Antisemitism in Latvia

Jewish communities formed in regions that later became Latvia under different rulers and residence rules. Christian prejudice and imperial discrimination shaped their position.

Explore Latvia

Published by WTJPublication updated

Local roots, then a politics of ethnic exclusion

Jewish communities formed in regions that later became Latvia under different rulers and residence rules. Christian prejudice and imperial discrimination shaped their position. The republic established in 1918 offered citizenship and space for Jewish schools and political activity, while nationalist antisemites argued for a narrower ethnic nation. German occupation in 1941 combined Nazi racial ideology with local collaboration and the false claim that Jews collectively represented Soviet rule.

Sixteenth century–1918

Unequal local life · A community lives inside several changing maps

Different rulers and residence rules shaped the Jewish histories later gathered under Latvia’s name.

Communities before the modern state

Jewish communities developed in Courland, Latgale and other regions over centuries. The areas had different political histories and eventually fell under Russian imperial rule. Their Jewish residents worked in varied occupations and sustained communal life. Modern Latvia inherited these histories rather than creating them.

Residence is a special permission

Imperial rules restricted Jewish residence and opportunity, with regional exceptions. A person’s identity could determine where they were allowed to settle. The resulting distribution of Jewish communities reflected administrative decisions as well as family choices. It cannot be explained through a timeless preference for separation.

Religion supplies the outsider image

Christian anti-Jewish prejudice could make a religious minority appear suspect despite everyday contact. Local economic tensions gave that suspicion additional uses. Such hostility existed alongside trade and neighbourly relationships. Neither coexistence nor discrimination alone accounts for every place and period.

1918–1941

Rights & nationalism · The republic opens space that later regimes narrow

Jewish political and cultural participation confronted increasingly restrictive forms of state power.

Citizens participate

In Latvia’s independent republic, Jewish parties held seats in parliament and municipal bodies. Schools and associations sustained different languages and political traditions. Participation exposed the falsehood of a uniform Jewish agenda: Jewish residents debated how they wished to live within the new state.

Ethnic nationalism contests equality

Nationalist antisemites treated Jews as outsiders and economic rivals. This argument could dismiss citizenship as insufficient proof of belonging. It offered an ethnic definition of the nation that excluded people already participating in its institutions and daily life.

Successive governments restrict institutions

Kārlis Ulmanis’s 1934 coup ended parliamentary democracy and restricted independent organizations. Soviet occupation in 1940 suppressed Jewish institutions along with other forms of civic life. These changes reduced autonomy, but must be distinguished from the Nazi genocide that followed.

1941–1944

Nazi occupation · Riga’s residents are isolated, then murdered

German authorities and Latvian collaborators made the city a centre of persecution.

July 1941

German forces occupied Riga in July 1941. German killing units and Latvian auxiliaries attacked Jews, and authorities established a ghetto. Nazi racial ideology and local antisemitism reinforced persecution. The perpetrators were identifiable organizations and individuals, not an undifferentiated Latvian population.

Rumbula

In late November and early December 1941, German and Latvian perpetrators murdered thousands of Riga’s Jews at Rumbula. The killings were organized, with people driven from the ghetto to the killing site. A supposedly dangerous racial category had been turned into a list of civilians to murder.

The ghetto also holds deportees

Jews deported from Germany and other places were also sent to Riga. Their presence reveals the wider reach of Nazi persecution. A record from the city may therefore describe a local resident or someone forcibly brought from elsewhere. Both were subjected to a system that treated ancestry as guilt.

1941 and after

Choices under persecution · A woodshed conceals another possibility

The Lipke family’s rescue work shows what it took to refuse the persecution of neighbours.

Žanis Lipke acts

Žanis Lipke helped Jews escape from forced labour and the Riga ghetto. At his family’s property, a hiding place beneath a woodshed concealed people from persecutors. Rescue required practical arrangements: food, shelter, secrecy and repeated decisions to take risks for other people.

Rescue is a family and network effort

Lipke’s wife Johanna and others participated in keeping people alive. A famous rescuer’s name can obscure the network behind the act. The shelter only worked because people sustained it over time while authorities and collaborators were searching for those it protected.

An exception that exposes a choice

Rescue does not erase the killings or excuse those who assisted them. It makes a different response visible within the same setting. The larger account must name German policy and Latvian collaboration while remembering the people who chose to help their targeted neighbours.

2023–present

October 7 & today · October 7 & today

Contested Holocaust memory and online radicalization shaped Latvia’s incidents, while its small official totals followed a different course.

A threat inside a place of memory

On October 10, 2023, police recorded an intoxicated visitor’s threat to burn the Riga Ghetto and Latvian Holocaust Museum. Only three days had passed since Hamas’s attack on Israel.

The museum preserves the history of Jewish lives destroyed by persecution. The threat directed new hostility towards a place built to remember that destruction. Its timing places it in the immediate aftermath, though the date alone does not establish the visitor’s motive or connect the person to an organized movement.

A new dispute borrows an old emblem

Nazi persecution and local collaboration devastated Latvian Jewish life. Later conflicts over remembrance shaped whether Jewish victims belonged within the national story. An anti-Israeli swastika poster in 2024 brought that history into a current dispute: the emblem of Jewish extermination appeared beside an Israeli flag.

Security reporting identified small left-wing activist settings and risks from particular residents’ radicalization, including some arrivals from regions with terrorist activity. It assessed terrorism risk as low, without establishing an Islamist–left alliance. The museum threat and poster were real harms, but recorded incidents did not show a nationwide surge. Latvia’s aftermath followed its own memory conflicts and political settings. The poster shows how a claim about Israel can carry the very symbol once used to destroy Jewish life.

A different pattern, with real incidents

Latvian security reporting did not find increased right- or left-wing extremist activity after Hamas’s attack. Official antisemitism-related incident totals also remained small, falling from nine in 2023 to five in 2024.

Those findings should not erase the museum threat, vandalism or Holocaust justification reported online. They do mean that Latvia’s story cannot simply be copied from countries recording much larger increases. The known incidents still changed the lives and places they touched. The small official totals describe what was recorded; they cannot tell us everything about what people experienced.