https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/issue/feed Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal 2019-07-17T14:25:02+03:00 Pärtel Piirimäe partel.piirimae@ut.ee Open Journal Systems <p>Ajalooline Ajakiri on eelretsenseeritav akadeemiline ajakiri, mis ilmub Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo ja arheoloogia instituudi juures.<br> “Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal” is peer-reviewed academic journal of the Institute of History and Archaeology, University of Tartu.</p> https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2018.2-3.01 Saateks 2019-07-17T14:24:55+03:00 Tõnu Tannberg tonu.tannberg@ra.ee 2019-05-27T21:15:54+03:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2018.2-3.02 Eesti ülevõtmine Saksa okupatsioonivõimudelt novembris 1918 2019-07-17T14:25:02+03:00 Ago Pajur ago.pajur@ut.ee <p><em>Abstract: The takeover of Estonia from the German occupying authorities in November of 1918</em></p> <p>Although the independent Republic of Estonia was declared on 24 February&nbsp;1918, the German occupation that followed prevented the actual establishment&nbsp;of statehood. The chance for this did not come until November&nbsp;of that same year when Germany’s defeats on the Western Front and the November Revolution that broke out as the expression of worsening discontent&nbsp;brought an end to the First World War and German domination&nbsp;in Eastern Europe.</p> <p>The policy of the occupying authorities in Estonia was aimed at neutralising&nbsp;society, and in this way the Germans succeeded in preventing&nbsp;active resistance. Nevertheless, news of Germany’s military setbacks also&nbsp;reached Estonia and aroused some measure of hope for a better future. The&nbsp;cautious rebirth of political activity was noticeable in October of 1918. The&nbsp;way subsequent events took shape was nevertheless a surprise for both the&nbsp;German authorities and Estonian politicians.</p> <p>The breakthrough started with spontaneous riots that broke out in Tallinn&nbsp;on 7 November arising from food shortages. These rapidly snowballed&nbsp;into a city-wide strike. Political demands emerged alongside demands for&nbsp;improving the supply of food: demands for the withdrawal of German&nbsp;troops from Estonia and for transferring power to the institutions of local&nbsp;government that had been democratically elected in 1917. News of the&nbsp;November Revolution in Germany reached Tallinn at the same time, triggering&nbsp;unrest in the city garrison. Lieutenant General Adolf von Seckendorff, commander of the 68th Army Corps and the highest ranking local&nbsp;administrator, was forced to seek support from Estonian politicians. As&nbsp;a result of these events, the Estonian Provisional Government convened&nbsp;on 11 November and this date can be considered the starting point of the&nbsp;building of the independent Estonian state.</p> <p>The Provisional Government first had to take the reins of power into its&nbsp;own hands. This was accomplished quickly and smoothly in Tallinn and&nbsp;Northern Estonia, which were in the administrative area of the 68th Army&nbsp;Corps. General Seckendorff recognised the Estonian Provisional Government&nbsp;on 13 November. At the same time, Estonians took over the Provincial&nbsp;Government of Estonia, the Food Office, the judicial and prison systems,&nbsp;post offices, ports, etc. The Provisional Government appointed its proxies&nbsp;(deputies) in the counties and ordered the reconvening of the local county,&nbsp;municipal and rural municipal governments. The municipal police force&nbsp;(militia) that had been formed in 1917 was restored, to which the newly&nbsp;formed voluntary armed organisation known as the Kaitseliit [Defence&nbsp;League] was added. The representative popular assembly – the Maanõukogu&nbsp;– reconvened after an interval of a year on 20 November, and as fate&nbsp;would have it, Prime Minister Konstantin Päts arrived in Tallinn on the&nbsp;same day after being released from a camp for interned persons and took&nbsp;up his position at the head of the government.</p> <p>Yet in Southern Estonia in the territory occupied by the 60th Army&nbsp;Corps, the Germans refused to relinquish power, referring to the fact that&nbsp;they had not received orders to this effect. A particularly serious conflict&nbsp;appeared to be brewing in Tartu, where Estonians were preparing a large&nbsp;demonstration for pushing through their demands. The Provisional Government&nbsp;sent representatives to Riga, where August Winnig, Germany’s&nbsp;Minister Plenipotentiary to the Baltic Provinces, resided, to resolve the&nbsp;situation that had developed. According to the agreements concluded with&nbsp;him, the Germans committed themselves to relinquishing power to Estonians&nbsp;throughout Estonian territory starting on 21 November. Even though&nbsp;further attempts to delay this were made in some places, from that point&nbsp;on, power in Southern Estonia as well was transferred into the hands of&nbsp;the Provisional Government’s deputies and the local governments. This&nbsp;process proceeded with probably the greatest difficulty on the Western&nbsp;Estonian islands, where a drought of information prevailed since they were&nbsp;cut off from the mainland. Only the future Petseri County (Setomaa) was&nbsp;not taken over and shortly thereaft er was subjected to the control of the&nbsp;armed forces of Soviet Russia.</p> 2019-05-27T00:00:00+03:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2018.2-3.03 Eesti ühiskonna poliitilised hoiakud murranguaastatel 1932–1934 2019-07-17T14:25:01+03:00 Mark Gortfelder mark.gortfelder@tlu.ee Jaak Valge jaak.valge@ut.ee <p class="p1"><em>Abstract: Political attitudes in Estonian society in the pivotal years 1932–1934</em></p> <p class="p1">This article deals with the Constitutional crisis of the Estonian Republic and analyses the results of the three referendums (August of 1932, June of 1933, and October of 1933) that took place on the three different amendment proposals to the 1920 constitution. Thus, unlike previous research that has mostly looked at the topic of the political crisis from the viewpoint of the political elite and the leaders of the League of Veterans movement, we map the moods and opinions of the electorate during this volatile time. To be more precise, we try to find out the parties whose supporters voted for amending the constitution and the parties whose supporters did not. We link this with the official stances of the said parties and see whether or not their supporters aligned their votes with their representatives. Additionally, on the basis of the last referendum, where people voted on the proposal of the League of Veterans, we speculate on what percentage of votes the movement could have obtained in the parliamentary elections scheduled for 1934.</p> <p class="p1">mostly looked at the topic of the political crisis from the viewpoint of the political elite and the leaders of the League of Veterans movement, we map the moods and opinions of the electorate during this volatile time. To be more precise, we try to find out the parties whose supporters voted for amending the constitution and the parties whose supporters did not. We link this with the official stances of the said parties and see whether or not their supporters aligned their votes with their representatives. Additionally, on the basis of the last referendum, where people voted on the proposal of the League of Veterans, we speculate on what percentage of votes the movement could have obtained in the parliamentary elections scheduled for 1934.</p> <p class="p1">We use not only the results from the 1932 parliamentary elections, but also those from 1929. This is due to the fact that the party system changed before the 1932 elections. The two agrarian parties formed a unified party (the Union of Settlers and Smallholders). Konstantin Päts’ Farmers’ Assemblies (<em>Põllumeeste Kogud</em>) that represented the wealthier established farmers was very much in favour of constitutional amendments. The Settlers’ Party (Asunikud), which represented small-holders, was neutral to this. A unified party was also established in the political centre (the National Centre Party). However, the parties had different stances here as well. Jaan Tõnissons’ centre-right People’s Party (<em>Rahvaerakond</em>) was very supportive</p> <p class="p1">of constitutional change, while the centre-left Labour Party (<em>Tööerakond</em>) was not. The leadership of both of these consolidated parties went to fractions that supported the revision of the constitution.</p> <p class="p1">In August of 1932, a proposal put forward by the Estonian Parliament (<em>Riigikogu</em>) was surprisingly rejected – only 49.2% of the electorate supported it. The analysis shows that greater support for the Union of Settlers and Smallholders in 1932 and for the Farmers’ Assemblies in 1929 predicts greater support for the amendment proposal. For the Settlers’ Party, the result is weaker, but still positive. The relationship is inverse for the Socialists and Communists. All of this is to be expected since the unified agrarian party was for the motion and the Marxist parties were against it. In the political centre, however, we can see unexpected results. The National Centre Party does not have a statistically significant effect on the results of the referendum. This is also true for the People’s Party. For the Labour Party, we see a negative relationship, which indicates that their supporters rejected the stance of the unified party and voted against the constitutional amendment. For many supporters of the People’s Party, the amendments were probably not radical enough for the Socialists and Communists. All of this is to be expected since the unified agrarian party was for the motion and the Marxist parties were against it. In the political centre, however, we can see unexpected results. The National Centre Party does not have a statistically significant effect on the results of the referendum. This is also true for the People’s Party. For the Labour Party, we see a negative relationship, which indicates that their supporters rejected the stance of the unified party and voted against the constitutional amendment. For many supporters of the People’s Party, the amendments were probably not radical enough.</p> <p class="p1">In June of 1933, the <em>Riigikogu</em>’s second proposal was overwhelmingly rejected – only 32.7% of the electorate supported it. It is important to note that this motion was weaker in its rearrangements than the previous one. For the agrarian parties, we can still see a positive relationship – a higher percentage of support for them also meant greater support for the amendment. This, however, is much weaker than previously, reflecting the view of their electorate that the proposed changes were not radical enough. The support of the Social Democrats still has a negative effect on the results, while support for the Communists has a statistically insignificant effect. Again, at the political centre we see the most noteworthy results. Greater support for the People’s Party predicted less support for the second amendment proposal, while greater support for the Labour Party predicted greater support for the amendment. This means that by this referendum, the People’s Party had very little influence on their electorate, who rejected the small-scale reforms convincingly. This time it was the supporters of the Labour Party that followed the line of Jaan Tõnisson at the helm of the unified centre party.</p> <p class="p1">In October of 1933, the proposal put forward by the League of Veterans received overwhelming support – 72.7% of the electorate voted for substantial changes to the constitution. It appears from the results that the supporters</p> <p class="p1">of agrarian parties were still in favour of constitutional change, while the supporters of the Marxist parties were still opposed. The supporters of the People’s Party again rejected the opinions of Jaan Tõnisson and voted <em>en masse&nbsp;</em>in favour of the proposal, as, to a lesser extent, also did the electorate of the Labour Party.</p> <p class="p1">The results of the October 1933 referendum was a great success for the League of Veterans movement. It has oft en been claimed that this was a wholesale defeat for the established parties. This, however, is a half-truth. Agrarian parties largely kept most of their electorate, as to a significant extent did the Socialists and the Communists. In addition, the ethnic minorities still voted against the proposal of the League of Veterans. It was the centrists and especially the supporters of the People’s Party that flocked to the League of Veterans. So even under optimistic assumptions, we believe that the Freedom Fighters might have gotten about 35% of the vote in the parliamentary elections, which is far less than an absolute majority.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> 2019-05-27T00:00:00+03:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2018.2-3.04 Eesti 1930. aastate ajaloo kirjutamisest paguluses 2019-07-17T14:24:59+03:00 Peeter Kenkmann peeterkenkmann@gmail.com <p><em>Abstract: On the writing in exile of the history of the Republic of Estonia in the 1930s</em></p> <p>The 1930s were pivotal in Estonia. The faith that Estonians placed in parliamentary democracy diminished under the influence of the worldwide economic crisis (also known as the Great Depression). In a referendum held in October of 1933, draft legislation for amending the constitution won strong popular support. This amendment had been introduced by the right-wing radical League of Veterans movement, which had recently become politically active. It would have required a head of state with extensive power to be elected in April of 1934. This election was not held because Konstantin Päts, the Premier at that time, executed a coup on 12 March 1934 with the assistance of the country’s law enforcement agencies. Päts justified his actions by referring to an alleged threat posed by the League of Veterans. He suspended most civic rights and ruled the country in an authoritarian manner until the start of the Soviet occupation in 1940.</p> <p>This article analyses the description of these events in the works written by authors of Estonian origin that were published in exile in the years of Soviet occupation (until 1991). Viewpoints concerning five problems are of interest here: how the situation in Estonia at the start of the 1930s was described, what was the assessment of the actions of the League of Veterans, how what took place on 12 March 1934 was explained, how the subsequent years of the undemocratic regime were described, and whether a course was set aimed at restoring democracy again in Estonia at the end of the 1930s.</p> <p>After the restoration of Estonia’s independence, researchers of Estonian history have mentioned only a few works written in exile on the 1930s, mostly by professional historians. Actually, more written studies on Estonia in the 1930s, which were at different academic levels, were published in exile. In addition to historians, the authors of these works were also journalists, politicians and others. Many of them had been in the service of the Päts government in the past and thus were partial. The aim of the article is to develop a narrative of Estonia in the 1930s that takes into consideration the viewpoints of as many treatments published in exile as possible, and to compare this narrative to the current state of research on this theme.</p> <p>Researchers of Estonian history faced several challenges in exile. Since the most important task of the expatriate community was considered to be the fight for the restoration of Estonia’s independence, the interests of this objective also had to be taken into consideration in writing history. Many believed that this meant keeping quiet about the undemocratic government of the latter half of the 1930s. Public opinion in exile raised independent Estonia’s most important statesmen, who were repressed by the Soviet regime, to the status of martyrs, thus making it more difficult to criticise their actions. Those who disagreed with these views, including professional historians of the younger generation who mostly received their education in the West, were accused in the expatriate press of betraying the interests of the fight for freedom, of not being rigorous in their academic research, and of unfamiliarity with conditions in the Estonian homeland. This last argument was important since most written historical sources were in Soviet Estonia and were thus inaccessible to researchers living in exile.</p> <p>Our analysis shows that in the judgement of almost all of the works consulted, Estonia’s constitution of 1920 was too parliament-oriented and an expectation for amending the constitution emerged in society at the start of the 1930s. Since the political parties did not reach a consensus regarding this issue, the League of Veterans gained a great deal of popularity with its draft legislation for the constitutional amendment. The attitude of the overwhelming majority of authors towards the League of Veterans was negative, accusing them of copying the examples of foreign right-wing parties and of employing excessively aggressive propaganda methods. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of authors, the League of Veterans had only themselves to blame for the banning of their movement – they either planned to overthrow the government in the spring of 1934 or were simply a threat to public order. The authors related reservedly to Konstantin Päts, who governed the country in an authoritarian manner after the coup of 12 March 1934. Although many of the steps that Päts took until 1940 were questionable in legal terms, and some overtly violated the constitution, several studies pointed to expediency as justification for his actions. The opinions of the authors diverged in their assessments of whether or not we can speak of the beginning of the restoration of democracy after the drafting of the new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections in 1938. Many older works argue that this was exactly the case, adding that the Soviet occupation interrupted this process. Later works from the 1970s and 1980s tend not to agree with this assessment.</p> <p>In summary, two approaches to the history of Estonia in the 1930s took shape in exile. First, an approach that favoured Konstantin Päts and the authoritarian regime that was in effect in 1934–40. The viewpoints of this approach prevailed in most popular academic works aimed at a broad readership, and in earlier general treatments of Estonian history, but also in the expatriate media. Mostly starting from the 1970s, younger professional researchers competed with this so-called mainstream. They were more critical of the authoritarian government of the country in the latter half of the 1930s. Yet they published the results of their research mostly in foreign languages and in academic publications, and their effect on the majority of the expatriate community was modest.</p> <p>Most of the judgements provided by the so-called mainstream authors in exile, especially during the first decades of exile, have been refuted after the restoration of Estonia’s independence. This applies particularly to judgements regarding the League of Veterans, who were portrayed in exile as the main culprits of the political crisis that broke out at the start of the 1930s and in the abandonment of democracy. Expatriate authors too easily accused the League of Veterans of National Socialism or fascism because according to current assessments, the League did not correspond to those attributes. Not one researcher has hitherto been able to find evidence of plans on the part of the League of Veterans to overthrow the government, to which Päts appealed when he himself seized power in 1934. The opinion that steps started being taken in 1938 for restoring democracy in Estonia, which the Soviet occupation cut short, is also not borne out. There is similarly no basis for the argument expounded at that time by ideologists of expatriate politics that the way the history of the Republic of Estonia was depicted in exile could affect the outcome of the struggle that was being waged to restore Estonia’s independence.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> 2019-05-27T00:00:00+03:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2018.2-3.05 „Üks võimsamaid relvi võitluses kodanlise natsionalismi vastu on kindlasti eesti ajalugu…“. Eesti vabariigi perioodi uurimisest Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia ajaloo instituudis aastatel 1946–1950 2019-07-17T14:24:58+03:00 Tõnu Tannberg tonu.tannberg@ra.ee <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>Abstract: On the study of the period of the Republic of Estonia at the Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History in 1946–1950</em></p> <p>A decision adopted on 30 October 1944 in Moscow by the Orgburo of the Central Committee of the Communist (Bolshevist) Party of the Soviet Union (hereinafter C(B)PSU CC) launched an extensive process of sovietisation in the Estonian SSR. The ‘great struggle’ against so-called bourgeois nationalism began, and one of its thrusts was aimed at vilifying the pre-war Republic of Estonia and rooting it out of society’s consciousness. History started playing an important role in this ‘struggle’. This was already stressed at the Estonian Communist (Bolshevist) Party (hereinafter EC(B)P) CC plenary meeting held in early December of 1944, where Moscow’s decision was discussed along with the first measures for launching the sovietisation of society. At the meeting, a programmatic speech was given by Hans Kruus, the founder of historical science focusing on the Estonian nation, who began to serve the Soviet regime in the ‘June coup’ of 1940. In 1944, Kruus was a close associate of Nikolai Karotamm, the leader of the Estonian SSR at that time, and he led the sovietisation of historical science, and more broadly of the whole system of scientific and academic research in Estonia.</p> <p>Hans Kruus formulated the aims and tasks of historical science in Soviet society and also considered it necessary to study the period of independent statehood. He understood perfectly that the assessment from Marxist positions of the legacy of the era of independence was essential for educating the ‘new Soviet man’, but also for making the Soviet regime as palatable as possible for society. For this reason, Karotamm and his ‘team’ paid a great deal of attention to involving writers, scientists and other people known in society to a greater or lesser extent in carrying out the sovietisation process. Kruus stressed the need to eliminate the ‘remnants of misconceptions’ left by the ‘era of bourgeois Estonia’, but this did not mean casting the era of independent statehood into the trash bin of history. The task of historical science was to give the ‘bourgeois Estonian state’ Soviet content.</p> <p>One of the first practical tasks in sovietising historical science was to work out a Marxist periodisation for Estonian history, which was supposed to be founded on the theory of social-economic formations. Artur Vassar was the historian who dealt the most with questions of periodisation, completing his system by 1947. Additionally, Abe Liebman, the head of the Chair of History at the Estonian republic’s EC(B)P CC Communist Party School, and Gustav Naan, who at that time was studying at the C(B)PSU CC Higher Communist Party School in Moscow, worked out their own periodisation system. These two competing systems were combined into a single unified system through the mediation of Ivan Käbin, the EC(B)P CC Propaganda and Agitation Secretary, and it was published in the magazine <em>Eesti Bolševik</em>[Estonian Bolshevik] in September of 1948. The publication of the Soviet periodisation system in 1948 was an important landmark in the sovietisation of historical science, since the main periods of Estonian history based on social-economic formations were introduced to the public for the first time. Although this periodisation system was later refined and expanded, it remained the basis for future historical works and provided the framework for the study of history in the Estonian SSR for many years to come.</p> <p>Naturally, the aim of the regime was also to sovietise the organisation of science. The central undertaking in this process was the founding of the Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences in 1946. Here as well, the key figure was Hans Kruus, who became the Academy’s first president and a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. Various academic institutes began operating as sub-institutions of the Academy of Sciences. These institutes had the leading role in academic research, unlike institutions of higher education, which were expected to prepare students for research and academic degrees and not to contribute to research as their primary task. The Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History (directed by Richard Kleis) became the central research institution for historical science (together with archaeology and art history).</p> <p>The compilation of Marxist survey works on Estonian history, which were also supposed to provide a complete overview of the period of the independent Republic of Estonia, became the primary task of the Institute of History. Its primary aim at that time was to write an Estonian history textbook, but the undertaking failed. Thereafter plans were made to produce a two-volume <em>Lühike Eesti ajalugu&nbsp;</em>[Brief History of Estonia]. The manuscript for the first volume was ready to be printed by the end of 1949. The institute also started compiling a new three-volume Soviet-style general treatment of Estonian history. The manuscript for the first volume was supposed to be completed in 1948, the second volume in 1950 and the third volume in 1951. Hans Kruus was the executive editor of both publications.</p> <p>In studying the period of the independent Republic of Estonia, chief attention had to be paid to the labour movement, though initially there were also more substantial studies of the period of independent statehood planned in the Institute of History. Namely, Hans Kruus planned to write the book <em>Eesti kodanlik riik 1918–1920&nbsp;</em>[The Estonian Bourgeois State 1918–1920], which was supposed to provide a ‘general popular-style overview of the class nature of the bourgeois Estonian state, its economic foundations, the struggles between cliques that developed in it, and foreign policy’. After a few years, Kruus abandoned this theme and set a new objective for himself to write the book <em>Kodanliku Eesti välispoliitika 1918–1940 </em>[The Foreign Policy of Bourgeois Estonia 1918–1940]. Yet even this undertaking did not come to fruition since the political conditions had already been significantly altered by the end of the 1940s. The campaign against so-called bourgeois nationalism was picking up steam and it did not leave those who went along with the Soviet regime in 1940 untouched. From late 1949, Hans Kruus became the primary target of this campaign, which led to his expulsion from the Communist Party, the dismissal from the posts of Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of the Academy of Sciences, and eventually to his arrest in October of 1950.</p> <p>The organisation of historical research disintegrated with the fall of Kruus, and most of the projects connected to his name were cancelled. His stigmatisation as a ‘bourgeois nationalist’ led to the more substantial themes concerning the period of the independent Republic of Estonia being squeezed out of the work plans for the Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences institutes by 1950. One of the main points in the accusations levelled against Kruus became the reprimand that ‘having taken it upon himself to study the bourgeois dictatorship’, he actually did not do anything to launch this research, but rather organised ‘the work in the Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History in such a way as to prevent the study of this period in the future as well’. The entire era of independent statehood was turned into a marginal period of research. A few narrow themes were permitted in its research, such as the labour movement, the activities of the Communists, agrarian conditions, and opposition to the Soviet Union in foreign policy. The negative attitude towards the independent Republic of Estonia achieved its apogee in the first Soviet, more precisely Stalinist, a general survey of Estonian history published in 1952.</p> 2019-05-27T00:00:00+03:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2018.2-3.06 Kirjandus kui vastupanu Nõukogude Eestis Teise maailmasõja järgsel perioodil 2019-07-17T14:24:57+03:00 Tiit Hennoste tiit.hennoste@ut.ee <p><em>Abstract: Literature as resistance in Soviet Estonia in the post-World War II period</em></p> <p>The theme of this article is the resistance that took place in Soviet Estonian literature, literary criticism and literary studies in the post-Second World War period. The article accentuates that different modes and objectives of resistance were central in different periods.</p> <p>Literary resistance is divided into four groups according to the nature of the pressure and the aims of resistance: first, ideological resistance to Soviet ideology in the name of literature that is free of ideology, or in the name of some other ideology; second, national resistance in the name of the unity of the people and preservation of identity; third, aesthetic resistance to the official literary doctrine; and fourth, resistance in the name of general or personal freedom and authenticity.</p> <p>Writers and literary scholars used different modes of resistance. These were so-called writing for the desk drawer, silence within a text, the use of ‘secret codes’, self-publication, the selection of themes or modes of writing that were not favoured by the regime and were apolitical and nonideological, and the use of neutral words and concepts instead of concepts and words bearing Soviet ideology.</p> <p>Totalitarian control of literature by way of decisions and direct instructions from the Communist Party characterised the Stalinist period (until 1956). All literature had to adhere to the doctrine of socialist realism. Practically the only form of resistance in this period was to keep silent. Some authors remained completely silent, some worked on translations, some wrote for their desk drawer for themselves and presented texts for publication that adhered to the officially sanctioned model. Keeping silent can also be interpreted as resistance in the name of aesthetic authenticity.</p> <p>The subsequent period that lasted until the 1970s is characterised by an increase in liberty in society, including literature. The body of norms of socialist realism was relaxed. Literary activities were controlled by writers’ organisations according to the guidelines provided by the Communist Party. Different aesthetic and ideological camps of writers emerged and competed with one another. The era of keeping silent and writing for one’s desk drawer ended. Public resistance, which was united by the question of relating to literature that preceded the Soviet era, was at the centre of this period. The fight for aesthetic freedom and literature that was free of ideology carried on throughout this period and was finally won by 1968–69. By that time, socialist realism had essentially ended in Estonian literature. In place of it, avant-gardism, modernism and broader realism prevailed. In place of Marxism-Leninism, non-Marxist ways of thinking had become important: first and foremost existentialism, but also Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism and classical psychoanalysis.</p> <p>Secondly, resistance was put up in the name of Estonian national unity and national memory. This was resistance in the name of authors who had been banished from the history of literature and of bringing back the pre-war metalanguage. This was concerned with modern writers (symbolists, decadents, impressionists, expressionists) in Estonian literature from the early 20th century. Generally speaking, this struggle was successful.</p> <p>The third struggle was waged in the name of creative freedom and the writer’s inner authenticity. Here political freedom and independence in general intertwined as ideals, with the Soviet system and any kind of system as the enemy that oppresses human freedom and independence: institutions and the state, machines and rationality, conformism and the middle-class way of life.</p> <p>The third period of resistance began at the start of the 1970s and continued until perestroika. The so-called tightening of the screws took place throughout the state during this period and Russification was adopted as a new orientation starting in the mid-1970s. On the other hand, a socialist consumer society took shape in Estonia, characterised by Communist Party membership for the sake of one’s career and openly double morality. Ideological censorship in literature was intensified, along with the partial steering of literature by way of Party documents. Such new conditions brought new variants of resistance to the fore.</p> <p>Nationalist resistance and resistance to Russification came to the fore in the 1970s and 1980s. Open struggle receded into the background. Covert resistance, primarily within individual texts, which had previously been insignificant, became central. This resistance used joint secret codes common to writers and readers (allusions, irony, parodies, and other such devices). The struggle continued in the name of a neutral metalanguage that is not ideologised. Resistance criticism, so to speak, took shape: keeping silent about negative assessments that could potentially have provided the basis for political accusations, and keeping silent about secret codes in texts that the authorities did not have to know about.</p> <p>The struggle for words and concepts without ideological connotations at the level of phenomena that were ideologically important for the Soviet regime was a continuing theme: the Republic of Estonia, the blue, black and white colour combination, expatriates, deportation, and other such concepts.</p> 2019-05-27T00:00:00+03:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##