In chapter
In big politics, there is always a plan "A" and a plan "B". It often happens that there are both "B" and "D". In this article, we will tell you how in 1939 Plan B was drawn up and implemented for the entry of the Baltic republics into the USSR. But plan "A" worked, which gave the desired result. And they forgot about plan B.
1939 Anxious. Prewar. On August 23, 1939, a Soviet-German non-aggression pact with a secret appendix was signed. It shows on the map the zones of influence of Germany and the USSR. The Soviet zone included Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. For the USSR, it was necessary to decide on its decisions regarding these countries. As usual, there were several plans. The main one implied that, through political pressure, Soviet military bases would be deployed in the Baltic countries - troops of the Leningrad Military District and Baltic Fleet, and then the local left forces will achieve elections to local parliaments, which will announce the entry of the Baltic republics into the USSR. But in case of an unforeseen event, a plan "B" was also developed. It is more intricate and complex.
"Pioneer"
The Baltic Sea is rich in all sorts of accidents and disasters. Until the beginning of autumn 1939, we can mention cases of accidents and deaths in the Gulf of Finland of Soviet ships: the Azimut hydrographic vessel on 08/28/1938 in the Luga Bay, the M-90 submarine on 10/15/1938 near Oranienbaum, the cargo ship Chelyuskinets on 03/27/1939 at Tallinn. In principle, the situation at sea during this period could be considered calm. But since mid-summer, a new, alarming factor has appeared - reports by ship captains of the Sovtorgflot (the name of the organization operating civilian ships of the USSR in the pre-war period) about mines allegedly floating in the Gulf of Finland. At the same time, sometimes there were reports that the mines were of the "English" type. Even military sailors, when they find it at sea, do not undertake to report about a sample of a mine, but here the report comes from civilian sailors! In the 1920s and early 1930s, the appearance of mines in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland was repeatedly reported. But then the mines of the Russian, German or English type of the times of the First World War and the Civil War were detected in a timely manner and immediately destroyed, but for some reason these could not be found. The palm in fictitious reports was held by the captain of the ship "Pioneer" Vladimir Mikhailovich Beklemishev.
July 23, 1939 the following happened: at 22.21. patrol ship "Typhoon", standing on patrol on the line of the Shepelevsky lighthouse, received a message from the captain of the m/v "Pioneer", located in the Gulf of Finland, with a semaphore and a clapper: - "Two warships of the battleship type were seen in the area of the Northern village of Gogland Island." (Hereinafter, extracts from the “Operational Logbook of the Operational Duty Headquarters of the KBF” [RGA Navy. F-R-92. Op-1. D-1005,1006]). At 22.30, the Typhoon commander requests the Pioneer: - "Report the time and course of the battleships you noticed of unknown ownership." At 22.42. the captain of the Pioneer repeats the previous text, and the connection is interrupted. The commander of the "Typhoon" passed this information to the headquarters of the fleet and at his own peril and risk (after all, there was no command for this) organizes a search for unknown battleships near Finnish territorial waters and, of course, does not find anything. Why this performance was played, we will understand a little later.
To understand the process and the people involved in it, let's talk about the captain of the ship "Pioneer" Beklemishev Vladimir Mikhailovich. This is the son of the first Russian submariner Mikhail Nikolaevich Beklemishev, born in 1858. born, one of the designers of the first Russian submarine "Dolphin" (1903) and its first commander. Having connected his service with submarines, he retired in 1910. with the rank of Major General in the Navy. Then he taught minecraft in St. Petersburg polytechnic institute, worked as a technical consultant at St. Petersburg factories. Left out of work after the October Revolution of 1917, he entered the Main Directorate of Shipbuilding, but was fired. Since 1924, he became the commander of the Mikula experimental ship, regularly commanding it between repeated arrests, and retired in 1931. In 1933, as the highest rank of the tsarist fleet (general), he was deprived of his pension. The old sailor died of a heart attack in 1936. (E.A. Kovalev "Knights of the Deep", 2005, p. 14, 363). His son Vladimir followed in his father's footsteps and became a sailor, only in the merchant fleet. Probably his cooperation with the Soviet special services. In the 1930s, the sailors of the merchant fleet were among the few who freely and regularly visited foreign states, and Soviet intelligence often used the services of merchant sailors.
"Adventures" "Pioneer" did not end there. On September 28, 1939, at about 2 am, when the ship entered the Narva Bay, its captain imitated the landing of the Pioneer on the rocks near Vigrund Island and gave a previously prepared radiogram "about the attack of the ship by an unknown submarine." The imitation of the attack served as the last trump card in the negotiations between the USSR and Estonia “On measures to ensure the security of Soviet waters from sabotage by foreign submarines hiding in the Baltic waters” (Pravda newspaper, September 30, 1939, No. 133). The submarine mentioned here is not accidental. The fact is that after the German attack on Poland, the Polish submarine ORP “Orzeł” (“Eagle”) broke into Tallinn and was interned. On September 18, 1939, the crew of the boat tied up the Estonian sentries and "Orzeł" at full speed headed for the exit from the harbor and escaped from Tallinn. Since two Estonian guards were held hostage on the boat, Estonian and German newspapers accused the Polish crew of killing both. However, the Poles landed sentries near Sweden, gave them food, water and money to return to their homeland, after which they left for England. The story then received a wide response and became a clear reason for the scenario of a "torpedo attack" on the Pioneer. The fact that the attack on the ship was not real and the Pioneer was not damaged can be judged by further events. The powerful rescue tug “Signal”, which was waiting in advance for the “SOS” signal, immediately went to the “Pioneer”, and the rescuer, the diving base vessel “Trefolev”, left the harbor on September 29, 1939 at 03.43 on assignment and stood on the Great Kronstadt roadstead. Allegedly removed from the stones, the ship was brought to the Neva Bay. At 10.27 on September 30, 1939, Signal and Pioneer anchored in the East Kronstadt roadstead. But for some, this was not enough. As early as 06.15, the towed "Pioneer" again "discovers" (!) A floating mine in the area of \u200b\u200bthe Shepelevsky lighthouse, which is reported to the patrol minesweeper T 202 "Buy". An order was given to the Operative Duty Officer of the Water Area Protection (OVR) to warn all ships about a floating mine in the Shepelevsky lighthouse area. At 09.50, the operational duty officer of the OVR reports to the Headquarters of the Fleet that the “sea hunter” boat sent to search for mines has returned, no mines have been found. On October 2, 1939, at 20.18, the Pioneer transport began to be towed from the Eastern Road to Oranienbaum. If the "Pioneer" really hastily jumped onto one of the stone banks near the rocky island of Vigrund, it should have been damaged, at least one or two sheets of the skin of the underwater part of the hull. There was only one large hold on the ship, and it would immediately fill with water, resulting in serious damage to the ship. Only good weather, a band-aid, and pumping out water by the rescue ship could save him. Since nothing of the kind happened, it is clear that the ship did not sit on the rocks. Since the ship was not even brought in for inspection at any of the Kronstadt or Leningrad docks, we can conclude that it was on the stones only in the TASS Message. In the future, according to the scenario, the Pioneer ship was not required, and for some time it worked safely in the Baltic, and in 1940 the Pioneer was handed over to the crew that arrived from Baku and sent (out of sight) along the Volga to the Caspian Sea. After the war, the ship was in operation by the Caspian Shipping Company until July 1966.
"Metalist"
The Pravda newspaper, No. 132 of September 28, 1939, published a TASS message: “On September 27, at about 6 pm, an unknown submarine in the Narva Bay area torpedoed and sank the Soviet steamship Metalist, with a displacement of up to 4000 tons. From the crew of the ship in the amount of 24 people, 19 people were picked up by patrol Soviet ships, the remaining 5 people were not found. "Metalist" was not a merchant ship. He was the so-called "coal miner" - an auxiliary ship of the Baltic Fleet, a military transport, carried the flag of auxiliary ships of the Navy. "Metalist" was mainly assigned to the two Baltic battleships "Marat" and "October Revolution" and, before the transfer of both battleships to liquid fuel, supplied them with coal during campaigns and maneuvers. Although he had other tasks as well. For example, in June 1935, Metallist provided coal for the transition of the Krasny Gorn floating workshop from the Baltic Fleet to the Northern Fleet. By the end of the 30s, Metalist, built in 1903 in England, was outdated and of no particular value. They decided to donate. In September 1939, the Metallist stood in the Leningrad commercial port, waiting for coal to support the operations of the Baltic Fleet. It must be remembered that this was a period when, for foreign policy reasons, the fleet was put on high alert. On September 23, the ship just put under loading received an order from the Fleet Headquarters duty officer: “Send the Metalist transport from Leningrad.” Then a few days passed in confusion. The ship was driven in anticipation of something from Oranienbaum to Kronstadt and back.
To describe further events, we need to make a small digression. There are two layers in this description: the first is the actual events recorded in the documents, the second is the memoirs of a former Finnish intelligence officer who published his memoirs after the war in Switzerland. Let's try to combine two layers. Finnish intelligence officer Jukka L. Mäkkela, fleeing from the Soviet special services, was forced after Finland's withdrawal from the war in 1944. go abroad. There he published his memoirs „Im Rücken des Feindes-der finnische Nachrichtendienst in Krieg”, They were published on German in Switzerland (Verlag Huber & Co. Frauenfeld). In them, among other things, J. L. Mäkkela recalled the captain of the 2nd rank Arseniev, captured by the Finns in the fall of 1941 in the Bjorkesund area, allegedly in the past - the commander of the Svir training ship. (Not to be confused with Grigory Nikolaevich Arsenyev, acting commander of the Island Naval Base on Lavensaari Island, who died on May 18, 1945). The prisoner testified that in the autumn of 1939 he was called to a meeting, where he and another officer were given the task of simulating the sinking in the Narva Bay by an unknown submarine of the Metalist transport. The "Unknown" was assigned the submarine Shch-303 "Yorsh", which was being prepared for repairs, in which the crew was understaffed. The team of the transport "Metalist" will be "rescued" by patrol ships that have entered the bay. The rest of the clarifications will be announced before the release. Sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Now consider what happened in Narva Bay. According to established practice in the Baltic Fleet, "Metallist" played the role of "enemy" and denoted battleships and aircraft carriers. So it was at that time. Under the terms of the exercises, Metalist anchored at a given point. This place was in the Narva Bay, within sight of the Estonian coast. This was an important factor. At 16.00 Moscow time, three patrol ships of the "bad weather" division appeared - "Whirlwind", "Snow" and "Cloud". One of them approached the transport, a command sounded from its navigation bridge: - “Let off steam on the Metalist. The crew is ready to leave the ship." Throwing everything, people ran to launch the boats. At 16.28, the guard came up to the board and removed the team. The “rescued”, except for Arsenyev, who was called to the bridge, were placed in the cockpit with portholes battened down on the armor. An orderly stood at the entrance, forbidding to go out and have contacts with the Red Navy. They expected a loud explosion, but it did not follow.
At 16.45 "Metalist" again flew around the planes "MBR-2", reporting: "There is no team. The boat was sunk at the side. There's a mess on deck." Estonian observers did not record this overflight of the aircraft, and it was not reported that from 19.05 to 19.14 "Sneg" again became moored to the "Metalist". [RGA of the Navy. F.R-172. Op-1. D-992. L-31.]. At about 20.00, a “TASS report about the sinking of Metalist” appeared. Since the Estonian observers (recall, Metalist was at anchor in the visibility of the Estonian coast) did not record the same explosion, we can assume two options:
The ship was not sunk. For some reason, there was no torpedo salvo from the submarine. Not far from this place, the construction of a new naval base "Ruchi" (Kronstadt-2) was underway. Closed area, no strangers. For some time, Metalist could be there.
In his book "On the distant approaches" (published in 1971). Lieutenant General S. I. Kabanov (from May to October 1939, who was the Head of the Logistics of the KBF, and who, if not him, should have known about the courts subordinate to the Logistics), wrote: that in 1941 the Metalist transport brought cargo for the Hanko garrison and was damaged by enemy artillery fire. In the 70s of the 20th century, S. S. Berezhnoy and employees of the NIG General Staff of the Navy connected to him worked on compiling the reference book “Ships and auxiliary vessels of the Soviet Navy 1917-1928” (Moscow, 1981). They did not find any other information about Metallist in the archives of Leningrad, Gatchina and Moscow and came to the conclusion that this transport was left on Khanko on December 2, 1941 in a submerged state.
The option that Metalist was still flooded is unlikely. The explosion was not heard by the sailors from the patrol ships, nor was it seen by the Estonian observers on the shore. The version that the ship was sunk without the help of explosives is unlikely.
"Sea Collection", No. 7, 1991, publishing the heading "From the chronicle of the military operations of the Navy in July 1941", stated: "On July 26, the Metallist TR was sunk on Khanko by artillery fire."
A fact is also a radiogram transmitted by radio at 23.30. This was a message from the commander of the Sneg TFR to the Chief of Staff of the KBF: “The place of death of the Metalist transport: latitude - 59 ° 34 ', longitude - 27 ° 21 ' [RGA. F.R-92. Op-2. D-505. L-137.]
Another small nuance. Of course, he doesn't say anything directly, but still. On the same day, when the Metallist was “blown up”, at 12.03 a staff boat of the YaMB type (high-speed sea yacht) with the People’s Commissar of the Navy and the Commander of the KBF left Kronstadt for the Gulf of Finland. [RGA VMF.F.R-92. Op-2. D-505. L-135.]. For what? To personally supervise the progress of the operation?
Conclusion
Everything that is told in this article is perceived as fiction. But there are documents from the archive. They do not reveal the political intent, they reflect the movement of ships. The logs of the operational duty officer for the fleet reflect all the events that took place in the area of responsibility and the movement of ships and vessels in it. And these movements, superimposed on political processes (reflected in the officialdom of those times - the Pravda newspaper) allow us to draw conclusions. Our story has many unexpected twists and turns and many mysteries...
In June 1940, events began that were previously called “the voluntary entry of the peoples of the Baltic states into the USSR”, and since the late 1980s they have been increasingly called the “Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries”. During the years of Gorbachev's "perestroika", a new historical scheme began to take root. According to it, the Soviet Union occupied and forcibly annexed three independent democratic Baltic republics.
Meanwhile, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the summer of 1940 were by no means democratic. And for a long time. As for their independence, it has been rather elusive since its announcement in 1918.
1. The myth of democracy in the interwar Baltics
At first, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were parliamentary republics. But not for long. Internal processes, in the first place - the growth of the influence of the left forces, which sought to "do as in Soviet Russia," led to a reciprocal consolidation of the right. However, even this short period of parliamentary democracy was marked by the repressive policy of the top. So, after an unsuccessful uprising organized by the communists in Estonia in 1924, more than 400 people were executed there. For small Estonia - a significant figure.
On December 17, 1926, in Lithuania, the parties of nationalists and Christian Democrats, relying on groups of officers loyal to them, carried out a coup d'état. The putschists were inspired by the example of neighboring Poland, where the founder of the state, Josef Pilsudski, established his sole power a little earlier in the year. The Lithuanian Seimas was dissolved. Antanas Smetona, the leader of the nationalists, became the head of state, former first the President of Lithuania. In 1928, he was officially proclaimed the "leader of the nation", unlimited powers were concentrated in his hands. In 1936, all parties in Lithuania, except for the Nationalist Party, were banned.
In Latvia and Estonia, right-authoritarian regimes were established somewhat later. On March 12, 1934, the state elder - the head of the executive branch of Estonia - Konstantin Päts (the first prime minister of independent Estonia) canceled the re-elections of the parliament. In Estonia, the coup was caused not so much by the actions of the left as by the far right. Päts banned the pro-Nazi organization of veterans ("vaps"), which he considered a threat to his power, and carried out mass arrests of its members. At the same time, he began to implement many elements of the "vaps" program in his politics. Having received approval from the parliament for his actions, Päts dissolved it in October of the same year.
The Estonian Parliament has not met for four years. All this time, the republic was ruled by a junta consisting of Päts, commander-in-chief J. Laidoner and head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs K. Eerenpalu. All political parties were banned in March 1935, except for the pro-government Union of the Fatherland. The constitutional assembly, which was not elected by alternative, adopted a new Estonian constitution in 1937, which gave extensive powers to the president. In accordance with it, a one-party parliament and President Päts were elected in 1938.
One of the “innovations” of “democratic” Estonia was “laggard camps”, as the unemployed were called. For them, a 12-hour working day was established, the guilty were beaten with rods.
On May 15, 1934, Latvian Prime Minister Karlis Ulmanis staged a coup d'état, abolished the constitution and dissolved the Seimas. President Kviesis was given the opportunity to serve until the end of his term (in 1936) - he actually did not decide anything. Ulmanis, who was the first prime minister of independent Latvia, was proclaimed "the leader and father of the nation." More than 2,000 oppositionists were arrested (however, almost all of them were soon released - Ulmanis' regime turned out to be "soft" compared to its neighbors). All political parties were banned.
Some differences can be established in the right-wing authoritarian regimes of the Baltic states. So, if Smetona and Päts largely relied on a single permitted party, then Ulmanis relied on a formally non-partisan state apparatus plus a developed civil militia (aissargs). But they had more in common, to the point that all three dictators were people who were at the head of these republics at the very dawn of their existence.
Elections to the Estonian parliament in 1938 can serve as a striking characteristic of the "democratic" nature of the bourgeois Baltic states. They were attended by candidates from a single party - the "Union of the Fatherland". At the same time, local election commissions were instructed by the Minister of the Interior: “People who are known to be able to vote against the National Assembly should not be allowed to vote ... They must be immediately handed over to the police.” This ensured a "unanimous" vote for the candidates of a single party. But despite this, in 50 constituencies out of 80 they decided not to hold elections at all, but simply to announce the election of the only candidates to parliament.
Thus, long before 1940, the last signs of democratic freedoms were eliminated throughout the Baltics and a totalitarian state system was established.
The Soviet Union had only to make a technical replacement of the fascist dictators, their pocket parties and political police with the mechanism of the CPSU (b) and the NKVD.
2. The myth of the independence of the Baltic countries
The independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was proclaimed in 1917-1918. in a difficult environment. Most of their territory was occupied by German troops. Kaiser Germany had its own plans for Lithuania and the Ostsee region (Latvia and Estonia). At the Lithuanian Tariba (National Council), the German administration forced an "act" on calling the Württemberg prince to the Lithuanian royal throne. In the rest of the Baltic States, the Baltic Duchy was proclaimed, headed by a member of the Mecklenburg ducal house.
In 1918-1920. The Baltic states, with the help of first Germany and then England, became the springboard for the deployment of the forces of the internal Russian civil war. Therefore, the leadership of Soviet Russia took all measures to neutralize them. After the defeat of the White Guard army of Yudenich and other similar formations in the north-west of Russia, the RSFSR hastened to recognize the independence of Latvia and Estonia and in 1920 signed interstate agreements with these republics, guaranteeing the inviolability of their borders. At that time, the RSFSR even concluded a military alliance with Lithuania against Poland. Thus, thanks to the support of Soviet Russia, the Baltic countries defended their formal independence in those years.
With actual independence, things were much worse. The agrarian and raw material component of the basis of the Baltic economy forced to look for importers of Baltic agricultural and fishery products in the West. But the West had little need for Baltic fish, and therefore the three republics were increasingly mired in the quagmire of subsistence farming. The consequence of economic backwardness was the politically dependent position of the Baltic states.
Initially, the Baltic countries were guided by England and France, but after the Nazis came to power in Germany, the ruling Baltic cliques began to move closer to the growing Germany. The culmination of everything was the mutual assistance treaties concluded by all three Baltic states with the Third Reich in the mid-1930s (“Score of the Second World War”. M .: “Veche”, 2009). According to these treaties, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were obliged, in the event of a threat to their borders, to turn to Germany for help. The latter had in this case the right to send troops to the territory of the Baltic republics. In the same way, Germany could "legitimately" occupy these countries if a "threat" to the Reich arose from their territory. Thus, the "voluntary" entry of the Baltic states into the sphere of interests and influence of Germany was formalized.
This circumstance was taken into account by the leadership of the USSR in the events of 1938-1939. A conflict between the USSR and Germany under these conditions would have entailed the immediate occupation of the Baltic states by the Wehrmacht. Therefore, during the negotiations on August 22-23, 1939 in Moscow, the issue of the Baltic was one of the most important. It was important for the Soviet Union to protect itself from this side from any surprises. The two powers agreed to draw the border of spheres of influence so that Estonia and Latvia fell into the Soviet sphere, Lithuania - into the German one.
The consequence of the agreement was the approval by the leadership of Lithuania on September 20, 1939 of a draft agreement with Germany, according to which Lithuania was "voluntarily" transferred under the protectorate of the Third Reich. However, already on September 28, the USSR and Germany agreed to change the boundaries of spheres of influence. In exchange for a strip of Poland between the Vistula and the Bug, the USSR received Lithuania.
In the autumn of 1939, the Baltic countries had an alternative - to be under the Soviet or under the German protectorate. History did not provide them with anything at that moment.
3. The myth of the occupation
The period of establishing the independence of the Baltic States - 1918-1920. - was marked in them by the civil war. Quite a significant part of the population of the Baltic States, with weapons in their hands, advocated the establishment of Soviet power. At one time (in the winter of 1918/19) the Lithuanian-Belarusian and Latvian Soviet Socialist Republics and the Estland "Labor Commune" were proclaimed. The Red Army, which included national Bolshevik Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian units, for some time occupied most of the territories of these republics, including the cities of Riga and Vilnius.
Support for the anti-Soviet forces by the interventionists and the inability of Soviet Russia to provide sufficient assistance to its supporters in the Baltics led to the retreat of the Red Army from the region. Red Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians were, by the will of fate, deprived of their homeland and scattered across Union SSR. Thus, in the 1920s and 1930s, that part of the Baltic peoples who most actively supported Soviet power found themselves in forced emigration. This circumstance could not but affect the mood in the Baltic States, deprived of the "passionate" part of their population.
Due to the fact that the course of the civil war in the Baltic States was determined not so much by internal processes as by changes in the balance of external forces, it is absolutely impossible to establish exactly who was there in 1918-1920. there were more supporters of Soviet power or supporters of bourgeois statehood.
Soviet historiography attached great importance to the growth of protest moods in the Baltic States at the end of 1939 - the first half of 1940. They were interpreted as the maturing of socialist revolutions in these republics. It was understood that the local underground communist parties were at the head of the workers' protests. In our time, many historians, especially the Baltic ones, are inclined to deny facts of this kind. It is believed that speeches against dictatorial regimes were isolated, and dissatisfaction with them did not automatically mean sympathy for the Soviet Union and the Communists.
Nevertheless, given the previous history of the Baltics, the active role of the working class of this region in the Russian revolutions of the early twentieth century, widespread dissatisfaction with dictatorial regimes, it should be recognized that Soviet Union there was a strong "fifth column". And it obviously consisted not only of communists and sympathizers. What was important was that the only real alternative to joining the USSR at that time, as we saw, was joining the German Reich. During the civil war, the hatred of Estonians and Latvians for their centuries-old oppressors, the German landowners, was quite clearly manifested. Lithuania, thanks to the Soviet Union, returned in the autumn of 1939 its ancient capital - Vilnius.
So sympathy for the USSR among a significant part of the Balts at that time was determined not only and not so much by left-wing political views.
On June 14, 1940, the USSR issued an ultimatum to Lithuania, demanding a change of government to one more loyal to the Soviet Union and permission to send additional contingents of Soviet troops to Lithuania, stationed there under a mutual assistance agreement concluded in the fall of 1939. Smetona insisted on resistance, but the entire cabinet opposed. Smetona was forced to flee to Germany (from where he soon moved to the United States), and the Lithuanian government accepted the Soviet conditions. On June 15, additional contingents of the Red Army entered Lithuania.
The presentation of similar ultimatums to Latvia and Estonia on June 16, 1940 met with no objections from the local dictators. Initially, Ulmanis and Päts formally remained in power and authorized measures to create new authorities in these republics. On June 17, 1940, additional Soviet troops entered Estonia and Latvia.
In all three republics, governments were formed from persons friendly to the USSR, but not communists. All this was carried out in compliance with the formal requirements of the current constitutions. Then parliamentary elections were held. Decrees on new appointments and elections were signed by the prime minister of Lithuania, the presidents of Latvia and Estonia. Thus, the change of power took place in compliance with all the procedures required by the laws of independent Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. From a formal legal point of view, all the acts that preceded the entry of these republics into the USSR are irreproachable.
The legitimacy of the accession of the Baltic States to the USSR was given by the elections to the Seimas of these republics, held on July 14, 1940. Only one list of candidates was registered for the elections - from the Union of the Working People (in Estonia - the Bloc of the Working People). This was also fully in line with the legislation of these countries during the period of independence, which did not provide for alternative elections. According to official data, the voter turnout ranged from 84 to 95%, and from 92 to 99% voted for the candidates of the single list (in different republics).
We are deprived of the opportunity to know how the political process in the Baltic countries would develop after the overthrow of the dictatorships, if it were left to itself. In that geopolitical situation it was a utopia. However, there is no reason to believe that the summer of 1940 meant for the Baltics the replacement of democracy by totalitarianism. Democracy was long gone. In the very worst case, for the inhabitants of the Baltics, one authoritarianism was simply replaced by another.
But at the same time, the threat of the destruction of the statehood of the three Baltic republics was averted. What would happen to her if the Baltic fell under the control of the German Reich was demonstrated in 1941-1944.
In the plans of the Nazis, the Baltic states were subject to partial assimilation by the Germans, partial eviction to lands cleared of Russians. There was no question of any Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian statehood.
In the conditions of the Soviet Union, the Balts retained their statehood, their official languages, developed and enriched their national culture.
In the elections of July 14, 1940, pro-communist organizations won the victory in the Baltic States, which subsequently carried out the accession of these countries to the USSR. In Estonia, the turnout was 84.1% and the Union of Working People received 92.8% of the vote, in Lithuania the turnout was 95.51%, and 99.19% of voters supported the Union of Working People, in Latvia the turnout was 94.8%, and The bloc of working people won with 97.8% of the vote.
VKontakte Facebook Odnoklassniki
These days marks the 70th anniversary of the accession of the Baltic States to the Soviet Union
These days marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of Soviet power in the Baltics. On July 21-22, 1940, the parliaments of the three Baltic countries proclaimed the creation of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist republics and adopted the Declaration of entry into the USSR. Already in early August 1940, they became part of the Soviet Union. The current authorities of the Baltic states interpret the events of those years as an annexation. In turn, Moscow categorically disagrees with this approach and points out that the accession of the Baltic states was in line with international law.
Let us recall the background of this question. The Soviet Union and the Baltic countries signed agreements on mutual assistance, according to which, by the way, the USSR received the right to deploy a military contingent in the Baltics. Meanwhile, Moscow began to declare that the Baltic governments were violating the agreements, and later the Soviet leadership received information about the activation of the German fifth column in Lithuania. The Second World War was going on, Poland and France had already been defeated by that time, and, of course, the USSR could not allow the transition of the Baltic countries to the zone of German influence. In what was essentially an emergency, Moscow demanded that the Baltic governments allow additional Soviet troops into their territory. In addition, the USSR put forward political demands, which, in fact, meant a change of power in the Baltics.
Moscow's terms were accepted, and early parliamentary elections were held in the three Baltic countries, in which pro-communist forces won a landslide victory, despite a very high voter turnout. New power and carried out the accession of these countries to the Soviet Union.
If you do not engage in legal chicanery, but speak on the merits, then calling what happened an occupation would mean sinning against the truth. Who does not know that in Soviet times the Baltics were a privileged region? Thanks to the colossal investments that were made in the Baltic states from the all-Union budget, the standard of living in the new Soviet republics was one of the highest. By the way, this gave rise to unfounded illusions, and at the everyday level, conversations in the spirit began to be heard: “if we live so well under occupation, then, having gained independence, we will achieve a standard of living like in the West.” Practice has shown what these empty dreams were worth. None of the three Baltic states ever turned into a second Sweden or Finland. Quite the opposite, when the “occupier” left, everyone saw that it was really very high level life of the Baltic republics kept largely on subsidies from Russia.
All these things are obvious, but political demagogy ignores even easily verified facts. And here our Foreign Ministry needs to keep an eye out. Under no circumstances should this interpretation be accepted. historical facts, which is followed by the current authorities of the Baltic States. They will also charge us for the "occupation", because Russia is the successor of the USSR. So the assessment of the events of seventy years ago is not only of historical interest, but also has a direct bearing on our life today.
"""In order to sort out the issue, the site turned to MGIMO associate professor Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova."""
We do not recognize this as an occupation, and this is the main stumbling block. The arguments of our country are that this cannot be called an occupation, because what happened is in line with international legal regulations that existed at that time. From this point of view, there is nothing to complain about. And they consider, that elections in diets have been falsified. The secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact are also being considered. They say that this was agreed with the German authorities, but no one has seen all these documents, no one can confirm the reality of their existence.
First, it is necessary to clear the source base, documentary, archival, and then you can already say something. Serious research is needed, and as Ilyukhin said well, those archives that present the events of those years in a light that is unfavorable to the West are not published.
In any case, the position of our leadership is half-hearted and inconsistent. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was condemned, and, accordingly, the unknown, existing or non-existent secret protocols were condemned.
I think if the Soviet Union had not annexed the Baltics, then Germany would have annexed the Baltics, or it would have had the same conditions as France or Belgium. All of Europe was then actually under the control of the German authorities.
On August 1, 1940, the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Vyacheslav Molotov, speaking at a session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, said that "the working people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia gladly accepted the news of the entry of these republics into the Soviet Union." Under what circumstances did the accession of the Baltic countries take place, and how did the local residents really perceive this accession.
Soviet historians characterized the events of 1940 as socialist revolutions and insisted on the voluntary nature of the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR, arguing that it was finalized in the summer of 1940 on the basis of decisions of the highest legislative bodies of these countries, which received the widest support of voters in the elections of all time. the existence of independent Baltic states. Some agree with this point of view. Russian researchers, which also do not qualify the events as an occupation, although they do not consider the entry to be voluntary.
Most foreign historians and political scientists, as well as some modern Russian researchers, characterize this process as the occupation and annexation of independent states by the Soviet Union, carried out gradually, as a result of a series of military-diplomatic and economic steps and against the backdrop of the Second World War unfolding in Europe. Modern politicians also talk about incorporation as a softer option for joining. According to the former Latvian Foreign Minister Janis Jurkans, "It is the word incorporation that appears in the American-Baltic Charter."
Most foreign historians consider it an occupation
Scientists who deny the occupation point to the absence of hostilities between the USSR and the Baltic countries in 1940. Their opponents object that the definition of occupation does not necessarily imply war, for example, the occupation by Germany of Czechoslovakia in 1939 and Denmark in 1940 is considered to be occupation.Baltic historians emphasize the facts of violation of democratic norms during the extraordinary parliamentary elections held at the same time in 1940 in all three states in the conditions of a significant Soviet military presence, as well as the fact that in the elections held on July 14 and 15, 1940 , only one list of candidates nominated by the Bloc of the Working People was allowed, and all other alternative lists were rejected.
Baltic sources believe that the election results were rigged and did not reflect the will of the people. For example, in an article posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, historian I. Feldmanis cites information that “In Moscow, the Soviet news agency TASS provided information about the mentioned election results already twelve hours before the counting of votes in Latvia began.” He also cites the opinion of Dietrich A. Loeber (Dietrich André Loeber) - a lawyer and one of the former soldiers of the Abwehr sabotage and reconnaissance unit "Brandenburg 800" in 1941-1945 - that the annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was fundamentally illegal, since it is based for intervention and occupation. From this it is concluded that the decisions of the Baltic parliaments to join the USSR were predetermined.
Signing of the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union
Here is how Vyacheslav Molotov himself spoke about this(quote from the book by F. Chuev "140 conversations with Molotov"):
“The question of the Baltic, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and Bessarabia we decided with Ribbentrop in 1939. The Germans reluctantly agreed that we would annex Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Bessarabia. When a year later, in November 1940, I was in Berlin, Hitler asked me: “Well, you unite Ukrainians, Belarusians together, well, okay, Moldavians, this can still be explained, but how will you explain the Baltics to the whole world?”
I told him: "We will explain."
The communists and the peoples of the Baltic states spoke in favor of joining the Soviet Union. Their bourgeois leaders came to Moscow for negotiations, but they refused to sign the accession to the USSR. What were we to do? I must tell you a secret that I followed a very hard course. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia came to us in 1939, I told him: “You will not return back until you sign an accession to us.”
The Minister of War came to us from Estonia, I already forgot his last name, he was popular, we told him the same. We had to go to this extreme. And they did it pretty well, I think.
I said, "You're not going back until you sign the affiliation"
I presented it to you in a very rude way. So it was, but it was all done more delicately.
“But the first person to arrive might have warned the others,” I say.
And they had nowhere to go. You have to protect yourself somehow. When we made demands… It is necessary to take measures in time, otherwise it will be too late. They huddled back and forth, the bourgeois governments, of course, could not enter the socialist state with great pleasure. On the other hand, the international situation was such that they had to decide. They were located between two large states - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The situation is complex. So they hesitated, but they made up their minds. And we needed the Baltic States ...
With Poland, we could not do that. The Poles behaved irreconcilably. We negotiated with the British and French before talking with the Germans: if they do not interfere with our troops in Czechoslovakia and Poland, then, of course, things will go better for us. They refused, so we had to take measures, at least partial, we had to move the German troops away.
If we had not come out to meet the Germans in 1939, they would have occupied all of Poland up to the border. Therefore, we agreed with them. They should have agreed. This is their initiative - the Non-Aggression Pact. We couldn't defend Poland because she didn't want to deal with us. Well, since Poland does not want, and the war is on the nose, give us at least that part of Poland, which, we believe, unconditionally belongs to the Soviet Union.
And Leningrad had to be defended. We did not put the question to the Finns in the same way as to the Balts. We only talked about giving us part of the territory near Leningrad. from Vyborg. They behaved very stubbornly. I had a lot of conversations with Ambassador Paasikivi - then he became president. He spoke some Russian, but you can understand. He had a good library at home, he read Lenin. I understood that without an agreement with Russia they would not succeed. I felt that he wanted to meet us halfway, but there were many opponents.
- Finland was spared how! Cleverly acted that they did not attach to themselves. Would have a permanent wound. Not from Finland itself - this wound would give a reason to have something against the Soviet government ...
There people are very stubborn, very stubborn. There, a minority would be very dangerous.
And now, little by little, you can strengthen the relationship. It was not possible to make it democratic, just like Austria.
Khrushchev gave Porkkala Udd to the Finns. We would hardly give.
Of course, it was not worth spoiling relations with the Chinese because of Port Arthur. And the Chinese kept within the limits, did not raise their border territorial issues. But Khrushchev pushed ... "
Delegation at the Tallinn railway station: Tikhonova, Luristin, Keedro, Vares, Sare and Ruus.
July 21-22 marks the next 72nd anniversary of the formation of the Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian SSRs. And the fact of this kind of education, as you know, causes a huge amount of controversy. From the moment Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn became the capitals of independent states in the early 90s, disputes have not ceased on the territory of these very states about what really happened in the Baltic states in 1939-40: peaceful and voluntary entry part of the USSR, or was it still Soviet aggression that resulted in a 50-year occupation.
Riga. Soviet army included in Latvia
Words that the Soviet authorities in 1939 agreed with the authorities of Nazi Germany (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) that the Baltic states should become Soviet territory have been circulating in the Baltic states for more than a year and often allow certain forces to celebrate victory in elections. The Soviet “occupation” theme seems to be worn out to holes, however, referring to historical documents, one can understand that the theme of occupation is a big one. soap bubble, which by certain forces is brought to a huge size. But, as you know, any, even the most beautiful soap bubble, will burst sooner or later, spraying the person who inflates it with small cold drops.
So, the Baltic political scientists, who hold the view that the accession of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to the USSR in 1940 is considered an occupation, declare that if it were not for the Soviet troops that entered the Baltic states, these states would have remained not only independent, but also declared their neutrality. It is difficult to call such an opinion otherwise than a deep delusion. Neither Lithuania, nor Latvia, nor Estonia simply could not afford to declare neutrality during the Second World War, as, for example, Switzerland did, because the Baltic states clearly did not have such financial instruments as the Swiss banks had. Moreover, the economic indicators of the Baltic states in 1938-1939 show that their authorities had no opportunity to dispose of their sovereignty as they please. Let's give some examples.
Welcoming Soviet ships in Riga
Volume industrial production Latvia in 1938 amounted to no more than 56.5% of the production volume in 1913, when Latvia was part of Russian Empire. The percentage of the illiterate population of the Baltic states by 1940 is shocking. This percentage was about 31% of the population. More than 30% of children aged 6-11 did not attend school, but instead were forced to work in agricultural work in order to participate, let's say, in the economic support of the family. During the period from 1930 to 1940, more than 4,700 peasant farms were closed in Latvia alone due to the colossal debts that their “independent” owners were driven into. Another eloquent figure of the "development" of the Baltic states during the period of independence (1918-1940) is the number of employed workers in the construction of factories and, as they would say now, the housing stock. By 1930, this number in Latvia amounted to 815 people ... Dozens of multi-storey buildings and plants and factories, which were erected by these tireless 815 builders, stand before your eyes ...
And this is with such and such economic indicators of the Baltic states by 1940, someone sincerely believes that these countries could dictate their terms to Nazi Germany, declaring that she should leave them alone because of their declared neutrality.
If we consider the aspect of the fact that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were going to remain independent after July 1940, then we can cite the data of a document that is of interest to supporters of the “Soviet occupation” idea. On July 16, 1941, Adolf Hitler holds a meeting on the future of the three Baltic republics. As a result, a decision was made: instead of 3 independent states (which the Baltic nationalists are trying to trumpet about today), create a territorial entity that is part of Nazi Germany, called Ostland. Riga was chosen as the administrative center of this formation. At the same time, a document was approved on the official language of Ostland - German (this is to the question that the German "liberators" would allow the three republics to develop along the path of independence and authenticity). On the territory of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, higher educational establishments, and it was allowed to leave only vocational schools. The German policy towards the population of Ostland is described by an eloquent memorandum from the Minister of the Eastern Territories of the Third Reich. This memorandum, which is noteworthy, was adopted on April 2, 1941 - before the creation of Ostland itself. The memorandum contains the words that most of the population of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia is not suitable for Germanization, and therefore is subject to resettlement in Eastern Siberia. In June 1943, when Hitler still harbored illusions about the successful end of the war against the Soviet Union, a directive was adopted that the lands of Ostland should become the fiefdoms of those military personnel who had especially distinguished themselves on the Eastern Front. At the same time, the owners of these lands from among the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians should either be relocated to other areas or used as cheap labor for their new masters. The principle that was used in the Middle Ages, when the knights received land in the conquered territories together with the former owners of these lands.
After reading such documents, one can only guess where the current Baltic ultra-rightists got the idea that Hitler's Germany would have given their countries independence.
The next argument of the supporters of the idea of the "Soviet occupation" of the Baltic states is that, supposedly, the entry of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union threw these countries back for several decades in their socio-economic development. And it is difficult to call these words otherwise than a delusion. During the period from 1940 to 1960, more than two dozen large industrial enterprises were built in Latvia alone, which has not been here in its entirety. By 1965, the average volume of industrial production in the Baltic republics had grown more than 15 times in comparison with the level of 1939. According to Western economic studies, the level of Soviet investment in Latvia by the beginning of the 1980s amounted to about 35 billion US dollars. If we translate all this into the language of interest, it turns out that direct investments from Moscow amounted to almost 900% of the amount of goods produced by Latvia itself for the needs of both its domestic economy and the needs of the Union economy. This is how the occupation is, when the “occupiers” themselves distribute huge amounts of money to those who are “occupied”. Perhaps, many countries even today could only dream of such an occupation. Greece would love to see Mrs. Merkel, with her billions in investments, “occupy” her, as they say, until the second coming of the Savior to Earth.
The Saeima of Latvia welcomes the demonstrators
Another "occupation" argument: the referendums on the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR were held illegitimately. They say that the Communists specifically put forward only their lists, so the people of the Baltic States voted for them almost unanimously under pressure. However, if so, then it becomes completely incomprehensible why on the streets of the Baltic cities tens of thousands of people were happy to meet the news that their republics were part of the Soviet Union. The stormy joy of the Estonian parliamentarians is completely incomprehensible when in July 1940 they learned that Estonia had become a new Soviet Republic. And if the Balts were so unwilling to enter under the protectorate of Moscow, then it is also unclear why the authorities of the three countries did not follow the Finnish example and did not show Moscow a real Baltic figure.
In general, the epic with the "Soviet occupation" of the Baltic States, which the interested parties continue to write, is very similar to one of the sections of the book called "Untrue Tales of the Peoples of the World."