The Baltic States
ENSeveral problems arise when discussing the historiography of cultural opposition in the Baltic States First and most importantly, Baltic academics and historians have not offered any clear scientific definition of what constitutes cultural opposition. As a result, we are left to consider what the concept of cultural opposition does not mean. In our view, this unclear definition is the product of various factors. As the three Baltic states each fought for and won slate independence, historians from these nations have dedicated most of their attention to discussions of the armed resistance, the operation of Soviet repressive structures and the repression of peaceful civilians. The selection of these themes as research topics can be explained by the fact that such subjects were off limits during the Soviet period, and academics were to conduct academic research according to the prevailing ideological and political parameters. In addition, in the post-Soviet scholarly environment, the positions of various social groups and individuals were described in a simplistic way, with the help of three schematic categories: collaborators who expressed active support for the Soviet regime; the freedom fighters, who are usually identified with the armed resistance movement; and conformists, who have received limited attention thus far. Research agendas were also heavily influenced by the Cold War totalitarian paradigm that postulated that Soviet-type political regimes in Eastern Europe were all monolithic and totalitarian, and there were only minor and in significant differences between them. Moreover, the totalitarian framework contributed to the blurring of differences between the Stalinist and post-Stalinist periods. In sum, "cultural opposition" in works by Baltic historians was first of all understood as unarmed opposition, i.e., non-violent resistance to the Soviet regime's political, ideological and cultural pressure. [...].
