Am I the only one alarmed over the joint Latvian-Russian (or Russian-Latvian, depending on who you read) commission of historians which is scheduled to convene for its first meeting in November? (A Zalters-Medvedev deal.) Russia is lobbying to consider the entire Russian period starting with Peter the Great’s beneficence (meanwhile, after Riga was finally taken, scholars estimate as few as 17,000 Latvians were left alive; one could travel miles upon miles without meeting a living soul).

Everything I have seen and heard to date on the Russian position appears to be completely in line with the 2009 2-volume (!) “history” (used advisedly) of Latvia published in Moscow under the aegis—as I understand it of the “Historical Memory” fund, i.e., brought to you by Dyukov and company.

On sale at PANRUS.COM (and others)

024889
Vorob`eva, Liudmila
Istoriia Latvii
Ot Rossiiskoi Imperii k SSSR: V Dvukh Knigakh
[ History of Latvia : From the Russian Empire to the USSR: In two books: From the Russian Empire to the USSR: In two books]

Moscow:  Fond “Istoricheskaia pamiat`”: Rossiiskii institut strategicheskikh issledovanii, 2009-2010
232+284 pp
pbk. 15 x 21 cm
ISBN: 9785999000071(B. 1)
Language: Russian
This publication, in two books, is about the Letts and their country in the context of so called “Baltic issue” in the Russian Empire. Contents: “Baltic issue” in the Russian Empire; Latvia: Historical chances and conditions of the formation of their state: 1917-1920; “Golden Age” of parliamentary Latvia: The History of the political rise and fall; Pro-fascist regime of Ulmanis (1934-1939); The third Reich: The small countries and the USSR on the eve of WWII; The events of June 1940: Soviet Latvia joins the USSR; Testing by the war. The first book (ISBN 9785999000071) covers 1920-1934. The second (ISBN 9785999000088)- 1934-1945. Appendices. (0.770 kg.). The fond “Historical Memory” was founded in 2008 as a part of a political campaign to “prevent attempts to falsify history to the prejudice of Russia “. Other books published by the Fond are also available.

Apologies for having been away for a bit…

no surprise here…...........
did the ruski brains really think that Ulmanis was a friend of the Duce?

Question is, what is Latvia going to do about it? Since the European Court ruled on historical circumstances in the Ždanoka case, I don’t see any reason to rush to an accommodation of the Russian “nationalist-patriotic” view.

Dissident Boris Sokolov makes for interesting reading on viewpoints here, Google translate works reasonably well.

захватчик sounds better….............................LOL

Vecrumba,
This has been in the works for some time now.  What was the thinking on the part of any Latvian agreeing to such a dangerous adventure into the vast space of Russian/Latvian history landmines?  I would think that Latvia and the Latvian historians agreeing to such a crazy idea as to play and even barter with the facts of Latvia’s history have some well-conceived and clever plan to bring a Russian historical view into line with a worldview.  I can’t imagine that any Latvian would think it beneficial to Latvians to have the historians of the commission agree to disagree on occupation and other fundamental facts of Latvian history - which seems like the best that Latvia could get from Russia.  Are the Latvian historians seriously deluded that this commission is about “historical truth” rather than a humiliating political maneuver from Moscow?  If there is not a smart plan that the best of Latvia’s historians have by now created (and agreed to), then this is just another crazy and dangerous giveaway by Latvia to Russia (like Abrene) and a sickening demonstration of Latvia’s and Latvian spinelessness even to be agreeing to such a commission (!) - to be wiling to let Russia write Latvia’s history with cowed Latvians present and possibly nodding in agreement.

Is Lyosha and our resident politruk on the committee?

vecrumba et al.,
“Question is, what is Latvia going to do about it?”

If the russians want to go back to the times of Peter the Great in Latvia, the swedes too should be asked to participate in the discussion of that time period, or the “labie zviedru laiki”.

Visu labu,

Well, might as well go back to the times we were occupied by living in
  trees and feeding on mushrooms.

I suppose, we were too occupied to pay attention…..........................

Ambersun, from what I’ve read, Inesis Feldmanis is already arguing against the Russian desire to cover the entire period of Russia/USSR in Latvia plus, I’m sure, inter-WW relations. The Russians apparently wish to remind us how good the procession of Tsars and Comrade CPSU Secretaries has been for Latvia.
Ak vai!

Feldmanis described the fact of occupation as a “red line” for the Latvian historians, and has remarked on the obstacles Latvian historians face when trying to access important historical archives in Russia, so it doesn’t look like he’s going to pander to demands that Latvians thank Moscow for sending them Vyshinsky.  And Heinrihs Strods, also listed on the commission, has criticized ‘current-day official Russian historians’ feudal attempts to Stalinize and imperialize the history of Russia’, so scholarly collaboration, at least so far, doesn’t look like a cave-in to pressure.

ambersun asks:

What was the thinking on the part of any Latvian agreeing to such a dangerous adventure into the vast space of Russian/Latvian history landmines?

Maybe that they don’t want Latvian history to be written by only Russians?

Anita writes: “Maybe that they don’t want Latvian history to be written by only Russians?”

Anita,
Russia and Russians have been writing their Russian and other histories for ages.  They have been free and empowered to do what they please.  I would say with all certainty that they have never asked for help from Latvia to figure out what history they should claim and write.  It is beyond absurd and beyond insulting that Latvia would need this commission with Russian “historians” to figure out Latvia’s history.  Why such reputable and eminent Latvian historians would associate with such a demeaning commission and lend themselves to this abomination is not understandable.  Russia has and will continue to write whatever history they want about Latvia, the United States, Germany, China, Nigeria, etc.  Do all the countries of the world organize history commissions with Russia so that they don’t have to worry that Russians are going to write their national histories without them?

P.S.
Cooperation among historians is ongoing and history seminars on whatever topics attended by historians with any interest in the subject (or nation) from whatever country are commonplace.  This commission was created because Russian historians deny or challenge established and legitimate facts of Latvia’s history - facts not denied by virtually any other country of the world. How do Latvians and Latvia stand to benefit by giving legitimacy to this spuriously created commission that is not about truth-seeking and a noble academic purpose but about giving legitimacy and even equal weight to preposterous assertions from Russia about Latvia’s history?  If “occupation” and other such topics are not debatable, then why are Latvian historians participating in a debate with Moscow’s handpicked “historians?”

As for agreement regarding a commission in the first place, you’ll have to ask Zalters about his conversation with Medvedev. I haven’t researched the Russian participants enough to form a specific opinion based on the personalities involved, but, obviously, with Baltic occupation being detrimental to Russia’s image, I’m not particularly sanguine about prospects. The worst outcome would be to agree to disagree, that is, it’s all just a matter of opinion, all opinions being equal regardless of irrefutable historical facts devoid of any interpretation.

If my memory serves, the idea of the Russian-Latvian historian commission came during Lavrov’s visit to Riga back in 2008, I think.

Well, that would be rich if Lavrov. As I understand it, it was he who was sitting across the table from the Latvians negotiating the Central Soviet recognizing the occupation of Latvia when the attempted putsch came, aborting the conversation. Of all the current players on the official Russia stage, that would make his spouting the party line (i.e., the Soviet/official Russian version of no one occupied the Baltics history) the most obvious lie.