Any author of a book on a small country has to confront the problem of a limited number of interested readers, but tiny Latvia offers a compelling drama for anyone interested in the history of Europe. The Latvian case study illustrates the process of nation-formation and the dilemma of national survival, the panorama of revolution and war, and the diplomatic efforts to find security in a geopolitical environment that includes powerful neighbors such as Germany and Russia. Furthermore, Latvian history shines a light on the human dramas of resistance, dissidence, exile, and migration. In the post-Soviet era, Latvia has dealt with problems of historic justice, the “triple transition” of post-communism, problems of ethnic and social integration, and the quest for membership in NATO and the European Union.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of Latvia's Declaration of Independence, and there will be much taking stock of what has been achieved since Latvia acquired sovereignty and began to control its own destiny. Latvia—A Work in Progess?, an edited volume with sixteen contributors, takes a broad view and provides readers with a solid foundation for understanding many of the key issues in Latvian history, especially the ever-evolving relationship between state and nation. This book contains several chapters on the interwar Republic of Latvia and the reader gains an appreciation for the contingent nature of the emergence of the first Latvian state in the midst of World War I and the Russian Revolution. The eminent historian Andrejs Plakans explains the difficulty of forging a “master narrative” that can tell the story of Latvia's historical development as a state because of the frequent upheavals of borders and regimes on this small piece of territory. War and migration patterns have also drastically altered the country's ethnic composition.

Several authors in this collection show their admiration for the civic elements of Latvian nationhood during the period of 1922–34, when the Latvian nation was envisioned as a multi-ethnic society (1922 was the year that the Constitution was adopted and 1934 was the year that Kārlis Ulmanis staged a coup and established a more nationalist authoritarian regime). Marina Germane points out that the 1919 Citizenship Law offered citizenship to all those who were permanent residents in Latvia prior to the start of the War in 1914, thereby initially granting citizenship to 94% of the population. David J. Smith contributes a chapter on the under-appreciated life and work of Paul Schiemann, a Baltic German who served in the Latvian Saeima and was an early defender of minority rights and European integration. Not surprisingly, the interwar Republic is generally viewed as a “golden age” in the eyes of those who grew up under Soviet rule. Significantly, as Irena Saleniece reports, this is also true for non-Latvians who have a memory of pre-Soviet Latvia as a time when many ethnic minorities benefited from land reform and religious freedom.

Ethnic relations have become a dominant theme in any work on contemporary Latvia, and the contentious issue of citizenship is a point of overlap in the two volumes under review. Based on the non-recognition policy of the western powers following the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, leaders of Latvia's independence movement claimed that they were restoring sovereignty rather than creating a new state. Ultimately this led to the adoption of a controversial approach to citizenship that restored it to the citizens of the interwar Republic of Latvia and their descendants, while hundreds of thousands of Russian-speakers who came to Latvia during the Soviet period would have to apply for naturalization. While this policy meant that nearly 40% of Latvia's Russians were included in the restored citizenry, the fact remained that those excluded were primarily Russians and other Russian-speaking minorities. Although it did not prevent Latvia from meeting the democratic conditions of NATO and EU membership, this policy has received a great deal of criticism, especially from Russia. It also meant that Latvia's democratic consolidation would depend upon the social integration of non-Latvian minorities into a shared Latvian identity.

Since the process of naturalization began, over 145,000 people have received Latvian citizenship, but Susanne Tönsmann is more interested in the puzzle of why 230,000 people have chosen to remain non-citizens. Among the reasons identified by Tönsmann is that many object to the fact that they have to go through the “humiliating” process of naturalization at all. Others remain content with the positive rights bestowed on non-citizens (a status that differs from statelessness). Tönsmann's account differs from most treatments of the subject by taking seriously the duties of citizenship and the goals of the state in constructing its citizenship policy. Her book is thorough, well-balanced, and deserves a wide readership. She has an uncanny ability to summarize complex issues in concise sentences. For example, “The fulfillment of duties makes people citizens, rather than have citizenship,” and “Duties are nothing less than reflections of the state trying to know who it is as a state” (Tönsmann, 142–43).

Finally, many authors in the volume edited by Smith shift attention to the geopolitical context of the renewal of statehood in 1991 and the processes of transition and democratic consolidation that followed. Una Bergmane contributes a detailed examination of the French government's decision to eventually grant diplomatic recognition to the Baltic states in 1991, while Li Bennich-Björkman and Alfs Vanags discuss the impact of western multilateral institutions on Latvia's post-Soviet development. While the European context has undoubtedly been a positive factor in Latvia's post-communist transition, a more assertive Russian foreign policy is once again creating a sense of vulnerability in Latvia. Geoffrey Pridham concludes by noting that “ … now the crisis over Ukraine and Russian ambitions to restore the Soviet Union have driven a wedge between the ethnic political communities in Latvia, raising in a more painful way than before the question of loyalty towards the Latvian state,” (Smith, 193).