Search

The Baltic states were among the ‘new’ states that were created after the First World War; they were the only states to lose their sovereignty during the Second World War. Most historians explain the birth and demise of the Baltic states in terms of their relative strength vis-à-vis the great powers. This article places the short-lived independence of the Baltic states into the perspective of intellectual history by focusing on two Western thinkers: E. H. Carr and Walter Lippmann. The analysis assumes that ideas matter in international politics. It adds to our understanding of the forces that led to the creation and later to the extinction of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the period of the two world wars. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the history of the Baltic Orthodox churches and the interpretation of the concept of legal continuity during and after the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States in 1991-2016. Topics include the preservation of the concept of legal continuity, the influential rise of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and the impact of the ROC's aggressiveness on the creation abnd development of Baltic Orthodox churches in exile.

The Soviet Union annexed the Baltic states in August 1940, an act Western democracies refused to recognize. Under somewhat different circumstances, the Baltic states could have turned, instead, into satellite ‘People's Democracies’ like Hungary – Communist-ruled but outside the Soviet Union. The annexed Baltic states played a major disruptive role during the demise of the Soviet Union. Might the Soviet Union have survived, had it disgorged the Baltic ferment in good time? The satellite option received mention repeatedly, from as early as June 1940 to as late as 1989. Here the focus is on 1965, when three Estonian refugees proposed a compromise: Washington might encourage Moscow to turn the Baltic states into satellites, the governments of which the USA could then recognize. For the Baltic nations, the main change would have been to curtail the influx of Russians. The reactions to this proposal are reviewed, ending with the question: what do alternate histories tell us about the actual one? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article, the author defends his article "'Forest Brothers' and the Consequences of Metro-Periphery Distinction Elimination in the 'Correlates of War Typology" from criticism offered by historian Meredith Sarkees that is also found in the present issue. The author defends his assertion that the Forest Brethren War, a mid-20th-century Baltic resistance struggle against Soviet rule, was not an intra-state conflict, as it was identified by the Correlates of War (COW) classification project. He comments on the political status of the Baltic States within the Soviet Union during the conflict, and argues that because they existed on the periphery, the conflict was more extra-state in nature.

Referring to the recent publication of the Correlates of War Project data guide, the article emphasizes certain inaccuracies of the description of the Forest Brethren War of 1945–1951 in the Baltic states (intra-state war #723). First, the article explains why the opponent of the USSR in this war, i.e. Baltic guerrillas, has been labeled inaccurately. Second, it explains why the data guide is not correct to consider 8 May 1945 as the beginning of the war. Last but not least, it clarifies why the modification (i.e. elimination of metropole-periphery distinction) of the original war typology has caused improper description of this type of war as ‘civil war for local issues’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article is written in response to the article "‘Forest Brothers' and the Consequences of Metropole-Periphery Distinction in the 'Correlates of War' Typology," by Gediminas Vitkus, which also appears in the present issue. The author engages with Vitkus' criticism of the way in which the Forest Brethren War, a Baltic uprising against Soviet rule in the mid-20th century, was coded in the Correlates of War Project (COW). He comments on Vitkus' criticism over the characterization of the conflict as one single civil war, the start date for the war provided by COW, and the war's battle death statistics.

Copyright of Relations Internationales is the property of Presses Universitaires de France and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This essay works through some of the necessary preliminary questions in thinking about Soviet colonialism in the Baltics. It opens by tracing the prehistory of critical thinking about Soviet colonialism in the 1960s and considers why the topic of Soviet colonialism has not (or not yet) become a dominant way to understand Soviet history. The central question posed by the article is whether one can speak about the Soviet invasions of the Baltic States as ‘colonization’. It proposes that, initially, communist Russia did not in fact seek to colonize the Baltic States and instead ‘occupied’ them; however, this initial period of occupation later developed into a period of a colonial rule. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses relations between Charles J. Kersten, a U.S. Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, and Baltic exiles, focusing on the period 1953 to 1955 during the Cold War. It examines Kersten's leadership of a U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the Soviet Union's annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The author comments on the Baltic exiles' organization, reflecting on several groups including the American Latvian Association (ALA), the American Lithuanian Council (ALT), and the Committee for a Free Estonia (CFE).

This article focuses on archival records and historical sources about the history and life of a group of German people that settled in the Baltic States, called the "Deutschbalten" (Baltic Germans), that have been collected and preserved by the university library of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland. Several topics are discussed, including how after the beginning of World War II the Baltic States forced the Baltic Germans to move back to Germany, how the German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler decided to move the Baltic Germans to Poland after the Germans took over Poland in 1939, and how the Baltic Germans were not allowed to take anything that had cultural, historical, or artistic value, which included all their archival records.

The article discusses the question of the Soviet "occupation" of the Baltic states from 1940 to 1991, concentrating on remembrance in Lithuania. It comments on Lithuanian legislation and books, articles, and publications on the matter. The author also examines questions surrounding reparations, deportations, and genocide. She considers the views of the U.S. on the "occupation" and the activism of Lithuanian Americans. Other topics include Lithuanian educational policy and the establishment of the Joint Russian and Lithuanian Historians' Commission.

The attitudes of Western powers toward the Baltic states were in 1945-1990 steadily affected by how they perceived Baltic history: whether it even existed and if so, what did its most recent phase represent-occupation or voluntary union? The Baltic refugees were initially poorly prepared for the struggle about history, because they lacked not only English language skills but also understanding of democratic societies. Their books were printed by little-known publishers, and studies in scholarly journals were almost completely absent. A breakthrough took place in the 1960s. Major figures were Vytas Stanley Vardys, who was first to publish articles in top journals and books with major publishers, and Janis Gaigulis, who initiated and kept going the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) and its Journal of Baltic Studies. Support for scholars was strong in the Latvian exile community, while hesitant in the Estonian and Lithuanian ones. By the time of the 'Singing Revolution' the struggle for Baltic history had been won in the Western world. It had become widely accepted that the Baltic peoples and their histories existed, and Moscow's attempts to rewrite Baltic history could not take root in the West. Winning the struggle for the past helped in the struggle for the future of the Baltic peoples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the final years of World War II, the main problem for the centres of resistance in the Baltic region was maintaining contact with foreign centres and creating contacts with western countries. Latvia and Lithuania began radio contact with Sweden at the end of 1943, and Estonia in May 1944, whereby the chief wireless operator for the Finnish Headquarters espionage unit "Haukka", Ustav Toom, started work as chief operator. This radio channel was also used by the Estonian National Committee that was formed in March 1944 and that handed over power a few days before the fall of Tallinn to the recently-formed Government of the Republic, led by Uluots-Tief. Professor Uluots managed to escape to Sweden just before the capture of Tallinn, but almost all the remaining government members were arrested by Smersh or the NKVD. After many searches, Toom was arrested in December 1944, and radio contact between Sweden and the Estonian resistance movement was severed. Thereafter, the Soviet counter-espionage service began a radio game with Toom, who was being held in the Pagari internal prison. The primary goal of this game was to give the West the impression that the Estonian resistance centre was continuing its activity. Toom, who was under serious psychic and physical pressure, became ill with tuberculosis and died in May 1946 in the Patarei prison hospital. The Soviet counter-espionage service now at- tempted to continue the radio game on its own but all such attempts in 1946-47 ended in failure. There were also attempts on the Swedish side to restore the severed radio contact by Jaan Ots, Ants Piip, jun. and Endel Peedo. A number of boats were sent to Estonia, including both freedom fighters and sailors, who also wanted to bring to Sweden their family members who were still in Estonia. The first trip was carried out in June 1946 by boatmen Päärson and Vahtras, accompanied by young journalist Elvi Ormus. By this time, Soviet border guards had already enclosed the Estonian coast in an iron guard-ring, so it was decided to go no closer to the mainland than Hiiumaa, and to leave on Hiimaa the radio quartz, codes and ciphers that they had brought with them. The sea trip, however, ended half-way. A Soviet border guard launch noticed them in international waters and took them back to the Papisaare border guard post on Saaremaa. They were later sentenced to 10 years in a prison camp by a military court. On 1 November 1946, R. Saago and local fisher- man A. Sagur landed on Liiküla beach on Saaremaa, planning to restore contact with the Estonian resistance movement. R. Saago did indeed succeed in meeting the required people and to leave in Tallinn the radio transmitter, which they had brought along, but the departure of a large refugee group from the Saaremaa coast did not succeed. Because of one local traitor, all the refugees and their helpers (a total of 26 people) were arrested and later sent to prison camps. One other attempt to send a boat to Estonia was made in December 1946, but the 6-member team barely managed to land on Saaremaa, and their radio transmitter was lost at sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about several papers discussed at a conference that focused on the Baltic States during Stalinist rule is presented. Topics discusses included conditions in the Baltic States in the decade following World War II, a comparison of the conditions in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and repression in the Baltic States.