site banner
Botond173  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   2806 thread views

On the destruction of the Soviet obelisk in Riga

Recently it was widely reported that the – to use its lengthy official name - Monument to the Liberators of Soviet Latvia and Riga from the German Fascist Invaders was destroyed by local authorities in the Latvian capital. This is certainly not without precedent, as numerous Red Army monuments have been removed in the Baltic states and also in Poland, Czechia and other nations formerly in the Warsaw Pact, many of these decisions being clearly driven by events in the Ukraine since 2004. I think we on this forum are mostly aware of the talking points used to justify their removal so I won’t bother to repeat those here. Instead I’d make the simple assumption in this particular case that those Latvians who support this decision are clearly unhappy with the direction their national history took in the past, and ask the question what sort of past they’d have preferred to have. I suppose this is a relevant Culture War question in Eastern Europe.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that Operation Barbarossa begins as it did, and then history develops differently. From then on, I think Latvia had the following options:

A – Germany wins decisive victory in the East and incorporates Latvia directly into the Reich; it only remains as an administrative area, if that; presumably, local Jews and Russians are either deported/killed or used as slave labor, and German settlers move in

B – same as A, but Latvia is allowed to retain limited autonomy as a vassal state / protectorate

C – the war in the East concludes with a separate negotiated peace in 1941 or 1942, and Latvia remains an independent nation as part of some demilitarized neutral zone between Germany and the USSR

D – same as C, but Latvia remains under German influence and its autonomy remains limited in the practical sense, maybe the Germans even retain military bases in Latvian territory

E – the war concludes with decisive Allied victory, but Stalin recognizes the independence of the Baltic states and withdraws his troops from there; still, Soviet influence remains palpable

F – same as E, but the USSR incorporates Latvia into a new military and economic system of cooperation under Soviet hegemony, and maintains military bases on Latvian soil; also, the Soviets have enough influence, soft power and political mechanisms to ensure that Latvia cannot leave this sphere of influence

G – everything happens as it actually did, but the Baltic states get nominal independence after 1945 instead of getting turned back into Soviet republics. Basically, the Warsaw Pact and COMECON have 3 more members.

I assume hardliner Latvian nationalists would prefer B (even for them, A is too extreme), and more moderate nationalists would prefer C or D. For obvious reasons however, even in the current climate of general anti-Russian/Soviet sentiment, I very much doubt they’d be willing to say this out loud. After all, A, B, C and D all mean that Nazi Germany remains undefeated, and Latvian Jews get genocided and pogromed. For the same reason, I believe these 4 options are unacceptable for the Russian and Jewish minorities in Latvia. After all, even C entails the strong possibility that they get oppressed and ethnically cleansed.

Also, I cannot help but notice that the same very obviously applies to Ukrainian nationalists in general, no matter how much leeway they currently get in Western media.

I’ll make the guess that E is the most ideal option in the eyes of Latvian centrists/normies at first sight; however, it still means that, realistically speaking, Latvia never gets to join either NATO or the EU. It’s the same as Finland’s fate but worse, as the border region between Russia and Finland at least consists of dense forests and numerous lakes, practically impassable ground for Russians if they invade (again). Also, I think it’s clear that the Soviets would agree to something (in their eyes) so unrealistic only if the US agrees to the same in Western Europe. In short, this means that even if NATO is formed, it remains limited in its geographical scope i.e. West Germany never gets incorporated into it, in other words, either the two German states remain neutral or the German state never gets divided and remains neutral.

G is very obviously unacceptable for most Latvians, as the difference from what actually happened is negligible.

F is, I think, also something most of them would only begrudgingly accept. However, the issue with this is that it’s basically merely the local version of NATO, but overseen by Russians. If our position today is that this would be unacceptable and violates our political norms, we’d also have to say that it was not acceptable for the Americans to maintain hegemony over Western European states and station their military units and nuclear weapons on their soil. (I’ll make an expectation for West Germany, as it was a defeated enemy and no peace treaty was signed.) Alternatively, one can make an argument that “but it’s different when the Americans do it, the Russians have always been Mongoloid Ugric-Turkic savages”, but I don’t know how many normies would be willing to say this unironically.

Also, both F and G entail the very real likelihood that the Soviets still get to erect a huge monument in Riga. Even in the case of E it’s relatively likely.

So where does that leave us?

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think that Latvians, apart from far-righters, would disagree that much about the reality of German occupation. After all, fighting against German landlords has been general trend of Estonian/Latvian nationalism for centuries, and the plans of the Nazis for the Baltic region are known. However, this is probably not one of those cases where looking it through alternative history scenarios helps very much; this is all still related to the reality of the illegitimate Soviet occupation, the forced transfers etc. This reality is not really something that is affected by alternative scenarios of how it could have been even worse.

One might use a following analogy: imagine that a woman is being raped by some guy, then another guy barges in, violently throws off the rapist, and then proceeds to rape the woman himself. What do we call the second guy? We call them a rapist. What if the first guy was planning to rape and murder the woman? We still call the second guy a rapist.

G is very obviously unacceptable for most Latvians, as the difference from what actually happened is negligible.

G would almost certainly mean Latvia is not settled by hundreds of thousands of other Soviet peoples, chiefly Russians, which would make a huge, vast difference regarding the latter Latvian history. The Warsaw Pact countries, after all, were not settled by Russians, either.

Good catch regarding G, I forgot about the Russian immigrants completely when drawing up that scenario (I guess it’s obvious at this point that I’m not from Latvia). But again, I think whoever starts the game of gotcha in this case is justified – in other words, I think it’s fair to argue that there should never have been a huge influx of Russian immigrants to Soviet Latvia, or that the settlement of Russians was deliberately implemented to change the ethnic composition of Soviet Latvia and erode the foundation of Latvian nationhood (although there’s supposedly no documented evidence of that), but that very obviously comes across as a double standard if it comes from the promoters of Wilkommenskultur, open borders and ethnic diversification through immigration.

Again, I don’t think the main theoretical question here is how it all could have been worse for Latvians, or minorities in Latvia. Of course it could’ve been worse, that’s not the point. The reality is also this: people compare their past to alternative scenarios all the time; after all, it’s the only way to evaluate the past. It’s normal, and certainly not something that should be seen as a waste of time. And demolishing a monument of this size in order to denounce actions in the past is a big deal for certain, so I think it’s fair to ask questions in case they aren’t asked yet. (I can understand if local Russo-Latvians, if that’s even a word, aren’t currently inclined to do that. But either way, I don’t follow Latvian media.)

For example, to expand on my original post, the monument-topplers certainly don’t object to the Red Army re-entering Riga and pushing the Germans out. Right? Or some of them do, but don’t want to express it?

Judging by the media commentary on this event, it seems what most locals objected to were the regular Victory Day celebrations organized at the monument, and attended by members of the Russian minority. If that’s the real issue, can’t the government simply ban celebrations of May 9th instead of tearing down the whole obelisk and the accompanying statues? Or was that done already? Or is it something they never decided to do?

For example, to expand on my original post, the monument-topplers certainly don’t object to the Red Army re-entering Riga and pushing the Germans out.

I think they do. They see Red Army not much different from German army in this conflict.

You do know how that sounds to the Westerners they obviously seem to be pandering to, right?

Pandering? It is offensive to talk like that. Latvia had been occupied by the Soviet Union shortly before the war with many Latvians deported to Siberia and then the war happened with all its tragedies and after the war again many Latvians were deported to Siberia.

We didn't know the history for long time until it was discovered that the USSR had a pact with Germany about spheres of influence. Germany broke the pact and people in Latvia were merely victims of two greater powers.

Latvia is not building a monument to German liberators in place of the destroyed Soviet monument either.

but that very obviously comes across as a double standard if it comes from the promoters of Wilkommenskultur, open borders and ethnic diversification through immigration.

Yes, I've seen this gotcha a number of times, but the rather crucial difference is that in one case migration is a result of a forcible occupation of one country by another and in another case it's the result of a policy implemented by an unoccupied country's democratically elected government. Heck, we can use the Baltic countries as a specific example - the same Estonia that didn't consider the Russians and Ukrainians settled by Soviet Union in 1944-1991 citizens has now opened its doors to tens of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian refugees, presumably seeing that there is, indeed, a difference between these actions, the difference being current Estonian sovereignty and the end of the illegitimate annexation.

The occupation was obviously forcible, but the arrival of Russian immigrants was, as far as I know, not, and can only be viewed as the indirect consequence of the former. Other than that, yes, there are differences, but that's not the point. On one hand, treating ethnic diversity as a moral good unto itself, and mass immigration as the laudatory facilitator of it, and ethnic homogeneity as inherently dangerous when practiced by White Western Goyim, while at the same time upholding Baltic and Ukrainian Nationalist narratives about the Soviet crime of mass immigration in order to dissolve the inherently precious heritage that was local ethnic homogeneity, is completely dishonest and laughable.

Since this just seems liek a fundamental disagreement that won't be resolved, I'll just ask: what, exactly, is the function of adding a word like "goyim" here?

Because Israeli ethnonationalism isn't delegitimized in Western mainstream media.

There's currently a thread in the roundup arguing otherwise, but beyond that, what does this even have to do with this particular issue?

Nothing to do with the obelisk or even Latvia directly, obviously. But it has a lot to do with common attitudes towards Nationalist tendencies. Any narrative that delegitimizes, condemns and cancels ethnonationalism in some cases but justifies, explains away, trivializes, downplays and even celebrates it in others (Israel, Ukraine, the Baltic states) is inherently suspicious, for obvious reasons.

Not obvious at all, elaborate.

More comments

I wouldn't rely too strongly on the notion of legitimacy in the age when big actors were constantly vivisecting small actors for their own convenience, w/t asking. When, in the aftermath of the war communism was incredibly and genuinely popular, does it make Stalin's claims - as a major figure of communism - more legitimate by proxy? When a "government-in-exile" gets back (from London) to its devastated homeland and dismisses local resistance's claims to participation - does it have more legitimacy than the people, who endured the war here?

I do not suggest legitimacy is meaningless, just it depends a lot on what reference point you choose at any given moment.

Edit: after skimming through history of Latvia around WWII I admit, the questions I raised here are irrelevant for Latvia. Apart from several periods of challenged legitimacy (during the War of Liberation and 1934 coup) the Soviet intervention, puppet govt installation and deportation policies -- were a clear violation of any internal legitimacy at the time.

The questions I raised, are still relevant for other states of Eastern Europe.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats