| Abstract [eng] |
The coups were different in their technique as well. The government was overthrown only in Lithuania, while in Latvia and Estonia those in power consolidated their position even more, i.e. being in possession of a part of the democratic power, seized it all and turned it into authoritarian. However, the democratic systems were destroyed in all the Baltic States, thus, the lessons learnt should stay in our heritage and cultural memory. Three aspects of the approach to the coup are being developed in recent Latvian historiography. Aivars Stranga (earlier partly Edgars Dunsdorf) and some other researchers mainly from the University of Latvia deny the validity of the objective prerequisites of the upheaval. Meanwhile, Karlis Ulmanis' strive for the authoritarian power and political short-sightedness of the social democrat leaders is being emphasized. An-tonij Zunda would like to find more thorough analysis and less criticism in the evaluation of the coup. The scientists from the institute of History of Latvia tend to focus their attention on the analysis of the prerequisites of the coup even admitting that the coup was inevitable. Neither in Estonian nor in Lithuanian historiography the above trends cannot be observed; critical analysis of the coup is prevailing in both. |
