Occupation of Estonia in 1940. From the Estonian SSR to modern Estonia: what has changed. View from Tallinn

In response, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Ireland, the Vatican and some other states continued de jure recognize Estonia as an independent state, retaining its embassies in the same composition and with the same powers, and also blocked Estonian state accounts located in banks on their territory. Even after the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the USSR notified all foreign embassies in Estonia on August 12, 1940 that their activities were terminated, many of them continued to work.

Ignoring the dissatisfaction of a number of foreign countries, on August 25, 1940, the Constitution of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was approved, modeled on the Constitution of the USSR of 1936.

Freedom Square in Tallinn, decorated with portraits of Joseph Stalin and members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. 1941

Estonian State Duma ( Riigivolikogu) by its decisions transformed itself into the Supreme Council, elected the first presidium of the Supreme Council and formed the first Council of People's Commissars of the Estonian SSR, thus completing the legal formalization of the Sovietization of Estonia in the political field.

From the very first days of the existence of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, repressions began against the former leadership of the country. The NKVD arrested 10 former leaders of the state. Among them was former President Konstantin Yakovlevich Päts ( Konstantin Pats) and 68 members of the last composition of the State Duma of the Republic of Estonia, 36 of whom were subsequently shot. Some politicians managed to escape abroad (one minister and 28 deputies).

Important changes have taken place in the defense system. On August 30, the Estonian army was transformed into the 22nd Estonian Territorial Rifle Corps of the Red Army under the command of General Gustav Jonson ( Gustav Johnson).

Soviet soldiers at a meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian SSR. 1940

The next step of the new government was a massive program of nationalization of various types of property. On July 27, 1940 (even before joining the USSR), the nationalization of large industrial enterprises began; on September 24, all commercial enterprises were nationalized.

On September 28, 1940, the Decree of the Provisional Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian SSR was issued on the nationalization of large commercial enterprises and public baths. Also on the same day, a Decree was issued on the nationalization of the enterprises of the shipping company, sea and river fleet.

As a result of the nationalization of trade enterprises, a sharp rise in prices began (primarily for medicines), and a shortage appeared - especially acute for soap and kerosene.

Nevertheless, the Soviet government consistently continued the previous policy. On October 12, insurance institutions, theaters, large hotels, hotels, restaurants, cafes and canteens were nationalized; October 31 - jewelry pledged or deposited in pawnshops and judicial institutions, as well as large households; November 1 - real estate; December 30 - circuses.

In industry, by the beginning of 1941, 418 enterprises had been nationalized, with a total number of employees of about 70,000 people.

On March 24, 1941, a Decree was issued to stop the circulation of the Estonian kroon as a monetary instrument. The exchange of kroons remaining with the population was carried out at the rate of 1 ruble to 0.8 kroons.

Banknote of 10 Estonian kroons. 1937

In parallel, a land reform was carried out in Estonia: the maximum area of ​​a peasant farm was 30 hectares, and "surplus" land - 586,849 hectares of "surplus" was confiscated from 33,009 large landowners. During the reform, 24,755 landless households received 261,151 hectares of land. The land plots of 27,609 small-scale farms were also increased - 120,417 hectares of land were cut. The remaining lands, most of which were under forest, were transferred to the state fund.

However, it turned out that the new peasant farms were unable to produce products for the market: 50,305 farms did not have horses and 30,375 farms did not have cows. Part of the poor (1500 people), not seeing the point in obtaining land allotments, refused to take acts on her possession. In some areas of Estonia, local authorities themselves sometimes refused to allocate plots (3000 cuts). By December 1940, the land reform was basically completed, which did not improve the situation in the republic's agricultural sector. The market production of a huge number of new poor and small farms could be optimized only through their collectivization and subsequent state investment. However, a serious problem arose. Estonian peasants traditionally settled in farms. To organize collective farms, they had to be brought to new large settlements such as villages or villages. Thus, by 1941, six collective farms were formed.

On the whole, in 1940, the amount of grain harvested in Estonia was two times less than in 1939.

In the winter of 1940 - 1941. there was an acute shortage of fodder for livestock. The accession of Estonia to the USSR interrupted its foreign trade relations, and for many years Estonian agriculture itself could not independently provide feed for its extensive livestock industry. As a result, compared with 1940 in the spring of 1941, the number of cows decreased by 7.8, pigs by 8, and sheep by 24%.

Under these conditions, the leadership of the republic began the centralized distribution of confiscated agricultural equipment. In the spring of 1941, 25 MTS and 250 machine and horse rental stations operated in Estonia. 109 state farms were created on the basis of the nationalized landlord farms. For the purchase of agricultural products, mandatory sales standards for each farm were developed. Rigidly fixed purchase prices were also introduced, which turned out to be significantly lower than before. These innovations caused an increase in discontent among the peasants.

Changes in the social and economic life of Estonia were accompanied by repressions of new punitive bodies. Arrests were carried out among Estonian officials, landowners, industrialists, and the military. So, 400 Estonian officers were arrested - 50% of the commanders of the old army. Arrests were also carried out among Russian emigrants - primarily members of various socio-political organizations and former White Guards.

Growing discontent among various segments of the Estonian population led to the emergence of an organized resistance movement. By the summer of 1941, about 300 detachments of "forest brothers" were operating in the forests on the territory of Estonia ( metsavendade) with a total of about 8500 people.

Estonian "forest brothers". June 1941

On June 1, 1941, after training in intelligence schools in Finland, over 100 Estonian emigrants were thrown into Estonia (Operation Erna).

In response, the NKVD authorities carried out a large-scale punitive action: on June 14, 1941, 5,978 people were deported from Estonia to settle in remote areas of the USSR, and 3,178 "unreliable" people were arrested.

Housing of a deported family from Estonia - a peat dugout in the Novosibirsk region

With the German attack on the USSR in the rear of the Red Army (as early as June 24), the Estonian partisan movement, the "Forest Brothers", was activated, the number of which in the first days of the war reached 20,000 people. On the same day, June 24, 1941, the Soviet leadership, to help the city and district branches of the NKVD, began to form 18 destruction battalions (6,000 people) from Estonians loyal to Soviet power.

Soldiers of the Estonian fighter battalion. July 1941

In addition, in June 1941, the Estonian SSR mobilized 36,972 people in the Red Army, who were evacuated deep into the territory of the Soviet Union.

In July - August 1941, in connection with the urgent evacuation of prisons on the territory of the Estonian SSR, some of the prisoners (up to 2200 people) were shot by the NKVD. So, on July 8, 11 prisoners of the Viljandi prison were executed, on the night of July 9 - 198 prisoners in Tartu, on July 9 - six people in Lihula and 11 in Haapsalu, in September - more than 100 people on the island of Saaremaa.

Corpses of executed prisoners in Tartu. August 1941

On July 10, part of the Erna battalion, created in May 1941 in Finland by the Estonian Liberation Committee ( Eesti Vabastamise Komitee), led by the former military attache in France, Colonel Henn-Ants Krug ( Henn-Ants Kurg) landed on the coast of Estonia and began active hostilities against units of the Red Army.

Saboteurs from the Estonian battalion "Erna". July 1941

On July 22, another part of the Estonian battalion "Erna" landed by parachute in the Tallinn region and united a significant number of Estonian "forest brothers" around itself. However, a week later, on July 30, five destruction battalions in the battle in the vicinity of Tallinn dispersed most of the Estonian battalion "Erna".

On August 29, 1941, German troops entered Tallinn. In most of Estonia, Soviet power was overthrown. On September 15, the Estonian Self-Government was established in Estonia by order of the German occupation authorities ( Eesti Omavalitsus). His competence included - local administration, law enforcement, transport, health, education and other social services. The normative base was the legislation of the Republic of Estonia.

The remnants of the units of the Red Army and the Soviet Navy were defending on a number of islands along the coast of Estonia. Only on December 2, 1941, the defenders of the last part of Estonian territory that remained in the hands of the Red Army (Osmussaar Island) were evacuated to Kronstadt.

Once again, Soviet power in Estonia was restored on September 25, 1944, when the government of the Estonian SSR returned to Tallinn.

After 47 years, Estonia finally withdrew from the USSR. On August 20, 1991, the Estonian Supreme Council adopted a resolution “On the State Independence of Estonia”, and on September 6 of the same year, the State Council of the USSR officially recognized the independence of Estonia.

Mäesalu A., Lukas T., Laur M., Tannberg T., Pajur A. History of Estonia. Tallinn, 2004.

The Baltic states in the period between the two world wars became the object of the struggle of the great European powers (England, France and Germany) for influence in the region. In the first decade after the defeat of Germany in the First World War, there was a strong Anglo-French influence in the Baltic states, which later, from the beginning of the 1930s, began to interfere with the growing influence of neighboring Germany. He, in turn, tried to resist the Soviet leadership, taking into account the strategic importance of the region. By the end of the 1930s. Germany and the USSR became in fact the main rivals in the struggle for influence in the Baltics.

Failure "Eastern Pact" was due to the difference in interests of the contracting parties. Thus, the Anglo-French missions received detailed secret instructions from their general staffs, which determined the goals and nature of the negotiations - the note of the French general staff said, in particular, that, along with a number of political benefits that England and France would receive in connection with the accession of the USSR, this would allow him to be drawn into the conflict: "it is not in our interests that he remains out of the conflict, keeping his forces intact" . The Soviet Union, which considered at least two Baltic republics - Estonia and Latvia - as a sphere of its national interests, defended this position at the negotiations, but did not meet with understanding from the partners. As for the governments of the Baltic states themselves, they preferred guarantees from Germany, with which they were connected by a system of economic agreements and non-aggression pacts. According to Churchill, “An obstacle to the conclusion of such an agreement (with the USSR) was the horror that these same border states experienced before Soviet help in the form of Soviet armies that could pass through their territories to protect them from the Germans and simultaneously include them in the Soviet-Communist system. After all, they were the most violent opponents of this system. Poland, Romania, Finland and the three Baltic states did not know what they feared more - German aggression or Russian salvation. .

Simultaneously with negotiations with Great Britain and France, the Soviet Union in the summer of 1939 stepped up steps towards rapprochement with Germany. The result of this policy was the signing on August 23, 1939 of a non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR. According to the secret additional protocols to the treaty, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and the east of Poland were included in the Soviet sphere of interests, Lithuania and the west of Poland - in the sphere of German interests); By the time the treaty was signed, the Klaipeda (Memel) region of Lithuania had already been occupied by Germany (March 1939).

1939. The beginning of the war in Europe

Mutual Assistance Pacts and Treaty of Friendship and Boundary

Independent Baltic states on the map of the Small Soviet Encyclopedia. April 1940

As a result of the actual division of Polish territory between Germany and the USSR, the Soviet borders moved far to the west, and the USSR began to border on the third Baltic state - Lithuania. Initially, Germany intended to turn Lithuania into its protectorate, but on September 25, during the Soviet-German contacts on the settlement of the Polish problem, the USSR proposed to start negotiations on Germany's renunciation of claims to Lithuania in exchange for the territories of the Warsaw and Lublin provinces. On this day, the German ambassador to the USSR, Count Schulenburg, sent a telegram to the German Foreign Ministry, in which he said that he had been summoned to the Kremlin, where Stalin pointed to this proposal as a subject for future negotiations and added that if Germany agreed, "the Soviet Union immediately will take up the solution of the problem of the Baltic states in accordance with the protocol of August 23.

The situation in the Baltic states themselves was alarming and contradictory. Against the background of rumors about the upcoming Soviet-German division of the Baltic states, which were refuted by diplomats from both sides, part of the ruling circles of the Baltic states were ready to continue rapprochement with Germany, many were anti-German and counted on the help of the USSR in maintaining the balance of power in the region and national independence, while the underground left-wing forces were ready to support joining the USSR.

Meanwhile, on the Soviet border with Estonia and Latvia, a Soviet military group was being created, which included the forces of the 8th Army (Kingisepp direction, Leningrad Military District), 7th Army (Pskov direction, Kalinin Military District) and 3rd Army (Belarusian Front).

In conditions when Latvia and Finland refused to support Estonia, England and France (which were at war with Germany) were not able to provide it, and Germany recommended accepting the Soviet proposal, the Estonian government entered into negotiations in Moscow, as a result of which on September 28 A Mutual Assistance Pact was concluded, providing for the creation of Soviet military bases in Estonia and the deployment of a Soviet contingent of up to 25 thousand people on them. On the same day, the Soviet-German Treaty "On Friendship and Border" was signed, which fixed the partition of Poland. According to the secret protocol to it, the conditions for the division of spheres of influence were revised: Lithuania went into the sphere of influence of the USSR in exchange for Polish lands east of the Vistula, which had gone to Germany. Stalin, at the end of negotiations with the Estonian delegation, told Selter: “The Estonian government acted wisely and for the benefit of the Estonian people by concluding an agreement with the Soviet Union. With you it could turn out, as with Poland. Poland was a great power. Where is Poland now?

On October 5, the USSR suggested that Finland also consider the possibility of concluding a mutual assistance pact with the USSR. Negotiations began on October 11, however, Finland rejected the proposals of the USSR both on the pact and on the lease and exchange of territories, which led to the Mainil incident, which became the reason for the denunciation of the non-aggression pact with Finland by the USSR and the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940.

Almost immediately after the signing of mutual assistance treaties, negotiations began on the basing of Soviet troops on the territory of the Baltic states.

The fact that the Russian armies had to stand on this line was absolutely necessary for the security of Russia against the Nazi threat. Be that as it may, this line exists, and the Eastern Front has been created, which Nazi Germany will not dare to attack. When Herr Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week, he had to learn and accept the fact that the implementation of the Nazi plans in relation to the Baltic countries and Ukraine must be finally stopped.

original text(English)

That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and to accept the fact that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic States and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop.

The Soviet leadership also stated that the Baltic countries did not comply with the signed agreements and were pursuing an anti-Soviet policy. For example, the political union between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Baltic Entente) was characterized as having an anti-Soviet orientation and violating mutual assistance treaties with the USSR.

A limited contingent of the Red Army (for example, in Latvia its number was 20,000) was introduced with the permission of the presidents of the Baltic countries, and agreements were concluded. So, on November 5, 1939, the Riga newspaper Gazeta dlya Vsego in the article “Soviet troops went to their bases” published a message:

On the basis of a friendly agreement concluded between Latvia and the USSR on mutual assistance, the first echelons of Soviet troops proceeded on October 29, 1939 through the border station Zilupe. To meet the Soviet troops, a guard of honor with a military band was lined up ....

A little later, in the same newspaper on November 26, 1939, in the article “Freedom and Independence”, dedicated to the celebrations of November 18, the President of Latvia published a speech by President Karlis Ulmanis, in which he stated:

... The recently concluded mutual assistance agreement with the Soviet Union strengthens the security of our and its borders ...

Ultimatums of the summer of 1940 and the removal of the Baltic governments

The entry of the Baltic states into the USSR

The new governments lifted bans on communist parties and demonstrations and called early parliamentary elections. In the elections held on July 14 in all three states, the pro-communist Blocks (Unions) of the working people won - the only electoral lists admitted to the elections. According to official data, in Estonia the turnout was 84.1%, while 92.8% of the votes were cast for the Union of the Working People, in Lithuania the turnout was 95.51%, of which 99.19% voted for the Union of the Working People, in Latvia The turnout was 94.8%, with 97.8% of the votes cast for the Bloc of the Working People. The elections in Latvia, according to V. Mangulis, were rigged.

The newly elected parliaments already on July 21-22 proclaimed the creation of the Estonian SSR, the Latvian SSR and the Lithuanian SSR and adopted the Declaration on joining the USSR. On August 3-6, 1940, in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, these republics were admitted to the Soviet Union. From the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian armies, the Lithuanian (29th rifle), Latvian (24th rifle) and Estonian (22nd rifle) territorial corps were formed, which became part of the PribOVO.

The entry of the Baltic states into the USSR was not recognized by the United States, the Vatican and a number of other countries. Recognized it de jure Sweden , Spain , Netherlands , Australia , India , Iran , New Zealand , Finland , de facto- Great Britain and a number of other countries. In exile (in the USA, Great Britain, etc.), some diplomatic missions of the pre-war Baltic states continued their activities; after the Second World War, the Estonian government in exile was created.

Consequences

The accession of the Baltic States with the USSR delayed the appearance of the Baltic states planned by Hitler allied to the Third Reich

After the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR, the socialist transformations of the economy already completed in the rest of the country and repressions against the intelligentsia, clergy, former politicians, officers, and wealthy peasants moved here. In 1941, “due to the presence in the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSR of a significant number of former members of various counter-revolutionary nationalist parties, former policemen, gendarmes, landowners, manufacturers, high officials of the former state apparatus of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and other persons leading subversive anti-Soviet work and used by foreign intelligence services for espionage purposes”, deportations of the population were carried out. . A significant part of the repressed were Russians living in the Baltics, mostly white émigrés.

In the Baltic republics, just before the start of the war, an operation was completed to evict an “unreliable and counter-revolutionary element” - a little more than 10 thousand people were expelled from Estonia, about 17.5 thousand from Latvia from Lithuania - according to various estimates, from 15.4 to 16.5 thousands of people. This operation was completed by June 21, 1941.

In the summer of 1941, after the German attack on the USSR, in Lithuania and Latvia, in the first days of the German offensive, there were performances of the "fifth column", which resulted in the proclamation of short-lived "loyal to Great Germany" states, in Estonia, where Soviet troops defended longer this process almost immediately was replaced by inclusion in the Reich Commissariat Ostland, like the other two.

Contemporary politics

Differences in the assessment of the events of 1940 and the subsequent history of the Baltic countries within the USSR are a source of unrelenting tension in relations between Russia and the Baltics. In Latvia and Estonia, many issues regarding the legal status of Russian-speaking residents - migrants of the 1940-1991 era have not yet been resolved. and their descendants (see Non-citizens (Latvia) and Non-citizens (Estonia)), since only citizens of the pre-war Republics of Latvia and Estonia and their descendants were recognized as citizens of these states (in Estonia, citizens of the Estonian SSR also supported the independence of the Republic of Estonia in a referendum on March 3, 1991) , the rest were struck in civil rights, which created a situation unique for modern Europe for the existence of discrimination regimes on its territory. .

The European Union bodies and commissions repeatedly addressed Latvia and Estonia with official recommendations, in which they pointed out the inadmissibility of continuing the legal practice of segregating non-citizens.

Of particular public resonance in Russia were the facts of the law enforcement agencies of the Baltic states initiating criminal cases against former employees of the Soviet state security agencies living here, accused of participating in repressions and crimes against the local population during World War II. The unlawfulness of these accusations was confirmed in the international Strasbourg Court.

The opinion of historians and political scientists

Some foreign historians and political scientists, as well as some modern Russian researchers, characterize this process as the occupation and annexation of independent states by the Soviet Union, carried out gradually, as a result of a series of military-diplomatic and economic steps and against the backdrop of the Second World War unfolding in Europe. In this regard, the term is sometimes used in journalism Soviet occupation of the Baltics reflecting this point of view. Modern politicians also talk about incorporations, as about a softer version of the attachment. According to the former head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry, Janis Jurkans, “It is the word incorporation» . Baltic historians emphasize the violation of democratic norms during the extraordinary parliamentary elections held at the same time in all three states in the conditions of a significant Soviet military presence, as well as the fact that in the elections held on July 14 and 15, 1940, only one list of candidates put forward by the Bloc of the Working People, and all other alternative lists were rejected. Baltic sources believe that the election results were rigged and did not reflect the will of the people. For example, in the text posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, information is provided that “ In Moscow, the Soviet news agency TASS gave information about the mentioned election results already twelve hours before the start of the counting of votes in Latvia» . He also cites the opinion of Dietrich André Loeber - one of the former soldiers of the Abwehr sabotage and reconnaissance unit "Brandenburg 800" in 1941-1945 - that the annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was fundamentally illegal: since it is based on intervention and occupation. . From this it is concluded that the decisions of the Baltic parliaments to join the USSR were predetermined in advance.

Soviet, as well as some modern Russian historians, insist on the voluntary nature of the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR, arguing that it was finalized in the summer of 1940 on the basis of decisions of the highest legislative bodies of these countries, which received the widest support of voters in the elections for the entire existence of independent the Baltic states. Some researchers, without calling the events voluntary, do not agree with their qualification as occupations. The Russian Foreign Ministry considers the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR as consistent with the norms of international law of that time.

Otto Latsis, a well-known scientist and publicist, stated in his interview to Radio Liberty - Free Europe in May 2005:

took place incorporation Latvia, but not the occupation"

see also

Notes

1. Semiryaga M.I. - Secrets of Stalin's diplomacy. 1939-1941. - Chapter VI: Troubled Summer, M.: Higher School, 1992. - 303 p. - Circulation 50,000 copies.
2. Guryanov A. E. The scale of the deportation of the population deep into the USSR in May-June 1941, memo.ru
3. Michael Keating, John McGarry Minority nationalism and the changing international order. - Oxford University Press, 2001. - P. 343. - 366 p. - ISBN 0199242143
4. Jeff Chinn, Robert John Kaiser Russians as the new minority: ethnicity and nationalism in the Soviet successor states. - Westview Press, 1996. - P. 93. - 308 p. - ISBN 0813322480
5. Great Historical Encyclopedia: For schoolchildren and students, page 602: "Molotov"
6. Treaty between Germany and the USSR
7. http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/pdf/conclusions_en_1940-1941.pdf 1940-1941, Conclusions // Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity]
8. http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/occupation-aspects/
9. http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/4641/4661/4671/?print=on
10. • "Resolution regarding the Baltic States adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe" September 29, 1960
    • Resolution 1455 (2005) "Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation" June 22, 2005
11. (English) European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78.
12. (English) European Parliament resolution on the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe on 8 May 1945
13. (English) European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2007 on Estonia
14. Russian Foreign Ministry: The West recognized the Baltic states as part of the USSR
15. Archive of foreign policy of the USSR. The Case of the Anglo-French-Soviet Negotiations, 1939 (vol. III), l. 32 - 33. quoted in:
16. Archive of foreign policy of the USSR. The Case of the Anglo-French-Soviet Negotiations, 1939 (vol. III), l. 240. cited in: Military Literature: Studies: Zhilin P. A. How Nazi Germany prepared an attack on the Soviet Union
17. Winston Churchill. Memoirs
18. Meltyukhov Mikhail Ivanovich Stalin's missed chance. The Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe: 1939-1941
19. Telegram No. 442 dated September 25 by Schulenburg at the German Foreign Ministry // Subject to disclosure: USSR - Germany. 1939-1941: Documents and materials. Comp. Y. Felshtinsky. M.: Mosk. worker, 1991.
20. Mutual Assistance Pact between the USSR and the Republic of Estonia // Plenipotentiaries inform ... - M., International relations, 1990 - pp. 62-64
21. Mutual Assistance Pact between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Latvia // Plenipotentiaries inform ... - M., International relations, 1990 - pp. 84-87
22. Agreement on the transfer of the city of Vilna and the Vilna region to the Republic of Lithuania and on mutual assistance between the Soviet Union and Lithuania // Plenipotentiaries inform ... - M., International relations, 1990 - pp. 92-98

Soviet historians characterized the events of 1940 as socialist revolutions and insisted on the voluntary nature of the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR, arguing that it was finalized in the summer of 1940 on the basis of decisions of the highest legislative bodies of these countries, which received the widest support of voters in the elections of all time. the existence of independent Baltic states. Some Russian researchers also agree with this point of view, they also do not qualify the events as occupation, although they do not consider the entry to be voluntary.

Most foreign historians and political scientists, as well as some modern Russian researchers, characterize this process as the occupation and annexation of independent states by the Soviet Union, carried out gradually, as a result of a series of military-diplomatic and economic steps and against the backdrop of the Second World War unfolding in Europe. Modern politicians also talk about incorporation as a softer option for joining. According to the former head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry, Janis Jurkans, "It is the word incorporation that appears in the American-Baltic Charter."

Scientists who deny the occupation point to the absence of hostilities between the USSR and the Baltic countries in 1940. Their opponents object that the definition of occupation does not necessarily imply war, for example, the occupation by Germany of Czechoslovakia in 1939 and Denmark in 1940 is considered.

Baltic historians emphasize the facts of violation of democratic norms during the extraordinary parliamentary elections held at the same time in 1940 in all three states in the conditions of a significant Soviet military presence, as well as the fact that in the elections held on July 14 and 15, 1940 , only one list of candidates nominated by the Bloc of the Working People was allowed, and all other alternative lists were rejected.

Baltic sources believe that the election results were rigged and did not reflect the will of the people. For example, in an article posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, historian I. Feldmanis cites information that “In Moscow, the Soviet news agency TASS provided information about the mentioned election results already twelve hours before the counting of votes in Latvia began.” He also cites the opinion of Dietrich A. Loeber (Dietrich André Loeber) - a jurist and one of the former soldiers of the Abwehr sabotage and reconnaissance unit "Brandenburg 800" in 1941-1945 - that the annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was fundamentally illegal, since it is based for intervention and occupation. From this it is concluded that the decisions of the Baltic parliaments to join the USSR were predetermined.

Here is how Vyacheslav Molotov himself spoke about this (quote from the book by F. Chuev « 140 conversations with Molotov » ):

« The question of the Baltic, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and Bessarabia we decided with Ribbentrop in 1939. The Germans reluctantly agreed that we would annex Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Bessarabia. When a year later, in November 1940, I was in Berlin, Hitler asked me: “Well, you unite Ukrainians, Belarusians together, well, okay, Moldavians, this can still be explained, but how will you explain the Baltics to the whole world?”

I told him: "We will explain."

The communists and the peoples of the Baltic states spoke in favor of joining the Soviet Union. Their bourgeois leaders came to Moscow for negotiations, but they refused to sign the accession to the USSR. What were we to do? I must tell you a secret that I followed a very hard course. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia came to us in 1939, I told him: “You will not return back until you sign an accession to us.”

The Minister of War came to us from Estonia, I already forgot his last name, he was popular, we told him the same. We had to go to this extreme. And they did it pretty well, I think.

I presented it to you in a very rude way. So it was, but it was all done more delicately.

“But the first person to arrive might have warned the others,” I say.

And they had nowhere to go. You have to protect yourself somehow. When we made demands… It is necessary to take measures in time, otherwise it will be too late. They huddled back and forth, the bourgeois governments, of course, could not enter the socialist state with great pleasure. On the other hand, the international situation was such that they had to decide. They were located between two large states - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The situation is complex. So they hesitated, but they made up their minds. And we needed the Baltic States ...

With Poland, we could not do that. The Poles behaved irreconcilably. We negotiated with the British and French before talking with the Germans: if they do not interfere with our troops in Czechoslovakia and Poland, then, of course, things will go better for us. They refused, so we had to take measures, at least partial, we had to move the German troops away.

If we had not come out to meet the Germans in 1939, they would have occupied all of Poland up to the border. Therefore, we agreed with them. They should have agreed. This is their initiative - the Non-Aggression Pact. We couldn't defend Poland because she didn't want to deal with us. Well, since Poland does not want, and the war is on the nose, give us at least that part of Poland, which, we believe, unconditionally belongs to the Soviet Union.

And Leningrad had to be defended. We did not put the question to the Finns in the same way as to the Balts. We only talked about giving us part of the territory near Leningrad. from Vyborg. They behaved very stubbornly.I had a lot of conversations with Ambassador Paasikivi - then he became president. He spoke some Russian, but you can understand. He had a good library at home, he read Lenin. I understood that without an agreement with Russia they would not succeed. I felt that he wanted to meet us halfway, but there were many opponents.

How spared Finland! Cleverly acted that they did not attach to themselves. Would have a permanent wound. Not from Finland itself - this wound would give a reason to have something against the Soviet government ...

There people are very stubborn, very stubborn. There, a minority would be very dangerous.

And now, little by little, you can strengthen the relationship. It was not possible to make it democratic, just like Austria.

Khrushchev gave Porkkala Udd to the Finns. We would hardly give.

Of course, it was not worth spoiling relations with the Chinese because of Port Arthur. And the Chinese kept within the limits, did not raise their border territorial issues. But Khrushchev pushed ... "

A quarter of a century has passed since Estonia finally turned from the Estonian SSR into the Republic of Estonia. It's time to sum up some results - what has changed in our lives and in what direction? Without claiming to be the ultimate truth, let's compare.

Labor sphere

There was no unemployment in the Estonian SSR, and any person who was fundamentally unemployed was considered a parasite, to whom measures of state and social influence were applied. That is why many creative people were forced to officially work somewhere as janitors and storekeepers. At the same time, universal labor employment allowed everyone to have at least some income and social benefits, sometimes surpassing the basic income itself in value. Social benefits included free trade union vouchers for sanatorium or resort vacations, pioneer camps for children, free education at all levels, free medicine, and much more.

There is unemployment in modern Estonia. Compared to other European countries, it is relatively small, but it keeps almost any worker in suspense. The current legislation makes it quite easy to dismiss an employee, and the trade union movement in modern Estonia (unlike neighboring Scandinavia) is in its infancy, playing almost no role in making important government decisions regarding the interests of workers.

Job loss often turns into a personal tragedy for people, as it threatens with the possibility of eviction from the apartment, loss of health insurance and many other troubles.

pension system

The pension system has also changed over a quarter of a century. If earlier women could retire at 55, and men at 60, now the retirement age tends to be 65, regardless of gender. Even though the size of pensions has increased in numbers, it still does not allow pensioners to feel as at ease as they did in Soviet times.

Communal sphere

What has definitely improved over a quarter of a century is the public sector. Many people who lived under the ESSR remember shabby, falling apart residential buildings with dirty entrances, broken mailboxes and never-closing doors. Decent refurbished homes were the exception rather than the rule at the time. Now the opposite is true - most of the houses in Estonia have been repaired and are in a very good condition. Just like the roads. Of course, potholes can sometimes be found even now, but their number cannot be compared with what it was during the times of the Estonian SSR.

Freedom of movement

With independence, and then the country's accession to the EU, the inhabitants of Estonia also gained greater freedom of movement - not only within the territory of the USSR, as it was before. However, for many, this freedom has become unaffordable. At the same time, the eastern border was closed, as a result of which residents of the country appeared who had never been in neighboring Russia in their lives. Some do not want to apply for visas, some are influenced by ideological "brainwashing", some are forbidden to go there on duty. At the same time, ties with Russia are also being cut off among Russian-speaking residents of Estonia.

Press

Numerous newspapers and magazines were published in the Estonian SSR, both in Estonian and in Russian. At the moment, there are no local daily Russian-language newspapers left in the Republic of Estonia, and the remaining weeklies and several magazines are reprints from the Estonian press or offer purely entertainment content.

The emergence of the Internet made it possible to partially close the gap. Although, along with the loss of their own full-fledged press, the Russian-speaking population of Estonia also lost a significant part of its influence on the processes taking place in the country.

Citizenship

25 years ago, all residents of the Estonian SSR had the same passports of citizens of the USSR.

With independence, it was decided to grant the citizenship of the Republic of Estonia only to the descendants of citizens who lived in the country before 1940. The rest (mostly Russian-speaking residents) in order to obtain an Estonian passport had to pass exams in the Estonian language and knowledge of the Constitution and go through the naturalization process. Those who did not want to do this received foreigners' passports (the so-called gray passports) or citizenship of the Russian Federation. The issue of stateless people in Estonia has not yet been resolved.

Office work and education

Office work at enterprises and government agencies of the Estonian SSR was carried out in two languages ​​- Estonian and Russian. Moreover, without the obligation of indispensable translation of documents into a particular language. Among the leading workers of the ESSR, the proportion of Estonians and non-Estonians approximately corresponded to the national composition of the population of the republic. In today's Estonia, the number of non-Estonians among the leadership of state bodies is within the limits of statistical error.

Secondary education in the ESSR was compulsory and, depending on the native language of the students, was given in full in Estonian or Russian. There was also a Russian-language higher education in the republic, although not in all specialties. Some departments of the University of Tartu, for example, recruited exclusively Estonian-speaking groups, while Russian-speaking applicants were offered to go to study at universities in other union republics.

Now higher education in Russian as such no longer exists in Estonia, and Russian-language schools are increasingly being transferred to the Estonian language of instruction.

Products and prices

Since 1991, we have managed to forget about such a concept as "deficit", which was an indispensable companion of a resident of Soviet Estonia. The range of goods over the years has expanded many times over, although many natural products have been replaced by artificial substitutes.

It is rather difficult to compare prices in the ESSR and the modern Republic of Estonia, as people's priorities and the structure of the economy have changed. In addition, there are many methods for transferring Soviet rubles to current euros. One of the most popular equates 1 Soviet ruble to about 10 euros. If we take this technique as a basis, then we get a rather interesting picture. A quarter of a century ago, a taxi ride in the Estonian SSR cost 20 kopecks per kilometer. The landing cost the same. When converted into euros, this turns out to be 2 euros per landing and 2 euros per kilometer, that is, it is obvious that taxis were more expensive under the Estonian SSR.

At the same time, the average rent for a two-room apartment in a panel house was 10-15 rubles per month (100-150 euros), regardless of the season. That is, the apartment was cheaper. And if we add to this that the apartments themselves (albeit in a long line) were received free of charge, then they did not have a burden in the form of a housing loan, which now hangs like a long-term burden on almost every modern Estonian family.

Under the Estonian SSR, a box of matches cost 1 kopeck (10 euro cents), a ticket for public transport in Tallinn 5 kopecks (50 euro cents). The average monthly salary of an employee ranged from 90 to 150 rubles (900-1500 euros), a worker - from 100 to 350 rubles (1000-3500 euros). Plus, there were additional payments, bonuses and thirteenth salaries. The average pension under the Estonian SSR ranged from 70 to 120 rubles (700-1200 euros). In terms of the latest figures, current pensioners can only envy.

Cars

The Soviet automobile industry, which consisted mainly of several modifications of the Zhiguli (VAZ), Volga (GAZ) and Moskvich (AZLK-IZH) brands, was replaced by comfortable Western cars. At first, these were old used foreign cars, and with the arrival of Scandinavian banks on the Estonian market and the opening of an era of cheap loans, they were the latest achievements of the global auto industry.

freedom of speech

Speaking about the Soviet era, it is customary to recall the persecution of dissent. Indeed, the state security agencies were vigilant to ensure that citizens did not greatly sin against the Soviet order. Although the kitchens reigned complete freedom of expression.

In today's Estonia, everyone is free to express their opinion. At the same time, even now, the local special services are vigilantly watching the speeches, publishing lists of "enemies of the people" in their yearbooks. Plus, those who criticize the current authorities are often pressured through the pro-state media, relatives and private businesses associated with them. In other words, not much has changed in this area.

The story goes on

Over the past quarter of a century, the world and the people themselves have changed. Some were good in the past, some are better now. For some, nostalgia for youth is important, for others, current prospects are more expensive. If you ask what time it is better to live - now or 25 years ago, then the answer is unequivocal - now. Only because we are in this time and create our own history.

Hello! In the Fight Myths blog, we will analyze the events of our history, surrounded by myths and falsifications. These will be small reviews dedicated to the anniversary of a particular historical date. Of course, it is impossible to conduct a detailed study of the events within the framework of one article, but we will try to outline the main problems, show examples of false statements and their refutation.

In the photo: Railway workers rock Weiss, a member of the Plenipotentiary Commission of the State Duma of Estonia, after returning from Moscow, where Estonia was admitted to the USSR. July 1940

71 years ago, on July 21-22, 1940, the parliaments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania transformed their states into Soviet socialist republics and adopted Declarations on joining the USSR. Soon the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted laws that approved the decisions of the Baltic parliaments. Thus began a new page in the history of the three states of Eastern Europe. What happened during the few months of 1939-1940? How to evaluate these events?

Let's consider the main theses used by our opponents in discussions on this topic. We emphasize that these theses are far from always a direct lie and deliberate falsification - sometimes it is only an incorrect formulation of the problem, a shift in emphasis, an involuntary confusion in terms and dates. However, as a result of the use of these theses, a picture is formed that is far from the true meaning of events. Before the truth can be found, the lie must be exposed.

1. The decision to join the Baltic States to the USSR was spelled out in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and / or secret protocols to it. Moreover, Stalin planned to annex the Baltic States long before these events. In a word, these two events are interconnected, one is a consequence of the other.

Examples.

"In fact, if we do not ignore the obvious facts, then of course, it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that sanctioned the occupation of the Baltic states and the occupation of the eastern territories of Poland by Soviet troops. And it is surprising that the secret protocols to this treaty are so often mentioned here, because, in fact, even without them the role of this treaty is clear.
Link .

"As a professional, I began to more or less deeply study the history of the Second World War in the mid-80s, dealing with the now infamous, but then still almost unexplored and classified the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the secret protocols that accompanied it, which decided the fate of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1939".
Afanasiev Yu.N. Another war: history and memory. // Russia, XX century. Under total ed. Yu.N. Afanasiev. M., 1996. Book. 3. Link.

"The USSR received from Germany the opportunity for freedom of action for further "territorial and political transformations" in the sphere of Soviet influence. On August 23, both aggressive powers were of the same opinion that a "sphere of interest" meant the freedom to occupy and annex the territories of the respective states. The Soviet Union and Germany divided their spheres of interest on paper in order to "make the division also a reality."<...>
"The government of the USSR, which needed mutual assistance treaties with the Baltic states in order to destroy these states, did not think to be satisfied with the existing status quo. It took advantage of the favorable international situation created in connection with the German attack on France, Holland and Belgium in order to completely occupy the Baltic states in June 1940.
Link .

A comment.

The conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its significance in international politics in the 1930s. 20th century - a very complex topic that requires separate analysis. Nevertheless, we note that most often the assessment of this event is of an unprofessional nature, comes not from historians and lawyers, but sometimes from people who did not read this historical document and did not know the realities of international relations of that time.

The realities of the time are that the conclusion of non-aggression pacts was a common practice of those years, not involving allied relations (and often this pact is called an "alliance treaty" between the USSR and Germany). The conclusion of secret protocols was also not out of the ordinary diplomatic move: for example, the British guarantees to Poland in 1939 contained a secret protocol, according to which Great Britain provided military assistance to Poland only in the event of an attack by Germany, but not by any other country. The principle of dividing a particular region into spheres of influence between two or more states, again, was very common: suffice it to recall the delimitation of spheres of influence between the countries of the Anti-Hitler coalition at the final stage of World War II. So it would be wrong to call the conclusion of the treaty on August 23, 1939 criminal, immoral, and even more so illegal.

Another question is what was meant by the sphere of influence in the text of the pact. If you look at Germany's actions in Eastern Europe, you can see that its political expansion did not always involve occupation or annexation (for example, as in the case of Romania). It is difficult to say that the processes in the same region in the mid-40s, when the same Romania fell into the sphere of influence of the USSR, and Greece - into the sphere of influence of Great Britain, led to the occupation of their territory or forced annexation.

In a word, the sphere of influence implied a territory on which the opposite side, in accordance with its obligations, was not supposed to pursue an active foreign policy, economic expansion, or support for certain political forces beneficial to it. (See: Makarchuk V.S. Sovereign-territorial status of Western Ukrainian lands during the period of the Other World War (1939 - 1945): historical and legal record. Kiev, 2007. p. 101.) This, for example, happened after the Second world war, when Stalin, in accordance with the agreements with Churchill, did not support the Greek communists, who had a great chance of winning the political struggle.

Relations between Soviet Russia and independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania began to take shape in 1918, when these states gained independence. However, the hopes of the Bolsheviks for victory in these countries of the communist forces, including with the help of the Red Army, did not come true. In 1920, the Soviet government concluded peace treaties with the three republics and recognized them as independent states.

Over the next twenty years, Moscow gradually built the "Baltic direction" of its foreign policy, the main goals of which were to ensure the security of Leningrad and prevent a possible military adversary from blocking the Baltic Fleet. This explains the turn in relations with the Baltic states that took place in the mid-1930s. If in the 20s The USSR was convinced that the creation of a single bloc of three states (the so-called Baltic Entente) was not beneficial to it, because. Since this military-political alliance can be used by the countries of Western Europe for a new invasion of Russia, after the Nazis came to power in Germany, the USSR insists on creating a system of collective security in Eastern Europe. One of the projects proposed by Moscow was a Soviet-Polish declaration on the Baltics, in which both states would guarantee the independence of the three Baltic countries. However, Poland rejected these proposals. (See Zubkova E.Yu. The Baltic states and the Kremlin. 1940-1953. M., 2008. S. 18-28.)

The Kremlin also tried to obtain guarantees for the independence of the Baltic countries from Germany. Berlin was invited to sign a protocol in which the governments of Germany and the USSR would promise to "invariably take into account in their foreign policy the obligation to preserve the independence and inviolability" of the Baltic states. However, Germany also refused to go towards the Soviet Union. The next attempt to reliably ensure the security of the Baltic countries was the Soviet-French project of the Eastern Pact, but it was not destined to come true either. These attempts continued until the spring of 1939, when it became clear that Great Britain and France did not want to change their tactics of appeasing Hitler, embodied by that time in the form of the Munich Agreements.

Karl Radek, head of the Bureau of International Information of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, described very well the change in the attitude of the USSR towards the Baltic countries. He stated the following in 1934: "The Baltic states created by the Entente, which served as a cordon or bridgehead against us, today are for us the most important wall of protection from the West." So, it is possible to talk about the orientation towards the "return of the territories", "restoration of the rights of the Russian Empire" only by resorting to speculation - the Soviet Union has long sought the neutrality and independence of the Baltic states for the sake of its security. Arguments cited as arguments about the "imperial", "powerful" turn in Stalinist ideology that occurred in the mid-1930s can hardly be transferred to the sphere of foreign policy, there is no documentary evidence for this.

By the way, this is not the first time in Russian history when the security issue was not resolved by joining the neighbors. The "divide and conquer" recipe, despite its apparent simplicity, could sometimes be extremely inconvenient and unprofitable. For example, in the middle of the XVIII century. representatives of the Ossetian tribes sought the decision of St. Petersburg on their inclusion in the empire, because. Ossetians have long been subjected to pressure and raids from the Kabardian princes. However, the Russian authorities did not want a possible conflict with Turkey, and therefore did not accept such a tempting offer. (For more details, see Degoev V.V. Rapprochement along a complex trajectory: Russia and Ossetia in the middle of the 18th century. // Russia XXI. 2011. Nos. 1-2.)

Let's return to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or rather, to the text of paragraph 1 of the secret protocol: "In the event of territorial and political transformations in the areas belonging to the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania will be a line separating spheres of influence Germany and the USSR. In this regard, Lithuania's interest in the Vilna region is recognized by both sides." (Link.) On September 28, 1939, by an additional agreement, Germany and the USSR will adjust the border of spheres of influence, and in exchange for Lublin and part of the Warsaw Voivodeship of Poland, Germany will not lay claim to Lithuania. So, there is no talk of any accession, we are talking about spheres of influence.

By the way, on the same days (namely, September 27), Ribbentrop, the head of the German Foreign Ministry, in a conversation with Stalin asked: "Does the conclusion of the pact with Estonia mean that the USSR intends to slowly penetrate into Estonia, and then into Latvia?" Stalin replied: "Yes, it means. But the existing state system will be temporarily preserved there, etc." (Link.)

This is one of the few pieces of evidence that indicates that the Soviet leadership has intentions to "Sovietize" the Baltics. As a rule, these intentions were expressed in specific phrases by Stalin or representatives of the diplomatic corps, but intentions are not plans, especially when it comes to words thrown during diplomatic negotiations. There is no confirmation in archival documents of a connection between the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and plans to change the political status or "Sovietization" of the Baltic republics. Moreover, Moscow forbids the plenipotentiaries in the Baltics not only to use the word "Sovietization", but also to communicate with the left forces in general.

2. The Baltic states pursued a policy of neutrality, they would not fight on the side of Germany.

Examples.

"Leonid Mlechin, writer: Tell me, please, witness, there is a feeling that the fate of your country, as well as Estonia and Latvia, was sealed in 1939-40. Either you become part of the Soviet Union, or part of Germany. There wasn't even a third option. Do you agree with this point of view?
Algimantas Kasparavičius, historian, political scientist, researcher at the Institute of Lithuanian History: Of course I don't, because before the Soviet occupation, until 1940, all three Baltic countries, including Lithuania, professed a policy of neutrality. And they tried to defend their interests and their statehood in this neutral way in the war that had begun.
Judgment of Time: Accession of the Baltic states to the USSR - loss or gain? Part 1. // Channel Five. 08/09/2010. Link .

A comment.

In the spring of 1939, Germany finally occupied Czechoslovakia. Despite the obvious contradiction of the Munich agreements, Great Britain and France limited themselves to diplomatic protests. However, these countries, together with the USSR, Poland, Romania and other states of Eastern Europe, continued to discuss the possibility of creating a system of collective security in this region. The most interested party was, of course, the Soviet Union. Its principal condition was the neutrality of Poland and the Baltic states. However, these countries were against guarantees from the USSR.

Here is how Winston Churchill wrote about this in his work "The Second World War": "The negotiations seemed to have reached a hopeless dead end. Accepting an English guarantee Note.), the governments of Poland and Romania did not want to accept a similar obligation in the same form from the Russian government. The same position was held in another important strategic area - in the Baltic states. The Soviet government made it clear that it would join the mutual guarantee pact only if Finland and the Baltic states were included in the general guarantee.

All four of these countries have now refused such a condition and, horrified, would probably have refused to agree to it for a long time to come. Finland and Estonia even stated that they would regard as an act of aggression a guarantee given to them without their consent. On the same day, May 31, Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany. In this way, Hitler was able to penetrate without difficulty into the weak defenses of the belated and indecisive coalition directed against him. "(Reference .)

Thus, one of the last opportunities for collective opposition to Hitler's expansion to the East was destroyed. At the same time, the governments of the Baltic states were willing to cooperate with Germany, never ceasing to talk about their neutrality. But isn't this an obvious indicator of the policy of double standards? Let's once again dwell on the facts of cooperation between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with Germany in 1939.

At the end of March of this year, Germany demanded that Lithuania transfer the Klaipeda region to it. Just two or three days later, the German-Lithuanian treaty was signed on the transfer of Klaipeda, according to which the parties assumed an obligation not to use force against each other. At the same time, there were rumors about the conclusion of a German-Estonian treaty, according to which German troops received the right to pass through the territory of Estonia. The extent to which these rumors were true was not known, but subsequent events increased the Kremlin's suspicions.

On April 20, 1939, the chief of staff of the Latvian army M. Hartmanis and the commander of the Kurzeme division O. Dankers arrived in Berlin to participate in the celebrations dedicated to the 50th anniversary of Hitler, and were personally received by the Fuhrer, who presented them with awards. The head of the Estonian General Staff, Lieutenant-General Nikolai Reek, also arrived for the anniversary of Hitler. Following this, Estonia was visited by the head of the General Staff of the German Land Forces, Lieutenant General Franz Halder and the head of the Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. This was a clear step towards military cooperation between countries.

And on June 19, the Estonian ambassador to Moscow, August Rei, at a meeting with British diplomats, said that the help of the USSR would force Estonia to take the side of Germany. What is this? Blind faith in the sincerity of treaties with Germany after the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and even more so after the annexation of a small part of the Baltic lands (ie the Klaipeda region)? The unwillingness to cooperate (and at that time it was only about cooperation) with the Soviet Union, apparently, was much stronger than the fear of losing their own sovereignty. Or, perhaps, the unwillingness to cooperate was so strong that their own sovereignty was not a value for part of the political elite.

On March 28, Litvinov, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, handed over the declarations to the Estonian and Latvian envoys in Moscow. In them, Moscow warned Tallinn and Riga that the assumption of "political, economic or other domination by a third state, granting it any exclusive rights or privileges" could be considered by Moscow as a violation of the agreements concluded earlier between the USSR, Estonia and Latvia. (Link.) At times, some researchers view these statements as an example of Moscow's expansionist aspirations. However, if you pay attention to the foreign policy of the Baltic countries, this statement was a completely natural action of the state, worried about its security.

At the same time, in Berlin on April 11, Hitler approved the "Directive on the unified preparation of the armed forces for war in 1939-1940." It stated that after the defeat of Poland, Germany should take control of Latvia and Lithuania: "The position of the limitrophe states will be determined solely by the military needs of Germany. With the development of events, it may become necessary to occupy the limitrophe states to the border of old Courland and include these territories in the empire" . (Link.)

In addition to the above facts, modern historians make assumptions about the existence of secret agreements between Germany and the Baltic states. It's not just guesswork. For example, the German researcher Rolf Amann found in the German archives an internal memorandum from the head of the German News Service for Foreign Affairs, Dertinger, dated June 8, 1939, which states that Estonia and Latvia agreed to a secret article requiring both countries to coordinate with Germany all defensive measures against the USSR. The memorandum also stated that Estonia and Latvia had been warned of the need to wisely apply their policy of neutrality, which required the deployment of all defensive forces against the "Soviet threat." (See Ilmjärv M. Hääletu alistumine. Eesti, Läti ja Leedu välispoliitilise orientatsioni kujunemine ja iseseisvuse kaotus 1920. aastate keskpaigast anneksioonini. Tallinn, 2004. lk. 558.)

All this suggests that the "neutrality" of the Baltic states was only a cover for cooperation with Germany. And these countries consciously cooperated, hoping with the help of a powerful ally to protect themselves from the "communist threat." It is hardly necessary to say that the threat from this ally was much more terrible, because. threatened real genocide against the peoples of the Baltic states and the loss of all sovereignty.

3. The accession of the Baltic States was violent, it was accompanied by mass repressions (genocide) and military intervention by the USSR. These events can be considered "annexation", "forced incorporation", "illegal incorporation".

Examples.

"Because - yes, indeed, there was a formal invitation, or rather, there were three formal invitations, if we talk about the Baltics. But the fact is that these invitations were already made when Soviet troops were stationed in these countries, when all three Baltic countries were flooded with NKVD agents, when in fact repressions were already being carried out against the local population ... And, of course, it must be said that this action was well prepared by the Soviet leadership, because in fact everything was completed by the fortieth year, and already in July 1940 governments were created.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Interview with historian Alexei Pimenov. // Russian service "Voice of America". 05/08/2005. Link .

"We did not support forced incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told three Baltic foreign ministers yesterday.
Eldarov E. Does the United States not recognize the occupation?! // News today. 06/16/2007. Link .

"The Soviet side also confirmed its aggressive position and decision not to comply with the norms of international law and to use force at the Moscow negotiations with representatives of Latvia during the conclusion of an agreement on mutual assistance, which began on October 2, 1939. The next day, Latvian Foreign Minister V. Munters informed government: I. Stalin told him that "because of the Germans, we can occupy you," and also threateningly pointed out the possibility of the USSR to take "the territory with the Russian national minority." The Latvian government decided to capitulate and agree to the demands of the Soviet Union, letting its troops into its territory."<...>
“Given aspects of international law, it is difficult to assess the treaties that were concluded on mutual assistance between parties so unequal in strength (power and small and weak states) as legitimate. In the historical and legal literature, several opinions have been expressed on how one could characterize signed basic treaties between the USSR and the Baltic states.Some authors believe that these treaties, in accordance with international law, are not valid from the moment of their signing, because their Baltic states were simply imposed by force".
Feldmanis I. Occupation of Latvia - historical and international legal aspects. // Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia. Link .

A comment.

"Annexation is the forcible annexation of the territory of another state (in whole or in part) to the state. Before the Second World War, not every annexation was considered illegal and invalid. This is due to the fact that the principle prohibiting the use of force or the threat of its use, which has become one of the main principles of modern international law, was first enshrined in 1945 in the UN Charter," writes Doctor of Law S.V. Chernichenko.

Thus, speaking of the "annexation" of the Baltics, we are again faced with a situation where modern international law does not work in relation to historical events. After all, the expansion of the British Empire, the United States, Spain and many other states that once annexed territory that belonged to other countries can just as well be called annexation. So even if you call the process of joining the Baltic States an annexation, then it is legally incorrect to consider it illegal and invalid (which is what a number of researchers, journalists and politicians want to achieve), because there simply were no relevant laws.

The same can be said about specific mutual assistance pacts concluded between the USSR and the Baltic countries in September-October 1939: September 28 with Estonia, October 5 with Latvia, October 10 with Lithuania. They were concluded, of course, under strong diplomatic pressure from the USSR, but strong diplomatic pressure, very often applied under conditions of constant military threat, does not make these pacts illegal. Their content was practically the same: the USSR had the right to rent military bases, ports and airfields agreed with the states and introduce a limited contingent of troops (20-25 thousand people for each country) into their territory.

Can we assume that the presence of NATO troops on the territories of European countries limits their sovereignty? Of course you can. It can also be said that the United States, as the leader of NATO, is going to use these troops to put pressure on the political forces of these countries and change the political course there. However, you will agree that this will be a very dubious assumption. The assertion that the treaties between the USSR and the Baltic states were the first step towards the "Sovietization" of the Baltic states seems to us to be the same dubious assumption.

The Soviet troops stationed in the Baltics were given the strictest instructions regarding their behavior towards the local population and authorities. Contacts of the Red Army soldiers with local residents were limited. And Stalin, in a confidential conversation with the General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, G. Dimitrov, said that the USSR must "strictly observe them (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - Note.) internal regime and independence. We will not seek their Sovietization." (See USSR and Lithuania during the Second World War. Vilnius, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 305.) This suggests that the factor of military presence was not decisive in relations between states, and consequently, the process was not an annexation and a military takeover, it was precisely an agreed introduction of a limited number of troops.

By the way, the introduction of troops into the territory of a foreign state in order to prevent its transition to the side of the enemy was used more than once during the Second World War. The joint Soviet-British occupation of Iran began in August 1941. And in May 1942, Great Britain occupied Madagascar to prevent the capture of the island by the Japanese, although Madagascar belonged to Vichy France, which was neutral. Similarly, in November 1942, the Americans occupied French (i.e. Vichy) Morocco and Algeria. (Link.)

However, not everyone was happy with the situation. The leftist forces in the Baltics clearly counted on the help of the USSR. For example, demonstrations in support of the Mutual Assistance Pact in Lithuania in October 1939 turned into clashes with the police. However, Molotov telegraphed the plenipotentiary and the military attache: "I categorically forbid interfering in inter-party affairs in Lithuania, supporting any opposition currents, etc." (See Zubkova E.Yu. The Baltic States and the Kremlin. S. 60-61.) The thesis about the fear of world public opinion is very doubtful: Germany, on the one hand, France and Great Britain, on the other, entered World War II at that time, and hardly any of them wanted the USSR to join the other side of the front. The Soviet leadership believed that by introducing troops it had secured the northwestern border, and only strict observance of the terms of the agreements would ensure, in turn, compliance with these agreements by the Baltic neighbors. It was simply unprofitable to destabilize the situation by military takeover.

We also add that Lithuania, as a result of the mutual assistance pact, significantly expanded its territory, including Vilna and the Vilna region. But despite the impeccable behavior of the Soviet troops noted by the Baltic authorities, in the meantime they continued to cooperate with Germany and (during the Winter War) with Finland. In particular, the radio intelligence department of the Latvian army provided practical assistance to the Finnish side by forwarding intercepted radio messages from Soviet military units. (See Latvijas arhivi. 1999. Nr. 1. 121., 122. lpp.)

The allegations of mass repressions carried out in 1939-1941 also look untenable. in the Baltic States and began, according to a number of researchers, in the autumn of 1939, i.e. before the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR. The facts are that in June 1941, in accordance with the May decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On measures to clean up the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian SSR from the anti-Soviet, criminal and socially dangerous element," a deportation of approx. 30 thousand people from the three Baltic republics. It is often forgotten that only a part of them were deported as "anti-Soviet elements", while a part of them were banal criminals. It should also be taken into account that this action was carried out on the eve of the war.

However, the mythical order of the NKVD No. 001223 "On operational measures against anti-Soviet and socially hostile elements", wandering from one publication to another, is more often cited as evidence. It was first mentioned... in the book "Die Sowjetunion und die baltische Staaten" ("The Soviet Union and the Baltic States"), published in 1941 in Kaunas. It is easy to guess that it was not written by painstaking researchers, but by employees of the Goebbels department. Naturally, no one could find this order of the NKVD in the archives, but its mention can be found in the books “These Names Accuse” (1951) and “The Baltic States, 1940-1972” (1972) published in Stockholm, as well as in numerous modern literature. up to the study by E.Yu. Zubkova "The Baltic States and the Kremlin" (see this edition, p. 126).

By the way, in this study, the author, considering Moscow's policy in the annexed Baltic lands in one pre-war year (from the summer of 1940 to June 1941), writes only two paragraphs (!) about the repressions (!), one of which is a retelling of the myth mentioned above. This shows how significant the repressive policy of the new government was. Of course, it brought cardinal changes in political and economic life, the nationalization of industry and large property, the elimination of capitalist exchange, and so on. Part of the population, shocked by these changes, turned to resistance: this was expressed in protest actions, attacks on the police, and even sabotage (arson of warehouses, etc.). What did the new government need to do so that this territory, taking into account, if not overwhelming, but still existing social resistance, does not become an easy "prey" for the German occupiers who were planning to start a war soon? Of course, to fight against "anti-Soviet" sentiments. That is why, on the eve of the war, a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on the deportation of unreliable elements appeared.

4. Before the inclusion of the Baltic states into the USSR, the communists came to power in them, and the elections were rigged.

Examples.

"Illegal and unlawful change of government took place on June 20, 1940. Instead of the cabinet of K. Ulmanis, the Soviet puppet government headed by A. Kirchenstein came, which was officially called the government of the Latvian people.<...>
“In the elections held on July 14 and 15, 1940, only one list of candidates nominated by the “Block of the Working People” was allowed. All other alternative lists were rejected. It was officially reported that 97.5% of the votes were cast for the mentioned list. The election results were rigged and did not reflect the will of the people. In Moscow, the Soviet news agency TASS gave information about the mentioned election results already twelve hours before the beginning of the counting of votes in Latvia.
Feldmanis I. Occupation of Latvia - historical and international legal aspects. // Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia. Link .

"July 1940 In the elections in the Baltic States, the communists received: Lithuania - 99.2%, Latvia - 97.8%, Estonia - 92.8%.
Surov V. Icebreaker-2. Mn., 2004. Ch. 6.