The text books writers - in the communist period - had to avoid the “national viewpoints” because the international political context in the years of communism forced the textbook writers and sometimes the historians not to speak about the conflictous tradition of the Polish-Russian or Hungarian-Russian historical relations.
The history textbooks had to “create” historical “prelude” of the existing Warsaw Pact.
It was important to stress the common features and common interests of East European countries in the history. Tsarist Russia - the textbooks accepted a panslavist ideology - became the “big brother” of the Slavic peoples of the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires. It was not very far from traditional national interpretation of the Bulgarian and Slovakian historical knowledge - but it was very strange for the Polish historical knowledge, and it was problematic for the Czech knowledge too.
For the Hungarians and Romanians - being not Slavic peoples - it was more complicated than for the others. Hungarian textbooks in the 1950-s tried to stress the great cultural and social influence of Slavic people in the early centuries of middle age Hungary. On the other side they described the role of German settlements. The German craftsmen and merchants (who were the pioneers of embourgeoisement in this region) was called as “colonialists” in the textbooks and curriculums.
The “Slavs are good boys” - “Germans are bad boys”, and “the English and Americans bad boys too” naturally. For example: as it is well known in the years of 1919-1922 a proto fascist system existed in Hungary, and only the pressure of American, British, French governments and capital forced the Hungarian government (which needed the international loans) to change the regime to a conservative parliamentary system. This process was described in the textbooks of 1950s as “the role of American and the British capital in the consolidation of Horthy fascism.”