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

it as the normal state of affairs. Neither is there much disagreement
about the tragic effects of the events of June 1940.
The historical perceptions of ethnic Latvians and Russian-speaking
Latvians diverge considerably on more specific issues, two of which
are particularly seen as symbols of the irreconcilability of the two
historical narrations, but on closer examination are nothing of the
sort. One such issue is the occupation of Latvia in 1940. While
mainstream historiography and the majority of Latvians do not hesitate
to qualify the June 1940 events as occupation, many Russianspeaking
Latvians object to that description. They do, however,
while protesting at the use of the word occupation, more often than
not accepting the basic idea that Latvia’s destiny was decided by
its neighbouring superpower and that its incorporation in the Soviet
family of nations was a result of brutal power politics rather than
the free expression of popular will. In the related discussions over
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, one side sees the pact as the epitome
of superpower predation, while the other seeks to explain the
predation as part of the larger pre-war picture. Even the latter argument,
though, is based on the acknowledgement of the existence
of the pact and of its effect on Latvia – notable progress on twenty
years ago. All in all, what ethnic Latvians assert explicitly and enthusiastically,
the Russian-speaking Latvians recognize tacitly and
reluctantly.
Along with occupation, the notion of the Soviet victory in the Second
World War has been a burning political issue. To most Russian-speaking
Latvians, Victory Day is the climax of their historical
pride that shines especially bright against the dark background of
Soviet history. They see the war as the moment when the Soviet/Russian
people were subjects of history, not objects of domination
by the Soviet regime. Ethnic Latvians, who tend to look at the
war from a national vantage point, see it as a series of alternating
enslavements. From their perspective the idea of two equally evil
regimes seems reasonable. As with the issue of occupation, this is
not a matter of acknowledging basic historical facts, but of different
historical narrations. The difference is not as intractable as many,
Latvians included, tend to believe. It is asymmetrical rather than
clashing. The idea of the 1940 occupation seems to be very relevant
for the historical identity of ethnic Latvians. Yet even those
Russian-speaking Latvians who are unsympathetic towards it do
148