For Russia a good move would be for Putin to declare with great fanfare, that it returns the six parishes to Latvia.

With the present demographic situation in those parishes, there is a good posibility that Latvia would say, thanks but no thanks. For one thing, the return would strenghten the stand of those who clamor for Latvia to be declared a bilingual, russian and latvian language, state.

I wonder what is the stand of the “russian speaking” press in Latvia on the question of Abrene?

Visu labu,

>For Russia a good move would be for
>Putin to declare with great fanfare,
>that it returns the six parishes to
>Latvia.
>
>With the present demographic situation
>in those parishes, there is a good
>posibility that Latvia would say, thanks
>but no thanks. For one thing, the return
>would strenghten the stand of those who
>clamor for Latvia to be declared a
>bilingual, russian and latvian language,
>state.
>
>I wonder what is the stand of the
>“russian speaking” press in
>Latvia on the question of Abrene?
>
>Visu labu,

 

 

pete

The current demographic situation is such that the poet and journalist Egīls Zirnis not only couldn’t find a person who spoke Latvian—he seemingly had trouble finding anybody who knew it was ever part of Latvia.

Nobody wants to open the kettle of worms or can of fish (thanks, Robert, for pointing out my faux pas) that are the borders of Europe, and that’s perfectly understandable. In the case of Lithuania, Roberts is not so far off target—unlike Latvia and Estonia, Lithuania gained and ethnically cleansed territory due to the Soviets. That this was “historically” Lithuanian territory is one thing (bearing in mind that the administrative language of “historical” Lithuania was Belarusian…)—that most of the people in that territory did not want to be part of Lithuania is another. That Lithuania has engaged in Lithuanization that curdles the mind, and has done so ever since Lithuania (and I do not mean the GDL or the Rzeczpospolita but the Respublika) came about, is what Roberts is trying to draw Vidas’ attention to. 

A lot of countries have lost or gained a lot of territories (check out Kaliningrad, or Silesia!), and Abrene is only sacred to people on the far right, methinks—and, of course, to the Letts from Abrene (not a few of whom weren’t actually _from_ there, by the way—Latvia did a bit of Latvianization…), who are the ones who actually know something about it… but last I checked, when they held forth most eloquently on Domburs’ show, even they said they don’t want it back at the moment.

The territory isn’t really the issue—the issue is whether this border treaty will affect our continuity, the which principle, in Latvia, isn’t taken lightly. The people arguing about Abrene being historically Latvian, when they invoke ethnicity and toponyms, may as well argue for the return of Piemaskava to the ancient Balts. When they argue about the 1920 treaty, that’s a different platter of sprats. That makes a lot more sense, and it is helpful to separate bizarre demands from rational ones—I mean, if one wants recognition of the occupation, stop whining about compensation. Ain’t gonna get none, and, in my opinion, historically—don’t really deserve none.

Unless one is a fanatic who divorced reality long ago, one should realize that there is no way in hell Russia will give up Pytalovo. The attitude in Europe, which is where we are, is—get over it. The attitude in Latvia is who the f cares. The latter attitude is rather widespread in the borderland, too, among people who actually live in places affected by where the border is.

If the agreement does not affect continuity, and does not require us to reject historical truth—I say, go for it! Then we can look to the future. It won’t be pretty, probably. But the types of people who scream “Abrene was 55% Latvian!” are almost as bad as the most insane of Russian chauvinists. They’re the same people who can’t handle the fact that Latvia is not a tribal entity these days, wasn’t when it came into being, and wouldn’t survive if it was.

Abrene (and I mean that part of Abrene annexed to Russia, illegally and by force) only became a part of Latvia due to strategic considerations. Maybe we have strategic considerations these days, too? Fighting a losing fight over territory nobody wants just ain’t too strategic—I feel sorry for the abrenieši, but listening to Letts comfortably ensconced in southern Illinois diss people hoping to do business in Russia could be a bit too much?

Vysu lobu,
/P

http://www.newspapers24.com/languages/russian-newspapers-in-latvia/index.html

pete

>In the case of
>Lithuania, Roberts is not so far off
>target—unlike Latvia and Estonia,
>Lithuania gained and ethnically cleansed
>territory due to the Soviets. That this
>was “historically” Lithuanian
>territory is one thing (bearing in mind
>that the administrative language of
>“historical” Lithuania was
>Belarusian…)—that most of the
>people in that territory did not want to
>be part of Lithuania is another. That
>Lithuania has engaged in Lithuanization
>that curdles the mind, and has done so
>ever since Lithuania (and I do not mean
>the GDL or the Rzeczpospolita but the
>Respublika) came about, is what Roberts
>is trying to draw Vidas’ attention to.

I’m not going to open this can of worms -again- as your judgement of the events and factors involved have been decidedly narrow.

If you and Roberts/Auseklis/Edigu or whatever he’ll pop up next as want to join up and petition the various Councils of Europe and International Courts to reverse all previous judgement that Vilnius is historically and legally part of the sovereign nation of Lithuania - you go right ahead.

But your wanting to tilt with that windmill while at the same time dismissing those who ask for a resolution to the Abrene question - then I’m afraid your position above can only at best be described as disingenuous.

Vidas

I didn’t know that there were any latvians
residing in Fort Du Rocher, PC…....

pete

Vidas wrote:

I’m not going to open this can of worms -again- as your judgement of the events and factors involved have been decidedly narrow.

How so? Please explain.

My sympathy is “naturally” with the Lithuanians, and I have plenty of things to compare the situations to, since I live in an area that is not “Latvian”—I have no trouble at all understanding “national” arguments, and I’m a nationalist. I’ve quoted Stranga’s well-researched arguments to you before, though, and I am sure you can find many Lithuanian scholars who would share my “narrow” view about the Lithuanization policies. What were the results of the free vote in 1922 in Vilnius, Vidai? What were they even if you weight them to subtract those who didn’t vote?

Viso gero,
/P

>How so? Please explain.

Because youre picking and choosing certain points of history to make moral judgement while ignoring or at least not bringing up other salient contributing events.

April 20, 1919 the Polish Army occupies Vilnius after forcing out the Red Army. This created a conflict with fledgling Lithuania to the point where Western powers were brought in and created a demarcation between the two forces. In 1920, Lithuania signed a treaty with the USSR that establsihed Vilnius as Lithuanian. On September 5th, Lithuania signed an armistice with Poland that left Vilnius under Lithuanian control - supported by the decisions of the League of Nations and the Paris Peace Conference. Two days later Polands army invaded and occupied Vilnius and much of the Vilnius region by force and created a new country of Central Lithuania.

No moralizing about Polands chosen means to conflict resolution Peteri ? Those were toy tanks and guns they were using ?

>What were the
>results of the free vote in 1922 in
>Vilnius, Vidai? What were they even if
>you weight them to subtract those who
>didn’t vote?

Free vote Peteri ? Like the one Latvia took when it “joined” the Soviet Union ?

Tell me it doesnt take a great mind to consider that a vote under occupation is likely a vote under duress ? By the way - what language was the ballot printed in ? What language did you need to speak to go through the voter registration process ? Were the people in the polling places armed ? Who’s uniform did they wear ?

Free vote ! Absolutely ! Imagine how “free votes” like this would redraw borders today - if youre in fact arguing that legal boundaries are to be best defined by referendum put to its current occupants only. Demographics change over time. Is only one snapshot in time the appropriate one ?

Treaties ? Decisions of multinational bodies created for non violent conflict resolution ? Eff’em all ! Who needs that boring diplomatic crap when someone has a bigger army and can occupy first - and build justification later. Is that how it should work Peteri ? Sweet !

Vidas

Paldies, Peteri B. for all the info!

I just finished watching the Janis Domburs’ show on TV.LV (which is almost a week old by now) re: this border deal.  Though I’ve not drawn any hard, fast conclusions, I must say, that watching this Pliners posturing and pushing for this treaty to be signed, sealed and delivered(who cares about any ‘deklaracija’) really made me suspect, made my skin crawl!  But, I guess there are economics, business at stake, to take into consideration…

Irena

PS This is both an interesting and important topic and I hope that people’s differences won’t be a disruptive force to the continuity of this thread.  With all due respect to all our participants.

Pēteris wrote:
>
>My sympathy is “naturally”
>with the Lithuanians, and I have plenty
>of things to compare the situations to,
>since I live in an area that is not
>“Latvian”—I have no trouble
>at all understanding
>“national” arguments, and I’m
>a nationalist.

If you were a history buff, Pēteri, what would you make of the designs that the Lithuanians had on the place where you dwell?

Back in January 1920 the Latvian Army was busy trying to drive the Soviet 15th Army out of Latgale.  A daunting task, but Latvia got much help from Polish Army, headed by Group Commander General Edward Rydz-Smigly.  The Poles had recently defeated the Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic a Soviet Republic that existed within the territories of modern Belarus and what is now considered to be eastern Lithuania.  To prevent the Red Menace from threatening the area, the Poles kept up the fight, with the backing of the Entente countries. 

At the beginning of 1920, the Latvian Armed forces were spread dangerously thin, and deployed not only in Abrene and Rēzekne, but also dispatched to liberate Daugavpils as well.  As the combined Latvian and Polish Armies engaged the Soviets, a force of Lithuanian soldiers dispatched by the Kovno government launched a sneak attack against Latvia!  On the night from 2 to 3 January the treacherous Lithuanians crossed the Daugava, fired on local defenders and occupied Līksna.  On 6 January, Lithuanian Army Commander-in-Chief P. Latuks from Kovno informed their military representative in Riga that Lithuanian units were occupying a small area from Augšgulāni along the railway north.  To meet this unexpected threat, the Allied Latvian-Polish forces were forced to divert men and resources from the fight against the Soviets.  They engaged the Lithuanian threat at Mežciems, and dispatched the bastards back across the river and into the hinterlands from whence they sprung.

see: http://www.sargs.lv/eng/history.html

If Latvia did not have the help of an ally such as Poland, the Lithuanians would no doubt have designs on sizable chunks of Latgale.  As fate would have it, the Lithuanians were put in their place, Latvia managed to drive the Soviets back into Russia, and Poland was able to recapture a sizable portion of the territories of its former commonwealth that Russia had usurped during previous “partitions.”

>I’ve quoted Stranga’s
>well-researched arguments to you before,
>though, and I am sure you can find many
>Lithuanian scholars who would share my
>“narrow” view about the
>Lithuanization policies. What were the
>results of the free vote in 1922 in
>Vilnius, Vidai? What were they even if
>you weight them to subtract those who
>didn’t vote?

Can’t tell you much about the free vote of 1922 that you don’t already know, but did you know that on September 24 1917 the Lietuvos Taryba (Lithuanian Taliban) voted the fleet-of-foot Antanas Smetona to be their Fearless Leader?  On June 4 1918 those same Vilna Voters elected Wilhelm Karl Florestan Gero Crescentius, Duke of Urach, Count of Württemberg to be their King, Mindaugas II.  That turned out pretty well.

One could say that after a failed Lithuanian tryst at feudalism, and then a romance with communism (remember Vidas Mickevičius-Kapsukas, anyone?) the people of that region embraced and rejoiced in the democracy that Józef Piłsudski provided.

When the Soviets finally pressed for peace, agreements with Estonia (February 2, 1920) and Latvia (August 11, 1920) followed.  These treaties spelled out the borders between the modern states.  The same Soviet negotiator who concluded the accords with Latvia and Estonia, Adolph Joffe, sat down with his Polish counterpart Jan Dąbski in Riga in September 1920.  On March 18 1921, the treaty known as the “Peace of Riga” was signed and all civilised nations in the area had just and well-defined boundaries.  It’s a real crime that the nation that acted the most deplorably during the wars of liberation ended up with the most spoils after the fall of the Iron Curtain.
>
>Viso gero,
>/P

and a viso Florestan Gero Crescentius to you, too!

/Edigu

Labas rytas!

I think we all know that Roberts is trying to get your goat, Vidai. Let’s all chill. “Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya…”

Robert—moi, a history buff? F history! Hobsbawm said: “Historians are to nationalism what poppy-growers in Pakistan are to heroin addicts: we supply the essential raw material for the market.”

There’s a recent thread re Latvian-Lithuanian border issues at soc.culture.baltics, with a link to this very interesting article on the Latvian occupation of the Palanga area and the Lithuanian occupation of part of Selonia—

http://www.republika.lv/?id=article&nid=343 (in Latvian)

I am sure Roberts will enjoy translating some of the passages in there for you, Vidai! {grin}

Some scattered musings—

Vidai, I’m not trying to provide an overview of the entire Polish-Lithuanian Vilnius-Wilno conflict, which one can find at the relevant articles in Wikipedia, complete with good references… I’m merely emphasizing some aspects, not in an attempt to be nefariously selective but to focus on those aspects that relate to some of the issues we face today, from Tālava to Kurdistan.

Tom Donahue’s summary of Paul Gilbert’s survey of the answers to Renan’s question, “What is a nation?” distills these concepts—

nominalist (“a nation is whatever a group of people who consider themselves a nation say it is”), naturalist (“a nation is a group of people whose grouping is given by nature”), voluntarist (“a nation is a group of people bound by a commonly-willed union”), territorial (“a nation is a group of people attached to a specific territory”), linguistic (“a nation is a group of people who share a common language”), axiological (“a nation is a group of people who share distinctive values”), and destinarian (“a nation is a group of people who have a common history and a common mission”)

It’s interesting to meditate on which of these concepts are or are not operating when and how among Baltic nationalists… 

In Lituanus, Gary Hartman cites Leonas Sabaliūnas to say: Lithuania’s leader, Antanas Smetona, advocated a well-organized national movement to promote solidarity and an appreciation for Lithuanian tradition. In the rush toward nationalism, these patriotic endeavors sometimes resulted in overzealous government-sponsored programs bordering on totalitarianism, as when nationalistic indoctrination became policy within the Lithuanian public school system.

I ain’t tryin’ to bash Lithuania in particular (anti-Lithuanian jihadista that I am {grin})—Latvia did this sort of stuff, too, during Ulmanis’ dictatorship. In fact, this sort of stuff happened all over Eastern Europe (and elsewhere). Still happens, in fact.

One of the most, er, difficult concepts in Gilbert’s list is the naturalist one, obviously. One recalls our friend Little Smoke’s images of the Latvian nation-state flowing like the destinarian Daugava, etc.—well, the Dvina flows just as gently. Think of some of the worst workings of some of these concepts—e.g., the “this land was given to us by G-d” basis for Israel is problematic, obviously (just as the “this land was given to us by Allah” concept is, esp. as the latter is pretty funky with the territorial concept; Hagia Sophia must forever be a mosque…). What I am trying to underscore is that each of these concepts has many facets, not even just two sides to a coin, and that most nationalism is a mixture of a few of them.

Moralizing? Well, coins whirl, and I find it really hard to reduce the whirling sphere to good or evil. Latvia and Lithuania did a great job creating the nation-states that crowned our nationalism (and unlike Roberts, I think the EU is yet a better flower than the Republics were…). Great job that constructed rather idealistic but apparently not very practicable mechanisms that didn’t last very long and had a lot of dark corners. Again, this tends to happen in fresh nation-states. 

One of the big differences between Latvia and Lithuania is Lithuania’s previous existence. I am quite convinced, however, that modern Lithuania (whether in 1920 or now) has almost nothing to do with the Grand Duchy or the Rzeczpospolita.
 
Re a free vote being impossible during an occupation—that’s not so black-and-white, in my opinion. Heck, the Lithuanian SSR held a plebiscite on independence in February 1991, the Latvian SSR in March. We also elected the Supreme Soviets that declared the restoration of our sovereignty whilst we were under occupation.

My point was pretty simple, and so far you refuse to address it, Vidai—how many “Lithuanians” were there in Vilnius ca. 1920, as a percentage of the population? What does that mean? Open question. I’m not trying to get your goat. Watch that goat!

Geriausio,
/P

Profesors Kirhenšteins grapples with Dear Old Vidas’s goat on the topic of democracy:

>Re a free vote being impossible during
>an occupation—that’s not so
>black-and-white, in my opinion.

Of course not! There’s also 3JTTM cum FTLS (Father Time in a Limited Sense) at work during an occupation as much ar during a non-occupation. Am I right, or am I right? Say, BTW, do you know what is black and white and red all over?

Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic}, let’s all chill with due respect to all our participants {sic}

My point was pretty simple, and so far you refuse to address it, Vidai—how many “Lithuanians” were there in Vilnius ca. 1920, as a percentage of the population? What does that mean? Open question. I’m not trying to get your goat. Watch that goat!

Geriausio,
/P
Some sources cite 90% polski, but
they must be counting all polish speakers.
Maybe not…........
Or maybe goats spoke polish too…..LOL

pete

>Labas rytas!
>
>I think we all know that Roberts is
>trying to get your goat, Vidai. Let’s
>all chill. “Kumbaya, my Lord,
>kumbaya…”

Roberts doesn’t mean anything to me at all. He’s entertainment until the next time he hits his self destruct button and gets booted again.

I know he’s trying to create direct conflict – that’s fine. At this point does anyone think I care what particular demon possesses him ?

It’s when you come in and validate his bile. You of all people should know better. He’s not my baggage.

>Vidai, I’m not trying to provide an
>overview of the entire Polish-Lithuanian
>Vilnius-Wilno conflict, which one can
>find at the relevant articles in
>Wikipedia, complete with good
>references… I’m merely emphasizing
>some aspects, not in an attempt to be
>nefariously selective but to focus on
>those aspects that relate to some of the
>issues we face today, from Tālava to
>Kurdistan.

When you provide comment that says:

“Lithuania gained and ethnically cleansed territory due to the Soviets. That this was “historically” Lithuanian territory is one thing (bearing in mind that the administrative language of “historical” Lithuania was Belarusian…)—that most of the people in that territory did not want to be part of Lithuania is another. That Lithuania has engaged in Lithuanization that curdles the mind…”

And do so without context – you are doing that history a disservice. Vilnius was transerred back to Lithuania by the Soviets in 1939 – as being consistant with the existing legal treaty of 1920. The Soviet Union had designated the Vilnius region to be Lithuanian in 1920 (accepted internationally) and was returning it to Lithuania from Polish military occupation per previous legal treaty. Read “Atsimenimai” by Juozas Urbsys for very detailed background on the agreement.

You also fail to mention that the return of Vilnius was tied to Lithuanias forced agreement to accept Red Army soldiers onto its sovereign territory. In fact, Lithuanian administration of Vilnius only lasted six months – and that’s if you don’t consider the Red Army’s presence to be a point of influence on the politics of the place. The Soviets werent exactly playing nice-nice with Poland at the time. WW2 had already started at that point – who exactly wasn’t beating on whom ? This isnt an excuse but the status of Vilnius was a point of dispute in the region and regretable acts happen during wartime.

>
>It’s interesting to meditate on which of
>these concepts are or are not operating
>when and how among Baltic
>nationalists… 

Lithuania and Latvia are nations comprised of legally established borders. If the legal process isnt respected – ultimately violated by use of force – then the consequences of that action and the decision to take that action lies with the agressor.

Your living in Daugavpils and calling the Polish post invasion plebiscite in Vilnius city proper only (even though Poland occupied the Vilnius region also and no plebiscite was taken there) a “free vote” is obsurd.

>
>In Lituanus, Gary Hartman cites
>Leonas Sabaliūnas to say:
>Lithuania’s leader, Antanas Smetona,
>advocated a well-organized national
>movement to promote solidarity and an
>appreciation for Lithuanian tradition.
>In the rush toward nationalism, these
>patriotic endeavors sometimes resulted
>in overzealous government-sponsored
>programs bordering on totalitarianism,
>as when nationalistic indoctrination
>became policy within the Lithuanian
>public school system.

You know very well that I am not a defender of Smetona. He banned opposition political parties and the Boy Scouts among others.

What he was trying to do was cement the notion of Lithuania as a legally defined nation based on language and legal borders – something that 3 of its neighbors were trying to actively destroy during the interwar years.

>
>I ain’t tryin’ to bash Lithuania in
>particular (anti-Lithuanian jihadista
>that I am {grin})—Latvia did this
>sort of stuff, too, during Ulmanis’
>dictatorship. In fact, this sort of
>stuff happened all over Eastern Europe
>(and elsewhere). Still happens, in
>fact.

Well, that’s my point. It did happen all over eastern Europe. For you to single out Lithuania as “ethnic cleansers” without context is not a responsible way to describe the situation at the time.

>One of the big differences between
>Latvia and Lithuania is Lithuania’s
>previous existence. I am quite
>convinced, however, that modern
>Lithuania (whether in 1920 or now) has
>almost nothing to do with the
>Grand Duchy or the Rzeczpospolita.

Go tell the Poles.

> 
>Re a free vote being impossible during
>an occupation—that’s not so
>black-and-white, in my opinion. Heck,
>the Lithuanian SSR held a plebiscite on
>independence in February 1991, the
>Latvian SSR in March. We also elected
>the Supreme Soviets that declared the
>restoration of our sovereignty whilst we
>were under occupation.

Only because the Soviet Union was too weak itself to apply the necessary political and military pressure. We were able to create momentum in 1988-1990 that wasn’t available or conceivable during the interwar period. To be perfectly honest – and possibly to Pons Zagarins’ glee – I don’t think there’s ever been a “free” election in the Baltics ever. Even today the elections are managed and do not represent the free will of the electorate. Elections are called to create or maintain political advantage.

>
>My point was pretty simple, and so far
>you refuse to address it, Vidai—how
>many “Lithuanians” were there
>in Vilnius ca. 1920, as a percentage of
>the population? What does that mean?
>Open question. I’m not trying to get
>your goat. Watch that goat!
>

Vilnius City was 75%+ Polish in language. Vilnius region was not. Only the residents of Vilnius City were polled.  The occupant Poles used language as the determining factor – given that the printing of publications and teaching the Lithuanian language was outlawed in previous decades as you well know. Even though Lithuania proper was part of the Russian empire – the de facto language spoken was Polish as much of the administration was Polish. The plebiscite didn’t ask where you were born. How does Latvia today recognise its historical figures pre 1918 ? Were they Russian ? Were they Poles prior to 1918 even though there was no Poland since 1795 ? Were they descendents of German barons ? I’m guessing you’d say no – so why do you hold Lithuania to a different standard ?

I’m trying to respect Irenas point in that Abrene is an important question. I certainly have no opinion there – but when Bobciks wraps himself in the Latvian flag and decries the tragedy of Abrene but at the same time wants to invalidate those same rights to historical boundaries in the case of Lithuania – then I have to say that he is a nationalist in the hypocritical self serving sense and I cant ever imagine associating with or acknowledging that kind of poison. The constructive content of his argument is zero.

If you want to discuss this some more Peteri, then lets take this offline.

Vidas

Abrene is officially Latvian as per 1923 and as such should have been returned to Latvia.on the restoration of sovereignty..
Many Latvians have suffered and died in the struggle for independence, Karlis Ulmanis being one, and the reason we can now visit, and indeed live in a free country is thanks to them.
I don’t believe that” Latvians “living on the border don’t care that Abrene is in russian hands.

Ireland will never give up on its territory occupied by the British, Latvia should take note! Abrene should be used as a lever, a thorn, a stone in the boot of the Russians as they stumble towards decency, The only reason David and Goliath is of any interest is because David wins, it does happen occasionally, but it takes courage, which past generations of Latvians had, I hope the new Latvia has enough courage to stand up to its bullying neighbour.
As for “whining for compensation” comment, If Russia paid its debts for crimes against humanity in a monetary fashion then it would be bankrupt. Why do you think Latvians shouldn’t be entitled to compensation ?…