Talk:History of Latvia

Neutrality
Sections of the article that deal with post-1939 period have clear anti-Soviet bias. Authors do their best to demean Soviet Union and all its actions towards Latvia. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is referred to as "unlawful" (?!) Admission of Baltic republics into Soviet Union is called "occupation"; it's improper to use this word: how could there be an occupation if there was no war between Soviet Union and Latvia? 'Annexation' would be more accurate here.

There's an article on Occupation of Baltic Republics, but only one paragraph in it is relevant to the events of summer of 1940, and the use of the word 'occupation' is totally unjustified. I've attempted to expand a little bit on the subject, but I got reverted. --Itinerant1 07:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you know what are you talking about. It can't be "lawful" when two powers divide between them small nations such as the Baltics at the beginning of WWII. And you probably don't know what it means to live in an occupied country for 50 years. Before the WWII, Latvia was economicaly as strong as Sweden or Denmark, but after regaining the independence we had absolutely nothing. We were set back by 50 years, not to speak of the partial loss of our culture and deportation of tens of thousands of people, mostly the intelligentsia. The regime of the Soviets has been compared to that of the NAZIS in Germany, so one should think twice before supporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhalanay (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was most definitely unlawful, violating international law and the treaties that Soviet Russia and the USSR had concluded with Latvia. Giving a country an ultimatum when troops are massed on the borders (and already in the country, as a result of the "mutual assistance" treaty imposed on Latvia previously), then overrunning the country with troops (ca. half a million Soviet troops occupied the Baltic states -- countries that had a combined population of about six million) and holding rigged elections in violation of the laws of that country is called occupation. No war is necessary for an occupation; Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia without a war as well -- rape is rape. In fact, one can look at what Pravda wrote regarding the seizure of Austria in its April 11, 1938 edition -- exactly what that Soviet organ complained of in Austria took place in Latvia two years later under the Soviets: mass arrests, a demagogic campaign, etc. As Pravda commented: "To occupy militarily a country, impose a satrap viceroy, police and gendarmery, introduce an occupation army 300,000 men strong, and then arrange for 'a free declaration of will'... is indeed a most ignominious comedy." Pravda expressed similar sentiments regarding the Italian occupation of Albania. (See Albert N. Tarulis, Soviet Policy Toward the Baltic States 1918-1940. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959.) The annexation of the Baltic states was completely illegal; for example, the Latvian constitution requires a referendum to be held for changes in the structure of the state or changes to Latvian sovereignty. No such referendum was held. -- P&#275;teris Cedri&#326;š (cedrins@gmail.com) 12:46, 20 June 2005 (UTC)


 * The Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was illegal and unlawful according to both the laws of the three Baltic States, as well as international law. For example; the so-called "elections" held just before the annexation were rigged and anything but free or fair. The Latvian Occupation Museum in Riga has an excellent display about this issue. The occupation and annexation was no more legal than Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. That's why almost all West European nations didn't recognize the Soviet aggression. In fact, the Soviet occupation of Estonia was a key factor in President John F. Kennedy's anti-Communist views. He was in Estonia's capital Tallinn, when the Soviet Union occupied the city.


 * Again, the Occupation Museum is excellent. If you come to Riga, don't miss it. --Valentinian 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as i can see the dispute about the Soviet occupation is solved and the neutrality dispute tag can be removed. Robert 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this is the "in depth" back-up article to the history summary on the Latvia page, it seems there should be some clarification of occupation. While the Baltic pacts of mutual assistance were entered into under threat of force (as was demonstrated by the Soviet attack on the Finns, who turned down such a pact, and by Stalin's own words), those pacts were, nevertheless, legal. One could even argue that under the terms of those mutual assistance pacts, the Soviet Union was within its rights to invade Latvia and the Baltics in order to protect its interests, having interpreted acts of the Baltics as violating the terms of the pacts. What was illegal was the petitioniong by the Saeima (puppet government notwithstanding) to join the Soviet Union. That act directly violated the Latvian Constitution, which was still in effect. Accordingly, there was no legal constitutional basis for incorporation, making the Soviet presence on Latvian soil subsequent to the August 5, 1940 "incorporation" illegal, and therefore a forcible occupation. That also made any subsequent border adjustments affecting the sovreign territory of Latvia (Abrene annexation)--indeed, any and all actions by the Soviet government--illegal. Peters 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My father often says: "The Soviet Union just wanted PEACE: a piece of Latvia, a piece of China, a piece of Finnland, a piece of Poland, a piece of Denmark.... The Soviet Union just wanted PieCE! Although it is preferred to write "factual information" without bias, a powerful opressing dictatorship, such as the Soviet Union does not warrant defence against "anti-Soviet bias".

Nonetheless let us keep to the facts. Webster's Concise English Dictionary: Occupy "(c)to take posession and remain in control of". If you take Poland for example: While Poland's eastern territories are referred to as "annexed by the Soviet Union" and the western territories as "occupied by Nazi Germany" one is compelled to ask why a military annexation from the east with the pretense of protecting peoples of Soviet ethnic groups is not considered an occupation, whereas Nazi Germany who also entered by military force, was "occupying Poland". (The answer would be: the winners always write the history books. Stalin remained the hero, Hitler the evil dictator.) If one were to compare the Soviet Annexation of Poland to that of the eastern territories of Finland the main difference would be that Finland concentrated their military force in the east to defend their border from the Soviet Union, and remained independent dispite losing territory to the Soviet Union, whereas Poland had already been invaded from the west by Nazi Germany, as preagreed upon in the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and gave the Soviet soldiers entering a "non-existent" nation from the east very little resistance. In conclusion, according to your argument, if a nation surrenders to military force and a mutual, is it therefore neither occupied nor annexed. According to the simplified Webster's Dictionary definition of the verb to occupy, Latvia was occupied, i.e. taken posession of, and remained in the control of the Soviet Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

On Yalta
There is no mention of the Yalta Agreement anywhere in this article. It is significant matter in the recorded history of LATVIA post 1945 that requires mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.231.231 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Role in World War II & the Holocaust
Latvia's responsibility for its actions in World War II and the Holocaust have largely been ignored or muted in favor of arguments against the policies of the Soviet Union. I have noticed in many articles (not to mention the media) about Latvia its participation is rarely mentioned, as with the other Baltic States. However, that being said this Arcticle History of Latvia touches more on the topic than similar articles for the other two Baltic countries (that is until it is edited partially out, as has happened in the past). --RPlunk 00:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been adding information on various Eastern European countries in the Holocaust, so I would be interested in knowing what you find unbalanced. There is also substantial information that has been added to Lithuania's articles, though the Holocaust in Estonia was much less deadly. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree the Lithuania Article has been updated well. My concerns are primarily over the editing that had occured in the World War II participants article; a seperate participants in the Holocaust (same formatt) could be created to summarize individual countries' and groups' action.  Additionally, the last time I looked at the Estonia article there was no mention of the Holocaust (may have just been edited though).  That is why I felt I should stir the pot to get feedback from other people on the subject.  Thanks for responding.--RPlunk 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Polonius, an update from a response on my comments in the Estonian article from an Estonian Wikipedian:
 * "'[Estonia] was occupied by USSR an Germany after 1940. It was not possible for Estonia as a state to participate in, or to be responsible for, any actions in the Holocaust.'"
 * Statements like this is why I am concerned; someone who is predisposed to Holocaust denial could use this quote in their defense (note: to the person who made the statement I have quoted, I am not accussing you of anything and I do not mean to attack you in anyway).--RPlunk 16:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Although it is important to take note of those collaborators in the Holocaust, one cannot lable a nation that was occupied as "guiilty of holocaust crimes", just as you cannot claim that Jews as a people were responsible for the Holocaust because of Jewish investors investing in Nazi Germany. There is a distinct difference between a country having specific antisemitis laws previous to becoming an ally to Nazi Germany, and Nazi Germany occupying a nation and recruiting Nazi Sympathisers under a Nazi appointed government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

On Soviet genocide
I think the word "genocide" referring to the actions of the Soviet Union in Latvia must be removed from the article. During Stalin's rule a lot of people of a number of other nationalities suffered, were repressed and executed including Russians, Ukranians, Jews, Latvians and many others. --Shakura 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Genocide is total or partial extermination of distinct groups of people for racial, relegious or political reasons, therefore soviet genocide was genocide - it was aimed against non-prolietar groups of society - such as rich farmers and nobility and it was done in name of communism and that is political reason -- Xil - talk 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not genocide. Latvian language for example was not restricted in the Latvian SSR. Going by that broad definition one can easily say Latvians collaborating with Waffen SS perpetrated genocide against Russians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.31.123 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That example is misleading. Latvians did not deport russians to Syberia. Rather vice versa. Soviet genocide driven by Stalin is a fact and was also directed towards russians and other etnic groups. We all know about the existance of special KGB instructions. To deny this is would be a crime. 88.147.19.76 16:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shakura, would you prefer referring to the anti-Latvian activities by Soviet Union as ethnic cleansing? Digwuren 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

EU membership

 * On May 1, 2004 Latvia became a member of the European Union. It had taken millions of lats in pro-EU advertising (instead of analysis and wider discussion), last-minute tampering with the country's constitution by politicians as well as availing of the domino effect in order to scrape together a "yes" vote in the membership referendum - notably contradicting some reports that "Latvia [and Estonia] voted overwhelmingly yes". It is debated whether the so-called partial giving up of sovereignty and neutrality is outweighed by benefits of being in the EU.

It doesn't seem to me that these are proper NPOV statements, there's a strong anti-EU POV here.GhePeU 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not seem POV, it only shows the controversy but does not seem to push one side or the other. --Lysytalk 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks NPOV. --Kirils 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's blatantly POV and should be removed. There was plenty of analysis and debate, and sore losers could write such a thing about many a vote in many a country. Pēteris Cedriņš 08:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you specify what do you consider to be POV here ? It does not claim that joining the EU was disadvantageous to Latvia, but instead mentions that different POVs on this exist. It's not for wikipedia editors to judge which of the POVs is more correct. --Lysytalk 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The entire passage is POV -- "last-minute tampering" is not an objective description of a legislative process, there was anti-EU advertising as well as pro-EU advertising, there was copious analysis and discussion for those who cared to take an interest, debates on "neutrality" (which "neutrality" did not exist prior to EU acession anyhow; Latvia was involved in military co-operation with Western countries even prior to NATO entry, which preceded EU entry) were mostly confined to the political fringe. I have no objection to noting that there was/is opposition to EU membership, but this passage obviously attempts to suggest that the referendum lacked legitimacy. That is untrue -- the turnout was 72,5%, and 67% voted "jā." Pēteris Cedriņš 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, the statement above is POV. M.K. 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus here? I was in Latvia not that long before the EU vote and my mother "reported" on goings on leading up to and including the vote. Certainly it can be said there was plenty of debate and polemics—from "the last step in Latvia rejoining Europe" to "the EU central government is no better than the Soviets dictating from afar." For example, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about scenic road-overhanging trees which would need to be cut down in order to fulfill EU road improvement funding norms (required for safety for passage of taller trucks). Shall someone take it upon themselves to update? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, goverment didn't seem to be disscusing any other option,they were scearing people that Latvia will be unprotected and hinting that Russia will attack us, basicly givin impresion that there is no other choise, advertisments were made by one of the most reputable advertisment agencies in country, and constitution is amended yearly. However this statment is loud and unsorced it should either be deleted or rewriten to show that there is different oppinion. Politika.lv is, in my opinion, example of good sorce (their EU referendum archive) -- Xil/talk 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question has been removed on 30 August 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.162.148 (talk) 11:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Soviet first to recongize?
The first to recognise Latvia's independence was the Russian SFSR (on August 11, 1920), which relinquished authority over the Latvian nation and claims to Latvian territory once and for all times. I'd have thought that Poles who helped Latvians during the Battle of Daugavpils would be the first to recognize their independence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is a frequently misquoted fact. Russia was the first major power to recognise Latvia's independece.  Frequently people quote this without adding the words 'major power'.  Disco 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I changed it. The reason is that none of the major powers wanted to get on the wrong side of Russia.  So they waited until Russia had given the all clear, then they supported the Baltics. Disco 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Iceland was the first to recognize Latvia's independence. (perhaps before the Soviet Union, or Russia) Officially the United States, England and several other nations did not recognize the forced occupation of Latvia, this making no difference whatsoever, the latter remaining occupied for 50 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Cleanup
The description of the sequence of events of the first Soviet invasion was a complete mess. Corrected. Also changed Ezergailis to a real inline ref and added total Holocaust deaths, which was missing from the discussion.  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

resources
Perhaps You might find this usefull http://www.apollo.lv/portal/life/2135 Xil/talk 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How to make this article even better!
Just adjusted the content tree to make the different periods appear more evident and ready for expansions.

I was actually quite surprised how little Latvian independence is covered with this article - not mentioning a main standalone article on the years inbetween the world wars, which is certainly missing. The 200 years of Russian Empire has a very lean section, I have added some headers of topics that would be of significance to Latvian history as well. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/latvia.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Former country infobox
, your change has been reverted so therefore please discuss your proposed change on talk per WP:BRD. An inbox is intended as a summary overview of the entire article. Adding a former country inbox into subsections of this article makes no sense, since Latvia has gone through numerous states since History of Latvia and placing a dozen former country inboxes into the article would clutter it up. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Infobox.
The Former Country infobox that I created was for Republic of Latvia before it became part of the Soviet Union. It is under the section Independence because that section has information of the history of the Republic of Latvia (before it became part of the Soviet) in the section. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See discussion at Talk:History of Estonia, same applies here. --Nug (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is for the Republic of Latvia from 1918–1940 which is relevant to the section independence. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Latvia already has its own page with an infobox. Wikipedia is based upon reliable published sources, not just personal opinion, read the Wikipedia policy WP:RS. Reliable sources tell us that the Republic of Latvia from 1918–1940 is the same and continuous as the Republic of Latvia. The following is a list of sources:
 * Hiden, Johan; Salmon, Patrick (1994). The Baltic Nations and Europe (Revised ed.). Harlow, England: Longman. ISBN 0-582-25650-X.
 * Gerard, Craig. The Baltic question during the cold war. Routledge. ISBN 9781134197309.
 * Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. M. Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-2177-3.
 * Marek, Krystyna (1968). Identity and continuity of states in public international law (2 ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Libr. Droz.
 * Van Elsuwege, Peter (2008). From Soviet republics to EU member states: a legal and political assessment of the Baltic states' accession to the EU. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-16945-6.
 * Van Elsuwege, Peter (2003). State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States. Leiden Journal of International Law (Cambridge Journals) 16: pp.377–388. doi:10.1017/S0922156503001195.
 * Ziemele, Ineta (2005). State Continuity and Nationality: The Baltic States and Russia. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-04-14295-9.
 * It doesn't matter what you or I think, what matters is what published books say. --Nug (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Latvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622113922/http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/msr/Ethno/dategen1.html to http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/msr/Ethno/dategen1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Latvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822143207/http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1207 to http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1207

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Neolithic Age, 5000–3500 BC
The paragraph was extremely confused, e.g., contained mistakenly overlapping times. Also, the linguistic sentence had been complete nonsense, copied from Mallory, who had misunderstood the late Prof. Schmid (whom I knew personally).HJJHolm (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saules akmens no Ranka dambja 07.09.2003.JPG

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Riga Fernsehturm 05.JPG

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Riga Fernsehturm Blick von der Aussichtsplattform auf die Akademie der Wissenschaften.JPG

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Kurland6pf20apr1945.jpg

Riga
Noted Albert didn't actually found it. Sorry about edit summary cut short, didn't have Latvian keyboard anabled (alt-S saved). Bishopric was transferred to Riga from Ikšķile. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Rework needed (especially prehistory section)
This whole article is a bit of a mess, and is in serious need of higher quality citations and general rewrites for clarity. I am drawing attention especially to the prehistory section, however, as it's ridiculously sloppy for any Wikipedia national history page; the entire Bronze Age subsection ("1800 BC – 500 BC") is straight up missing, there are only two sources (one of which now links to a redirect page) cited for the whole section, and it's riddled with outdated or contradictory information.

On that last point, the text of the Neolithic subsection states that the inhabitants of Latvia during the Narva culture era were Finnic and predated the presumed arrival of the Balts which, as the citation needed tag points out, is completely backwards according to our modern understanding. Genetic evidence indicates the people of the Narva culture predated both Uralic and Indo-European speakers, and recent scholarship indicates that Bronze Age Uralic speakers most likely arrived after the 1st millennium BCE, which is congruent with existing genetic evidence. The subsection should be updated to reflect this. Foom of Weaseldorf (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)