Latvia in WW2

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 27 Dec 2007 16:59

Tomusik -- You wrote:

(1)

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.

(a) You are mistaken:

The United States, United Kingdom and the majority of other western democracies considered the annexation of Estonia by USSR illegal. They retained diplomatic relations with the representatives of the independent Republic of Estonia, never recognized the existence of the Estonian SSR de jure, and never recognized Estonia as a legal constituent part of the Soviet Union[30].

[30] European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania" ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... 011983.jpg ). Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78.
"whereas the Soviet annexias of the three Baltic States still has not been formally recognized by most European States and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of the Baltic States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia

(b) There was no "cold war" in 1940.

(2) You also asked:

And what about Czar handing power over to the Constituent Assembly in 1917?

(a) Czar Nicholas II didn't hand over anything to the Constituent Assembly. He abdicated in favor of his brother Michael, as you have already pointed out. See also:

The Abdication of Nicholas II
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Ab ... icholas_II

(b) Since Michael didn't become Czar, he received nothing from Nicholas II, and there was nothing for him to hand over to the Constituent Assembly.

(c) Even assuming, without conceding, that the Constituent Assembly of 1917 was able to receive what was not Archduke Michael's to give, the Constituent Assembly of 1917 did not hand over anything to the Soviet government of the RFSR.

(d) The RFSR did not attempt to assert the claims of the Czar to all of the pre-revolutionary Czarist empire. If it had, there would not have been a Ukrainian SSR or a Belorussian SSR.

(3) You also wrote:

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.

The first sentence of this statement is incorrect, as your second sentence concedes. See:
Constitution of the republic of Latvia (1922), articles 74, 76-77, 79
http://www.saeima.lv/LapasEnglish/Constitution_Visa.htm

See also:

Constitution of Latvia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Latvia

Constitution of Estonia (1938), article 1
http://www.constitution.org/cons/estonia.txt and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Estonia
http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?k ... =80&leht=5

I have not found an online copy of the Lithuanian constitution of 1938.

(3) You also wrote:

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.

That may be, but it does not explain why her article omitted material facts necessary to prevent misleading the readers.

(4) Finally, you wrote:

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?

What does any of this have to do with the legality of the 1940 Soviet annexation?

Tomusik · Post by **Tomusik** » 27 Dec 2007 18:36

David, I see you have an objection on everything I am trying to put as an argument. Again, I will find some more prooves, like The Helsinki Final Act 1975:
In 1975, the CSCE process resulted in the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act. In this document, the participating states of the CSCE agreed to recognize their mutual interest in improving security through confidence building measures. The agreement laid down specific principles for the conduct of relations between states, including among others:

Respect for sovereignty;
Renunciation of the use of force for settling disputes;
Peaceful settlement of disputes
Non-intervention in internal affairs;
Respect for human rights;
Territorial integrity of states; and,
The inviolability of frontiers.
http://www.seerecon.org/region/sp/helsinki.htm

But it has no sence to continue this discussion.
As much as you do not like to apply to a modern day politics, I still have to admit, that Russia and the West have many disagreements on key subjects, such as: the Baltics, Kosovo, Iraq, all those "colour" revolutions and so on. Till now no side has real good prooves to convince another party.
Good luck!

P.S. In a fare world all those "international recognitions" worth nothing. The only thing that matters in this case is a free will of the nation. Which we cannot know, as no referendum or even statistics was left.
Probably the most important numbers here is that there were more Latvians with the Red Army, than with the Germans. I will find those numbers and give a link.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 27 Dec 2007 19:37

Tomusik -- You wrote:

(1)

David, I see you have an objection on everything I am trying to put as an argument.

That's because I don't think the argument is accurate.

(2) You also wrote:

Again, I will find some more prooves, like The Helsinki Final Act 1975:
In 1975, the CSCE process resulted in the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act. In this document, the participating states of the CSCE agreed to recognize their mutual interest in improving security through confidence building measures. The agreement laid down specific principles for the conduct of relations between states, including among others:

Respect for sovereignty;
Renunciation of the use of force for settling disputes;
Peaceful settlement of disputes
Non-intervention in internal affairs;
Respect for human rights;
Territorial integrity of states; and,
The inviolability of frontiers.
http://www.seerecon.org/region/sp/helsinki.htm

There is a link to the text of the Helsinki Accord here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 40#1052440

The text of the accord doesn't mention the Baltic republics generally or Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania specifically. The accord does make clear that none of the signatory nations intended to go to war to change the international boundaries existing in 1975.

(3) You concluded:

But it has no sence to continue this discussion.
As much as you do not like to apply to a modern day politics, I still have to admit, that Russia and the West have many disagreements on key subjects, such as: the Baltics, Kosovo, Iraq, all those "colour" revolutions and so on. Till now no side has real good prooves to convince another party.
Good luck!

I agree, and return your good wishes. Happy new year, too!

Peeter · Post by **Peeter** » 27 Dec 2007 20:42

Tomusik wrote: P.S. In a fare world all those "international recognitions" worth nothing. The only thing that matters in this case is a free will of the nation. Which we cannot know, as no referendum or even statistics was left.
Probably the most important numbers here is that there were more Latvians with the Red Army, than with the Germans. I will find those numbers and give a link.

Do you, as a Russian from the former SU, I assume, really believe that any fair referendum would be possible in Soviet Union?
The oly referendums were the summer war in 1941, the massive joining the German forces in 1944 to protect our borders and peoples fleeing to the west from liberators in September 1944.
See also:
http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?m ... =61&leht=1

http://www.einst.ee/factsheets/factshee ... 9_1987.htm

Tomusik · Post by **Tomusik** » 27 Dec 2007 21:17

Peeter wrote:
Tomusik wrote: P.S. In a fare world all those "international recognitions" worth nothing. The only thing that matters in this case is a free will of the nation. Which we cannot know, as no referendum or even statistics was left.
Probably the most important numbers here is that there were more Latvians with the Red Army, than with the Germans. I will find those numbers and give a link.
Do you, as a Russian from the former SU, I assume, really believe that any fair referendum would be possible in Soviet Union?
The oly referendums were the summer war in 1941, the massive joining the German forces in 1944 to protect our borders and peoples fleeing to the west from liberators in September 1944.
See also:
http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?m ... =61&leht=1

http://www.einst.ee/factsheets/factshee ... 9_1987.htm

I don't know about Estonians, but there were more Latvians in the Red Army, than with Germans. I am trying to find English language sources, but if not, I will link to the RUssian ones.
And do not forget about Latvian Armors (Latyshskie Strelki). They helped Lenin and Revolution a lot and had great support from population, workers and peasants. Plus, former Vitebskaja Gubernija - Latgalia - was populated with Latgals, Russians, Belorussians and suffered from Latvian Nationalism. That is why a lot of people were happy to join the Soviet Union.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 28 Dec 2007 00:29

I wonder why Jews were so happy to see Soviets in Latvia?

Because it meant that Latvia (in June 1940) would not come under German domination with resultant persecution of the Jews similar to that in force in Germany and countries under German influence, such as Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.

The hopes of the Jews of Latvia for safety from German persecution were to be dashed on 22 June 1941.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 28 Dec 2007 00:45

(d) The RFSR did not attempt to assert the claims of the Czar to all of the pre-revolutionary Czarist empire. If it had, there would not have been a Ukrainian SSR or a Belorussian SSR.

That is a bit of a quibble.

While the Bolshevik regime which seized power in Petrograd in November 1917 and proclaimed the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR) as the successor to the Russian Empire recognised the right of the non-Russian peoples to independence, its avowed aim was to establish Soviet governments for those peoples which would be allied to the Bolshevik regime in Russia and de facto under its control.

Thus the Bolshevik government of the RSFSR created the UkrainianSSR and the Belorussian SSR by imposing Soviet governments on the Ukrainian and Belorussian peoples by force, using the power of the Red Army (which officially was not the national army of the RSFSR but the armed force of the international proletariat) to crush the non-Bolshevik governments that had been set up in Ukraine and Belorussia. Although those two countries remained independent in theory, in fact the Bolshevik regimes in Khar'kov (capital of the Ukrainian SSR until 1936) and Minsk were under the orders of Moscow.

Similarly, the Bolshevik regime in Moscow, through the use of local Bolshevik agents, tried to create Soviet regimes in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania at the end of 1918, after the German surrender and the end of the German occupation of those regions. However, the attempt to create Soviet regimes was defeated by nationalist forces in those four countries.

Manweru · Post by **Manweru** » 28 Dec 2007 01:47

Tomusik wrote: 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.

Respected? By whom? Her past puts her credibility in doubt.

Soviet Union participated heavily in falsification, distortion and suppression of history***, and if Narochnitskaia was a historian who had such high position in the SU, then she probably had to sacrifice objectivity and fulfill political demands, and most likely she is now doing the same in the "post-Soviet" Putin's Russia - she's probably more a "historical propaganda specialist" than a "historian" in the normal sense of the word.

*** - good example would be the denial of the Katyn massacre, a denial so sophisticated that they have even used the village of Khatyn - a village with very similar name, to obfuscate the matter more.

M.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 28 Dec 2007 01:49

Manweru -- Please get back on the topic, which is "Latvia in WWII."

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 28 Dec 2007 14:34

Michael -- You wrote, after quoting me:

(d) The RFSR did not attempt to assert the claims of the Czar to all of the pre-revolutionary Czarist empire. If it had, there would not have been a Ukrainian SSR or a Belorussian SSR.

That is a bit of a quibble.

There is nothing to quibble about. Far from asserting any claims derived from the Czar, the 1918 constitution of the RFSR doesn't even mention him. Furthermore, the underlying territorial theory of the RFSR state is completely different from that of the pre-revolutionary Czarist empire. Contrast article 1 of the Russian fundamental laws of 1906:

1. The Russian State is one and indivisible....

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRus ... a/rfl.html

with this provision of the 1918 constitution of the RFSR:

Article 8. At the same time, endeavouring to create a genuinely free and voluntary, and therefore all the more firm and stable, union of the working classes of all the nations of Russia, the Third Congress of Soviets confines itself to promulgating the fundamental principles of a federation of Soviet republics of Russia, leaving it to the workers and peasants of each nation to decide independently at their own representative congresses of soviets whether they wish to participate in the federal government and in the other federal Soviet institutions, and on what terms.

1918 Constitution of the RFSR:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/rus ... ons01.html

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 28 Dec 2007 23:52

However, in the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the delegates of the Soviet Government claimed to represent all the territories of the Russian Empire previously ruled by the Tsar.

It was only as a result of the treaty that the Soviet Government recognised that certain territories, viz. Finland, Ukraine, Georgia, and what are now the Baltic States and the western part of Belarus, were no longer part of the sovereign territory of Russia. Furthermore, the Soviet Government resisted that recognition (since it claimed to represent the workers and peasants of thsoe territories), and only gave it under German pressure.

When the Soviet Government denounced the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk at the end of 1918, after the German surrender, it de facto re-established a claim to the territories it had ceded under the treaty. It sought to realise that claim through establishing Soviet governments in each of the territories concerned; in the case of Belorussia, Ukraine and Georgia it succeeded, in the case of Finland and the Baltic States it failed.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Pe ... st-Litovsk

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 29 Dec 2007 00:23

Michael -- That's interesting, but it has little to do with my statement:

The RFSR did not attempt to assert the claims of the Czar to all of the pre-revolutionary Czarist empire.

since the RFSR was formed in July 1918, four months after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918). No doubt the Soviet government would have liked to spread its revolutionary rule throughout the old Czarist empire and beyond, but in doing so it did not claim any territorial rights derived from the Czar's regime. Instead, we see claims like this:

Article 1. Russia is hereby proclaimed a Republic of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. All power, centrally and locally, is vested in these Soviets.

Article 2. The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the principle of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics.

* * * * *

Article 4. Expressing firm determination to wrest mankind from the clutches of finance capital and imperialism, which have in this most criminal of wars drenched the world in blood, the Third Congress of Soviets unreservedly endorses Soviet policy of denouncing the secret treaties, organizing most extensive fraternization with the workers and peasants of the combatant armies and achieving at all costs by revolutionary means a democratic peace for the working people, without annexations of indemnities, on the basis of free self-determination of nations.

* * * * *

Article 6. The Third Congress of Soviets supports the policy of the Council of People's Commissars which has proclaimed the complete independence of Finland, commenced the withdrawal of troops from Persia, and proclaimed freedom of self-determination for Armenia.

1918 Constitution of the RFSR:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/rus ... ons01.html

ampofo · Post by **ampofo** » 18 Jun 2008 10:39

Hi just found the website. pretty interesting. I was wondering if anyone can provide me with some information about a Latvian man who was involved in the war. His name is Albert (or alberts possibly) Geks. He was born c.1924 and ended up being conscripted into the German Army. He was held as a prisoner of war at the end of WWII but released and then traveled to England. I specifically am looking for information about which unit he may have been involved in. Sorry I dont know exactly where he's from in Latvia.

Thanks for any help (if anyone can :p ). I'm rather new to forums. can you tell?
ben, u.k.

jericho88 · Post by **jericho88** » 19 Oct 2009 01:19

Hi, I'm new to these boards too. Just wanted to say some things.

Tomusik wrote: 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.

Maybe they do not start cases because they think it would only be a waste of time. Technically, I can say that you are correct partially since Ulmanis was a dictator really. Yes, he wasn't Stalin or Hitler or even Mussolini (cause if you heavily critisized his regime, you got to spend some 4 months in a prison having a good meal, not had to work in some camp or got bullet in the head) but, nontheless, he wasn't elected. But the Soviet regime also wasn't elected. Yes, there were elections with the typical 97,8% who woted for the Soviets... 97,8%... and reported 95% participation in elections... What else can be added. And even if we assume that really 98% of Latvian citizens voted for Soviets, they took really stupid step after that. That Saeima (the Parliament) decided that the Republic of Latvia cease to exist and SSR of Latvia comes into place. But... Satversme (the Constitution) under which that Saeima operated clearly states that you can't change the status of the country without a referendum. So yeah, Ulmanis regime wasn't legal but this Soviet regime wasn't too.
It's funny how some pro-USSR politicians in Latvia do not know history and the Constitution of Latvia. They say that the regime was legitimate because there were elections (even if 95% attended those and 98% of people woted for the only list there was) and the Parliament was restored but they forget that the Parliament didn't have any rights given to it by the Constitution to make Latvia a part of the USSR.

Tomusik wrote: 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?

I don't know... Jeez, maybe it has something to do with the fact that Nazi Germany already rounded up Jews in Poland... Maybe because there were already concentration camps in Germany. Maybe because Jewish intellectuals had already fled Germany. Maybe they had read Mein Kampf.
Everyone knew that Germany will eventially march on the USSR... and Baltics will, as always, will be in the way. So Jewish people, of course, were feeling more enthusiastic and safer with a country with such a military power, not tiny Latvia.

AleksandrTristan3 · Post by **AleksandrTristan3** » 14 Apr 2010 06:13

Are there any documented quotes by Viktors Arājs ?

Axis History Forum

Latvia in WW2

Re: Latvia in WW2

Re:

Re: Latvia in WW2