Talk:History of Latvia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Latvia, a WikiProject related to Latvia.
Latvia Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

Sections of the article that deal with post-1939 period have clear anti-Soviet bias. Authors do their best to demean Soviet Union and all its actions towards Latvia. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is referred to as "unlawful" (?!) Admission of Baltic republics into Soviet Union is called "occupation"; it's improper to use this word: how could there be an occupation if there was no war between Soviet Union and Latvia? 'Annexation' would be more accurate here.

There's an article on Occupation of Baltic Republics, but only one paragraph in it is relevant to the events of summer of 1940, and the use of the word 'occupation' is totally unjustified. I've attempted to expand a little bit on the subject, but I got reverted. --Itinerant1 07:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you know what are you talking about. It can't be "lawful" when two powers divide between them small nations such as the Baltics at the beginning of WWII. And you probably don't know what it means to live in an occupied country for 50 years. Before the WWII, Latvia was economicaly as strong as Sweden or Denmark, but after regaining the independence we had absolutely nothing. We were set back by 50 years, not to speak of the partial loss of our culture and deportation of tens of thousands of people, mostly the intelligentsia. The regime of the Soviets has been compared to that of the NAZIS in Germany, so one should think twice before supporting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhalanay (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was most definitely unlawful, violating international law and the treaties that Soviet Russia and the USSR had concluded with Latvia. Giving a country an ultimatum when troops are massed on the borders (and already in the country, as a result of the "mutual assistance" treaty imposed on Latvia previously), then overrunning the country with troops (ca. half a million Soviet troops occupied the Baltic states -- countries that had a combined population of about six million) and holding rigged elections in violation of the laws of that country is called occupation. No war is necessary for an occupation; Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia without a war as well -- rape is rape. In fact, one can look at what Pravda wrote regarding the seizure of Austria in its April 11, 1938 edition -- exactly what that Soviet organ complained of in Austria took place in Latvia two years later under the Soviets: mass arrests, a demagogic campaign, etc. As Pravda commented: "To occupy militarily a country, impose a satrap viceroy, police and gendarmery, introduce an occupation army 300,000 men strong, and then arrange for 'a free declaration of will'... is indeed a most ignominious comedy." Pravda expressed similar sentiments regarding the Italian occupation of Albania. (See Albert N. Tarulis, Soviet Policy Toward the Baltic States 1918-1940. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959.) The annexation of the Baltic states was completely illegal; for example, the Latvian constitution requires a referendum to be held for changes in the structure of the state or changes to Latvian sovereignty. No such referendum was held. -- Pēteris Cedriņš (cedrins@gmail.com) 12:46, 20 June 2005 (UTC)
The Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was illegal and unlawful according to both the laws of the three Baltic States, as well as international law. For example; the so-called "elections" held just before the annexation were rigged and anything but free or fair. The Latvian Occupation Museum in Riga has an excellent display about this issue. The occupation and annexation was no more legal than Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. That's why almost all West European nations didn't recognize the Soviet aggression. In fact, the Soviet occupation of Estonia was a key factor in President John F. Kennedy's anti-Communist views. He was in Estonia's capital Tallinn, when the Soviet Union occupied the city.[1]
Again, the Occupation Museum is excellent. If you come to Riga, don't miss it. --Valentinian 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as i can see the dispute about the Soviet occupation is solved and the neutrality dispute tag can be removed. Robert 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this is the "in depth" back-up article to the history summary on the Latvia page, it seems there should be some clarification of occupation. While the Baltic pacts of mutual assistance were entered into under threat of force (as was demonstrated by the Soviet attack on the Finns, who turned down such a pact, and by Stalin's own words), those pacts were, nevertheless, legal. One could even argue that under the terms of those mutual assistance pacts, the Soviet Union was within its rights to invade Latvia and the Baltics in order to protect its interests, having interpreted acts of the Baltics as violating the terms of the pacts. What was illegal was the petitioniong by the Saeima (puppet government notwithstanding) to join the Soviet Union. That act directly violated the Latvian Constitution, which was still in effect. Accordingly, there was no legal constitutional basis for incorporation, making the Soviet presence on Latvian soil subsequent to the August 5, 1940 "incorporation" illegal, and therefore a forcible occupation. That also made any subsequent border adjustments affecting the sovreign territory of Latvia (Abrene annexation)--indeed, any and all actions by the Soviet government--illegal. Peters 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My father often says: "The Soviet Union just wanted PEACE: a piece of Latvia, a piece of China, a piece of Finnland, a piece of Poland, a piece of Denmark.... The Soviet Union just wanted PieCE! Although it is preferred to write "factual information" without bias, a powerful opressing dictatorship, such as the Soviet Union does not warrant defence against "anti-Soviet bias".

Nonetheless let us keep to the facts. Webster's Concise English Dictionary: Occupy "(c)to take posession and remain in control of". If you take Poland for example: While Poland's eastern territories are referred to as "annexed by the Soviet Union" and the western territories as "occupied by Nazi Germany" one is compelled to ask why a military annexation from the east with the pretense of protecting peoples of Soviet ethnic groups is not considered an occupation, whereas Nazi Germany who also entered by military force, was "occupying Poland". (The answer would be: the winners always write the history books. Stalin remained the hero, Hitler the evil dictator.) If one were to compare the Soviet Annexation of Poland to that of the eastern territories of Finland the main difference would be that Finland concentrated their military force in the east to defend their border from the Soviet Union, and remained independent dispite losing territory to the Soviet Union, whereas Poland had already been invaded from the west by Nazi Germany, as preagreed upon in the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and gave the Soviet soldiers entering a "non-existent" nation from the east very little resistance. In conclusion, according to your argument, if a nation surrenders to military force and a mutual, is it therefore neither occupied nor annexed. According to the simplified Webster's Dictionary definition of the verb to occupy, Latvia was occupied, i.e. taken posession of, and remained in the control of the Soviet Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] On Yalta

There is no mention of the Yalta Agreement anywhere in this article. It is significant matter in the recorded history of LATVIA post 1945 that requires mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.231.231 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Role in World War II & the Holocaust

Latvia's responsibility for its actions in World War II and the Holocaust have largely been ignored or muted in favor of arguments against the policies of the Soviet Union. I have noticed in many articles (not to mention the media) about Latvia its participation is rarely mentioned, as with the other Baltic States. However, that being said this Arcticle History of Latvia touches more on the topic than similar articles for the other two Baltic countries (that is until it is edited partially out, as has happened in the past). --RPlunk 00:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been adding information on various Eastern European countries in the Holocaust, so I would be interested in knowing what you find unbalanced. There is also substantial information that has been added to Lithuania's articles, though the Holocaust in Estonia was much less deadly. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree the Lithuania Article has been updated well. My concerns are primarily over the editing that had occured in the World War II participants article; a seperate participants in the Holocaust (same formatt) could be created to summarize individual countries' and groups' action. Additionally, the last time I looked at the Estonia article there was no mention of the Holocaust (may have just been edited though). That is why I felt I should stir the pot to get feedback from other people on the subject. Thanks for responding.--RPlunk 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Polonius, an update from a response on my comments in the Estonian article from an Estonian Wikipedian:

"[Estonia] was occupied by USSR an Germany after 1940. It was not possible for Estonia as a state to participate in, or to be responsible for, any actions in the Holocaust."

Statements like this is why I am concerned; someone who is predisposed to Holocaust denial could use this quote in their defense (note: to the person who made the statement I have quoted, I am not accussing you of anything and I do not mean to attack you in anyway).--RPlunk 16:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Although it is important to take note of those collaborators in the Holocaust, one cannot lable a nation that was occupied as "guiilty of holocaust crimes", just as you cannot claim that Jews as a people were responsible for the Holocaust because of Jewish investors investing in Nazi Germany. There is a distinct difference between a country having specific antisemitis laws previous to becoming an ally to Nazi Germany, and Nazi Germany occupying a nation and recruiting Nazi Sympathisers under a Nazi appointed government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] On Soviet genocide

I think the word "genocide" referring to the actions of the Soviet Union in Latvia must be removed from the article. During Stalin's rule a lot of people of a number of other nationalities suffered, were repressed and executed including Russians, Ukranians, Jews, Latvians and many others. --Shakura 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is total or partial extermination of distinct groups of people for racial, relegious or political reasons, therefore soviet genocide was genocide - it was aimed against non-prolietar groups of society - such as rich farmers and nobility and it was done in name of communism and that is political reason -- Xil - talk 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not genocide. Latvian language for example was not restricted in the Latvian SSR. Going by that broad definition one can easily say Latvians collaborating with Waffen SS perpetrated genocide against Russians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.31.123 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That example is misleading. Latvians did not deport russians to Syberia. Rather vice versa. Soviet genocide driven by Stalin is a fact and was also directed towards russians and other etnic groups. We all know about the existance of special KGB instructions. To deny this is would be a crime. 88.147.19.76 16:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shakura, would you prefer referring to the anti-Latvian activities by Soviet Union as ethnic cleansing? Digwuren 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU membership

On May 1, 2004 Latvia became a member of the European Union. It had taken millions of lats in pro-EU advertising (instead of analysis and wider discussion), last-minute tampering with the country's constitution by politicians as well as availing of the domino effect in order to scrape together a "yes" vote in the membership referendum - notably contradicting some reports that "Latvia [and Estonia] voted overwhelmingly yes". It is debated whether the so-called partial giving up of sovereignty and neutrality is outweighed by benefits of being in the EU.

It doesn't seem to me that these are proper NPOV statements, there's a strong anti-EU POV here.GhePeU 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem POV, it only shows the controversy but does not seem to push one side or the other. --Lysytalk 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks NPOV. --Kirils 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's blatantly POV and should be removed. There was plenty of analysis and debate, and sore losers could write such a thing about many a vote in many a country. Pēteris Cedriņš 08:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you specify what do you consider to be POV here ? It does not claim that joining the EU was disadvantageous to Latvia, but instead mentions that different POVs on this exist. It's not for wikipedia editors to judge which of the POVs is more correct. --Lysytalk 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The entire passage is POV -- "last-minute tampering" is not an objective description of a legislative process, there was anti-EU advertising as well as pro-EU advertising, there was copious analysis and discussion for those who cared to take an interest, debates on "neutrality" (which "neutrality" did not exist prior to EU acession anyhow; Latvia was involved in military co-operation with Western countries even prior to NATO entry, which preceded EU entry) were mostly confined to the political fringe. I have no objection to noting that there was/is opposition to EU membership, but this passage obviously attempts to suggest that the referendum lacked legitimacy. That is untrue -- the turnout was 72,5%, and 67% voted "jā." Pēteris Cedriņš 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, the statement above is POV. M.K. 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus here? I was in Latvia not that long before the EU vote and my mother "reported" on goings on leading up to and including the vote. Certainly it can be said there was plenty of debate and polemics—from "the last step in Latvia rejoining Europe" to "the EU central government is no better than the Soviets dictating from afar." For example, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about scenic road-overhanging trees which would need to be cut down in order to fulfill EU road improvement funding norms (required for safety for passage of taller trucks). Shall someone take it upon themselves to update? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, goverment didn't seem to be disscusing any other option,they were scearing people that Latvia will be unprotected and hinting that Russia will attack us, basicly givin impresion that there is no other choise, advertisments were made by one of the most reputable advertisment agencies in country, and constitution is amended yearly. However this statment is loud and unsorced it should either be deleted or rewriten to show that there is different oppinion. Politika.lv is, in my opinion, example of good sorce (their EU referendum archive) -- Xil/talk 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question has been removed on 30 August 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.162.148 (talk) 11:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet first to recongize?

The first to recognise Latvia's independence was the Russian SFSR (on August 11, 1920), which relinquished authority over the Latvian nation and claims to Latvian territory once and for all times. I'd have thought that Poles who helped Latvians during the Battle of Daugavpils would be the first to recognize their independence? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is a frequently misquoted fact. Russia was the first major power to recognise Latvia's independece. Frequently people quote this without adding the words 'major power'. Disco 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay I changed it. The reason is that none of the major powers wanted to get on the wrong side of Russia. So they waited until Russia had given the all clear, then they supported the Baltics. Disco 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Iceland was the first to recognize Latvia's independence. (perhaps before the Soviet Union, or Russia) Officially the United States, England and several other nations did not recognize the forced occupation of Latvia, this making no difference whatsoever, the latter remaining occupied for 50 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup

The description of the sequence of events of the first Soviet invasion was a complete mess. Corrected. Also changed Ezergailis to a real inline ref and added total Holocaust deaths, which was missing from the discussion.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] resources

Perhaps You might find this usefull http://www.apollo.lv/portal/life/2135 ---- Xil/talk 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)