These days, commemorative events take place in the Baltic countries - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia celebrate 75 years since the beginning of the "Soviet occupation". This term, which Russia did not recognize even during the times of Yeltsin and Kozyrev, became the basis of the political consciousness of the Baltics. Meanwhile, the 75th anniversary of the fall of three dictatorial regimes could be celebrated with the same success, and the term "occupation", to put it mildly, is controversial.
Exactly 75 years ago, on June 17, 1940, additional contingents of Soviet troops marched to Soviet military bases in Estonia and Latvia. A little earlier, on June 15, additional units of the Red Army were relocated to Soviet military bases in Lithuania. From the point of view of Russian historiography, we have before us one of the episodes (and not even the most significant) of the prolonged process of "Sovietization" of the Baltic states. From the point of view of modern politicians, the Baltic states are the beginning of the "Soviet occupation".
Of considerable interest is the very difference in assessments of one historical event. Why 15-17 June? Indeed, back in September 1939, Estonia signed a Mutual Assistance Pact with the USSR, which implies the deployment of Soviet military bases on its territory. In October, a similar agreement was concluded with Latvia and Lithuania.
Were these agreements dictated exclusively by the goodwill of the contracting parties? Not quite. With much more reason, it can be argued that they were the result of a geopolitical game, on one side of which was Nazi Germany, increasing its power, on the other - England and France, keeping their interests, on the third - the USSR with repeated attempts (from 1933 to 1939) to create a defensive alliance in Europe in case of German aggression. These initiatives of Moscow were torpedoed not without the participation of the Baltic countries.
“An obstacle to the conclusion of such an agreement,” wrote Winston Churchill in his memoirs, “was the horror that these border states experienced before Soviet help … Poland, Romania, Finland and the three Baltic states did not know which they were more afraid of - German aggression or Russian salvation.
Let us note in parentheses that the listed states really had reason to fear the USSR - they have been pursuing a very anti-Soviet policy for many years, relying on the patronage of first Germany, then England. As a result, these countries seriously counted on the participation of England, and then again Germany in their fate. In June 1939, Estonia and Latvia signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, which Churchill described as the complete collapse of the newly emerging anti-Nazi coalition. Another thing is that Churchill in his memoirs somewhat exaggerates the role of the states bordering on the USSR, "forgetting" that the main blame for the failure of the negotiations on the creation of a European defensive alliance is borne by Britain and France themselves.
Faced with the apparent reluctance of European leaders to discuss joint defensive initiatives, in August 1939, the USSR also signed a Non-Aggression Pact with Germany, in secret protocols to which it delineated spheres of influence along its borders. And therefore, when Moscow directly addressed the leadership of the Baltic states with a proposal to conclude a treaty, as well as - in order to expand its security sphere - to deploy their military bases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Great Britain and France washed their hands, and Germany recommended accepting the proposal Stalin.
So in October 1939, the 25,000th contingent of the Red Army was stationed at military bases in Latvia, 25,000 in Estonia and 20,000 in Lithuania.
Further, in connection with the anti-Soviet policy of the Baltic states and the pro-German orientation of their governments (according to Moscow's assessment), the Soviet Union was accused of violating the terms of the agreements concluded. In June 1940, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were presented with ultimatums demanding the formation of governments capable of ensuring the implementation of the 1939 treaties, as well as admitting additional Red Army contingents to their territory.
There is a widespread misconception that the USSR spoke in such a tone with respectable European bourgeois democracies, sacredly observing a policy of neutrality. However, the Republic of Lithuania at that time (from 1926 to 1940) was ruled by Antanas Smetona - a dictator who came to power as a result of a military coup in 1926, the head of the Union of Lithuanian Nationalists - a very, very odious party, a number of researchers directly call it pro-fascist. From 1934 to 1940, Latvia was ruled by President Karlis Ulmanis, who also came to power as a result of a military coup, abolished the constitution, dispersed parliament, banned the activities of political parties and closed objectionable media outlets in the country. Finally, Estonia was led by Konstantin Päts, who staged a military coup in 1934, declared a state of emergency, banned parties, gatherings and introduced censorship.
The Soviet ultimatum of 1940 was accepted. President Smetona fled to Germany, after the end of World War II he, like many other "democratic leaders of Europe", surfaced in the United States. In all three countries, new governments were formed - not Bolsheviks. They restored freedom of speech and assembly, lifted the ban on the activities of political parties, stopped repressions against the communists and called elections. On July 14, they were victorious in all three countries by the pro-communist forces, which at the end of July announced the creation of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics.
Contemporary Baltic historians have no doubts that the elections “organized at gunpoint” were rigged with the obvious purpose of the final “Sovietization” of these countries. But there are facts that make it possible to doubt this interpretation of events. For example, Smetona's military coup in Lithuania overthrew the power of the left-wing coalition.
In general, it is a fairly widespread misconception that the Bolsheviks in the province of the former Russian Empire were imported exclusively from Petrograd, while the local forces were deliberately anti-Bolshevik. However, in the Estland province (roughly corresponding to the territory of modern Estonia) in the fall of 1917, the RSDLP (b) was the largest party, with more than 10 thousand members. The results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly are also indicative - in Estonia they gave the Bolsheviks 40.4%. In the Livonian province (roughly corresponding to the territory of Latvia), the elections to the Constituent Assembly brought the Bolsheviks 72% of the vote. As for the Vilna province, part of the territory of which is now part of Belarus, part is part of Lithuania, in 1917 it was occupied by Germany, and there is no data on the activity of the Bolsheviks in the region.
Actually, only the further advancement of German troops and the occupation of the Baltic States allowed local national-bourgeois politicians to gain a foothold in power - on German bayonets. In the future, the leaders of the Baltic states, who took a tough anti-Soviet position, relied, as already mentioned, on the support of England, then tried to flirt with Germany again, and ruled by not completely democratic methods.
So what happened directly on June 15-17, 1940? Just the introduction of additional army contingents in the Baltic countries. "Just" because the countries signed agreements on the creation of military bases of the USSR back in 1939, an ultimatum to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania was put forward and adopted on June 14-16, 1940, the elections that led to the power of the Socialists were held in mid-July, the proclamation Soviet Socialist Republics - at the end of July 1940, and the entry into the USSR - in August. Each of these events outweighs the scale of the deployment of additional contingents to military bases.
But without troops it is impossible to talk about occupation. And the "Soviet occupation" is the alpha and omega of modern state construction in our closest western neighbors. And therefore it is this intermediate date in the long history of the “Sovietization” of the three countries that has been chosen as the key one.
But the story, as usual, is a little more complex than the ideological constructs broadcast by the media.
