Lectures and documents

Remarks by Dr. I.Sneidere “The Policies of the Soviet Union Occupation regime in Latvia through the Prism of Russian Archives” (Summary)

It was only thanks to the financial support from the Historians' Commission that after a prolonged period Latvian historians had the chance to "return" to Moscow archives. And not only to work there but also to order copies to be made. The obtained materials are being introduced into scholarly circulation in the form of publications of documents and their extensive application in research papers. However I would like to begin with a brief analysis of the working conditions rather than the description of documents. Work in archives in Moscow, regretfully, cannot be described as normal due to several reasons. My observations are based on my personal experience from my trips in the last three years.

Has anything changed in the work of archives since 1980s? Very little if anything at all, as far as I can judge. Except that the former Central Archives of the Communist Party that previously were closed for researchers, have now become accessible. Now it is called the State Archives of the Socio-Political History of Russia.

I would like to say a few words about some specific conditions of work. I will begin with those that hamper research. Historians' work is affected by the personal attitude of the archive workers. Residents of Moscow are great patriots and firmly believe their Mayor Y. Luzhkov, when he speaks about apartheid and oppression of ethnic Russians in Latvia. The massive propaganda influences the minds of the residents of the capital of Russia.

De-classification commissions have not functioned since the last years of B.Yeltsin's era. Yet strange things happen to classified documents. In the former Central Archives of the Party there is fund. no. 600 on the bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party that in the immediate post-war years "supervised" i.e. controlled the authorities in the Latvian SSR. The fund contains 28 files, of which 10 are inaccessible for researchers. However, it turned out that some foreign historians have been granted access to them as proved by references in the works of our foreign colleagues.

Another example. In 1996 researchers from Israel and Moscow published collective work "The Jewish Anti-Nazi Committee of the USSR, 1941-1948. Documentary History". Several Jews from Latvia were closely associated with the Committee and M. Shatz-Anin was its member. However, it turned out that foreign historians have no access to documents from the relevant fund, even to those documents, which are published in the collection. A totally incomprehensible differentiated approach.

Working conditions are bad too: microfilms are very difficult to read, restrictions on the number of required files are unreasonably strict (one may require 5 files only).

At the same time I would like to emphasise that in the State Archives of Socio-Political History of Russia, for example, the carefully compiled lists make work much easier, the very name of the file allowing to deduce whether the file contains some information on Latvia. In view of the huge size of funds it certainly helps.

After such a not very optimistic introduction a question arises: was it worth to go there, to spend time and money and to ruin one's nerves? The answer is yes and yes and again yes. In the process of work in Moscow archives valuable and even unique documents pertaining to Latvia during the Soviet occupation period were obtained. Thus, for example, it turns out that in the summer of 1940 Stalin and other leaders of the USSR received reports on the achieved "capturing" of the Baltic States, with neither "socialist revolution" nor any social unrest being mentioned in these reports. The repressive character of the Soviet regime is revealed by documents of the Prosecutor Office and the Ministry for the Interior of the USSR. They also contain valuable evidence on the resistance movement in post-war Latvia and the attitude of the Latvian population towards the regime.

I shall have time only to outline the conclusions drawn from the documents on the events in the first year of the Soviet occupation.

Finally the documentary evidence on the admission of the Communist Party of Latvia to the All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party was obtained. Why finally? Because in late 1980s and early 1990s it was repeatedly insisted that no such document existed. It turned out that such document exists and now has been already published. However, what is significant, the composition of the Bureau of the Communist Party of Latvia was approved by the Secretariat and Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party in Moscow before the admission of LCP. And there are many such significant "unconformities" of facts.

I feel that significant documents needed to disclose the events of 1940-1941 and the true intentions of Moscow are stored in V. Molotov's fund. I would like to point out one aspect only: in June 1940 the leadership in Moscow expected armed resistance to the Soviet occupation, yet it was from the part of self-defence organisation (aizsargi) rather than the army that they expected it. To some extent it explains why the former organisation of all others was the target of mass-scale repressions.

In early 1941 the Baltic Republics received an inspection visit from A. Andreyev (then the Secretary of the Central Committee of All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party and Chairman of the Party Committee for Control). The materials of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Latvia contain no data pertaining to this visit. A. Andreyev summarised the findings of his trip in a special report. I evaluate this report, which was addressed to Stalin and Molotov exclusively, as a very pragmatic document that outlined the road to the "Sovietisation" of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The report emphasises that the Communist Party of Latvia was very weak and not certain even about the size of its membership. Historians have been long since wondering about the number of Communists in Latvia in June 1940. It turns out the Communists themselves did not know. It means that it is possible to talk about approximate figures only.

The plan for the construction of socialism envisaged the deportation of "alien elements", collectivisation of agriculture and laid a special emphasis on struggle against the church.

Only one conclusion is possible: the work must continue by all means as Moscow archives have only just begun to reveal their secrets.