This week,Latvijas Radio featured a discussion with historian Kārlis Sils examining the origins and early decades of the Latvian state,formed 107 years ago. sils’s research focuses on a critical, frequently enough under-examined period of Latvian history – the years of independence between the world Wars and the subsequent authoritarian rule of Kārlis Ulmanis – offering fresh perspectives on the nation’s path. The broadcast explored the complex factors that enabled Latvia’s initial statehood and the enduring question of whether national existence should ever be taken for granted.
A recent broadcast featured a discussion with historian Kārlis Sils examining the formation of the Latvian state 107 years ago, exploring parallels in the history of parliamentarianism and periods of historical prosperity.
Each generation reinterprets history through a new lens, shaped by evolving sources and shifting political discourse. Kārlis Sils represents a new wave of historians, having completed his doctoral dissertation in Florence and focusing his research on the period of Kārlis Ulmanis’s rule in Latvia, the loss of democracy, and the dissolution of parliament.
Latvia was founded 107 years ago, representing 56 years of independence before Soviet occupation, and a further 51 years of continued existence in exile – sustained as a dream and a collective memory. The broadcast focused on those initial 56 years, examining the circumstances that led citizens to organize and build a nation.
Is the continued existence of a nation-state, considering its lifespan and historical context, something to be taken for granted?
Kārlis Sils: “I don’t think it’s something to be taken for granted, and certainly not a matter of chance. Looking at the origins of Latvia 107 years ago, the preconditions for people in Latvian territory to successfully self-organize into an independent state were already developing two or three generations prior. This wasn’t limited to elites; even Baltic German landowners had a capacity for self-organization for centuries. From the 1860s onward, a strong Latvian elite gradually emerged, capable of effectively organizing the country.”
“The people who created Latvia were, like all Europeans, children of the age of empires. Whether they were citizens of France, Great Britain, the Russian Empire, or Austria-Hungary – even citizens of smaller nations – everyone lived in an era of empires that ended with World War I and subsequent revolutions. Perhaps what’s difficult to understand today is that even in 1915 and 1916, there wasn’t an immediate push to establish an independent Latvian state, despite the existing preconditions. Initially, the hope was to maintain some larger economic framework within which a more successful economy could develop, while securing as much national autonomy for Latvia as possible. Of course, the revolutions and the rapid unfolding of events after the February Revolution, the Bolshevik coup, and the German Revolution led this confident elite to decide to establish the Latvian state. They then managed to govern the country relatively successfully for the next 20 years after the war. These results and achievements were significant enough to address skepticism from older established nations like France, Great Britain, Italy, or the United States, questioning whether these new, post-imperial states could survive. Latvia proved it could.”
The success of Latvia’s restoration of independence may have been aided by the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The manner of its dissolution proved particularly advantageous for Latvia. Furthermore, despite a diminished capacity for self-organization during the Soviet era and initial missteps by the state elite, a significant advantage was the existence of the European Union, offering the opportunity to achieve what Latvian elites had desired in 1918-1919: integration into a larger economic unit while preserving substantial national sovereignty. This allowed Latvia to benefit from the best of both worlds.
What motivated your research, particularly given the idea that each new generation reinterprets history? Why did you focus on this specific period in Latvian history?
Kārlis Sils: “Unfortunately, when looking at what has been written about the interwar period so far, there are significant gaps in knowledge and conceptualization. Regarding Ulmanis’s authoritarian rule specifically, two areas are relatively well-researched: the coup itself and its causes, and the occupation and the process surrounding it. There has been considerable debate in both areas, often revolving around choosing one position or another. However, I don’t believe it’s possible to say anything fundamentally new about these topics.”
“In contrast, the period between 1934 and 1939 presents a much larger conceptual gap in knowledge and, in my opinion, many ambiguities and unexplored questions. That’s the first thing. Secondly, I chose 1938 as the end point of my research because, in my view, from the second half of 1938 onward, events in Latvia became increasingly intertwined with the international environment. The way the authoritarian government organizes the country, the priorities of the authoritarian government, and what Ulmanis wants to achieve are increasingly linked to maintaining security and navigating the international order. Consequently, the way the authoritarian government and the state construct their image is no longer solely dependent on initial intentions.”
“This leads us to the question of what is, in my opinion, a very unfortunate theoretical concept called ‘nationalization,’ which entered academic circles in the 1990s. In economic terms, nationalization means an attempt by the state or groups to prioritize national or ethnic identity among the population, in contrast to the pre-19th century emphasis on class and religious identity. That’s one side of nationalization. The other side involves creating a degree of homogenization within this chosen nationalized group, or from the state’s perspective, fostering a common nationalistic feeling across different groups. That is the essence of the concept of nationalization.”
—
Kārlis Sils holds a doctorate in history, having defended his dissertation, “Sowing the Seed to Reap a Harvest of Unity: Nationalization, Fascism, and the Legacy of Imperialism in Authoritarian Latvia,” at the European University Institute in Florence. He previously hosted the radio program “Vēstures ķīlis” on radio “Naba,” worked on the “Latvijas atklājējs” projects for “Delfi” and “National Geography,” and regularly contributes articles to LSM.lv and the magazine “Rīgas Laiks.” He lectures to students, history enthusiasts, and the general public. His research interests focus on the history of Latvia and Riga between 1860 and 1940, and the role of historical memory in contemporary society.
Latvijas Radio invites listeners to share their opinions on the broadcast and supports discussions among its audience, while reserving the right to delete comments that violate the boundaries of respectful and ethical conduct.
