to Ain Söödor’s review of The Radical Right in Interwar Estonia (2)
In the last part of his review of my book "The Radical Right in Interwar Estonia", Mr Söödor appears to do an about-face and critizises Päts for extending the restrictions on civil rights from 1937 onward. However, he justifies Päts by saying that he "was an extraordinarily able leader, and was therefore justified in extending the period of transition during which he was free to create a legacy for future generations of Estonians - a truly democratic constitution". In fact, as I have noted earlier, the Päts constitution was less democratic than that of the Veterans' League. Söödor excuses Päts' authoritarian tendencies by reference to the regimes of Stalin and Hitler. Those two monsters however, should not be the only benchmarks for measuring a regime's degree of authoritarianism!
Söödor also excuses Päts by suggesting that Estonians were not quite ready, or sufficiently mature, for democracy, quoting my citation of the writer Tammsaare. This is somewhat analagous to Päts' own justification for his actions in 1934, where he claimed that the people suffered from a political "illness", and were in need of treatment (the treatment being martial law).
Söödor equates the Estonian nation with the person of Päts, which is exactly what Päts himself did. A consistent theme in Söödor's review is that by criticizing Päts, I "distort, diminish, discredit and ultimately dismiss the very real accomplishments of Estonians." By that standard, Jaan Tõnisson and other Päts' political rivals would certainly fail the Söödor test of political correctness! Incidentally, so would ex-President Lennart Meri, who has also criticized his predecessor.
In reality, "the very real accomplishments of Estonians" should be attributed to all Estonians, with perhaps special credit to those who fought to establish our independence in 1918 - 1920 (among them Päts, Laidoner, and many who later supported the Veterans' League). By calling them fascists, Söödor has done a disservice to the Veterans, a large majority of whom were loyal, patriotic citizens who supported a course of political action which was highly popular and was adopted to a large degree by President Päts. By arguing that a large number of Estonians in the interwar period were supporters of fascism, Söödor is providing ammunition for those who would like to hold Estonians responsible for the murder of the Jews in 1941.
In the literature of 20th Century European history one does not find much written about Estonia by non-Estonian scholars. When the the interwar period
is discussed, the Veterans' League is usually referred to as fascists, and the Päts regime doesn't fare much better (I am referring to Western European and North American, not Soviet, books). It seems that the authors, not knowing Estonian history in any detail, simply assume that any movement that espouses nationalism and a strong executive, must automatically be fascist.
They would find it highly unusual to encounter a nationalistic movement that does not advocate the use of violence, does not have territorial ambitions, and is not anti-Semitic. For this reason it is important to refer to the substantial body of academic studies of fascism, and to use the definitions of the leading theorists (such as Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin) as reference points. I had hoped that my book would provide a more nuanced and detailed overview of that era in Estonian history, so that, in the future, students and researchers in history would not simple-mindedly describe the main protagonists as fascists, or semi-fascists. Academic reviewers in the US, Britain, Germany, and Estonia and elsewhere have been highly positive in their commentary - it was quite a surprise to read such negative comments in my hometown newspaper, albeit written by a non-scholarly reviewer. However, Söödor's review of my book has hopefully created an awareness and interest among readers, inspiring them to further their knowledge of that complex period in Estonian history.