Clearly the Germans did not give Latvians any semblance of independence but at the same time there were people who naively saw them initially as saviours because of the communist crimes. It may not have been the waffen-SS that the Latvians were in but this is something that has caused a lot of confusion amongst Latvians themselves.

Peteris wrote: “I bet if you subscribed to a Google Alert on “Earth,” you’d get some stuff on “intelligent design.” But I still don’t understand what you’re saying—the best way to deflect prop is by churning out more/worse prop, perhaps?”
No.  Is this an idiotic suggestion, perhaps? Or are you serious? Or does your “intelligent design” imagination just fail you?  Google just happens to be down the street from me, distracting information about as relevant as your suggestion that I google “Earth” in this thread about “Latvia.” Do you consider my posting the Ezergailis link as “churning out more/worse prop?”

My concern when I walk out into my American world today - just in case some rare American has actually googled “Latvia” because he or she wanted some Latvian news and got Donald’s Latvian news - is whether to just call myself Amber Sun, as opposed to giving my real Latvian name, as the easiest way to avoid explaining, (1) that my unusual name is Latvian, and (2) that Latvians did not think of “nazis as their saviors” and that my family members were not “SS.” You have your issues at Maxima in Daugavpils and I have mine at Trader Joe’s in Berkeley.

It would make my Latvian day, as I hope it would yours, to know that my fellow Americans are reading Andrievs E. and not Donald H. on their “Latvia” google alerts . (Who is Donald H. anyway?) If other Latvians don’t care that they are still in 2008 being defamed as “nazi-loving and SS-revering” it’s not my issue alone.  I can always call myself Amber Sun or Mary Smith and just continue shopping in peace.

I am sure this will be dismissed as more chorus, but I fail to see the qualitative difference between what Ambersun has written in the past and what Donald H. writes.
Change a couple of words and I can hear Ambersun’s solo:
“During WW-2 the people of the Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia looked upon the German nazis as their saviors {from a brutal Russian Occupation}. Teh (sic) Nazis liberated thjem (sic) from the Communist Russians & gave them bacjk (sic) their independence as nations. Many men from these nations joined {were conscripted into} the Werhrmacht & the Waffen SS.”
I honestly don’t understand Ambersun’s point. I think Ilze put it best in her post. Let those men rest. They’ve earned their vieglas smiltis. Trotting out their memory each time one needs to make a political point just sullies that memory. And its counterproductive and unnecesssary. Most people do not begrudge Germany or Japan honoring their war dead because they’re honoring the dead, not trying to prove that they fought and died in a just cause. It might not be fair that Latvian’s find themselves in that position but it is what it is. If you truly want to honor the memory of the dead and those who survived without having to prove their cause was just (and Germany’s cause was not just, not matter how much Latvians might have benefited) then you need to honor all of those who died in the defense of Latvia regardless of which side or which uniform they wore. That’s the only way to truly honor the dead.
And ultimately, if you want to be objective and do something good towards the Latvian cause all you really have to do is point out that Germany was defeated in 1945 and the Baltics were occupied for a long time after the Nazi threat was defeated. Instead Ambersun, et al, keep falling into the trap of trying to prove that Latvia had a lot to gain by fighting along side Germany (or whatever neutral term you want to use) in WWII.
Ambersun had asked Peteris what choice he would have made if had been there and then. I know that had she asked me the choice would have been made for me. Regardless of whether I had “assimilated” or “integrated” into the Latvian nation or “identified” myself as a Latvian’s Latvian. It would have been a simple stark choice. And that’s a choice that would have been made for many had Germany defeated Russia. If Ambersun truly wants to objectively (since she accusses everyone else of having an agenda) fight the good fight on behalf of Latvia’s image in the world she needs to understand this very simple fact. Most people looking at this objectively will not be able to reconcile the historical record and arrive at a conclusion she’d find palatable.

Andrejs

Andrejs, you wrote: “Trotting out their memory [the Latvian Legionnaires] each time one needs to make a political point just sullies that memory.”
Andrejs, save your concern.  Had you really been following this thread from the beginning and read Ezergailis in explanation, you would see the inappropriateness of your post.  The topic of this thread I started is March 16 - Latvian Legion Remembrance Day. I chose to remember the Latvian Legionnaires on their day - and my father, who is buried in Lestene by my mother’s choice - “in the arms of mother Latvia.” It’s not my personal agenda to press you or anyone to join in remembering the Latvian Legionnaires.

You identify yourself as a “marginal” Latvian but google alert Donald H. doesn’t really care what your personal Latvian connection is or was to Latvia.  He seems pretty inclusive.  How does this clarification of Donald’s news sound to you?  “During WW-2 the people of the Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia [including Jews, Russians, well, all the people] looked upon the German nazis as their saviors.” I won’t insult you in suggesting that you and yours were among “the people” Donald is writing about.  I wonder how Donald might have written this differently so that “the people of the Baltic nations [etc.]” would not be this “collective” mess that implicates all of us Latvians - you, me, JKS, Peteris - as viewing “nazis as saviors?”

Andrejs, in your own words, “...you need to honor all of those who died in the defense of Latvia regardless of which side or which uniform they wore” as I have repeatedly stated I do.  Remember, my family actually fought “in the defense of Latvia” wearing the only uniforms available (as opposed to nazi or soviet) or did you miss that?

Andrejs, I unequivocally reject your offensive suggestion that I would write the following.  You wrote: 
“Change a couple of words and I can hear Ambersun’s solo:
“During WW-2 the people of the Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia looked upon the German nazis as their saviors {from a brutal Russian Occupation}. Teh (sic) Nazis liberated thjem (sic) from the Communist Russians & gave them bacjk (sic) their independence as nations. Many men from these nations joined {were conscripted into} the Werhrmacht & the Waffen SS.”

It’s the Kremlin-inspired attack song you hear resounding in your brain. Only a disinformed and abducted mind would imagine such incorrect, garbled, defamatory nonsense.  You don’t get the point of my outrage and you clearly don’t know the history.

Taimaut for something worthwhile.

My dear Amber,

Irony is often lost on the written page. My self-identification as a “marginal” Latvian was in direct response to your definition of what it means to be a Latvian. I have no doubts about my self identify. Its you who needs to reconcile my “marignal” status as a Latvian with your view of what it means to be a Latvian.
As to the Kremlin’s song, as I wrote earlier I am not the one who is falling into that trap. I don’t need to defend the Legionaires. They don’t need defending. No more than your average Italian, German or Japanese veteran of WWII.
As to me knowing or not knowing history. I’ve related my family history on these pages before. If you’d like I can repeat it again for all the good it would do. I don’t need evidence of the greyness of history. I am living proof of it. I am perfectly comfortable in the color spectrum outside of black and white. Are you?

Andrejs, marginal Latvian

Well, first, let me say, Ambersun, I appreciate your trials and tribulations at Trader Joes.  Shopping can present such challenges-- ain’t it the truth though!  Personally, I’m very disappointed they discontinued halvah; we told them we were Latvian, we liked it, ate it, but it did no good…

You know, the more I’ve read through this very long, sometimes arduous and confusing thread, the more I think that most people here basically agree, disagreements coming into play about semantics, the splicing/splitting.  Maybe, I’m just optomistic because of Lieldienas.  But I don’t see anyone here denouncing the legionari--very much on the contrary.  I, myself, feel a profound sadness for the few ‘sirmgalvie’ who are left and soon will be gone forever--more power to them and I salute them, their march to Brivibas Pieminekla, the placing of flowers; my onkulis who braved Kurzemes Cietoknis, my dad who served as a translator

However, I do respect VVF’s viewpoint and understand why in her ultimate wisdom, for the best interests of Latvia, she thought it best to make the official holiday, November 11th; I also think that the article by Atis Lejins is well worth taking a look at.  I remember we had a LOLer named Gaidis, level-headed, intelligent who touched upon some of the same subjects.

Nu pagaidam un Priecigas Lieldienas.

I shall now relax, listen to the Portuguese radio program and prepare for tommorrow.

Irena.

“Clearly the Germans did not give Latvians any semblance of independence but at the same time there were people who naively saw them initially as saviours because of the communist crimes. It may not have been the waffen-SS that the Latvians were in but this is something that has caused a lot of confusion amongst Latvians themselves.”

What they saw them as should be excused - that is part of the argument. They were just boys you know…

Consider the base point of view of the argument. Rehabilitate the German war effort - occupation included - and the small details and minor tragedies will be washed away. Bring in the other volunteers into this effort - the Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles etc and one can argue (as at least a couple here do) that the effort couldnt have been that terrible if it included so many brothers.

Sorry - but this sort of effort is dead before it takes its first step. The boys were led by grown men who made specific choices.

I wore a uniform in my work for 12 years. I was a mere boy back then but I knew what that uniform meant and where it came from.

Protams, visai sitai atgremosanai ir tikai propagandas vertiba, bariba latvju tautas nicinatajiem. 

What surprises me is that nobody really honors the “true liberators”, the Latvian division that under bolshevik command were fighting in Courland not the Nazis, but their own families – the 19th.  If the red Latvians were placed at least farther north or south, they would have the excuse – attacking Germans. As it was, they were Stalin’s butchers of their own fathers, brothers, and sons.

If they were such a bolshevik heroes, why didn’t they fight in the Nazi nest – Berlin, rather than destroying their own homeland, that was sold out by “Allies” to Stalin anyhow?  The Legionnaires were apparently to soft-hearted, we left too much of trash alive.

Mr. L. L.

Priecīgas Lieldienas!

What follows is for the contentious contingent of the forum, which knows no rest on holidays, not even on Klusā sestdiena.  I posted the original article by Atis Lejiņš’ two+ years ago (not quite a month prior to Easter that year), and here goes again with an English language translation.  Any mistakes or infelicities in the translation are solely mine.

E.

March 16th and the year 1939
Atis Lejiņš
(Originally published on March 15, 2006 by “Diena” and entitled “16.marts un 1939.gads “)

If once and for all we don’t get rid of the national victim syndrome, then we won’t be prepared for the next war – World War IV (counting the Cold War as III).  In the end, the same thing could happen to us as occurred in 1939.

Russia has gotten its second breath, the EU is weaker than we would like, and NATO with difficulties is attempting to adapt to the war against international terror and take on a global security role.  The US has its hands filled with Iraq and now along comes Iran.  The Near East may be the first place since 1945 where a bomb may be detonated, but Russia is backing Iran.  Everyone knows that China is positioning itself as the world’s next superpower.

Are we ready for the new, rapid currents changing the international scene or will we be just as helpless as we were in 1939?

The importance of national security even for the old EU and NATO countries like Denmark is confirmed by the apparently innocent publishing of cartoons.  The world truly has become a village – what occurs on one end, immediately has repercussions on the other end.  Internal political problems now have occurred for Denmark, moreover its economic losses in the Islam market are enormous.  Remember – it took the EU a month before it could unite and support Denmark.

Will March 16 become a similar threat to our security as Denmark’s episode with the drawings of the prophet Mohammed?  Everything seemed correct, the Danes using their right to freedom of speech, we – honoring the memory of deceased legionnaires.

However, the Danes were up against serious forces that used the newspapers’ cartoons as an excuse for its war againt the world’s western culture.  In our case, March 16 is a repeated opportunity for certain circles that cannot reconcile themselves with Latvia’s regained independence and a free Latvia’s and Russia’s political relations.  We are too independent.  An opportunity like March 16 to avenge Latvia for regaining independence is too good to pass by.

Why are we giving our enemy this opportunity?  Is it because we simply aren’t politically wise enough, or is it because something foul remains from the Nazi occupation, which we don’t want to admit to as candidly as we have to the Soviet occupation?  Or is it, after all, that an evil root is hidden in 1939 and a year later when we surrendered without even the smallest display of resistance?

What kind of effect do you think this type of betrayal left on our nation’s deepest layers of consciousness?  Doesn’t this later erupt as an inadequate response in a completely defomed way?  Let us remember that only 20 years prior to Ulmanis’ surrender to Soviet pressure, Latvia had declared war on Russia and Germany – and won!

Before we disentangle the link between March 16 and the country’s betrayal in 1939, let us look at the various options that were available to each Baltic country in relation to Nazi Germany’s occupation policy and its consequences.  Lithuania’s self-government refused Hitler’s order to mobilize its males.  Only voluntary enlistment occurred, as was the case in Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, etc.

Today, Lithuania and the other mentioned countries do not commemorate March 16.  The German-appointed governments of Latvia and Estonia submitted to Berlin.  Could it be that we and the Estonians lacked the confidence and the strength provided by traditions possessed by an old country like Lithuania?

Perhaps not, since in the case of Latvia, if we can believe our historians, the question to submit or not submit was decided by only one vote; half of the self-government had the courage to defy the order.  The deciding vote belonged to the self-government’s director general Oskars Dankers, who may have been a German secret police agent.  Because of him two generations of independent Latvia’s men went to their senseless deaths. The consequences are still felt today.

Even though the Estonians submitted, they do not have to fear March 16, because they nipped the threat in the bud.  How?  As Tomass Ilvess, then Estonia’s Foreign Minister - now a European Parliament deputy - told me at the time, the government spoke to former legionnaires and they immediately understood that a procession would hurt Estonia.  Provocateurs were left waiting in the wings, because after the church service the elderly men dispersed and each went to his own home.  The most peculiar aspect about our situation is that NATO representatives, after speaking to former legionnaires, achieved the same success, since it was understood that commemorating March 16 threatened our being accepted into NATO.  However, a year after entering NATO, it began all over again!  And the world learned that there is a country in Europe where Hitler and Stalin continue to be at war!

It’s true enough that later our northern neighbors, in contrast to our memorial in Lestene, built an unlucky monument for the legionnaires that created a huge ruckus, but in the end this has become a memorial for all who lost their lives, and everyone could settle down.

Knowing all of this, why hasn’t the renewed, independent Latvia given its official word about the way that the self-government voted?  And why aren’t we commemorating the day that the Germans shot the followers of Kurelis by laying flowers at the site of their death?

(Turpinājums)

Wasn’t it because of the „Kurelieši” that there was a desire to forcibily mobilize all Latvian men and even more evil – underaged boys?  In contrast to March 16, which was the day that Hitler’s generals dictated that innumerable battles would occur, the occupation force’s bloody reaction to the „Kurelieši” maturing into an objective manifestation of national strength is an affirmation of our own strength, and entirely corresponds to our national interests.

If the 19th division had been allowed to retreat from Vidzeme through Rīga on its way to Kurzeme, the battle with the Germans would have occurred in Rīga.  The division would have remained in Rīga and awaited the Red Army and this would have meant disobeying the German high command.  Even if for only a few days, the legion would have been transformed into independent Latvia’s army.  There was such a plan.  The Germans squashed it.  But, if the plan had been realized, would anyone today want to commemorate March 16? 

Moreover, one of the self-government’s demands before agreeing to mobilization was that Latvian soldiers would only defend Latvia’s borders.  This was Finland’s governmental policy, which didn’t submit to German pressure and prevented its army from advancing after it regained its lost territories.  The Finnish army didn’t participate in the battle of Leningrad and this far-sighted policy help Finland protect its independence.  By commemorating March 16, we in fact are siding with Berlin against the self-government, which tried to save what it could once mobilization had become a fact.  In Askolds Saulīte’s documentary ‘The Reds and the Browns”, former legionnaires also say: we felt as though we were fighting for Latvia only when we had retreated back onto our own soil.

In this time when the world prepares for World War IV, can we afford to continue battling World War II?  Is this how we’ll protect our independence in the 21st century?  If we had honorably prepared for WWII, then it’s doubtful whether we would commemorate March 16 or have had such a huge loss of life as occurred in WWII.

We probably would have had Latvian soldiers in the Soviet Army, who would have gone over to the Afghan partisans instead of loyally battling for the occupiers of Latvia.  The defeat of the Soviet army in Afghanistan opened the gates of our freedom, however we didn’t have the honor of putting our hand to the historical defeat of this empire. The opportunities existed – offers were proposed.

If we cannot condemn and distance ourselves from our government’s double betrayals in 1939 and 1940, we will establish traditions of surrender, betraying our country and developing a readiness to serve in a foreign army to the final man – until we achieve our total annhilation.

Wahabist wrote the following, the first paragraph being a quote from me:

“Clearly the Germans did not give Latvians any semblance of independence but at the same time there were people who naively saw them initially as saviours because of the communist crimes. It may not have been the waffen-SS that the Latvians were in but this is something that has caused a lot of confusion amongst Latvians themselves.”
What they saw them as should be excused - that is part of the argument. They were just boys you know…
Consider the base point of view of the argument. Rehabilitate the German war effort - occupation included - and the small details and minor tragedies will be washed away. Bring in the other volunteers into this effort - the Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles etc and one can argue (as at least a couple here do) that the effort couldnt have been that terrible if it included so many brothers.
Sorry - but this sort of effort is dead before it takes its first step. The boys were led by grown men who made specific choices.
I wore a uniform in my work for 12 years. I was a mere boy back then but I knew what that uniform meant and where it came from.

I agree with you. But I don’t think I have at any time tried to rehabilitate the German war effort. I’ve written before that I find both the nazi and communist regimes totally abhorrent and by that I also mean equally abhorrent. I would never try to place one above the other. I wouldn’t distinguish in principle between, say a Dankers and a Kirchensteins. The above quote from me is due to a surreal exchange with Ambersun and I think is just a statement of fact rather than an attempt to excuse anyone of anything. Personally I’m inclined to agree that the remembrance should be done on 11th November and with as little showiness as possible but then I’m not into showiness anyway - I didn’t even bother going to my own graduation ceremony, it’s not my style.

I agree with Irena’s post, particularly this quote: ”You know, the more I’ve read through this very long, sometimes arduous and confusing thread, the more I think that most people here basically agree, disagreements coming into play about semantics, the splicing/splitting.”

I think there’s a real problem regarding semantics with this discussion which frankly makes me paranoid about everything I write. For example, I wrote: “ I think that the legionnaires are worthy of the utmost respect and admiration.” At the time I didn’t see anything controversial in the sentence but now I look at it and wonder whether people see the word “admiration” as inappropriate glorification even though that’s not the intention and there’s a danger of getting into a ludicrous paranoia as to what is and isn’t politically correct. Or for example, Peteris wrote about the legionnaires ”you are not going to turn them into heroes, ever” and I can see where he’s coming from on that but then it also comes down to definition and is there a difference between the noun, adjective and adverb and is there a difference between individual and collective heroism - if someone were to say that the legionnaires defended heroically at More, for example, would that make them guilty of glorification? Would anyone bat an eyelid if, say, somebody used the same terminology to describe the defence by the XX corps at the 2nd Battle of the Masurian lakes in 1915 (and I’m aware there weren’t only Latvians in this corps) or the riflemen in the Christmas Battles or at Jugla, or for that matter a Russian soldier at Stalingrad?

Since Ambersun asked about my family, the dead body at Volhov of one of them is pictured in one of the Latvian books from the trimda days. I think from you-know-where that another, more distant relative, may have been awarded the iron cross but I’d have to double-check the facts, but this would neither make him a nazi, nor does it make me one just because I find it interesting, nor would I wish to glorify it -I would be interested if a relative was awarded a communist medal too.  And one of the members of my family who I mentioned in the Ulmanis debate only survived the 1941 deportations after going into hiding after a tip-off. Under the German occupation he was involved in the anti-occupation movement - his name is the second in the list of 188 signatures in the anti-occupation manifesto that was to be handed to Bangerskis in early 1944 - one could say it was 2 years too late, but still. I can assure everyone that I do not have any shady political views, not that I’m saying anyone has accused me of this, but I still feel the need to keep repeating it.

Personally, I find the legion a fascinating subject, as I do the Latvians in the red army in WW2, the Latvian riflemen during both WWI and the revolution, and the soldiers who fought in the war of independence. I think there’s a real danger of an interest in the legion being misinterpreted. Not only am I not a historian, I’m not a linguist either, so perhaps it’s safer I keep out of the debate.

Respect to the Latvians, of all ethnicities, who were dragged into the second world war, regardless of the uniform they wore.

ambersun - 22 March 2008 11:46 AM

It would make my Latvian day, as I hope it would yours, to know that my fellow Americans are reading Andrievs E. and not Donald H. on their “Latvia” google alerts . (Who is Donald H. anyway?)

You cannot control what is being reported, ambersun. This isn’t the Latvia of 1938, or the Soviet Russia of 1982. Controversy will always be a large player in any coverage and the March march is, well, controversial.

ambersun - 22 March 2008 04:45 PM

It’s the Kremlin-inspired attack song you hear resounding in your brain.

How frivolously we throw away words like “Kremlin-inspired” to someone we disagree with. That in itself is Kremlin-inspired when anyone who might squeeze in some opinion gets attacked not on the basis of facts and evidence, but rather gets called an anti-Soviet. It’s similar to talking to Russians about World War II when the argument goes, “Well, then you’re a fascist.” Then thing you’ll know, you’ll be looking for communist party members in your backyard, anyone with a Russian-sounding name, or even in Hollywood. Oh, wait, the US had done all that before.

I was late in this theme a little, but I have watch Andjej Waida film “Katin”. To tell, that I was shocked with this film means to tell nothing. Not because the truth about Katin is told there - eventually I guessed it earlier. That is why, that Poles should live not with this truth, but with monstrous lie.

And not just to live, but also to agree with it. This film is not about those, who has remained to lay in Katin with a hole in the nape, neither about NKVD, nor about Germans, the film is about Poles (who has for some reason survived).

Not about what happened with them in Katin? This answer is obvious. But about, what happened with us, indeed?

I think, looking for the answer is actual also today. As well for Latvians concerning the Legion. And the business - not in Russians, or Germans, or who was better, or worse. Not in that, as these, and those lied and lie about it now. The business is in Latvians themselves and how to live for them.

Eventually there are bases to believe, that Latvians any more will see neither the Soviet Union, nor a nazi Reich , but it is necessary for themselves to live with themselves and to live very long, probably always.

Both eternal memory and the peace to the falling soldiers.

Regards,

Juris