figures such as **Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk** and later **Edvard Beneš** identified the state with parliamentary government rather than with monarchy or military rule.

Third, Czechoslovakia had somewhat stronger liberal and administrative traditions than many neighboring states. That did not remove problems, but it made institutions more workable.

Still, do not romanticise it. Czechoslovakia had serious ethnic tensions, especially involving **Sudeten Germans** and Slovaks. By the late 1930s, outside pressure from Nazi Germany and inside pressure from minority conflict made the democracy increasingly vulnerable. It remained the exception, but not a perfect or tension-free one.

This contrast is useful in essays. If most successor states turned authoritarian because of weak institutions, minority tensions, and economic crisis, then Czechoslovakia lasted longer because it had relatively stronger institutions, more industry, and leadership committed to parliamentary rule.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- After **1918**, most eastern and southeastern European successor states failed to sustain liberal democracy
- Successor states were created or reshaped from the collapse of major empires after World War I
- Weak democratic traditions, ethnic tensions, border disputes, and agrarian weakness made parliamentary rule unstable
- Fear of socialism and communism pushed elites toward strong rulers
- The **Great Depression** further discredited parliamentary government after **1929**
- **Hungary** under **Miklós Horthy** became a conservative authoritarian regime from **1920**
- **Poland** moved toward authoritarianism after **Piłsudski’s May Coup in 1926**
- **Yugoslavia** became a royal dictatorship under **King Alexander I in 1929**
- **Romania** moved to royal dictatorship under **Carol II in 1938**
- **Bulgaria** and the **Baltic states** also turned authoritarian in the 1930s
- Most of these regimes were authoritarian rather than fully fascist or totalitarian
- **Czechoslovakia** was the main democratic exception until the late **1930s**

## Key Terms and Concepts

- successor states
- parliamentary democracy
- authoritarianism
- royal dictatorship
- fascism
- totalitarianism


Fascism and Totalitarianism - Interwar eastern Europe turned authoritarian