Interview with Jānis Šiliņš, historian
What could be the reason for the word “Soviet”, which had seemingly vanished for a time, to return with unexpected force into casual conversation, arguments and politics? Moreover, interpreting its meaning not in terms of past stories or accusations, but using it in place of “bad”, “low-quality” or “unacceptable”.
That is a good question. I haven't paid enough attention to the renaissance of this word. One would have to ask those who specialise in communication or punditry – why this is happening. Yes, 30 years have passed since Soviet power vanished, and perception and communication have changed. The observation regarding the return of the word is interesting.
In the article “Is the myth of 700 years of slavery part of Latvian identity?” (1) you talk about deeply rooted beliefs regarding a very distant past. Historian Inese Dreimane explains and gets quite angry about modern-day fairytales, specifically “neighbours who compiled the deportation lists themselves”. Does every century have its own historical myths and their varying levels of reinforcement?
What do we consider to be a myth? Historians see it as a simplified explanation of the past, which might not only be inaccurate but also misleading. It is also understandable that every society needs simplified explanations of the past. The academic community (scientists) evaluates them differently, but for a large part of society, historical myths are neither here nor there. It must be said that historians have neither the time nor the resources to change a deeply rooted yet quite erroneous opinion or understanding of past events within society. For example, in Latvia, a specific historical period is usually studied by only a few people, whereas collective memory is represented by thousands, perhaps even millions. The opportunities for scientists to explain their discoveries to the wider public are very limited. It will not happen that, upon the public discovering that existing knowledge is not entirely accurate, this same society will turn to using correct and precise academic research and knowledge in their daily lives.
What is the easiest way to shatter a myth? Probably with a beautiful feature film about the Latvian Riflemen, legionnaires, or some other similar theme. A film whose story can be beautiful, yet sufficiently simplified, will sweep away the old one, but... it will create a new myth, over which historians will again rack their brains, trying to combat a new simplification of history and mystifications of the past. It is a cyclical process.
Speaking of the deportation lists mentioned in the question or the story about 700 years of slavery, two aspects must be taken into account. One: there is a kernel of truth in every joke, and there is a kernel of truth in every historical myth, so that a part of society can identify with it and perceive it as understandable and true. Two: myths bother or fascinate us if they have some political or other kind of added value, if they serve as political instruments.
The myth of 700 years of slavery in Garlieb Merkel’s narrative was also created at the time (1797) as a political instrument, which was later picked up and used by the Young Latvians in the second half of the 19th century; it was used during the years of World War I and the War of Independence, as well as in Latvian politics of the 1920s and 30s. Today, the main problem for this story is its lack of political potential; it works in a different direction than what the sustainers of the political agenda might perhaps wish. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that today we have lost the Baltic German community, but Germany is our close ally and the main driving force of the European Union. Consequently, talking about 700 years of slavery and German dominance would probably not be useful.
I must say, there is undoubtedly a grain of truth in it; we can debate serfdom as a peculiar form of slavery; we can debate how long it existed (700 years or 100, or 150?) and whether that is considered a long period of time.
More relevant and better known to us is the myth of 50 years of occupation, which, if one wished, we could also dissect. Because there was not one, but several occupations; it is clear that this process did not last exactly 50 years; and in the end – from the point of view of international law, occupation is a lesser crime than the annexation of an independent state! I allow that in 200 years there will be historians who will also consider the story about the occupation of Latvia a simplification of the past. On the other hand, as I mentioned, there is also a kernel of truth in every myth. For example, regarding the deportation lists mentioned in the question, it is clear that the farmers did not hand them over to Lavrentiy Beria themselves, but it is also clear that not all Latvian farmers in post-war conditions were saintly and helpful. Neighbourly relations were diverse; it has often happened: the closer people are to one another, the greater the wrongs they do to each other.
The most important question regarding historical myths is their instrumentality within the relevant political situation – whether they can be used, whether they are useful, or whether they should be discarded (and if so, what to put in their place?). I do not say this as a historian, but as an observer of the modern situation. Scientists always rely on facts and research, not popular opinions or speculation. It must be said, however, that paradoxically, myths are very useful to us historians because they help to popularise our research and attract more public attention to it.
Friedrich Bernhard Blaufuss and Jānis Šteinhauers: two powerful men 100 years before the Young Latvians. It would be better and more valuable to use a powerful, persistent, even heroic experience from the past and, instead of lamenting, come like Vaira at the Song Festival and say: “Great, mighty, strong! That is who we are!” Why is the sad note so important?
Over the last 10-20 years, this trend – to talk about the powerful, the great in our past - has been noticeable. For example, as late as the 90s, the history of the Herrnhuters (Moravian Brethren) in Latvia was shrouded in secrecy, little known, even marginal and uninteresting to most. The increase in interest is sudden; I would associate it with a certain fatigue from stories of occupation, war, deportations, and repressions. People definitely want to see and hear something nobler, more beautiful, and more heroic.
That would be a superficial view, however. But we can also look deeper – we do not appreciate the significance and potential of sorrow and suffering in today's world. Many nations and peoples today even compete over who has been or still is the greatest sufferer in the 20th century. I would name the Chinese, Jews, Armenians, Belarusians, Poles, and also Serbs as leaders. Many nations have, at some point, wished to emphasise and prove their suffering and grievances, because... If a nation has become a victim of historical circumstances, certain advantages appear for this nation, primarily moral ones, and sometimes material ones as well.
The myth of 700 years of slavery, which to some extent has grown into the myth of 50 years of occupation, is resilient because it gives many both internal moral satisfaction and a feeling that we are entitled to fair compensation for the hardships experienced. Brussels and others in the European Union should, after all, take into account our historical experience, the losses caused by the occupation, and the ruin! Politically, this is certainly a story that carries potential political gains.
From an international perspective, the topic of suffering experienced in the past also motivates and mobilises to a certain extent; it has great political added value. For example, the recent events in the USA. And we can, in some way, fit into this system and join in, forgetting that Duke Jacob was also a coloniser. But – we have suffered a lot ourselves! Latvia has also been colonised and has suffered from Russian, German, French and Swedish imperialism! By that, I mean that the myth of 700 years of slavery can strangely have a certain potential for renewal in the future.
From 2010, the importance of brighter and more positive research topics in historical studies increased. For example, the War of Independence, which can be evaluated as our greatest victory, the founding of the Republic of Latvia. These studies and their public profile gradually began to overshadow questions about World War II, the loss of independence, and the horrors that followed. One could say that in this regard, both researchers and the public turned more towards positive and successful stories. The Herrnhuters, Jānis Šteinhauers, F. B. Blaufuss, in particular, were and are personalities and stories to be proud of! Of course, this conflicts with the message of 700 years of slavery; these are even clashes of ideas, clashes of stories, clashes of historical memory. Who will win? Probably the one that has greater applicability in modern times.
In Latvian literature, Jēkabs Janševskis and his novels about the proud Courlanders come to mind. To what extent is it intentional that our literature lacks or has few stories about power and greatness?
Myths and literature go hand in hand. One must ask or research where artists and writers draw their inspiration from. At the beginning of the 20th century and also today, social trends influence artists quite a lot, and they reflect this in their work. Good art and culture overcome the present and look to the future. What moves society: a sense of injustice and grievance, or an awareness of strength and success?
It is difficult for a historian to comment on literature... I see connections between the myths of opinion dominant at a given time and the explanations of the past, and the content of cultural products. The link is very strong. What do we have at our disposal? The experience of the past, because we do not yet have the experience of the future! A reflection on today's experience also requires a certain amount of time, and then it already becomes the past. But if we rely on stories from the past, the question is: what are they, where do we get them? Often they are stronger than each individual's own story.
In the 90s, the fight against the consequences of the Soviet occupation and their elimination was in full swing. I often thought to myself that (smiles) I myself am, to a certain extent, the result of this occupation, because if there had been no war and occupation, I would likely not have been born. Do I want to eliminate the consequences of this occupation, and how worthwhile is it to include oneself in them? The broad story and collective view can be in contradiction with my individual story, but surprisingly they can coexist successfully.
Works of art and their authors communicate with society; this, of course, must be taken into account. But historical myths undoubtedly also feed artists. It is a two-way process. Authors who are able to overcome the past and create from the perspective of the future are called geniuses. Such people are very few; they are an exception. If the trend of remembering heroism, luck and success continues and strengthens, we will also see new, interesting stories. But if we look at the history of our literature, it was not just Jēkabs Janševskis; Aleksandrs Grīns and Rutku Tēvs also wrote historical novels about heroic times.
How important is it, when creating a work of art, to know the historical events and facts precisely?
Experience varies. The “positively good style” these days is, for example, to list a historical consultant in the film credits, although, as is known, there are cases where artists do not take the historian’s advice into account. I even know of cases where historians, after watching a rough cut of a film, ask for their name to be removed from the credits.
The question can also be viewed more broadly – as a certain contradiction between art and science. A work of art is always the author’s personal view of the world. Therefore, works of art about history are actually talking about modern times, about today’s society. In such a case, the presence of a historian might not seem necessary at all.
However, a historian’s advice can provide a work of art with historical accuracy, various details and conjure up the necessary atmosphere, which gives the work of art greater credibility and a more convincing effect. Moreover, real events from the past are usually much more vivid, surprising, even shocking than any writer or director could imagine in their own mind.
Therefore, I believe that there should be a historical consultant present during the creative process, but, which is also very important, they must understand the “rules of the game”. They must understand the genre, which is art; they must not try to dictate to the author what and how to film, what and how something should be written! It is the artwork of that particular author, not the historian. If these principles are observed, I think all involved parties (authors, historians and society) are and will be winners. We, as historians, must also strive for our research to be produced in good, understandable and readable language. We will definitely also benefit from collaboration with representatives of the cultural sector!
I am glad that historians are invited to collaborate and consult, as it helps to avoid historically absurd things. There are also negative examples, for example, “Defenders of Riga” (Rīgas sargi), which... at the expense of Latvian taxpayers, only discredited the Latvian army and the fight against Bermondt. But, fortunately, there are not many such appalling examples.
Latvians in Soviet Russia and the USSR. Has everything been researched in Latvia and is the next step up to the closed doors of the neighbouring country’s archives?
My joint work with Māris Zanders, “A messy topic. Latvians – the backbone of the Bolsheviks”, was published recently. It is not an academic study, but rather a friendly conversation between a journalist and a historian, from which the book was born. Yes, Latvian Bolsheviks and communists are a messy topic! Also, the fates of Latvians in the Soviet Union are a, if not as messy, then under-researched topic, which, by the way, is also personally close to me. My grandfather was born in a Latvian colony in Siberia, where my great-grandfather fled from German occupation during the years of World War I. My family lived there for some time, and during the years of collectivisation were forced to move further north, to a gold miners' village, where they awaited the start of World War II.
Latvians in Russia and the USSR have interested me. I wrote my dissertation about Pēteris Stučka’s government in 1919, about Latvian communists, and I am also interested in Latvians in Russia. A large part of P. Stučka’s commissars continued their careers in Russia after the end of the “project” of Soviet Latvia. But this topic, like many topics in Latvian history, has not been sufficiently researched. Yes, a large part of the documents are still secret, at least those related to the activities of the special services, but I think the opportunities are there, if only there were interest! I know that Latvian colonies in Russia and Belarus have been researched, along with their destruction in 1937/38. Individual biographies have been looked at, as well as Latvian cultural life in the Soviet Union and several other questions. Unfortunately, I do not know any colleagues in Latvia who work on this question daily. Russian archives, by the way, are not completely closed to researchers. For example, the State Archive of Social and Political History of Russia, the State Archive of the Russian Federation and other public archives are accessible. Also in Latvia, we have quite a lot of materials about Latvian communists, because in Soviet times there existed the Institute of Party History and other institutions that collected and compiled materials. The question is different – who is interested in these documents and the mentioned topics enough to devote their life to them.
1.https://lvportals.lv/viedokli/271245-vai-700-gadu-verdzibas-mits-ir-latviesu-identitates-dala-2015