Introduction:
The history of children and childhood in general is a complicated topic that has often been sidelined by mainstream historians. Since a full understanding of childhood often requires oral testimonies by people remembering their own childhood from much later on, it can be difficult to obtain reliable evidence for what childhood in a certain period of time was actually like. Nevertheless, this topic has recently gained a little more prominence, especially when it comes to childhood in places that have had drastically different social norms to the “Western countries”, in particular the Soviet Union. Analyzing childhood in a particular society can really help understand wider society as a whole, as behavior instilled in young children tends to carry on into adulthood.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, historians have been able to gain access to a wider range of sources needed to explore the economic, political and social aspects of the global superpower. Sources detailing childhood and growing up are widely available and numerous, since oral interviews and testimonies are easily obtained by people who have had first-hand experience growing up under the regime. There is less English scholarship on the topic than there is Russian scholarship, however there are still notable books and historians to be found. David Ransel has provided an early overview of the historiography of Russian childhood up to 1990, arguing that little historical research had been done in the field up until that point. Alla Sal’Nikova wrote about the importance of sources where children themselves speak about their childhoods in 2007 and also discussed the dominant approaches to historiography of Russian childhood in the 20th century. Catriona Kelly’s book Growing Up In Russia could be considered the most prominent work in the field, and explores the complicated relationship between perceiving the Soviet childhood as a place of wonderland but also through the lens of ideologies and institutions. The Latvian historian Antra Avotina has also written a little on childhood, although her work mainly focuses on social history as a whole.
However, in terms of analyzing childhood in the Soviet Union, it is interesting to note that there has been very little English and even Russian scholarship on childhood in the other 14 Soviet republics besides Russia. As Russia is the country that played the most important part in the Union and is the one most known to the outside world, this is understandable. There is still much that is unexplored about growing up in other parts of the Soviet Union, however, and the experiences would have varied considerably between each Soviet Republic. This is why the topic of this portfolio is so important, as it not only addresses the themes of childhood and growing up (which in themselves are useful for the understanding of wider Soviet society as a whole) but because it also addresses the issues of exploring other Soviet Republics besides Russia.
A key theme of this portfolio is the Latvian SSR. Scholarship on childhood and growing up is still limited even amongst Latvian authors, despite the wide range of oral testimonies and first-hand sources available. This provides problems in terms of secondary scholarship, as there is little material in English. Many sources found in Latvia are childhood memoirs, which have been written down but have rarely been analyzed further in the context of the wider Soviet Union by Latvian authors. Many authors of these memoirs have also chosen to add an element of fiction to their stories, making it harder to properly analyze the sources. Nevertheless, Mara Zalite and Lilita Zarina have mentioned important events in the Soviet Union in their memoirs from their perspectives as children, and this can be used as a starting point to analyze wider events in the USSR and the world as a whole.
The aim of this portfolio is to explore how differently childhood and growing up were portrayed and perceived throughout the various eras that Latvia was a part of the Soviet Union, and to briefly address the reasons they varied so much, by using either contemporary primary sources or memoirs. Comparisons within the sources themselves and also with the wider USSR and the rest of Europe will be used in the analysis, as a good way to show change is to compare it to other changes in the contemporary period. In order to answer the question, the importance of the sources and their limitations will be analyzed, including what the limited number of historians on this topic may have had to say.
The question and the topic are important because, as mentioned before, this can help understand how childhood was perceived in a certain Soviet republic, what it was like and how it was portrayed in different time periods. Studying childhood can also help understand wider Soviet society, and giving more information in terms of analyzing it. The limitations of this question are that most of these primary sources have yet to be properly analyzed and interpreted even by Latvian historians, and that the Latvian SSR was only one of the Soviet Republics so studying it cannot help fully understand what growing up was like in the rest of the Soviet Union. However, the conditions would have been similar to other republics in the western part of the Soviet Union, such as Lithuania and Estonia. The question could also serve well in encouraging more debate about the other Soviet republics besides Russia in the English speaking world, as this has so far been limited to the local historians of each Republic. It is also hoped that by analyzing new sources, more could be contributed to the wider historiography of the topic.
The sources chosen portray a significant time period, from the 1950s until the 1980s. There are numerous memoirs of people growing up in the Latvian SSR, which differ considerably depending on personal factors and the time period, so only two of the chosen sources are memoirs, the rest being from a wider range of genres. The sources will be analyzed in a chronological order, as this is the most efficient way to show the changing of perceptions and portrayals of childhood. The poster of the Latvian pioneer movement shows the ideological portrayal of childhood by the state in the 1950s, while the photograph of Mara Zalite shows a different side of childhood, that experienced by many Soviet children whose parents had been exiled to Siberia. The memoirs by Nora Ikstena and Ervins Jakobsons show more typical and “normal” childhoods in the early 1970s and 1980s, while the film Is it easy to be young deals with teenagers and a critique of having to grow up in the Soviet Union. These sources represent a wide range of childhoods, from young children to teenagers, from the 1950s to the 1980s and from childhoods that would have been considered “normal” to those which were more unique.
A poster of the Latvian pioneer movement (unknown author, 1950)
The author of this particular poster is unknown, however this would have been just one of the many such posters circulating the Latvian SSR in the 1950s. It was most likely produced by the government of the Latvian SSR, at the instruction of the central government, urging the youth of Latvia to join the pioneer movement. This poster specifically is advertising the first meeting of all the pioneer groups of the Republic. The Soviet imagery is very clear on the poster, with the color red and flags of the Union prevalent. The writing at the top says: “Pioneer: a role model for all other children” and the book the young girl is holding is a “diary of the pioneer”.
The pioneer youth movement was an important part of life for many of the children of Union, similar to scouts in the West. The children would attend summer camps and learn important social skills. Membership was theoretically optional, but almost all children of the Union belonged to the movement.
This source is important because it can tell us how childhood was portrayed by the state in the 1950s: the poster is a perfect symbol of Soviet propaganda, of the idealistic and ideological way childhood was portrayed. Soviet ideas about childhood and its relation to the wider society are shown in the background, with the children marching together and blending in with each other to become one. Soviet advancement and modernity is also shown by the airplane in the sky. The source says a lot about what the state wanted to childhood to be like and about the model children were expected to aspire to. They were expected to be united, respect the Motherland and be a model next generation of the Soviet Union. While this source may not represent the realities of Soviet life, it does show an important and prevalent angle from which childhood was frequently portrayed.
The limitations of the source are of course, that it only shows one of the many aspects of growing up in the Union. Even apart from this, the poster does not state what exactly it is the pioneers do, what they do after they come home from a pioneer meeting, what exactly this meeting of the pioneers will do or how it will benefit its members. Perhaps this is the intention of the poster; perhaps it seeks to imply that the most important part of growing up is the pioneer movement and the sense of community that comes with it. And it cannot be denied that the pioneer movement was a crucial part of the lives of most of the children of the Soviet Union, so the poster is not wrong in portraying the pioneer movement in such an important light.
It is also important to consider the context of the source. This poster was produced in the Latvian SSR but would have no doubt been circulated in the other Republics of the Union as well, albeit in the language of the specific Republic and perhaps with slight tweaks in the imagery. The poster is certainly representative of the wider goings on in the Soviet Union at the time, as the pioneer movement would have been present in all the Republics and pioneer meetings would have been advertised as well. The pioneer movement and it being a crucial part of growing up in the Union can also be linked to the West and the scout movement, which, while not as prevalent, was certainly an important part of children’s lives as well, especially in the United States. This shows that this part of children growing up in the Soviet Union at least, was not so different to what their contemporaries would have experienced in the West.
This source is far more ideological than the other sources that will be analyzed, and it is arguably the source which was produced with the most specific agenda. Compared to the other sources, which are memoirs, a photograph and a film, this source is clearly the one which portrays childhood from the most ideological angle. This is in contrast to the photograph in Siberia, which is arguably the least political and simply tries to show the life of a family, although the implications and context of the photograph are wider. It lacks the personal touch of the other sources, which both make it more accurate and more limited. More accurate because it does not contain personal bias, but more limited because it follows the ideology of the state and not people’s personal beliefs. This portrayal of childhood is also one that did not change very much throughout the existence of the Soviet Union, as the pioneer movement remained active and a key part of the social life of every child up until 1991. During Stalin’s time (as the poster is dated 1950), the rules in the pioneer movement may have been harsher, but there is little evidence to say whether or not this changes drastically after his death.
This source, as with most sources on Latvian history, has yet to be properly analyzed and more research needs to be undertaken surrounding this issue. However, it is known that certain scholars have written about the importance of the pioneer movement and analyzed different posters concerning portrayals of it. Antra Avotina has largely researched the social history of the USSR, and briefly addresses the pioneer movement, calling it “a large family with Stalin as the head and father.” Conversely, Catriona Kelly argues that the pioneers represented both a fight for the future and were also “curators of the present”. It is arguable that Avotina’s opinion has a greater insight on the issue as it is more relevant to time period and Stalin’s era, because Stalin fashioned himself as the father of the Soviet people. This is in contrast to Kelly who argues that the pioneer movement was more about the future of the union which, while not inaccurate, seems to be more in link with the Soviet Union after Stalin, which was less concerned with the imagery of the ideal family and more so with other issues. Therefore, Avotina’s assessment of the source carries more weight in explaining why there are differences in portrayals of Soviet childhood, because these tended to vary depending on who was in power at a given time in the Union.
Overall, the source is useful in contributing to the question, in that it shows a certain way in which childhood and growing up were portrayed in the Latvian SSR. This provides a basis for changing portrayals of childhood, because this source is unique in its portrayal of childhood, compared to the Soviet Milk memoirs, which deal with childhood from a different perspective at a later time. This source would not have been unique to a particular Soviet Republic, but rather a representative of what childhood was like for many Soviet children as a whole. And while it does not portray the struggles of the daily life of children, the way the state views and treats its children can say a lot not just about the children and society, but the state as a whole.
Photograph: Five Fingers, (unknown photographer, 1950s)
This photograph shows a young girl with her dog. The girl’s name is Mara Zalite, and she was born to Latvian parents who were exiled to Siberia in the 1940s. She was born in Siberia and has written memoirs on her early life and her return to Latvia in 1953 after Stalin’s death, with the focus on dealing with the many changes implemented in the country. The photographer is unknown, but it is most likely a member of her immediate family, and the photo seems to have been simply taken as a memory, for familial use rather than for any specific agenda.
The source is important because it shows a very different reality to the poster and represents the changing portrayals of Soviet childhood over time. While the position of the state may not have changed, people’s experiences and perceptions did, and many, unknowingly through photographs, provided historians with new portrayals of growing up. The source, while itself seemingly just a family photo, can tell us a lot about less fortunate children in the Union, when taking into account its context. It is useful for seeing childhood through a visual medium that is not as ideological as the poster commissioned by the state, but allows us to glimpse a little bit of the reality.
The main limitation of this source is the fact that it tells us very little when not knowing the context. Without Mara Zalite’s book, it could be the photograph of any little girl anywhere. This can also tell us something however, as this shows that photographs taken of children in the Soviet Union were much the same as anywhere else and that even in Siberia, you could experience something resembling a happy childhood. Nevertheless, without the context and knowing about Mara’s childhood, the source on its own tells us relatively little about Siberia, other aspects of her childhood or anything else.
However, when looking at the source in terms of context, it provides much more information. Many children in the 1940s and 1950s grew up in Siberia (due to the government forcing many parents whose ideological leanings did not correspond with their own to be exiled.) This was something that was solely confined to the Soviet Union and seemingly unimaginable in the West, at least after the Second World War, although similar things may have happened in other dictatorships around the world. However, the source does represent a wider picture, as many children not only from Latvia but from other Soviet republics would have had to grow up someplace where their parents were not natives, but which was the only place the children themselves had ever known. The context of the source also shows how portrayals of childhood changed, because after Stalin’s death in 1953, most of those exiled were allowed to go back home, which would have changed the way childhood was portrayed and talked about, at the very least in private.
This source is unique when compared with the other sources, because, in stark contrast to the poster, it is not at all political as far as we know. It is a family picture most likely taken for memory purposes rather than to promote an agenda. It is also different to the film about teenagers, which, while portraying growing up, also shows a more ideological point of view. It is similar to the memoirs from the 1960s and 1970s that will be analyzed later on, but different in that these portray a young girl in Siberia, unlike the author of the journal, who grew up in his own country and the Soviet Milk memoirs, as these have an added element of fiction. Mara Zalite’s memoirs most likely have fictional aspects as well, but looking purely at the photograph, it seems to portray an honest glimpse in the life of a young girl. This may not be fully accurate, as she may have been told to pose for the photo, but this, based upon her memoirs, does not seem to be the case. This is an example of where looking at the source itself provides little information and also shows how important context is when analyzing any type of source.
The scholarship on Siberia has mainly been concerned with prisoners of war and conditions in labor camps, rather childhood and growing up, which was not always terrible and could almost be considered normal in certain places. Mara Zalite herself has written about her experiences, which, while viewed from a child’s perspective, illustrate an interesting portrayal of Latvian childhood. Her assessment of the photographs and the portrayal of her childhood is that most often, memoirs are portrayed as black and white, but that this is a perspective which she finds is the easiest to write in, as she is writing about herself as a child and that this is in accordance with the child’s point of view. This contrasts with Michael Welton’s perspective shown at the very beginning of this portfolio, that memoirs are often inaccurate because of the childish perspective. Both are valid viewpoints, however, Zalite’s assessment in this case is slightly more accurate as childhood memoirs are, after all, meant to be as accurate as possible and therefore it makes sense for the perspective to be somewhat childish as well.
Overall, this source contributes to the question by showing a different portrayal of childhood in Latvian SSR, and once again, something which would not have been unique to only one republic, but widespread across the Soviet Union.
Soviet Milk, a book by Nora Ikstena (London, 2018)
The next source is a book by Nora Ikstena, who was born in 1969 in Riga, the capital of Latvia. The book was originally published in Latvian but has since been translated into English, and it is both a memoir of Nora’s childhood and growing up in the Soviet Union, but also a fictional account of her mother growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, and what she imagines her mother’s life may have been like. The author is a well-known fiction writer in Latvia, so her memoirs should not be taken at face value. However, critics of the book have described it as mostly accurate and true to the events that happened in the Soviet Union, so we can assume that at least most of the part concerning her own life is based on true facts.
This source is important because it shows what growing up in the Latvian SSR was like from someone who actually grew up there. This shows another change in portrayal of childhood. This source shows childhood in the 1970s and portrays childhood as something that is much more in line with what we would consider normal. Nora is a normal girl, who goes to school, joins the pioneers, goes out with friends and plays on the streets. Her mother is mentally ill, which is of course not considered the norm, but in general, she manages to experience what for the Soviet Union would be considered a decent childhood.
There are several limitations to this source however. The first one being that memoirs can often be faulty – an adult often remembers childhood in a certain way that may not be entirely objective, because of them wishing to tell a certain story. Memories are also not the most accurate form of evidence, as people remember things that could not have possibly happened. The second limitation is that this memoir has been transformed into a fictional book, due to the author wanting to both tell her own story and imagine her mothers’ one. Even when remembering things, the author is likely to have put her own spin on certain events so that they sound better in a book. Therefore, this source is not the most accurate one for facts, although it still portrays the feelings and senses of growing up in an oppressive regime.
The context of this source is interesting, as the book mentions several of the wider goings on in the Soviet Union at the time, as well as in Europe. Nora mentions that she was born around the time of Woodstock, and that she would have loved to have been born in America instead, where her mother could have been happy and not oppressed as she was in the USSR (her mothers’ reason in the book for becoming mentally ill is because the KGB arrested Nora’s grandfather, although whether this is true is unknown). The death of Leonid Brezhnev and the Latvian proclamation of independence are mentioned as well. This shows how much the source interacts with the wider world, and how that which was happening was seen through the perspective of a child growing up in the USSR. The Soviet union was also much freer in comparison to Stalin’s time in the 1970s and 1980s, which is shown by many of the people wearing Western clothing and listening to Western music, more of which is shown in the film source.
It is interesting to compare this source to the others, as it has a very different tone to the rest of the sources. The poster is mainly ideological, the photograph being the exact opposite: it portrays a young girl who is happy with her dog despite the exile in Siberia. Soviet Milk however, has an underlying theme of depression. Nora and her mother resent the oppressive regime and constantly wish for another life. This is more in line with the film, as this also represents an internal rebellion against the State, although not in such a bleak way. This source is also a stark contrast to the other memoir, the journal article, which details a young boys holiday during the Soviet Union and does not dwell on how oppressive the State is: rather, he is happy to be on holiday. This shows another change in the portrayal of childhood in the Latvian SSR: Soviet Milk is a rather bleak version of the realities of certain children who grew up with their parents resenting the regime and internally wishing to rebel against it.
The scholarship for this particular book is lacking, since it is a relatively recent book and was only published in English in 2018. It would be useful to analyze it more in terms of history and determine its use as a potential source. Nevertheless, certain Latvian authors have expressed amazement at the literary style and have tried to analyze it further historically. Barbala Simsone has praised the accuracy of the memoirs, saying that she remembers similar occurences during her childhood, for example, having to go work at a farm with her school during the summer holidays, as was considered normal in the Soviet Union.
Overall, the source contributes to the question as it shows a very clear different portrayal of childhood in the Latvian SSR, experienced first-hand by the author. The only problem is slightly fictional aspect, but this will always need to be taken into account when looking at memoirs.
Sketches of childhood memories – 1st chapter, journal article by Ervins Jakobsons (Riga, 2013)
This next source is a journal article by Ervins Jakobsons – it is a memoir, detailing his childhood in the Latvian SSR. It is a reasonably long article written in 2013, but the author himself was born in 1964, so he would also have first-hand experience with growing up in the Soviet Union. The article is notable for its scant references to the politics and wider context of the Soviet Union – the author mentions in the beginning that he had a happy childhood, that he did not understand the political implications back then and that he remembers the past with nostalgia.
The source is important because it, once again, is written by someone who would have experienced growing up in the Latvian SSR first hand. It is also important because this source represents a very simple view of childhood, summer holidays which were ruined due to being sick, attending school and picking berries in grandmother’s garden. It is a different portrayal of childhood than the ones which we have seen before, which are either unusual, bleak or ideological. This source also addresses the question of how politics and agenda can interfere with memories, showing that the author is aware you have to be skeptical of memoirs, as they are easily influenced.
The limitations of this source are similar to the ones mentioned for Soviet Milk. It is a memoir written nearly 30 years after the experience, of which the author may have fuzzy memories and may not be able to recall things as accurately as possible. It also has a fictional element to it, given that it is an article in a journal and that Jakobsons makes no claim to give an accurate account: rather, he simply presents a recollection of certain memories, in the order in which he remembers them. But, nevertheless, he could still have an unknown agenda for writing down these memoirs, so this should be cause for skepticism as well.
This source is different from the others in terms of context, in that very little of outside events are referenced. The author focuses on his childhood in Latvia and does not mention bigger events happening worldwide. He often mentions what a certain place was called when he was young, for example the name of a street, and how it has changes now, but otherwise he avoids wider references to what else is going on. This is good because it focuses solely on childhood in the Latvian SSR and avoids steering off topic, but it is always useful to have some context to understand the source and its events better. There is little background reading on this particular source, but the 1960s and 1970s when he grew up would have been the time of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, who opened up to the outside world more than Stalin and made certain life conditions in the Soviet Union easier. Kruschev built many communal housing blocks which served to facilitate life for people and arguably could be the reason why Jakobsons had such nice summers without much else to worry about.
This source, compared to the others, is far more light hearted and shows another portrayal of Soviet childhood in the Latvian SSR from yet another angle. It is more light hearted and less political than Soviet Milk and, even though it is hard to compare a text to the visual sources, is much less ideological than the poster. Maras Zalites photograph could also be considered light hearted and happy, but the context of the picture is far more bleak. Jakobsons has no Siberia looming over him and even though he has problems, they are those of a typical child. In comparison to the film, this source is also far less politicized and concerned with a child, not teenagers.
Once again, there is very little scholarship surrounding this article. The article itself is not really well known in Latvia, and arguably it is not considered useful in academic circles because of the simplistic portrayal of a Soviet childhood. Nevertheless, this article has the potential to be a good source exactly because of the simplistic portrayal, as it avoids politics and ideology of getting in the way of analyzing what a truly normal childhood (if such a thing exists) could have been like in the USSR.
Overall, the source contributes to the argument by showing a very simple portrayal of a childhood in the Latvian SSR, however, this was the second memoir in the analysis, and could have perhaps been replaced by a source of a different genre to add more diversity in terms of sources.
Is it easy to be young, a film directed by Juris Podnieks (Riga, 1986)
This film was made in 1986, during the last years of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the film was still surrounded by much controversy, as it showed events that were not widely talked about. The dialogue was both in Latvian and Russian. The film had several characters, most of whom were in some sort of conflict with their parents or the authorities. Most characters were looking for their place in the world and despairing of ever finding it. The characters were very diverse: a man who returned from Afghanistan, dealing with losing his comrades in battle, another man who was part of a religious group that was frowned upon in society, a woman worried about the effects of the Chernobyl explosion upon her daughters’ health.
This source shows us a different aspect of growing up: the lives of teenagers and young people. This is another portrayal of childhood, but a childhood that had nearly ended and the implications of having to survive in the USSR. Back during when the film was made the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse, but it is doubtful anybody in Latvia at the time knew much of it. They would probably have imagined that they would live their lives under the regime and that they would have to find a way to cope with it. The portrayal of the lives of these teenagers is also rather bleak, albeit with certain humorous elements.
The limitations of the film are the fact that the Soviet Union still had censorship in place. It allowed for some controversial themes to be shown, but, in general, it is almost certain that the director couldn’t show certain parts that he wanted to. Also, every director has an agenda and something that he wants to show to the audience. The events portrayed in the film are real, but certain events, such as the war in Afghanistan, would have affected every individual differently and would not necessarily have been received by all members of the public as they were by the characters in the film. This is why the film was considered one of the most controversial of its time – it portrayed only a certain viewpoint that may not have held true for everyone.
Despite the divisive themes, the film was seen by over 28 million people, a huge number for a Latvian film. It shows many of the events happening in the Soviet Union, such as the Chernobyl incident. This is also a film that could be related to by Western audiences, as the characters go to school, go shopping and in general do many of the things teenagers nowadays do, except they are always surrounded by thoughts of the future and the fact that there is little meaning to most of their lives. This portrayal of childhood and growing up is rather bleak and not at all as optimistic as it could have been expected to be in the final years of the USSR.
In comparison to the other sources, the film is very different from all of them. It has certain themes of ideology, similar to the poster, however, the ideology is considered a bad thing and not something to aspire to. It is not at all like Jakobsons’ light-hearted recollection of a happy childhood. The bleak context of the film could be comparable to Zalite’s photograph with its happy imagery which does not reflect the greater context, but even with humorous moments, the film is far from being happy and light-hearted. It most closely resembles the portrayal of childhood in Soviet Milk, as that is also a portrayal that is bleak and full of resentment towards parents and the authorities.
The film has been mentioned in passing by certain Latvian scholars who name it in the context of the fall of the Soviet Union, but nothing too analytical. Once again, more research is needed in order to properly analyze this source, as it provides very useful information about what life could have been like for regular teenagers, in the last days of the Soviet Union.
In general, this source is a good contribution to the argument, as it shows teenagers instead of children, adding to yet another element of complexity in portraying growing up in the Latvian SSR.
Conclusion:
The analysis of these five different sources has explored how Latvian childhood has been portrayed in different ways throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. The portrayals have ranged from the 1950s until the 1980s. They have been ideological, bleak, simplistic, hopeful and abnormal, and they have shown different lives and different ways in which Latvians grew up.
Of all the sources, the poster and the photograph have been the most helpful, largely due to there being some secondary scholarship to apply to these sources and to use. However, the other sources are also useful in determining more about Latvian childhood and could be used in further analysis and historiography. Further research is necessary, as there is very little further analysis to go on in terms of analyzing the sources fully.
There is a significant lack of secondary scholarship in this analysis, which is largely due to many of the Latvian authors not being available in a digital format and very little English scholarship to go on. It was a struggle to find significant scholarship that could be used in this analysis. English scholarship tends to focus on the Soviet Union as a whole, and while some of it, like Catriona Kelly’s book, provides good arguments than can be applied to the case of the Latvian SSR, others can only be used minimally when analyzing the topic. A reason for this could needing to know the language of a country in order to study its history, which of course, tends to be limited to the historians of smaller countries, as Russian is a significant world language, but none of the other Eastern European languages are (aside from maybe Polish, but Polish history has also been studied more in depth.)
Nevertheless, the aim of the portfolio was to show how the sources can be used to explore different ways in which Latvian childhoods during the Soviet Union were portrayed, and this has proved successful. Despite limited secondary scholarship, the source analysis has been mainly concerned with why the sources are important, their limitations, the wider context of the source not just in terms of the Latvian SSR but also the wider world, comparison between the sources themselves and what little scholarship there is to go on in relation to the source. Throughout all of this, it has been shown that these sources are indeed useful in terms of exploring portrayals of Latvian childhood. Further research ideas could include more analysis of the different themes of Latvian childhood, such as comparisons between Latvian sources and sources in Ukraine for example, to show how different growing up was depending on the respective Soviet republic.
The Soviet republics and Eastern European history in general are not topics and locations that are widely known about. Hopefully, more debate and historical research concerning these places in the English speaking world can be encouraged in the future.