Andres Kasekamp

Reviewed by Ain Söödor


In his book, THE RADICAL RIGHT IN INTERWAR ESTONIA, Andres Kasekamp claims that Päts and Laidoner decided to 'manufacture' a crisis that would get rid of the Veterans, allow Päts to assume dictatorial powers and permit Laidoner, as Supreme Commander, to do something he apparently could not do as President - '... keep his lucrative appointments on the boards of directors of several large companies such as Estonian Oil Shale and Scheel's Bank...' (Page 106).

But it is also possible that Päts and Laidoner were telling the truth - that Laidoner did receive intelligence about an imminent seizure of power and, having become increasingly concerned with Veterans' threats that '... if Larka were not elected, the Veterans would take over power by force', (Page 110), Laidoner and Päts decided that, under the circumstances, a crack-down on the League was justified.

If Päts really wanted to become a dictator, then why, in a radio speech on New Years' Eve, 1935, while announcing a plebiscite to amend the constitution, did he say that '... since the Veterans had supposedly wished to seize power and establish a dictatorship, the constitution drafted by them was dangerous and has to be replaced' and why, during the plebiscite that was held in February 1936, and eventually approved by 76 per cent of the voters, did Päts attack the Veterans' constitution as 'alien' to the 'deeply democratic Estonian character', and say that the power granted the president was excessive and that '... the outlook for the nation would be dire, if less responsible individuals were placed at the helm of the state in the future...' (Page 125).

People who have read Karl Popper's book, OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES, are likely to recognize Päts' statements as those of a man who believed that societies should be governed by laws that restrict and limit the powers of rulers.

Kasekamp, demonstrating once again, that he has no respect for common usage, calls Päts' arguments in favor of constitutional amendments 'audacious' - (jultunud) - presumably, because he cannot conceive of the possibility that Päts was not a liar.

This inability to 'conceive', is one of Kasekamp's fundamental shortcomings.

On Page 102 of his book Kasekamp states, 'One of the more disingenuous justifications given by Päts, and stated more explicitly by Laidoner, was that the very existence of independent Estonia was endangered by the activities of the League. The only conceivable threat could have come from the USSR, which was indeed alarmed by the prospect of 'fascists' coming to power in a neighbouring state, but intervention in Estonia would have been contrary to the priorities of Soviet foreign policy in early 1934.'

Really? Leaving aside the question of whether or not 'intervention in Estonia' was ever contrary to the fundamentally expansionist foreign policy of the Soviet Union, is it really impossible to conceive that a fascist, pro-Hitler government in Estonia, headed by someone like Hjalmar Mäe, would have posed a serious threat not only to Russia but to Estonian independence as well?

While there may be some doubt - some would say 'reasonable doubt' and others might say 'considerable doubt' - that the Veterans actually were planning an armed seizure of power in 1934, there is no doubt whatsoever, that on December 8, 1935, the leaders of the Veterans did decide to overthrow the Päts government by force - as Kasekamp reports on page 113.

The coup was aborted, because, at a meeting on December 7, after the conspirators had decided to call it off, believing that '... the available manpower was not sufficient for the plan to succeed', they were placed under arrest by the police, '... who had all along maintained constant surveillance on the League's activities.' (Page 114).

'The uncovering of the planned seizure of power,' reports Kasekamp, 'provided the Päts regime with the chance finally to destroy the League... The regime made the most out of the great opportunity for anti-League propaganda, publicly displaying the conspirators' arms and ammunition ... The shock also gave Päts the popular support necessary to embark on his plans for far-reaching constitutional reform.' (Page 115).

What were these plans for constitutional reform? How far did they reach?

There are those who claim, as Kasekamp does, that because '... the Päts regime shared the Veterans' contempt for the Estonian parliamentary system', Päts wanted Estonia to become a 'nationalist authoritarian state', that '... his steps toward building a dictatorship were justified as measures to thwart the threat from the Veterans,' and that '... though the government had supposedly acted 'to save democracy', Päts and Einbund made it clear that there would be no going back to the old order.' (Page 121).

By making no effort to consider what Päts and Einbund may have meant when they said that 'there would be no going back to the old order' Kasekamp implies that 'the new order' was going to be nationalist, authoritarian, undemocratic, dictatorial and permanent.

This is sheer nonsense.

Even if Päts and Einbund actually believed that there was 'no going back' to a parliamentary democracy in Estonia, even if Päts wanted to become a dictator, even if Päts, like Hitler, wanted to create an Estonia that would be ruled by dictators for a thousand years, the reality is that no system of government is permanent.

(To be continued)

Märkmed: