Before National Communism: Joining the Latvian Komsomol under Stalin

Abstract

In 1959, Indriks Pinksis, Eduards Berklavs and Vilis Krūmiņš were among the prominent targets of Moscow's National Communist purge of supposed ‘bourgeois nationalists' operating within the leadership of the Latvian Communist Party. A decade earlier all three had been active leaders of the Latvian Komsomol. This article explores the Stalin years of the Latvian Komsomol, and argues that the Komsomol was only able to win an acceptable number of recruits when it abandoned attempts to recruit on the basis of wartime activity or class allegiance and focused on recruiting ethnic Latvians. However, this raised the same issues later faced by the National Communists: as membership was extended to those with a ‘doubtful’ background, and the press played down ‘proletarian internationalism’, Moscow took fright. In early 1953 the Latvian Komsomol experienced a purge similar in tone to that which would take place within the Latvian Communist Party more broadly in 1959.

Notes

¹This documentary collection made by scholars at the East Central Europe Program at Columbia University represents a good example of the temporary enthusiasm for the notion of National Communism.

²Latvian State Archives (Latvijas Valsts arhīvs), fonds 201, apraksts 1, lieta 1039, lapa 157—hereafter f. 201, apr. 1, l. 1039, lp. 157.

³For the reference to the 20th Party Congress, see Šneidere (2001, pp. 211–12).

⁴For the hydro-electric affair, see Muižnieks (1987, p. 63) and Galbreath and Auers (2009, p. 336).

⁵The quoted passage is from Smith and Ilic (2011, p. 88); see also Prigge (2004, p. 215).

⁶It should be noted that Talcott Fisher is very aware of the hazy nature of his statistics, and the problems with his calculations (see Talcott Fisher 1959, p. 374) which seem to underestimate the total membership.

⁷The precise percentage of young people in the Komsomol in 1952 is not easy to say, since regular reports were not published. In June 1950, in Grīva, 47% of local young people were in the Komsomol; in May 1951 the figure for Ludza was 44% (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 214 and f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 194). These, however, were always quite good areas of recruitment for the Komsomol. If membership of the pioneers is considered, in May 1949 this had stood at 49% of those eligible, reaching 65% by December 1952 (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 563, lp. 37; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 200). By analogy, if Komsomol membership was 25% in early 1949, as will be suggested below, it is likely to have risen to approximately 40% by 1952.

⁸Interview 884, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University. In all the interviews quoted from this source, only the first name is given to ensure anonymity. The Oral History Centre at Daugavpils University was set up in 2003 and as it approached a decade of activity had collected almost 1,000 interviews with those born in the 1920s and 1930s living in Daugavpils and the surrounding Latgale region of Eastern Latvia. All interviews are transcribed, or in the process of transcription, and any scholar is welcome to use the collection. During the three years (2008–2011) when the author held a grant from the Leverhulme Trust, nearly 300 interviews were collected with the co-operation of the staff of the Oral History Centre. Only a fraction of this material has been used in writing this article. The Oral History Centre can be contacted at: http://du.lv/lv/fakultates/hf/strukturvienibas/centri/mvc, accessed 25 April 2012.

⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 9, lp. 115–16.

¹⁰Interview 715, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

¹¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 10, lp. 159.

¹²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 213, lp. 6.

¹³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 11, lp. 52, 101.

¹⁴Interview 795, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

¹⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 255, lp. 70–71, 81, 96, 112; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 256, lp. 47.

¹⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 256, lp. 100. This report suggested that 19.5% of young workers were in the Komsomol. In Latvia University, 14.8% of students were in the Komsomol (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 256, lp. 29); 21% of technical college students were members (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 259, lp. 34); while a separate Central Committee report put overall membership at 22% (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 257, lp. 173, 180).

¹⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 257, lp. 31–37.

¹⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 258, lp. 19.

¹⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 259, lp. 13.

²⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 300, lp. 134.

²¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 322, lp. 41, 147; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 333, lp. 78.

²²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 334, lp. 57, 216; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 335, lp. 60; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 457, lp. 137.

²³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 456, lp. 100.

²⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 335, lp. 34, 43.

²⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 335, lp. 122–23.

²⁶The brief career summaries of those reapplying for Komsomol membership were regularly discussed by the Central Committee and appear in the minutes of many meetings for 1945 and 1946.

²⁷Interview 715, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

²⁸Interview 794, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

²⁹Interview 623, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University. Vladimir's situation was complex. One elder brother who survived forced labour in Germany was eventually pressed into a German Army labour battalion in which he was still serving when the war ended. As a result, he was sentenced to 10 years in a Soviet prison camp.

³⁰Interview 795, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

³¹Interview 634, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

³²Interview 773, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

³³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 7, lp. 112, 114–15, 137.

³⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 449, lp. 3.

³⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 257, lp. 173–80; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 460, lp. 62–63.

³⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 460, lp. 123, 128, 130.

³⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 300, lp. 227.

³⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 562, lp. 35–36.

³⁹Interview 831, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁴⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 459, lp. 153–54; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 460, lp. 78.

⁴¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 460, lp. 62.

⁴²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 461, lp. 12, 39.

⁴³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 461, lp. 198; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 561, lp. 126; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 562, lp. 28, 109.

⁴⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 461, lp. 98; f. 201, apr. 1, l, 561, lp. 70–72; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 562, lp. 28.

⁴⁵In an undated note the Central Committee Cadre Department sent the Latvian Deputy Ministry of State Security a list of those it had expelled from the Komsomol in connection with ‘the special resettlement’, but asking for information about their current whereabouts since on their detention not all Komsomol membership cards had been confiscated and these needed to be retrieved. There were 138 names on that list, with annotations against the names commenting on whether or not they were still in possession of their membership cards. However, an ‘addendum’ contained a list of 152 names, but without the information concerning membership cards. The relevant archive file also contains a second list, dated 18 May 1949, which lists 166 names and has the hand-written instruction: ‘Comrade Krūmiņš, on Comrade Titov's instructions [the Latvian Minister of Internal Affairs], expel all those included on this list’. The list of 166 names, unlike that of 138, includes names from Krāslava, a town which was omitted from the first count; the longer list also includes two extra names from Gulbene as well as other additions. A final list records 62 names: although entitled ‘List of those expelled from membership of the All Union Komsomol for Latvia in connection with special settlement’, this appears to be the list of those now in Siberia whose membership cards still needed to be confiscated, for their place of exile is noted. In March 1950 the Central Committee was still writing to Komsomol branches in such places as Tomsk and Amur asking for help in the confiscation and return of membership cards (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 687, lp. 2–22).

⁴⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 686, lp. 117.

⁴⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 686, lp. 31.

⁴⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 564, lp. 38. Indeed, an interview with Krāslava resident Stefānija revealed that her family was one of those to be tipped off that they were on the list for deportation, although it is not clear whether Chernook was the informant (Interview 468, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University).

⁴⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 563, lp. 74–76. This incident is also referred to in a report sent by Krūmiņš to the Latvian Communist Party Central Committee in June 1949. This shorter party document is reproduced in Plakans (2007, p. 205) and Šneidere (2001, p. 132).

⁵⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 557, lp. 111.

⁵¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 563, lp. 88.

⁵²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 563, lp. 209.

⁵³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 122.

⁵⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 563, lp. 14.

⁵⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 669, lp. 104–5.

⁵⁶Interview 644, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁵⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 664, lp. 106.

⁵⁸Interview 239, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁵⁹Interview 82, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁶⁰Interview 133, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁶¹Interview 132, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁶²Interview 615, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁶³Interview 616, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁶⁴Interview 728, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

⁶⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 18.

⁶⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 664, lp. 116.

⁶⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 565, lp. 46–47.

⁶⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 664, lp. 115.

⁶⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 114.

⁷⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 129.

⁷¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 672, lp. 61.

⁷²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 673, lp. 59.

⁷³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 769, lp. 99, 111.

⁷⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 669, lp. 157; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 68, 158.

⁷⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 238; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 671, lp. 126.

⁷⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 671, lp. 169; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 672, lp. 25, 164; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 673, lp. 3, 134; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 769, lp. 88.

⁷⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 773, lp. 49; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 226; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 840, lp. 36.

⁷⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 3–5.

⁷⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 664, lp. 31.

⁸⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 671, lp. 169.

⁸¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 230.

⁸²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 664, lp. 48b–49.

⁸³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 664, lp. 131–35.

⁸⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 564, lp. 31; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 669, lp. 104–5.

⁸⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 769, lp. 53–55.

⁸⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 830, lp. 91.

⁸⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 561, lp. 67.

⁸⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 9, lp. 160; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 459, lp. 2.

⁸⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 332, lp. 12.

⁹⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 557, lp. 131.

⁹¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 557, lp. 103, 107.

⁹²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 557, lp. 86.

⁹³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 557, lp. 109.

⁹⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 42.

⁹⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 29.

⁹⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 52.

⁹⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 70.

⁹⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 669, lp. 70, 104.

⁹⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 672, lp. 61.

¹⁰⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 193.

¹⁰¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 27.

¹⁰²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 148.

¹⁰³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 830, lp. 91, 128.

¹⁰⁴Interview 647, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

¹⁰⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 79, lp. 211.

¹⁰⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 267.

¹⁰⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 840, lp. 41.

¹⁰⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 23, 169.

¹⁰⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 266.

¹¹⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 773, lp. 48; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 23. However, notionally, the crime was concealment, not what had been done. Thus on 26 July 1950 the Central Committee heard the case of Ivan Ivanovich Kairov who was expelled on 14 May 1950 for ‘having helped the Germans’ when he worked as a conductor at Rēzekne railway station; since he had never hidden this when he joined the Komsomol, or during his subsequent military service, his expulsion was overturned (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 671.120).

¹¹¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 769, lp. 133.

¹¹²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 722, lp. 28.

¹¹³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 733, lp. 150.

¹¹⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 830, lp. 246.

¹¹⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 23.

¹¹⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 830, lp. 298.

¹¹⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 267. It should be noted that the term ‘Schutzmann’ in these documents was used as a vague term of invective, rather than an accurate description of the unit in which the person concerned served.

¹¹⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 772, lp. 253.

¹¹⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 772, lp. 223. As noted above, officially at least the issue was always concealment. On 28 May 1952 the Central Committee upheld the appeal of Mariya Ernestovna Budlevskaya whose father had been an aizsargs who owned ‘more than 100 hectares’ and who was sentenced to 25 years in 1944; whose brothers had both served in the ‘German Army’; and whose mother had been exiled in 1941. Since none of this had ever been hidden her appeal was successful (f. 201, apr. 1, l. 840, lp. 148).

¹²⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 459, lp. 221; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 485, lp. 35; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 561, lp. 15.

¹²¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 22; f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 27.

¹²²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 840, lp. 51.

¹²³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 733, lp. 105.

¹²⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 769, lp. 16.

¹²⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 14.

¹²⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 113.

¹²⁷Interview 794, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

¹²⁸Interview 715, Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University.

¹²⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 670, lp. 214.

¹³⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 770, lp. 17, 24–25.

¹³¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 672, lp. 37.

¹³²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 673, lp. 74.

¹³³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 564, lp. 143–45.

¹³⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 565, lp. 141, 153.

¹³⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 559, lp. 128.

¹³⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 672, lp. 37.

¹³⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 771, lp. 85.

¹³⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 148.

¹³⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 194.

¹⁴⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 830, lp. 189.

¹⁴¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 830, lp. 190.

¹⁴²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 775, lp. 231.

¹⁴³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 841, lp. 4–5, 44.

¹⁴⁴f. 201, apr. 1, l. 840, lp. 222.

¹⁴⁵f. 201, apr. 1, l. 841, lp. 287.

¹⁴⁶f. 201, apr. 1, l. 882, lp. 9.

¹⁴⁷f. 201, apr. 1, l. 882, lp. 151.

¹⁴⁸f. 201, apr. 1, l. 882, lp. 205.

¹⁴⁹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 882, lp. 320.

¹⁵⁰f. 201, apr. 1, l. 882, lp. 42.

¹⁵¹f. 201, apr. 1, l. 883, lp. 132–33.

¹⁵²f. 201, apr. 1, l. 884, lp. 131, 194.

¹⁵³f. 201, apr. 1, l. 1153a, lp. 368.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Geoffrey Swain

Work on this article was supported by a grant from the Leverhulme Trust, which I acknowledge with thanks.