Estonia And Latvia, My Friends
October 8, 2008 at 8:33 am
Before we close the books on this most dreadful and most utterly forgettable debate in modern presidential campaign history, let’s bring up the most pressing issue facing our country right now: Estonia. And Latvia.
Here’s Barack Obama last night:
“We’ve got to provide moral support to the Poles and Estonia and Latvia and all of the nations that were former Soviet satellites.”
Proper sentiment — but anything historically wrong with that? It’s doubtful that the people of Estonia and Latvia would agree with that listing, that their countries are former Soviet satellites. Actually, they were part of the Soviet empire, illegally occupied by the Soviets.
Splitting hairs? Not when you consider Senate Resolution 87:
Whereas, under the cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on June 17, 1940, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in violation of pre-existing peace treaties;
Whereas the Soviet Union imposed upon the people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania a communist political system that stifled civil dissent, free political expression, and basic human rights;
…
Congress … calls on the President and Secretary of State to urge the Government of the Russian Federation to acknowledge that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and for the succeeding 51 years was illegal.
That resolution was introduced on June 9, 2008 and passed unanimously without amendment on September 16, 2008.
The resolution had six co-sponsors. Among them: Barack Obama.
Tom Kolodziej said,
October 8, 2008 @ 9:20 am
You know its not like the Poles were willing satellites either. Someone may get that idea since you only referred to the Latvians and Estonians.
Scott Atchley said,
October 8, 2008 @ 9:36 am
He is trying to distinguish between “an integral part of” versus “dominated by but officially independent.” Poland was the latter, the Baltics were the former. None were willingly dominated by the Soviet Union, but no one thought that Poland was a republic of the Soviet Union as were Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, etc.
tim maguire said,
October 8, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Yeah, I’m not sure satellite means willing partner. I also think it has more to do with the government than the people.
Jane Doe said,
October 8, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Hmmm.
Yes, the Baltics were incorporated into the Soviet Union directly, while Poland was allowed a nominal independence short of formal annexation.
On the other hand, Poland, Latvia, and Estonia were all victims of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, all were forcibly occupied by the Soviets, had their domestic institutions dictated by the Soviets, had governments-in-exile which continued to protest Soviet occupation, were recognized as independent by the United States for the entirety of the Cold War, and had their governments-in-exile formally transfer authority to the post-Soviet governments.
So while most Estonians and Latvians probably would agree that they had it rougher than the Poles, it’s not unreasonable to group them together, as states that were independent before WWII, were then controlled by the USSR, and then regained their true independence.
Jim O said,
October 8, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
In the Cold War, the term ’satellite nation’ was explicitly reserved for nominally independent states that had soviet-installed (and when required, re-installed) regimes — like Poland, the so-genannt ‘DDR’, Hungary, etc. States that were wholly incorporated into the USSR were “republics”, such as Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and yes, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Until now, NOBODY had ever called them ’satellite nations’. Maybe Obama was misled as a child by a typo in his ‘Weekly Reader’.
Steve Skubinna said,
October 8, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
“…they were part of the Soviet empire, illegally occupied by the Soviets.”
As you note, they were occupied under the provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, therefore they were occupied under the terms of a treaty, ergo, it was in accordance with international law. So Barack and other internationalists who worship at the altar of international agreements ought to be chastising the Baltic Republics for their unilateral “cowboy” diplomacy.
Matt said,
October 8, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Well, he doesn’t actually say that Estonia and Latvia were merely satellites, although it coud be read that way. He also missed out Lithuania from the Baltic states that were formerly part of the USSR: probably an oversight. And he most signally failed to mention Georgia and Ukraine.
Also, re senate resolution 87: not all of Ukraine was part of the USSR from the get-go: Western Ukraine was annexed under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact: previously it was part of Poland.
firefirefire said,
October 10, 2008 @ 11:25 am
I used to work for LAAIKS-LATVIAN language newspaper out of Brooklyn NY.
There were many old Latvian ladies who worked the mailing address machines and one who had a good command of english who I used to deal with.
This was back in the early 80’s and I remember speaking with her about the occupations during and after World War Two.
This lady told me stories about our publishers father and how he got out of Riga just ahead of the Nazi’s and came to the US.
She however, did not get out until the 1960’s and she said that they feared the Nazi’s,but much less so once they had the Communists to compare them with.
I asked her what she meant and she replied that “at least the Germans brought their culture with them while they were in Latvia all the Russians brought was their Godlessness.”
Mostly I remember her being amazed that Americans would elect an ACTOR to be our President.
But wasn’t she and all the rest of the old Latvian ladies cheering like crazy when the wall came down after the collapse of the USSR?
You bet they were!
It looks as if a new brand of stealth Communism is a few votes away from establishing itself in the USA next January.