It is a statement of fact. Though Russia’s democracy is “very limited,” in your idol Norman Davies’ assessment — there are still some functioning elements of democracy in Russia — elections, though severely flawed, still take place. Though the media have increasingly come under the Kremlin’s control, newspapers like Kommersant and radio stations like Ekho Moskvi are not rarely openly critical of the government. Though Putin is idolized, there is not an official personality cult. None of this is true for Ulmanis’ Latvia. Those newspapers and periodicals that weren’t banned were strictly censored — by censors working in shifts within the newsroom, for example. There was not even a pretense of democracy — no elections were held, not even rigged ones. All political parties were shut down. Putin’s Russia is certainly much more violent (and, like Davies, I think Russia is still an empire) — but violence isn’t the only component of totalitarianism.

Regarding some “sacrifice [of] the seriousness of this threat to Latvia and even [my] own Latvianness”… sorry, but I think I’d need a copious amount of kandža to understand how your mind works, at times. The gist seems to be that looking at what Latvians do to themselves (which has a profound effect on Latvia, whether you see Latvia as merely a speck in foreign winds or not) as un-Latvian or even anti-Latvian. The main threat posed by Russia is mostly like the threat a punter poses to girls — there’s no rape going on at the moment; if Latvia wants to sell itself, that’ll be a voluntary transaction made by Latvians.

Regarding my personal politics and the suggestion that I am pandering to an audience — sorry, but there happens to be substance in what I write, and I provide references. What Lucas calls “whataboutism” incessantly infuses your responses. You reach a nadir of total absurdity, for example by asking (at LOL) for a tally of others nations’ war criminals because I brought up Baltic war criminals. Lucas is very critical of Russia — but he also calls countries like Latvia “ill-governed, tetchy, and intolerant.” Address that, without comparison to the neighbors. Otherwise you are like a person in filthy tatters who keeps talking about what other people are wearing.

“Mavriks Vulfsons rises and falls in one sentence in your pantheon of Latvian heroes, and I’m left wondering why you mentioned him at all, if not to demonstrate how difficult it is to hold anyone to some static Latvian identity.” I mentioned Vulfsons in a specific context — towards a definition of “latviskums” in contrast to “Latvia for Latvians”… which definitions are also not immutable (e.g., between Pērkonkrusts, Ulmanis, and Meierovics lies the shadow).

“The dictatorship of Ulmanis was a reflection of the times and not the manifestation of an inherent Latvian-character deformity. It’s more than an a mere ‘article of faith’ because I know the Latvian I would have been in Latvia.” Well why don’t we just sit down on our speck, get blown about by the dread winds of the great powers, and “reflect the times”? Why didn’t Finland reflect the times, Ambersun? Why were the Estonians, also authoritarian, able to hold parliamentary elections in 1938, for instance? Nowhere do I talk about any inherent character deformity — there is such a thing as political immaturity, however, and time doesn’t necessarily cure it. Even today, about half of the Latvian people longs for a “strong hand.” This is not true among most of our neighbors.

Re Valters — of course he knew about Russification; it took place in the Empire, too, not only under the Soviets (in fact, Dunsdorfs suggests that Ulmanis’ mistreatment of minorities was a psychological response to Ulmanis’ mistreatment under Russification).

Re “Lettophobia” — it is not a non-word but an established form, as I explained. The terms for phobias and philias are properly constructed from the Greek, because -phobia and -philia are Greek. Georgia, in Georgian, is Sakartvelo — Georgians are Kartvelebi. You don’t use those words to make a -philia, however. For that matter, you don’t do that for the Germans, either; you use the Greek Γερμανική to get Germanophobe or Germanophile — you don’t say Deutschophile.

What evidence would you suggest that Putin threatened Latvian national, or ethnic, if you’d like, identity. I think it’s quite a leap of faith to make from the Lucas’ descriptions of the new Cold War (which also lacks hard evidence) and Russia’s pulling around its weight in recent years on the international arena to the alleged threat posed to the ethnic identity of the titular nation of Latvia. Care to elaborate?

You will have to forgive me, but I just don’t have the time right now to do your elaborate posts justice. I can’t, however, not respond. Everything you write is transparently driven by your personal politics. That’s just fine by me but don’t set yourself in the role of the authority on each and every Latvian subject. At times I agree with you and other times I could just jump out of my Latvian skin because of your blatant contradictions, far-fetched comparisons, over-reaching assertions, and gratuitous sacrifice of certain Latvians. Your writing is more complex than necessary but gives at least some little satisfaction to everyone in your diverse audience, n’est-ce pas?

As I’ve said before, I don’t come from Latvians who “idolized” Ulmanis or even voted Republican. To gag at your statement that “Putin is not _nearly_ as totalitarian [as Ulmanis]” is a normal reaction to one of your peevish provocations and reveals more about your dogmatic politics than helps explain either Ulmanis or Putin. Sticking with today: Putin is the totalitarian menace in any Latvian’s life now, not Ulmanis, and to sacrifice the seriousness of this threat to Latvia and even your own Latvianness – as identified by many authoritative non-Balt historians, politicians, and journalist (like Edward Lucas), etc – in order to convince recalcitrant Latvians and students from the international friendship brigade to detest the long-departed Ulmanis as much as you do, is just not helpful for your Latvian future alongside Putin’s Russia.

I’m glad you have your followers and you cultivate their support admirably by speaking from all sides of your political being – but you are not the only Latvian in town. Or – you are not the only “reasonable and progressive” “person of Latvia” – Latvian, wordly not merely. No pathetic, parochial, patriotic and xenophobic “Latvietiba” of the Ulmanis-”idolizing”-type for you – the only other Latvian option seemingly available, manifest in Mr L L of LOL. Mavriks Vulfsons rises and falls in one sentence in your pantheon of Latvian heroes, and I’m left wondering why you mentioned him at all, if not to demonstrate how difficult it is to hold anyone to some static Latvian identity.

I agree with you that the Latvianness of Mikelis Valters is admirably complex, in part like yours, and makes total sense as an evolutionary, political transformation of a Latvian on the way to creating the best nation for “Latvijas tauta,” the Latvian people. Valters had no qualms about calling himself an unabashed Latvian patriot through all the changes. I grant that the Latviesu/Latvian subject is dense and even more difficult to understand in English translation but you make it more complicated than it needs to be. We don’t have to agree, but I certainly know that Valters would not have worried first to create Latvian language and English translations to accomodate the post-Soviet-occupation colonists to Latvia before first and foremost considering what is best for Latvia, Latvians, and the Latvian nation. To use the construction “the people of Latvia” to betray his earlier ideal for Latvia as a healthy homeland for “Latviesi” and a healthy home for “Latvijas tauta” is just wrong. He did not know about the occupation of Latvia, Russification, and the manipulated demographic change of the Latvian nation. He envisioned Latvia’s Latvianness not the EU’s Europeanness, as Aleksejs would have us believe is intended in Valters’ “people of Latvia.” Valters never would have wanted Latvia to be just another “caurstaigajama istaba” (walk-thru room) of Europe.

I appreciate the history you trace for the origin and use of “Lett” and the like. I did not say that Lett only evokes the German connection, but it certainly is the most recent and common. You reinforce this Germanic identification with your own example from Deglavs! Also, you write that “Švābe translates the Russian ‘latyšefili’ as ‘letofili,’ ” without touching on the “lat” in the Russian “latysefili.” I believe in Latvians not only claiming and writing their neglected history, as I often state, but also using a self-chosen and self-created identity rather than repeating an imposed one. I rarely choose to identify myself as a Lett because the German connection is still the predominant one. The attacks from Russia and elsewhere connecting Latvians to WWII Germans and “Fascism” is still unrelenting. Just yesterday you effectively responded to the ignorant accusation of Latvian WWII collective collaboration and war criminality in a comment to an article in the May 22 ECONOMIST reviewing (the Latvian film) “The Soviet Story.” My identity is Latvian. Hence, the neologism of “Latvianophobia” or even “Latophobia” is a better “non-word” than “Lettophobia.” I already touched on this in another forum about googling “Lettophone” only to get “let to phone.” There is also no google recognition of the word “Lettophobia” and it appears its only life is when anyone chooses to use it as the short-cut way to describe the phobia of Latvians.

I do believe – and it is my faith in Latvians – that, even as you write, “…it’s indeed quite possible that democracy would have been restored, and that Ulmanis’ regime would even have had some salutary effects — he was, after all, “the great modernizer.” As a friend of mine said after a recent visit to Portugal — rightist dictatorships seem to do less damage than leftist totalitarianism, because much of life continues along old rails. That’s debatable —…”

I strongly believe that Latvia would have restored its democracy; that the government would have been neither extreme right nor extreme left, but probably more left than right; and that Latvia’s future course would have paralleled that of a country like Denmark, as would also have been the courses for Estonia and Lithuania. The dictatorship of Ulmanis was a reflection of the times and not the manifestation of an inherent Latvian-character deformity. It’s more than an a mere “article of faith” because I know the Latvian I would have been in Latvia.

Visu labu and see you at Marginalia and LOL