7TH PLENARY SESSION
THE BALTIANS (LATVIANS, LITHUANIANS, ESTONIANS) IN THE FREE WORLD AND THE SOVIET OCCUPATION REGIME (Chaired by Daina Klavina)

ELMĀRS PELKAUS The State Archives of Latvia Latvia
THE IDEA OF THE INDEPENDENT STATEHOOD OF LATVIA IN THE PERIOD OF REFUGEE CAMPS (1944 -1949)

The USSR as the occupying country, failed to achieve the closure of diplomatic missions that represented the independent state of Latvia in several Western states. This aspect was of huge importance for the maintenance of the idea of the continuity of the national statehood and the aspirations to restore Latvia's national independence. In spite of the extensive campaign of propaganda for repatriation launched by the leadership of the Communist (Bolshevik) party of Latvia and different occupant authorities, only a few thousand of approximately 200 000 refugees who had fled Latvia during the war voluntarily returned to the occupied Latvia after the war.

Those Latvian citizens who settled in the free world continued the discussion that had begun already during the war pertaining to the system of administration to be established in Latvia after the restoration of its independence. The joint position of the members of the democratic resistance movement was first formulated by the platform of the Central Council of Latvia that had been established on 13th August 1943. It stated that the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia that had been adopted in 1922 while remaining in force needed amendments to achieve a more balanced division of functions between legislative and executive authorities.
In the course of discussions the Central Council of Latvia in Germany, consisting of the representatives of the Presidium of the Saeima and the largest political parties represented in the Saeima, insisted that the 1922 Constitution of the Republic of Latvia had never been invalidated and was thus still in force and the Constitution being the most important document in the history of the Latvian nation, only the whole Latvian nation (the community of citizens) in the state liberated from occupation would have the right to decide on the possible amendments to the Constitution. The umbrella organisation of the Latvian refugees, the Central Committee of Latvians was considerably more reserved towards the Constitution of 1922. The holder of emergency powers, the Ambassador of Latvia to the United Kingdom Karlis Zarins pointed to the shortcomings in the Constitution and emphasised the necessity to elaborate a new basic law for Latvia including in it those provisions from the 1922 Constitution that had stood the test of time. Different exiles organisations did not come to full agreement regarding whether the Constitution needed amendments and whether the right to make amendments to the Constitution vested in the Constitutionals Assembly or in the Saeima. Yet in late 1940s the belief that the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia was still in force took root.
Rather harsh disputes centred also on the issue whether there was a legal basis for the existence of the state institutions provided for in the Constitution such as the President of State, etc. in exile. Ambassadors of Latvia declared that they as legally appointed, accredited and recognised officials had no right to renounce the powers granted to them by a sovereign government and to subordinate themselves to any other officials as this would put the recognition of the ambassadors from the parf of Western powers at risk as a result of which the Embassies and Consulates of Latvia would be threatened with closure.
No agreement was reached on this issue in the period of refugee camps. Yet from a historical perspective this dissension was of secondary importance. What was of primary imporfance was the firmly established position on the continuity of the statehood of the Republic of Latvia as ambassadors as representatives of the statehood of Latvia and officials of both the parliamentary and the authoritarian periods of Latvian history from different refugee organisations agreed on a common strategic vision of the restoration of the annihilated state on the foundation of the Constitution of 1922.

DZINTARS ĒRGLIS. Institute of History of Latvia Latvia
ATTEMPTS TO RESUME THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF LATVIA AND ARRESTS OF ITS MEMBERS AFTER THE ANNIHILATION OF THE COUNCIL IN 1945

On 13th August 1943 representatives of four biggest political parties elected to the last convocation of the Latvian parliament established a joint organization of national resistance movement - the Central Council of Latvia (CCL). The goal of the Council was to restore the parliamentary Republic of Latvia, which had existed until coup d~etat of 1934, and to coordinate the struggle against the Nazi and possible Soviet occupation.

Because of the specific conditions under which CCL worked, very few source materials on CCL have survived, therefore in many cases the story must be based on documents from the former archive of the Latvian SSR State security committee

_ (KGB). The criminal files of the former KGB archive must be regarded with criticism. However, this is the biggest source of written information on the work of CCL in Latvia after World War II.

After the capitulation of NS Germany those activists of CCL, who remained in Latvia, continued their underground activities in the porf city of Kurzeme, Ventspils and in Riga. When many members of the Council were arrested during an operation of NKGB in late 1945 - early 1946, the organization was forced to suspend its activities.

Even after the collapse of the organization in the period from 1946 to early 1950s the repression authorities of the Soviet regime continued to arrest former members of CCL. A large part of the arrested people had no longer been members of CLL after the war; this refers primarily to members of the Latvian Social Democratic Workers Parfy (Fricis Menders, Klāvs Lorencs and others). However, being arrested for what the Soviet authorities regarded as serious crimes against the state, they were also prosecuted for their membership in CCL during World War II.

Until as late as 1951 some activists of CCL unsuccessfully tried to resume the work of the organization in Latvia. To save their human resources, they abstained from armed struggle against the Soviet occupation authorities and pursued tactics of temporizing in hope that Latvia's independence would be restored with the support of the Western countries.
The expectations of CCL to receive help from the Western countries in the post-war period failed to materialize. Instead the Western intelligence services merely used the resistance movement in the Baltic to foster their own mercenary goals. The members and supporters of LCC found themselves under total control of the Soviet repressive system, were used for some time in the game against the Western intelligence services and afterwards arrested one after another.

Dr. KĀRLIS KANGERIS Chair of Baltic Studies University of Stockholm Sweden
THE LATVIAN QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF SWEDISH-SOVIET RELATIONS 1941-1959

1) By the end of the Second World War, most evacuees and refugees from Latvia found themselves in the territories occupied by Allies. Only some 4,000 Latvians managed to reach the neutral Sweden during the war.
2) The overall aims of the Soviet Union included the 'bringing home' of all Soviet citizens who, as a result of the war, found themselves beyond the borders of the USSR. The citizens of Latvia were regarded as Soviet citizens by the USSR. At the Yalta conference of 11.2.1945 the Western Allies accepted the Soviet proposal that all Soviet citizens were to be repatriated, even by force if necessary. The status of Latvians was not specifically defined at the conference and their citizenship was seen as 'disputable'. In principle, Sweden was not bound by the decisions of the Allies reached among themselves.
3) Sweden and the Soviet Union developed particular relations during the Second World War. In 1940/1941 Sweden recognized de iure the incorporation of the Baltic countries in the USSR which became explicit in the special "Agreement between Sweden and the USSR on the regulation of reciprocal economic demands regarding Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia" of 3 0.5.1941. In the first years of the war, Sweden had supported Finland and also allowed the transit of German troops through its territory. In 1943, when Germany was already on the defensive, the USSR began to pressure Sweden for 'atonement of their sins'.
4) During the war, seven categories of Soviet citizens whose repatriation was demanded by the USSR had arrived in Sweden:
l. Interned Soviet military personnel who had come to Sweden in 1941;
2. Soviet military personnel who had fled to Sweden from military internment and labour camps in Norway, Finland and Germany between 1942-1945;
3. Civilian refugees from Latvia (3,500), Lithuania (500) and Estonia (22,000);
4. Estonian Swedes;
5. Interned Baltic military personnel (167); 6. Refugees from Ingria;
7. "Russian civilians" and "former Russianš' who had been transferred to Sweden from concentration camps in Germany.
5) The USSR began to raise the question of Latvian and other Baltic civilian refugees in January, 1944, which became a particularly sore point in Swedish-USSR relations in March-July of 1945 when Sweden rejected the repatriation by force of Baltic civilian refugees.
Concessions to the USSR were made in 'minor matters' such as allowing USSR repatriation officers, in the company of Swedish authorities, to visit Baltic refugee camps, relinquishing to the USSR all Baltic refugee boats, surrendering interned Baltic military personnel etc. The pressure to return Baltic refugees to the USSR desisted in the spring of 1946 when Moscow decided that it was wiser to sign a credit agreement with Sweden (7.10.1946) to diverf Sweden from engaging in the politics of the Western Allies directed against the Soviet Union.
6) In future years, the Latvian viz. Baltic question had little direct impact on Swedish-USSR diplomatic relations and became more of a question of Swedish internal politics (double citizenship for Balts, the visit of the Swedish fleet to the Baltic countries, etc.).
7) The Latvian refugees in Sweden felt secure only at the onset of the 1950's when it became possible to get Swedish citizenship. Prior to that, some 2,000 Latvians had left Sweden in search of their'personal safety' in distant overseas countries, far away from the uncerfainty of Swedish internal politics and imminent communist threats.

VALTERS NOLLENDORFS, Ph.D. The Museum of the Occupation of Latvia Latvia
EXILE HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AS REFLECTED IN LITERATURE: THE IMAGE OF ENEMY, FRIEND, HERO AND SUFFERER

In the absence of sociological surveys, other sources of gauging public opinion or sentiment have to be found. Literature is one such possible source. If used with proper precautions, it can allow us to arrive at certain conclusions concerning prevalent public consciousness of historical events.

As the end of World War II approached, an estimated 200,000 inhabitants of Latvia were located in European areas outside Latvia. These included refugees, evacuees, soldiers, forced laborers, inmates of concentration camps. Most of them were concentrated in Germany or areas formerly held by Germany. Some 5000 had crossed the Baltic Sea to Sweden. After war's end, an estimated 120,000 were left in the West, mainly in refugee camps in Western Germany. The others had been overtaken by Soviet troops in the East, taken prisoner, repatriated, killed in war action. Those remaining chose to live in exile rather than repatriate. Among the exioles was a disproportionate number of people who had belonged to the cultural, political and economic elites of independent Latvia. Beginning in 1947, most Latvian refugees emigrated to Great Britain, the USA, Canada and Australia and other countries.
Literary life in exile resumed soon after war's end. For quite a long time, the numb
er of literary works published in exile exceeded that of publications in occupied Latvia. Two types of publications dominated the early period until 1950: published or unpublished works written before exile and works dealing with the immediate refugee and exile experience. Short forms predominated. Longer works, such as novels, came out later when the exiles had settled in their final lands of residence.

Of interest to the historian is the question of exile consciousness concerning the momentous events of occupation, war and suffering 1940-45, and subsequently -  reflected directly or indirectly in exile literary works. Since the exile community formed a cohesive if not homogeneous group, , a close correlation between the written and read word existed,
i.e. writing reflected public sentiment. This correlation can be confirmed by the relative popularity, i.e. acceptance of works adhering to what may be termed the exile credo, as contrasted with public criticism leveled at works which seemed to deviate from it. Literary works confirming the ideology tend toward stereotyping of the enemy, hero and sufferer image. The questioning or breaking of stereotypes in critical works allows the scholar to draw inferences about critical undercurrents in exile society.

For obvious reasons, the standard image of the enemy and the victim or sufferer were already preordained by the common experience. The enemy was the Soviet Union, its ruling Communists and all they embody: the occupying Red Army, the destruction of civil society, the pervasive presence and arbitrary powers of the Cheka, the deportations, arrests and executions. The Red Army soldier was oftentimes depicted as uneducated, uncivilized, as an Asian or a Mongolian. The figure of the Chekist became that of a brutal interrogator and sadistic torturer, at times - as practiced by Nazi propaganda - Jewish. The victim was the patriot, the suffering - imprisonment, torture, deprivation, deportation. The exile experience became one of escape from Communist terror and total opposition to all it embodies. The enemy is hated all the more for having raped the homeland and having driven the exile out. There is usually little or no questioning or investigation of these images and stereotypes.
As for the image of the friend, the outlines are much more fuzzy. Clearly, the friend -in politics as in literature - was the Westerner, but in literary works oftentimes the "friend" oftentimes turns out to be the uncomprehending local who fails to understand the frustrated exile's attempts at explaining the evil nature of the foe, namely, Communism. This foe, after all, had just recently been a comrade-at-arms of the "friend" fighting in his view the far greater evil - Nazism. And here, of course, the Latvian exile faces difficulties convincing the local that Latvians were not fighting to uphold Nazism but oppose Communism.

This problem becomes obvious in literary works dealing with the Nazi period and Latvian involvement in the war. The Latvian legionnaire, especially the one defending Kurzeme to the very last, is the hero, but, it must be noted - not as the SSman who has sworn allegiance to Hitler, rather as the Latvian patriot defending his land against the evil invader from the East. The impression conveyed is oftentimes that of singular achievement, although Kurzeme was defended by an army of about 200,000, of whom one tenth were Latvian legionnaires. Less glorious are descriptions of Latvian fighters caught in the Soviet winter and spring offensives of 1945, toward the end of the war. In these descriptions, questions are sometimes raised concerning the wisdom and the results of Latvian involvement in the disastrous fighting far from their native land. Yet it also becomes clear from criticisms leveled at some of these works that, while describing war's inglorious events was generally acceptable, questioning the rationale of Latvian involvement was not.

Communist propaganda has described Latvian exiles as pro-Nazi or, in its terminology - pro-Fascist. Literary works do not bear out such inclinations, unless virulent anti-Communism is taken as proof of pro-Fascism. The prevailing sentiment in exile literary works is patriotism, or "bourgeois nationalism" as it came to be known in Soviet propaganda. At the same time, coming to terms with the reasons and causes for collaboration or at least accommodation with the Nazis is not a prevalent literary topic. Thus, collective memory lapses occur concerning the atrocities committed by the Nazis against Latvia's Jews, namely the Holocaust, and Latvians, including forced conscription, labor service, imprisonment, concentration camps. These are not general topics of exile literary or public discourse. Can this collective amnesia be attributed to latent Nazism? Hardly. But it raises serious questions about the exile community's willingness and ability to face the consequences of the existential moral choices some of its leading members had to make during Nazi German occupation and thus the community's tacit acceptance of these choices.

contents

top of the page