Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:16:08.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demographic Trends in Latvia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Juris Dreifelds
Juris Dreifelds*
Affiliation:
Brock University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For most North Americans demography is an esoteric subject more often tied to marketing than to social and political changes. In Latvia, as in most of Eastern Europe and the USSR, demography has long been placed on the forefront of public attention. This wave of attention in the case of Latvia is not a fad of short duration which will be readily displaced by other popular topics. On the contrary, demography has had, is having and will have a tremendous impact on a very broad range of policies and on the long term survival of the Latvian nation. Thus, in order to understand the social and ethnic tensions, the labour squeeze, and the welfare burden of Latvia, it is necessary to understand the multifaceted demographic processes: the real matrix of the political and social environment. This paper reviews the pivotal demographic role of the First and Second World Wars and analyzes population size, sex balance, age structure, urban-rural residence, nuptiality, birth and death rates, migration patterns and ethnic balance.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 1984 , pp. 49 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Tsentralnoe statisticheskoe upravlenie SSSR (Tsu SSSR), Naselenie SSSR (Moscow: Izd. politicheskoi literatury, 1980), p. 29. J. Rutkis, ed., Latvia Country and People (Stockholm: Latvian National Foundation, 1967), p. 292. the present-day Soviet Latvian estimate for the population of 1914 is given as 2,493 thousand. Apparently the Abrene region, which formed part of independent Latvia but was transferred to the RSFSR in 1944 is excluded from estimates of 1914. Tsu Latviiskoi SSR, Narodnoe khoziaistvo Latviiskoi SSR v 1978 godu (Riga: Liesma, 1979), p. 5. (Henceforth cited as Narkhoz Lat. 1978). Google Scholar

2. A good account of the political and military turbulence of this period is provided by Stanley W. Page, The Formation of the Baltic States (New York: Howard Fertig, 1970); Edgar Anderson, “Through the Baltic Gate,” Baltic Review (January 1967), pp. 3-21; Taras Hunczak, “Operation Winter and the Struggle for the Baltic,” East European Quarterly (March 1970), pp. 40-57.Google Scholar

3. George Barr Carson Jr. ed., Latvia: An Area Study (New Haven, CT.: Human Relations Area Files, Inc., 1956), p. 72.Google Scholar

4. Arveds Svabe, ed., Latvju enciklopedija (Stockholm: Tris zvaigznes, 1951), p. 769.Google Scholar

5. Ibid.Google Scholar

6. Carson, p. 74. Alexander Elkin, “The Baltic States” in Arnold Toynbee and Veronica M. Toynbee, eds., Survey of International Affairs 1939-1946: The Initial Triumph of the Axis (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), pp. 50-52. A good review of the origin and impact of Baltic Germans can be found in Ferdinand Demi's article “The Baltic Germans,” Central Europe Journal, no. 1, 1970, pp. 11-27.Google Scholar

7. Elkin, p. 42. For a full wording of the secret additional protocol concerning the division of Nazi and Soviet spheres of interest signed by J.v. Ribbentrop and v. Molotov see Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D (1937-1945), Vol. 7, (Washington: 1956), pp. 246-247.Google Scholar

8. Elkin, pp. 52-58; Carson, pp. 75-77. For an excellent analysis of the events, motivations and consequences of the Soviet occupation of 1940-41 see The Soviet Occupation and Incorporation of Latvia June 17 to August 5, 1940 (New York: The Baltic Review Publishers, 1957).Google Scholar

9. Carson, p. 75.Google Scholar

10. Rudolf G. Shillers, “Population Changes of Latvia in Consequence of World War II” in Edgars Andersons, ed., Cross Road Country Latvia (Waverly, Iowa: Latvju gramata, 1953), p. 338. Carson, p. 77.Google Scholar

11. E. Blumfelds, “Vācu fasistiská okupacija Latvijā (1941-45)” in Vilis Samsons, ed., Latvijas PSR maza enciklopedija, III (Riga: Zinatne, 1970), p. 596. If it is assumed that about 70-80,000 Latvian Jews were put to death, then about 20-30,000 other ethnic persons from Latvia would have been killed on Latvian territory. For estimates of Jewish deaths see Carson, p. 79, and K.M. Smogorzewski, “The Russification of the Baltic States,” World Affairs October 1950, p. 6 of reprint article. Smogorzewski claims that 86,000 Jews “disappeared” from Latvia. His estimate is taken from the Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry Regarding the Problems of European Jewry and Palestine, Cmd. 6808 (1946), p. 58. According to Dov Levin as presented in a book review,“ over 70,000 Latvian Jews are estimated to have fallen in the hands of the Nazis” cf. S. Levenberg, “Latvian Jewry under the Nazis: Extermination and Resistance,” Soviet Jewish Affairs, no. 2, 1979.Google Scholar

12. Arturs Silgailis, Latviesu legions, 2nd ed. (Copenhagen: Imanta, 1964), p. 326.Google Scholar

13. Carson, p. 79 estimates 25,000. Colonel Silgailis in a personal interview felt that no more than 20,000 Latvians perished in military action on the German side. The two divisions of the Latvian Legion held 31,446 men under arms in July 1, 1944. Silgailis, p. 325. Relatively accurate official casualty lists were available only up to July 1944. By this time 3,914 Latvian men had been killed, 1,362 were listed as missing in action and 7,305 had been wounded. Silgailis, p. 325. The heaviest fighting for the Latvians, however, occurred later during the “Fortress Kurzeme” struggle which lasted until the May 1945 capitulation day. A. Riekstins writing in the Soviet Latvian publication Padomju jaunatne, May 22, 1974 states that “the so-called Latvian Administration illegally mobilized tens of thousands of young men in their twenties and forced them into Hitler's armed forces where 50 to 60 thousand were killed, wounded or lost in action.” If the ratio of 42% deaths of all casualties is used (i.e., based on the July 1944 ratio for Latvians) then the number of deaths would be 21 to 25 thousand.Google Scholar

14. Shillers claims that “about 20,000 Latvians tried to reach the coast of Sweden in unseaworthy fishing boats. About 6,000 escaped but thousands of refugees found a wet grave in the waves of the Baltic due to the activities of the Russian and German speedboats and airplanes.” p. 335.Google Scholar

15. Shillers provides an estimate of 115 thousand refugees in the West (p. 339). Carson claims 125 thousand (p. 79). A detailed analysis of Latvian refugees is provided by Rutkin, pp. 321-327. According to the Soviet Latvian Encyclopedia close to 280 thousand people emigrated or were transferred abroad: “Many of them died as a result of war activities, especially during English and American air raids. A number of refugees (sic) were liberated by the Soviet Army and they returned to their native land. However, about 110-120,000 Latvians remained abroad.” Samsons, I, p. 473. A Latvian geography text provides a surprisingly specific number of 163,000 Latvians living outside the Soviet Union. This number, no doubt, includes pre-war Latvian emigrants and their progeny (cf. V. Purins and J. Jankevics, eds., Latvijas PSR geografija, 2nd ed. [Riga: Zinatne, 1975], p. 240). To be sure, no serious estimates have as yet been made of the “emigration abroad” of the non-Latvian part of Latvia's population. Slavs and other minorities were also involved in the mass population movements.Google Scholar

16. Purins and Jankevics, p. 249. The numbers involved in this transfer may be deduced by comparing 1935 data of independent Latvia and 1935 data which is based on “present boundaries.” Thus Bruno Mezgailis and Peteris Zvidrins, in Padomju Latvijas iedzivotaji (Riga: Liesma, 1973) claim on page 154 that the Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainan ethnic groups in 1935 constituted a total of 194,000. Yet, according to official Latvian data from before the war the number was 235,000. Hence the difference, or 41,000 could be estimated as being part of the Abrene territorial transfer (cf. Rutkis, p. 302). The discrepency in ethnic Latvian numbers comes to about 12,000 (cf. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 151-153). The difference in all nationalities can also be calculated; From the Latvian 1935 census total population of 1,915,000 people deduct “readjusted” Soviet total based on “present boundaries,” i.e., 1.905,000 people. The difference is about 46,000 people. Latvijas tautas saimnieciba 1973 gadā (Riga: Liesma, 1974), p. 6.Google Scholar

17. Carson states that some 60,000 persons were sentenced to be deported after the screening of 1945 and 1946 (p. 82). Smogorzewski, on the other hand indicates that “during the years 1945-46, 121,000 Estonians, 105,000 Latvians and 145,000 Lithuanians were removed from their native land” (p. 8).Google Scholar

18. Carson (p. 82) claims 45-50,000 deportees while Smogorzewski (p. 9), estimates 70,000.Google Scholar

19. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 155.Google Scholar

20. Purins and Jankevics, p. 248.Google Scholar

21. The estimate of 1.3 million is provided by Mezgailis and Zvidrins (p. 154), and the 1950 population data is by Vestnik Statistiki, no. 4, 1964.Google Scholar

22. Mezgailis and Zvidrins have estimated that 100,000 “old” Latvians came from other republics (p. 153). They appear to base this number on the difference in ethnic Latvians living outside Latvia between the 1926 and 1959 Soviet census, stating that in 1926 there were 200,000 Latvians and in 1959, 102,000. One can question whether many Latvians were not simply assimilated. It is also known that Latvians were “favoured” by Stalin's purges in the 1930's. On the other hand, one could allow for a certain growth component because of natural increase.Google Scholar

23. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 153.Google Scholar

24. Ibid, p. 154.Google Scholar

25. This figure has to remain tentative until some estimate is provided for actual deaths incurred by the Slavic population under the Bolshevik and Nazi occupations. Moreover, a large but unknown number of Slavs managed to find refuge in the West. If these losses could be estimated then the number of new Slav arrivals would be much greater.Google Scholar

26. For analysis of net migration between 1950 and 1959 see Juris Dreifields, “Latvian National Demands and Group Consciousness Since 1959” in George W. Simmonds, ed., Nationalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the Era of Brezhnev and Kosygin (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1977), p. 141.Google Scholar

27. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 154; Rutkis, p. 292.Google Scholar

28. Svabe, pp. 1320-21.Google Scholar

29. Narkhoz Lat. 1976, p. 8.Google Scholar

30. Rutkis, p. 297.Google Scholar

31. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 121.Google Scholar

32. Cina, 23 June 1971. (Tables of 1970 census).Google Scholar

33. The female share of Latvia's population decreased from 56.1% in 1959, 54.3% in 1970 to 53.9% in 1979. Padomju Jaunatne, May 23, 1979. E. Vitolins, “Mes ar jums pirms gada”, Zinatne un tehnika no. 9, 1980, p. 26. (Hereafter cited as Z.T.)Google Scholar

34. Russian women formed 29.5%, Belorussian women 3.9%, Polish women 2.9%, Ukrainian women 1.7%, Lithuanian women 1.6% and Jewish women 1.5% of the total of all females in Latvia. A.M., “Sieviete statistikas spoguli”, Dzimtenes balss, no. 10, (March 6, 1975), p. 5.Google Scholar

35. Ibid.Google Scholar

36. V. Purins, J. Jankevics, A. Jaunputnins and V. Melnalksnis, eds., Latvijas PSR geografija (Riga: Zinatne, 1971), p. 222.Google Scholar

37. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, pp. 146-148.Google Scholar

38. Cina, 23 June 1971. Peteris Zvidrins, Z.T., no. 3, 1973, p. 14.Google Scholar

39. Rutkis, p. 309; Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1970. goda, IV (Moscow: 1973).Google Scholar

40. Narkhoz Lat. 1972, p. 8.Google Scholar

41. Johannes Overbeek, Population and Canadian Society Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), p. 129.Google Scholar

42. Padomju Jaunatne 19 January 1977.Google Scholar

43. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, pp. 97-98.Google Scholar

44. Arvids Pelse, “Par darbalauzu internacionalo audzinasanu,” Padomju Latvijas komunists, no. 9, 1959, p. 97.Google Scholar

45. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 97.Google Scholar

46. Ibid, p. 99.Google Scholar

47. Janis Rudzats and Edvins Vitolins, “Dati par Latvijas iedzivotajiem,” Z.T. no. 7, 1971, p. 4.Google Scholar

48. Narkhoz Lat. 1978, pp. 5-6.Google Scholar

49. Ibid.Google Scholar

50. Tönu Parming, “Roots of Nationality Differences” in Edward Allworth, ed., Nationality Group Survival in Multi-Ethnic States: Shifting Support Patterns in the Soviet Baltic Region (New York: Praeger, 1977), p. 43.Google Scholar

51. Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge, Mass: The M.I.T. Press, 1966.Google Scholar

52. Cina, February 9, 1980. This article claims that in terms of soil fertility the Riga region is almost the same as the Balvi region in Eastern Latvia, yet income for farms in the Riga region is twelve times as high for equivalent units as in Balvi. The average income for Kolkhozniks in the Eastern Latvian zone in 1970 was 830 rubles; in the Riga district (raion) the average income was 1,359. Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1970, p. 514. Between 1959 and 1970 the population of the Eastern zone had decreased from 100 to 79.9%, but that of the Central zone, where Riga is located, had increased very slightly to 100.4%. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 104.Google Scholar

53. Riga accounted for 68.4% of all industrial profits and 52.6% of all industrial workers in 1970. Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1970 (Riga: Statistika, 1972), pp. 464 and 467. During 1977 the city of Riga produced 128.1 million cubic meters of effluent. Only 24.6 million meters or 19.2% received any treatment whatsoever. Riga produced 66.8% of all urban effluent in Latvia but its share of treated effluent was only 32.2% Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1977 (Riga: Liesma, 1978) pp. 296-97.Google Scholar

54. Gunars Asaris, “Vai Riga bus milzu pilseta?” Dzimtenes balss, June 14, 1973. V. Sisojevs, “Pilseta jaattista zinatniski,” Z.T. no. 12, 1965, p. 1. Latvian economist and editor of the science journal Zinatneun tehnika maintained in an editorial that building additional factories in larger cities was still much more economical than building them in smaller cities. “Mazo pilsetu perspektivas”, Z.T. no. 12, 1971, p. 2.Google Scholar

55. Valdis Mezapuke, “Strādā Rīgā, dzivo ārpilsētā,” Z.T. no. 10, 1973, pp. 13-15. About 40,000 workers commute daily to Riga.Google Scholar

56. Rutkis, p. 297.Google Scholar

57. Rudzats and Vitolins, p. 5. Purins and Jankevics, 2nd ed. p. 260. About 40% of all rural labor still lived in isolated homesteads in 1979. One of the biggest reasons for attempting to move people to agrotowns is the apparent difficulty of constructing the simplest amenities. In 1979 only 36% of homesteads had running water, 32% had indoor toilets, 5% did not have electricity. M. Kruzmetra, “Kadas esam un ko gribam,” Padomju Latvijas sieviete, no. 11, 1979, p. 5.Google Scholar

58. Mezgailis and Zvidrins, p. 101.Google Scholar

59. Ibid, p. 95.Google Scholar

60. Purins and Jankevics, 2nd ed., p. 245.Google Scholar

61. P. Zvidrins and A. Lapins, “Ka ar precesanos Latvija,” Z.T. no. 3, 1976, p. 25. Those getting married for the first time are slightly younger. In 1975 for example, males married on average at 26, females at 25. B. Mezgailis, “leinteresetiesam mes visi,” Skola un gimene, no. 9, 1975, p. 26.Google Scholar

62. Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1977, p. 19.Google Scholar

63. Zvidrins and Lapins, p. 25.Google Scholar

64. Mezgailis, p. 26.Google Scholar

65. Z. Mironova, “Internacionalistu partija,” Jautajumi un atbildes, no. 18, 1973, pp. 4-5.Google Scholar

66. A Kholmogorov, Internatsionalnie cherti sovetskikh natsii (Moscow: Misl, 1970), pp. 70-71.Google Scholar

67. Wesley A. Fisher, “Ethnic Consciousness and Intermarriage: Correlates of Endogamy Among the Major Soviet Nationalities,” Soviet Studies, no. 3, (July) 1977, p. 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Peter Zvidrins, “The Dynamics of Fertility in Latvia,” Population Studies, no. 2, 1979, p. 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. The 1977-78 birth rate per thousand women aged 15 to 49 was the following: USSR, 68.8; RSFSR, 58.1; Ukraine, 56.1; Lithuania, 58.8; Estonia, 59.2; Latvia, 52.5; Tadzhikistan, 167. Vestnik statistiki, no. 11, 1977, p. 66.Google Scholar

70. Bruno Mezgailis.Google Scholar

71. Zvidrin, p. 279.Google Scholar

72. Ibid, pp. 279-280.Google Scholar

73. Ibid, p. 280.Google Scholar

74. Bruno Mezgailis, “Latvijas PSR iedzivotaji sodien un rit,” Z. T., no. 10, 1976, p. 6.Google Scholar

75. Purins and Jankevics, vol. 2, p. 241. A. Zvezdovs, “Iedzivotaju pieauguma galvenaiskomponents,” Z.T. no. 1, 1969, p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Cina, July 14, 1979, I. Andersons, “Demografiskas politikas problemam — sabiedribas uzmanibu,” Padomju Latvijas komunists, no. 10, 1979, pp. 3-13. A book printed in 30,000 copies was entitled “The Third Child”. I. Andersons, Tresais berns (Riga: Liesma, 1979).Google Scholar

77. B. Mezgailis, “Demografiskie procesi un psihologiskais klimats,” Literatura un maksla, June 8, 1974, p. 7.Google Scholar

78. Christian Science Monitor, November 26, 1979.Google Scholar

79. Among the more informative articles on the birth rate problem, one can include the following: B. Mezgailis, “Dzimstibas paaugstinasanas programma,” Veseliba, no. 7, 1976, pp. 8-10. Idem, “Kapec tik mazas gimenes?” Literatura un Maksla, April 26, 1969, p. 13. Janis Liepins, “Dazi gimenes nestabilitates celoni,” Literatura un maksla, May 11, 1974. Janis Bruvelis, “Darba celienu beidzot, jaunu sakot,” Zvaigzne, no. 24, 1970, p. 6. Cina, December 29, 1973, November 23, 1973, July 14, 1979. Padomju jaunatne, January 19, 1977. L. Apsite, “Kad gimenes bus daudz bernu?” Padomju Latvijas sicviete, no. 12, 1973. pp. 20-21. J. Andrejeva, “Ieskats bernu dzimstibas problema,” Veseliba, no. 6, 1974, pp. 1-2. J. Liepins and G. Vitenbergs, “Kapec nav vairak?” Padomju Latvijas sieviete, no. 3, 1974. A good English language source on the problem is also available: Aina Zarins, “Searching for Ways to Raise the Birth Rate in Latvia,” Radio Liberty Research. September 9, 1975.Google Scholar

80. P. P. Zvidrinsh, “Dinamika i demograficheskie faktory rozhdaemosti v Latvii,” in A. G. Volkova, et al., eds., Voprosi demografii (Moscow: Statistika, 1970), p. 254.Google Scholar

81. P. Zvidrins, “The Dynamics of Fertility in Latvia,” p. 282. Reference to twelve rubles per child from Christian Science Monitor, November 26, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82. See analysis by the author, “Two Demographic Variables in the Latvian SSR,” Bulletin of Baltic Studies, no. 8, 1971. p. 15.Google Scholar

83. L. Ye. Darsky, Sotsiologicheskiye issledovanie, no. 3, 1979, as translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, XXXI, no. 35, 1979, p. 1.Google Scholar

84. Ibid.Google Scholar

85. E. Vitolins, “Latvijas PSR iedzivotaju mirstiba, tas galvenie celoni,” in Latvijas PSR zinatnu akademijas ekonomikas instituts, eds., Demografijas socialas problemas latvijas PSR (Riga: Zinatne, 1977).Google Scholar

86. E. Vitolins, “Iedzivotaju videja muza garuma palielinasanas iespejas musu republika,” Veseliba, no. 11, 1974.Google Scholar

87. Ibid.Google Scholar

88. Ibid.Google Scholar

89. Cina, October 23, 1974.Google Scholar

90. Veseliba, no. 12, 1973, p. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91. Ibid.Google Scholar

92. Janis Strazdins, “Kad alkoholiki pacels balto karogu?” Z.T., no. 7, 1974, p. 14.Google Scholar

93. Padomju jaunatne, March 1, 1977.Google Scholar

94. Ibid.Google Scholar

95. Cina, August 6, 1978.Google Scholar

96. J. Krumins and P. Zvidrins, Padomju Latvijas iedzivotaju muza ilgums (Riga: Liesma, 1976), p. 152.Google Scholar

97. Latvijas PSR tauta saimnieciba 1973, p. 66.Google Scholar

98. Ibid.Google Scholar

99. E.D. Kobakhidze, “Economic-Geogrphic Peculiarities of Formulation of the Industrial-Territorial Complexes of Union Republics,” Soviet Geography, no. 12, 1977, p. 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

100. Ibid.Google Scholar

101. Gundar Julian King, Economic Policies in Occupied Latvia: A Manpower Management Study (Tacoma, Wash.: Pacific Lutheran University Press, 1965), pp. 193-204.Google Scholar

102. New York Times, March 21, 1971.Google Scholar

103. A. Voss, “Lielas draudzibas speks,” Draugs, no. 12, 1972, p. 2 (a translated reprint article from Ogonok).Google Scholar

104. A. Voss, “V yedinom norodnokhozyaist vennom komplekse,” Kommunist, no. 14, 1978, p. 66.Google Scholar

105. Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1973, p. 9.Google Scholar

106. Ibid.; Naselenie SSSR, p. 29.Google Scholar

107. Itogi perepisi 1970, VII, pp. 6-7, p. 141.Google Scholar

108. This number is based on the difference between total immigrants from outside Latvia and the sum of immigrants from all other Soviet republics (cf. Itogi perepisi 1970, VII, p. 141.Google Scholar

109. Cina, March 25, 1980.Google Scholar

110. N. Baranovskis, “Iedzivotaju migracijas motivi Latvija,” in Demografijas socialas problemas Latvijas PSR, p. 85.Google Scholar

111. V. Ne&otnaja, in round table discussion summarized by A. Zvezdovs, “Idezivotaju pieauguma galvenais komponents,” Z.T., no. 1, 1969, p. 19.Google Scholar

112. Baranovskis, p. 88.Google Scholar

113. Narkhoz latviiskoi SSR 1978, pp. 41-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114. Naselenie SSR, p. 29.Google Scholar

115. Purins and Jankevics, 1st ed., p. 227.Google Scholar

116. Purins and Jankevics, 1st ed., p. 227; idem 2nd ed., p. 239.Google Scholar

117. Itogi perepisi 1970. Google Scholar

118. Naselenie SSSR, p. 24 and 29.Google Scholar

119. Samsons, I, p. 473.Google Scholar

120. Cina, November 8, 1973.Google Scholar

121. Andreas Tenson, “New Inducements for Resettlement in Farming Areas,” Radio Liberty, January 2, 1974. (RL 206/72).Google Scholar

122. Izvestia, July 1, 1977 as cited in Radio Liberty, August 31, 1977. (RL 206/77).Google Scholar

123. Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1975, p. 109.Google Scholar

124. Cina, August 13, 1977.Google Scholar

125. Washington Post, October 6, 1974.Google Scholar

126. For school statistics see Tsu, Narodnoe obrazovanie nauka i kultura v SSSR published by “Statistika” in Moscow in 1971 and 1977. For data on publishing see appendix.Google Scholar

127. Latvijas PSR tautas saimnieciba 1977, p. 9.Google Scholar

128. Narodnoe khoziaistvo Latviiskoi SSR 1972, p. 9.Google Scholar

129. Ludmila Terentjeva, “Ka divtautibu gimenes jauniesi izskir savu tautibu?” Z.T. no. 8, 1970, p. 12.Google Scholar

130. The other parts of the study were presented in a paper by Terenteya at the 8th World Congress of Sociology in Toronto, August 17-24, 1974. Her paper was titled in English as “Forming of Ethnic Self-Consciousness in Nationally Mixed Families in the USSR.”Google Scholar