Edgars Engizers
University of Latvia, History, Adjunct
- Baltic International Academy, European Studies, Faculty Memberadd
- Lecturer of Cultural History in University of Latvia and Legal History in College of Lawedit
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY. An academic conversation between historians Marģers Vestermanis and Edgars Engīzers about the role of personal experience in the perception and writing of history. This publication continues the cycle of... more
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY. An academic conversation between historians Marģers Vestermanis and Edgars Engīzers about the role of personal experience in the perception and writing of history.
This publication continues the cycle of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing. The current conversation addresses the issue of subjectivity that no historian can shy away from. One of the factors that shapes it is one’s personal life experience, and it was this aspect that was in the focus of the conversation with Marģers Vestermanis, a Holocaust survivor, the founder of the museum Jews in Latvia, and well-known Latvian historian.
The discussion addresses the extent to which the historians’ life experience affects the range of their research interests as well as their system of values and beliefs and views about different issues – aspects that take expression in their works.
Vestermanis reveals how much his interest in history in general and Jewish history in particular was dictated by his father’s interests and passions as well as by the example
given by Joel Veinberg (1922–2011), his comrade in concentration camps, who went in for history. Vestermanis underlines that for him the most important element in any historical narrative is a person. Thus, even writing about difficult themes, such as the Holocaust,
he focuses on personal stories, human destinies. To an extent one can say that history is shaped not so much by socio-political structures and processes as by personal life stories, which in fact reveal essentially human archetypes and behaviour models that have not changed since the creation of the Bible texts (and even since earlier times).
The conversation reveals the importance of the historian’s personal interest in their research topic in general and how important it was for Vestermanis in particular to be able to write about the topics that appealed to him personally even under the Soviet rule when many historical themes that directly did not support the official propaganda,
including the Jewish history, were tabooed.
The conversation led to the conclusion that the historical narrative not only plays an important role in the shaping of one’s national awareness but also strengthens the awareness of universal human values whenever the historian is eager to go deeper than national narratives. Marģers Vestermanis’ efforts to reveal the life stories of saviours of Jews during the Nazi occupation largely is an aspiration to bring the narrative of humanness to public awareness and thus by far beyond transgresses the borders of national historiographies.
The historian’s own life story clearly leaves a great impact on their works, especially if they research something that they have experienced personally. The historian’s subjectivity is not something that they should try to hide as it is something that they cannot escape from, but it is only honest towards the readers to allow them clearly see the facet of historian’s personality.
This publication continues the cycle of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing. The current conversation addresses the issue of subjectivity that no historian can shy away from. One of the factors that shapes it is one’s personal life experience, and it was this aspect that was in the focus of the conversation with Marģers Vestermanis, a Holocaust survivor, the founder of the museum Jews in Latvia, and well-known Latvian historian.
The discussion addresses the extent to which the historians’ life experience affects the range of their research interests as well as their system of values and beliefs and views about different issues – aspects that take expression in their works.
Vestermanis reveals how much his interest in history in general and Jewish history in particular was dictated by his father’s interests and passions as well as by the example
given by Joel Veinberg (1922–2011), his comrade in concentration camps, who went in for history. Vestermanis underlines that for him the most important element in any historical narrative is a person. Thus, even writing about difficult themes, such as the Holocaust,
he focuses on personal stories, human destinies. To an extent one can say that history is shaped not so much by socio-political structures and processes as by personal life stories, which in fact reveal essentially human archetypes and behaviour models that have not changed since the creation of the Bible texts (and even since earlier times).
The conversation reveals the importance of the historian’s personal interest in their research topic in general and how important it was for Vestermanis in particular to be able to write about the topics that appealed to him personally even under the Soviet rule when many historical themes that directly did not support the official propaganda,
including the Jewish history, were tabooed.
The conversation led to the conclusion that the historical narrative not only plays an important role in the shaping of one’s national awareness but also strengthens the awareness of universal human values whenever the historian is eager to go deeper than national narratives. Marģers Vestermanis’ efforts to reveal the life stories of saviours of Jews during the Nazi occupation largely is an aspiration to bring the narrative of humanness to public awareness and thus by far beyond transgresses the borders of national historiographies.
The historian’s own life story clearly leaves a great impact on their works, especially if they research something that they have experienced personally. The historian’s subjectivity is not something that they should try to hide as it is something that they cannot escape from, but it is only honest towards the readers to allow them clearly see the facet of historian’s personality.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Engineering and Latvian
HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY An academic conversation between historians Ilgvars Butulis and Edgars Engīzers on the role of methods and methodology in history-writing This publication continues a series of academic conversations between Latvian... more
HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY An academic conversation between historians Ilgvars Butulis and Edgars Engīzers on the role of methods and methodology in history-writing This publication continues a series of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing. This conversation with Ilgvars Butulis, professor of many years’ standing at the Faculty of History of the University of Latvia, focuses on issues that keep history within the framework of science: the application of various research methods and awareness of methodological frameworks. The discussion highlighted the following main ideas: According to the traditional perception, history is a succession of events, endless quantity of figures and dates, i.e. a factological account. However, both historians agree that history is something more – simultaneously a branch of science and an art; soft and exact at the same time. Certainly, history is story-telling, but it is also an artistry of scientific grouping and analysis of a very specific material. The Western historiography is making a turn towards neo-classicism, which lays a stronger emphasis on sources, while post-modernism allocated a more important role to the researcher/author. In the historical research multiple methods are applied, and what matters most is that each new method, each question asked from a different angle allow revealing something new, something original in history, something that historians had failed to notice before. Each historian, within the limits of his or her talent and possibilities, is free to write whatever he/she pleases – this freedom is the most beautiful aspect in scholarly research today. History has become extremely differentiated, i.e., there are countless disciplines: social history, cultural history, art history, archaeology, etc., and each of these disciplines has a range of specific methods. At the same time, there is no need to strive towards a diversity of methods just for the sake of following the trends. Many historians apply methods being unaware and without naming them and thinking about them, because “our way of thinking” already involves a method. It happens through a sensation of “it will be a correct way of writing about it”, coming from the subconscious and based in one’s personal experience and training. A most widely applied method, the descriptive one, is a vivid example, same as the broadly used comparative and chronological methods. One uses a range of different methods simply because it allows squeezing a maximum amount of information out of the source and we should not get limited only by use of qualitative or quantitative methods – each different method helps to illuminate some different angle of the research question. We shall never be able to reflect the respective event exactly in the same way as it had occurred or live through it again exactly in the same way. Instead, the historians provide their story, their interpretation of it, we do construct an image of the past. It is an essential feature of history as well as its exciting side that each generation asks new questions to the past and also historians respond with different narratives. One must admit though that not all historical stories are true and professionally written. History often is exploited by politicians – the way Russia manipulates the 20th century history to serve its political goals is a vivid example. History is also a tool of nation-building and patriotic education. Politics is always present in writing about the past. The political dimension is also present in each author. Each author reflects his or her education, way of thinking, values. The same refers to scholars, and it is only natural. For example, some people (and historians) like the pre-war Latvian head of authoritarian regime Kārlis Ulmanis, others do not. Each generation of historians steps on the shoulders of the previous one, it happens unaware, often through the process of criticising the work of the previous generation. As an academic community, no doubt, we have grown and developed very significantly since regaining the independence. At the same time, there are some things we have to learn to do better – for example, putting our work, a history of Latvia within a wider context – to make it perceptible to much wider audience.
Research Interests:
THE FREEDOM OF HISTORY An academic conversation between historians Aivars Stranga and Edgars Engīzers about freedom, choices, and fashion in history-writing In the recent months, history has come into the public focus more than before –... more
THE FREEDOM OF HISTORY
An academic conversation between historians Aivars Stranga and Edgars Engīzers about freedom, choices, and fashion in history-writing
In the recent months, history has come into the public focus more than before – both in the context of the development and administration of science and practical uses of historical narratives. Historians, on the other hand, for several centuries have tried to formulate the meaning of history, through the lense of the respective period. However, the question about the essence of history often remains hidden behind that of the meaning of history. This question was in the focus of the academic conversation.
The public demand for heroic stories of the past would be understandable if interpreted as historisation of contemporal ground for national identity-building, although in fact there is much more to it: history opens the door to the construction of a broader identity, of belonging to a broader culture, i.e. Western civilisation. Moreover, history, encapsulated in the way we pass it to the coming generations, not only gives an insight into the past but also provides moral reference-points, i.e. through very concrete living examples, it helps to understand what is good and what is bad and provides a better understanding of the human nature as well as outlines the direction for future development of society. History is vitally important for the preservation of all kinds of knowledge: knowledge of the past is a necessary luggage for any progress to become possible.
We are facing efforts to downplay our history, first and foremost by Russia, through its quasihistorical political myths that have little in common with past and the true understanding of it. For many decades, we were not allowed to tell the history of important processes in our past, like deportations and the national partisans’ war after the Second World War. The great role of history in society was dictated by the fact that the independent state of Latvia perished as a result of occupation that lasted for many decades and the authorities openly tried to impose on the public falsehoods about a socialist revolution. The importance of history came from its mission to transform the collective memory. History stands in complicated and interesting relationship with collective memory.
Same as historical facts are constructions of the perceptions of the past created by scholars and society, collective memory is also largely constructed. Monuments, public commemoration, educational narratives, and other elements that serve as its construction blocks often become part of one’s identity, and consequently, removal of such elements may cause discontent.
Our collective memory is largely dominated by the theme of suffering. Indeed, there has been much of suffering in Latvia’s history, but the main reason why the theme of suffering remains alive – and perhaps will remain alive for a longer time – is that for many years we lacked the possibility to talk about it.
From one angle, historical writing is science, from another – a literary work.
Historians must pay huge attention not only to research, but also to the form and style of publishing their findings. Latvia’s history could be written as an extremely interesting piece of satire. Usually, it is written as a drama or tragedy. Writing it as a comedy surely would be considered heretical, but it is possible. We have to rediscover history as a writing-style. People do not learn from history as a sequence of past events per se, but they may learn from history as research or literary works. Financing of historical research, which recently has become a very topical issue, is indeed important, but freedom is an even more important aspect and it served as a leitmotif of this conversation: the country is free, and every historian in it is free from any political pressures, censorship, and imposed lies. Contemporary historians may choose to write either from left, right, or centric position and focus on any topic they like, and no one is discriminated or persecuted for their choice. For history to be truthful, it must be free from ideological constraints.
An academic conversation between historians Aivars Stranga and Edgars Engīzers about freedom, choices, and fashion in history-writing
In the recent months, history has come into the public focus more than before – both in the context of the development and administration of science and practical uses of historical narratives. Historians, on the other hand, for several centuries have tried to formulate the meaning of history, through the lense of the respective period. However, the question about the essence of history often remains hidden behind that of the meaning of history. This question was in the focus of the academic conversation.
The public demand for heroic stories of the past would be understandable if interpreted as historisation of contemporal ground for national identity-building, although in fact there is much more to it: history opens the door to the construction of a broader identity, of belonging to a broader culture, i.e. Western civilisation. Moreover, history, encapsulated in the way we pass it to the coming generations, not only gives an insight into the past but also provides moral reference-points, i.e. through very concrete living examples, it helps to understand what is good and what is bad and provides a better understanding of the human nature as well as outlines the direction for future development of society. History is vitally important for the preservation of all kinds of knowledge: knowledge of the past is a necessary luggage for any progress to become possible.
We are facing efforts to downplay our history, first and foremost by Russia, through its quasihistorical political myths that have little in common with past and the true understanding of it. For many decades, we were not allowed to tell the history of important processes in our past, like deportations and the national partisans’ war after the Second World War. The great role of history in society was dictated by the fact that the independent state of Latvia perished as a result of occupation that lasted for many decades and the authorities openly tried to impose on the public falsehoods about a socialist revolution. The importance of history came from its mission to transform the collective memory. History stands in complicated and interesting relationship with collective memory.
Same as historical facts are constructions of the perceptions of the past created by scholars and society, collective memory is also largely constructed. Monuments, public commemoration, educational narratives, and other elements that serve as its construction blocks often become part of one’s identity, and consequently, removal of such elements may cause discontent.
Our collective memory is largely dominated by the theme of suffering. Indeed, there has been much of suffering in Latvia’s history, but the main reason why the theme of suffering remains alive – and perhaps will remain alive for a longer time – is that for many years we lacked the possibility to talk about it.
From one angle, historical writing is science, from another – a literary work.
Historians must pay huge attention not only to research, but also to the form and style of publishing their findings. Latvia’s history could be written as an extremely interesting piece of satire. Usually, it is written as a drama or tragedy. Writing it as a comedy surely would be considered heretical, but it is possible. We have to rediscover history as a writing-style. People do not learn from history as a sequence of past events per se, but they may learn from history as research or literary works. Financing of historical research, which recently has become a very topical issue, is indeed important, but freedom is an even more important aspect and it served as a leitmotif of this conversation: the country is free, and every historian in it is free from any political pressures, censorship, and imposed lies. Contemporary historians may choose to write either from left, right, or centric position and focus on any topic they like, and no one is discriminated or persecuted for their choice. For history to be truthful, it must be free from ideological constraints.
Research Interests:
HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY An academic conversation between historians Ilgvars Butulis and Edgars Engīzers on the role of methods and methodology in history-writing This publication continues a series of academic conversations between Latvian... more
HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY
An academic conversation between historians Ilgvars Butulis
and Edgars Engīzers on the role of methods and
methodology in history-writing
This publication continues a series of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing.
This conversation with Ilgvars Butulis, professor of many years’ standing
at the Faculty of History of the University of Latvia, focuses on issues
that keep history within the framework of science: the application of
various research methods and awareness of methodological frameworks.
The discussion highlighted the following main ideas:
According to the traditional perception, history is a succession of
events, endless quantity of figures and dates, i.e. a factological account.
However, both historians agree that history is something more – simultaneously a branch of science and an art; soft and exact at the same time.
Certainly, history is story-telling, but it is also an artistry of scientific
grouping and analysis of a very specific material.
The Western historiography is making a turn towards neo-classicism,
which lays a stronger emphasis on sources, while post-modernism allocated a more important role to the researcher/author. In the historical
research multiple methods are applied, and what matters most is that
each new method, each question asked from a different angle allow revealing something new, something original in history, something that historians had failed to notice before. Each historian, within the limits of
his or her talent and possibilities, is free to write whatever he/she
pleases – this freedom is the most beautiful aspect in scholarly research
today. History has become extremely differentiated, i.e., there are countless disciplines: social history, cultural history, art history, archaeology,
etc., and each of these disciplines has a range of specific methods. At the
same time, there is no need to strive towards a diversity of methods just
for the sake of following the trends.
Many historians apply methods being unaware and without naming
them and thinking about them, because “our way of thinking” already
involves a method. It happens through a sensation of “it will be a correct
way of writing about it”, coming from the subconscious and based in
one’s personal experience and training. A most widely applied method,
the descriptive one, is a vivid example, same as the broadly used comparative and chronological methods. One uses a range of different
methods simply because it allows squeezing a maximum amount of information out of the source and we should not get limited only by use of
qualitative or quantitative methods – each different method helps to
illuminate some different angle of the research question.
We shall never be able to reflect the respective event exactly in the
same way as it had occurred or live through it again exactly in the same
way. Instead, the historians provide their story, their interpretation of it,
we do construct an image of the past. It is an essential feature of history
as well as its exciting side that each generation asks new questions to the
past and also historians respond with different narratives.
One must admit though that not all historical stories are true and
professionally written. History often is exploited by politicians – the way
Russia manipulates the 20th century history to serve its political goals is a
vivid example.
History is also a tool of nation-building and patriotic education.
Politics is always present in writing about the past. The political dimension is also present in each author. Each author reflects his or her education, way of thinking, values. The same refers to scholars, and it is only
natural. For example, some people (and historians) like the pre-war Latvian head of authoritarian regime Kārlis Ulmanis, others do not.
Each generation of historians steps on the shoulders of the previous
one, it happens unaware, often through the process of criticising the
work of the previous generation. As an academic community, no doubt, we have grown and developed very significantly since regaining the independence. At the same time, there are some things we have to learn to do
better – for example, putting our work, a history of Latvia within a wider
context – to make it perceptible to much wider audience.
An academic conversation between historians Ilgvars Butulis
and Edgars Engīzers on the role of methods and
methodology in history-writing
This publication continues a series of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing.
This conversation with Ilgvars Butulis, professor of many years’ standing
at the Faculty of History of the University of Latvia, focuses on issues
that keep history within the framework of science: the application of
various research methods and awareness of methodological frameworks.
The discussion highlighted the following main ideas:
According to the traditional perception, history is a succession of
events, endless quantity of figures and dates, i.e. a factological account.
However, both historians agree that history is something more – simultaneously a branch of science and an art; soft and exact at the same time.
Certainly, history is story-telling, but it is also an artistry of scientific
grouping and analysis of a very specific material.
The Western historiography is making a turn towards neo-classicism,
which lays a stronger emphasis on sources, while post-modernism allocated a more important role to the researcher/author. In the historical
research multiple methods are applied, and what matters most is that
each new method, each question asked from a different angle allow revealing something new, something original in history, something that historians had failed to notice before. Each historian, within the limits of
his or her talent and possibilities, is free to write whatever he/she
pleases – this freedom is the most beautiful aspect in scholarly research
today. History has become extremely differentiated, i.e., there are countless disciplines: social history, cultural history, art history, archaeology,
etc., and each of these disciplines has a range of specific methods. At the
same time, there is no need to strive towards a diversity of methods just
for the sake of following the trends.
Many historians apply methods being unaware and without naming
them and thinking about them, because “our way of thinking” already
involves a method. It happens through a sensation of “it will be a correct
way of writing about it”, coming from the subconscious and based in
one’s personal experience and training. A most widely applied method,
the descriptive one, is a vivid example, same as the broadly used comparative and chronological methods. One uses a range of different
methods simply because it allows squeezing a maximum amount of information out of the source and we should not get limited only by use of
qualitative or quantitative methods – each different method helps to
illuminate some different angle of the research question.
We shall never be able to reflect the respective event exactly in the
same way as it had occurred or live through it again exactly in the same
way. Instead, the historians provide their story, their interpretation of it,
we do construct an image of the past. It is an essential feature of history
as well as its exciting side that each generation asks new questions to the
past and also historians respond with different narratives.
One must admit though that not all historical stories are true and
professionally written. History often is exploited by politicians – the way
Russia manipulates the 20th century history to serve its political goals is a
vivid example.
History is also a tool of nation-building and patriotic education.
Politics is always present in writing about the past. The political dimension is also present in each author. Each author reflects his or her education, way of thinking, values. The same refers to scholars, and it is only
natural. For example, some people (and historians) like the pre-war Latvian head of authoritarian regime Kārlis Ulmanis, others do not.
Each generation of historians steps on the shoulders of the previous
one, it happens unaware, often through the process of criticising the
work of the previous generation. As an academic community, no doubt, we have grown and developed very significantly since regaining the independence. At the same time, there are some things we have to learn to do
better – for example, putting our work, a history of Latvia within a wider
context – to make it perceptible to much wider audience.
Research Interests:
The military cooperation of the Baltic States is and was a relevant issue due to the fact that defending the Baltic region from an external enemy is possible only as a result of the joint strategic and operational effort of the armed... more
The military cooperation of the Baltic States is and was a relevant issue due to the fact that defending the Baltic region from an external enemy is possible only as a result of the joint strategic and operational effort of the armed forces of at least Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All Baltic States gained independence in 1918 at similar circumstances but in a slightly different military political situation that proceeded to shape the orientation of their foreign policy in 1920–1940. (Longer version of the current abstract is included in the article, starting from p 197.)
Research Interests:
HISTORICAL OBJECTIVITY An academic conversation between historians Ēriks Jēkabsons and Edgars Engīzers about history in the context of historical objectivity, politics, and national identity. This publication continues the cycle of... more
HISTORICAL OBJECTIVITY
An academic conversation between historians Ēriks Jēkabsons and
Edgars Engīzers about history in the context of historical
objectivity, politics, and national identity.
This publication continues the cycle of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing.
This conversation outlines the dimension that allows speaking about history also from the political vantage point. The discussion focused on the role of history in the development of national identity and the self-awareness of society, addressing also the important issues regarding the lies and the truth, the subjective and objective aspects in history-writing and the historians’ role in society. The discussion highlighted the following
main ideas: Latvian historians are in a unique situation: on the one hand, our work is difficult, as some periods and sub-disciplines are in the research focus of only one or two specialists while some are not researched at all.
On the other hand, we are lucky because we have an opportunity to be
the pioneers, e.g., a Latvian historian can be the first researcher that reads
a particular archival file. But there is also a dark side to it: sometimes we
tend to become smug, which creates an illusionary impression that everything is OK; there is a shortage of criticism.
The historical science in Latvia in fact reveals the same shortcomings
that we see in science in general: we are under a very strong influence of
the Soviet science. It is neither bad nor good. On the one hand, the Soviet
practice required detailed factological research, but, on the other – it was
very strongly politicised.
Academic historians must consider a particular research issue from
all sides, also from the side of the historical figure, army or state, which
we regard as being absolutely wrong. History has always been used as a
tool and in fact as a specific weapon in political struggles and discussions. Sometimes we need “a shield” against this “sword”, and today the historians’ work is important also from this perspective. Kievan Rus is an excellent topical example showing that even issues of medieval history can still be used in political and ideological struggle.
Discords, conflicts, friendship, and hate in international relations
throughout the history of mankind have been dictated by historical perceptions; they are also the ones that define the sense and understanding of national unity. We tend to forget earlier topical issues, when a new one emerges. For example, we hardly remember that until the end of the First World War the abolition of serfdom was one of the main commemoration dates in Latvian countryside, like Midsummer celebrations today.
History is extremely important for each nation because the awareness of
the shared history is one of the fundamental elements of the national
identity. In this region, very many nations cultivate the “orphan’s complex”. It is determined not only by history, but also by conditions under
which the national independence was acquired.
Historians must aim at making scientific topicality their priority; this
is what determines the quality of our work. However, history will always
be subjective as well. Historians simply must try to be as impartial as
possible and consider all the involved sides.
We can make history attractive to the public only by illustrating it
with colourful examples, which are close to the heart of the particular
audience, e.g., by showing that their family members, the closest community were also affected by respective processes. However, historians must also speak about the aspects that are not so attractive. By failing to do this, we also politicise history.
Without the understanding of history, which is complicated for all
nations, we are unable to understand the current situation, current society, or the models of future action. Falsification of history or hushing
up uncomfortable truth is very broadly practiced under the conditions of
censorship in authoritarian regimes. Thus, we must be aware of the importance of history, in order to be able to identify and resist ill-intentioned manipulations and to build our society on genuine rather than
illusionary foundations.
An academic conversation between historians Ēriks Jēkabsons and
Edgars Engīzers about history in the context of historical
objectivity, politics, and national identity.
This publication continues the cycle of academic conversations between Latvian historians about fundamental issues in history-writing.
This conversation outlines the dimension that allows speaking about history also from the political vantage point. The discussion focused on the role of history in the development of national identity and the self-awareness of society, addressing also the important issues regarding the lies and the truth, the subjective and objective aspects in history-writing and the historians’ role in society. The discussion highlighted the following
main ideas: Latvian historians are in a unique situation: on the one hand, our work is difficult, as some periods and sub-disciplines are in the research focus of only one or two specialists while some are not researched at all.
On the other hand, we are lucky because we have an opportunity to be
the pioneers, e.g., a Latvian historian can be the first researcher that reads
a particular archival file. But there is also a dark side to it: sometimes we
tend to become smug, which creates an illusionary impression that everything is OK; there is a shortage of criticism.
The historical science in Latvia in fact reveals the same shortcomings
that we see in science in general: we are under a very strong influence of
the Soviet science. It is neither bad nor good. On the one hand, the Soviet
practice required detailed factological research, but, on the other – it was
very strongly politicised.
Academic historians must consider a particular research issue from
all sides, also from the side of the historical figure, army or state, which
we regard as being absolutely wrong. History has always been used as a
tool and in fact as a specific weapon in political struggles and discussions. Sometimes we need “a shield” against this “sword”, and today the historians’ work is important also from this perspective. Kievan Rus is an excellent topical example showing that even issues of medieval history can still be used in political and ideological struggle.
Discords, conflicts, friendship, and hate in international relations
throughout the history of mankind have been dictated by historical perceptions; they are also the ones that define the sense and understanding of national unity. We tend to forget earlier topical issues, when a new one emerges. For example, we hardly remember that until the end of the First World War the abolition of serfdom was one of the main commemoration dates in Latvian countryside, like Midsummer celebrations today.
History is extremely important for each nation because the awareness of
the shared history is one of the fundamental elements of the national
identity. In this region, very many nations cultivate the “orphan’s complex”. It is determined not only by history, but also by conditions under
which the national independence was acquired.
Historians must aim at making scientific topicality their priority; this
is what determines the quality of our work. However, history will always
be subjective as well. Historians simply must try to be as impartial as
possible and consider all the involved sides.
We can make history attractive to the public only by illustrating it
with colourful examples, which are close to the heart of the particular
audience, e.g., by showing that their family members, the closest community were also affected by respective processes. However, historians must also speak about the aspects that are not so attractive. By failing to do this, we also politicise history.
Without the understanding of history, which is complicated for all
nations, we are unable to understand the current situation, current society, or the models of future action. Falsification of history or hushing
up uncomfortable truth is very broadly practiced under the conditions of
censorship in authoritarian regimes. Thus, we must be aware of the importance of history, in order to be able to identify and resist ill-intentioned manipulations and to build our society on genuine rather than
illusionary foundations.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
ISBN 9789984458311 Starptautisko attiecību teoriju izmantošana ārpolitikas vēstures pētniecībā ir tikai viens no Latvijas vēstures zinātnes iekšējās attīstības jautājumiem, kas ļoti spēcīgi korelē ar vēstures zinātnes... more
ISBN 9789984458311
Starptautisko attiecību teoriju izmantošana ārpolitikas vēstures pētniecībā ir tikai viens
no Latvijas vēstures zinātnes iekšējās attīstības jautājumiem, kas ļoti spēcīgi korelē ar
vēstures zinātnes starpdisciplinaritāti un citu zinātņu metožu un atziņu aprobēšanu vēsturisku
pētījumu veikšanā. Raksts ir veltīts mūsdienu Latvijas historiogrāfijas ārpolitikas virzienam
un jaunu teorētisko atziņu ienākšanas nepieciešamībai tajā. Raksta mērķis ir pievērst Latvijas
vēsturnieku uzmanību zinātnes attīstībai un modernizācijai, kas izpaužas, paplašinot vēstures
pētniecībā izmantojamo metožu un teoriju loku. Ārpolitikas un diplomātijas
vēstures pētniecība ir viens no visplašāk pārstāvētajiem virzieniem Latvijas historiogrāfijā.
Vienlaikus jāatzīst, ka Latvijas vēstures zinātne, tostarp ārpolitikas vēstures virziens,
caurmērā ir samērā konservatīvas savā iekšējā – teorētiskā un filozofiskā – attīstībā.
Šī raksta kontekstā ir vērts atgriezties pie vispārējās diskusijas par eksakto, humanitāro un sociālo zinātņu nodalījuma jēgu, būtību un lietderību. Atgriezties pie jautājuma, cik ļoti politoloģija un sociālās zinātnes kopumā pēdējos 100 gados ir nodalījušās no vēstures zinātnes vai, piemēram, cik ļoti vēstures palīgdisciplīna – arheoloģija – ir eksakta. Šeit nebūt negribu aģitēt par atgriešanos pie tradicionālās zinātnes izpratnes un klasiskajām augstākās izglītības studijām. Zinātņu stratifikācija jau ir neatgriezenisks process. Tomēr, iespējams, būtu lietderīgi, ja ne pašsaprotami, ja filozofs, kas pēta esamības fenomenu, kaut cik orientētos arī esības fiziskajos procesos, skolotājam ir jāorientējas ne tikai pedagoģijā, bet arī priekšmetā, ko viņš māca, un vēsturniekam, kas pēta ārpolitikas vēsturi, ir jāsaprot arī ārpolitikas procesa norise. Plašāka zinātniskā darba teorētiskā bāze, tostarp citu zinātņu metodoloģijas, teorijas un metodikas izmantošana, ļauj vēsturniekiem pētāmo jautājumu aplūkot plašāk, kā to raksturo Karolīne Kenedija-Paipa: aiz kokiem ieraudzīt mežu. Būtiski nemainoties avotu bāzei, vēstures zinātnes attīstība ir iespējama, vienīgi izmainot pētniecībā izmantojamās metodes un metodoloģiju, izmantojot plašāku zinātnes filozofiju un teorētisko pamatojumu. Liecību par avotu padara vienīgi pētnieks, un vienīgi pētnieka izmantotie instrumenti – metodika, metodoloģija, teorijas un filozofisko atziņu daudzveidība – nodrošina šo avotu izmantošanu arī nākotnē, no tiem iegūstot arvien jaunas ziņas. Tomēr pašsaprotami ir arī tas, ka, iespējams, pat lielākā daļa vēsturnieku turpinās darbu ar ierastajiem paņēmieniem un instrumentiem. Un tas nav nedz slikti, nedz arī labi. Latvijas vēstures zinātnes telpa ir tik neliela, ka tajā joprojām pastāv ārkārtīgi plašs nepētītu, maz pētītu vai nepietiekami dziļi un plaši pētītu jautājumu klāsts. Tomēr būtiski ir atzīt un akceptēt arī jaunu pieeju ienākšanu vēstures zinātnē. Arī mums pazīstamā tradicionālā vēstures pētniecības pieeja kādreiz bija novatoriska. Vēsturnieku interpretācijas laiktelpā ir mainīgas, un ir būtiski laikus pamanīt izmaiņas un sekot tām. Jau tagad vēsturnieki skeptiski raugās uz zinātnisko pieeju, kāda tā bijusi pirms 100, 50 vai pat tikai 20 gadiem. Un arī nākotnē vispārzinātniskā pieeja noteikti mainīsies. Vēstures zinātne, tāpat kā jebkura cita zinātne, ir dinamiska un daudzveidīga. Un tikai tas nodrošina tās dzīvotspēju.
Starptautisko attiecību teoriju izmantošana ārpolitikas vēstures pētniecībā ir tikai viens
no Latvijas vēstures zinātnes iekšējās attīstības jautājumiem, kas ļoti spēcīgi korelē ar
vēstures zinātnes starpdisciplinaritāti un citu zinātņu metožu un atziņu aprobēšanu vēsturisku
pētījumu veikšanā. Raksts ir veltīts mūsdienu Latvijas historiogrāfijas ārpolitikas virzienam
un jaunu teorētisko atziņu ienākšanas nepieciešamībai tajā. Raksta mērķis ir pievērst Latvijas
vēsturnieku uzmanību zinātnes attīstībai un modernizācijai, kas izpaužas, paplašinot vēstures
pētniecībā izmantojamo metožu un teoriju loku. Ārpolitikas un diplomātijas
vēstures pētniecība ir viens no visplašāk pārstāvētajiem virzieniem Latvijas historiogrāfijā.
Vienlaikus jāatzīst, ka Latvijas vēstures zinātne, tostarp ārpolitikas vēstures virziens,
caurmērā ir samērā konservatīvas savā iekšējā – teorētiskā un filozofiskā – attīstībā.
Šī raksta kontekstā ir vērts atgriezties pie vispārējās diskusijas par eksakto, humanitāro un sociālo zinātņu nodalījuma jēgu, būtību un lietderību. Atgriezties pie jautājuma, cik ļoti politoloģija un sociālās zinātnes kopumā pēdējos 100 gados ir nodalījušās no vēstures zinātnes vai, piemēram, cik ļoti vēstures palīgdisciplīna – arheoloģija – ir eksakta. Šeit nebūt negribu aģitēt par atgriešanos pie tradicionālās zinātnes izpratnes un klasiskajām augstākās izglītības studijām. Zinātņu stratifikācija jau ir neatgriezenisks process. Tomēr, iespējams, būtu lietderīgi, ja ne pašsaprotami, ja filozofs, kas pēta esamības fenomenu, kaut cik orientētos arī esības fiziskajos procesos, skolotājam ir jāorientējas ne tikai pedagoģijā, bet arī priekšmetā, ko viņš māca, un vēsturniekam, kas pēta ārpolitikas vēsturi, ir jāsaprot arī ārpolitikas procesa norise. Plašāka zinātniskā darba teorētiskā bāze, tostarp citu zinātņu metodoloģijas, teorijas un metodikas izmantošana, ļauj vēsturniekiem pētāmo jautājumu aplūkot plašāk, kā to raksturo Karolīne Kenedija-Paipa: aiz kokiem ieraudzīt mežu. Būtiski nemainoties avotu bāzei, vēstures zinātnes attīstība ir iespējama, vienīgi izmainot pētniecībā izmantojamās metodes un metodoloģiju, izmantojot plašāku zinātnes filozofiju un teorētisko pamatojumu. Liecību par avotu padara vienīgi pētnieks, un vienīgi pētnieka izmantotie instrumenti – metodika, metodoloģija, teorijas un filozofisko atziņu daudzveidība – nodrošina šo avotu izmantošanu arī nākotnē, no tiem iegūstot arvien jaunas ziņas. Tomēr pašsaprotami ir arī tas, ka, iespējams, pat lielākā daļa vēsturnieku turpinās darbu ar ierastajiem paņēmieniem un instrumentiem. Un tas nav nedz slikti, nedz arī labi. Latvijas vēstures zinātnes telpa ir tik neliela, ka tajā joprojām pastāv ārkārtīgi plašs nepētītu, maz pētītu vai nepietiekami dziļi un plaši pētītu jautājumu klāsts. Tomēr būtiski ir atzīt un akceptēt arī jaunu pieeju ienākšanu vēstures zinātnē. Arī mums pazīstamā tradicionālā vēstures pētniecības pieeja kādreiz bija novatoriska. Vēsturnieku interpretācijas laiktelpā ir mainīgas, un ir būtiski laikus pamanīt izmaiņas un sekot tām. Jau tagad vēsturnieki skeptiski raugās uz zinātnisko pieeju, kāda tā bijusi pirms 100, 50 vai pat tikai 20 gadiem. Un arī nākotnē vispārzinātniskā pieeja noteikti mainīsies. Vēstures zinātne, tāpat kā jebkura cita zinātne, ir dinamiska un daudzveidīga. Un tikai tas nodrošina tās dzīvotspēju.
Research Interests:
THE ART OF HISTORY An academic conversation between Latvian historians Andris Levāns and Edgars Engīzers about the meaning of history Since the regaining of the political and intellectual independence, Latvian historians have failed to... more
THE ART OF HISTORY
An academic conversation between Latvian historians
Andris Levāns and Edgars Engīzers about the meaning of history
Since the regaining of the political and intellectual independence,
Latvian historians have failed to pay attention to the theoretical and philosophical issues of history writing. There are just a few exceptions, notably, T. Puisāns, A. Varslavāns, and I. Misāns who have published their views on these issues, while some other historians have mentioned relevant ideas among main focuses in various publications like book reviews or interviews. This conversation between historians Edgars Engīzers and Andris Levāns is the first (hopefully, in a series) attempt to map the theoretical and philosophical ideas of Latvian historians in the 2020s.
In the course of the discussion, the interlocutors came to the following ideas and conclusions on some aspects of history writing:
Latvian historiography on the whole is too conservative, too nationally and ethnically centred as well as detached from theoretical discourses
taking place in the global community of historians. Public historical narratives and school textbooks, in their turn, are largely based on outdated conclusions and live their parallel lives, independently from new scientific historical findings. Historiography is never value-neutral, and the historian will never reach impartiality as it is perceived in the hard, natural sciences: history, same as other disciplines, which are based on narratives, is always closely associated with the author’s talent and applied means of expression. However, by strictly following scholarly methodology in working with sources, the historian maintains an undoubtful degree of scientific expertise. The historian not only analyses what the sources say, but is also able to interpret what they remain silent about.
Thus, “the interpretation” of the past is never a literal translation of the
source text from one language into another and history really is the art of interpretation.
The meaning of history is re-defined every time we write it. Knowledge about the past provides individuals and societies with the depth of
existence, and therefore different historical narratives may have diverse
meanings, for example, a national historical narrative will have a different meaning and purpose than the narrative of a person’s life story or a family history.
Historians are the ones who construct memory communities. What
the historian writes about the past and calls history, and manages to carry to the society at large, is what we call the collective memory of a society or a community. We often use the past to explain the contemporary processes, and that is right because these processes have grown out of
and have been influenced by the past. But we also use the present to explain the past: in the process of history writing, we always ask questions, and these questions are determined by the contemporary life. The society always tries to identify “us” and “them” in the past, for the most part thinking from the perspective of contemporary political and geographical realia, which, however, have little in common with the timespace of the past that it assumes to be having in focus. In a sense, history is a cultural technique for travelling in time, at least in the intellectual dimension. However, political ambitions to use history for legitimising current decisions and actions are always present.
We must remember that the society is easily manipulated through historical narratives and historians also carry a huge burden of responsibility: they must not inflict harm on the society in a long-time perspective.
As life-stories are written, historical persons turn into figures and historians can make them into interesting witnesses of their age or into boring heroes, or victims. The historian must always be aware of the editorial responsibility that he or she carries as the author of a text. If we want to
identify the historian’s place between belonging to the world of art or science, it can rather be defined as that of a craftsperson who commands a certain set of skills required for the creation of historical and scholarly narratives of different genres.
Do historical sources really reveal facts apart from those related to
the creation of a particular source? If we define the fact as something that has “really happened”, to what extent, if at all, are we able to state what exactly “really happened”? These questions cannot be answered clearly and unambiguously. But speaking about the current status of the historical science in Latvia, one thing is clear: there is a shortage of and need for academic conversations about history, like the present one.
An academic conversation between Latvian historians
Andris Levāns and Edgars Engīzers about the meaning of history
Since the regaining of the political and intellectual independence,
Latvian historians have failed to pay attention to the theoretical and philosophical issues of history writing. There are just a few exceptions, notably, T. Puisāns, A. Varslavāns, and I. Misāns who have published their views on these issues, while some other historians have mentioned relevant ideas among main focuses in various publications like book reviews or interviews. This conversation between historians Edgars Engīzers and Andris Levāns is the first (hopefully, in a series) attempt to map the theoretical and philosophical ideas of Latvian historians in the 2020s.
In the course of the discussion, the interlocutors came to the following ideas and conclusions on some aspects of history writing:
Latvian historiography on the whole is too conservative, too nationally and ethnically centred as well as detached from theoretical discourses
taking place in the global community of historians. Public historical narratives and school textbooks, in their turn, are largely based on outdated conclusions and live their parallel lives, independently from new scientific historical findings. Historiography is never value-neutral, and the historian will never reach impartiality as it is perceived in the hard, natural sciences: history, same as other disciplines, which are based on narratives, is always closely associated with the author’s talent and applied means of expression. However, by strictly following scholarly methodology in working with sources, the historian maintains an undoubtful degree of scientific expertise. The historian not only analyses what the sources say, but is also able to interpret what they remain silent about.
Thus, “the interpretation” of the past is never a literal translation of the
source text from one language into another and history really is the art of interpretation.
The meaning of history is re-defined every time we write it. Knowledge about the past provides individuals and societies with the depth of
existence, and therefore different historical narratives may have diverse
meanings, for example, a national historical narrative will have a different meaning and purpose than the narrative of a person’s life story or a family history.
Historians are the ones who construct memory communities. What
the historian writes about the past and calls history, and manages to carry to the society at large, is what we call the collective memory of a society or a community. We often use the past to explain the contemporary processes, and that is right because these processes have grown out of
and have been influenced by the past. But we also use the present to explain the past: in the process of history writing, we always ask questions, and these questions are determined by the contemporary life. The society always tries to identify “us” and “them” in the past, for the most part thinking from the perspective of contemporary political and geographical realia, which, however, have little in common with the timespace of the past that it assumes to be having in focus. In a sense, history is a cultural technique for travelling in time, at least in the intellectual dimension. However, political ambitions to use history for legitimising current decisions and actions are always present.
We must remember that the society is easily manipulated through historical narratives and historians also carry a huge burden of responsibility: they must not inflict harm on the society in a long-time perspective.
As life-stories are written, historical persons turn into figures and historians can make them into interesting witnesses of their age or into boring heroes, or victims. The historian must always be aware of the editorial responsibility that he or she carries as the author of a text. If we want to
identify the historian’s place between belonging to the world of art or science, it can rather be defined as that of a craftsperson who commands a certain set of skills required for the creation of historical and scholarly narratives of different genres.
Do historical sources really reveal facts apart from those related to
the creation of a particular source? If we define the fact as something that has “really happened”, to what extent, if at all, are we able to state what exactly “really happened”? These questions cannot be answered clearly and unambiguously. But speaking about the current status of the historical science in Latvia, one thing is clear: there is a shortage of and need for academic conversations about history, like the present one.
Research Interests:
BETWEEN COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS: INTERESTING APPROACHES, DEFINITIONS, AND CONTEXTS OUTLINED IN THE SECTION “THE INDIVIDUAL AND STATE POWER IN THE BALTICS” OF THE 79TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA The section “The... more
BETWEEN COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS: INTERESTING
APPROACHES, DEFINITIONS, AND CONTEXTS OUTLINED
IN THE SECTION “THE INDIVIDUAL AND STATE POWER
IN THE BALTICS” OF THE 79TH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA
The section “The Individual and State Power in the Baltics” of the
79th International Conference of the University of Latvia took place in online format on 26 February 2021. The presentations focused on the relations and interactions between the individual and power, starting from the centralization of the Semigallian barbarian society in the 13th century and addressing the following topics: teachers as mediators of power, issues of Russification in the context of the 1905 revolution, political populism and political responsibility in Latvia in the early 1920s, the development of the chronology of Latvian history, the Orthodox congregation of Kolka village during the Second World War, the youth policy and the beginnings of disco parties in Latvia in the 1970s–1980s, as well as the role of Jānis Šteinhauers (Riga in the 18th century) and Lieutenant Roberts Rubenis (Kurzeme region during the Second World War) in shaping the interaction between the power and individuals. The presented ideas that deserve special attention were related to the specifics of the Semigallian society in the context of barbarian and medieval European societies, the schools of the Modern Period as a tool of Christianisation and their role in the building of loyalty, as well as the conservative resistance of teachers to the modernization policies in the Russian Empire that included Russification of the Baltic to counteract the influence of the rising German nationalism. The story of Jānis Šteinhauers in Riga’s society allowed drawing two important conclusions: first, this society was not strictly divided either along ethnic or corporative lines, and second, the shared ethnic background or material situation was not the decisive factor in building social ties, as is, for example, shown by the analysed choice of godparents. The analysis of Lieutenant Roberts Rubenis’ activities in the resistance movement underlined the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in the historical research, while insight into Kolka Orthodox congregation revealed significant aspects of and motives for Latvians’ collaboration with the occupation authorities. The drawn conclusions – that already in the 1970s, long before Gorbachev’s Perestroika, signs of the imminent collapse of the USSR were visible and a change in the paradigm of control over society took place, and there was relative tolerance towards Westernisation of popular culture as the so-called 1968 generation came to power – are important in the context of the history of Latvia and the entire Eastern Europe, and even the global history. The broad thematic spectrum of the conference versus the narrow focus of each presentation provided an important bridge between micro and macro historical narratives, attributing a special significance to the comments, questions, and answers part of the event that centered on the history of both resistance and collaboration, and interconnection between seemingly anti-Soviet cultural developments and the policies of the Soviet authorities. All the presentations together contribute to revealing the history of Latvia within broader Europe-wide processes, serving significantly to add to the overall picture of the history of Europe. The interdisciplinary orientation of the conference, with attention attributed also to specific sociological theories and philosophical approaches, makes the presentations, which are now accessible in archive in Latvian (with abstracts available also in English), suitable for use also for considering historical research in a context broader than the covered topics. This was the path taken by the final discussion, and the problematic issues of Latvian history and remembrance policies were addressed.
APPROACHES, DEFINITIONS, AND CONTEXTS OUTLINED
IN THE SECTION “THE INDIVIDUAL AND STATE POWER
IN THE BALTICS” OF THE 79TH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA
The section “The Individual and State Power in the Baltics” of the
79th International Conference of the University of Latvia took place in online format on 26 February 2021. The presentations focused on the relations and interactions between the individual and power, starting from the centralization of the Semigallian barbarian society in the 13th century and addressing the following topics: teachers as mediators of power, issues of Russification in the context of the 1905 revolution, political populism and political responsibility in Latvia in the early 1920s, the development of the chronology of Latvian history, the Orthodox congregation of Kolka village during the Second World War, the youth policy and the beginnings of disco parties in Latvia in the 1970s–1980s, as well as the role of Jānis Šteinhauers (Riga in the 18th century) and Lieutenant Roberts Rubenis (Kurzeme region during the Second World War) in shaping the interaction between the power and individuals. The presented ideas that deserve special attention were related to the specifics of the Semigallian society in the context of barbarian and medieval European societies, the schools of the Modern Period as a tool of Christianisation and their role in the building of loyalty, as well as the conservative resistance of teachers to the modernization policies in the Russian Empire that included Russification of the Baltic to counteract the influence of the rising German nationalism. The story of Jānis Šteinhauers in Riga’s society allowed drawing two important conclusions: first, this society was not strictly divided either along ethnic or corporative lines, and second, the shared ethnic background or material situation was not the decisive factor in building social ties, as is, for example, shown by the analysed choice of godparents. The analysis of Lieutenant Roberts Rubenis’ activities in the resistance movement underlined the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in the historical research, while insight into Kolka Orthodox congregation revealed significant aspects of and motives for Latvians’ collaboration with the occupation authorities. The drawn conclusions – that already in the 1970s, long before Gorbachev’s Perestroika, signs of the imminent collapse of the USSR were visible and a change in the paradigm of control over society took place, and there was relative tolerance towards Westernisation of popular culture as the so-called 1968 generation came to power – are important in the context of the history of Latvia and the entire Eastern Europe, and even the global history. The broad thematic spectrum of the conference versus the narrow focus of each presentation provided an important bridge between micro and macro historical narratives, attributing a special significance to the comments, questions, and answers part of the event that centered on the history of both resistance and collaboration, and interconnection between seemingly anti-Soviet cultural developments and the policies of the Soviet authorities. All the presentations together contribute to revealing the history of Latvia within broader Europe-wide processes, serving significantly to add to the overall picture of the history of Europe. The interdisciplinary orientation of the conference, with attention attributed also to specific sociological theories and philosophical approaches, makes the presentations, which are now accessible in archive in Latvian (with abstracts available also in English), suitable for use also for considering historical research in a context broader than the covered topics. This was the path taken by the final discussion, and the problematic issues of Latvian history and remembrance policies were addressed.
Research Interests:
Latvijas Atmodas vēsture nav izprotama atrauti no PSRS perestroikas vēstures saprašanas, kas diemžēl bieži vien paliek atrauta no barikāžu laika pieredžu un vēstures vēstījumiem. Baltijā kolektīvajā atmiņā vēl bija dzīvas tiešas atmiņas... more
Latvijas Atmodas vēsture nav izprotama atrauti no PSRS perestroikas vēstures saprašanas, kas diemžēl bieži vien paliek atrauta no barikāžu laika pieredžu un vēstures vēstījumiem.
Baltijā kolektīvajā atmiņā vēl bija dzīvas tiešas atmiņas no pirmskara laika – tas būtiski atšķīra Baltijas republikas no pārējās PSRS.
Rokenrols, džinsi un košļājamās gumijas vai, pareizāk sakot, PSRS īstenotās politikas nespēja nodrošināt sabiedrības pieprasījumu pēc patēriņa precēm, sagrāva sabiedrības jaunākās daļas ticību sociālistiskās nākotnes iespējamībai.
Latvijas informatīvā telpa nav atraujama no tālaika progresīvajiem izdevumiem Krievijā – “Literaturnaja Gazeta”, “Ogoņok” u. c. Izvērtējot idejisko strāvojumu attīstību Latvijā, daudz nopietnāk ir jāņem vērā Krievijas disidentisko ideju un aizliegtās mākslas ietekme.
Afganistānas karš ne vien lika pamatus varas kritikai un pat atklātam naidam, bet arī sagrāva padomju armijas uzvarētājas tēlu.
Perestroikas, Atmodas un barikāžu laika sabiedrība ir daudz “krāsaināka” un daudzveidīgāka, nekā tas tiek parādīts lielākoties melnbalti ietonētajos vēstījumos.
Baltijā kolektīvajā atmiņā vēl bija dzīvas tiešas atmiņas no pirmskara laika – tas būtiski atšķīra Baltijas republikas no pārējās PSRS.
Rokenrols, džinsi un košļājamās gumijas vai, pareizāk sakot, PSRS īstenotās politikas nespēja nodrošināt sabiedrības pieprasījumu pēc patēriņa precēm, sagrāva sabiedrības jaunākās daļas ticību sociālistiskās nākotnes iespējamībai.
Latvijas informatīvā telpa nav atraujama no tālaika progresīvajiem izdevumiem Krievijā – “Literaturnaja Gazeta”, “Ogoņok” u. c. Izvērtējot idejisko strāvojumu attīstību Latvijā, daudz nopietnāk ir jāņem vērā Krievijas disidentisko ideju un aizliegtās mākslas ietekme.
Afganistānas karš ne vien lika pamatus varas kritikai un pat atklātam naidam, bet arī sagrāva padomju armijas uzvarētājas tēlu.
Perestroikas, Atmodas un barikāžu laika sabiedrība ir daudz “krāsaināka” un daudzveidīgāka, nekā tas tiek parādīts lielākoties melnbalti ietonētajos vēstījumos.
Research Interests:
Historiography of contemporary Latvian military history Only few monographies deal specifically with the questions related to the creation and development of Latvian National armed forces in time period from 19911996. Few works are... more
Historiography of contemporary Latvian military history
Only few monographies deal specifically with the questions related
to the creation and development of Latvian National armed forces in
time period from 19911996.
Few works are created mainly by active
participants of the events described. And they mostly combines
memories and personal knowledge of the authors with the use of historical
sources.
Several works are dedicated to problems related to questions of
security and defence that all three Baltic countries share. These are too
general to give insight in specific problems of the case of Latvia, but at
same time very useful in questions regarding international relations and
context of activities of Latvian National armed forces.
The largest part of historiography of contemporary Latvian military
history is scientific and popularscience
articles. Three topical groups
of such articles are separable: articles about the history of creation of
Latvian National Armed forces; articles about Baltic security problems
and articles devoted to some more narrow and specific topic of Latvian
military history. Articles are published both in foreign scientific journals
(Baltic Defence Review, European Security, Strategic Analysis, Journal of
the Baltic studies etc) and in journals published in Latvia (Latvijas Vēstures institūta žurnāls, Latvijas vēsture etc.).
Examining historiography of contemporary Latvian military history
it has to be observed, that the approach to military history writing
has changed over time. Traditional military history has given its place
to new military history, that focuses not only on research of military
units and conflicts, but largely also on military sociology, anthropology,
everyday life in military etc., and is heavily influenced by the methods
and approaches of other social and humanitarian sciences. At the same
time large number of other topics covering such topics as combat action, military tasks, formation of separate units, military culture, everyday life and traditions are touched upon only slightly or not at all.
Only few monographies deal specifically with the questions related
to the creation and development of Latvian National armed forces in
time period from 19911996.
Few works are created mainly by active
participants of the events described. And they mostly combines
memories and personal knowledge of the authors with the use of historical
sources.
Several works are dedicated to problems related to questions of
security and defence that all three Baltic countries share. These are too
general to give insight in specific problems of the case of Latvia, but at
same time very useful in questions regarding international relations and
context of activities of Latvian National armed forces.
The largest part of historiography of contemporary Latvian military
history is scientific and popularscience
articles. Three topical groups
of such articles are separable: articles about the history of creation of
Latvian National Armed forces; articles about Baltic security problems
and articles devoted to some more narrow and specific topic of Latvian
military history. Articles are published both in foreign scientific journals
(Baltic Defence Review, European Security, Strategic Analysis, Journal of
the Baltic studies etc) and in journals published in Latvia (Latvijas Vēstures institūta žurnāls, Latvijas vēsture etc.).
Examining historiography of contemporary Latvian military history
it has to be observed, that the approach to military history writing
has changed over time. Traditional military history has given its place
to new military history, that focuses not only on research of military
units and conflicts, but largely also on military sociology, anthropology,
everyday life in military etc., and is heavily influenced by the methods
and approaches of other social and humanitarian sciences. At the same
time large number of other topics covering such topics as combat action, military tasks, formation of separate units, military culture, everyday life and traditions are touched upon only slightly or not at all.
Research Interests:
Sapieru vienības uz Latgales fronti tika nosūtītas 1920.g.sākumā, kad jau bija iesākta Latvijas armijas demobilizācija. Latgalē darbojās visu Latvijas armijas divīziju atsevišķās inženieru- sapieru rotas, kuru darbību turpmāk arī... more
Sapieru vienības uz Latgales fronti tika nosūtītas 1920.g.sākumā, kad jau bija iesākta Latvijas armijas demobilizācija. Latgalē darbojās visu Latvijas armijas divīziju atsevišķās inženieru- sapieru rotas, kuru darbību turpmāk arī parādīšu. Jāpiebilst, ka daudzos gadījumos sapieru vienību atsevišķas daļas tika pakļautas kājnieku daļām un kā atsevišķas vienības nedarbojās. 1920 .g. Sapieru vienības darbojās kā atsevišķas divīziju inženieru- sapieru rotas, bet ar 1921.g.1.aprīli tās tika apvienotas Sapieru bataljonā.
Research Interests:
Estonian and Latvian Military and Technical Cooperation in 1919–1940 on the Example of Engineer Units he military cooperation of the Baltic States is and was a relevant issue due to the fact that defending the Baltic region from an... more
Estonian and Latvian Military and Technical
Cooperation in 1919–1940 on the Example
of Engineer Units
he military cooperation of the Baltic States is and was a relevant issue
due to the fact that defending the Baltic region from an external enemy is
possible only as a result of the joint strategic and operational efort of the
armed forces of at least Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All Baltic States
gained independence in 1918 at similar circumstances but in a slightly
diferent military political situation that proceeded to shape the orientation
of their foreign policy in 1920–1940. While Estonia and Latvia had
common causes in foreign policy, Lithuania was mainly excluded from
military cooperation due to its problems with Germany and Poland.
Ater declaring independence in November 1918, the young republic
of Latvia found itself in a military and political situation more complex
than that of Estonia since it was threatened both from the direction of
Soviet Russia and the German Freikorps. he Republic of Estonia provided
a great deal of military assistance to the democratic government
of Latvia: Estonian army participated in both the liberation of Northern
Latvia in the summer of 1919 during what is known as the Landeswehr
conlict, and the defence of Riga supported by the Latvian military against
the West Russian Volunteer Army of Pavel Bermondt-Avalov in October
1919.
In spite the military cooperation during the War for Independence,
Estonia and Latvia could not reach agreements on a diplomatic level. Tensions
that arose during the determination of the Estonian–Latvian state
borders could have easily led to an armed conlict between the neighbouring
countries. Owing to the mediation of Great Britain who maintained
neutrality in the matter, the border agreement was successfully
concluded and the productive cooperation of the Estonian and Latvian
foreign ministers assisted the gradual normalisation of the relationship
198 Igor Kopõtin, Edgars Engīzers
between the countries. he apogee of this was the conclusion of an Estonian–Latvian
defence league agreement, which was intended to have
served as the basis for the military cooperation of the two new allies. In
reality, the agreement on the military union remained on paper only, the
main reason being the mutual distrust of the military administrations
originating from the days of the War for Independence. Secondary problems
turned out to be diferent military doctrines and the estimation of
external danger, poor coordination in strategic planning, content diferences
in arms procurements and the absence of a common language for
interaction.
However, the years 1929–1931 still saw two joint military manoeuvres,
one common ield training exercise, and some meetings between
the military high commands. Reciprocal visits of Estonian and Latvian
military staf developed into a prevalent form of cooperation that also led
to the emergence of partnerships between speciic military units. Dozens
of Estonian and Latvian oicers had the opportunity to receive in-service
training in an ally’s military unit or even study in a military college of the
neighbouring country.
Military and technological cooperation was also limited due to the
aforementioned circumstances and mainly concerned exchanging specialist
information. he information was mediated by the Estonian and
Latvian military representatives in Riga and Tallinn respectively. Upon
necessity, visits were organised for specialists in order to acquaint them
with military technical equipment. Interest was rather high and concerned
various ields: structure of the army, infantry weapons and equipment,
air forces’ technology, artillery systems and ammunition, protection
from chemical warfare, veterinary services, military topography, etc.
he article explains the nature of Estonian and Latvian military and
technical cooperation on the example of two military units, i.e., the Estonian
engineer battalion and Latvian sappers’ regiment, the collaboration
of which developed from 1928 to 1940. Both units expressed a mutual
respect towards each other, which materialised in the form of visits of
the oicers and non-commissioned oicers. Latvian sappers attended
the most important day in the history of the Estonian engineer battalion,
Estonian and Latvian Military and Technical Cooperation in 1919–1940 ... 199
the ceremony for the presentation of the unit’s lag in May 1929. Military
and technical cooperation was, however, quite limited with regard
to these units as well. Lieutenant Colonel Johann-Bernhard Grünberg,
commander of the Estonian engineer battalion, visited Latvia in 1929 and
was acquainted with the organisation of the Latvian sappers’ training. In
exchange, the Latvians sent Lieutenant Konrads Riekstiņš for in-service
training at the engineer battalion; he acquired a thorough insight of the
Estonian engineers’ training, especially in railway ield engineering and
blasting. he Latvians could learn from the Estonian experience in using
engineering equipment. hey also showed great interest towards the antitank
mine invented by Captain heodor Tomson, as well as chemical
weapons. Immediately prior to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States
the Estonian engineer battalion was also visited by Colonel Juris Brieže,
head of the Latvian ield engineer service, who estimated the mechanisation
of the Estonian unit to be of a high level.
In conclusion, it can be said that the military and technical cooperation
of Estonia and Latvia remained rather basic. First and foremost,
the underlying cause was the complexity of the diplomatic relationships
between the two allied states in the inter-war period from 1920 to 1940.
Cooperation in 1919–1940 on the Example
of Engineer Units
he military cooperation of the Baltic States is and was a relevant issue
due to the fact that defending the Baltic region from an external enemy is
possible only as a result of the joint strategic and operational efort of the
armed forces of at least Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All Baltic States
gained independence in 1918 at similar circumstances but in a slightly
diferent military political situation that proceeded to shape the orientation
of their foreign policy in 1920–1940. While Estonia and Latvia had
common causes in foreign policy, Lithuania was mainly excluded from
military cooperation due to its problems with Germany and Poland.
Ater declaring independence in November 1918, the young republic
of Latvia found itself in a military and political situation more complex
than that of Estonia since it was threatened both from the direction of
Soviet Russia and the German Freikorps. he Republic of Estonia provided
a great deal of military assistance to the democratic government
of Latvia: Estonian army participated in both the liberation of Northern
Latvia in the summer of 1919 during what is known as the Landeswehr
conlict, and the defence of Riga supported by the Latvian military against
the West Russian Volunteer Army of Pavel Bermondt-Avalov in October
1919.
In spite the military cooperation during the War for Independence,
Estonia and Latvia could not reach agreements on a diplomatic level. Tensions
that arose during the determination of the Estonian–Latvian state
borders could have easily led to an armed conlict between the neighbouring
countries. Owing to the mediation of Great Britain who maintained
neutrality in the matter, the border agreement was successfully
concluded and the productive cooperation of the Estonian and Latvian
foreign ministers assisted the gradual normalisation of the relationship
198 Igor Kopõtin, Edgars Engīzers
between the countries. he apogee of this was the conclusion of an Estonian–Latvian
defence league agreement, which was intended to have
served as the basis for the military cooperation of the two new allies. In
reality, the agreement on the military union remained on paper only, the
main reason being the mutual distrust of the military administrations
originating from the days of the War for Independence. Secondary problems
turned out to be diferent military doctrines and the estimation of
external danger, poor coordination in strategic planning, content diferences
in arms procurements and the absence of a common language for
interaction.
However, the years 1929–1931 still saw two joint military manoeuvres,
one common ield training exercise, and some meetings between
the military high commands. Reciprocal visits of Estonian and Latvian
military staf developed into a prevalent form of cooperation that also led
to the emergence of partnerships between speciic military units. Dozens
of Estonian and Latvian oicers had the opportunity to receive in-service
training in an ally’s military unit or even study in a military college of the
neighbouring country.
Military and technological cooperation was also limited due to the
aforementioned circumstances and mainly concerned exchanging specialist
information. he information was mediated by the Estonian and
Latvian military representatives in Riga and Tallinn respectively. Upon
necessity, visits were organised for specialists in order to acquaint them
with military technical equipment. Interest was rather high and concerned
various ields: structure of the army, infantry weapons and equipment,
air forces’ technology, artillery systems and ammunition, protection
from chemical warfare, veterinary services, military topography, etc.
he article explains the nature of Estonian and Latvian military and
technical cooperation on the example of two military units, i.e., the Estonian
engineer battalion and Latvian sappers’ regiment, the collaboration
of which developed from 1928 to 1940. Both units expressed a mutual
respect towards each other, which materialised in the form of visits of
the oicers and non-commissioned oicers. Latvian sappers attended
the most important day in the history of the Estonian engineer battalion,
Estonian and Latvian Military and Technical Cooperation in 1919–1940 ... 199
the ceremony for the presentation of the unit’s lag in May 1929. Military
and technical cooperation was, however, quite limited with regard
to these units as well. Lieutenant Colonel Johann-Bernhard Grünberg,
commander of the Estonian engineer battalion, visited Latvia in 1929 and
was acquainted with the organisation of the Latvian sappers’ training. In
exchange, the Latvians sent Lieutenant Konrads Riekstiņš for in-service
training at the engineer battalion; he acquired a thorough insight of the
Estonian engineers’ training, especially in railway ield engineering and
blasting. he Latvians could learn from the Estonian experience in using
engineering equipment. hey also showed great interest towards the antitank
mine invented by Captain heodor Tomson, as well as chemical
weapons. Immediately prior to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States
the Estonian engineer battalion was also visited by Colonel Juris Brieže,
head of the Latvian ield engineer service, who estimated the mechanisation
of the Estonian unit to be of a high level.
In conclusion, it can be said that the military and technical cooperation
of Estonia and Latvia remained rather basic. First and foremost,
the underlying cause was the complexity of the diplomatic relationships
between the two allied states in the inter-war period from 1920 to 1940.
Research Interests:
Ārkārtējā sūtņa un pilnvarotā ministra Friča Kociņa darbība Latvijai liktenīgajā laikā līdz šim nav pienācīgi izvērtēta. F.Kociņu nozīmīgajā amatā iecēla 1936.g., neierasti īsā laikā nomainot iepriekšējo Latvijas pārstāvi R.Liepiņu. Gan... more
Ārkārtējā sūtņa un pilnvarotā ministra Friča Kociņa darbība Latvijai liktenīgajā laikā līdz šim nav pienācīgi izvērtēta. F.Kociņu nozīmīgajā amatā iecēla 1936.g., neierasti īsā laikā nomainot iepriekšējo Latvijas pārstāvi R.Liepiņu. Gan F.Kociņa iepriekšējais dzīves gājums, gan personība atstāja ievērojamu iespaidu uz Latvijas – PSRS attiecībām. Arī savās diplomāta gaitās viņš pierādīja, ka nav tikai saziņas posms starp Rīgu un Maskavu. F.Kociņa darbība sakrita ar Latvijai liktenīgajiem notikumiem: pret latviešiem vērsto teroru PSRS, divām ārlietu ministra V.Muntera vizītēm Maskavā, triju lielvalstu Baltijas valstu garantiju sarunām, Molotova – Ribentropa pakta noslēgšanu, „Bāzu līgumu”, 1940.g. 16.jūnija notikumiem un visbeidzot – Latvijas valsts iznīcināšanu. Visos šajos notikumos F.Kociņš ņēma aktīvu dalību. Par Latviju plkv.- ltn. F.Kociņš atdeva savu dzīvību.
Research Interests:
What was the contribution to the collapse of the USSR of non-violent resistance in the Baltic, and the events which earned the designation of January 1991 Barricades? Was this a purely local turning point – a turning point in the history... more
What was the contribution to the collapse of the USSR of non-violent resistance in the Baltic, and the events which earned the designation of January 1991 Barricades? Was this a purely local turning point – a turning point in the history of Latvia, or an inalienable part of global geopolitical processes? How did the period of the Barricades1 influence the developments in Latvia? And how substantial was the impact of the events in Riga on geopolitical processes globally? These and many other questions are relevant to our assessments of the role played by the 1991 Barricades in history over and above a chronological retrospective view on the events 25 years ago.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Geopolitical situation in Europe changed in 1938 with more and more aggressive and global German external policy. Of course it influenced geopolitics of Latvia. At the same time USSR begun to feel as a great power despite not being... more
Geopolitical situation in Europe changed in 1938 with more and more aggressive and global German external policy. Of course it influenced geopolitics of Latvia. At the same time USSR begun to feel as a great power despite not being recognized as such by others. Countries including Latvia between Germany and USSR unwillingly step on the road towards being turned into a battlefield. Defeat of polish foreign policy and inability to establish deeper cooperation between Baltic States together with new order of international relations based with Munich Agreement formed completely new geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe which led to Molotov – Ribbentrop pact and the Second World War. Latvia was pulled into this situation, but unable to change it.
Next geopolitical switch were on June, 1940 with occupation of Latvia by USSR.
Next geopolitical switch were on June, 1940 with occupation of Latvia by USSR.
Research Interests:
Lai arī grāmata hronoloģiski aptver visu Latvijas valsts veidošanas simtgadi un pieskaras arī nācijas veidošanas problemātikai, tā tomēr nav vērtējama kā klasisks Latvijas vēstures vēstījums un pat ne kā skatījums no malas (gan no ārpus... more
Lai arī grāmata hronoloģiski aptver visu Latvijas valsts veidošanas
simtgadi un pieskaras arī nācijas veidošanas problemātikai, tā tomēr nav vērtējama kā klasisks Latvijas vēstures vēstījums un pat ne kā
skatījums no malas (gan no ārpus Latvijas, gan no citu zinātņu perspektīvas) uz Latvijas vēsturi. Grāmatas autori ir labi zināmi Latvijas un ārzemju pētnieki, kas pārstāv plašu paaudžu un akadēmiskās
piederības spektru. Ne visi autori ir vēsturnieki – tomēr tas nav uzskatāms par grāmatas trūkumu, bet tieši pretēji – dažādo zinātņu metodoloģiju savīšanās darbā, atklājot atsevišķus, tomēr savstarpēji saistītus problēmjautājumus, padara to starpdisciplināru un bagātina kopējo vēstījumu – ka Latvijas vēsture ir daudznozīmīgāka un pretrunīgāka, nekā parasti mēdz rakstīt līdzīga nosaukuma grāmatās. Tajā ir iekļauti 15 autoru raksti, kas sakopoti piecās daļās, lai arī jāatzīst, ka grāmatas strukturējums neatsedz nedz atsevišķu nodaļu hronoloģisko, nedz tematisko nošķīrumu un ir drīzāk vērtējams kā mākslīgs. Atsevišķo nodaļu autori katrs sava ieguldījuma ietvaros ir atklājuši kādu mazāk apzinātu, pretrunīgāku Latvijas vēstures problēmjautājumu, kas kopumā parāda Latvijas vēstures daudzšķautņainību un neviennozīmību. Ir skaidrs, ka šis darbs
ir paredzēts lasītājiem ar vēstures priekšzināšanām, tomēr grāmatas
koncepts ļauj tai pacelties pāri ierastajam konferenču referātu publikāciju formātam, kur atsevišķu autoru devums parasti nav savstarpēji papildinošs.
Neapšaubāmi ļoti būtisks grāmatas devums Latvijas vēsturiskajai
apziņai ir tas, ka autori ir pievērsušies mūsu nesenajai vēsturei – pat
aptverot laiku pēc 2010. gada. Vēsturnieku aprindās un sabiedrībā kopumā tiek aktualizēts jautājums par vēstures beigām – kurš laiks un
kuras tēmas pienāktos vēsturniekiem pētīt un kuras būtu atstājamas
politologu, sociologu, antropologu vai kādu citu sociālo zinātņu kompetencē. Man ir prieks, ka darba autori ir pierādījuši, ka pētīt un
analizēt procesus, kas ir dzīvā atmiņā, var (un vajag) arī, domājot par
valsts vēsturi plašākā hronoloģiskā ietvarā. Likumsakarīgi, ka laika periodam pēc 1991. gada ir pievērsušies autori, kas nenāk no vēstures
zinātnes, – antropologi, ekonomisti, politologi, sociologi; viņu devums būtiski papildina vēstures pētījumu trūkumu šī perioda apzināšanā, un citu sociālo zinātņu metodoloģijās balstītas atziņas padara daudzšķautņaināku arī skatījumu uz visu Latvijas vēstures kopainu. Grāmatas autori atkal un atkal izceļ to, ka Latvijas vēsture nav
lineāra cēloņsakarību virkne.
simtgadi un pieskaras arī nācijas veidošanas problemātikai, tā tomēr nav vērtējama kā klasisks Latvijas vēstures vēstījums un pat ne kā
skatījums no malas (gan no ārpus Latvijas, gan no citu zinātņu perspektīvas) uz Latvijas vēsturi. Grāmatas autori ir labi zināmi Latvijas un ārzemju pētnieki, kas pārstāv plašu paaudžu un akadēmiskās
piederības spektru. Ne visi autori ir vēsturnieki – tomēr tas nav uzskatāms par grāmatas trūkumu, bet tieši pretēji – dažādo zinātņu metodoloģiju savīšanās darbā, atklājot atsevišķus, tomēr savstarpēji saistītus problēmjautājumus, padara to starpdisciplināru un bagātina kopējo vēstījumu – ka Latvijas vēsture ir daudznozīmīgāka un pretrunīgāka, nekā parasti mēdz rakstīt līdzīga nosaukuma grāmatās. Tajā ir iekļauti 15 autoru raksti, kas sakopoti piecās daļās, lai arī jāatzīst, ka grāmatas strukturējums neatsedz nedz atsevišķu nodaļu hronoloģisko, nedz tematisko nošķīrumu un ir drīzāk vērtējams kā mākslīgs. Atsevišķo nodaļu autori katrs sava ieguldījuma ietvaros ir atklājuši kādu mazāk apzinātu, pretrunīgāku Latvijas vēstures problēmjautājumu, kas kopumā parāda Latvijas vēstures daudzšķautņainību un neviennozīmību. Ir skaidrs, ka šis darbs
ir paredzēts lasītājiem ar vēstures priekšzināšanām, tomēr grāmatas
koncepts ļauj tai pacelties pāri ierastajam konferenču referātu publikāciju formātam, kur atsevišķu autoru devums parasti nav savstarpēji papildinošs.
Neapšaubāmi ļoti būtisks grāmatas devums Latvijas vēsturiskajai
apziņai ir tas, ka autori ir pievērsušies mūsu nesenajai vēsturei – pat
aptverot laiku pēc 2010. gada. Vēsturnieku aprindās un sabiedrībā kopumā tiek aktualizēts jautājums par vēstures beigām – kurš laiks un
kuras tēmas pienāktos vēsturniekiem pētīt un kuras būtu atstājamas
politologu, sociologu, antropologu vai kādu citu sociālo zinātņu kompetencē. Man ir prieks, ka darba autori ir pierādījuši, ka pētīt un
analizēt procesus, kas ir dzīvā atmiņā, var (un vajag) arī, domājot par
valsts vēsturi plašākā hronoloģiskā ietvarā. Likumsakarīgi, ka laika periodam pēc 1991. gada ir pievērsušies autori, kas nenāk no vēstures
zinātnes, – antropologi, ekonomisti, politologi, sociologi; viņu devums būtiski papildina vēstures pētījumu trūkumu šī perioda apzināšanā, un citu sociālo zinātņu metodoloģijās balstītas atziņas padara daudzšķautņaināku arī skatījumu uz visu Latvijas vēstures kopainu. Grāmatas autori atkal un atkal izceļ to, ka Latvijas vēsture nav
lineāra cēloņsakarību virkne.
Research Interests:
The aim of this paper is to show how Russian state policy abuses history to intervene in processes in Latvia by making accusations of the falsification of history. That will be done without going deeply into the research, either of the... more
The aim of this paper is to show how Russian state policy abuses history to intervene in processes in Latvia by making accusations of the falsification of history. That will be done without going deeply into
the research, either of the abuse of history by Russia to reach its foreign and domestic political goals in the broader sense, nor for domestic purposes, as in many cases, these are two outcomes that are both the
aim of such abuse of history. The article is designed to illuminate, in author’s opinion, the most important aspect of this abuse – the questioning of the legacy of the incorporation of Latvia into the USSR as, aside from historiographical discourse, it also provides a base for the restoration of the independence of Latvia in 1990 and thus, is inseparable from current constitutional and international legal realities.
the research, either of the abuse of history by Russia to reach its foreign and domestic political goals in the broader sense, nor for domestic purposes, as in many cases, these are two outcomes that are both the
aim of such abuse of history. The article is designed to illuminate, in author’s opinion, the most important aspect of this abuse – the questioning of the legacy of the incorporation of Latvia into the USSR as, aside from historiographical discourse, it also provides a base for the restoration of the independence of Latvia in 1990 and thus, is inseparable from current constitutional and international legal realities.
Research Interests:
Tāpat kā daudzi citi valstiski nozīmīgi vēstures notikumi un procesi, arī 1991. gada janvāra barikādes ir apvītas ar daudziem mītiem. Tie rada ne vien savdabīgu šo norišu interpretāciju, bet arī nereti liedz to pilnvērtīgu izpratni,... more
Tāpat kā daudzi citi valstiski nozīmīgi vēstures notikumi un procesi, arī
1991. gada janvāra barikādes ir apvītas ar daudziem mītiem. Tie rada ne vien savdabīgu šo norišu interpretāciju, bet arī nereti liedz to pilnvērtīgu izpratni, sevišķi, runājot par paaudzi, kas minētos notikumus nav piedzīvojusi.
1991. gada janvāra barikādes ir apvītas ar daudziem mītiem. Tie rada ne vien savdabīgu šo norišu interpretāciju, bet arī nereti liedz to pilnvērtīgu izpratni, sevišķi, runājot par paaudzi, kas minētos notikumus nav piedzīvojusi.