Latvia and the Latvians Frederic T. Harned, Harvard University (part of a larger M.I.T. study), 1973

National Attitudes

III. Recent Manifestations of Nationalism

As Anthony Astrakhan, former Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post, wrote in 1970, "Nationalism in Estonia and neighboring Latvia is easy for a visitor to sense but hard to document. What you see with your eyes is more a wish for cultural autonomy than a plan or dream of seceding from the Soviet Union." [1] This observation seems to be more true for Latvia than for Estonia, where the Khronika [Chronicle] has reported the existence of an organized national movement. Still, a number of Latvians have been involved in illegal dissent in recent years. Teataja, an Estonian émigré journal, reported the trial of seven young Latvian writers and literary critics in May-June of 1968. [2] Soviet underground channels carried reports of the arrest of ten persons who had gathered at the grave of Janis Cakste, the first President of independent Latvia, on the 1969 anniversary of their Declaration of Independence, November 18. [3] In February 1971, three young Latvians were sentenced to prison terms for distributing anti-Soviet leaflets. [4]

It is possible that Latvians are among the self-styled "Democrats of Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltic States" who have authored two major pieces of samizdat literature. The Memorandum of this group, published abroad in December 1970, mentions Latvians among the "hundreds" who have been imprisoned or advocating the secession of their republics from the Soviet Union. [5]

The most important document to have emerged from Latvia today is the "Letter of 17 Latvian Communists," (further referred to as Letter). which appeared in the West in January, 1972. Although its authors are unknown, as are the channels by which it reached the West, this document is widely held to be authentic. [6] In the Letter, the authors identify themselves as long-time Party members, all of whom were born in Latvia. Most of them appear to have formerly been Party undergrounders in bourgeois Latvia, who had become convinced that Leninism was being used consciously and deliberately as a screen for Great-Russian chauvinism. They recall that at the June, 1953 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPL, the Russian domination of the Latvian Party and its apparat was criticized as a distortion of the Leninist nationalities policy. The "thaw" lasted only a short time, however (it apparently reflected Beria's attempt to gain power in the Party by winning the support of the non-Russian cadres [7]), and Russification was resumed "ever more obtrusively and purposefully." The Letter then describes several aspects of that policy: 1) Russian control of the Second Secretary and Cadres Secretary posts; 2) importation of both construction workers and permanent labor for large new factories; 3) location of major military bases and All-Union health resorts in Latvia; 4) Russian domination of many government departments (65% of the doctors in the city health services are said not to speak Latvian, which causes "crude errors in diagnoses and the prescription of remedies"); 5) use of Russian for two-thirds of all radio and television broadcasts; and 6) insistence on conducting meetings in Russian even if there is only one Russian in the group. The authors conclude: "Ever thing national is being eliminated. Forced assimilation is being practiced. Peoples, cultures, and traditions do not have equal rights."

As one example of attempts by natives to resist this policy (others are implied but not described), the Letter recounts the Berklavs affair in 1959, when a majority of the members of the Latvian Politburo began to support him in opposing Russification. Khruschev himself came to Latvia and oversaw Berklavs' dismissal. In the purge that followed, CPL First Secretary, J. Kalnberzins, was kicked upstairs to be Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, and Premier V. Lacis was removed, as were two other Central Committee CPL Secretaries, the Chairman of the Republic Trade Union, the editor of Cina, the First Secretary and several other members of the Riga City committee, the First and Second Secretaries of the Latvian Komsomol, and numerous other Party and government officials. According to the Letter, "today only foreigners and those Latvians who have lived all their lives in Russia and appeared in Latvia only after the Second World War work in leadership positions." [8]

After the Voice of America broadcast of the content of the Letter to the USSR, both the Russian and Latvian press organs of the CC CPL printed a rebuttal which failed to confront any of the major charges directly. Instead it concentrated on accusing émigrés of forging the letter and countered with information not related to the points raised in it.[138] The obvious inadequacy of the rebuttal points to the truth of the accusations and reveals the leadership's concern over the continued existence of nationalism in Latvia.

1. Washington Post (December 11), 1970.
2. Cited in Estonian Events (December), 1968: 11: 1.
3. Anthony Astrakhan, Washington Post (December 11), 1970.
4. Latvian Information Bulletin (Latvian Legation, Washington, D.C.), (October), 1971: 4: 13.
5. Myroslav Prokop, 1971; "Translations on USSR Political and Social Affairs," JPRS (December 9), 1971: 193: 4.
6. Briviba, (January), 1972: 1 (225): 2-4; New York Times (February 27), 1972; Duevel, 1972; Soviet Analyst (March 2), 1972: I: 1: 3-6.
7. See especially Duevel, 1972.
8. For additional references to the Berk1avs affair, see the section on demography.
9. Soviet Analyst (April 13), 1972: 1: 4: 4-6.