Reviewed by Ain Söödor
The new constitution came into force on 24 January 1934, (Kasekamp, page 57), and its implementation called for elections - for the presidency and a new Riigikogu - to be held within 100 days.
The presidential candidate nominated by the Farmers' Party was Konstantin Päts, the candidate for the Centre Party and the Settlers' Party was General Laidoner, August Rei, represented the socialists and the presidential candidate put forward by the Veterans' League was General A. Larka.
Before a candidate could be certified, 10,000 signatures were required (Page 58). Kasekamp lists the book, 'KAKS SUURT', ('TWO GREATS', Orto, 1953), a book about Päts and Laidoner, written by Märt Raud, as one of his sources. It is interesting that he does not include the following excerpt from Raud's book as an example of myth making by the 'apologists' of the Päts regime.
'Since A. Larka obtained significantly fewer signatures than K. Päts and J. Laidoner, the Veterans lost hope of having him elected. As a result, it was decided to seize power by force. The preparation for this was done quite openly.' ('Kuna A. Larka märksa vähem allkirju sai kui K. Päts ja J. Laidoner, siis kadus vapsidel lootus tema valimiseks. Seepärast otsustati vôim haarata vägivallaga. Ettevalmistusi selleks tehti päris avalikult.'
(KAKS SUURT, Page 266 )
What actually happened is that A. Larka received more signatures than Päts and Laidoner combined - See page 194,
EESTI RAHVA AJARAAMAT by Arvo Mägi.
The figures quoted by Kasekamp are: Larka - 64,658 signatures, Laidoner - 38,493, Päts - 18,577 and Rei - 5,071, (Page 62). Magnus Ilmjärv, in an article, on page 17 of Postimees on 20. september 1999, gives a slightly but not significantly different set of figures: Larka - 62,070, Laidoner - 38,066, Päts - 18,501 and Rei 4,983.
This means that Raud's statement, 'A. Larka obtained significantly fewer signatures than K. Päts and J. Laidoner,' is entirely false. By presenting a false version of events, Raud has actually gone farther than President Päts or anyone else would have dared to go in 1934, when everyone knew the results of the campaigning.
The oversight may be the result of a number of things. It is possible that the above excerpt was not included in the manuscripts that were reviewed by Grünthal, Kant, and Aavik.
It is also possible that no one noticed Raud's mistake because, the 'Raud Version', in essence, agrees with what President Päts told Estonians - the Veterans were planning a coup d'état, the League wanted to seize power by force and it was necessary for the government to declare a state of emergency, to suspend the elections, to outlaw the League and to place the prominent members of the League under arrest. Was President Päts telling the truth?
Kasekamp does not think so and that places him firmly in the category of all the historians who have come along during the past sixty years to claim that during the years of Estonia's independence - the years between the two World Wars - what Estonians thought they had was not what they actually had.
Estonians thought that what they had was a free, independent and democratic Estonia - a Just Society. Estonians also thought that their president, Konstantin Päts, was a good man who loved Estonia and Estonians - a man who, as a young lawyer, had conviced Estonians that they had what it takes to create a free and independent Republic - a hero, who, while negotiating the terms of Estonia's independence with the Communists, refused to accept anything less, ('Ei mingeid kompromisse kommunistidega!') - a president, who, by the time was an old man and a grandfather, was forced to compromise with the Communists and to allow the Red Army to set up bases on Estonian soil - a tragic hero, who was forced out of office but who lived long enough to see that his efforts to maintain Estonia's independence had failed, and to witness the murder and deportation of thousands and thousands of his countrymen, before he, himself, was deported to Russia, where he died. What Estonians actually had, according to Kasekamp and several other observers, was a country, governed in its final years by a president, Konstantin Päts, who was dictatorial, dishonest, devious, authoritarian, egotistical, greedy and corrupt and whose patriotic rhetoric successfully concealed his true nature.