Politics of the past: the use and abuse of history - Socialists ...

Whatever the different interpretations may be, the fact that the
Baltic States were forcibly and unlawfully erased in 1940 clearly
stands. Once a crime has been determined, however, historians
cannot ignore the circumstances that led to that crime. In this case,
the Baltic States, despite having officially declared their neutrality,
pursued policies which were inspired by and of benefit to Germany.
In June 1940 the Baltic States accepted the Soviet Union’s ultimatum
without protest, largely because they were gullibly keeping
to the recommendations of German diplomats not to resist in the
meantime. In analysing the circumstances of the silent break-up of
the Baltic States, we must not ignore the rather Machiavellian position
of the West on this question: the attempt to portray the Molotov-Ribbentrop
agreement as one of Stalin’s long-term goals is
equivalent to trying to turn a particularly complex historical period
into a conspiracy theory. Such attempts are not acceptable in the
study of history as they contradict entire volumes of historical documents,
are provocative and threat-provoking.
Reparations
In this context, attempts to unilaterally demand reparations from
Russia, as scion of the USSR, for half a century of occupation seem
particularly provocative to the historian. They seem provocative
firstly because today’s Russia has not lost a war and there has been
no peace conference compelling her under international law to implement
acts of reparation. This would mean that any outstanding
historical question can in fact only be resolved at a political level
and, practically speaking, on the basis of bilateral agreements. As
a Lithuanian, I will only give my opinion on what this means for
Lithuania and the eventual interpretation of questions raised from
her own history.
As certain politicians have taken it upon themselves to demand that
Russia compensates Lithuania for the damage of fifty years occupation,
I would dare to ask those politicians – only rhetorically of
course – if they imagine that they will ever succeed in bringing Russia
to court and whether they believe that other questions would not
be raised in such a court in addition to questions about occupation
and annexation. Examples of such questions might include: What
policies did the Lithuanian state pursue between the wars? Why
was consideration taken of Lithuanian interests in the infamous
124