Aleksejs et al.,

“Skeletons like the attitude toward the Ulmanis regime, for example; and essentially several historical myth that came from the ex-trimda… “

You have to expand on the above.. 
The Ulmanis regime at the time of the occupation of Latvia by Russia issued extraordinary powers to represent Latvia to the ambassadors in London and Washington, not to the ambassador in Berlin.  The majority of foreign assets of Latvia were kept in England and USA, and not Germany or Russia.

Visu labu,

Oh I’m not talking about the Soviet occupation. I think the glorification of Ulmanis (eg. the monument to him opposite the foreign ministry paid for by the trimda, idealization of him by the right) prevents us to consider his role in setting up the dictatorial regime which eventually gave way to the Soviet occupation. His killing of democracy is largely misunderstood among the exile community, which was raised to believe that the times of Ulmanis were the golden age for Latvia. His killing of democracy is often justified by comparison to other convenient countries on the continent (eg. Germany) and not by comparing to others (Estonia, Finland, Czechoslovakia). Just one example of what I have in mind.

Aleksejs et al.,
“Oh I’m not talking about the Soviet occupation. I think the glorification of Ulmanis (eg. the monument to him opposite the foreign ministry paid for by the trimda, idealization of him by the right) prevents us to consider his role in setting up the dictatorial regime which eventually gave way to the Soviet occupation”

Well I am talking of the russian occupation, because that is the only thing that matters in the loss of Latvias independence.
You forget that Latvia was the last bastion of democracy in the neighborhood to fall. The “just because everybody else in the neighborhood becames a dictatorship,  Ulmanis should not have become a dictatorship”” childish argument has been brought up before.  By the way, Estonia went to a strong man rule three months before Latvia.  Finland and Chechoslovakia in 1939 where not exactly in the neighborhood of Latvia.  Somehow you seem to feel that Latvia and latvians should be held up to higher standards than the neighbors.
The bottom line is that no matter what kind of government in Latvia, it still would hawe been invaded and occupied by russians.

Visu labu,

It is absurd to say that all of Trimda glorified Ulmanis. The question of whether a good(?) dictatorship is better than a bad (?) democracy is a valid discussion. Excuse good & bad - all kinds of adjectives are appropriate here. I am not an expert, but I can imagine the disarray that was caused by having 20+ parties in the Saeima AND that coalitions changing on average of 10 months would discourage faith in govt.

Does this mean - good for Ulmanis - NO. (U.S. Citizens may give Congress an approval of less than 10%, but they would not stand for a dictatorship.) But consider the era and consider the fact that 5 yrs of war - WWI & the War of Independence was still fresh in everyone’s minds. Consider the political regimes in many European countries.

Are people entitled to their opinions about a dictatorial regime? Opinions - absolutely! But the underlying facts are the facts. That is the problem with Soviet & Russian revisionist history. That is where this discussion got sidetracked.

Bottom line - the Russians that claim xyz, when abc occurred, KNOW that Soviet behavior was bad/repressible/ etc. There is nothing good about the occupation, deportation, imprisonment, killing at the hands of the Soviets. So it didn’t happen? Just like Iran claims that there was no Holocaust. Absurd & pathetic.

Debating the merits of Ulmanis has nothing to do with what happened in Latvia after the Molotov- Ribbentrop pact was signed.

I’m no fan of Ulmanis, of his dictatorship, (mostly brief) imprisonment of political opponents, and press control which kept the population in a state of ignorance on the eve of war and occupation.  And the public gloating about the baltvāciešu ‘repatriation’, and placating announcements right up to June 17, 1940, which gave Moscow an opening to claim that its takeover was legitimate—depressing.

But I have to take issue with the idea that admiring Ulmanis automatically means idealizing the dictatorship.  His accomplishments up to 1934 really were admirable.  As a young agronomist, he led the founding of modern Latvian farm cooperative associations; he was prominent in 1905, pushing for legitimate claims and being jailed for it; in exile he pursued his education, then returned to Latvia when the amnesty permitted it; he was front and center not only on November 18th, but during the awful time when he had to represent Latvia against not just the Bolsheviks, but his “ally” von der Goltz—with no army of his own, and the Germans and White Russians resisting the whole idea of Latvian independence. I’ve been reading von der Goltz’s memoir lately, and his scorn the for insolent “president” of the red-leaning Letten (who didn’t qualify as a ‘Kulturvolk’ capable of self-rule) is something to behold. It feels odd to stare at a scanned Google Books page of gothic print, muttering ‘F—- you! F—- you!’ at my laptop. Ulmanis kept his nerve when he really had no cards to play, and no precedent in Latvian history to follow. He deserves credit for that in spite of his later ‘vadonis’ bunk.

And maybe I’m blinded by my own experience growing up, where the monthly “Oregonietis” cranked out on a mimeo roller on the kitchen table often included my grandfather’s anti-Ulmanis articles, but I don’t think there was such a pro-apvērsums consensus in the trimda. Though even Ulmanis’ critics had to allow that standards of living improved from 1934 on.

Labrīt!

I don’t have time to participate in these debates at the moment (and I’ve probably said everything I have to say about our favourite dictator and like subjects, anyhow), but I wanted to link to another article by Kaspars Zellis that I posted not long ago, as it seems appropriate to this thread—

«Zaudētāju mīts»

Visu gaišu,
/P

Sveiki!

For those interested in the historian Kaspars Zellis’ work, which Pēteris C is citing, his blog can be found at : http://kaspars-veesture.blogspot.com/  It’s filled with book reviews, as well as foot-noted articles that perhaps were later published as monographs or chapters in books.

Of tangential interest may be two entries made not quite 5 years ago that explore „Baigais gads” - which Zellis credits as ‘trimdas’ contribution to current strands of debate- and the role of national myth in contemporary society :

http://kaspars-veesture.blogspot.com/2007/08/baigais-gads-mts-un-t-evolcija.html

Visu labu,

E.

PS Some might find interesting his exploration of how the role of women was portrayed and/or manipulated by the Nazi propaganda machine (which perhaps is found in a different form in his book „Sieviete Latvijas vēsturē” that he co-authored with Ilgvars Butulis ): 

„Starp propagandu un realitāti: sieviete nacistu okupētajā Latvijā” , 
http://kaspars-veesture.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“But I have to take issue with the idea that admiring Ulmanis automatically means idealizing the dictatorship.  His accomplishments up to 1934 really were admirable”

Giving extraordinay powers to the ambassadors abroad to represent Latvia.  was also a great achievement of the Ulmanis government,  This action established a government in exile of a country invaded and occupied by a numerically wastly superior military foreign force.

Visu labu,

No government-in-exile was established. Even the Foreign Ministry can tell you that. The instructions to Zariņš were inadequate and unclear, according to Andersons and many other historians. You might read this damning summary of Ulmanis’ actions in 1940. Years ago I keyed in extracts from Valters’ letters to the Vadonis, and linked to Ezergailis’ article on that correspondence. A brief extract:

Ar agresīvi pro-demokrātisku līniju mūsu liktenis Jaltā varēja būt savādāks. Cik Ulmaņa ieliktie diplomātiskie darbinieki pēc kaŗa bija lietderīgi, no ārpuses vērojot grūti pateikt. Valtera standartu pielietojot, tas atkarājās no tā, cik tie darbojās demokrātiskā procesa garā un piemērojās mītņu zemju etosam. Vašingtonas diplomāta Anatola Dinberga saknes vēl ir ulmaniskā diktatūrā un vēl nesen kā savus diplomātiskos līdzstrādniekus vairākās zemēs bija izvēlējies ļaudis ar totalitāru ideoloģiju pagātni. Ulmaņa krustdēlu īpatsvars Latvijas diplomātiskā darbā arī neko labu nerunā par atbrīvošanos no pagātnes šaurības.

Valters—formerly a close friend of Ulmanis—writes of the Vadonis and his cronies as Latvia’s gravediggers, sipping champagne and pinning medals to each others’ breasts as the country was destroyed.

As far as Ulmanism and the trimda, whilst I agree that one cannot say “all” glorified the regime—there never is that kind of consensus (especially among Letts!)—the older generation certainly was dominated by the Vadonis’ apologists and flunkies. A while back, I posted Dr. Lelis’ scathing analysis of the trimda, from 1967. An extract:

Trimdas pirmajos gados daži parlamentārieši mēģināja atdzīvoties: iepīkstējās par Ulmaņa režīma “nelikumībām” un viņiem nodarītām “netaisnībām”, bet bija jau par vēlu. Tauta bija trīs totālitāru iekārtu tā “pāraudzināta” un paši “taisnības meklētāji” tik novēlojušies un diskreditēti, ka Ulmaņa režīma funkcionāri un piekritēji spēja pārņemt sabiedrisko un ideoloģisko kontroli arī trimdā, paturēdami to vēl šodien. Pie šī fakta atgriezīsimies vēlreiz.

Even now, papers like Latvija Amerikā carry articles praising the Ulmanis regime, not just apologizing for it (as a product of its time, etc., etc. ... all rather silly notions, as time itself does not do such things, and some democracies did survive, even nearby). There were and are, of course, opponents, particularly on the left. See Bastjānis’ books on the accomplishments of Latvian democracy, for example. As far as economic recovery—it was underway before Ulmanis’ coup. Ulmanis’ regime was questionable economically, too—see Aizsilnieks’ monumental history.

Opposition was not confined to the left—if we are talking about a government-in-exile, consider Bishop Rancāns, who did try to establish one.

What grates the most is the frequent, continued regurgitation of Ulmanis’ anti-democratic propaganda. Ambersun, though a caricature devoted to self-parody, is not alone in sticking to histories like that of Bīlmanis, something that has been discussed at length here in the past.

I don’t know if there is any sort of scientific survey of trimda political beliefs (which, of course, vary by generation and period), but I regularly encounter emotional defenses of “15. maija Latvija” that fly in the face of the facts. In Latvia, that was more understandable when it had emerged from totalitarianism and many had little or no access to information. It is unforgivable among Western Latvians, to my mind. After 20 years, it is no longer forgivable here, either. And I would note that neither Estonia nor Lithuania retain such a strain of nostalgia for their “strongmen”—certainly not in the form it takes among Letts.

Visu gaišu,
/P

Pereris Cedriņs et al.,
“No government-in-exile was established”

It was enough to bolster the stand of the countries that declared the occupation of Latvia by Russia illegal.
One does not need a slew of refugees forming a” government - in exile”.  In the case of Latvia,  the ambassador represented in exile the government still functioning,  and there was no loss of continuity.
That this would be disputed was anticipated, and therefore instructions were given not just to the ambassador in London.

Speaking of Valters, since you seem to be a fan of his, perhaps you can come up with the reason why Poland demanded that he be recalled as ambassador to Poland.

Visu labu,

Bruno, you go from claiming there was a government in exile to indicating that a “refugee” government in exile wasn’t needed to the very curious assertion that an ambassador, a diplomat and not a politician, represented a government “still functioning”. Diplomatic missions arent governments and diplomats aren’t heads of State. Continuity can’t exist without succession - and there plainly was no government or representation.

In the Lithuanian context there was Lozoraitis. As a former FM and and Minister Plenipotentiary to Italy, he represented the Lithuanian diplomatic service - not government. In 1940, Lithuania did have a former President in exile who in his dealings with the US government was specifically discouraged from forming a government in exile. As a former dictator who established rule by force - Smetona was more of a complication than a representative. When Grinius emigrated to the US in 1947, his position was less complex but he wasn’t encouraged to form a government in exile either. The Poles had greater success in gaining respect for their government in exile but for reasons the Baltic states couldn’t manage to achieve.

(edit)The strongest voices in non recognition were Welles and Henderson, not various ambassadors appointed by authoritarian regimes.

Wahabist et al.,
“Bruno, you go from claiming there was a government in exile to indicating that a “refugee” government in exile wasn’t needed to the very curious assertion that an ambassador, a diplomat and not a politician, represented a government “still functioning’

It is the continuity of the accredited ambassador that matters.  Ambassador Zariņs was able to visit the DP camps and POW camps, and was greeted there by latvians as the representative (in exile)  of the pre-occupation Latvia.  Who cares that PC thinks that the instructions to the ambassadors were “inadequate and unclear”, what matters is that to the ambassador host countries the instructions were sufficiently clear and adequate so as not to close the embassies and turn the keys and the assets of Latvia over to Russia.

Any refugee group can form an “exile” government,  except, as you noted, it means nothing if it does not have recognition(accredition).  I know nothing about the lithuanian “trimda” politics on this matter, except that Smetona died in Cleveland , some say under mysterious circumstances in a fire.  One thing that would be of interest to know, what was the reason the Latvian embassy had to lend money to the Lithuanian embassy ( or legacy , if you prefer).  No details have been heard on this matter from lithuanians or latvians.

Visu labu

Neither Latvia nor Lithuania had an Embassy in the US during the interwar period. Legacy Baltic diplomatic services were respected by those countries that refused to recognize the forced incorporation of their Republics into the USSR. Some nations that didnt officially recognize the incorporation turned over property anyway. The US and UK were exceptions.

One thing that would be of interest to know, what was the reason the Latvian embassy had to lend money to the Lithuanian embassy ( or legacy , if you prefer).  No details have been heard on this matter from lithuanians or latvians.

Plenty of details available Bruno. The Lithuanian Mission received money from the Latvian Mission and others simply because it had no money of its own. The USSR froze all of the Republics monetary assets. Those assets that were local were in a currency that was no longer recognized.

The diplomats in the Lithuanian Mission went unpaid until that time when disapora fundraising began along with some support from the US. The vast majority of post WW2 refugees, who these legations represented, also had little or no money upon arrival in the US.

Wahabist et al.,
“Neither Latvia nor Lithuania had an Embassy in the US during the interwar period”.

I do not know about Lithuania, but Latvia had ambassadors with limited access to monetary assets, thanks to the Ulmanis government.

What about the gold reserves of Lithuania abroad ?

Visu labu,

The assets of the Republic of Lithuania were frozen as the Republic no longer existed. The gold deposits legally belonged to nobody. No entity existed that had rights to them - until 1991.

Bruno, even though certain countries such as the US and the UK respected and sheltered the Baltic diplomatic services - they had little respect for the authoritarian dictatorships that these diplomats represented. The lucky part for them was that these select governments had even less respect for what the soviets did.