Recent research on history teaching has begun to focus on political motivation. This paper is the result of the author's dissertation, which investigates Latvian history teaching under the authoritarian regimes of Ulmanis and Stalin. It reveals the effects of authoritarianism on goals, curriculum, teaching materials and methods, and the teacher's position in the classroom. The research undertaken attempts to discern how authoritarian political rule manipulates the teaching of national history to further its political goals, and the resulting effects. The article focuses on the teaching of Latvian history under the Soviet authoritarian regime in Latvia (1934-1940, 1940-1941/1944-1991), but includes discussion of the Nazi occupation and periods of democracy in Latvian history as a source of comparison in order to analyse the teaching of Latvian history in democratic and authoritarian societies and define the traits characteristic to authoritarian regimes. Authoritarian traits are revealed through comparisons of the purpose of history teaching as determined by the ruling order, the goal of history teaching, curriculum, methodology and materials, and teacher status under authoritarian regimes and democratic regimes. Results indicate that goals of history teaching become contrived under authoritarianism--politicised curriculum marginalises some groups, textbook authorship and choice is limited, and teachers become transmitters of the regime's agenda resulting in marginalisation. This study deduces that two cultures of history teaching emerge--official history in school and unofficial history acquisition that helps maintain a sense of national identity.