I’m intrigued by Kurlanders assertion that the soviet union was a rebranded Russian Empire with I guess some sort of Carnival mask on. No need to course through the players who were instrumental in the creation of the soviet union I guess - cause Kurlander has apparently posthumously anointed them all as rooskies. Quite impressive.

“The question of his rule is mute for it was a trying time for all the Baltic states and they tried to do what at the time they thought was right. They were all occupied because of the victory of Russia in WWII and not because of any policy the pre WWII policies of those governments.”

How the Molotov Ribbentrop secret protocols affected not only the wartime period - but the postwar period and acknowledgment by the Allied powers of newly real spheres of influence were instrumental in the independence movements of the late 80’s Kurlander. So, you’re saying that was all meaningless bullshit ? Thats quite a revelation. At the time of the post war conferences, the Baltic SSR’s had Balts in charge. So what existed to question their legitimacy ? Nothing ?

“Therefore to me any attack on Ulmanis is a joke for anyone in power before the Russian occupation would have the same consequence as Ulmanis. Therefor Peter C. and his continuous attack on Ulmanis can not prove that any other form of government would have changed anything in the reality of life. Ulmanis rules Peter. “

Sorry - revisionism aint my thing.. Poor sport…The nature of the governments in place were certainly a factor when the status of the Baltic nations was considered during the post war Allied conferences. Lithuania and Latvia chose to adopt the stylish form of Mussolini dictatorial fascism that was all the rage in the 30’s and without question suffered because of it. They simply werent representative democracies - so what was there to restore ? Dictators ? Substituting one foreign form of autocratic rule with another just wasnt that big of a stretch.

And again, when the post war European lay of the land was being discussed - the Baltic governments had Balts in place that seemed on the surface to be more representative than the governments they replaced. History eventually showed otherwise - but had Lithuania and Latvia had true representative governments in place in the years leading up to the occupations - the question would have been moot. In Lithuanias case, Smetona, Lozoraitis and others couldnt get traction internationally on a restoration of the Republic largely because the Republic at the end was essentially a fallacy.

Kurlander clearly has a personal problem with Peteris as Kurlander believes he’s the real “historian”. Kurlander doesnt consider anything beyond those points that run true to his bias. Thats fine - but to argue that the conditions of the Balt nations and the choices made by its leadership didnt factor into its post war future is ethnocentric denial. The “it’s everyones fault but ours” argument is hollow.

Vidas

I want to reiterate that I’m not a historian. I never claimed to be one and have said so numerous times. I’m a writer and translator who takes a a strong interest in history. Courlander could be called an amateur historian, I suppose—even if his Latvian is execrable and an uneducated neo-fascist, Leonards Inkins, assists him in his work. Ambersun is a history major.

I don’t know what Courlander means when he insists so stridently that the USSR was Russian and that “it was and always was a Russian Empire.” In certain ways, that’s true—but what does “Russian” mean? One of the best debates I’ve found that touches upon the deeper aspects of this and how it relates to the current Russia and Russian identity is here.

A couple of excerpts:

Aleksei Kara-Murza:

The imperial principle dominated, and it was Peter who made this happen. He brought communal structures into the table of ranks, subordinating them to the interests of the empire. And I think that Chubais is right that Communist identity recreated these structures: instead of Orthodoxy there was Communism, instead of the imperial table of ranks there was the hierarchy of Party committees, and the new Soviet collectivism took a variety of forms. What I can’t say is how one can call this a violation of Russian tradition-it was a continuation of Russian (rossiiskii) tradition. These traditions were winding down, and the Bolsheviks had to use force to maintain this old imperial logic. . . . Don’t say that there is a fundamental conflict between pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia-the latter actually represents an attempt to forcibly continue this system. . . . Andropov and Stalin to an extent modeled themselves on Peter the Great. Whether they did this intentionally or not, they worked in similar ways. Stalin for all practical purposes killed his son, as did Peter. There can be no ethnic or family feeling in the imperial setting-everyone serves the ruler. Stalin said: “I’m not giving up a field marshal for a soldier.” His son was in captivity and Stalin wouldn’t give up Paulus to get him back. And there are many other examples of this type.

Viktor Aksiutchits:

Looking at matters from that point of view, a lot more begins to make sense: (1) that communism is a spiritual illness; (2) that all the people who carried this ideological obsession (ideomaniia), this spiritual sickness, were raised on European culture and that none of them were products of Russian culture, so that Russian culture didn’t develop an immunity to these people. That explains why this god-bashing (bogoborcheskii) communist ideology was so destructive in Russia, why here it utterly ruined (dotla razrushil) the church, not because the Russian people or character were drawn to it, but because it was the absolute antipode of the Russian mentality and Russian religious consciousness.

[...]

As for the first question, “Who is a Russian?”, even with a distinctive genetic source, there are some unusual criteria for national identity. A Russian is someone for whom the Russian language is native and Russian culture is one with which he identifies himself, independent of what ethnic group he belongs to. That’s why Russian culture has assimilated material from so many other cultures. And in that sense, if you look at all the territory located outside the Russian Federation on which there is a Russian (russkii) majority, one of three things can happen: (1) the population can assimilate and cease to be Russian, which is possible, but painful; (2) we can repatriate this Russian population, or they can return at a more moderate pace, which means that (3) the best, most natural alternative is the peaceful reuniting of the lands on which there are large Russian populations. This will happen to the extent that Russians begin to identify themselves as Russians (samoidentifikatsiia sebia kak russkie). This self-identification takes the form of instinctive self-consciousness (samosoznanie). It exists, it is functioning, and we see the results of its functioning around us today. The Russian people lives (russkii narod zhiv), and to the extent that it lives it can try to bring this about.

As you can see, Aksiuchits seems ready to welcome Latvia back into Mother’s lap…

Though they have opposing views (and I recommend reading the entire debate and the background material—it’s rich and runs to several pages), the two passages cited above make distinctions between nationality and ethnicity. “There can be no ethnic or family feeling in the imperial setting…” “A Russian is someone for whom the Russian language is native and Russian culture is one with which he identifies himself, independent of what ethnic group he belongs to.”

To write “it is a fallacy to even think that it was a International [sic]” doesn’t make sense. Wikipedia defines “empire” as “a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power.” Random House: “a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom…” In other words, an empire by its very nature can be international and usually is.

As to Bolshevism, and hence the Soviet Union—how you can say it wasn’t international at all is incomprehensible to me. Lenin called imperial Russia “the prison house of nations.” Theory and practice differed drastically, of course—but Latvians produced far more Bolsheviks per capita than Russia proper. The Cheka, primarily responsible for the brutal imposition of Soviet power, was chock full of Letts. Stalin was not Russian. Iron Felix was not Russian.

[To be cont’d.]

[Cont’d.]

That the USSR took on the forms of the Tsarist Empire, that coercive Russification took place (just as it did in the 1880s) and that homo sovieticus would be a Russophone are crucial aspects—but the imperial is not necessarily the national and certainly not the ethnic. The Soviets suppressed Russian nationalism, too. Russians demonstrated en masse for Baltic independence in Moscow. Yeltsin stood on the tank during the Putsch as a Russian, against the Soviet Union.

Conversely, Nazism was a German nationalist and not an internationalist ideology. You can point out that Soviet internationalism was often a smokescreen for Russian imperialism, as it indeed was, especially from the Second World War—but to discard the internationalist aspect entirely is unutterably silly. People believed in it and acted upon those beliefs, whether as Berklavs (who later became a founder of LNNK) helping to collect the names of “anti-Soviets” so that the NKVD could “take care of them” or as Eisenstein, who went into ecstasies about the liberation of Latvia by Stalin in 1940. In fact, there was even a little booklet published in Boston at the time, by Latvian-American Reds, cheering the supposed progressive revolution in the homeland.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Wahabist et al.,
“I’m intrigued by Kurlanders assertion that the soviet union was a rebranded Russian Empire with I guess some sort of Carnival mask on. “

Kurlanders claim is not too far fetched.  One can view the invasion of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,Poland, and Besarabia, all within a years time ,  as an attempt to incorporate them back into what had once been Tsarist Russia.

Visu labu,

Bruno the Lett - 22 February 2008 10:42 PM

Wahabist et al.,
“I’m intrigued by Kurlanders assertion that the soviet union was a rebranded Russian Empire with I guess some sort of Carnival mask on. “

Kurlanders claim is not too far fetched.  One can view the invasion of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,Poland, and Besarabia, all within a years time ,  as an attempt to incorporate them back into what had once been Tsarist Russia.

Visu labu,

Looking on the surface, I’d buy the argument. However, looking deeper into the subject, you’ll find it was not the case.

The original idea behind the formation of the Soviet Union was the creation of the world proletariat state, which was to start in Russia. These Marxist ideas created the International, for example, in an effort to export the proletariat revolution to other countries.

I can’t find the text in English, but the declaration for creation of the Soviet Union signed in 1922 states that “[it] will become a new decisive step toward uniting working people from all countries into the World Socialist Soviet Republic.”

The goal of the Soviet Union was to conquer the world beyond the borders of the Tzarist Russia.

Some have argued—and I tend to agree—that, for example, Stalin hoped to use Hitler to bring forth the ideas of world republic to fruition. While Hitler conquered Western Europe, Stalin, by defeating Hitler, could fulfill these ideas. A lot of evidence have been offered to prove it, but the first one that jumps to mind is the fact that countries that have been occupied by the Soviets during the war remained under the Soviet influence until its demise. After all, everything in the Soviet philosophy was seen as a class struggle.

Aleksejs et al.,

Even today the russians like to talk about the “Great Patriotic War defending Mother Russia” and not defending the Soviet Union, equating Russia with the Soviet Union for all practical purposes..

“The goal of the Soviet Union was to conquer the world beyond the borders of the Tzarist Russia.”

This is the reason given for going to war by the germans, to save Western Europe from the bolsheviks.

“While Hitler conquered Western Europe…..........”

Hitler had no plans to conquer Western Europe.  France and England declared war against Germany.  Well, if war is declared, one should consider the posibility that one day whoever war is declared against might hold a victory parade in ones capital.

Visu labu,

In my opinion, it is very difficult question, and I not always know the answer.

Communicating on Russian forums, I even more often read theses, like ” There was and is a Russian empire ” ” the USSR is just another name of empire ” ” Russia is the USSR the same and should return to its borders ” ” it should be very pity, that we were at war against Germany, it is the country to make our common cause ” ” there are no any Baltics and never was, only Russian empire ” “it is a pity, that Stalin has not destroyed all of you, pribalts “.

It is not so simple ” harmless chauvinism “, it is nazism. And it finds understanding at officials here.

Anyway, nobody pays attention to similar statements.

And I think, that in this case Courlander is right. The question is the right to live.

Regards,

Juris

I’ll have to respectfully disagree with my fellow travelers. While in theory and on paper the SU was internationalist, in practice it was very much a continuation of Russia’s imperial ambitions. As I wrote on scb many years ago, it fascinates me that after the fall of a superpower which kept the mighty Yankee Imperialistas in balance for almost 50 years there is nary a Soviet to be found on the face of this planet. Its as if they were all sucked up to the sky in some godless rapture with no one left behind. Curiously enough where you’d think you’d find these Soviets all of a sudden you find all manner of Russians and Russophones and Russophiles in their place. I guess I just don’t believe in coincidences.

Andrejs

Damn - I know I’m the token Lithuanian here - but did any of you non-Internationalists actually read what I wrote ?

What Kurlander argued was that the nature and status of the government in Latvia had no bearing on its future. Kurlanders want to broadly paint the occupation with his ever present “It’s all about the rooskies and certainly not about the kind Iron Cross medal granting Krauts” brush is the diversion. Kurlanders web site even has a substantial ledger detailing the recipients of Nazi military awards !

But thats ok ?

Come on ! You guys cant be serious !

Latvias and Lithuanias post war futures as nations were clearly affected by their dysfunctional governments. The Allies were tasked to restore what ?

The occupation representatives of government werent by any stretch rooskie. They were Latvian and Lithuanian respectively.

As time went by - I’d fully agree that the Russian influence on the soviet grew - but how the Balt governments managed to screw themselves had nothing to do with the ethnic makeup of their at the time largely internationalist Red Army yoke.

Jeez…Amazing responses that leave me to shake my head and wonder…. 

Vidas

As for the soviet part - and its Russian aspect - soviet communism as an ideology wasnt particularly Russian. The ideology spread far and wide, not unlike a virus would. The Baltic governments became so weakened by that ideological virus that they no longer had the strength to resist it once the Red Army showed up - fighting communism by turning into dictatorships was the worst possible choice they could make.. The Red Army and the muscle behind the soviet union was Russian and it had easy work to do.

Had the Baltic governments been strong internally - they would have been in a better position to defend themselves.

What about now ? Russia is sure sounding rather Empire infatuated again. This time though theyre not complicating things with troublesome things like socialist ideology. Money is the new Trotsky. Oil and gas are the weapons. No need to invade the Baltics when Russia can strangle whole economies by turning off the gas - or simply just buy the core businesses and means of communication. On those two points alone the Baltic response has been pretty miserable. To me, as evidenced by the May 9th events of a couple years ago, Baltic cooperation is so entangled by historical arguments related to their trying to keep a shiny side up on their 20th century failures - that we’re right back to square one again…

Vidas

.

.

Sure. I stayed at a friend of a friends home in Vilnius and in their family room they had medals displayed that their father received as a high party official. Yes, to them they represented accomplishments - but they werent Lithuanian accomplishments. One may argue that those accomplishments perpetuated the negative.

How these are used against us now is that when the Legion (or party membership or lack thereof) is discussed - many assume that one picked sides - be it with the Russians or with the Nazis. The fighting for ones homeland aspect is too complicated for outsiders to consider when the surface level notion of picking sides is that compelling and abhorrent.

To me, the faster the Smetona/Snieckus/Ulmanis era retreats into deepest darkest academia - the better.

Vidas

.

One thing that might explain the confusion here is that I have never visited Courlander’s website. I just have a hard time taking anyone seriously who considers Vik Pakis and Riga’s Sargi to be legitimate historical sources.

As for the soviet part - and its Russian aspect - soviet communism as an ideology wasnt particularly Russian. The ideology spread far and wide, not unlike a virus would.

I don’t think its Soviet communism which spread far and wide. I think it was communism which spread like the virus. The Soviets then exploited that virus for their own goals. I think there’s plenty of evidence that a lot of the Internationlists didn’t buy ideology wise what the Russians were selling. One of the reasons Mao split with Moscow was because he felt that increasingly policy suggestions from Moscow had less and less to do with ideology and more and more with Moscow. He wasn’t the only one.

The Baltic governments became so weakened by that ideological virus that they no longer had the strength to resist it once the Red Army showed up - fighting communism by turning into dictatorships was the worst possible choice they could make.. The Red Army and the muscle behind the soviet union was Russian and it had easy work to do.

I’ll leave history to the historians, the amateurs and the majors, but that’s not how I read it. They never had the strength to begin with. Their weakness had nothing to do with a fondness for any ideology.

Had the Baltic governments been strong internally - they would have been in a better position to defend themselves.

Perhaps, but highly unlikely it would have turned the tide.

What about now ? Russia is sure sounding rather Empire infatuated again. This time though theyre not complicating things with troublesome things like socialist ideology. Money is the new Trotsky. Oil and gas are the weapons. No need to invade the Baltics when Russia can strangle whole economies by turning off the gas - or simply just buy the core businesses and means of communication. On those two points alone the Baltic response has been pretty miserable. To me, as evidenced by the May 9th events of a couple years ago, Baltic cooperation is so entangled by historical arguments related to their trying to keep a shiny side up on their 20th century failures - that we’re right back to square one again…

Couldn’t agree more. Then again, any effort at Baltic cooperation thus far starts out with what’s in it for me. I am not an MBA or a political scientist, but seems to this humble person that that ain’t the way to go.

Andrejs

Sorry for the delay in jumping in but basketball has priority. I told my wife the next gift I want is a satellite antenna and computer for my car so that I can surf the web while driving 85 down the interstate from game to game.
I see that some have deviated from the original question of Wahabist and are including my website as a conversation piece but it is not the subject of this thread. I have not seen Rīgas Sargi so it can’t be me who thinks it is accurate. So far 5400+ around the world have visited it this year(Seychelles and Niue have 1 visitor each) so I do not care if anyone on LOL does.
The question of Russia or the USSR is complicated and one must put aside a lot of prejudices and early learning. It was “RUSSIAN TANKS” that put down the Hungarian Revolt. It was “RUSSIAN TANKS” that put dowm the East German Revolt. When applying for a job Russians got priority before the Baltic people did.  If in line a Russian Soldier with a WWII War medal could go to the front of the line etc.
This could go on forever but I am now also studying about how the South won the “Civil War” in 1895 in the USA. Try that one in an arguement.  And I am helping put the names of those deported to Siberia on Vecrumba’s website. I just got past my relatives names. Sounds like something a “neonazi” would do. People can call me all kinds of names but do not call me late for dinner.