DOCSLIB.ORG

Reviving Heritage in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reviving Heritage in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe Reviving Heritage in Post-Soviet 2000:17). While heritage in all of its Eastern Europe: A Visual complexity incorporates both tangible Approach To National Identity objects and the intangible ideas that surround them, it is generally thought by heritage scholars that national heritage Frances W Harrison strictly involves the tangible1 . Referring specifically to what archaeologist Laurajane Introduction Smith describes as the “monumental” (2006: Since the dissolution of the Soviet 29); the tangible aspect of heritage is often Union, countries across Eastern Europe have characterized by what is known as gained their independence. This Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD). The independence however, has come at a cost focus of AHD constitutes historical as each former Soviet republic has struggled legitimacy of groups with power, along with to strengthen its unique national identity and the incentive to produce objects and places heritage. I focus on the Baltic States, that are aesthetically pleasing for the public Belarus and Ukraine to demonstrate the (Smith 2006: 29). The message of Stalinism diverse responses to change; as countries was visually successful in its time because emerging from years of Sovietization. In this of this monumental influence and article, I argue that visual symbols of proliferation in public spaces. cultural heritage are inherently controversial In the early 20th century starting with in Eastern Europe because they reflect Vladimir Lenin and exemplified under Soviet ideology and preserve its memory. Joseph Stalin, totalitarian art and socialist Places of public gathering, monuments and realism were administered by the human performance, which contain key government at the national level. The symbols about peoples’ heritage, are pivotal incentive was to promote a sense of factors in restructuring notions of national uniformity among the diverse peoples identity. Although symbols of the Soviet era coalesced into the USSR, which would have been partially dismantled since the unconsciously lend allegiance to the collapse of communism, I argue that these communist state (Groys 2005:113). visual reminders make a strong contribution Sovietization in the Eastern Bloc countries to incorporating Soviet heritage into national utilized a manipulative environment by identity today. I examine how interpretations combining visual messages with an enforced of imagery by the public are complex and political ideology. Aesthetics in designing often controversial, and illustrate the urban landscapes and the utilization of difficulties of maintaining a strong national propagandist imagery were intended to unify unity in the post-Soviet era. any political controversies felt by oppressed populations. Lenin’s initial idea was to Visual Heritage in Soviet and Post-Soviet educate masses of people without the need Eastern Europe for literacy, and he encouraged this Constructing national identity was phenomenon by visually altering public remarkably successful during Stalinism because its foundation was heavily built upon symbols of Soviet heritage. From an 1 See Harrison, Rodney. 2010. Understanding the anthropological point of view, heritage Politics of Heritage. New York: Manchester refers to the contemporary and selective use University Press and Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of of the past and exists at the local, national Heritage. New York: Routledge for further discussion and multinational levels (Graham et al. of the tangible sphere of national of heritage. spaces. Lenin passed the “Plan for realm and thus “heritage knowledge” further Monumental Propaganda”, a decree that influences how visual, tangible objects are allowed him to tear down tsarist monuments socially evaluated (2010:11). In this view I and rename streets and cities that no longer am primarily concerned with the represented what he thought to be monumental objects of national and nationalistically important (Wanner 1998: multinational heritage, but as loci for multi- 176). vocal, subjective interpretation. Although What began during Lenin’s influence the focal point of AHD scholarship is the was amplified to a much greater degree tangible sphere, the meaning of heritage and under Stalin’s totalitarian regime. Monu- thus nationalistic ideas is socially negotiated ments to Lenin were intentionally re- over time and space, and can either separate characterized with more aggressive facial or bind people together. This is why visual expressions and body language, and statues reinforcement has so much credence in of Stalin exhibited paternalistic yet times of crisis; creating what cultural intimidating features. Stalin was the face of historian Robert Hewison calls a “nostalgic “socialist paternalism”, a term that impulse” to memorialize heritage objects as anthropologist Katherine Verdery (1996:25) historically significant (1987:47). The describes as a contract made between the monumental objects of heritage installed Soviet Father; the Communist Party and his under communism sought to create a Children; the subjects of Soviet ideology. collective identity, but they offer disparate Citizens of the USSR would have their basic notions of national identity in contemporary needs met by this father figure, so long as discourse. In the following pages I explore they paid head to his political message and visual symbols of Soviet heritage and Soviet did not seek an alternative source (1996:25). remembrance in Eastern Europe to To have Stalin’s image in public spaces illuminate the controversies of national served as a reminder to fear deviation from identity. this contract. Constructivist architecture, charact- Communism Enclosed: An Outdoor Museum erized in part by the aesthetic in Lithuania homogenization of public buildings, also To demonstrate the concept of visual flourished under Stalinism. No building was heritage, the southernmost of the Baltic to stand out against the other, an ideal that States illustrates how national identity has incorporated the destruction or conversion been rekindled in the post-Soviet era. of historical buildings to fit the profile Stalin Lithuania has an extensive history of stressed (Groys 2005:117). These changes freedom and independence and was once a are reflective of Stalin’s goal to homogenize vast political territory that stretched over millions of people into one dominant much of Eastern Europe. After enduring national identity, an effort which has had a intermittent occupation from Polish, German lasting effect on how people view and Russian forces, Lithuania was the first themselves and the Soviet era today. of the Baltic States to declare its When considering AHD as independence from the USSR, and has since discussed, its tangible sphere has been fighting to reclaim its forgotten history significantly shaped collective notions of (Misiunas and Taagepera 1993:323-4). In heritage because of its strong publicity. the post-Soviet era, research has shown that According to archaeologist Rodney Harrison the Lithuanian people have taken initiative however, differential access to the public in defining who they are as a nation by recuperating traditions and historical figures encourage longings for a time when food suppressed under communism. According to variety was limited but nevertheless stable, anthropologist Gediminas Lankauskas, these in the minds of many the Soviet-style meals emblems of heritage are symbolic of are a success. For others, the nostalgic café Lithuania’s pre-Soviet values and have ironically represents the Soviet political reappeared in the community as ceremonies, menu as distasteful. museum exhibits and memorials to the The additional elements of Grūtas country’s heroic, medieval rulers (2006:33). Park are meant to symbolize what founder The visual impact has been significant, but a Malinauskas described as “tools…to memorialization of considerable controversy brainwash” (Anusaite 2007:1), they engage demonstrates how Lithuania has visitors in an encapsulating experience in acknowledged its recent Soviet past. order to understand at least a glimpse of Grūtas Park is an outdoor museum what Soviet communism was like. The and recreational park in southern Lithuania. monuments in particular, which were once The park displays more than eighty Soviet- politically imposing in public Lithuanian era monuments of Lenin, Stalin and spaces, have become neutralized in their communist party leaders. Designed in the current position at Grūtas Park. When a style of socialist realism and emulating a monument is neutralized, it is stripped of its Soviet gulag, the park is intended to have its political significance it once maintained as a visitors, in the words of its founder Viliumas centerpiece in public spaces. In this way, the Malinauskas, “understand what dictatorships park allows people who lived under are capable of and what tools they use to communist rule to look at the Soviet regime brainwash people” (Anusaite 2007:1). The from a different angle, to critique it without statues are situated along a two-kilometer suffering any form of repercussion pathway in which visitors are guided (Lankauskas 2006:37-38). The fact that the through a space reflective of Siberia. park draws on memory and visual entities Imitative watchtowers and remnants of for a constructive purpose exemplifies concentration camps confine the former visitors as participants in a material and Soviet idols to a place of exile. The statues ideational relationship. Additionally, Grūtas are also no longer on pedestals or the focal Park’s location
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conde, Jonathan (2018) an Examination of Lithuania's Partisan War Versus the Soviet Union and Attempts to Resist Sovietisation
    Conde, Jonathan (2018) An Examination of Lithuania’s Partisan War Versus the Soviet Union and Attempts to Resist Sovietisation. Masters thesis, York St John University. Downloaded from: http://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/3522/ Research at York St John (RaY) is an institutional repository. It supports the principles of open access by making the research outputs of the University available in digital form. Copyright of the items stored in RaY reside with the authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full text items free of charge, and may download a copy for private study or non-commercial research. For further reuse terms, see licence terms governing individual outputs. Institutional Repository Policy Statement RaY Research at the University of York St John For more information please contact RaY at [email protected] An Examination of Lithuania’s Partisan War Versus the Soviet Union and Attempts to Resist Sovietisation. Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Research MA History at York St John University School of Humanities, Religion & Philosophy by Jonathan William Conde Student Number: 090002177 April 2018 I confirm that the work submitted is my own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the works of others. This copy has been submitted on the understanding that it is copyright material. Any reuse must comply with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and any licence under which this copy is released. @2018 York St John University and Jonathan William Conde The right of Jonathan William Conde to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Acknowledgments My gratitude for assisting with this project must go to my wife, her parents, wider family, and friends in Lithuania, and all the people of interest who I interviewed between the autumn of 2014 and winter 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • The Day Holding Hands Changed History Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States Was Illegal, and Against the Wish of the Respective Nations
    The day holding hands changed history occupation and annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, and against the wish of the respective nations. So at 19:00 on 23 August 1989, 50 years after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, church bells sounded in the Bal- tic states. Mourning ribbons decorated the national flags that had been banned a year before. The participants of the Bal- tic Way were addressed by the leaders of the respective national independence movements: the Estonian Rahvarinne, the Lithuanian Sajūdis, and the Popular Front of Latvia. The following words were chanted – ‘laisvė’, ‘svabadus, ‘brīvība’ (freedom). The symbols of Nazi Germany and the Communist regime of the USSR were burnt on large bonfires. The Baltic states demanded the cessation of the half-century long Soviet occupation, col- onisation, russification and communist genocide. The Baltic Way was a significant step to- wards regaining the national independ- ence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and a source of inspiration for other region- al independence movements. The live chain was also realised in Kishinev by Ro- manians of the Soviet-occupied Bessara- bia or Moldova, while in January 1990, Ukrainians joined hands on the road from Lviv to Kyiv. Just after the Baltic Way campaign, the Berlin Wall fell, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia began, and the Ceausescu regime in Romania was overthrown. On 23 August 1989, approximately two doomed to be forcedly incorporated into million people stood hand in hand be- the Soviet Union until 1991. The Soviet Un- Recognising the documents of the Baltic tween Tallinn (Estonia), Rīga (Latvia) ion claimed that the Baltic states joined Way as items of documentary heritage of and Vilnius (Lithuania) in one of the voluntarily.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltic Way 1989 Achieving the Unthinkable - Documentary by Kristine S
    Baltic Way 1989 Achieving the Unthinkable - Documentary by Kristine S. At 7pm on August 23, 1989 about 2 million people joined hands forming a human chain spanning 600 kilometres, or almost 400 miles. The inhabitants of the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, joined hands in a peaceful protest demanding restoration of their independence. This became known as the Baltic Way. The Baltic Way in 1989, through leadership and non-violent protests, drew global attention to Baltic struggles and contributed to the eventual renewal of the Baltic states’ independence. The Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - are small countries in Europe on the Baltic Sea. Before World War II, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were independent prosperous nations. On 23 August 1939, the Secret Treaty of the Foreign Ministers of the Soviet Union and Germany, known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, was signed. It led to the occupation of the Baltic states followed by the war and mass genocide against the Baltic nations. Hundreds of thousands of people, including families with children, were deported to labour camps in Siberia where they were executed, or had to flee their homes never to return. The Baltic nations lived under Soviet rule for 50 years. In the Soviet Union freedom of speech and thought was restricted. The Soviet Union denied the existence of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact for 50 years and insisted that the Baltic states had voluntarily joined the Soviet Union. In the ‘80s people started to gain access to more information. The first protest began in the Baltic states. National movements in each of the Baltic states started to gain wide support of the population.
    [Show full text]
  • The Baltic Way Towards Freedom
    THE BALTIC The Baltic Way WAY 30 Towards Freedom At 19:00 on 23 August 1989 approximately two million people of the Baltic states joined hands forming a live, continuous chain on the road Tallinn-Rīga-Vilnius (660-670 km). Church bells sounded in the Baltic states. Mourning ribbons decorated the national flags that were banned a year ago. The participants of the Baltic Way were addressed by the leaders of Rahvarinne - the Estonian Popular Front, the Lithuanian movement Sajūdis and the Popular Front of Latvia. The following words were heard – ‘laisvė’, ‘svabadus, ‘brīvība’ (freedom). The symbols of Nazi Germany and the Communist regime of the USSR were burned in large bonfires. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania engaged in collective action against the non-assault agreement between Hitler and Stalin of 23 August 1939 and its secret protocols or the “devil pact”. The Baltic states demanded the cessation of half-century long Soviet occupation, colonisation, russification and Photo 1 (cover photo) communist genocide. The Baltic Way became the The Baltic Way on Pleskava highway. crucial application by the Baltic states’ civil society The photo was taken from the helicopter for independence and return to Europe. It was the on 23 August 1989. first dice in the domino effect that disrupted the Photographer Aivars Liepiņš. Archive of the Latvian Institute. totalitarian regime in Eastern Europe - the first step towards regaining national independence of Latvia. © State Chancellery of Latvia, 2019 THE BALTIC WAY 30 1 2 THE BALTIC WAY 30 Photo 2 Causes and Participants of the Baltic Way on the Stone Bridge (at that time the October Bridge).
    [Show full text]
  • THE BALTIC CHAIN: a STUDY of the ORGANISATION FACETS of LARGE-SCALE PROTEST from a MICRO-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE Paula Christie
    LITHUANIAN HISTORICAL STUDIES 20 2015 ISSN 1392-2343 PP. 183–211 THE BALTIC CHAIN: A STUDY OF THE ORGANISATION FACETS OF LARGE-SCALE PROTEST FROM A MICRO-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE Paula Christie ABSTRACT Following the introduction of Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost, details of the secret protocols contained within the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 were subsequently published. This led to widespread condemnation of the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic countries, which culminated in one of the largest-ever human chain protests. How was a protest spanning 671 kilometres and involving almost two million people across Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia organised and coordinated? Did particular variables impact upon individual levels of participant engagement and experience? This article engages with the experiences of those who were involved in the protest at a grass-roots level, and provides a nuanced picture of participant engagement often lacking within the dominant commemorative narrative of the protest. Introduction The Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were sur- rendered to Soviet influence under the secret protocols contained within the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, drawn up between Nazi Germany and the USSR. 1 The annexation of the three Baltic countries was not internationally recognised, and in the wake of Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost, the publication of the protocols in 1988 sparked a number of large-scale nationalist protests calling for national sovereignty to be restored. 2 On 23 August 1989 these nationalist protests culminated in the formation of an unbroken human chain made up of approximately two million men, women and children, from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which stretched 1 R.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by Mr Vytautas Landsbergis, Chairman of the Seimas of The
    FROM VILNIUS CONFERENCE ‘98 Lithuania Before an Open Door Vytautas Landsbergis* The time has come to speak frankly. Signals from Western capitals are already telling us that we should not expect good news concerning Lithuania’s security when Poland and two other Central European states are accepted into the North Atlantic Alliance next year. “Nothing is expected to be said in relation to you.” This is how they are obliging us to adapt to our potential political exclusion from a frozen Euro- Atlantic security area, as well as to the post-occupation zone of uncertainty and risk. Events are likely to take this course, although we hope that this will not transpire in the end. Silence concerning the Baltic states in April 1999, or a failure to mention any one of them among the most likely applicants for NATO membership, would amount to a negative sign implying acceptance of the implementation of the Russian expansionist idea regarding its zone of special interests. At the same time it implies the acknowledgment of the de facto right of the powerful to determine the future of the Baltic states in one way or another. This would also mean a riskier future for the West, which is already capitulating. Thus, we will oppose this exclusion not only for our own sake. On the other hand, this zone of interest, deriving from nearly sixty-year-old concepts and events, is very familiar to us. In 1999, we shall commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Stalin-Hitler conspiracy, which marked the start of World War II, which was initiated by Germany and the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Memory of the World Register
    MEMORY OF THE WORLD REGISTER The Baltic Way Human Chain Linking Three States in Their Drive for Freedom (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) Ref N° 2008-05 PART A – ESSENTIAL INFORMATION 1 SUMMARY The documentary heritage proposed for inscription in the Memory of the World Register by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania includes significant and carefully selected documents reflecting the history of the 600 km long human chain - a unique and peaceful demonstration that united the three countries in their drive for freedom on 23 August 1989, the 50th anniversary of the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939 and its secret protocol. On 23 August 1939 foreign ministers of the USSR and Germany - Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop- as ordered by their superiors Stalin and Hitler, signed a treaty which affected the fate of Europe and the entire world. This pact, and the secret clauses it contained, divided the spheres of influence of the USSR and Germany and led to World War II, and to the occupation of the three Baltic States - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 50 years later, on 23 August 1989, the three nations living by the Baltic Sea surprised the world by taking hold of each other’s hands and jointly demanding recognition of the secret clauses in the Molotov- Ribbentrop pact and the re-establishment of the independence of the Baltic States. More than a million people joined hands to create a 600 km long human chain from the foot of Toompea in Tallinn to the foot of the Gediminas Tower in Vilnius, crossing Riga and the River Daugava on its way, creating a synergy in the drive for freedom that united the three countries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Estonian Singing Revolution: Musematic Insights Kaire Maimets 18.11.2016
    The Estonian Singing Revolution: musematic insights Kaire Maimets 18.11.2016 Abstract: In the heart of ‘Singing Revolution’, Baltic nonviolent political movement in the late 1980s, there was music – songs and singing –, and rock musicians were its most critical conduit. As yet only little is known about the actual musical mechanisms by which songs affected people, expressed national identity, proposed action derived from that identity, and moved historical events. This paper focuses on one Estonian pop-rock anthem: “Koit” (Dawn, 1988), written and performed by singer-songwriter Tõnis Mägi (b. 1948). My primary analytical focus is on the social(- political), ideological and musical meanings of this song as performed, recorded and perceived sound. I will concentrate on one musematic structure in “Koit”: that of a ‘bolero snare drum’. The larger aim of my research is to integrate the discussion of music’s “sonic materiality” (its actual sounds) into discourse about culture and society. Keywords: Singing Revolution, Estonia, Soviet Union, music semiotics, Tõnis Mägi, Dawn. On 11 September 1988, an unprecedented number of Estonian people (estimates range between 20% and one third of the population) congregated in Tallinn Song Festival Grounds to express their national sentiment and collective political will through speeches, slogans, and the singing of songs. Notice of the upcoming event was spread solely by word of mouth. This was just one of many such unofficially organised gatherings taking place between 1987 and 1991 that together became known as the “Singing Revolution”,1 a nonviolent national protest against Soviet occupation.2 The Estonian Singing Revolution started shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev’s introduction of perestroika and glasnost in the Soviet Union,3 and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Estonia’s restoration of independence in 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • January 1991
    January 2021 Länderbüro, Lettland Photo: Witold Hussakowski. Collection of the Latvian National Museum. January 1991 Barricades in Latvia Dainis Īvāns On 18 November 1918, the People’s Council of Latvia, founded by Latvian political parties, declared the Republic of Latvia de jure. However, actual independence had to be fought for with weapons and there were casualties. The Latvian War of Independence lasted two long years. On 4 May 1990, the Supreme Council of Latvia, elected in the first free elections of the Latvian SSR, declared restoration of the independence of the Republic of Latvia de jure. What followed this time, was nonviolent resistance under the auspices of the newly elected parliament, so as to regain independence de facto. We used no weapons, just our bare hands and the power of the nation’s spirit. There were casualties. The decisive battle came in January 1991. The impulse for these events can be traced back, if not to 23 August 1939 when the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed in Moscow, then definitely to 23 August 1989. On the 50th anniversary of this pact 2 million Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians joined their hands to form a human chain for 640 km - the Baltic Way. Despite Moscow’s denial of the existence of a secret deal between Hitler and Stalin, defining the spheres of influence and claiming that the Baltic states had acceded to the Soviet Union voluntarily, the truth was not to be hidden any longer. Upon request by members of the Estonian Popular Front, the Lithuanian Sajudis and the Latvian Popular Front, a parliamentary enquiry commission Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Baltic States in the Eu: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
    THE BALTIC STATES IN THE EU: YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW Agnia Grigas Andres Kasekamp Kristina Maslauskaite Liva Zorgenfreija Foreword by Jerzy Buzek JULY 2013 STUDIES & REPORTS 98 THE BALTIC STATES IN THE EU: YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW Agnia Grigas Andres Kasekamp Kristina Maslauskaite Liva Zorgenfreija Foreword by Jerzy Buzek The Baltic States in the EU: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD by Jerzy Buzek 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 INTRODUCTION 13 PART 1 BALTIC STATES AND THE EU: A ROCKY ROAD FROM “OUTSIDE” TOWARDS THE “CORE” by Prof. Andres Kasekamp 16 INTRODUCTION 16 1. Return to Europe 17 1.1. Historical Background: Threatened Statehood 17 1.2. The Road to EU Membership: One Option out of Three 18 1.3. The EU Accession Process 20 1.4. The Political Systems: Best Practices from Abroad and National Legacies 23 2. The Baltic States as EU Members 25 2.1. Contemporary Politics: Moving towards more Stability 25 2.2. EU Membership: the Community Method 26 2.3. Baltic Policies and Preferences on the EU Level 28 3. Future Outlook 31 3.1. General Trends for the Future 31 3.2. The Lithuanian EU Presidency 31 The Baltic States in the EU: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow PART 2 ECONOMIC MIRACLE IN THE BALTIC STATES: AN EXEMPLARY WAY TO GROWTH? by Kristina Maslauskaite and Liva Zorgenfreija 33 INTRODUCTION 33 1. Developments before the Economic Crisis 34 1.1. Emergence of the Baltic Tigers 34 1.2. Build-up of Macroeconomic Imbalances 36 2. Difficult Years and Difficult Policies 42 2.1. The Crash 42 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • ALL TOGETHER NOW: "THE BALTIC WAY" Meet the Baltic States Grouping ESTONIA, LATVIA and LITHUANIA Into One Unified Group Is Totally Unfair
    ALL TOGETHER NOW: "THE BALTIC WAY" Meet the Baltic States Grouping ESTONIA, LATVIA and LITHUANIA into one unified group is totally unfair. The three "BALTIC STATES" may share the eastern coast of the Baltic sea but they have different histories, languages, religions and more. Why do people group them together...? For convenience? Sure. Because they were all under Russian rule until 1918, then became independent together, then came under Soviet domination in 1940, then became independent together again in 1991...? That too. Since 1991 the Baltic nations have developed multiparty parliamentary democracies; all joined the European Union in 2004. European tourists flock to the Baltics for their seaside resorts and their reputation as being home to warm, welcoming people. At the same time, the Baltic states are still coming to terms with a history full of struggle, especially in the 20th century in which they endured Nazi and Soviet rule. THREE OF A KIND? -- Is there one "Baltic" Language? No. Estonians speak a "Uralic" language that's very close to Finnish. Latvian and Lithuanian are different from each other, though both are "Indo-European." -- Is there one "Baltic" Religion? No. Most Estonians and Latvians practice Protestant (Lutheran) Christianity, while most Lithuanians are Catholic. -- Is there one "Baltic" History? Not really. Divergent Introducing kids to the Baltic nations and "the elements of the Baltic history came together in 1918 Baltic Way" when all three fought German and Russian armies and became independent, and again when Russia occupied all three in 1940. HANDS ACROSS THE BALTICS On August 23, 1989, more than a million people from the Baltics linked hands to form a human chain almost 400 miles long in an event called "THE BALTIC WAY" The massive hand-holding ostensibly marked the 50th anniversary of a German/Russian pact that led to the Nazi occupation of the Baltics, but it also demonstrated the unity of the people of the Baltics in demanding independence from the "The Baltic Way" teacher extra, Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • International Conference
    International Conference “THE MOLOTOV–RIBBENTROP PACT. THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE OF THE BALTIC STATES” 28 September 1999, Vilnius, Lithuania Vilnius 2000 UDK 327(47+57:430)(091)(06) Mo-91 The map on the cover of the book is printed with the permission of National Service of Geodesy and Cartography under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Ukmergës str. 41, LT-2600 Vilnius, Lithuania Romualdas Požerskis photos ISBN 9986-18-067-8 © The Publishing House of the Seimas, 2000 Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................7 Baltic Assembly Awards Ceremony ......................................................................9 Opening of the Conference H. E. Valdas Adamkus, President of the Republic of Lithuania.....................14 Sigitas Tamkevièius, Metropolitan Bishop (Lithuania) ...................................16 Dr. Laima Andrikienë, MP, Chairperson of the Organisational Committee of the International Conference “The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Present and the Future of the Baltic States” (Lithuania) .........................17 Valeriu Matei, MP, Head of the Party of Democratic Forces, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on the Relations with the European Parliament (Moldova) ........................................................19 I. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Its Historical and Political Evaluation Janis Straume, Chairman of the Saeima (Latvia) .............................................23 Francoise Thom, Senior Lecturer,
    [Show full text]