Talk:Kārlis Ulmanis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

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] Basis?

I would like to hear why HelderM believes the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not secret protocol. It was not public at the time and the Soviet Union continued to deny its very existence for decades. I'm not really interested in the basis of the vitriol HelderM has been spewing that this is a fascist fan page, however, let's not delete facts (which has since been reverted). And if HelderM will actually stop and listen, Pēteris Cedriņš is far from an apologist for Ulmanis. Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And Speaking of Latvian "Fascism"

With the contributions of HelderM, it seems this is as good a place as any for a short discussion. I'm not sure what Latvian hate page HelderM initally obtained his information from, proper spelling of the various Latvian groups — any of them — might be a good start. (Apologies for spelling aside, if you're going to contribute to an encyclopedia, know your topic well enough. I don't know Russian, but any time I write anything anywhere citing a Russian source, I make absolutely sure I spell it and translate it properly.) Or perhaps HelderM is just a victim of believing anything one finds on the web that's repeated often enough to take on a false cloak of veracity.

Let's start with the biggest problem, which is the total fiction that Latvian fascists were Nazi/Hitler Germanophiles and are one and the same. Pērkonkrusts (Thunder Cross), the most overtly fascist of the right wing groups, were anti- all minorities (and yes, including anti-Semitism toward the Jews). But most of all, they despised the Germans. Gustavs Celmiņš, head of the party, stated: "Your time, you German people, is over. In Latvia of the Latvians there is no room for you." Latvia's entering into an agreement on German repatriation — often cited on the web as demonstrating a happy cooperation with the Nazis — was more akin to "good riddance!" (And let us recall Hitler's call home was motivated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact — Hitler did not want any Germans winding up in the Soviet Union.)

It's worthy to note that just about all of Europe descended into ultra-nationalism and dictatorships. From that standpoint, Latvia was a mirror of European politics at that time. And it's a far larger discussion as to when does ultra-nationalism and/or a dictatorship become fascism; as well, just as with "democracies," there is more than one flavor of fascist state.

To the question below of motivations... it is at the start of the 30's that nationalist and conservative forces banded around Ulmanis' agrarian right, increasingly frustrated with the ineffectiveness of a faction over-run Saeima. The continuing deteriorating condition of the Saeima is widely cited as a major contributor to the subsequent dictatorship — one part reason, one part justification, and one part excuse. The agrarian right was nationalistic and conservative — but certainly not interchangeable with Pērkonkrusts.

Also, to one of the other questions below... "benevolent" dictatorship here means (1) no one was killed during the coup, and (2) dissenters were imprisoned but not killed, and (3) most of those were later quietly released and told to mind their own business going forward. [Does not mean there weren't arrests, that political parties weren't eliminated, that free press wasn't suppressed... Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)]

A final word for HelderM: as for "where's the proof" Ulmanis was ever even taken to the Soviet Union, I'm sorry, but that's a question worthy of a conspiracy theorist, not someone writing an encyclopedia article. You might consider that you can't find information trolling the web because for 50 years no one but Latvians gave a damn (pardon the mild expletive, I was actually going to refer to a rat's buttocks) about Latvia, and not because something didn't happen. Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. There is an eyewitness account of Ulmanis dying on September 20, 1942 in Krasnovodsk Prison, U.S.S.R.. Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulmanis and Fascism, Autocracy

Mussolini originated Fascism: a nationalistic movement utilizing terror and ethnic hatred to achieve and maintain power. I'm researching a biography of Ulmanis for my own web site, and I'm coming to the conclusion that while Latvia's Pērkonkruts certainly fits the description "facist," Ulmanis' dictatorship does not. Some, not all, dictionary definitions of fascism are becoming more benign—replacing "violence" with "suppression" and "promote ethnic hatred" with "sometimes exalt race"—as "fascism" is applied more widely to autocracies. (Undoubtedly, in part, due to the visceral reaction it prompts in people.) However, it is not factually appropriate to characterize Latvia as a fascist state either as compared to its contemporaries (which we are doing, whether or not we say we are) or as evaluated relative to the etymology of "fascism." Frankly, it's calling someone "murderous" and an "ethnic supremacist" who is guilty of neither killing nor ethnic extremism.—Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special pleading

Someone with some background in Latvian history and with less of an ax to grind needs to look at this piece. What was the pretext for this seizure of power? What were the consequences? Were any political parties allowed to function? Unions? What was the Ulmanis' regime's attitude toward the Jews? Other minorities?

The current article is not only an apology for Ulmanis, but is silent on what authoritarian rule actually meant, other than better schools. And if we characterize this as a benevolent dictatorship, what does that mean?

The Latvians continue to wrestle with Ulmanis, all good questions which should be addressed in any article. Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I completely agree with User:Italo Svevo above -- the way it stands, this article is biased and simplistic. No political parties were allowed to function after 1934 (not even Ulmanis' Farmers' Union), broad censorship was introduced, the autonomy of minority schools was drastically scaled back, and political life was reorganized into a camera system in an Einmannherrschaft (i.e., there wasn't even a rubber-stamp legislative body). There was an authoritarian ideology and a policy of "Latvianization" that especially affected the Jews and Baltic Germans (though Ulmanis did crack down on anti-Semitism and was a personal friend of one of the most important Jewish leaders), leading to capital flight. The economy was recovering prior to the coup, and there's considerable severe criticism of Ulmanis' economic policies (see, for example, Nicholas Balabkins and Arnolds Aizsilnieks: Entrepreneur in a Small Country: A Case Study Against the Background of the Latvian Economy, 1919-1940. Hicksville, New York: Exposition Press, 1975). Some of the things for which Ulmanis is praised the most are actually quite questionable (e.g., on those "better schools" -- the famous invitation to donate to schools and libraries ["Draudzīgais aicinājums"] was in part a cover for the removal of books deemed dangerous by the régime [see Dunsdorfs' monumental biography], and readership actually went into decline). Even Dunsdorfs, who is often effusive in his praise for Ulmanis at other points in the statesman's career, is highly critical of the dictatorship, noting that no one in the history of Latvia's independence did so much to polarize society. Aivars Stranga, in the most recent history of Latvia in the 20th century, is among those who completely debunk the notion that "the economic repercussions of the Great Depression and the political and military dangers faced by Latvia" led to the coup, as stated in this article -- to the contrary, Ulmanis hurried the coup precisely because the economy was recovering and his popularity was in a nose dive (he was barely elected to the Saeima in the last legal elections). I'm not going to edit the article because I'm new to Wiki and am concentrating on ca. 1850-1920 at the moment (and I'm too chicken as yet to wade into emotionally charged debates here, as this will certainly turn out to be). --Pēteris Cedriņš 30 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)

I have done some changes to the artice in order to shed some light into the nature of Ulmanis's dicatorial regime. Still I left some of the previous information in it, which I do not know if it is correct. More precisely, I have, at this moment, no credible info about Latvia's economical performance at that time (30s), or about the way the generated wealth (if it was infact generated such "extraordinary" wealth) was distributed through the Latvian social classes. I also do not now what the veracity is for the story about is death. Regarding this I made some searches and all that I found backing the thesis that he died in Soviet custody were some Latvian nationalistic rants and some (possibly american) cold wariors. Can any one do the research that is missing.HelderM 13:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your revisions, Helder, are completely off the wall. I am not going to revert them because the original article is deficient, but you could at least search for what you are linking to (e.g., Pērkonkrusts). Your claims re trade and sympathies towards Nazi Germany are ludicrous, for instance. As to his not dying in Soviet custody -- excuse me? He was vacationing in Central Asia, maybe? --Pēteris Cedriņš 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rereading your contributions, I decided that a revert is necessary. Mind-boggling, insupportable distortion is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Pēteris Cedriņš 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the links, I just didn't know if an entry for Perkonkrusts already existed, nor was I absolutely sure on how to write the word correctly, specially because of the accentuation.
Regarding your criticism towards my contribution, what I can say is that the original article is nothing more than pure apology for Ulmanis and his regime. In my contribution I tried answering some questions like: What was the pretext for this seizure of power? What were the consequences? Were any political parties allowed to function? Unions? What was Ulmanis' regime's attitude toward the Jews? Other minorities?, in order to make the article less of an Ulmanis propaganda bulletin and more of a true encyclopaedia article.
In your attempt to cast ridicule upon my contribution (what I know is nothing personal, you are just trying to push the POV which suits your political prejudices), by deviating attention to a non existing issue , you state that: “As to his not dying in Soviet custody -- excuse me? He was vacationing in Central Asia, maybe?“. What is the point of this? I did not erase the portion of the article that speculates about his death, even though, as I stated in the discussion page, I didn’t find anything to back it up other than some Latvian nationalistic rants. Do you have any solid data (Latvian nationalistic rants and cold warriors are not reliable), to back it up?
Regarding my “…mind-boggling, insupportable distortion…”… what I can say is: is it a distortion that Ulmanis regime's was much friendlier towards Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia? Is it a distortion that the members of the workers’ and peasants’ faction of the Saeima as well as the members of its (Saeima’s) presidium were arrested, and that nationalistic fascist organisations proliferated during his regime such as Pērkonkrusts (which later fought alongside with the Nazis)? Is it a distortion that thirty one newspapers were banned and that the work of twenty nine trade unions was suspended, and that 178 different associations and trade unions were closed down?
Is it also a distortion that Ulmanis unconstitutionally merged the office of President and Prime Minister in his own person, just like Hitler did?
Is this all a distortion? Maybe… from the POV of Latvian anti-communist nationalists (or should I say fascists?), just like the denouncing of Ukrainian Nationalist crimes against Poles, Russians, Jews and their own people is also “insupportable distortion” according to them.
Given that you reverted the article presenting no plausible justification other than your own underlying political prejudices, I should revert the article to my version, but I will refrain from that, for now. I am under the impression, which I would like to verify, that wikipedia is growingly becoming just another propaganda agency for the far right (to put it mildly). I’d like to see how long, yet another piece of propaganda, whitewashing the actions of a clear fascist-like dictator (Ulmanis) will go unsanctioned and remain endorsed by the wikipedia community HelderM 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
Dear Helder -- unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into this at the moment. I completely agree that the original article needs serious changes -- your views, however, are not based upon facts. An example, above: Is it a distortion [...] that nationalistic fascist organisations proliferated during his regime such as Pērkonkrusts (which later fought alongside with the Nazis)? Um, yeah, it's a mind-boggling distortion, indeed -- Pērkonkrusts, an illegal organization, was subject to mass arrests under Ulmanis, and its leaders as well as hundreds of its members were imprisoned and/or exiled. As to their "fighting alongside with the Nazis," that is again inaccurate to say the least; see my notes at the relevant talk page. This is but a glaring example of why I chose to revert your edit. I'm afraid I am personally not at all fond of Ulmanis' dictatorship -- that should be obvious from what I wrote here when I first began to write for Wiki. Going off with stuff like "just like Hitler did" is in the inarable inane, however. Get some perspective (e.g., Ulmanis was not a Hitler and in fact murdered no one), get some reputable sources, change your tone, and then edit away! --Pēteris Cedriņš 00:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Peteris Cedrins :-), during Ulmanis’ dictatorial regime the Pērkonkrusts organization was in fact illegalized. But this occurred because of that organization’s “excessively” radical stance for that time, in a context were the Latvian nationalist fascist regime was “stuck” between two giants, not because of Ulmanis’ love for freedom and democracy.
For instance, the Portuguese fascist-like dictator, Salazar, and the regime he lead, which were assumedly sympathetic towards Fascist Italy and Nazi-Fascist Germany, also disbanded some extreme-rightwing movements, but not because he was a do-gooder, simply because these movements were ridiculously unrealistic (within the conservative Portuguese reality) and would only weaken the fascist regime instead of strengthening it.
Ulmanis regime’s “persecution” of the Pērkonkrusts goes along the same lines.
The truth is that Ulmanis’ actions when he was the president of Latvia, (even before his state coup), in 1933, with the persecution of the left by arresting the members of the workers’ and peasants’ faction of the Saeima while leaving unharmed the Thunder Cross officials, contributed decisively to emergence of fascist organisations.
Furthermore, his regime (or better yet, Latvia’s nationalist fascist regime as opposed to the collaborationist fascist regime established by the Germans, not that there is much of a semantic difference between the two), was supported by the armed mass organisation called “Aizarki”, which later (after German occupation), gladly fought at the side of the revived (if they ever in fact disappeared), Pērkonkrusts and the Latvian Waffen-SS legion.
The construction of the Latvian concentration camp system, wasn’t even initiated by the Germans (or the Latvian collaborationist fascist regime), it was initiated by “good old” Ulmanis’, to put the leftwing into them… but hey, who knows, maybe these were just vacation camps, right?
You should not worry, I am not insane (as you more or less wrote in the previous commentary and then altered to a more politically correct expression), I believe that it is you who holds a distorted vision of your country’s (Latvia) history.
Regarding the issue of this article’s theme, I have taken a look at some of your contributions and comments to the Pērkonkrusts article (to which I believe you pointed me to in your previous comment), and to the sources that you state, and basically it can all be inscribed within the tradition, (in terms of historical analysis), that has been dominant within the Latvian establishment since the early nineties, which basically consists of whitewashing the crimes committed by large portions of the Latvian ruling elites (not the people), by somehow placing the blame on your Russian neighbours, (what at many times is quite close to racism, (the tradition, not necessarily you)), or, if nothing else is possible, by placing the blame on the German Fascists (which do deserve a lot of it but probably not all) through the artificial and historically false detachment of the Latvian fascists from the German Fascists (like for instance the Latvian SS).
The Latvian fascists (nationalist or collaborationist) were just as fascist as the Romanian fascists, the Croatian fascists, the Ukrainian fascists, and all other fascist regimes that were supportive of or were supported (instituted) by Fascist Germany.
This article (as it is right now), is no more than yet another “fan page” for a fascist regime and its leader (and for all practical intents and purposes you have no problem with that). Still I will not edit it for now. I am curious to see for how long the wikipedia community will allow it to continuing being of this nature. HelderM 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC).
You are in error from your very first sentence. Pērkonkrusts was illegalized prior to the Ulmanis régime. You continue to err -- The truth is that Ulmanis’ actions when he was the president of Latvia, (even before his state coup), in 1933, with the persecution of the left by arresting the members of the workers’ and peasants’ faction of the Saeima while leaving unharmed the Thunder Cross officials, contributed decisively to emergence of fascist organisations. Sorry, Helder, but Ulmanis wasn't ever the President of Latvia prior to the coup, and he did not appoint himself President immediately after the coup -- he was the democratically chosen Prime Minister until 15 May 1934, and did not appoint himself President until Kviesis' term expired in 1936. Pērkonkrusts officials weren't "unharmed" -- they were dismissed from all posts (including the police) already in parliamentary Latvia. Following the coup, ninety-seven members were arrested and incarcerated; 13 were tried by a miltary tribunal in 1935 and given prison sentences. You seem to confuse subversive communists with the left -- the primary goal of the "Workers' and Peasants'" faction, a branch of the Comintern, was the weakening of the Social Democrats. The faction was dissolved for subversion already in 1933, during Bļodnieks' tenure. You clearly lack the facts to address these questions (it is "Aizsargi," not "Aizarki," by the way), and most of your arguments consist of baseless political rant. That you see only a "semantic difference" between the Ulmanis régime and the Nazis makes the untenable, blind extremism of your view quite obvious -- the Ulmanis dictatorship did not support the Nazis. As to some "tradition" you see -- the sources I use are certainly not from a single tradition, unless that is a tradition of respect for historical fact rather than Soviet propaganda.
In re: This article (as it is right now), is no more than yet another “fan page” for a fascist regime and its leader (and for all practical intents and purposes you have no problem with that). I obviously do have a problem with the article as it stands, and anybody scrolling up can see that. Good editing and writing of sourced articles is very time-consuming, and I haven't the time for it at the moment. What you did to the article was even worse than the blatantly hagiographical original, however -- your inability to see the differences between very different authoritarian régimes, your labelling of a germanophobic country as pro-German, and your accusing me of defending Ulmanis (something I do not do) impairs your ability to edit, and I have demonstrated that your historiography is riddled with factual errors. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, Ulmanis was never the president of Latvia prior to the coup, so, what I should have written (in my previous comment) would be “The truth is that Ulmanis’ actions when he was the Prime Minister of Latvia, (even before his state coup), in 1933, with the persecution of the left by arresting the members of the workers’ and peasants’ faction of the Saeima while leaving unharmed the Thunder Cross officials, contributed decisively to emergence of fascist organizations.”. And this is true. In fact you take a look at “my version” of the article, you will see that this error is not there.
The actions taken against Thunder Cross during parliamentary Latvia were mostly cosmetic, which amounted to nothing in practical terms. The real crackdown was on the left (or subversive communists, like you prefer to say).
The actions were so cosmetic that the influence of Thunder Cross was in no way hindered and in fact, they growingly continued to constitute a dangerous source of instability for an already far-rightist regime threatened by the economical problems stemming from the Great Depression, which were pushing the working class (or whatever existed in Latvia that was close to such a class), towards the left (or subversive communists, like you prefer to say).
This was the reason why, after the coup (whose purpose was to secure the far-rightist anti-soviet, anti-communist and anti-Russian regime by hardening it even further), the Thunder Cross was more harshly cracked down on. But that was done for pragmatical reasons, not ideological ones.
As to the regime being germanophobic as opposed to pro-German, what I can say is that you are mixing things.
The ruling elite’s strive for Latvia’s independence obviously placed them in a collision course both with Germany and the Soviet Union (or Soviet Russia), but this in no way implies that they were anti-fascist, or germanophobic. By the contrary, ideologically the Latvian ruling elites always identified themselves (for pure vanity and nouveau–richisme I believe), with the west and especially with the Germanic nations (in the broad sense that is, thus including the Scandinavians for instance), no matter how many times their boots were on Latvia’s throats, because it was the people throats they were on, not on the elites’.
If there was (and is) any phobia in Latvia (and there is), it was (and is) russophobia.
Regarding my ill spelling of “Aizsargi”, I’m sorry about it, but my knowledge of Latvian language is not as good as yours. Still whether it is written “Aizsargi" or “Aizarki", it does not change their nature or their actions.
I will admit that you, being a Latvian (or an American of Latvian ascendance), probably know more than me about Latvia’s history, still my arguments are impartial and distanced and not baseless political ranting nor riddled with errors.
You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that your historiography is affected by many of the prejudices that I have mentioned before in my comments. You clearly have a pro-"Latvian elites" bias. HelderM 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your initial comment (near the top of the discussion page), indicates that you are not an Ulmanis “groupie“, and not that you are impartial and unbiased towards Latvia’s history. HelderM 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


You are right, Ulmanis was never the president of Latvia prior to the coup, so, what I should have written -- um, no; Ulmanis was not Prime Minister (the last time) in 1933, either. Ulmanis became PM only in March 1934. You are wrong re germanophobia as well -- the fact is that even Pērkonkrusts was germanophobic for much of its existence. What Nazis there were in Latvia were from the Baltic German community; they were most definitely not identified with by the Latvian "élite," and Ulmanis' régime welcomed the Germans' "repatriation" in 1939/40; the Latvian far right and the German far right were completely incompatible. Celmiņš, the leader of Pērkonkrusts -- exiled by Ulmanis -- actually joined the anti-Nazi Resistance after a brief flirtation with the occupation régime.
Indeed, Latvia has always identified itself with the West -- you would prefer us to identify with Stalin's totalitarian orgies, perhaps? When were Scandinavians' "boots on Latvia's throats," Helder? On "the people throats" [sic]? I regret to inform you that the expression "like in the Swedish era" is still used in Latvian to designate a good time, precisely because the Swedes' brief rule promised improved conditions for the peasantry (introducing reforms and education policies that were rolled back under Russian rule). What is a "Germanic ideology" that includes the Scandinavians, Helder? The Nordic countries in the period we are talking about were exemplary democracies -- but to you they were pro-Nazi, perhaps?
Today is the day we commemorate the mass deportations that took place during the Soviet occupation -- perhaps you should return to the Holodomor talk page to continue to try to explain how the Ukrainian famine is Nazi propaganda. Your arguments are neither impartial nor distanced -- they are the uninformed rants of an ideological apologist for mass murder. You can misspell "Aizsargi" any way you like -- my point is that you obviously know nothing about them. As to the "working class" being pushed to the left -- no, sorry; the left's (and especially the far left's) share of the vote was in steady decline (as was the far right's). I am calling attention to the difference between subversive communists and the left -- the "Workers' and Peasants'" faction was allowed into parliament primarily due to the machinations of the right, which hoped to take votes away from the Social Democrats. This was also a principal aim of the Comintern-controlled far left in much of Europe -- this destructive behavior helped bring Hitler to power. Hitler, who came to agreement with Stalin, who crushed us with Hitler's blessing in 1939/40. --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


The Latvian far-right was and is in no way germanophobic. What all the elites in all nations want is to rule undisputedly and ALONE. It is obvious that the Latvian far-right would prefer to rule the country by themselves without German interference, but if some interference was to be tolerated or even welcomed it would always be German Fascist interference (or western interference today), never Russian interference. This is displayed by Latvia’s history in a crystalline manner.
“…actually joined the anti-Nazi Resistance after a brief flirtation with the occupation regime…”: this is a typical example of, today’s fashionable, deculpabilization of the fascist war criminals which murdered their own peoples on the service of the great Third Reich foolishly expecting large crumbs to fall their way after the German victory.
You decriminalize the Latvian fascists the same way the “Ukrainian Genocide Famine” promoters decriminalize the Ukrainian fascist and collaborationists.
The Latvian far-right never fought Fascist-Germany, just like the Ukrainian nationalists never fought against the genocidal war that was waged against their people by Fascist Germany. They all collaborated with the Nazis, and after the war, with the English and American blessing, they immigrated to the USA. There they manufactured their own version of history (one which portrays them as both anti-soviet and anti-Nazi), and have been selling it to the world ever since, with the help of several outstanding cold war propagandists.
It is politically pathetic to state that the Latvian far right and the German far right were completely incompatible. No such politically incompatibilities exist in the real world.
Please do not juggle around what I wrote. The boots that were on Latvia’s necks were Germany’s boots (during WW2, and before that Germany was always interested in placing Latvia under it’s sphere of influence). Latvia’s (parasitical), elites are russophobic and aspire of “becoming Germanic” in wealth, in power and prestige, and they have always been eager to copycat whatever novelty, coming from those countries, which will get them closer to that.
The implementation of fascism in Latvia would not have been so easy without this characteristic of the Latvian exploiters.
To me it is irrelevant whom Latvian elites are fond of. I am not their fan. To you it is obviously quite important that they remain pro-American and russophobic. The more russophobic the merrier, right?
“…perhaps you should return to the Holodomor talk page to continue to try to explain how the Ukrainian famine is Nazi propaganda.”. Thanks for the advice but it has already been explained, many times over, by honest and tolerant people which have no hidden or overt fascist or russophobic agenda.
“…Your arguments are neither impartial nor distanced -- they are the uninformed rants of an ideological apologist for mass murder…”. This is your ideological ranting. I am an adept of Fraternity, Truth and Liberty, (the real versions not the propaganda ones), that is why I protested against the propaganda contained in that article as well as in this one.
Regarding the rise of fascism in early 20th century Europe, you, as many others, hypocritically place the blame on the Comintern, on Stalin, on communism on Russia, etc. The truth is that fascism is capitalism’s fallback solution whenever the privileges of it’s ruling elites are seriously threatened. The soviet strategy was to form an overall anti-fascist alliance between the “lefts” the social democrats and even with the western nations (if for any chance they were wiling to participate).
The two faced role of the western “democracies” and of the “democratic” right, is “as they say” history. The social democrats simply cowarded out, when in fact they didn’t sell out to the right, and the Soviet Union was left alone (as Stalin had predicted (don’t worry I am not a Stalinist, I just see history for what it was)), to fight the fascist constellation.
I know that within the wikipedia (specially the English version of it), my views are minoritary. With the victory of rampant savage capitalism in the Cold War, and the defeat of the working class (a class which you may not like very much or even deny its existence as a class like Thatcher), through the destruction of the S.U. and even worst, the destruction of Socialism within the S.U. when it was still officially Socialist (a complex and intermittent process that started after the death of Lenin), the propaganda of the capitalist side (many of which is nothing but recycled Nazi propaganda, no matter what you would say) became the official truth.
So, just because a lot of people believe a lie, it does not make it true.
This article is basically a fan page for a fascist like regime and its leader, but to you (or at least that’s what you say) that is a minor evil. HelderM 14:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(Restarting indents, responding to HelderM's directly above...)

Your continuing insistence that the Latvian far-right/fascists were not Germanophobic is pure fiction. As has been pointed out, they hated the Germans. Your rather strident positions that "fascist" = "murdering (German) Nazi criminal," that Latvians preferred Germans to Russians are all in error. (Indeed, as far back as the whole "national awakening" at the end of the 19th century, from an ethnic standpoint, Latvians primarily sought to shake off German Baltic domination--while never seeking independence from Russia.)

Your contention that "It is politically pathetic to state that the Latvian far right and the German far right were completely incompatible. No such politically incompatibilities exist in the real world," is based on what metaphysical plane of non-existence? It is precisely this simple-minded and one-dimensional view of fascism that Russia conveniently continues to use to condemn everything Latvian that was anti-Soviet, i.e., "You are an anti-(anti-fascist) therefore you are a NAZI." Whether approached from a historical, cultural, or political standpoint, it's patently false at every level.

As for fascism being the fallback of capitalism, "threatened elite,"... you really need to study European history of the first half of the 20th century. Nationalism was rampant throughout all Europe. The process, after World War I, of nationalism blossoming and then degenerating into ultra-nationalism and then finally into dictatorships and fascism had nothing to do with your personal political theories.

Finally, regarding your "soviet strategy was to form an overall anti-fascist alliance between the 'lefts' the social democrats and even with the western nations (if for any chance they were wiling to participate)," Oh please! The Soviet "strategy" was to enter into agreements (Molotov-Ribbentrop being just one of several) with the über-фашистско of them all, Hitler, to carve up all of Eastern Europe, stamping out every independent nation between them forever. A major reason the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union progressed as far as it did was because Stalin disregarded military intelligence, refusing to believe his friend Hitler was going to attack; the Soviets were caught completely unprepared. You say you're not a Stalinist, and there I have to agree; you truly know nothing about him, or, worse, simply choose what you want to believe. Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Notes

OK I just read the discussion page and the first paragraph Pēteris Cedriņš had written and um I think it would be great if you guys took few minutes to attribute the statements you make like for instance putting the URL of the source in parentheses or writing down the ISBN of the book. So yea basically what I tried to say is that this talk page is better than the article (dang! and I just spent an hour or something wikifying it).

Concerning being a part of the community I want to say that Helder's in denial - I see no need of necessarily aligning an authoritarian regimen with fascism just because it wasn't explicitly communist. And there's no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship regarding another comment - that is substantially erroneous even put in some comparative advantage sort of context. You might say that Zviedru Laiki were benevolent compared to the Russian Empire, but comparing supposedly faster economic growth or something to being deprived civil liberties is pretty much "off the wall." (besides it's the bullshit kids are being fed in school, and wikipedia is obviously supposed to tell you when you're being fed with bullshit (in this case unveiling that the "oh-so-prosperous" first republic was even more full of fail than the second republic, although we're heading there :D))

and please link to a google cached version of a page if site has some mad-sexy! content management system with asp or php (resulting in completely ugly URLs that are dead after a week). Or even better save the page locally before it's gone forever (that's probably a copyright infringement though). Well idk, but one URL that was listed as a reference (centropa.org) had to be removed without a substitute because the page simply was gone. 354d 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't teach such "bullshit" in school, except that I remember a sentence in politics textbook that said that sometimes authotritoian regimes can do some good, like improve economy. Google chaches also are bad idea - they go dead as well. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" for some better ideas---- Xil...sist! 03:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)