Aleksejs et al.,

Once again Ulmanis here on the forum is depicted as the “Evil King” steering the boat that is Latvia ,surrounded by an implied sea of democracy.  When in fact the opposite was true, there was no sea of democracy surrounding Latvia.  As I have pointed out many times before, Latvia was the last bastion of democracy to fall in the neighbourhood .  A few months before the May 15. coup, strong man rule came to Estonia and democratic Latvia was left alone, surrounded by a sea of dictatorships.  No doubt this fact entered into the decision for the coup.

Saying that Ulmanis pulled books from libraries, without naming specific books is just blatant propaganda.
My father kept the “Risky Dainas” (nerātnās dainas) volume under lock and key.  It was kept locked up because of a law.  No doubt the Risky Dainas volumes were pulled from library shelves and kept under lock and key(not burned).  What other books were pulled from the library shelves ?

Visu labu,

Some specific books, provided by a friend—Mēs bijām pārsteigti, ka grāmatnīcās parādījās pirms tam aizliegtās grāmatas, piemēram, Voiničas “Dundurs”, Jaroslava Hašeka “Šveiks”, Eduarda Veidenbauma dzejoļi.  Bijām pārsteigti, ka tādas lietas līdz tam bija bijušas aizliegtas.

Source

Veidenbaums should surely be banned! As the first great Latvian poet, at least, and such a nihilist.

I have never described one-testicle Kārlītis as an “evil king.” I am sure that he was just as great as Luka or the Genius of the Carpathians.

/P

I don’t think of Ulmanis as the evil king at all. I don’t tend to vilify or idealize political figures. However, I don’t understand Ivars’ comments regarding freedom, democracy and the Latvian values in his feeble attempts to justify or excuse the Ulmanis unconstitutional regime of the late 1930s. Better yet, I don’t understand the glorification of that regime by people who put on rose-colored glasses when it comes to Ulmanis.

Peteris Cedrins - 01 February 2008 07:29 AM

Unlike Ulmanis’ Latvia, Putin’s Russia still has some freedom of the press left.

Unlike Ulmanis’ Latvia, Putin’s Russia retains formally elected representation on both federal and local levels.

/R

Now, now, Robčik—Amberdawg will suffer vapor lock!

I just don’t get this at all, to be frank. I have stepped in “you know what” how? May those that think that acquire the book—I’m not gonna key it in. If you don’t get the book—what are you talking about? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I just don’t understand the rabid defense of a freakish and very typical dictator by people who haven’t even read about the guy. There are plenty of other books, but they are usually so ludicrous that one could die of laughter. Virza, anyone? Ulmanis as the rising sun?

Like JKS, I can muster substantial respect for the man, especially in his earlier role. But I really do not understand the other arguments here. An egomaniac ruling a divided newborn nation by shutting everybody else up does not make the nation stronger in any way, and Kārlis did not roll with any punches. Yes, some believe that the hyper-nationalism he promoted is part of what kicked back in and kept Latvia alive—that might be true in a way, in the sense that a narrow idea a minority subscribed to survived. The survival delights me, but the sclerosis is what we suffer from.

But I think the nous should be employed—as Dunsdorfs concluded, no one did so much to polarize Latvia. The fact is that he had little proven support, unless one means that hardly anyone opposed him after he took control and destroyed democracy. After that point—nobody but Ulmanis and his cronies had a voice.

Democracy did have proven support, and the dude was losing. What Aleks posted an image of is a shining tragicomedy—every decent historian agrees that no coup threatened the Republic… the biggest threat to democracy was Ulmanis himself, as it turned out.

As to my going by the book—well, yeah, I think that is what the rule of law is about.

Regards,
/P

I have never described one-testicle Kārlītis as an “evil king.”
/P
- - - - - -
As expected our local bard /Politruk enlightens us with secret facts that apparently were censured during our National Awakening.  As usual /Politruk does not prove his allegations. 

/Politruk - will you, please, supply us with a certified Health and Body inspection of Dr. Karlis Ulmanis before 1940, signed by a medical doctor. Or at least inform us where such document can be seen.

Mr. L. L.

. . . every decent historian agrees . . .
/P
- - - - -
/Politruk please – what are the disagreeing “indecent” historians? 

Let me guess – Dvinsk bards in nude?

Mr. L. L.

Perhaps there was a Latvian take on the ol’ Pulkveža Bōgija maršs, which included the following lyric:

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is somewhat sim’lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

Maybe someday someone will discover the remains of the Vadonis, or at least find the Soviet autopsy records and the penultimate question of whether or not Kārlītis the malevolent monarch was monorchic will be laid to rest.

/R

I remember a slightly different version of the above Colonel Bogey March in which the lyrics involved the Albert Hall. Full details at wikipedia.

Sveika, Anita, who wrote:

“ambersun, Peteris speaks of history.  Perhaps not the history that you would like to talk about, but Ulmanis’ removal of thousands of volumes from schools and libraries is historical fact.”

Anita, Peteris, Aleksejs, and anyone else who needs to misquote me or is looking to find “historical truth” in “historical fact(s).”

The history I would like to talk about is certainly not merely the selective “historical fact[s]” that Peteris summons from the depth of his personal loathing for Ulmanis.  “History” is of course stringing together the so-called “historical fact[s]” but it’s soooo much more than that.  It would better serve our understanding of “real history” if Peteris and Aleksejs honestly revealed their personal political agendas and stopped trying to pass this off as enlightening “historical fact.” It must be hard to reconcile schizophrenically erratic impulses of sentimental-but-begrudging Latvian nationalism with emotional-but patronizing Russian apologism with confused-and-contradictory internationalism.  Peteris and Aleksejs need to come out of the cover of LOL Latvian-leaning and stand tall for their true political beliefs for Latvia’s future as a bilingual Latvian/Russian, multicultural/internationalist, knee-jerk-left-out-of-hysterical-fear-to-be-right, probably"socialist," Putin-pragmatic state.  I could respect that rather than this constant derision of Latvia’s past and Latvian nationalism under the guise of revealing “real history;” and ignoring “left-leaning” concepts and “people’s history” notions fitting Latvia after fifty years of Soviet/Russian discrimination and enslavement like “affirmative action” for ethnic Latvians, necessary “Latvian pride” consciousness raising, and Soviet heir/ Russian compensation for half-century “slavery.”

The history I would prefer to talk about is the Latvian history that needs to be written because Latvia was not free for fifty years and Latvians were not free to write it. 

From Norman From Norman Davies, NO SIMPLE VICTORY, World War II in Europe, 1939-1945

[...]
“Every nation that participated in the Second World War has its own version of events.  Britons and American, Germans and Italians, French and Dutch, Russians and Poles, Jews and many other, all accentuate the experiences of their own people.  Wittingly or unwittingly, they all diminish the diversity of experience and inhibit the presentation of a grand panorama.  They obstruct an overall view.  So much, given human nature, is inevitable.  Nontheless, the fact remains that the whole is more important than the particular.  Every attempt to examine one part of the scene should be accompanied by or perhaps precede the wider framework into which the part can be placed.  It is this framework that the present essay hope to outline.”
[...]

My dear “Latvian historians,” take it from the recent writing of an eminent “true historian” like Norman Davies, whose words clearly warrant repeating for the timid, that it’s really expected that Latvians will write their “own version of events,” “accentuate the experience of their own people,” and “diminish the diversity of experience and inhibit the presentation of the grand panorama.” Then other nations’ historians maybe can be trusted to be the “objective scholar” historians and put “Latvian history” into the world “overall view.”

I’m thinking of putting some of these “endorsements” in the corner of my blog—like “__ says Pēteris likes to quote inbred retarded neocons!” “__—Politruk!” “Anti-Lithuanian jihadista!” “__—Latvian Nazi!” “Pinko Petey—Kremlin agent!” ...so—many thanks, Ambersunīt, for revealing my latest sinister agenda! 

I certainly do try to look at things from different angles, and Davies is not urging one to see only a single one. I hate to break it to you, but I know a lot of Letts who have good things to say about the Soviet Union—in fact, I even know former deportees who don’t paint the occupation black; often, the diaspora is more prone to that. You weren’t a participant here, Ambersun, when I met a Legionnaire who said that it was his impression that Western Latvians wished him dead, desiring a Götterdämmerung to justify their exile. I’ve met Red Partisans, too—including even ethnic Latvians (the horror!)—who do not subscribe to a comic book vision of Lettish history.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” and I’ve never claimed to be consistent. It must be hard to reconcile schizophrenically erratic impulses of sentimental-but-begrudging Latvian nationalism with emotional-but patronizing Russian apologism with confused-and-contradictory internationalism. Yeppers!

I don’t see a reason to describe the history of language legislation like this, for example. That’s propaganda, not history. And it’s everywhere—the attempt to paint everyone opposed to the education reform as enemies of Latvian, for instance; just yesterday I encountered a Russian girl with absolutely fluent Latvian who finds the language, education and citizenship policies discriminatory and wretched. Only a couple of weeks ago, I argued with (ethnic, or should I say “ethnic” to Ambersun...) Latvians who were stridently, diametrically opposed to my views on citizenship; in their view, denying citizenship to Soviet-era migrants was the worst mistake Latvia ever made, and one we will still pay dearly for. Debate here, at LOL? Seminal issues, like the fact that we did not even grant citizenship to those who supported independence by registering with the Citizens’ Congress (as Estonia did), thereby alienating many who were more “pro-Latvia” than the average Latvian, rarely get mentioned.

But is what I write really so erratic? I don’t think so, sorry—anybody with a modicum of reading ability would know that there’s almost always a Leitmotiv… and it ain’t “constant derision of Latvia’s past.” Excuse me, but I find Latvia’s history fascinating and there are many things and figures I look upon with wonder and admiration. I think you know what and whom I do not admire—but even in the case of Ulmanis, it’s hardly “personal loathing”; I never met the guy, but I do know that he had some admirable qualities and great accomplishments. Denigrating his personality cult and detesting him for destroying democracy doesn’t mean I have his picture on a dartboard. I love Ezra Pound—should that prevent me from pointing out that he could be a raving Fascist who had a liking for America’s only Chinese white supremacist (okay, maybe not only, but I would assume there aren’t many...)?

My positions on citizenship, language policy, and NATO are not “leftist” at all (whatever that means to you; I’d love to know—Putin’s a socialist?)—I’ve made those positions clear time and again. Does that mean I think we should pretend that invading Iraq was a good idea? Does that mean I think America can do no wrong? Should I not notice that some are deeply wounded by Latvia’s policies, like the man who burned himself to death in Daugavpils because he had a problem with residency? Must I pretend that those nasty colonists, some of whom have worked very hard to learn Latvian and are true patriots, don’t have the right to protest an education reform some feel will turn their children into mankurts, which mankurtization was exactly what Letts complained about two decades ago?

I wholly agree with you, Ambersun—Latvian history needs to be written. But it is being written. Still, I don’t see too many people here rushing off to Valters un Rapa for the freshest volumes, do you? I do sense that one or two persons might prefer patriotiskā audzināšana to history. We just signed the Treaty of Lisbon, and we’s a-gonna ratify it (that is—our elected Parliament will). We’re a Member State of the EU, and this Treaty will change our lives in our lifetime, assuming it comes into force. Where are the posts about that, unless from Roberts? A lot more energy goes toward whining about a dirt-poor piece of bad land that hasn’t belonged to us de facto for more than half a century and is—and was!—inhabited primarily by those nefarious Russkies.

I have several posts about Abrene/Pytalovo at my blog—I also have posts about the deportations, Russian apologists, distortions of Latvians’ role(s!) in the world wars, and links galore. But you’re gonna accuse me of a derisive attitude toward our history? What’s far more derisive, to my mind, is puffing into those comic book balloons.

Sergejs Kruks: “Latvieši ir iestiguši melanholijā, nespēj mainīt savu identitāti un komunicēt ar citiem Eiropas Savienībā. [...] latvieši ir ieciklējušies jaunlatviešu radītajā romantizētajā nacionālajā identitātē, kas balstās uz valodas un nacionālās kultūras sargāšanu, un nespēj piemēroties globalizācijas realitātēm.”

I doubt that reality will wait whilst you figure out whether establishing a dictatorship in 1934 was a good thing or not.

/politruks says:  “ . . .Latvian history needs to be written. “

(History = a chronological account of past events of a period or in the life or development of a people, an institution, or a place (Encarta) )

Pray tell, /politruks, which of your “facts” you will try to insert in your propagandist’s re-write of history when you cannot document even a simple statement of yours – in post # 36 ?

/politruks admits: “...so—many thanks, . . ., for revealing my latest sinister agenda!”

Pray tell, /politruks, are you sidling up to Putin to be as Ehrenburg was to Stalin?

/politruks informs: “I have several posts . . . at my blog . . .”

Pray tell why one would want to wallow in your ***** propaganda? Don’t you unload enough of it here despoiling this forum?

And finally – what has this all to do with “Draudzigais Aicinajums” book drive?

Mr. L. L.

Getting back on track, it amazes me how easily Pēteris Cedriņš falls for communist and Russian propaganda. Unfortunately despite his claims that he “looks at things from different angles,” it does not come across that way. His radar like sympathies always appear to hone in with the far left (color it red). Here he finally finds his star witness, a fellow by the name Voldemārs Ante (see post # 32). You would think that in looking for a reliable witness who can vouch that Ulmanis “… was removing “dangerous” books from libraries and replacing them with heroic ones.” that Pēteris would at least check the credentials of the witness and the reliability of this guy’s story.

Here is Ante’s story in context, which includes the parts Pēteris chose to leave out: – ‘Manuprāt, viņš bija uz vienu roku ar vāciešiem. Viņš nojauta par kara tuvošanos. Viņam bija cemme uz padomju karabāzēm. Kad 1940.gadā 17.jūnijā ienāca sarkanā armija, vienkāršie cilvēki domāja, ka būs labāki laiki. Arī daudzi ģimnāzisti. Mēs bijām pārsteigti, ka grāmatnīcās parādījās pirms tam aizliegtās grāmatas, piemēram, Voiničas “Dundurs”, Jaroslava Hašeka “Šveiks”, Eduarda Veidenbauma dzejoļi. Bijām pārsteigti, ka tādas lietas līdz tam bija bijušas aizliegtas. Iespējams, arī tāpēc biju starp tiem, kuri aizrāvās ar revolucionārām idejām un jau 1940.gadā iestājās komjauniešos.”

Click on this: Source: http://www.kurzemes-vards.lv/?doc=39785 - It’s the full interview with Voldemārs Ante, starting with the wonderful time he had when the Soviets came into Latvia and during the rest of “Baigais gads,” his service to his new found country, etc. You be the judge.

It was most likely his postman daddy that was feeding him the information (extrapolated and translated from the source and the quoted paragraph above) “that Ulmanis was in it together with the Germans. He sensed that the war was approaching. He was pissed over the Soviet military basis in Latvia. When the red army entered Latvia June 17, 1940, the simple folks thought that these would be good times. Also many high school students were waiting.” [Here is evidence for the Soviets that the Latvians were sincerely waiting for the liberation.] [He continues on.] “We were surprised when in the bookstores” [Whatever happened to the libraries?] “appeared the formerly forbidden books, for example, Voiničas “Dundurs”, Jaroslava Hašeka “Šveiks”, Eduarda Veidenbauma poems. We were surprised that such things had been forbidden.” [Apparently he had not noticed anything missing from the library.] “Possibly, because of that I was also among those who were enthused about revolutionary ideas and already in 1940 I joined the Young Communist League.” [This enthusiasm takes place while Latvians are being arrested, tortured, executed and shipped off to Siberia. The books that he was totally clueless about before seemed to turn into a major grievance for young Voldemārs Ante.]

Besides Pēteris Cedriņš seems to have a stiff over the young Veidebaums who died at the age of 24, as he laments: “Veidenbaums should surely be banned! As the first great Latvian poet, at least, and such a nihilist.” Veidenbaums composed some 87 poems in his short life, such as: i.e. “Es esmu nabags vecpuisis,” “Iedzer, brāli,” “Reiz zaļoja jaunība,” etc. These also happened to be popular songs like this one:

Es zinu, visi mani nievā
Es zinu, visi mani nievā,
Es zinu, visi mani nīst.
Lai mani nīst, lai mani nievā
Vienalga man, vienalga man! (2x)

Pār kapiem laižas melnas vārnas
Un žēli ķērc: “Nav vērts, nav vērts!”
Es atspiežos uz kapa malas
Un saucu līdz: “Nav vērts, nav vērts!”

Kā vēja dzīti mākonīši,
Tā manas domas tālu skrien,
Pēc kaut kā cēla, nezināma
Sirds ilgojas, sirds ilgojas.

Lai novīst visas manas rozes,
Lai izgaist visas cerības,
Es varu raudāt, varu smieties,
Vienalga man, vienalga man…

Is it possible that these most popular songs were also forbidden like the books in which they were written? Forbidden to be sung at parties, on the radio, at fraternities, by the scouts at their campfire, by folks in their homes so as not to influence the nation! Was there a loophole to disobey the “Vadonis?” After six years of silence and when the commies came marching in the Latvians started again to sing Veidenbaums songs! Funny how no one brings up those six years of silence where the popular songs were supposed to have been banned.

I tried to see the possibility why these three books would be banned during Kārlis Ulmanis dictatorship. The first book mentioned Voiničas “Dundurs” I had not heard of before. But according to my Riga contacts it was a required secondary school reading during the Soviet occupation. Here is a taste of what this book entails. You be the judge as to the merits of removing the book from the library shelves.

The Gadfly by Lilian Volnich
http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/INPROZ/WOJNICH/owod_engl.txt

The second book mention was Jaroslava Hašeka “Šveiks.” It’s full Latvian title is “Droshsirdīgā kareivja Šveika piedzīvojumi.” I am familiar with this book in Latvian and in English and found it quite humorous. It is a satirical novel of the numbskull Czech soldier Josef Švejk who never ceases to challenge his commanding superiors with “stupid” questions. It was one of the first anti-war novels that went against the social grain of that time and ridiculed the establishment. Perhaps if it was yanked from the book shelves this may have been the reason.

(Continued …)

(… continued)

It would have been somewhat more civil of Pēteris Cedriņš to have pulled together his wealth of reading knowledge, with supporting facts on Kārlis Ulmanis, so as to fully enlighten the rest of us, as he calls,”… people who haven’t even read about the guy.” Perhaps he could have identified which books we should read that support his claims. It would have been clearer than his emotional rambling with sexual overtones.

Of course there were restrictions under the dictatorship, but was it as bad as Pēteris Cedriņš likes to make it sound? It’s quite an amazing inside knowledge that Pēteris must have, including the claim about the missing Ulmanis gonad! Most likely our dear friend Pēteris has been blowing his tuba too long.

I’ve been trying to find more about all those books that Pēteris claims were removed from the library just to understand what Ulmanis was trying to avoid from influencing the minds of the Latvians.

Rudolfs Bangerskis, not a politician but a military man, describes in his four volume “Mana muža atmiņas” observing the interaction between Saeima politicians before the coup as petty, engaged in games of spreading rumors and being counter productive to achieve anything meaningful in the Latvian government. There is no mention of books being removed from the libraries.

In “Latvijas preses karalis,” 1962 by Jānis Karkliņš there is no mention of books removed from the libraries. There is no mention of books being removed in the following publications: “Laiku atspulgā,” Ž, Unāms, 1952; “Latviešu tautas piedzīvojumi,” 1959, Uldis Ģērmanis; “History of Latvia,” 1951, Arnolds Spekke!

Well, I’m running out of luck in helping Pēteris Cedriņš out.

Cheers, Ivars

Ivars cites some older history books that fail to mention book banning.  Valdis Lumans in “Latvia in WWII” (Fordham Univ. Press; 2006) states that the Ulmanis regime banned “approximately 100 Marxist and other politically objectionable books” (p.116).

Lumans also contrasts this with the official list of more than 4,000 banned books the soviet occupying government put out within a few weeks and began a mass replacement effort with books of a “more progressive content.” The ban also extended to any writers who may have had the misfortune of still being around.....

Re “Svejk” :<It was one of the first anti-war novels that went against the social grain of that time and ridiculed the establishment. Perhaps if it was yanked from the book shelves this may have been the reason.>

It certainly ridiculed the authoritarian establishment, which is why nazi Germany and its Czech protectorates banned it in the first place.  As far as Latvia goes, I remember a conversation with my mother in the early ‘70s.  I had bought an special anniversary edition (50th I guess) of the “Good Soldier Svejk” and Mom spotted it during a visit to my apartment.  The conversation went something like: “Why are you reading that scandalous Svejk book?  Do you know when I was teaching in Latvia you could get fired if you got caught reading it in public.” My undoubtedly brilliant response is lost to history, but her comments inspired me to tackle the quite lengthy book to the end.  (And all these exchanges have rekindled an interest in digging it out again.)

And while we’re on the subject of censorship, what is most ironic about the Ulmanis crackdown is that in addition to sparing the people from the pernicious influence of “marxist” type literature, the newspapers were not allowed to report or discuss anything having an ANTI-soviet theme either.  All the stalinist murderous excesses of the 1930’s, which many in the media were quite aware of, went unreported by dictatorial decree, so as not to cause offense to the big neighbor, thus helping to delude at least some portion of the populace in preparation for the events that followed.

ak