Latvia in WW2

[germangirl]

I can see how he is getting stirred up about the Latvians being deported, of course the Soviet Army had no business being in Latvia (or the Baltic in that matter) and it seems to be a pattern that the Soviets deport people where ever they go. My grandfather was also taken to Siberia, but as a German POW.

[Martime]

Penn44
If there was relatively little anti-Semitism in Latvia prior to 1940-41, can you offer any explanation why Latvia was immune to it?

man, ur question is funny:) can u offer any explanation why jews dont hate, lets say - americans, or french, or british or u name it? could it be so because its NORMAL )) just one example - Latvia was pioneer among European states in matters of education for minorities - besides latvian schools education was available in russian, lithuanian, polish, jewish, estonian, livonian and even german schools, we have never had any mess going on here based on nationality issues and if there were some trouble makers (and may i say - they r everywhere) then they were outlawed.
no doubt that latvians participated in killing jews during ww2, but as individuals each were based on their own sick reasons - be that weard wish for revenge, german propaganda, sick mind or any other. To say that this was based on wide anti-semit sentiments prior to ww2 is nonsens, just as it would be to say that some persons of jewish nationality participated in repressions against latvians during soviet accupation because most jews before had some kind of anti-latvian sentiments. its not about nations and states, its all about sick individuals - be there 100 or 1000 or 2000, they still sont represent sentiment of all nation.

[Martime]

Sergey

Latvians dont blame russians. But it has happened so that those who executed Stalins orders spoke russian, just as those who executed Hitlers orders spoke german. And there is no way to undo that. My guess and hope is that withing some generations it all will be fine:)

Alex Yeliseenko

well, u have to pardon the fact that victims usually r not too willing to look for any data on damage done to them in sources written by criminals:) no doubt that not all of those deported were of latvian nationality, but sry for stupid question - whats the difference?!? those all were CITIZENS of independent country, moved by force to the territory of agressor country in violation of all international laws, human rights and other simple things soviets were not able to follow (as common sense, morale and ethics for instance)

[Alex Yeliseenko]

Here there are data about crimes in territory of the Baltics. But only in Russian. Reading I cannot understand archives in any way: why for a victory over Russian, " fighters for freedom of Baltic " should killed all Jews?

http://europeliberty.com/editor/

[Martime]

Alex Yeliseenko

nice paper. written in Russia, based on materials from USSR archives, materials written by KGB, NKVD and whatever else guys... why is it allways like that that u guys try to redirect the issue of crimes of totalitarian powers (both) against Baltic peoples (Jews included)?

as i said before NO DOUBT that SOME latvians took part in killings of Jews in Latvia and for sure somewhere else as well. NO DOUBT that some of those people later joined Latvian legion. But they still dont make up even a small part of all Latvians or Latvian legionares. to say that they r nazis or war criminals because of smth small part of them did is just as to say that whole Red Army soldiers were criminals, because of what some of its memmbers did during Baltic occupation by USSR. get real man and dont u now get emotional
and lets not forget that "fighters for freedom of Baltic" were MADE such without rights of choice. for instance some material from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen_SS:

"In Estonia and Latvia, the majority of Waffen SS veterans were conscripts who were at least partly considered freedom fighters. In an April 13, 1950 message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by General Frank McCloy to the Secretary of State, clarified the US position on the "Baltic Legions": they were not to be seen as "movements", "volunteer", or "SS". In short, they were not given the training, indoctrination, and induction normally given to SS members. Subsequently the US Displaced Persons Commission in September 1950 declared that

The Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States."

[Alex Yeliseenko]

Alex Yeliseenko

nice paper. written in Russia, based on materials from USSR archives, materials written by KGB, NKVD and whatever else guys... why is it allways like that that u guys try to redirect the issue of crimes of totalitarian powers (both) against Baltic peoples (Jews included)?

as i said before NO DOUBT that SOME latvians took part in killings of Jews in Latvia and for sure somewhere else as well. NO DOUBT that some of those people later joined Latvian legion. But they still dont make up even a small part of all Latvians or Latvian legionares. to say that they r nazis or war criminals because of smth small part of them did is just as to say that whole Red Army soldiers were criminals, because of what some of its memmbers did during Baltic occupation by USSR. get real man and dont u now get emotional
and lets not forget that "fighters for freedom of Baltic" were MADE such without rights of choice. for instance some material from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen_SS:

"In Estonia and Latvia, the majority of Waffen SS veterans were conscripts who were at least partly considered freedom fighters. In an April 13, 1950 message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by General Frank McCloy to the Secretary of State, clarified the US position on the "Baltic Legions": they were not to be seen as "movements", "volunteer", or "SS". In short, they were not given the training, indoctrination, and induction normally given to SS members. Subsequently the US Displaced Persons Commission in September 1950 declared that

The Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States."

The book about Estonia is written only on the one hand - the Soviet archives. It is its lack. Across Lithuania and Latvia - with use of other materials. I think there would be fair a translation of these materials on English. But I am not capable to make it. My English is poor.

Problem in that SS is recognized by the criminal organization. How much I know anybody this status did not cancel.

Besides do not forget, that members Baltic policemen unit have made monstrous crimes in Ukraine and in Belarus.

In Russia do not consider that all crimes in Baltic within the Second world war have been accomplished by Baltic people. Many young men at all do not know where there is Baltic.

During too time participation of Baltic people in the Second world war on the party of allies is poorly studied. Both in Red army, and in armies of Britain and the USA. In fact in fights from "Axis" thousand Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians were lost. This blank in history should disappear.

By the way, I already wrote, that the USSR recognizing Baltic soldier SS criminals, the beginnings their rehabilitation (clearings from prisons and camps) in 1946-1947. Rehabilitation the soldier of Russian liberation army has begun only in 1955.

Regards.

[YehaNoha]

You still have not offered any definitive evidence to prove that pre-existing anti-Semitism in Latvia prior to Soviet occupation was not a factor in the Latvian Nationalist actions against Jews in 1941 other than provide your opinion.

You are asking to prove negative. And, more importantly, you are trying to rhetorically create a distinct "category" of actions separate from those instigated, directed and supervised by the occupation authority and assign them to "Latvian Nationalists". This topic has been covered quite extensively by Andriev Ezergailis, the latest use this line of reasoning can be found in the works of young generation of German historians, and he has shown that, in so doing, they quite closely follow the Nazi "folklore", who themselves wrote the first version of Holocaust "history" in Latvia. For example, in a review of Andrej Angrick and Peter Klein, Die “Endlösung” in Riga: Ausbeutung und Vernichtung 1941-1944:

"The authors without debating alternative evidence argue that the Latvians were ready to kill Jews immediately upon the German occupation without any orders or even prompting from the Germans. All of this is recycled folklore that has been examined by historians and also adjudicated in the courts of Germany, the United States, and Canada. Long before Angrick and Klein the pogrom thesis was articulated in an even in more spectacular way in 1961 by the KGB in the pamphlet Daugavas vanagi: Who Are They? The booklet became a sort of handbook for war-crimes prosecutors of Canada and the United States, and they lost every case they initiated on the basis of the information in the booklet. The best specific examples I am thinking of are the Vilis Hazners case in the United States and that of Peteris Vitols in Canada.

(..)

In the introduction of the book Angrick and Klein promise to explain to us that there was no distinction between the anti-Semitism and rage of the Nazis and that of Latvians. The Latvian activities they call by the Nazi name "pogroms”. And more—they also claim to know why the Latvians behaved the way they did: it was the Soviet occupation and deportation of Latvians to Siberia that enraged the Latvians against the Jews. Angrick and Klein write:

It was also immediately [after the occupation] apparent that anti-Semitism and violent nationalism was no import by German troops, rather that a broad part of Latvian society had built up their hatreds earlier. A significant factor in this was the Soviet occupation of the country that followed the Hitler-Stalin pact. Without considering the fact of annexation of the country into the Soviet Union with its political consequences and deportation of, real or imagined, opponents of the regime to the Gulag, one could not explain the later uninhibited explosion of violence and destruction, the revenge-war of Latvian nationalists in July 1941. [p. 8-9]

The following two statements are also by Germans, but of an earlier generation:

“Therefore now the Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians are wreaking bloody revenge on them [Jews]. The Soviets from these countries deported children….” And “In the light of the consideration that the population of the Baltic countries had suffered most heavily under the rule of Bolshevism and Judaism during the period of integration into the USSR, it could be expected that after their liberation of this foreign domination they would eliminate the enemies who were remaining in the country after the retreat of the Red Army." Both statements were delivered in 1941: the first by Hitler, the second by Stahlecker.

Where is the distinction between Angrick and Klein and the statements of the infamous Nazis? Well, there is one significant difference: Hitler and Stahlecker delivered their precepts as a hope, and Angrick and Klein present them as fact."

If there was relatively little anti-Semitism in Latvia prior to 1940-41, can you offer any explanation why Latvia was immune to it?

"Immune" is not appropriate characterization, but some answers can again be found in writings by Ezergailis -- material presented at a conference on democracy and ethnopolitics beginning of the 90-ties, for example. Antisemitism was actively suppressed under the authoritarian government of Ulmanis, the members of "Pērkoņkrusts" (Thundercross) organization, which was banned in 1934, and who had existed on the fringes of public life, were arrested, tried, jailed or exiled. Ezergailis mentions antisemitism that was present in prewar Latvia while trying to answer the question -- why did the hitlerite version of antisemitism got into print as fast as it did after Nazis exerted control, and writes:

"Anti-Semitisim in independent Latvia lived on the fringes of public life. In the open, in the press of the center, there was none to be found. During the parliamentary period, there was a low level anti-Semitic press, but its circulation was limited and its character, even in the most extreme cases, like the press of Pērkoņkrusts in early 30's, lacked the vengeful intensity that exploded in Latvia in July 1941.

(..)

It must be remembered that Ulmanis banned anti-Semitism and therefore in 1941 there was a seven year hiatus in anti-Semitic literature. There are three aspects of Nazi propaganda that was not present in Latvia before the war in any massive way. First, the Jewish/Bolshevik tie was only minimally known. In the 1920's and 30's anti-communism was not an issue. Second, the Hitlerite biological anti-Semitism, seeing the Jews a racially polluting stock, is not present at all, and even during the occupation it played a minor role. And third and most importantly, the pre-war anti-Semitism was free of the language of the ”final solution”, such phrases as, ”the deserved punishment is coming,” ”end to the Jews”, ”final victory over Jewish domination”, ”the Jews failed to kill us but we shall not fail.” The anti-Semitism in pre-war Lativia was more concerned with the Jews as avaricious capitalists, who are taking advantage of Latvian peasants, wage-earners and the state of Latvia. The anti-Semites of Latvia saw Latvia, including Ulmanis's time, as a Jewish state, so to say, another Palestine. In terms of politics, the most persistent theme of the anti-Semites of Latvia was to see the Jews as the power behind the Parliament and the Social Democratic Party. In Latvia we can distinguish hard and soft anti-Semites. The hard ones were those who insisted on telling their ”truth” about the Jews, but they, including in part, the Pérkoñkrusts, were on the fringes of political and publishing life. They were shunned by the respectable political parties and their literature consisted of small circulation, author-published pamphlets. During Ulmanis's time, anti-Semitic literature was banned altogether. However, during the Parliamentary times there was a variant of soft anti-Semitism, one of innu[e]ndo, that had its counterpart in political cartoons, that figured in the polemics between the right (the parties out of power) and the center (the parties in power). The innu[e]ndo consisted in the implication that the center, or more specifically its ministers, were controlled by the Jews. To what degree this variant was real anti-Semitism and to what it was a polemical weapon in political struggle is not always easy to distinguish. The Jew as synonym for capitalist has a long history, and in many countries is found still today."

Edit in: link to quote

Something similar, btw, is true with the present days Latvian antisemites too -- they were and remain marginalized, harassed by the state and lately have to try to make some comeback by mending their "message" and concentrating on other topics; their disdain for their own state rivals that for the Jews ("regime" is probably the most neutral description they would use), and to use "nationalists" to refer to them is much too much of an honor.

[Tomusik]

Below you can find a research article written by Natalija Narochnitskaja, Dsc, Deputy Chairman of Russian Parliament Foreign Affairs Commission. Sorry for bad translation, it was done by Google automaticly.

"Northern War between Russia and the Kingdom of Sweden ended in defeat Carl XII. On Nishtatskomu peace treaty in 1721, are not included in the contested corpus of international acts, which is based on the legitimacy of all the territories of the world, Russia forever received them not merely as a winner in the Northern War, but as a result of their purchase-payment of His Majesty Tsarskim Swedish Kingdom "two million efimkov correctly, and of course without deducting from e.k.v. with appropriate receipts snabdennym authorized and empowered". Question of compensation did not come.
While in nationality "Crown Sveden", Latvians and Estonians were not subjects of the national will. They then anyone unknown ethnicities, not only have never had their own statehood, but also literary language, the national elite and the national culture than folklore, because all Barons were of German origin and education were the German-heritage Crusaders, and the Estonian and Latvian languages spoken only peasants svinopasy and maids. "In prison, when people" Alexandre II appeared schools with instruction in the Latvian language, geographical indications were replaced with a German at the Russian has been called Russification. Like Frantsysheku Duhinskomu, provincial Pole, in the last century vitiystvovavshemu in Paris on chairs and Turan moskovschine ariysko-polskoy Ukrayne, influenced proletarian internationalism through the Baltic elite confident in its cultural superiority. At the international forum, former Prime Minister of Latvia M. Gaylis edify, as for centuries in northern Latvia met "democracy and totalitarianism eastern, western and oriental despotism Constitutionalism, the market economy and socialist mismanagement, Protestant rationalism and Byzantine Mysticism, the legacy of German culture and Slav tradition. " Given the experience of history, it can safely be argued that the "Protestant rationalism and Constitutionalism" in the west of Germany would have erased from the map of these ethnic groups like tens of others still living in Prussia in the XVIII century.
Western program of the twentieth century against the Soviet Union completely coincides with lenin-trotskiy: Is the irreversible destruction of Russia, committed in 1917, as a result of the revolution and not without help from the West. It should pay particular attention to the fact that it is very Antanta decided on abandonment of German troops in the Baltic after the surrender of Germany. France, Russia and saved only its victims in East front, Kompenskogo included in the text of the armistice in 1918 item on the preservation of the German Kaiserreich troops in the Baltic region, with the simultaneous withdrawal from all other occupied territories. German troops were withdrawn from there only after they changed Britons to support and reinforce the independence of the Baltic States and ensure separation of these territories covered revolution Russia.
In 1918, prior to the capitulation of Germany Antanta countries dropped their assaults in Russia solely in the hope to restore the eastern front against Germany, and to prevent military-Germans take advantage God they bolshevik Brest in the world. Now it is clear that this treaty has enabled it to evolve German bayonets Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian quasi-governmental entities and became the primary processes in the Baltic, resulting in the 90 year of the twentieth century to education rack antirussian Baltic managers.
But if you recognize that Russia, nestled at half of the world, existed in reality until 1917, once it is clear that the decision "undemocratic" Supreme Soviets of the Baltic from 1940, reunification with the "occupier", the USSR perfectly lawful. But favorable backdrop for "legitim" finding that serve counter "Molotov pact" which "two totalitarian predators" shared legitimate independent states.
Applying the same standard that the proposed Baltic policy with the support of their western masterminds for the events of 1940, it is much more certainty to the conclusion that in 1920, when Soviet Russia signing treaties with Latvia and Estonia has no legitimate, legitimate Baltic secession from the Russian Empire not it was. Ulmanis, fascist dictator type generally is not elected, came to power in the German bayonets in the face of the German occupation of that part of the Russian empire. The same applies to Lithuania and Estonia. The legal side is gaining recognition and independence consists of absurd inconsistencies.
If the whole concept is built on the recognition Soviet-german contract null and void from the outset, there should be a new territorial division, since the territory of Lithuania received today only because of the "Covenant" - Molotov Treaty August 23, 1939, guaranteed interference Germany, the Soviet Union would make if restoring lost during the revolution and civil war territories. Moreover, it was "shameful" secret protocol stating that "the interests of Lithuania in Vilnius area recognized by both parties." The facts do not show from the archives of shame for the Lithuanians this treaty, but the celebration. After receiving Wilno in the ensuing Treaty of Lithuania to the Soviet Union from October 10. in 1939 shortly after the protocol for reporting Chargé d'affaires USSR NG Pozdnyakova, Lithuania celebrated: "On the morning of the entire city government Syderarium flags… People kissed, congratulated each other." Ambassador to the United States in Lithuania Noram reported ringing the bell "festive" and the "encouragement, which received a message of the return of Wilno" and the pre-holiday rally.
The Lithuanian State came to the intentions of England and France, and they do not rush to accept Lithuania, hoping to create a Soviet Russia near the borders of a strong anti-Soviet "Poland", which became the basis for a federal and Lithuania. Representation of Lithuania, which has declared independence in December 1917, is first set plan "eternal strong alliance with Germany." But it was the two in Lithuania. Russian Revolution, the November revolution in Germany, the defeat of Germany by the end of the war were the backdrop, which was formed spontaneously in Wilno and has been declared and other government-Soviet power, which has declared goal to go along with Soviet Russia, and even then decided to connect to one republic of Belarus.
The Lithuanian State came to the intentions of England and France, and they do not rush to accept Lithuania, hoping to create a Soviet Russia near the borders of a strong anti-Soviet "Poland", which became the basis for a federal and Lithuania. Representation of Lithuania, which has declared independence in December 1917, is first set voznamerilos "eternal strong alliance with Germany." But it was the two in Lithuania. Russian Revolution, the November revolution in Germany, the defeat of Germany by the end of the war were the backdrop, which was formed spontaneously in Wilno and has been declared and other government-Soviet power, which has declared goal to go along with Soviet Russia, and even then decided to connect to one republic of Belarus.
In spring 1919, the territory of Lithuania, with the consent of Antanta immediately invaded the Polish Legion Pilsudski and April 21, 1919 seized the Wilno. The realities were that the Polish intervention struck precisely at the "Soviet Lithuania," proclaimed the goal of "go hand in hand" with Soviet Russia, and in Kovno sat authority, which was set back in December of 1917 occupation forces in Litovsk. In Soviet historiography this fact attached importance to the ideological - white Polishs destroy Soviet power. But the Polish occupation subjected to the portion that the Poles believed they belong to the union Lublin, but it was more convenient for Pilsudski that it was, "Soviet", is not yet recognized by Powers and push. History borders Lithuania as in a drop of water reflects the history of international relations and relations to the Western European powers Russia as a geopolitical force, as well as the fate of small areas at the interface of rival geopolitical systems.

But when the two ended Lithuanian, Vilnius City fell under Soviet power Pilsudski strikes, and left only government in Kovno, Antanta clearly embarked on the Polish side in the dispute because of Lithuania Vilnius province. The idea of "strong" or "powerful" Poland has been repeated in the post-war British plan device in the 1944, as an arm of the west - has been and there is a continuous goal Anglo, like Europe as a whole, what can be seen now. Only Soviet Russia consistently in the Treaty with Lithuania and all foreign policy documents reiterated that it Wilensky edge Lithuanian territory illegally withdrawn from Poland. The issue of Memel province, which by agreement between the Allied Powers handed the Soviet Union, has also been resolved by the Soviet government in favor of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics, not independent Lithuania.

C. Gorlov made famous episode Redemption of the Soviet Union a small part of the southern territory of Lithuania, which under the previous arrangements had to leave Germany. Lithuania has already threatened to input fascist troops when July 13, 1940 Molotov Shulenburgu reported that Stalin and Molotov "" request to the German government "to find an opportunity to abandon this small piece of territory of Lithuania." After three weeks, the German government has indicated its willingness to address this issue, noting that "the rejection of this territory is a great sacrifice for him." The question of compensation as a result of negotiations and the amount of 7.5 million gold dollars, or 31, 5 million marks were deducted from those payments, which Germany was to cover the trade deficit with the Soviet Union, as well as supplies of grain from Bessarabia.
According to the criteria of a modern "democratic" legitimacy of power, it Wilensky Council proclaimed Soviet power, then allied with the Byelorussian Soviet Republic and finally fallen under the blows of Polish troops Pilsudski had some legitimate origin, as this council arose 8 DECEMBER 1918 the town, though in the presence of German troops, but after the German surrender, when these troops were no longer an occupying power and simply waiting for the withdrawal. A so-called Lithuanian tariba in Kovno, "declared the restoration of independence," and "eternal" strong alliance ties with Germany, was delivered in December 1917, it Litovsk occupation authorities and had not had any legitimacy in terms of public and international law as well and today's time. But this is the structure of Lithuania today counting their independence.

Bolshevik Jaffe, signed treaties with Latvia and Estonia was represented by the government, not controlled throughout the country, and anyone in the world has recognized. And certainly kept secret contracts and oral article. Thus, Ulmanis was transferred Latgale is part of the Vitebsk province in exchange for certain services, assistance to displaced for bolshevik White Army. The self-government of Estonia, which demanded independence from the white government to recognize the northwest English representative, has taken the most significant part in the environment and disarmament of the army, General Yudenicha White, who shortly before that refused to help. At the request of Leon White compounds were planted outside the barbed wire, where thousands of people were killed. During that Estonians received from the Bolsheviks about 1000 square. Russians km land for peace treaty of February 2, 1920, and require them today.
Given the illegitimacy of government first Baltic republics, as well as the unfinished status of Soviet Russia, which has not yet been recognized by anyone, and not even all future kotrolirovala territory, it can be argued that the status Wars Baltic States legally flawed, and the events of 1940 as if liberals had their pain form (input of Soviet troops) have pravovosstanovitelny act, because no legitimate secession from the Russian Empire was not, but it was a temporary loss of territory as a result of civil war and revolution."
http://www.narochnitskaia.ru/cgi-bin/ma ... 0614171315

[Peeter]

OMG. What is this, a Christmas fairitale?

[Tomusik]

OMG. What is this, a Christmas fairitale?

Yes, for those who wants to charge Russia for "Soviet occupation".

[David Thompson]

The article by Natalija Narochnitskaja, quoted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 32#1157732 has this passage:

"Given the illegitimacy of government first Baltic republics, as well as the unfinished status of Soviet Russia, which has not yet been recognized by anyone, and not even all future kotrolirovala territory, it can be argued that the status Wars Baltic States legally flawed, and the events of 1940 as if liberals had their pain form (input of Soviet troops) have pravovosstanovitelny act, because no legitimate secession from the Russian Empire was not, but it was a temporary loss of territory as a result of civil war and revolution."

This article gives the reader a false impression by omitting several material facts:

(1) The holdings of the Czarist empire belonged to the Czar personally, not the Russian state Duma, and consequently the right to administer those regions did not pass to either the provisional republic or to the USSR as successor rulers to the Czar. See:

Russian fundamental laws of 1906
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRus ... a/rfl.html

(2) Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had the same right to an independent existence as the Russian Federated Socialist Republic (RFSR), and all four states came into being through the same method -- revolution and secession. If it was illegal for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Poland to secede from the Russian empire and form themselves into autonomous states, it was equally illegal for the RFSR to secede from the Russian empire and form an independent state. As independent states, none had the right to annex another. For the 1918 Constitution of the RFSR, see:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/rus ... ons01.html

(3) The USSR recognized the legal existence, independence, and territorial integrity of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1920, when it signed peace treaties with each of those republics:

Treaty of Tartu (1920)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... stonian%29
Latvian-Soviet Riga Peace Treaty (1920)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian-So ... ace_Treaty
Text
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/peace-treaty/
Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Lit ... ty_of_1920

Furthermore, the USSR signed non-aggression pacts with the Baltic republics in 1926 and 1932. (Sorry, JSTOR subscription-only articles):

U.S.S.R.--ESTONIA: TREATY OF NON-AGGRESSION AND PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Signed at Moscow, May 4, 1932
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9 ... 0.CO%3B2-L
U.S.S.R.--LATVIA: TREATY OF NON-AGGRESSION Signed at Riga, Feb. 5, 1932
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9 ... 0.CO%3B2-V
U.S.S.R.--LITHUANIA: TREATY OF NON- AGGRESSION AND NEUTRALITY Signed at Moscow, September 28, 1926
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9 ... 0.CO%3B2-Q

The USSR confirmed the recognition in 1934, when it joined the League of Nations (see specifically Article 10 of the League of Nations covenant, and generally the post at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 81#1051981 ).

ARTICLE 10.

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art10
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were members of the League of Nations before the USSR joined it (all three joined the League of Nations in 1921):

League of Nations members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_members

(4) As a result of this diplomatic activity by the USSR over a 20-year period with these supposedly (according to Ms. Narochnitskaja) illegal republics, the Soviet government was in no position to question the right of the Baltic states to exist, and neither are modern-day Russian historians. The suprise here is that Ms. Narochnitskaja did not bring up the conceptual and legal problems outlined in (1), (2), and (3) above, and then deal with them frankly in her essay.

[Tomusik]

To David Thompson:
(1) On March 2nd 1917 the Sovereign Nicolai II signed his abdication in favour of his brother Grand Duke Mikhail, and wrote this in his diary on the same day: “There are betrayal, cowardice and lies all around me.” By abdicating in favour of his brother the Tsar tried to save autocracy, and he is not to blame for Mikhail’s refusal to ascend the throne and his decision to hand power over to the Constituent Assembly.

[Tomusik]

As to the international recognition.
Google translation:
Already on March, 12th Roosevelt has invited Soviet ambassador M.M.Litvinov and informed it on the position. It has told, that " in essence it does not have any divergences " with the Soviet government about the Soviet western borders and that it always considered as a mistake branch of Baltic provinces from Russia after the First world war. Roosevelt has declared, that " it will assure Stalin privately, that it with it absolutely agrees ". The president has told, that does not expect " any difficulties in connection with desirable to us. http://www.dialogi.lv/article.php?id=2615&t=8&rub=0

[David Thompson]

Tomusik -- You wrote:

As to the international recognition.
Google translation:
Already on March, 12th Roosevelt has invited Soviet ambassador M.M.Litvinov and informed it on the position. It has told, that " in essence it does not have any divergences " with the Soviet government about the Soviet western borders and that it always considered as a mistake branch of Baltic provinces from Russia after the First world war. Roosevelt has declared, that " it will assure Stalin privately, that it with it absolutely agrees ". The president has told, that does not expect " any difficulties in connection with desirable to us. http://www.dialogi.lv/article.php?id=2615&t=8&rub=0

The official position of the United States was that it did not recognize the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states. See:

Foreign relations of the United States, General diplomatic papers, 1940. vol. 1, pp. 357-444
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... RUS1940v01

For background, see also:

The Stimson Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimson_Doctrine

and the US maintained that official position until the Baltic states seceded from the USSR in August 1991, just as Russia seceded from the USSR that December -- less than 4 months later.

[Tomusik]

USA was just the only coutry with that official position. And it was in the "Cold War Era". Obviously, it was a political position, not a care for fare in this world. All the rest of countries were OK with the USSR borders.
And what about Czar handing power over to the Constituent Assembly in 1917?
Technically the Baltic States joining the Soviet Union was correct. What was people of Latvia willnobody knows as there were no referendums or statistical researches taken place. That is why they do not start any cases against Russia as a USSR succeder. Though there are a lot of speculations about charge for the Soviet times.
Narochnitskaia is a very respected historian and her position is the official position of Russian Federation. She is also Soviet ex-representative in the UN.
But there are some witnesses left from that time:
Dov Levin wrote about "the abundant enthusiasm and sympathy with which the Red Army was welcomed in many areas by the Jews --principally by communists but also by 'ordinary Jews'" (Soviet Jewish Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1975, p. 40). In his book With Their Backs to the Wall (pp. 22-23), he recounts, for example, Baruch Minkiewitz's testimony that in Riga Jewish communists "covered Soviet tanks with flowers, and there were those who jumped up on the tanks and kissed the Red tank drivers."
I wonder why Jews were so happy to see Soviets in Latvia?