my final post

In an earlier post, I asked my group the "independence" question, which essentially is, can our nations ever be truly independent from their previous occupiers? Both Mia and Laura responded respectively here and here. Mia concluded that no, Ireland can never truly be free from all ties with England, while Laura told a story about how it was easy for the French to take hold of Holland soon after they had just gained independence. However, she also concludes that maybe the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands wasn't such a bad thing after all. While I have been able to find connections between Latvia and Ireland (seen here) and even Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands (see here), I believe that Latvia differs greatly from the two other once occupied nations. Latvia still faces the threat of Russian occupation even today, while I believe that both the Netherlands and Ireland are pretty safe from this happening to them again by Spain and England respectively. Mia, in a response post, concludes that, in the present, animosity between Ireland and England has pretty much fizzled with only a small taste of bitterness on the tongues of the older generations. The bitter taste, though, is still very present and very strong on the tongues of many, if not all, Latvians. Even though there was hope towards the end of the soviet occupation over Latvia, which can be seen in the photographs I discuss here, much of that hope has turned into fear since Latvia gained its independence in 1991. We saw how much clout the Russians still had with the oil crisis and citizenship problem, discussed in one of my previous posts (which was already linked to in this post). It is clear that Latvia is no where near fully independent and must always be wary of another possible occupation. Not only is Russia a lot bigger and much more powerful than Latvia, but with the recent and rather large influx of Russian workers immigrating to Latvia to work, Latvia's dependency on such workers (since so many native Latvians have left over the last century), the Russians' tendency to remain very Russian, speaking only Russian and isolating themselves in strictly Russian neighborhoods even while living in Latvia, and the fact that Russians take up about 50% of the population, Latvia has a right to be very scared. These problems are outlined in this article published in the New York Times in 2006 titled Latvia Fears New ‘Occupation’ by Russians but Needs the Labor . From this article and from what we saw happen when Russia wanted Latvia to change its laws, it is obvious that Latvia's "independence" is only a relative term and that the days of Russian occupation could be far from over.

a documentary and a response to miss certo's question (or at least an attempt at a reponse)

Mia asked, "What exactly were the rules instated by the USSR in Latvia? How did this oppression contribute to animosity between Latvians and the USSR?" in her post here. I will attempt to answer your questions while also discussing a documentary I found titled "My Latvia", which can be viewed here: Part 1 and Part 2. This post is sort of related to the post in which I discussed how the soviets took control of Latvia. That post is a continuation of the post in which I briefly discuss most of Latvia's history.

This short film does a wonderful job in exposing the injustices, oppression, and awful treatment that the Latvians experienced while occupied by the soviets. At the very beginning of the film, the creator, Albert Jekste asks us to look at what happened to Latvia and see that it could happen to other nations and has happened to other nations. Thus, we know from the beginning that this film is meant to act as a cautionary tale and and expository piece, showing the atrocities that took place in Latvia.

When the introduction is over, we see Latvia when it was enjoying peaceful independence, which they gained in 1918. The people in the images look happy and all is serene. It is clear that the Latvians were proud of this independence, which can be seen in the fact that they had well-attended song festivals and the like during this period.

However, there is a clear difference in the tone of the film when it starts to explain what happened when the soviets started to take over in 1939. it discusses how the soviets violated many treaties and such. All of a sudden, the background music becomes very heavy and foreboding and images of military machines and the like appear. These new images of Latvia and the descriptions of what is happening are very reminiscent of Germany under Hitler. The narrator goes on to explain how the new Latvian the new Latvian delegate read a speech in Latvian that had been written in Moscow that was not understandable to the Latvians, but they clapped anyways when the names of the communist leaders were read because they had to.

Next comes pictures of men who had been in prison in Latvia who were given high positions in the new soviet government. These pictures (or, rather, mug shots) are effective as it is difficult to believe that these criminals were made government officials by the soviets. Then the topic of propaganda comes up. The narrator talks about how propaganda was used by the soviets to convince the Latvians that they were still free. Along with this, images of the soviet flag being made and hung in Latvia are shown along with images of people painting pictures of Stalin and his cronies, which were hung all over Latvia. He also goes on to discuss how the media was also completely taken over by the soviets as “Latvian movies made in Moscow replaced our own”, “Radio Riga was taken over”, and all the newspapers were given to and run by the soviets and Latvian communists. We then are shown clips from a play that was written for Latvian children that essentially tells them to support communism and its mission to take over the world (many new plays and books that were supposedly written by famous Latvians were trickling into Latvia in large numbers at this time). We also see images of the collective farms people were forced to join and of pieces of paper that have written on them the death sentences of Latvians who were sent off to Siberia to work camps and were killed there.

Possibly the most disturbing aspect of this film was when they began to discuss the deaths of Latvians caused by the soviets. This is when the real injustices and horror appears. We are shown images of a torture chamber in a basement in Riga that the soviets used to torture Latvians. Then we see the dug up bodies of people who had been killed in the torture chambers. Close ups of their faces appear on the screen. From these disturbing close ups, one can see that these people were beaten and mutilated quite severely. Then we receive some statistics. 15,000 bodies were found (they believe there were still more out there) in these secret mass graves the soviets had made with a total of 50,000 Latvian deaths caused by the soviets.

All in all, it is pretty obvious that the Latvians were treated awfully during this occupation. Their lives as Latvians ceased to exist. Not only were they forced to join communism, but they were treated like dogs while doing so. Mia, I hope this helps you understand more thoroughly why animosity between Latvians and the USSR existed/ still exists. I think a major point to remember is that all of this ended less than 20 years ago. These wounds are still fresh and the bitter taste still remains. It is no wonder that the Latvians were so intent on not granting Russian immigrants citizenship status. I know that the Ireland/England conflict is somewhat modern (as in happened in the 20th c.), so I wonder id animosity still exists in Ireland towards England. Do you know, Mia? Laura, you're conflict happened a very long time ago, so I'm not sure how this pertains to you, but maybe there is still some animosity. Do you know of any?

some photography

While poking around on the internet, I found this series of photographs called "One Day in Latvia". These are photographs mostly taken in the late 1980s as Latvia was gearing up and advocating for independence but still a part of the Soviet Union. What I first noticed in the photographs was their dismal nature. Everyone looked depressed as did the landscape and settings of the photos. But then I saw a hint of happiness and hope within the photos. For example, there is one where a bunch of people are smiling, and it looks as though they are getting ready for a show. There is another wonderful one where a woman and a horse are meeting heads. Even though these photographs show the effects of the Soviet occupation, the sense of hope and revolution that was in the Baltic states in the late 1980s is definitely present. I just thought this was interesting.

post-independence crack down

After gaining independence, Latvia decided to make it very difficult for all ethnic Russians who had immigrated to Latvia after 1940 to gain citizenship. To do this, they revoked these people's citizenship and then set strict laws that required a thorough knowledge of the Latvian language and history to gain citizenship. This effectively rendered a massive amount of Russians "stateless". As a response, the Russian government cut oil exports to Latvia, which had served as an export station for said oil. As Latvia had depended economically on these exports, this put a large amount of pressure on them to change their citizenship laws. The issue is discussed thoroughly here. Now, Latvia has some of the most liberal citizenship laws in the world, which is no doubt a consequence of them needing Russia to keep economic stability. I find it interesting that Latvia was so keen on putting its nose up at Russia and showing the strength of their independence, a privilege long awaited, only to have Russia show its strength right back and ultimately get there way. This just shows how dependent on Russia Latvia was and still is. Does this mean that they are truly independent? If it was that easy for the Russians to get their way in that dispute, what else can they get there way with? Again, the issue of Latvia being much smaller and ultimately defenseless towards the bigger Russia rears its ugly head. In a way, I don't think that Latvia will ever be able to be truly independent of Russia unless Russia itself splits into many smaller counties. I understand that the EU has an obligation to protect Latvia if Russia ever decided to get really nasty, but a part of me also believes that if Russia really wanted Latvia, they would get it and the EU wouldn't care enough to step in. Maybe if we were talking about France or Germany, they would, but not for Latvia.

Laura and Mia: Do you think that your respective countries have gained full and complete independence? Does Ireland still depend on England? Would they be able to do anything if England decided they wanted to occupy Ireland again? Laura, how long did it take for the Netherlands to get on their own two feet and get rid of all Spanish influence? How did they do so? I see more hope for both of your regions, but Latvia is in a very scary position and might be for some time.

another connection!

This time Latvia can be compared to the Spanish Netherlands! Who knew? In Laura's post, she talks about how there was a Protestant revolt against Spain in the Netherlands, which was possible because of Spain's weakening empire but was met, nonetheless, by a Spanish army and was somewhat successful. At first I thought, "Wow, people would never have been so brave in Latvia under soviet rule to act in such a way as the Dutch", but, after some research into the matter, it turns out that a very similar situation occurred in Latvia. This source outlines this very well. Essentially what happened was that Germany finally became free of soviet rule completely thus influencing other nations under soviet rule, including the Baltic states, to make moves towards independence by following reformist leaders. However, the soviet union, not wanting to lose control completely, sent in troops to quell these rebellions, if you will, and were also somewhat successful. However, it was clear that these nations wanted independence and once the USSR collapsed due to internal conflicts and an inability to control all occupied nations, the Latvians did gain their independence and immediately instituted reforms.

I see another connection between Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands in the way they gained their independence. Neither of them really caused their own independence, though both sides fought for it and desperately wanted it. Rather, it was the weakening of the empires that occupied these two countries that allowed them to gain independence. This is kind of a scary position to be in because who is to stop from going into these small, defenseless nations now and just take over them? America gained independence because it proved to be stronger than the opposition, but such is not the case for Latvia or the Spanish Netherlands. These countries, although protected now in many ways, are thus ideal to be occupied by bigger powers, which is probably why they were occupied in the first place. I know that Latvia still lives in fear of another Russian occupation (more on that later), and I don't think that the EU would really do anything to help Latvia if Russia decided to come in. That is the downside of an independence gained in the way it was with Latvia: the constant fear that the same thing can happen again.

I ask Mia, why did Ireland finally gain independence? (If you have already addressed this, my apologies. Link me?)

a connection!

After reading Mia's post about the Irish fleeing to America during the potato famine and then the injustices of the courts in Ireland against Catholics, I realized many parallels to my previous post. In rough times, there seems to be a trend that when things get bad in the mother land, people go to North America and set up communities there. Also, during occupation, the originally Catholic Irish were treated poorly much like the Latvians were treated poorly by the Russians. However, the potato famine was not created by the British, which means that the Irish left the homeland due to a natural disaster, if I may call it that, rather than because of their oppression by the British. In the case of the Latvians, people left because they did not want to have to deal with the oppression of the soviet regime. I thus wonder, was there at all a trend in in Ireland in which people left because of the way they were treated by their occupying nation?

American Latvians

I found these two accounts of people who had grown up in America with Latvian heritage. The first one, written by a woman, recounts the story of when she first visited Latvia during Soviet reign in 1977. Although the story winds up being about the power of family and meeting all of her relatives for the first time, she begins by discussing how awfully repressed everyday life was for the Latvians during this time. She talks about how she had to stay in a hotel because it was illegal for her to stay with her relatives, how her hotel room was bugged, how, even though she unplugged her only-Russian speaking radio, it was always plugged back in when she returned, how she was not allowed to play a Latvian song on the piano because of who might be listening, and how her and her grandmother had to fill out a ton of paperwork just to travel to a different city within Latvia. She also talks about the water being of sewer-quality and having cockroaches in her room. This was life in Latvia under the USSR. Even though freedom has finally come to Latvia, the sanitary problems brought on by Russia's ignorance of poor treatment of the country still exist. My grandparents and parents tell me that I would not be able to survive in Latvia if I were to go because of the sewage problems it faces. It is obvious that what happened during the soviet rule did not necessarily end with independence. As is often the case, once Latvia was freed, it still had to and still does have to deal with the issues left over from the time when it was occupied.

The second story is written by a man who only got to go to Latvia for the first time when it gained independence in 1991. His family had never expected freedom for Latvia, so when it came, he was eager to go to the country he had learned so much about. I vaguely remember when my grandparents went back for the first time since independence. I believe it was in 1992. They were able to regain property that had been in the family before soviet occupation yet were, like the woman of the first entry, disgusted by the state of Latvia. They, like these Americans (although my grandparents immigrated to Canada rather than America), were part of a huge movement of people who escaped Latvia before the really rough years came and were not allowed back until independence. Having been in it myself, I have come to understand that the Latvians have formed a very tight knit community throughout North America. Since they were not allowed back to Latvia, they created these societies in North America to feel more at home. Ironically, these societies are fairly repressive as it is expected that you marry another Latvian, make sure all the children speak Latvian as their first language, and carry on as many Latvian traditions as possible. Also, these groups are so tight-knit that everyone knows everyone from all over North America. For example, the Latvians in San Francisco know the people in the Latvian communities in Chicago and Toronto. What was very interesting to me, as I read those accounts that I linked to, was that I could relate those experiences back to those of my father and myself. Many Latvians experienced the same hardships and thus chose to band together even when away from Latvia.

I have two questions or prompts for the other members of my group. One would be, was life as bad for the people you are researching under occupation as it was for the Latvians? What were conditions like? What were some of the problems that existed after independence was achieved? And then, did any of these people try to escape their home country while it was occupied? If so, did they also form tight knit communities in whatever place they immigrated to like the Latvians?