AHC: Make contemporary Baltic people Pro-Soviet/Pro-Russian

Alex99232

It can generally be said that the Baltic people (Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians) are those from the former USSR who are the most negative towards it. Some ill-will towards contemporary Russia and Russians still prevails to this day.


Your challenge is to make these people Pro-Soviet and Pro-Russian. A logical divergence point could be failed 90s politics and an unsuccessful EU-integration after which they would feel that Capitalism and the West somehow let them down.
 
It can generally be said that the Baltic people (Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians) are those from the former USSR who are the most negative towards it. Some ill-will towards contemporary Russia and Russians still prevails to this day.


Your challenge is to make these people Pro-Soviet and Pro-Russian. A logical divergence point could be failed 90s politics and an unsuccessful EU-integration after which they would feel that Capitalism and the West somehow let them down.
No. You'd need a PoD where the USSR didn't take them over during WWII and keep them. Then try to ethnically cleanse them. My older brother's in-laws are Latvian. Believe you me, you'd need a WWII era PoD. Or earlier.
 
Perhaps you could have the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact fall through, leading to a nazi conquest of the still independent Baltic states and then their eventual liberation (if you could call it that) by the Soviets. There really isn't a reason for the Baltic states to be pro-Soviet other than that "the nazis are worse" but it could be a good place to start.
 
How about not implementing Russification policies that alienated the Baltic States? Estonia was pro-Russian before the Russification policies were enacted.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You need the Russian/Soviets to treat them well. If you want it as a part of Russia, you need a pre-WW1 POD. If you want as friendly independent country, first the USSR can't conquer by Stalin. Two, you need better borders. The borders are pro-Russian, so set where you have larger Baltic states help.
 
You need the Russian/Soviets to treat them well. If you want it as a part of Russia, you need a pre-WW1 POD. If you want as friendly independent country, first the USSR can't conquer by Stalin. Two, you need better borders. The borders are pro-Russian, so set where you have larger Baltic states help.

The borders are pro-Russian and that's a major issue? Maybe. But if they take Ivangorod and Pechory, all they're doing is adding more territory populated almost exclusively by Russians. I thought Narva was bad enough, you know?

I don't think those borders would be a big issue if there was no forcible annexations to start with. Any treaty signed to exchange them prior or during the revolution would be fine. Having peaceful relations is more important.

Of course Lithuania keeping its 1920s borders is just asking for trouble on a long-term scale, especially without Stalinist population exchanges.

But frankly, I don't see how good relations could be had no matter what Russia did, given how it was once an occupying power. The nationalist movements in all three immediately took xenophobic and right-wing forms and the idea that these are ethnic democracies has not died to this day.
 
Having them be outright pro USSR is almost impossible. A possible change could the successful institution of communist movements native to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Which, is almost impossible. Pro Russian is not impossible, but only if the Balts were almost completely relocated and dispersed by Soviet authorities.
 
But frankly, I don't see how good relations could be had no matter what Russia did, given how it was once an occupying power. The nationalist movements in all three immediately took xenophobic and right-wing forms and the idea that these are ethnic democracies has not died to this day.

There is, like always, the example to the north. Finland today is much less an "ethnic democracy" it was in the 20s or 30s, and we did have our share of xenophobic right-wing nationalism. Nearly a century of independence and getting along with different domestic ethnic groups tend to temper upstart nationalist movements somewhat.

If the Baltic states would also be nearing the hundredth anniversary of their continuous independence from Russia, I would be very surprised if the question of ethnicity and anti-Russian attitudes would be anywhere near the levels of importance they are today. It is quite possible that Russian-speakers there would have a position nearly comparable to Swedish-speakers in Finland. While there would be less of them than there are IOTL, they would most likely have a recognized constitutional position as a traditional minority (along with, say, Baltic Germans and Baltic Swedes) - unlike IOTL where Russian-speakers have the taint of "occupiers" (or children of such). I am quite sure, though, that for example Estonia would not have compulsory Russian for all like Finland has Swedish. But Russian-speakers would not have any problems with citizenship, either.
 
While there would be less of them than there are IOTL, they would most likely have a recognized constitutional position as a traditional minority (along with, say, Baltic Germans and Baltic Swedes) - unlike IOTL where Russian-speakers have the taint of "occupiers" (or children of such)....But Russian-speakers would not have any problems with citizenship, either.

Estonian constitution from 1925 granted cultural autonomy to any religious and ethnic minority larger than 3000 citizens. Baltic Germans, Estonian Jews, Russian Old Believers...heck, even their Roma population had it at the time when French Gypsies were forced to carry ID cards with them at all times.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The borders are pro-Russian and that's a major issue? Maybe. But if they take Ivangorod and Pechory, all they're doing is adding more territory populated almost exclusively by Russians. I thought Narva was bad enough, you know?

Yes, based on my readings from the 1918-1927 time period. The were universally consider pro-Russian borders by the Baltic people. And if one wants pro-Russian people, they can't feel cheated. And your exclusively Russian statement is just false at least as far as the areas near the border. In most of them, they would not have be majority anything. The question would be what is the Plurality. And a lot of these areas had low overall population. And we are not talking massive border movements, probably under 50 miles. The Balts were not calling for annexation of all or even most of what has become Belarus. The Russians simply chose some extra land over long-term good relations with the baltics. Taking land over good relations is hardly unique in history. IMO the Russians made a mistake. A lot of the land once you get away from the coast is low value northern timber. And the Balts would have been useful allies, since at this time the Russians are too weak to win decisively against the Poles.

Of course Lithuania keeping its 1920s borders is just asking for trouble on a long-term scale, especially without Stalinist population exchanges.

But frankly, I don't see how good relations could be had no matter what Russia did, given how it was once an occupying power. The nationalist movements in all three immediately took xenophobic and right-wing forms and the idea that these are ethnic democracies has not died to this day.

On the population exchanges, they can't really be avoided when one starts forming nation states where the majority plurality is often under 40%, and which race is majority varies from one town to the next. You have limited choices - Build nation states and use ethnic cleansing, have an empire like Austria or Russia where one ethnic group dominates, or find the Swiss model with a lot of autonomy. Unfortunately, the Swiss model is not really viable in Russia or A-H after WW2 due to the attitudes of the people and leaders.

While some/many may disagree, in the fallout of WW1, you will get ethnic cleansing by the winners and often the losers. When looking at it from my TL and looking at the writings of the day, there is basically no one calling for tolerance. Not the Poles, Germans, Russians, Balts, etc. Basically the only group not calling for ethnic states with the best rights going to the majority ethnic groups is the Jews, and the Jews probably understood that a Jewish state was not in the cards.
 
And your exclusively Russian statement is just false at least as far as the areas near the border. In most of them, they would not have be majority anything. The question would be what is the Plurality. And a lot of these areas had low overall population.

I'm not sure about other areas, but Petseri had about 59.000 people of which 38.000 were Russian speakers. (I have understood though that later on quite many of them were happy that they were on the west side of border.)

The Russians simply chose some extra land over long-term good relations with the baltics.

What other areas they (Balts) wanted?
 
Top