Latvia regained its independence in 1991 after five decades of Soviet occupation, which had implied a huge migration of Russian speaking workers in the 50s and 60s and an intensive policy of Russification. The shift in demographic balance was interpreted by the Latvian elite after 1991 as a threat for the survival of the Latvian nation. Asserting national identity became under these circumstances essential. A definition based on ethnicity has been chosen and Latvia''s role as a victim throughout the centuries was defined as the cornerstone of its identity. On the way to Europe however, they ran into a conflict, because it ignored Western Europe different perception of the Second World War. In defending the role of the Latvian nation as a victim and focusing only on its sufferings endured during the Soviet period, the official historical narrative started to compete with the victims of the Holocaust, which has taken an important place in the self-conception of Western Europe. While progressively joining the different European institutions, Latvian historical discourse became under increasing pressure and was finally revised. National, international institutions and NGOs took part in this process. This paper is looking at the interactions between these institutions leading the authorities to modify their position regarding memory policy. In order to explain the changes in national policies, the concrete tools of the European institutions and the conditions of their use will be examined. One needs to distinguish between two different sets of instruments, "normative pressure" and "conditionality". Assessing whether and how European institutions succeeded in influencing Latvian official positions also requires analysing how the external pressures have being "domesticated", i.e. the domestic reaction to external impulses. This analysis will also give cues to understand how the governments of the "new" member states may let recognise their claims regarding memory policy, once their country joined the EU.
