The accession of countries to the USSR. The whole truth about life in the Soviet Baltic states

Plan
Introduction
1 Background. 1930s
2 1939. War begins in Europe
3 Mutual Assistance Pacts and Treaty of Friendship and Borders
4 Input Soviet troops
5 Ultimatums of the summer of 1940 and the removal of the Baltic governments
6 Entry of the Baltic states into the USSR
7 Consequences
8 Modern politics
9 Opinion of historians and political scientists

Bibliography
Annexation of the Baltic states to the USSR

Introduction

Annexation of the Baltic states to the USSR (1940) - the process of including the independent Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and most of the territory of modern Lithuania - into the USSR, carried out as a result of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Treaty of Friendship and Border by the USSR and Nazi Germany in August 1939, the secret protocols of which recorded the delimitation of the spheres of interest of these two powers in Eastern Europe.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania consider the actions of the USSR to be occupation followed by annexation. The Council of Europe in its resolutions characterized the process of the Baltic states joining the USSR as occupation, forced incorporation and annexation. In 1983, the European Parliament condemned it as an occupation, and subsequently (2007) used such concepts as “occupation” and “illegal incorporation” in this regard.

The text of the preamble to the Treaty on the Fundamentals of Interstate Relations between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Republic of Lithuania 1991 contains the lines: “ referring to the past events and actions that prevented the full and free exercise by each High Contracting Party of its state sovereignty, being confident that the elimination by the USSR of the consequences of the annexation of 1940 violating the sovereignty of Lithuania will create additional conditions of trust between the High Contracting Parties and their peoples »

The official position of the Russian Foreign Ministry is that the accession of the Baltic countries to the USSR complied with all norms of international law as of 1940, and also that the entry of these countries into the USSR received official international recognition. This position is based on the de facto recognition of the integrity of the borders of the USSR as of June 1941 at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences by the participating states, as well as on the recognition in 1975 of the inviolability of European borders by the participants in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

1. Background. 1930s

In the period between the two world wars, the Baltic states became the object of the struggle of the great European powers (England, France and Germany) for influence in the region. In the first decade after Germany's defeat in World War I, there was a strong Anglo-French influence in the Baltic states, which was subsequently hampered by the growing influence of neighboring Germany from the early 1930s. The Soviet leadership, in turn, tried to resist him. By the end of the 1930s, the Third Reich and the USSR had actually become the main rivals in the struggle for influence in the Baltic states.

In December 1933, the governments of France and the USSR put forward a joint proposal to conclude an agreement on collective security and mutual assistance. Finland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were invited to join this treaty. The project, called "Eastern Pact", was seen as a collective guarantee in case of aggression by Nazi Germany. But Poland and Romania refused to join the alliance, the United States did not approve of the idea of a treaty, and England put forward a number of counter conditions, including the rearmament of Germany.

In the spring and summer of 1939, the USSR negotiated with England and France on joint prevention of Italian-German aggression against European countries and on April 17, 1939, he proposed that England and France undertake obligations to provide all kinds of assistance, including military, to the Eastern European countries located between the Baltic and Black Seas and bordering the Soviet Union, as well as to conclude a mutual assistance agreement for a period of 5-10 years, including military, in the event of aggression in Europe against any of the contracting states (USSR, England and France).

Failure "Eastern Pact" was caused by differences in the interests of the contracting parties. Thus, the Anglo-French missions received detailed secret instructions from their general staffs, which defined the goals and nature of the negotiations - a note from the French general staff said, in particular, that along with a number of political benefits that England and France would receive in connection with by joining the USSR, this would allow it to be drawn into the conflict: “it is not in our interests for it to remain outside the conflict, keeping its forces intact.” Soviet Union, who considered at least two Baltic republics - Estonia and Latvia - as a sphere of his national interests, defended this position during the negotiations, but did not meet with understanding from his partners. As for the governments of the Baltic states themselves, they preferred guarantees from Germany, with which they were bound by a system of economic agreements and non-aggression treaties. According to Churchill, “The obstacle to concluding such an agreement (with the USSR) was the horror that these same border states experienced before Soviet help in the form Soviet armies, which could pass through their territories to protect them from the Germans and at the same time include them in the Soviet-communist system. After all, they were the most vehement opponents of this system. Poland, Romania, Finland and the three Baltic states did not know what they feared more - German aggression or Russian salvation."

Simultaneously with negotiations with Great Britain and France, the Soviet Union in the summer of 1939 intensified steps towards rapprochement with Germany. The result of this policy was the signing of a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR on August 23, 1939. According to the secret additional protocols to the treaty, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and eastern Poland were included in the Soviet sphere of interests, Lithuania and western Poland - in the German sphere of interests); by the time the treaty was signed, the Klaipeda (Memel) region of Lithuania was already occupied by Germany (March 1939).

2. 1939. Beginning of the war in Europe

The situation worsened on September 1, 1939 with the outbreak of World War II. Germany launched an invasion of Poland. On September 17, the USSR sent troops into Poland, declaring the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact of July 25, 1932, no longer in force. On the same day, states that had diplomatic relations with the USSR (including the Baltic states) were handed a Soviet note stating that “in relations with them the USSR will pursue a policy of neutrality.”

The outbreak of war between neighboring states gave rise to fears in the Baltics of being drawn into these events and prompted them to declare their neutrality. However, during the hostilities, a number of incidents occurred in which the Baltic countries were also involved - one of them was the entry of the Polish submarine Orzel into the port of Tallinn on September 15, where it was interned at the request of Germany by the Estonian authorities, who began dismantling her weapons. However, on the night of September 18, the crew of the submarine disarmed the guards and took it out to sea, while six torpedoes remained on board. The Soviet Union claimed that Estonia had violated neutrality by providing shelter and assistance to the Polish submarine.

On September 19, Vyacheslav Molotov, on behalf of the Soviet leadership, blamed Estonia for this incident, saying that the Baltic Fleet was tasked with finding the submarine, since it could threaten Soviet shipping. This led to the de facto establishment of a naval blockade of the Estonian coast.

On September 24, Estonian Foreign Minister K. Selter arrived in Moscow to sign a trade agreement. After discussing economic problems, Molotov moved on to problems of mutual security and proposed “ conclude a military alliance or mutual assistance agreement, which would at the same time provide the Soviet Union with the right to have strongholds or bases for the fleet and aviation on the territory of Estonia" Selter tried to avoid the discussion by citing neutrality, but Molotov stated that " The Soviet Union needs to expand its security system, for which it needs access to the Baltic Sea. If you do not wish to conclude a pact of mutual assistance with us, then we will have to look for other ways to guarantee our security, perhaps steeper, perhaps more complex. Please do not force us to use force against Estonia ».

3. Mutual assistance pacts and the Treaty of Friendship and Borders

As a result of the actual division of Polish territory between Germany and the USSR, the Soviet borders moved far to the west, and the USSR began to border on the third Baltic state - Lithuania. Initially, Germany intended to turn Lithuania into its protectorate, but on September 25, 1939, during Soviet-German contacts “on the settlement of the Polish problem,” the USSR proposed to begin negotiations on Germany’s renunciation of claims to Lithuania in exchange for the territories of the Warsaw and Lublin voivodeships. On this day, the German Ambassador to the USSR, Count Schulenburg, sent a telegram to the German Foreign Ministry, in which he said that he had been summoned to the Kremlin, where Stalin pointed out this proposal as a subject for future negotiations and added that if Germany agreed, “the Soviet Union would immediately will take on the solution of the problem of the Baltic states in accordance with the protocol of August 23 and expects full support from the German government in this matter.”

The situation in the Baltic states themselves was alarming and contradictory. Against the background of rumors about the impending Soviet-German division of the Baltic states, which were refuted by diplomats of both sides, part of the ruling circles of the Baltic states was ready to continue rapprochement with Germany, while many others were anti-German and counted on the USSR’s help in maintaining the balance of power in the region and national independence, while the leftist forces operating underground were ready to support joining the USSR.

According to the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23, 1939 and the Soviet-German Friendship and Border Treaty of September 28, 1939, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia fell into the “Soviet sphere of interests.” In late September and early October, mutual assistance treaties with the USSR were imposed on these countries, and Soviet military bases were established in them.

Stalin was in no hurry to annex the Baltic states. He considered this issue in the context of a future Soviet-German war. Already at the end of February 1940, in a directive to the Soviet To the Navy Germany and its allies were identified as the main opponents. In order to free his hands by the time the German offensive began in France, Stalin hastily completed Finnish war the compromise Moscow Peace and transferred the liberated troops to the western border districts, where Soviet troops had an almost tenfold superiority over the 12 weak German divisions remaining in the east. In the hope of defeating Germany, which, as Stalin thought, would get stuck on the Maginot Line, just as the Red Army got stuck on the Mannerheim Line, it was possible to postpone the occupation of the Baltic states. However, the rapid collapse of France forced the Soviet dictator to postpone the campaign to the west and turn to the occupation and annexation of the Baltic countries, which neither England and France, nor Germany, busy finishing off France, could now prevent.

As early as June 3, 1940, Soviet troops stationed on the territory of the Baltic states were withdrawn from the subordination of the Belarusian, Kalinin and Leningrad military districts and were subordinated directly to the People's Commissar of Defense. However, this event can be considered both in the context of preparations for the future military occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and in connection with plans for an attack on Germany that had not yet been completely abandoned - troops stationed in the Baltic states were not supposed to participate in this attack, at least for first stage. Soviet divisions against the Baltic states were deployed at the end of September 1939, so special military preparations for the occupation were no longer required.

On June 8, 1940, Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Vladimir Dekanozov and the Estonian envoy to Moscow August Rey signed a secret agreement on general administrative conditions for staying on the territory of Estonia Armed Forces THE USSR. This agreement confirmed that the parties “will proceed from the principle of mutual respect for sovereignty” and that movements of Soviet troops across Estonian territory are carried out only with prior notification by the Soviet command to the heads of the relevant military districts of Estonia. There was no mention of any introduction of additional troops in the agreement. However, after June 8, no longer doubting that the capitulation of France was a matter of a few days, Stalin decided to postpone the action against Hitler until 1941 and engage in the occupation and annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as take away Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania .

On the evening of June 14, an ultimatum to send additional troops and form a pro-Soviet government was presented to Lithuania. The next day, Soviet troops attacked the Latvian border guards, and on June 16, the same ultimatums as those given to Lithuania were presented to Latvia and Estonia. Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn recognized the resistance as hopeless and accepted the ultimatums. True, in Lithuania, President Antanas Smetona advocated armed resistance to aggression, but was not supported by the majority of the cabinet and fled to Germany. From 6 to 9 Soviet divisions were introduced into each country (previously, each country had an infantry division and a tank brigade). There was no resistance offered. The creation of pro-Soviet governments on Red Army bayonets was presented by Soviet propaganda as “people's revolutions,” which were described as demonstrations with the seizure of government buildings, organized by local communists with the help of Soviet troops. These “revolutions” were carried out under the supervision of representatives of the Soviet government: Vladimir Dekanozov in Lithuania, Andrei Vyshinsky in Latvia, and Andrei Zhdanov in Estonia.

When they say that it is impossible to talk about the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, they mean that occupation is the temporary occupation of territory during military operations, and in this case there were no military actions, and very soon Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia became Soviet republics. But at the same time, they deliberately forget about the simplest and most fundamental meaning of the word “occupation” - the seizure of a given territory by another state against the will of the population inhabiting it and (or) the existing state power. A similar definition, for example, is given in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Sergei Ozhegov: “Occupation of foreign territory by military force.” Here, military force clearly means not only the war itself, but also the threat of using military force. It is in this capacity that the word “occupation” is used in the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal. In this case, what matters is not the temporary nature of the act of occupation itself, but its illegality. And fundamentally, the occupation and annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940, carried out by the USSR with the threat of force, but without direct military action, does not differ from the exact same “peaceful” occupation by Nazi Germany of Austria in 1938, the Czech Republic in 1939 and Denmark in 1940. The governments of these countries, like the governments of the Baltic countries, decided that resistance was hopeless and therefore they must submit to force in order to save their peoples from destruction. At the same time, in Austria, the overwhelming majority of the population since 1918 has been a supporter of the Anschluss, which, however, does not make the Anschluss, carried out in 1938 under the threat of force, a legal act. Likewise, the mere threat of force carried out during the accession of the Baltic countries to the USSR makes this accession illegal, not to mention the fact that all subsequent elections here until the end of the 1980s were an outright farce. The first elections to the so-called people's parliaments were held already in mid-July 1940, only 10 days were allotted for election campaigns, and voting was possible only for the pro-communist “bloc” (in Latvia) and “unions” (in Lithuania and Estonia) of the “labor people." Zhdanov, for example, dictated the following remarkable instruction to the Estonian Central Election Commission: “Standing in defense of the existing state and public order, which prohibits the activities of organizations and groups hostile to the people, the Central Election Commission does not consider itself entitled to register candidates who do not represent a platform or who have presented a platform that runs counter to the interests of of the Estonian state and people" (a draft written by Zhdanov is preserved in the archive). In Moscow, the results of these elections, in which the Communists received from 93 to 99% of the votes, were published before the local vote counting was completed. But the communists were forbidden to put forward slogans about joining the USSR, about the expropriation of private property, although at the end of June Molotov directly declared to the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania that “Lithuania’s accession to the Soviet Union is a done deal,” and consoled the poor fellow that Lithuania the turn of Latvia and Estonia will certainly come. And the first decision of the new parliaments was precisely the appeal for admission to the USSR. On August 3, 5 and 6, 1940, the requests of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were granted.

Why did the Soviet Union defeat Germany in World War II? It would seem that all the answers to this question have already been given. Here is the superiority of the Soviet side in human and material resources, here is the resilience of the totalitarian system in conditions of military defeat, here is the traditional resilience and unpretentiousness of the Russian soldier and the Russian people.

In the Baltic countries, the entry of Soviet troops and subsequent annexation was supported only by part of the native Russian-speaking population, as well as by the majority of Jews, who saw Stalin as protection from Hitler. Demonstrations in support of the occupation were organized with the help of Soviet troops. Yes, there were authoritarian regimes in the Baltic countries, but the regimes were soft, unlike the Soviet one, they did not kill their opponents and preserved freedom of speech to a certain extent. In Estonia, for example, in 1940 there were only 27 political prisoners, and local communist parties together numbered several hundred members. The bulk of the population of the Baltic countries did not support either the Soviet military occupation or, to an even greater extent, the liquidation of national statehood. This is proven by the creation of partisan detachments of the “forest brothers”, who, with the beginning of the Soviet-German war, launched active operations against the Soviet troops and were able to independently occupy some large cities, for example Kaunas and part of Tartu. And after the war, the movement of armed resistance to the Soviet occupation in the Baltics continued until the early 50s.

July 21-22 marks the next 72nd anniversary of the formation of the Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian SSR. And the fact of this kind of education, as is known, causes a huge amount of controversy. Since the moment Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn became the capitals of independent states in the early 90s, debates have not ceased on the territory of these same states about what actually happened in the Baltic states in 1939-40: peaceful and voluntary entry part of the USSR, or was it still Soviet aggression, which resulted in a 50-year occupation.

Riga. The Soviet Army enters Latvia

The 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 several years now and often allow certain forces to celebrate their victory in the elections. The Soviet “occupation” theme seems to have been worn out to nothing, however, turning to historical documents, one can understand that the theme of occupation is a big soap bubble, which is brought to enormous proportions by certain forces. But, as you know, any, even the most beautiful soap bubble, will sooner or later burst, spraying the person blowing it with small cold drops.

So, Baltic political scientists who adhere to the view that the annexation 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, then these states would have remained not only independent, but also declared their neutrality. It is difficult to call such an opinion anything other than a deep misconception. Neither Lithuania, nor Latvia, nor Estonia simply could afford to declare neutrality during the Second World War as, for example, Switzerland did, because the Baltic states clearly did not have the financial instruments that Swiss banks possessed. 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 pleased. Let's give a few examples.

Welcoming Soviet ships in Riga

The volume of industrial production in Latvia in 1938 was no more than 56.5% of the production volume in 1913, when Latvia was part of the 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, so to speak, in the economic support of the family. During the period from 1930 to 1940, in Latvia alone, over 4,700 peasant farms were closed due to the colossal debts into which their “independent” owners were driven. Another eloquent figure for the “development” of the Baltic states during the period of independence (1918-1940) is the number of workers employed in the construction of factories and, as they would now say, housing stock. This number by 1930 in Latvia amounted to 815 people... Dozens appear before your eyes multi-storey buildings and rows of factories and factories stretching beyond the horizon, which were erected by these tireless 815 builders...

And given 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 it would leave them alone because of their declared neutrality.
If we consider the aspect that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were going to remain independent after July 1940, then we can cite data from a document that is not uninteresting for supporters of the “Soviet occupation” idea. July 16, 1941 Adolf Hitler holds a meeting about the future of the three Baltic republics. As a result, a decision was made: instead of 3 independent states (which Baltic nationalists are trying to trumpet today), to create a territorial entity that is part of Nazi Germany, called Ostland. Riga was chosen as the administrative center of this entity. At the same time, a document was approved official language Ostland - German (this refers 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 institutions were to be closed, and only vocational schools were allowed to remain. German policy towards the population of the Ostland is described in an eloquent memorandum by the Minister for the Eastern Territories of the Third Reich. This memorandum, noteworthy, was adopted on April 2, 1941 - before the creation of Ostland itself. The memorandum contains words that the majority of the population of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia is not suitable for Germanization, and therefore must be resettled to Eastern Siberia. In June 1943, when Hitler still harbored illusions about the successful completion of the war against the Soviet Union, a directive was adopted that the Ostland lands would become the fiefdoms of those military personnel who had particularly 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 resettled to other areas or used as cheap work force for their new masters. A principle that was used back in the Middle Ages, when knights received lands in conquered territories along 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 give their countries independence.

The next argument of supporters of the idea of “Soviet occupation” of the Baltic states is that, they say, the entry of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union set these countries back several decades in their socio-economic development. And it’s difficult to call these words anything other than a delusion. During the period from 1940 to 1960, more than two dozen large industrial enterprises were built in Latvia alone, which has never happened here in its entire history. By 1965, industrial production volumes on average in the Baltic republics had increased more than 15 times compared to the 1939 level. According to Western economic studies, the level of Soviet investment in Latvia by the early 1980s amounted to about 35 billion US dollars. If we translate all this into the language of percentages, 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 occupation is, when the “occupiers” themselves hand out huge amounts of money to those they “occupy.” Perhaps, many countries could only dream of such an occupation even today. Greece would love for Mrs. Merkel, with her billions of dollars in investments, to “occupy” it, as they say, until the second coming of the Savior to Earth.

The Seimas of Latvia welcomes the demonstrators

Another “occupation” argument: referendums on the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR were held illegitimately. They say that the communists specifically put forward only their lists, and the people of the Baltic states voted for them almost unanimously under pressure. However, if this is so, then it becomes completely incomprehensible why tens of thousands of people on the streets of the Baltic cities joyfully greeted the news that their republics were becoming part of the Soviet Union. The wild joy of Estonian parliamentarians when they learned in July 1940 that Estonia had become a new country is completely incomprehensible. Soviet Republic. And if the Baltic states really did not want to come under Moscow’s protectorate, then it is also unclear why the authorities of the three countries did not follow the Finnish example and showed Moscow the real Baltic fig.

In general, the epic with the “Soviet occupation” of the Baltic states, which 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.”

In the period between the two world wars, the Baltic states became the object of the struggle of the great European powers (England, France and Germany) for influence in the region. In the first decade after Germany's defeat in World War I, there was a strong Anglo-French influence in the Baltic states, which was subsequently hampered by the growing influence of neighboring Germany in the early 1930s. The Soviet leadership, in turn, tried to resist it, taking into account the strategic importance of the region. By the end of the 1930s. Germany and the USSR actually became the main rivals in the struggle for influence in the Baltic states.

Failure "Eastern Pact" was caused by differences in the interests of the contracting parties. Thus, the Anglo-French missions received detailed secret instructions from their general staffs, which defined the goals and nature of the negotiations - a note from the French general staff said, in particular, that along with a number of political benefits that England and France would receive in connection with the accession of the USSR, this would allow it to be drawn into the conflict: “it is not in our interests for it to remain outside the conflict, keeping its forces intact.” The Soviet Union, which considered at least two Baltic republics - Estonia and Latvia - as a sphere of its national interests, defended this position in the negotiations, but did not meet with understanding from its partners. As for the governments of the Baltic states themselves, they preferred guarantees from Germany, with which they were bound by a system of economic agreements and non-aggression treaties. According to Churchill, “The obstacle to the conclusion of such an agreement (with the USSR) was the horror that these very border states experienced of Soviet help in the form of Soviet armies that could pass through their territories to protect them from the Germans and simultaneously include them in the Soviet-communist system. After all, they were the most vehement opponents of this system. Poland, Romania, Finland and the three Baltic states did not know what they feared more - German aggression or Russian salvation." .

1939. The beginning of the war in Europe

Mutual Assistance Pacts and Treaty of Friendship and Borders

Independent Baltic states on the map of the Small Soviet Encyclopedia. April 1940

As a result of the actual division of Polish territory between Germany and the USSR, the Soviet borders moved far to the west, and the USSR began to border on the third Baltic state - Lithuania. Initially, Germany intended to turn Lithuania into its protectorate, but on September 25, during Soviet-German contacts on resolving the Polish problem, the USSR proposed to begin negotiations on Germany’s renunciation of claims to Lithuania in exchange for the territories of the Warsaw and Lublin voivodeships. On this day, the German Ambassador to the USSR, Count Schulenburg, sent a telegram to the German Foreign Ministry, in which he said that he had been summoned to the Kremlin, where Stalin pointed out this proposal as a subject for future negotiations and added that if Germany agreed, “the Soviet Union would immediately will take on the solution of the problem of the Baltic states in accordance with the protocol of August 23.”

The situation in the Baltic states themselves was alarming and contradictory. Against the background of rumors about the impending Soviet-German division of the Baltic states, which were refuted by diplomats of both sides, part of the ruling circles of the Baltic states was ready to continue rapprochement with Germany, many were anti-German and counted on the USSR’s help in maintaining the balance of power in the region and national independence, while Leftist forces operating underground were ready to support joining the USSR.

Meanwhile, on the Soviet border with Estonia and Latvia, a Soviet military group was created, which included the forces of the 8th Army (Kingisepp direction, Leningrad Military District), 7th Army (Pskov direction, Kalinin Military District) and the 3rd Army (Belarusian Front).

In conditions when Latvia and Finland refused to provide support to Estonia, England and France (who were at war with Germany) were unable to provide it, and Germany recommended accepting the Soviet proposal, the Estonian government entered into negotiations in Moscow, which resulted in September 28 A Mutual Assistance Pact was concluded, providing for the creation of Soviet military bases on the territory of Estonia and the deployment of a Soviet contingent of up to 25 thousand people on them. On the same day, the Soviet-German Treaty “On Friendship and Border” was signed, fixing the division of Poland. According to the secret protocol to it, the terms of the division of spheres of influence were revised: Lithuania moved into the sphere of influence of the USSR in exchange for Polish lands east of the Vistula, which went to Germany. At the end of negotiations with the Estonian delegation, Stalin told Selter: “The Estonian government acted wisely and for the benefit of the Estonian people by concluding an agreement with the Soviet Union. It could work out with you like with Poland. Poland was a great power. Where is Poland now?

On October 5, the USSR invited Finland to also consider the possibility of concluding a mutual assistance pact with the USSR. Negotiations began on October 11, but Finland rejected the USSR's proposals both for a pact and for the lease and exchange of territories, which led to the Maynila Incident, which became the reason for the USSR's denunciation of the non-aggression pact with Finland and the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-1940.

Almost immediately after the signing of mutual assistance agreements, negotiations began on the basing of Soviet troops in the Baltic states.

The fact that the Russian armies were to stand on this line was absolutely necessary for the security of Russia against the Nazi threat. Be that as it may, this line exists, and the Eastern Front has been created, which Nazi Germany will not dare to attack. When Mr. Ribbentrop was called to Moscow last week, he had to learn and accept the fact that the implementation of Nazi plans in relation to the Baltic countries and Ukraine must be completely stopped.

Original text(English)

That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and to accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic States and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop.

The Soviet leadership also stated that the Baltic countries did not comply with the signed agreements and were pursuing anti-Soviet policies. For example, the political union between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (the Baltic Entente) was characterized as having an anti-Soviet orientation and violating mutual assistance treaties with the USSR.

A limited contingent of the Red Army (for example, in Latvia it numbered 20,000) was introduced with the permission of the presidents of the Baltic countries, and agreements were concluded. Thus, on November 5, 1939, the Riga newspaper “Newspaper for Everyone” published a message in the article “Soviet troops went to their bases”:

On the basis of a friendly agreement concluded between Latvia and the USSR on mutual assistance, the first echelons of Soviet troops passed through the Zilupe border station on October 29, 1939. To welcome the Soviet troops, a guard of honor with a military band was formed...

A little later, in the same newspaper on November 26, 1939, in the article “Freedom and Independence”, dedicated to the celebrations of November 18, the President of Latvia published a speech by President Kārlis Ulmanis, in which he stated:

...The recently concluded mutual assistance treaty with the Soviet Union strengthens the security of our and its borders...

Ultimatums of the summer of 1940 and the removal of the Baltic governments

Entry of the Baltic states into the USSR

The new governments lifted bans on communist parties and demonstrations and called early parliamentary elections. In the elections held on July 14 in all three states, the pro-communist Blocs (Unions) of the working people won - the only electoral lists admitted to the elections. According to official data, in Estonia the turnout was 84.1%, with 92.8% of the votes cast for the Union of Working People, in Lithuania the turnout was 95.51%, of which 99.19% voted for the Union of Working People, in Latvia the turnout was 94.8%, 97.8% of the votes were cast for the Working People's Bloc. The elections in Latvia, according to information from V. Mangulis, were falsified.

The newly elected parliaments already on July 21-22 proclaimed the creation of the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR and Lithuanian SSR and adopted the Declaration of Entry into the USSR. On August 3-6, 1940, in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, these republics were admitted to the Soviet Union. From the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian armies, the Lithuanian (29th Infantry), Latvian (24th Infantry) and Estonian (22nd Infantry) territorial corps were formed, which became part of the PribOVO.

The entry of the Baltic states into the USSR was not recognized by the USA, the Vatican and a number of other countries. Recognized him de jure Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Australia, India, Iran, New Zealand, Finland, de facto- Great Britain and a number of other countries. In exile (in the USA, Great Britain, etc.), some diplomatic missions of the pre-war Baltic states continued to operate; after World War II, the Estonian government in exile was created.

Consequences

The annexation of the Baltic states with the USSR delayed the emergence of the Baltic states allied to the Third Reich, planned by Hitler

After the Baltic states joined the USSR, the socialist economic transformations already completed in the rest of the country and repressions against the intelligentsia, clergy, former politicians, officers, and wealthy peasants moved here. In 1941, “due to the presence in the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSR significant amount former members of various counter-revolutionary nationalist parties, former police officers, gendarmes, landowners, factory owners, major officials of the former state apparatus Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and other persons conducting subversive anti-Soviet work and used by foreign intelligence services for espionage purposes,” deportations of the population were carried out. . A significant part of those repressed were Russians living in the Baltic states, mainly white emigrants.

In the Baltic republics, just before the start of the war, an operation was completed to evict the “unreliable and counter-revolutionary element” - just over 10 thousand people were expelled from Estonia, about 17.5 thousand from Lithuania, from Latvia - according to various estimates from 15.4 to 16.5 thousands of people. This operation was completed by June 21, 1941.

In the summer of 1941, after the German attack on the USSR, in Lithuania and Latvia in the first days of the German offensive there were performances of the “fifth column” which resulted in the proclamation of short-lived “loyal to Greater Germany” states, in Estonia, where Soviet troops defended longer, this process almost immediately was replaced by inclusion in the Reichskommissariat Ostland like the other two.

Modern politics

Differences in assessment of the events of 1940 and the subsequent history of the Baltic countries within the USSR are a source of unrelenting tension in relations between Russia and the Baltic states. In Latvia and Estonia, many issues regarding the legal status of Russian-speaking residents - migrants of the 1940-1991 era - have not yet been resolved. and their descendants (see Non-citizens (Latvia) and Non-citizens (Estonia)), since only citizens of the pre-war Latvian and Estonian Republics and their descendants were recognized as citizens of these states (in Estonia, citizens of the ESSR also supported the independence of the Republic of Estonia in the referendum on March 3, 1991) , the rest were deprived of civil rights, which created a unique situation for modern Europe, the existence of discrimination regimes on its territory. .

European Union bodies and commissions have repeatedly addressed Latvia and Estonia with official recommendations, which indicated the inadmissibility of continuing the legal practice of segregation of non-citizens.

The fact that law enforcement agencies of the Baltic states initiated criminal cases against those living here received a special public response in Russia. former employees Soviet state security agencies accused of participating in repressions and crimes against the local population during World War II. The illegality of these accusations was confirmed in the international Strasbourg court

Opinion of historians and political scientists

Some 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. In this regard, the term is sometimes used in journalism Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, reflecting this point of view. Modern politicians also talk about incorporation how about more soft version accession. According to the former head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry Janis Jurkans, “The American-Baltic Charter contains the word incorporation". Baltic historians emphasize the facts of violation of democratic norms during the holding of early parliamentary elections, held at the same time 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, it was allowed only one list of candidates nominated from the “Bloc of Working People”, and all other alternative lists were rejected. Baltic sources believe that the election results were falsified and did not reflect the will of the people. For example, the text posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia provides information that “ In Moscow, the Soviet news agency TASS gave information about the mentioned election results twelve hours before the start of vote counting in Latvia". He also cites the opinion of Dietrich André Loeber - 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 on intervention and occupation. . From this it is concluded that the decisions of the Baltic parliaments to join the USSR were predetermined in advance.

Soviet, as well as some modern Russian historians, insist on the voluntary nature of the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR, arguing that it received final formalization in the summer of 1940 on the basis of decisions of the highest legislative bodies of these countries, which received the broadest voter support in the elections for the entire existence of independent Baltic states. Some researchers, while not calling the events voluntary, do not agree with their qualification as occupation. The Russian Foreign Ministry considers the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR as consistent with the norms of international law of that time.

Otto Latsis, a famous scientist and publicist, stated in an interview with Radio Liberty - Free Europe in May 2005:

Took place incorporation Latvia, but not occupation"

Notes

Semiryaga M.I.. - Secrets of Stalin's diplomacy. 1939-1941. - Chapter VI: Troubled Summer, M.: Higher School, 1992. - 303 p. - Circulation 50,000 copies.
Guryanov A. E. The scale of deportation of the population deep into the USSR in May-June 1941, memo.ru
Michael Keating, John McGarry Minority nationalism and the changing international order. - Oxford University Press, 2001. - P. 343. - 366 p. - ISBN 0199242143
Jeff Chinn, Robert John Kaiser Russians as the new minority: ethnicity and nationalism in the Soviet successor states. - Westview Press, 1996. - P. 93. - 308 p. - ISBN 0813322480
Great Historical Encyclopedia: For schoolchildren and students, page 602: "Molotov"
Treaty between Germany and the USSR
http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/pdf/conclusions_ru_1940-1941.pdf 1940-1941, Conclusions // Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity]
http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/occupation-aspects/
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/4641/4661/4671/?print=on
- “Resolution regarding the Baltic States adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe” September 29, 1960
- Resolution 1455 (2005) "Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation" June 22, 2005
(English) European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania." Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78.
(English) European Parliament resolution on the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe on May 8, 1945
(English) European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2007 on Estonia
Russian Foreign Ministry: The West recognized the Baltic states as part of the USSR
Archive of foreign policy of the USSR. The Case of the Anglo-French-Soviet Negotiations, 1939 (vol. III), l. 32 - 33. quoted from:
Archive of foreign policy of the USSR. The Case of the Anglo-French-Soviet Negotiations, 1939 (vol. III), l. 240. quoted from: Military literature: Research: Zhilin P. A. How Nazi Germany prepared an attack on the Soviet Union
Winston Churchill. Memoirs
Meltyukhov Mikhail Ivanovich. Stalin's missed chance. The Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe: 1939-1941
Telegram No. 442 of September 25 from Schulenburg to the German Foreign Ministry // Subject to announcement: USSR - Germany. 1939-1941: Documents and materials. Comp. Yu. Felshtinsky. M.: Moscow. worker, 1991.
Mutual assistance pact between the USSR and the Republic of Estonia // Plenipotentiary representatives report... - M., International Relations, 1990 - pp. 62-64
Mutual assistance pact between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Latvia // Plenipotentiary representatives report... - M., International Relations, 1990 - pp. 84-87
Agreement on the transfer to the Lithuanian Republic of the city of Vilna and the Vilna region and on mutual assistance between the Soviet Union and Lithuania // Plenipotentiary representatives report ... - M., International Relations, 1990 - pp. 92-98

Hello! In the blog "Fighting Myths" we will analyze the events of our history, surrounded by myths and falsifications. These will be small reviews dedicated to the anniversary of a particular historical date. Of course, it is impossible to conduct a detailed study of events within the framework of one article, but we will try to outline the main issues and show examples of false statements and their refutations.

In the photo: Railway workers rock Weiss, a member of the plenipotentiary commission of the State Duma of Estonia, after returning from Moscow, where Estonia was admitted to the USSR. July 1940

71 years ago, on July 21-22, 1940, the parliaments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania transformed their states into Soviet socialist republics and adopted the Declaration of Accession to the USSR. Soon the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted laws that approved the decisions of the Baltic parliaments. So it began new page in the history of three states of Eastern Europe. What happened over the course of several months in 1939-1940? How to evaluate these events?

Let's consider the main theses used by our opponents in discussions on this topic. Let us emphasize that these theses are not always outright lies and deliberate falsification - sometimes it is just an incorrect formulation of the problem, a shift in emphasis, or involuntary confusion in terms and dates. However, as a result of the use of these theses, a picture emerges that is far from the true meaning of events. Before you can find the truth, you need to expose the lies.

1. The decision to annex the Baltic states to the USSR was spelled out in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and/or the secret protocols to it. Moreover, Stalin planned to annex the Baltic states long before these events. In a word, these two events are interconnected, one is a consequence of the other.

Examples.

"In fact, if you do not ignore the obvious facts, then of course, it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that sanctioned the occupation of the Baltic states and the occupation of the eastern territories of Poland by Soviet troops. And it’s surprising that the secret protocols to this treaty are mentioned so often here, because, strictly speaking, the role of this treaty is clear even without them.”
Link .

“As a professional, I began to study the history of the Second World War in more or less depth in the mid-80s, working on the now notorious, but then almost unstudied and classified the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the secret protocols accompanying it, which decided the fate of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1939".
Afanasyev Yu.N. Another war: History and memory. // Russia, XX century. Under general ed. Yu.N. Afanasyeva. M., 1996. Book. 3. Link.

“The USSR received from Germany the possibility of freedom of action for further “territorial and political transformations” in the sphere of Soviet influence. Both aggressive powers were of the same opinion on August 23 that "sphere of interest" means the freedom to occupy and annex the territories of their respective states. The Soviet Union and Germany divided their spheres of interest on paper in order to “turn the division into reality.”<...>
"The government of the USSR, which needed treaties on mutual assistance with the Baltic states in order to destroy these states, did not think to be satisfied with the existing status quo. It took advantage of the favorable international situation created by Germany's attack on France, Holland and Belgium to completely occupy the Baltic states in June 1940."
Link .

A comment.

The conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its significance in international politics of the 30s. XX century - a very complex topic that requires separate analysis. Nevertheless, we note that most often the assessment of this event is unprofessional in nature, coming not from historians and lawyers, but sometimes from people who have not read this historical document and do not know the realities of international relations of that time.

The realities of the time are that the conclusion of non-aggression treaties was a common practice of those years, which did not imply allied relations (and this pact is often called the “alliance treaty” of the USSR and Germany). The conclusion of secret protocols was also not an extraordinary diplomatic move: for example, the British guarantees to Poland in 1939 contained a secret protocol according to which Great Britain would provide military assistance to Poland only in the event of an attack by Germany, but not by any other country. The principle of dividing a region into spheres of influence between two or more states, again, was very widespread: it is enough to recall the delimitation of spheres of influence between the countries of the Anti-Hitler coalition at the final stage of the Second World War. So it would be wrong to call the conclusion of the agreement on August 23, 1939 criminal, immoral, and even more so illegal.

Another question is what was meant by the sphere of influence in the text of the pact. If you look at Germany’s actions in Eastern Europe, you will notice that its political expansion did not always involve occupation or annexation (for example, as in the case of Romania). It is difficult to say that the processes in the same region in the mid-40s, when Romania came into the sphere of influence of the USSR, and Greece into the sphere of influence of Great Britain, led to the occupation of their territory or forced annexation.

In a word, the sphere of influence implied a territory in which the opposite side, in accordance with its obligations, was not supposed to pursue an active foreign policy, economic expansion, or support for certain political forces beneficial to it. (See: Makarchuk V.S. Sovereign-territorial status of the Western Ukrainian lands during the period of the Other World War (1939 - 1945): historical and legal research. Kiev, 2007. P. 101.) This, for example, happened after the Second World War, when Stalin, according to agreements with Churchill, did not support the Greek communists, who had a great chance of winning the political struggle.

Relations between Soviet Russia and independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania began to develop in 1918, when these states gained independence. However, the Bolsheviks' hopes for victory in these countries by communist forces, including with the help of the Red Army, did not materialize. In 1920, the Soviet government concluded peace treaties with the three republics and recognized them as independent states.

Over the next twenty years, Moscow gradually built a “Baltic direction” of its foreign policy, the main goals of which were to ensure the security of Leningrad and prevent a possible military enemy from blockading the Baltic Fleet. This explains the turn in relations with the Baltic states that occurred in the mid-30s. If in the 20s. The USSR was convinced that the creation of a single bloc of three states (the so-called Baltic Entente) was not beneficial for it, because this military-political alliance can be used by the countries of Western Europe for a new invasion of Russia, then after the Nazis came to power in Germany, the USSR insists on creating a system of collective security in Eastern Europe. One of the projects proposed by Moscow was a Soviet-Polish declaration on the Baltic states, in which both states would guarantee the independence of the three Baltic countries. However, Poland rejected these proposals. (See Zubkova E.Yu. The Baltics and the Kremlin. 1940-1953. M., 2008. P. 18-28.)

The Kremlin also tried to achieve guarantees of independence of the Baltic countries from Germany. Berlin was asked to sign a protocol in which the governments of Germany and the USSR would promise to “constantly take into account in their foreign policy the imperative of maintaining the independence and inviolability” of the Baltic states. However, Germany also refused to meet the Soviet Union halfway. The next attempt to reliably ensure the security of the Baltic countries was the Soviet-French project of the Eastern Pact, but it was not destined to come to fruition. These attempts continued until the spring of 1939, when it became obvious that Great Britain and France did not want to change their tactics of “appeasing” Hitler, embodied by that time in the form of the Munich Agreements.

The change in the attitude of the USSR towards the Baltic countries was very well described by the head of the Bureau of International Information of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party /b/ Karl Radek. He stated the following in 1934: “The Baltic states created by the Entente, which served as a cordon or bridgehead against us, are today for us the most important wall protection from the West." So, what about talking about the “return of territories”, “restoration of rights Russian Empire“It is possible only by resorting to speculation - the Soviet Union sought neutrality and independence of the Baltic states for quite a long time for the sake of its security. The arguments given as arguments about the “imperial”, “power” turn in Stalinist ideology that occurred in the mid-30s are unlikely whether it can be transferred to the sphere of foreign policy, there is no documentary evidence of this.

By the way, this is not the first time in Russian history, when the security issue was not resolved by joining neighbors. The “divide and conquer” recipe, despite its apparent simplicity, could sometimes be extremely inconvenient and unprofitable. For example, in the middle of the 18th century. representatives of the Ossetian tribes sought a decision from St. Petersburg on their inclusion in the empire, because Ossetians were subjected to pressure and raids from the Kabardian princes for a long time. However, the Russian authorities did not want a possible conflict with Turkey, and therefore did not accept such a tempting offer. (For more details, see Degoev V.V. Rapprochement along a complex trajectory: Russia and Ossetia in the middle of the 18th century. // Russia XXI. 2011. №№ 1-2.)

Let's return to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or rather, to the text of paragraph 1 of the secret protocol: “In the event of territorial and political transformations in the areas belonging to the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania will be the line dividing the spheres of influence Germany and the USSR. In this regard, Lithuania’s interest in the Vilna region is recognized by both parties.” (Link.) On September 28, 1939, by an additional agreement, Germany and the USSR will adjust the border of their spheres of influence, and in exchange for the Lublin and part of the Warsaw Voivodeship of Poland, Germany will not lay claim to Lithuania. So, we are not talking about any annexation, we are talking about spheres of influence.

By the way, on these same days (namely September 27), Ribbentrop, the head of the German foreign policy department, in a conversation with Stalin asked: “Does the conclusion of a pact with Estonia mean that the USSR intends to slowly penetrate into Estonia, and then into Latvia?” Stalin replied: “Yes, that means. But temporarily the existing state system, etc., will be preserved there.” (Link.)

This is one of the few pieces of evidence that suggests that the Soviet leadership has intentions to “Sovietize” the Baltic states. As a rule, these intentions were expressed in specific phrases by Stalin or representatives of the diplomatic corps, but intentions are not plans, especially when it comes to words thrown out during diplomatic negotiations. There is no evidence in archival documents of a connection between the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and plans to change the political status or “Sovietization” of the Baltic republics. Moreover, Moscow prohibits plenipotentiaries in the Baltic states not only from using the word “Sovietization”, but also from communicating with left-wing forces in general.

2. The Baltic states pursued a policy of neutrality; they would not fight on the side of Germany.

Examples.

"Leonid Mlechin, writer: Please tell me, witness, there is a feeling that the fate of your country, as well as Estonia and Latvia, was sealed in 1939-40. Either you become part of the Soviet Union, or part of Germany. And there wasn’t even a third option. Do you agree with this point of view?
Algimantas Kasparavičius, historian, political scientist, researcher at the Institute of History of Lithuania: Of course I don't agree, because before the Soviet occupation, until 1940, all three Baltic countries, including Lithuania, professed a policy of neutrality. And they tried to defend their interests and their statehood in just such a neutral way during the war that began.”
Judgment of time: The accession of the Baltic states to the USSR - loss or gain? Part 1. // Channel Five. 08/09/2010. Link .

A comment.

In the spring of 1939, Germany finally occupied Czechoslovakia. Despite the obvious contradiction to the Munich agreements, Great Britain and France limited themselves to diplomatic protests. However, these countries, together with the USSR, Poland, Romania and other states of Eastern Europe, continued to discuss the possibility of creating a collective security system in this region. The most interested party was, naturally, the Soviet Union. Its fundamental condition was the neutrality of Poland and the Baltic states. However, these countries were against guarantees from the USSR.

This is how Winston Churchill wrote about it in his work “The Second World War”: “The negotiations seemed to have reached a hopeless dead end. Accepting the English guarantee (for assistance in case of war - Note), the governments of Poland and Romania did not want to accept a similar commitment in the same form from the Russian government. The same position was adhered to in another important strategic region - in the Baltic states. The Soviet government clarified that it would accede to the mutual guarantee pact only if Finland and the Baltic states were included in the general guarantee.

All four of these countries have now refused such a condition and, out of horror, would probably refuse to agree to it for a long time. Finland and Estonia even argued that they would consider as an act of aggression a guarantee that was given to them without their consent. On the same day, May 31, Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany. Thus, Hitler was able to easily penetrate into the depths of the weak defenses of the belated and indecisive coalition directed against him. "(Link.)

Thus, one of the last opportunities for collective resistance to Hitler’s expansion to the East was destroyed. At the same time, the governments of the Baltic states willingly cooperated with Germany, never ceasing to talk about their neutrality. But isn't this an obvious indicator of a policy of double standards? Let's look once again at the facts of cooperation between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with Germany in 1939.

At the end of March this year, Germany demanded that Lithuania transfer the Klaipeda region to it. Just two or three days later, the German-Lithuanian agreement on the transfer of Klaipeda was signed, according to which the parties assumed an obligation not to use force against each other. At the same time, rumors appeared about the conclusion of a German-Estonian treaty, according to which German troops received the right of passage through Estonian territory. It was unknown how true these rumors were, but subsequent events increased the Kremlin’s suspicions.

On April 20, 1939, the chief of staff of the Latvian army M. Hartmanis and the commander of the Kurzeme division O. Dankers arrived in Berlin to participate in the celebrations dedicated to the 50th anniversary of Hitler, and were personally received by the Fuhrer, who presented them with awards. The Chief of the Estonian General Staff, Lieutenant General Nikolai Reek, also arrived for Hitler's anniversary. Following this, Estonia was visited by the head of the General Staff of the German Ground Forces, Lieutenant General Franz Halder, and the head of the Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. This was a clear step towards military cooperation between the countries.

And on June 19, the Estonian Ambassador to Moscow August Ray, at a meeting with British diplomats, said that USSR assistance would force Estonia to take the side of Germany. What is this? Blind faith in the sincerity of treaties with Germany after the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and even more so after the annexation of a small part of the Baltic lands (i.e. the Klaipeda region)? The reluctance to cooperate (and at that time we were talking only about cooperation) with the Soviet Union, apparently, was much stronger than the fear of losing one’s own sovereignty. Or, perhaps, the reluctance to cooperate was so strong that their own sovereignty was not a value for part of the political elite.

On March 28, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Litvinov presented statements to the Estonian and Latvian envoys in Moscow. In them, Moscow warned Tallinn and Riga that allowing “political, economic or other domination of a third state, providing it with any exclusive rights or privileges" may be considered by Moscow as a violation of previously concluded agreements between the USSR, Estonia and Latvia. (Link.) Sometimes some researchers view these statements as an example of Moscow's expansionist aspirations. However, if you pay attention to the foreign policy of the Baltic countries, this statement was quite a natural action of a state concerned about its security.

At the same time, in Berlin on April 11, Hitler approved the “Directive on the uniform preparation of the armed forces for war for 1939-1940.” It stated that after the defeat of Poland, Germany should take control of Latvia and Lithuania: “The position of the limitrophe states will be determined solely by the military needs of Germany. As events develop, it may become necessary to occupy the limitrophe states to the border of old Courland and include these territories in the empire.” . (Link.)

In addition to the above facts, modern historians make assumptions about the existence of secret treaties between Germany and the Baltic states. This is not just guesswork. For example, the German researcher Rolf Amann discovered in the German archives an internal memorandum from the chief of the German Foreign News Service Dörtinger dated June 8, 1939, which states that Estonia and Latvia agreed to a secret article requiring both countries to coordinate with Germany all defensive measures against the USSR. The memorandum also stated that Estonia and Latvia were warned of the need to intelligently apply their policy of neutrality, which required the deployment of all defensive forces against the “Soviet threat.” (See Ilmjärv M. Hääletu alistumine. Eesti, Läti ja Leedu välispoliitilise orientatsioni kujunemine ja iseseisvuse kaotus 1920. aastate keskpaigast anneksioonini. Tallinn, 2004. lk. 558.)

All this suggests that the “neutrality” of the Baltic states was only a cover for cooperation with Germany. And these countries deliberately cooperated, hoping with the help of a powerful ally to protect themselves from the “communist threat.” It is hardly necessary to say that the threat from this ally was much worse, because threatened real genocide against the Baltic peoples and the loss of all sovereignty.

3. The annexation of the Baltic states was violent, it was accompanied by mass repressions (genocide) and military intervention by the USSR. These events can be considered "annexation", "forced incorporation", "illegal incorporation".

Examples.

“Because - yes, indeed, there was a formal invitation, or rather, there were three formal invitations, if we talk about the Baltic states. But the point is that these invitations were made already when Soviet troops were stationed in these countries, when all three Baltic countries were overrun by NKVD agents, when in fact repressions against the local population were already being carried out... And, of course, it must be said that this action was prepared well by the Soviet leadership, because in fact everything was completed by the year 1940, and governments were created already in July 1940.”
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Interview with historian Alexey Pimenov. // Russian service of the Voice of America. 05/08/2005. Link .

"We did not support forced incorporation of the Baltic countries into the USSR", US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the three Baltic foreign ministers yesterday."
Eldarov E. The USA does not recognize the occupation?! // News today. 06/16/2007. Link .

“The Soviet side also confirmed its aggressive position and decision not to comply with international law and to use force at the Moscow negotiations with representatives of Latvia during the conclusion of a mutual assistance agreement, which began on October 2, 1939. The next day, Latvian Foreign Minister V. Munters informed government: I. Stalin told him that “because of the Germans we can occupy you,” and also threateningly pointed out the possibility of the USSR taking “territory with a Russian national minority.” The Latvian government decided to capitulate and agree to the demands of the Soviet Union, allowing its troops into its territory."<...>
“Given the aspects of international law, treaties that were concluded on mutual assistance between such unequally powerful parties (power and small and weak states) are difficult to evaluate as legitimate. Several opinions have been expressed in the historical and legal literature on how one could characterize concluded basic agreements between the USSR and the Baltic states. Some authors believe that these agreements, in accordance with international law, are not valid from the moment of their signing, because they were simply imposed on the Baltic states by force".
Feldmanis I. Occupation of Latvia - historical and international legal aspects. // Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia. Link .

A comment.

"Annexation is the forcible annexation of the territory of another state (all or part) to a state. Before the Second World War, not every annexation was considered illegal and invalid. This is due to the fact that the principle prohibiting the use of force or the threat of its use, which became one of the main principles of modern international law, was first enshrined in 1945 in the UN Charter,” writes Doctor of Law S.V. Chernichenko.

Thus, speaking about the “annexation” of the Baltic states, we are again faced with a situation where modern international law in relation to historical events does not work. After all, the expansion of the British Empire, the USA, Spain and many other states that at one time annexed territory that belonged to other countries can just as easily be called annexation. So even if we call the process of annexation of the Baltic states annexation, then considering it illegal and invalid (which is what a number of researchers, journalists and politicians want to achieve) is legally incorrect, because the corresponding laws simply did not exist.

The same can be said about specific mutual assistance pacts concluded between the USSR and the Baltic countries in September - October 1939: September 28 with Estonia, October 5 with Latvia, October 10 with Lithuania. They were concluded, of course, under strong diplomatic pressure from the USSR, but strong diplomatic pressure, very often applied in conditions of constant military threat, does not make these pacts illegal. Their content was almost the same: the USSR had the right to lease military bases, ports and airfields agreed upon with the states and introduce a limited contingent of troops into their territory (20-25 thousand people for each country).

Can we consider that the presence of NATO troops on the territories of European countries limits their sovereignty? Of course you can. One can also say that the United States, as the leader of NATO, is going to use these troops to put pressure on the political forces of these countries and change the political course there. However, you must admit that this would be a very dubious assumption. The statement about treaties between the USSR and the Baltic states as the first step towards the “Sovietization” of the Baltic states seems to us to be the same dubious assumption.

Soviet troops stationed in the Baltic states were given the strictest instructions regarding behavior towards the local population and authorities. Contacts of the Red Army soldiers with local residents were limited. And Stalin, in a confidential conversation with the General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Comintern G. Dimitrov, said that the USSR needed to “strictly observe them (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - Note) internal mode and independence. We will not seek their Sovietization." (See USSR and Lithuania during the Second World War. Vilnius, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 305.) This suggests that the factor of military presence was not decisive in relations between states, and therefore, the process was not annexation and military takeover. It was precisely the agreed entry of a limited number of troops.

By the way, sending troops into the territory of a foreign state in order to prevent it from going over to the enemy’s side was used more than once during the Second World War. The joint Soviet-British occupation of Iran began in August 1941. And in May 1942, Great Britain occupied Madagascar to prevent the Japanese from capturing the island, although Madagascar belonged to Vichy France, which maintained neutrality. In the same way, the Americans occupied French (i.e. Vichy) Morocco and Algeria in November 1942. (Link.)

However, not everyone was happy with the current situation. The left forces in the Baltic states clearly counted on the help of the USSR. For example, demonstrations in support of the mutual assistance pact in Lithuania in October 1939 turned into clashes with the police. However, Molotov telegraphed to the plenipotentiary and the military attaché: “I categorically forbid interfering in inter-party affairs in Lithuania, supporting any opposition movements, etc.” (See Zubkova E.Yu. The Baltics and the Kremlin. P. 60-61.) The thesis about the fear of world public opinion is very doubtful: Germany, on the one hand, France and Great Britain, on the other, at that time entered the Second world war, and it’s unlikely that any of them wanted the USSR to join the other side of the front. The Soviet leadership believed that by sending in troops it had secured the northwestern border, and only strict compliance with the terms of the agreements would ensure, in turn, compliance with these agreements on the part of the Baltic neighbors. It was simply unprofitable to destabilize the situation by military takeover.

We also add that Lithuania, as a result of the mutual assistance pact, significantly expanded its territory, including Vilna and the Vilna region. But despite the impeccable behavior of the Soviet troops noted by the Baltic authorities, in the meantime they continued cooperation with Germany and (during " Winter War") with Finland. In particular, the radio intelligence department of the Latvian army provided practical assistance Finnish side, forwarding intercepted radiograms from Soviet military units. (See Latvijas arhivi. 1999. Nr. 1. 121., 122. lpp.)

The allegations about mass repressions carried out in 1939-1941 also look unfounded. in the Baltic states and began, according to a number of researchers, in the fall of 1939, i.e. before the Baltic states joined the USSR. The facts are that in June 1941, in accordance with the May resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On measures to cleanse the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSRs from anti-Soviet, criminal and socially dangerous elements", the deportation of approx. 30 thousand people from the three Baltic republics. It is often forgotten that only some of them were deported as “anti-Soviet elements,” while others were banal criminals. It must also be taken into account that this action was carried out on the eve of the war.

However, more often the mythical NKVD order No. 001223 “On operational measures against anti-Soviet and socially hostile elements”, which wanders from one publication to another, is cited as evidence. It was first mentioned... in the book "Die Sowjetunion und die baltische Staaten" ("The Soviet Union and the Baltic States"), published in 1941 in Kaunas. It is not difficult to guess that it was written not by painstaking researchers, but by employees of Goebbels’ department. Naturally, no one was able to find this NKVD order in the archives, but its mention can be found in the books “These Names Are Accused” (1951) and “The Baltic States, 1940-1972” (1972), published in Stockholm, as well as in numerous modern literature up to the study of E.Yu. Zubkova “The Baltics and the Kremlin” (see this edition, p. 126).

By the way, in this study, the author, considering Moscow’s policy in the annexed Baltic lands for one pre-war year (from the summer of 1940 to June 1941), over the course of 27 pages of the corresponding chapter, writes only two paragraphs (!) about repressions, one of which is a retelling of the myth mentioned above. This shows how significant the repressive policies of the new government were. Of course, it brought fundamental changes in political and economic life, the nationalization of industry and large property, the elimination of capitalist exchange, etc. Part of the population, shocked by these changes, switched to resistance: this was expressed in protests, attacks on the police and even sabotage (arson of warehouses, etc.). What did the new government need to do so that this territory, taking into account the not overwhelming but still existing social resistance, would not become easy “prey” for the German occupiers, who were planning to start a war soon? Of course, to fight “anti-Soviet” sentiments. That is why, on the eve of the war, a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR appeared on the deportation of unreliable elements.

4. Before the inclusion of the Baltic states into the USSR, communists came to power in them, and the elections were rigged.

Examples.

"Illegal and illegal change of government occurred on June 20, 1940. Instead of the cabinet of K. Ulmanis, a Soviet puppet government headed by A. Kirchenstein came, which was officially called the government of the Latvian people.”<...>
“In the elections held on July 14 and 15, 1940, only one list of candidates nominated by the “Bloc of Working People” was allowed. All other alternative lists were rejected. It was officially reported that 97.5% of the votes were cast for the mentioned list. The election results were falsified and did not reflect the will of the people. In Moscow, the Soviet news agency TASS gave information about the mentioned election results twelve hours before the start of the vote count in Latvia."
Feldmanis I. Occupation of Latvia - historical and international legal aspects. // Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia. Link .

"July 1940 In the elections in the Baltics, the Communists received: Lithuania - 99.2%, Latvia - 97.8%, Estonia - 92.8%."
Surov V. Icebreaker-2. Mn., 2004. Ch. 6.

The accession of countries to the USSR. The whole truth about life in the Soviet Baltic states

1939. The beginning of the war in Europe

Mutual Assistance Pacts and Treaty of Friendship and Borders

Ultimatums of the summer of 1940 and the removal of the Baltic governments

Entry of the Baltic states into the USSR

Consequences

Modern politics

Opinion of historians and political scientists

see also

Notes