Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR in the Post-Stalin Era a Case of Ethnic Tourism

Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR in the Post-Stalin Era A Case of Ethnic Tourism

✣ Ieva Zake

Introduction

Scholars have long believed that foreign tourism to the USSR primarily served the Soviet political propaganda goals of demonstrating and proving to the outside visitors the superiority of Communist society over Western capitalism. However, as this article demonstrates, Soviet policy and implementation of international tourism became more complex over time. From the 1960s onward, Soviet programs for hosting foreigners developed characteristics of what is deﬁned as “ethnic tourism,” that is, a type of tourism that centers on exposing tourists to a unique, and presumably authentic, ethnic culture. This trend was particularly explicit in and relevant to how the Soviet authorities organized travel to ethnic locations such as the “sister republics”—such as Latvia, Estonia, and Georgia—although to a certain extent it was present in travel to Soviet Russia too. To substantiate this claim, the present article takes a closer look at the activities of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic’s (LSSR) local branch of the Soviet tourism agency Inturist during the period from the late 1950s to the 1980s. The article analyzes ways in which Inturist structured foreign tourists’ trips to the LSSR and what messages these visits were to impart according to the Soviet authorities. The analysis presented here reveals that over a period of about twenty years Inturist gradually but deliberately integrated Latvian ethnic culture and history into its representation of Soviet reality. Foreign visitors thus not only were exposed to the LSSR’s political reality, but were increasingly offered an ethnic experience. In the immediate post-Stalin period, tourism to the Baltic republics had combined political propaganda with some cultural exposure, such as historic West European architecture, contemporary

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

“European” style, and Soviet mass culture.1 However, from the 1960s to the 1980s, displays—and even celebrations—of the “authentic” and “traditional” Latvian ethnic identity became prevalent in tourist itineraries, even at the ex- pense of political indoctrination. This article applies the concept of ethnic tourism to analysis of the work- ings of the Soviet tourism agency Inturist—a form of analysis not previously used in the literature on Soviet tourism. Seeing Inturist’s offerings to foreigners through the lens of ethnic tourism helps us elucidate the changes that took place in the Soviet tourism industry. The article also builds on Shawn Salmon’s work on the history of Inturist’s central office by expanding the existing analysis to peripheries such as the LSSR and revealing unique features of foreign tourism in ethnic locales.2 In so doing, the article presents new historical material on the operation of the Soviet tourism industry. Sources used here consist of archival materials from the Riga chapter of the USSR Coun- cil of Ministers’ Central Administration of Foreign Tourism Inturist that are stored in Riga at the Latvian National Archives / Latvia State Archives’ Fund 222. These documents include annual reports that the Riga office submitted to the Central Committee of the Latvian Communist Party; letters, orders, and regulations received by the Riga office from the central Inturist office in Moscow; documents outlining internal policies of the Riga Inturist office; and letters sent by Riga Inturist officials to various LSSR organizations and offices from 1957 to 1985. Although these sources do not represent an exhaustive documentation of Inturist operations in Riga, they are detailed and consistent enough to allow for an analysis of the transformation in this organization’s approach to tourism. These documents have been discussed in only one pre- vious publication, written in Latvian by Marta Starostina, who focuses on the role Inturist played in the KGB’s operations against visiting émigré Latvians in the 1960s and 1970s.3 The present article takes a different perspective and

1. Anne E. Gorsuch, All This Is Your World: Soviet Tourism at Home and Abroad after Stalin (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 50. In the 1960s–1980s, the Baltics were perceived by Soviet citizens as “our abroad” or the Soviet “West,” and the identity of a pribalt (someone from the Baltic coast) was noticeably different from that of other Soviet citizens. Although the pribalt identity not seen as entirely anti-Soviet, it was closer to the West than any other Soviet identity. On this, see William Risch, “A Soviet West: Nationhood, Regionalism, and Empire in the Annexed Western Borderlands,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2015), pp. 63–81. 2. Shawn Salmon, “To the Land of Future: A History of Intourist and Travel to the Soviet Union, 1929–1991,” Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2008; and “Marketing Socialism: Intur- ist in the Late 1950s and Early 1960s,” in Anne E. Gorsuch and Diane P. Koenker, eds., Turizm: The Russian and Eastern European Tourist under Capitalism and Socialism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), pp. 186–204. 3. Marta Starostina, “Padomju ideoloģijas un propagandas izpausmes Vissavien¯ıbas akciju sabiedr¯ıbas Inturists¯ Rigas nodaļas darba¯ ar latviešu trimdas turistiem¯ (1957–1985),” in Totalitarisma¯ sabiedr¯ıbas

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

analyzes both the evolution and inherent dilemmas of Soviet foreign travel per se, not just as a cover for Soviet intelligence and counterintelligence activities.4 Finally, Inturist served tourists from both Western capitalist countries and the Soviet bloc. There were many overlaps but also numerous differences in how Inturist handled these two groups. This article pays particular attention to Inturist’s approach to hosting Westerners because it reﬂects the trend toward ethnic tourism most explicitly.

Characteristics of Ethnic Tourism

The gradual changes that took place in the organization of international tourism to peripheries such as the LSSR were not accidental or inconsequen- tial. They were cumulative and signiﬁcant enough to warrant analysis and explanation in their own right. These changes affected the nature of the international tourist’s experience in the USSR, and they can be best understood by applying the concept of ethnic tourism. What are the distinguishing features of ethnic tourism? Within the larger ﬁeld of the sociology and anthropology of tourism, “ethnic tourism” describes tourist experience that is marketed to the public in terms of ‘quaint’ customs of indigenous and often exotic peoples. . . . Destination activities that stimulate tourism include visits to native homes and villages, observation of dances and ceremonies, and shopping for primitive wares and curios, some of which may have considerable intrinsic value to the art historian.5

kontrole un represijas: Dokumentu izp¯ete un tas¯ metodoloģija: Conference Proceedings (Riga: LPSR Valsts droš¯ıbas komitejas zinatnisk¯ as¯ izpetes¯ komisija, 2015), pp. 241–280. 4. This article looks at international tourism to the USSR solely from the perspective of the Soviet authorities. The goal here is to uncover the internal transformations in how and what the Soviets presented to foreign visitors. The experience of visitors who took advantage of Inturist’s trips is covered in other published research of mine; for example, American Latvians: Politics of a Refugee Community (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2010). 5. Valene L. Smith, ed., Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), p. 4. On the larger ﬁeld, see, for example, Erik Cohen, “The Sociology of Tourism: Approaches, Issues, and Findings,” Annual Review of Sociology, No. 10 (1984), pp. 373–392. According to Smith’s deﬁnition, ethnic tourism involves travel that is far removed from the “beaten path” and “attract[s] only a limited number of visitors motivated by curiosity and elite peer approval” (ibid., p. 4). This type of tourism may have minimal host-guest impact if the number of visitors stays low. Cultural tourism, on the other hand, is visiting “the ‘picturesque’ or ‘local color,’ a vestige of a vanishing life-style that lies within human memory with its ‘old style’ houses, homespun fabrics, horse or ox-drawn carts and plows, and hand rather than machine-made crafts. Destination activities include meals in rustic inns, folklore performances, costumed wine festivals, or rodeos reminiscent oftheWildWest....Host-gueststressesmaybemaximalbecausetheruralpeasantareasareoften

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

Ethnic tourism differs from other forms of tourism because it is essentially “a form of ethnic relations . . . where the very existence of the ethnic boundary creates the tourist attraction,” and the tourist is actively seeking or is exposed to “ethnic exoticism.”6 That is, ethnic tourism involves contact between different ethnic groups, as represented by hosts and guests, and it is predicated on the visitors’ desire to encounter “authentic” ethnic communities that are unfamiliar to them. Some researchers argue that ethnic tourism involves a relationship between a tourist who seeks the untouched and pristine representations of an exotic culture and natives who become a spectacle.7 Another characteristic of ethnic tourism is that it is shaped by power relations among ethnic groups within the host country. Often minorities or subordinated ethnic groups that might be interesting to tourists are not in a position or do not have the resources and political and economic autonomy to “sell” themselves to the visitors. As a result, the dominant ethnic group sets up tourist sites and provides business and hospitality services, thus acting as an intermediary that can ensure opportunities for interaction during which minority or subordinated “natives” (tourees) become a product to be sold to foreign visitors. Consequently, ethnic tourism involves a “tripartite situation” among tourists, tourees, and middlemen—where “middlemen usually represent the national culture, while tourees stand in for indigenous, native culture, which is then offered to tourists for consumption by the middlemen who also gain and keep most of the ﬁnancial proﬁt.”8 An ironic aspect of ethnic tourism is that although on some level it de- stroys its own essence, it is also generative.9 On the one hand, the arrival and presence of tourists can a have a transformative effect on native culture and environment. Ethnic tourism alters the recipient group’s understanding of its own ethnic identity and changes the most important elements of the displayed ethnic culture:

readily accessible from tourist resorts, and large numbers of visitors come for the very purpose of observing and photographing the lives of peasants who becomes objects of study per se” (ibid., p. 5). For the purposes of this article, the difference between these two types of tourism is insigniﬁcant. Indeed, one can argue that so-called cultural tourism is really just ethnic tourism, inasmuch as what generates tourists’ interest in a particular site is the ethnic culture, history, and tradition of that site. Soviet tourism policy was deliberate about not making a distinction between the ethnic and cultural experiences of foreign tourists in Latvia. 6. Margaret Byrne Swain, “Gender Roles in Indigenous Tourism: Kuna Mola, Kuna Yala, and Cultural Survival,” in Smith, ed., Hosts and Guests, p. 86; and Pierre L. van den Berghe, The Quest for the Other: Ethnic Tourism in San Cristobal (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), p. 8. 7. Van den Berghe, The Quest for the Other, p. 10. 8. Ibid., pp. 14–15. 9. Ibid., p. 9.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

when an ethnic group begins to sell itself . . . as an ethnic attraction, it ceases to evolve naturally. The group members begin to think of themselves . . . as living representatives of an authentic way of life. Suddenly any change in lifestyle is not a mere question of practical utility but a weighty question which has economic and political implications for the entire group.10 As a result of ethnic tourism, the native group’s culture can become “museumized,” or commodified, to ensure its marketability to foreign visitors. Authenticity can thus be inherently compromised by ethnic tourism. On the other hand, ethnic tourism can play a key role in developing and advancing a group’s ethnic self-identification: “instead of viewing touris- tic events as ‘inauthentic’ or ‘invented,’ tourism can be seen as culturally generative in that it can stimulate the creation of new meaning for traditional rituals and objects and revitalize older ones.”11 Some aspects of an ethnic culture can be stimulated by the arrival of tourists and can experience a revival and continue to evolve further after the outside visitors have left.12 Ethnic self-identification can go through a process of re-creation, resurgence, and even “invention of new traditions that are neither ‘traditional’ nor mainstream ‘modern.’”13 Ethnic tourism can infuse new life into oppressed or marginalized ethnic identities and even trigger calls for cultural and political autonomy. Some scholars call this “emergent authenticity,” where authenticity is nego- tiable and can be constructed through a process of creating cultural products to be sold to visitors.14 While the dominant ethnic group organizes tourist experiences and commodifies “traditional” local culture, tourees use ethnic tourism to construct and promote their authentic native identity.15 Apart from changing the local culture, ethnic tourism also can lead to unique economic and social consequences. In some cases, the growth of ethnic tourism ele- vates the status of formerly isolated or marginalized groups or areas vis-à-vis

10. Swain, “Gender Roles in Indigenous Tourism,” p. 6. 11. Lisa Hiwasaki, “Ethnic Tourism in Hokkaido and the Shaping of Ainu Identity,” Paciﬁc Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Autumn 2000), p. 396. 12. Swain, “Gender Roles in Indigenous Tourism,” p. 86. 13. Van den Berghe, The Quest for the Other, p. 17. 14. Hiwasaki, “Ethnic Tourism in Hokkaido,” pp. 396–397; and Alexis Celeste Bunten, “Indigenous Tourism: The Paradox of Gaze and Resistance,” La ricerca folklorica, No. 61 (April 2010), pp. 51–59. For example, ethnic tourism to Ainu territories in Japan has become an opportunity for the Ainu minority to depart “from a forced and imposed culture-showing through tourism to creation of Ainu ethnic pride. Such Ainu ethnic identities and pride cultivated through tourism can serve the younger generations, who shoulder the future and the political, social, and cultural movements of the Ainu.” See Hiwasaki, “Ethnic Tourism in Hokkaido,” p. 411. 15. Bunten, “Indigenous Tourism,” pp. 51, 57.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

the central government.16 Ethnic tourism may offer lucrative opportunities for dominated groups to obtain valuable revenue without necessarily having to engage in a hegemonic struggle with the central government or tourism organizations.17 This article uses the concept of ethnic tourism to analyze how the Soviet authorities organized foreigners’ visits to Latvia. Although the existing literature on ethnic tourism tends to find most examples in travel to Third World countries and locales, this article suggests that the concept is also applicable to the case of tourism to Soviet Latvia. The point is not that the Latvian SSR was treated by the Soviet regime as a backward tribal society. On the contrary, the rest of the USSR saw the Baltic region as the most “Westernized” part of the country. The Soviet authorities’ desire to integrate displays of authentic Latvian culture (e.g., folk art, music, ethnic food, festivals, and “museumized” ethnic villages) into foreign tourists’ itineraries is thus all the more interesting. Several features of ethnic tourism were all present in the foreign tourist experience in the LSSR from the 1960s on, including the increased presence of cross-ethnic contacts; the tripartite relationship between tourists, tourees, and Soviet (often Russian) authorities as middlemen; the Soviet commodifi- cation of “traditional” Latvian culture; and ethnic tourism’s generative impact. To demonstrate this, the article first covers the history of the Inturist central office and its own emerging ethnic elements and then analyzes the archival materials of the Soviet tourism industry in the Latvian SSR.

Central Inturist and the Turn toward Ethnic Tourism

Inturist was the ofﬁcial Soviet administration handling foreign tourism to the USSR and functioned as a full-service travel agency. Its responsibilities included selling transportation and entertainment tickets, organizing and running tours, marketing tourism programs outside the USSR, preparing travel documents for foreign visitors, collecting foreign currency from tours, selling souvenirs, managing hotels and other locations designated for foreign tourists, hiring and training tourism-related staff, publishing guides and other informational materials, and providing stories about foreign tourism to the Soviet

16. Eric Crystal, “Tourism in Toraja (Sulawesi, Indonesia),” in Smith, ed., Hosts and Guests, pp. 139– 168. 17. Walter E. Little, “Living with the Mundo Maya Project: Strategies of Maya Handicraft Vendors,” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 35, No. 3 (May 2008), pp. 87–102.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

press.18 It was a unique socialist joint stock company—that is, an enterprise owned by the state but with “stockholders” from multiple Soviet agencies. It was also allowed to engage autonomously in hard currency–based business, negotiate with travel agencies abroad, operate its own offices in other countries, and essentially function as a commercial institution.19 Inturist was founded on 29 April 1920 by a decree of the USSR Council of Labor and Defense. The agency’s founding members were the Commis- sariats for Trade and Rail Communications and Sovtorgflot (the Joint Stock Company for Naval Trade).20 Inturist’s work was controlled by its own govern- ing body (pravlenie), which made most of the decisions and plans. Although Inturist enjoyed a certain level of autonomy within the Soviet political and economic system, it was still expected to meet target numbers set in the Five- Year Plans of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). The government’s primary charge to Inturist was to generate hard currency profit, and foreign tourism was deemed “a simple solution to the problem of state funding for Stalin’s industrialization drive.”21 Originally, Inturist was also expected to serve as a way to open the vast- ness and uniqueness of the new Soviet society to foreigners. In the 1930s, this mission was replaced with a much more restricted charge, and Inturist con- centrated on visits of a few handpicked foreigners to the central parts of the USSR only. With the Soviet occupation and control over Eastern and Central Europe at the end of World War II, Inturist not only established offices in Riga and Tallinn but also opened locations in all countries within the Soviet sphere of influence.22 The 1950s witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of foreigners traveling to the USSR. After Stalin’s death, the Soviet Union presented itself as more open to the outside world than ever before and experienced some semblance of mass tourism, which also brought an explosion in black market activity around the visitors and services that were provided to them.23 Toward the end of the 1950s, Inturist aimed to introduce foreign guests to different parts of the Soviet state. Visits to peripheries, such as the Baltics, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, increased. Foreign tourist activity and hard currency profit grew even more in the 1960s. This striking success in marketing the Soviet Union to foreign

18. Salmon, To the Land of Future, p. 36. 19. On this point, see ibid., p. 34. 20. Ibid., p. 31. 21. Ibid., p. 32. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

visitors was largely attributable to Vladimir Ankudinov, who stood at the helm of Inturist from 1947 to 1968. He argued that tourism had to be treated as a separate and special domain of the Soviet economy because of its potential for generating large amounts of profit for the state.24 Gaining recognition for foreign tourism was not an easy task, and difficulties with it persisted throughout Inturist’s existence mainly because its officials faced “a nearly impossible task of instituting new practices under the constraints of socialism.”25 Inturist struggled to sell the true (in reality, constructed) story of socialism to the foreign visitors and meet the Soviet state’s propaganda goals while, on the other hand, meeting tourists’ needs and expectations in a market-based “consumer knows best” environment. Inturist officials compared their services to those of foreign counterparts and realized that the diversity and quality of what their agency could offer was always coming up short. Demand for profit motivated Inturist to try to improve its services and to come up with flexible travel “products” that would entice foreigners to spend as much of their money as possible. For this reason it designed customized programs in the late 1960s and 1970s that could “market socialism” to diverse types of visitors and treat them primarily as consumers.26 In the 1970s–1980s, Inturist struggled even more to come up with “truthful” and entertaining representations of Soviet reality without appearing to be selling propaganda-type manipulation. Its challenges stemmed from a number of factors. First, increased participation in the global tourism market forced Inturist to create tourist experiences highlighting what was unique about a trip to the USSR. Second, in the 1970s, Soviet society experienced a new type of local nationalist sentiment that was promoted by emerging modern, ethnically self-aware, and educated elites who entered local party and government leadership roles in the republics and found “sources of legitimacy in their own unique national heritage.”27 The official response was markedly ambiva- lent and promoted the concept of friendship and closeness among all ethnic groups and allowed locals to nurture their own ethnic cultures to a certain extent.28 In addition, a broad ideological shift in how the Soviet authorities framed political hope was taking place as government pronouncements about the promise of socialism and Communism sounded increasingly empty.

24. Salmon, “Marketing Socialism,” 192. 25. Ibid., 204. 26. Ibid., and Salmon, To the Land of Future. 27. Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, “The Dialectics of Nationalism in the USSR,” Problems of Commu- nism, No. 3 (May 1974), p. 10. 28. Ibid., pp. 18–19.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

These important changes found expression in foreign tourism’s turn “toward the open celebration, cultivation and creation of the Russian national past” and an emphasis on centuries-old national histories displayed in the cities of the so-called Golden Ring, a region northeast of Moscow.29 As a result, Soviet ofﬁcials contributed to the formation of ethnic difference and the deepening of national awareness. By stressing ethnic heritage “after decades of policies that oscillated between the valorization and condemnation of ‘folk’ culture, here was a kind of ofﬁcial approbation (and construction) of all that represented internal otherness.”30 The “ethnic turn” was explicit in the way Inturist organized travel not only to Russia but also to peripheries such as the Baltic republics, where locals were already using tourism to document, promote, and protect national culture and history.31

Ethnic Tourism to the Latvian SSR

The Late 1950s to the Early 1960s Inturist’s Riga office was established in the late 1950s. Along with all other local sections of Inturist, the Riga office reported to the USSR’s Ministry of Foreign Trade until 1964, at which time it was moved to the supervision of a newly created Central Administration of Foreign Tourism—the body respon- sible for managing all institutions involved in international tourism to the USSR.32 Riga’s office had relative autonomy in making practical decisions. However, it was expected to follow closely any instructions from the central Inturist office in Moscow as well as carefully implement decisions made by the CPSU and the Soviet government. Decisions of the CPSU ruling organs and USSR Council of Ministers were transmitted to the Latvian Com- munist Party’s Central Committee and Latvian Council of Ministers, which then ensured their implementation through organizations such as Riga Intur- ist.33 At the same time, the Moscow office of Inturist received direct orders from the CPSU and Soviet government and transmitted those to its regional

29. Salmon, To the Land of Future, pp. 247–248. 30. Ibid., p. 264. 31. Gorsuch, All This Is Your World, p. 76. See also Egidija Ramanauskaite, “Lithuanian Youth Culture versus Soviet Culture,” in Anu Mai Koll, ed., The Baltic Countries under Occupation: Soviet and Nazi Rule 1939–1991, Vol. 23 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2003). 32. Starostina, “Padomju ideoloģijas un propagandas izpausmes,” p. 246. 33. Ibid., p. 247.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

representatives, including the one in Riga. Riga Inturist was thus governed by a complicated and sometimes entangled web of bureaucratic hierarchy. At the outset of foreign tourism to Soviet Latvia, Riga Inturist’s task was to ﬁnd the best way to demonstrate to its visitors the Soviet “reality”—an essentially fanciful, but presented as truthful, image of life under Communism. Consequently, it did not matter that the visited locale was ethnically different from other parts of the USSR. In the words of the director of Riga Inturist, The main task of Inturist’s staff is—through the introduction of foreigners to the everyday life of the Soviet state, its plans and its peaceful foreign policy by demonstrating historical, architectural, cultural, revolutionary monuments of our country—to create for international tourists the correct view of the achievements of the Soviet people in terms of developing the national economy and building Communist society.34 In this context of political propaganda, Soviet tourism authorities felt that although showing locally relevant locations and monuments was worthwhile, branch ofﬁces’ primary responsibility was to take foreigners to contemporary, Soviet-created industrial, cultural, social, educational, and health-related sites. In setting up these destinations, Riga Inturist was expected to engage local party and municipal organizations to ensure their readiness to display the “correct” image of Soviet life. Riga Inturist staff relied on local party leaders to inspect potential tourist destinations ahead of time, assisted those who were in charge at these locations to prepare appropriate descriptions of what there was to see, and made sure that only the best-prepared and politically reliable individuals led on-site tours.35 The core of Inturist’s activities in Riga in the late 1950s and early 1960s involved demonstrating, under the watchful supervision of local and central party leaders, the superiority of Communist society. To “improve the propaganda of the Soviet Union’s accomplishments to foreign visitors,” nturist Riga worked hard every year to expand the list of sites ready for visitation. The agency set up preparatory meetings with party organizations at the new locations, created standard programs and trip itineraries that would show the Soviet system’s achievements in the most striking way to the largest numbers of foreign visitors, and expanded the political training of guides and interpreters. In addition, Riga Inturist offered more tour guides,

34. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera I. Veselovu,” 14 January 1961, in Latvijas Nacionalais¯ Arh¯ıvs (LNA), Latvijas Valsts Arh¯ıvs (LVA), PSRS Ministru Padomes Galvenas¯ arzemju¯ turisma¯ parvaldes¯ “Inturists”¯ R¯ıgas nodaļa (PSRS-MPG), Fonds (F.) 222, Apraksts (Ap.) 1, Lieta (L.) 10, lpp. 3–5. 35. “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 27 October 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 30–31.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

maps, and other informational materials for sale, widely publicized tourists’ positive reactions to their visits in the local press, and, last but not least, in- stalled microphones in all buses used for transporting foreigners.36 During this early period, assistance to travelers mainly meant making sure that interpreters and tour guides were politically well prepared, trips were carefully preplanned, representatives of social and cultural organizations were on hand to meet with tourists as needed, and the staff of the visited sites were effectively trained to promote the achievements of the Soviet people and Soviet ideology and to counter tourists’ anti-Soviet propaganda.37 For the most part, Soviet tourism authorities perceived visiting foreigners either as potential political subversives or as unknowing victims of Western anti-Soviet propaganda.38 Tourism, in turn, was a tool for fighting foreigners’ incorrect views or political misinformation. Tourists’ pleasure, entertainment, and comfort were of secondary concern to the Soviet tourism industry. Still, tourism officials were relatively responsive to both the local and central In- turist bodies’ requests for investments in improving ancillary services such as food, lodging, and transportation. As early as 1959, the Latvian Council of Ministers ordered the construction of a new hotel; the production and sale of souvenirs, gifts, books, postmarks, beauty products, and cameras at specially designated areas of large department stores; the establishment of sites for rent- ing photography equipment and developing film; and an increase in the sup- ply of local restaurants with high-quality produce. The Latvian government assigned one of the existing sanatoriums of the beach resort town Jurmala,¯ just outside the capital Riga, to serve foreign tourists. It also made plans for the production of specially packaged wines, preserves, sugar, soft drinks, and juices that could be served on planes, trains, and ships. The sites included on foreigners’ itineraries were ordered to organize the production and sale of souvenirs and gifts in special packaging with images of Soviet achievements in industry, agriculture, science, and art.39 Nevertheless, it became clear almost immediately that Soviet hospitality services were dramatically lagging behind what international tourists would

36. “Plan,” 5 February 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 1–9. 37. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Ankudinovu,” 15 November 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 10, lpp. 22–24; “Plan meropriyatii po podgotovke k turistskomu sezonu 1962 goda,” 31 January 1962, in LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 11, lpp. 9–11; and “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Ankudinovu,” 5 May 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 10, lpp. 13. 38. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Boichenko,” 29 November 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 10, lpp. 25–26. 39. “Postanovlenie Soveta Ministrov Latviiskoi SSR No. 598-44,” 4 November 1959, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 1, lpp. 42–44.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

expect in other countries. The construction of a new hotel in Riga was mov- ing exceptionally slowly, which forced Inturist in Riga to find short-term, and less preferable, solutions, such as using existing hotels to accommodate foreigners. This, naturally, required permission from the Soviet Committee on State Security (KGB).40 Taking tourists around the city in buses and cars was a problem because of traffic and parking restrictions that made it difficult to bring tourists directly to the selected visitation sites.41 Inturist Riga also soon realized that walking tours around Riga took too much time, did not meet propaganda goals, did not satisfy tourists, and even caused problems, such as visitors trying to engage passersby. So, the Riga office asked for high- level permission to take tourists on trips to historical monuments, such as a thirteenth-century Livonian fortress and a nineteenth-century castle in the city of Sigulda about 50 kilometers outside the capital. Riga Inturist argued that putting tourists on a bus and heading to Sigulda without stopping would be more productive and allow for greater control than having tourists walk around the streets of downtown Riga.42 Even as Riga Inturist worked on setting up its office, hiring staff, and developing programs within an infrastructure that was not conducive to hosting foreigners, it was inundated with exceedingly strict rules and procedures established by Moscow. The central Inturist office issued detailed guidelines, often dictated by the KGB and other national security organizations, on a long list of areas and topics. For example, Riga Inturist had to follow specific rules on how to house foreign tourists in the most secure way and procedures for deporting unruly tourists. The central authorities set strict guidelines on accepting, reporting, logging, and storing gifts from tourists and instructed Inturist Riga how it should handle foreigners who were only passing through, deal with prominent international tourists such as foreign diplomats, and wel- come visitors connected to the so-called peace committees in the West as well as participants in Soviet-Western cultural exchanges.43 The Riga office was

40. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera,” 11 August 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 9, lpp. 6. 41. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera,” 13 September 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 9, lpp. 9– 11. 42. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera I. Veselovu,” 17 August 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 10, lpp. 19–20. 43. “Prikaz no. 5 ot V. Ankudinova,” 20 April 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 21; “Instruktsiya,” 18 January 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 5–8; “Pis’mo ot S. Nikitina,” 6 September 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 15– 18; “Pis’mo ot V. Vishnyakova,” 17 October 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 62; “Instruktsija ot E. Maruhina,” 18 January 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 5–8; and “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 2 February 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 4–5.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

expected to follow detailed secrecy and confidentiality regulations on what to do with any printed materials received from tourists, how to file and record all communications with foreigners, and how to manage the office’s internal paperwork.44 Apart from security regulations, the Moscow office also told branches how to develop and sign special agreements with local hotels to ensure that Inturist kept most of the profit from foreign guests. The central office also ordered Riga Inturist to create “one-stop shops” inside hotels for all travel-related documents.45 Because the Moscow office expected continual improvements in the overall level of service to foreign visitors, the Riga office had to continue adding new sites and inspecting existing ones to make sure that tourists would get exposure to the Soviet “reality” of successes, not problems.46 The central office insisted that all employees of local agencies increase their political awareness and be extremely careful about guarding state secrets when dealing with foreigners.47 Moscow dictated restrictions on the number of people allowed to have access to confidential documentation or information that might be seen as confidential. The local Inturist agency routinely asked the Latvian KGB office to approve tourists’ itineraries and other tourism-related matters.48 The KGB office in Riga issued permission for foreigners’ travel in Latvia and had to be consulted when tourists were placed in hotels that had not been approved for foreign visitors.49 On the one hand, by setting these multiple and complex rules, the central Inturist aimed to manage and control interactions between local tourees and

44. “Prikaz no. 4 ot V. Ankudinova,” 28 May 1957, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 1–3; “Pis’mo ot J. Ryabova V. Bushu,” 29 December 1958, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 1, lpp. 15–16; “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 3 February 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 6; “Prikaz no. 5 ot S. Nikitina,” 1 August 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 9–10; “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 14 September 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS- MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 20; and “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 30 March 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 5, lpp. 3. 45. “Pis’mo ot V. Vishnyakova,” 28 February 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 15–16. 46. “Prikaz no. 9 ot V. Ankudinova,” 11 June 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 1–3. 47. “Prikaz no. 15 ot S. Nikitina,” 27 October 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 63–65; and “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 25 March 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 13–15. 48. “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 30 March 1963, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 5, lpp. 9–12. 49. “Pis’mo ot Vevers V. Elsteru,” 22 February 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 14; and “Pis’mo ot V. Elster Veversu,” 6 March 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 10, lpp. 12.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

the visitors, as well as to reassert power relations between center and periph- ery.50 On the other hand, the regulations generated the expectation that local offices and Inturist in general would “double up” as an intelligence organization. Inturist had to report about what foreigners said and did, and it had to take action to curtail what the Soviet state perceived as foreigners’ propaganda efforts.51 In its reports to the party and the KGB leadership, the Riga office described how, for example, Jewish visitors and Latvians who had em- igrated to the West would try to distribute unauthorized publications, take pictures where photography was not allowed, refuse to go on guided tours, or attempt to strike up conversations with the locals.52 A group of students from Harvard University and Yale University who visited Soviet Latvia in 1960 re- portedly were not interested in the trips and visits to museums. Instead, they persistently looked for opportunities to have discussions with passersby or people attending the folk song and dance festival. Aware of its responsibility to prevent and halt tourists’ anti-Soviet activities, Riga Inturist set up a special meeting for the students with Soviet students, which the visitors did not want to attend.53 The central office was concerned about such situations and gave local branches detailed instructions on how to counter these and other displays of anti-Soviet behavior.54 The biggest emphasis in these efforts was on political preparedness and staff training. Local Inturist offices were instructed to have their guides and interpreters undergo regular, rigorous training in workshops, discussions, lectures, and production meetings on how to be politically alert, respond to provocative questions, and report unacceptable behavior.55 Although the Riga office worked hard to implement security-related regulations, sometimes it refused to take complete responsibility for countering visitors’ anti-Soviet behavior and attitudes. For example, when the Riga office was not given early warning about problematic tourists coming from other

50. See, for example, the internal secrecy and political awareness goals that Inturist set for itself in “Vypiska iz spravki o sostoyanii politicheskoi bditel’nosti i sokhraneii gostaini v VAO Inturist,” 6 September 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 2, lpp. 13–14. 51. See, for example, “Pis’mo ot V. Boichenko,” 30 October 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 66–67. 52. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Ankudinovu,” 15 November 1961, lpp. 22–23; and “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Boichenko,” 29 November 1961, lpp. 25–26. 53. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera L. Hodorkovu,” 31 August 1960, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 9, lpp. 7–8. 54. “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 7 April 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 18– 23; and “Spravka,” 12 September 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 69–71. 55. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Ankudinovu,” 5 May 1961, lpp. 13.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

cities, it did not have enough time to prepare to thwart political provocations.56 But on other occasions, the Riga office’s vigor in enforcing rules was greater even than what the Moscow office expected. In 1960, Inturist officials in Latvia became highly concerned that a group of Israeli visitors had insisted on displaying an Israeli flag in their breakfast room. An accompanying inter- preter from Inturist’s Moscow office was not concerned, but the Latvian Intur- ist officials refused to allow the display, sparking a conflict with the Moscow office.57 Overall, the triple responsibility of serving as an intelligence organization, acting as a propaganda institution, and making hard-currency profit remained with the local Inturist agency throughout the 1960s.58 Although Riga’s Inturist office might appear to have had little agency outside the parameters set by the central office, it nevertheless was able to make the most of its role locally as a contributor to a broader Soviet governmental project. Thus, the Riga office could exercise some influence over local party officials when it communicated to them the needs of foreign tourism, especially from the mid-1960s onward.59 For example, in a 1964 letter to the director of the Latvian Communist Party’s agitation and propaganda department, the head of Riga Inturist listed seven requests to ensure that foreign tourism could evolve as expected by the central Soviet Council of Ministers. The list included demands such as printed tourist information, a new hotel (still not finished at that time), a newspaper targeting tourists and advertising foreign tourism to Latvia, designated workers’ apartments to be shown to visitors, people with knowledge of foreign languages at visit sites, and a new port for cruise ships.60 Riga Inturist continued to make demands throughout the 1960s and stressed that the Latvian Communist Party had to realize that the USSR Council of Ministers had set foreign travel as a priority and that local party organizations urgently needed to resolve issues that hindered tourism. Among them were the need for more advertising literature, maps, and,

56. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Boichenko,” 10 December 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F.222, Ap. 1, L. 11, lpp. 29–32. 57. “Vypiska,” n.d., in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 6, lpp. 55. 58. See, for example, “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Ankudinovu,” 12 September 1968, in LNA, LVA, PSRS- MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 17, lpp. 66–72. 59. This reﬂected the power that central Inturist exercised within the Soviet hierarchy. The agency was allowed to make recommendations to ministries and institutions that were in one way or another involved with foreign tourism. See, for example, “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera I. Veselovu,” 17 August 1961, lpp. 19–20; and “Rekommendacii Soveschaniya predstavitelei zagranitsei Upravlenya po inostrannomu turizmu pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR i nachal’nikov Upravlenii po inostrannomu turizmu pri Sovetah Ministrov souyuznih respublik,” 9 September 1964, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 6, lpp. 82–89. 60. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera I. Veselovu,” 17 August 1961, lpp. 19–20.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

programs of operas and cultural events in foreign languages; colorful displays throughout the city of Riga depicting the accomplishments of Soviet Latvia; journals and magazines in foreign languages; and documentaries about Soviet Latvia. Inturist also requested support in organizing groups of ideologically well-prepared Communists who could talk to the foreigners at each site, as well as the improvement of conditions and service in hotels and restaurants that served foreign tourists.61 The early period of foreign tourism to the Latvian SSR was driven by the Soviet propaganda goals of representing the achievements of Communist “reality,” denouncing “incorrect” Western descriptions of life under the So- viet system, and fighting tourist provocations. The overall tourist experience was similar for all foreign visitors, regardless of the specific destination in the USSR. Inturist aimed to provide foreign travelers with standardized itineraries (or, as the central office called them, “typical programs” that would contain “striking” representations of the Soviet Union’s achievements) and did not particularly concern itself with the leisure interests and needs of visitors.62 In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Riga Inturist focused on the administrative tasks of setting up appropriate infrastructure for accepting international visitors, getting local officials to support foreign tourism, and working out its relationship with the central office. For the visitors, coming to Latvia was an experience of political tourism.

The Mid-1960s to the Early 1980s The mid-1960s witnessed a shift in how officials for international tourism in the Latvian SSR framed what was being shown and explained to foreign visitors. As evidenced in Riga Inturist’s annual reports from as early as 1963 onward, even though the agency continued to use tourism to fight Western bourgeois ideology, it gradually began to promote a more ethnically specific message about Soviet Latvia’s path from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Inturist now included visits to Old Riga, although supposedly to tell about the workers’ struggle in recent history. It also put additional effort into preparing interpreters and guides on current ethnic relations between Latvians and Russians in the LSSR so that their answers to foreigners’ questions could

61. “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera Tsentral’nomu Komitetu Kommunisticheskoi Partii Latvii,” 23 May 1964, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 13, lpp. 66–69; “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera R. Praule,” 6 June 1964, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 13, lpp. 74–75; and “Pis’mo ot V. Elstera V. Glazunovu,” 4 June 1964, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 13, lpp. 70–73. 62. “Plan,” 15 February 1961, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 3, lpp. 2.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

be more convincing.63 Within a few years, Latvian tourism officials were ar- guing to the central organs in Moscow that they needed to customize travel programs based on foreign tourists’ country of origin and their ethnic back- ground (e.g., Latvian émigrés, Jews, descendants of Baltic Germans) as op- posed to their social class. They made a case that being sensitive to where tourists came from and what they would be particularly interested in would allow Inturist to prepare itself better for interactions with them.64 Accordingly, Riga Inturist began to develop customized visits to meet the interests of each type of tourist group. In the process, it incorporated the “fla- vor” of local ethnic culture in place of generic accomplishments of the Soviet political system. The construction of ethnic Latvians as tourees had begun. As Inturist included more sites related to and information about ethnic and historical issues in what it showed to the tourists, it nevertheless still tried to meet the goals of Soviet propaganda in demonstrating the superiority of the Communist system. But Inturist was working on developing a compromise between the ethnic and the political aspects of foreign tourism, a compromise that manifested itself in what Riga Inturist called “cultural services.” This offering to tourists included an extensive list of ballet, opera, and theater performances, attendance at folk song and dance festivals, and visits to the Academy of Arts, the State University of Latvia, a Latvian-speaking high school, a specialized “art” factory that produced stylized items of “traditional” Latvian art, art exhibitions, the resort town of Jurmala,¯ and museums. A particularly popular destination at this time was the recently reopened Open-Air Ethnographic Museum, which contained around 100 buildings that were re- constructions of traditional households of Latvian fishermen, craftsmen, and peasants from the seventeenth century to the early twentieth century.65 For Latvian émigrés, in particular, Inturist collaborated with the Committee for Cultural Contacts with Countrymen Abroad and organized an impressive celebration of the mid-summer Ja¸¯ni festival at a collective farm not far from Riga in 1968.66 This was an especially notable “service” insofar as celebrations of this Latvian ethnic holiday were greatly discouraged and even banned for the citizens of Soviet Latvia. Riga Inturist had come to realize that a sizable number of foreigners did not necessarily perceive visiting Riga as a pilgrimage to the political utopia

63. “Otchet,” 13 August 1963, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 12, lpp. 3–33. 64. “Otchet,” 15 September 1966, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 20, lpp. 1–11. 65. “Otchet,” 18 January 1968, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 17, lpp. 6–37. 66. Starostina, “Padomju ideoloģijas un propagandas izpausmes,” p. 257.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

of the USSR. They arrived with their own ethnic views, knowledge of ethnic and cultural history, and awareness about current ethnic relations within the USSR. To them, travel to the Soviet Union was less about transcending political and economic borders and more about crossing cultural and ethnic differences between Western countries and ethnic groups inside the USSR. Those who were interested in Russian culture traveled to Moscow and Leningrad, whereas those who were fascinated by the cultural diversity of the peripheries came to Riga and other Latvian cities.67 Riga Inturist had to alter its tourism philosophy and address foreign tourists’ increasingly frequent questions about Latvia’s history and its inclusion into the USSR, as well as counter tourists’ criticism of Soviet policy toward ethnic Latvians. A case in point was a group of tourists from West Germany who insisted on knowing whether their guides and interpreters could speak Latvian and who asked provocative questions about Russiﬁcation in the LSSR.68 In addition, the growing number of visiting Latvian émigrés required Riga Inturist to think differently about what was shown to foreign tourists.69 Originally, Inturist wanted to demonstrate to them the superiority of the socialist system and Communist society, but émi- grés were exclusively interested in ethnic issues. Realizing this, Inturist worked hard to prepare its tour guides and interpreters appropriately and to include special sites in émigrés’ itineraries to represent the “Latvian side” of the Soviet story.70 The signiﬁcant increase in foreign tourism in general also compelled In- turist to adjust its message. This sphere of the Soviet economy was clearly growing and was expected to grow even more. In Latvia alone, Riga Intur- ist reported having hosted 9,105 tourists in 1961.71 In 1973, 23,796 tourists visited Latvia.72 In subsequent years, the number continued to grow, reach- ing 49,361 in 1985.73 The much larger number of international visitors could not be “processed” solely with Inturist’s original propaganda-based methods,

67. This realization was documented in a report from 1971, see “Otchet,” 3 October 1971, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 23, lpp. 1–22. 68. “Otchet,” 15 September 1966, lpp. 1–11. 69. The Committee for Cultural Contacts with Countrymen Abroad, also known as the Cultural Contacts Committee, was established not only to maintain (primarily cultural) contacts with émigrés in the West but also to implement counterpropaganda and gather intelligence for the KGB. It was under the direct supervision of the Latvian KGB. 70. “Otchet,” 18 January 1968, lpp. 6–37. 71. “Plan meropriyatii po podgotovke k turistskomu sezonu 1962 goda,” 31 January 1962, lpp. 9–11. 72. “Otchet,” 20 December 1973, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 25, lpp. 1. 73. “Otchet,” 14 January 1985, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 46, lpp. 76.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

and Soviet tourist organizations had to become more responsive to visitors’ expectations. In the early 1970s, the Soviet tourist authorities continued to argue that their goal was to dispel bourgeois misconceptions and anti-Soviet propaganda and to demonstrate the superiority of Soviet life. Nonetheless, tourist programs began to acquire more ethnocultural elements, gradually pushing purely political propaganda aside. Pressured by tourists’ questions about Russiﬁcation and destruction of local ethnic culture, Inturist aimed to prove that ethnic diversity in the USSR was pure, healthy, and thriving. When Inturist guides took visitors to performances and festivals of ethnic Latvian art, music, and dance, they talked about brotherly friendship among different ethnic groups.74 The agency provided interpreters and guides with more specialized training, preparing them to address national particularities and the interests of various tourist groups.75 Inturist was intent on pleasing tourists who asked for cultural, ethnic, and historical content in the Soviet republic they were visiting.76 For example, when three groups of U.S. students visited Soviet Latvia in early 1977, Inturist received from them questions not only about the Soviet political system and human rights, but also about the language of instruction in the State University of Latvia and ofﬁcial attitudes toward Jews. Moreover, some of the students were either descendants of American Latvians or had been taught by them. In response to these varied and often ethnically inclined interests, Inturist showed them movies about Riga’s history and took them to the folk song and dance festival, a Latvian-speaking high school and historical monuments in the city of Sigulda, and organized meetings with Latvian artists and intellectuals.77 For émigrés in the 1970s, Inturist included performances of Latvian folk music and dance and scheduled meetings with Latvian artists, insisting that this taught visitors that Latvian national culture was thriving and was being celebrated under conditions of Soviet internationalism.78 Inturist persisted in hosting large-scale celebrations (actually, performances) of the midsummer Ja¸¯ni festival for émigré Latvians in countryside locations throughout the

74. “Otchet,” 27 January 1972, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 24, lpp. 1–21. 75. “Otchet,” 20 December 1973, lpp. 1–52. 76. “Otchet,” 22 December 1972, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 24, lpp. 36–49. See also “Otchet,” 24 December 1974, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 26, lpp. 1–36. 77. “Informaciya o rabote s turistami-studentami SSHA,” 10 May 1977, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 41, lpp. 1–10. 78. “Otchet,” 12 January 1970, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 19, lpp. 1–28.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

1970s.79 In 1975, Riga Inturist even conducted a survey to ascertain what tourists found to be the most interesting parts of their visits. After analyzing the data, tourism officials concluded that in the future émigrés should have a separate program to avoid duplication of what they might have seen before and that the cultural, ethnic, and historical content needed to be strengthened.80 Officials reported with pride that some of the émigré tourists who visited the Ethnographic Museum praised Soviet Latvia’s authorities for not forgetting “old traditions” and for allowing “the continuation of the develop- ment of the traditions of the Latvian people through the work of folk craftsmen, and through the creativity of ethnic dance and song groups.”81 In the 1980s, all tourists from the West were offered more ethnic experiences as part of their visits to Soviet Latvia, including tours of the Ethno- graphic Museum, song and dance performances, trips to Latvian historical sites, and even tastings of Latvian ethnic food accompanied by folk music.82 In addition, Inturist now identified visiting Baltic Germans, Jews, and Latvian émigrés as “ethnic tourists” and developed customized programs for them.83 Once Inturist began offering these specialized tours, it noticed that the number of “ethnic tourists” was increasing every year, that they returned for more visits, and that many of them wanted to meet their relatives. To keep them entertained and engaged, and to acknowledge that their interests were tied to their ethnic identity and to cultural-ethnic aspects of Latvia, Inturist put a lot of effort into preparing meetings with prominent intellectuals, artists, performers, actors, and scientists; movie screenings; concerts and theater performances; and large-scale events, such as a song and dance festival involv- ing students from Soviet Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in 1981.84 By 1985, ethnic tourists were being offered an extensive list of specialized programs that included shows in Latvian theaters, exhibitions of folk costumes and art, and meetings dedicated to the anniversary of Krišjanis¯ Barons—a collector and publisher of Latvian folk songs in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.85

79. Starostina, “Padomju ideoloģijas un propagandas izpausmes,” pp. 249, 255. 80. “Otchet,” 25 December 1975, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 27, lpp. 35–44. 81. “O rabote s inostrannyimi turistami v I polu godyi 1978. g.,” 2 August 1978, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 42, lpp. 9. 82. “Otchet,” 28 December 1981, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 46, lpp. 11. 83. “Otchet,” 22 December 1980, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 39, lpp. 1–26. 84. “Otchet,” 28 December 1981, lpp. 8–9. 85. “Otchet,” 14 January 1986, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 46, lpp. 87–88.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

In 1985 alone, Riga Inturist organized some 38,000 cultural visits, including pipe organ concerts; performances of philharmonic music, opera, ballet, and folk dance; visits to the eighteenth-century Rundale¯ castle; and attendance at folk song and dance festivals.86 Riga Inturist also continued to take tourists to factories, kindergartens, collective farms, and educational institutions where local propaganda officials gave them tours.87 The variety of cultural offerings provided to foreign tourists had grown tremendously from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s, with tourists being taken farther outside Riga and to sites that had little to do with proving the political and economic dominance of the USSR and instead reflected the cultural and ethnic uniqueness and history of Latvia. Finally, the growth of foreign tourism to the Latvian SSR had a notable social and economic impact. Riga saw new construction, the renovation of the old city, and improvements in hospitality services such as restaurants, hotels, and cultural institutions. Soviet citizens also found ways to reap personal economic benefits from international tourism. As early as 1962, authorities from the central Inturist office met with the KGB to work out special measures to prevent thefts from foreigners’ hotel rooms and to stop Soviet citizens from engaging in trade, speculation, and other illegal activities with international tourists. Among the new measures were requiring tour guides and interpreters to report on the routes and sizes of all tourist groups, maintaining a close connection between guides and local security organizations, increasing the presence of police near hotels and restaurants visited by foreigners, and televising court trials of those who engaged in business with foreigners.88 But as the numbers of foreign visitors increased, the problems of illegal business and criminal activity grew too. In the late 1970s, Inturist officials had to reach out to the Latvian Ministry of Internal Affairs to ask for better ways of guarding tourists from groups of local traders (spekulanti) interested in buy- ing and selling goods with the foreigners.89 In 1980, the Hotel Latvija, which specialized in hosting foreign tourists, had to undergo a major overhaul of its procedures and security equipment to ensure that “public order” was observed and that neither staff nor outsiders wound engatge in illegal activities (theft,

86. Ibid., lpp. 90. 87. Ibid., lpp. 93. 88. “Pis’mo ot V. Ankudinova,” 7 April 1962, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 4, lpp. 17. 89. “Pis’mo ot I. Fedorova M. Drozdu,” 31 May 1978, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 42, lpp. 1–2.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

trading, etc.) with the foreigners.90 In 1982, groups of individuals who ille- gally bought hard currency from foreign tourists (for some reason, Finns in particular)—thus bypassing the state’s currency exchange systems—had become a major nuisance. They followed Inturist’s buses and badgered tourists at every stop their tour guides made. Senior Inturist officials urged the internal affairs ministry to take action against the disruptive activities of the spekulanti.91 In addition to material gains, increased tourist activity led to more parts of Latvia becoming accessible to outsiders. In 1957, Inturist declared the entire territory of Latvia, with the exception of Riga, off-limits to foreigners.92 However, by the early 1970s the volume and diversity of tourists had become so large that they could no longer be entertained in Riga alone, and Inturist was running out of places to show to tourists who had been to Latvia more than once. The push to add more visitation sites and improve the tourist experience required an overall easing of security rules and travel regulations in Soviet Latvia. The tourist experience thus shifted from being exposed to the Soviet success story to an encounter with a distinct, quaint, “traditional,” relatively pure, and somewhat exotic Latvian ethnic culture. Inturist justified the increased ethnic content in its tours by the need to please the tourists. This suggests Inturist’s nature as a service-oriented organization led it to make significant political compromises. Making visitors happy and being able to collect hard currency underpinned alterations in the Soviet understanding of foreign tourism, which went from showing Soviet accomplishments to marketing experiences of cultural and ethnic difference and entertainment. Latvians, with their culture and song and dance festivals, were transformed from inhabitants of a perfect political reality into ethnic tourees, whereas Inturist acted as the middlemen, managing interactions between the visitors and the locals. Riga Inturist was itself a proxy middleman, trying to meet the goals of the Soviet tourism authorities while creating an entertaining yet informative experience for visitors.

90. “Pis’mo ot I. Fedorova V. Smirnovu,” 17 April 1980, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 43, lpp. 1–5. 91. “Pis’mo ot I. Fedorova E. Loshaku,” 20 December 1982, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 45, lpp. 4–5. 92. “Pis’mo ot L. L’vov to T. Bushu,” 31 October 1957, in LNA, LVA, PSRS-MPG, F. 222, Ap. 1, L. 1, lpp. 7–10.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

Conclusion

To appear open to the outside world and attract hard currency, Soviet authorities allowed increased foreign tourism to the USSR from the late 1950s onward. Their initial focus was on providing foreigners with a constructed image of a perfect Soviet “reality.” Tremendous effort was made to ensure that foreigners were exposed only to the most show-ready locations, such as select factories, educational institutions, collective farms, and medical institutions, as well as the most politically prepared individuals. Soon, however, the Soviet tourism industry found itself struggling with the task of making propaganda- based itineraries appealing to foreigners. More often than not, foreign tourists who arrived in Latvia had their own distinct interests and curiosities, which could not be molded into the propaganda agenda of Soviet tourism authorities. Within a few years, Riga Inturist could no longer ignore the demands of visitors who wanted to see more than just the surface of Soviet life. Groups and individuals who traveled to Soviet Latvia from the West were interested in its history and ethnic uniqueness and were willing to pay for its cultural products, ranging from souvenirs to attendance at folk song and dance festivals. The Latvian SSR gradually, but irrevocably, became a destination of cultural and ethnic—rather than political—exploration. From the archival materials discussed in this article, we can deduce that a typical itinerary for foreign tourists in the late 1950s and early 1960s would have included visits to industrial locations (e.g., the Popov factory that produced radios; or VEF,which made telecommunications equipment), collective farms in close proximity to Riga (e.g., the showcase farm Adaži),¯ a few medical institutions, a kindergarten, and the Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy (a pompous display of a variety of consumer goods produced by Soviet industry). None of the trips would have strayed beyond the limits of Riga or its suburbs. In contrast, by the 1980s, the itineraries for international tourist groups were more tailored to their presumed interests and drew on a larger “menu” of destinations and experiences, such as the memorial at the site of the Nazi concentration camp in Salaspils, a medieval castle in Sigulda, the eighteenth-century castle Rundale¯ outside Riga, the Open-Air Ethno- graphic Museum, a factory producing items of traditional art and craftsman- ship, the Museum of Art, the Museum of History, the beach resort Jurmala,¯ a concert at a folk song and dance festival, a concert of pipe organ music in Doms Church in Old Riga, a performance at the Riga Circus, opera and ballet performances, and specially organized concerts by folk dance groups and choirs. For the so-called ethnic tourists, Inturist would add a Latvian theater

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Soviet Inturist and Foreign Travel to the Latvian SSR

performance; exhibitions of young artists, national costumes, or folk art; a movie screening; a show-celebration of the midsummer festival; and a meeting with Latvian intellectuals. Thus, post–World War II Soviet tourism organized by Riga Inturist evolved into an example of what tourism studies would identify as ethnic tourism centered on exposing tourists to a display of an “authentic” and “traditional” ethnic culture. The triadic relationship between tourists, tourees,and middlemen was explicit in how Inturist framed and developed its work with an ever-increasing number of tourists. On the official level—that is, as described in the Riga office’s annual reports to the ruling organs of the Lat- vian Communist Party—the political goals of foreign tourism as a tool for countering anti-Soviet propaganda in the West remained important. In reality, Latvians were transformed from representatives of the happy Soviet citizenry into tourees whose ethnic purity and authenticity were marketed to attract tourists. The offices of Inturist in Moscow and in Riga functioned as the middlemen, representing Soviet interests in the tourism industry. They mediated and monitored the relationship between the tourists and the tourees and set the expectations and the parameters within which tourism to Soviet Latvia was developed. The central office took most, or even all, of the profit made by the local branch. The local office operated within the ideological terrain and business model created in Moscow, yet it had agency in creating tourist programs it believed would be most successful. In addition, Riga Inturist was able to advocate on behalf of the ethnic tourees to secure investments to fix up historical sites and support the local artists and musicians who performed for foreigners. Thus, although the tourees may not have directly profited from foreign tourism, other social, cultural, and even economic advantages accrued to them. Foreign tourists’ interest in Soviet Latvia’s “traditional” culture and ethnic history served to legitimize local Latvians’ concern with preserving their ethnic identity. The presence of foreigners at the folk song and dance festivals or the Open-Air Ethnographic Museum strengthened, solidified, and even celebrated Latvians’ perception of themselves as a unique ethnic group. Meet- ings between Latvian intellectuals and foreign tourists sharpened the former’s ethnic identity. Even if this Latvian-ness emerged largely for the purposes of outsiders’ consumption, it was publicly acknowledged and even encouraged. Therefore, a question for future research is the extent to which ethnic Lat- vian identity—as created through ethnic tourism in the 1970s and 1980s, especially among the intellectual and bureaucratic elite who met with the foreigners—contributed to or even fueled the national revival movements of the late 1980s and early 1990s. This article points to a connection between the

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021 Zake

ethnic cultural products that the Soviet tourism industry presented as man- ifestations of true Latvian-ness and the politicized Latvian ethnic identity of the independence period and later. As but one example, the folk song and dance festivals and the midsummer celebrations of Ja¸¯ni, which prominently ﬁgured in Soviet ethnic tourism, were also prominent in the Latvian ethnic revival of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jcws_a_00816 by guest on 24 September 2021