Andrejs, did you really write this?

“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.” [my bold.]

Maybe someone else wants to comment on the inappropriateness of Andrejs’ Kremlin-song comparison and explain to him the part of “occupation” he still does not seem to understand.

Aleksejs wrote, quoting ambersun, writing to Anita: “Why didn’t your father just join the Latvian Army and fight for Latvia against Germany?  Oh - that’s right - you forgot to mention:  Latvia was occupied by Germany.”

Aleksejs writes, not fully understanding Latvia’s WW II history: “I don’t understand how it’s different compared to Latvians fighting on the Soviet side, who were conscripted, volunteered, whatever, to the Red Army.”

Aleksejs, the Latvians of WWII were subjected to - the brutal Soviet-Russian occupation of Latvia; the brutal “baigais gads” transformation of the independent Latvia to the grotesque Soviet Latvia; the brutal deportations to Siberia; the deadly and de-humanizing occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany (while also attempting “impossible” resistance by various “impossible” means), illegal conscription by the occupying Germans (while hoping to survive to liberate Latvia); the nightmare Soviet-Russian re-occupation of Latvia; forced war service under the invading/re-occupying Soviet/Russian Red Army; the sacrifice of countless Latvian lives as cannon-fodder by either occupant - and all this and even more was endured by Latvians with the hope and dream to see a restored free-and-independent Latvia.  Aleksejs, what “Latvians” are you thinking of when you compare these Latvians to the “Latvians fighting on the Soviet side...who volunteered, whatever, to the Red Army?” Which “Latvians” volunteered to fight in the Soviet Red Army invading Latvia with the intent to occupy Latvia and revive the ghastly Soviet Latvia?

Ambersun, the list you posted of what the Latvians of WWII were subjected to is true.  Yet it is also true that my father (and Ilze’s father and thousands of other young Latvian men of the time) served in the German army.  Yes, there were reasons, yes, he shouldn’t have been conscripted, most likely he felt patriotic notions (when he wasn’t just a teen trying to survive everything going on), yes, the Russian occupation was horrific.  But he still served in the German army.  You can qualify it, you can get indignant about the necessity, you can question the soldiers’ ethnic background and/or patriotism or, alternatively, you can ascribe noble emotions to them, you can even, as you have proved, get downright snippy about it, but still the fact remains:  they DID serve in the German army.

anita, I disagree agree with you that it’s enough to say without explanation that “they [the Latvian Legionnaires] DID serve in the German army.”
I frankly don’t understand why every Balt/Latvian doesn’t “get snippy” when wrongly and ignorantly identified as one of the Balts/Latvians who saw “nazis as saviors.” That is a willful repetition of stereotypical-slandering of Balts and Latvians and not an objective statement of facts.  Even without malicious intent, “facts” are easily misleading - and intent does matter.  “Intent” matters both morally and legally. “The Latvian Legionnaires” (occupier-called “Voluntary- SS") existed as an illegal conscription of Latvians by the occupying enemy, Nazi Germany, with whom Latvia had nothing in common in Germany’s racist Nazi politics and aggressive German-uber-mensch aspirations for the domination of Europe. Latvia WAS OCCUPIED by the MONSTROUS DEVILS from Soviet-Russia and Nazi-Germany, and under occupation, Latvians DID serve in German and Soviet uniforms and boots under the boots of their captors.  If Latvians would have had their choice, does anyone seriously think the vast majority would not have fought in their own uniforms with the Brits and Yanks to rid the world of both Devils. The middle- finger should be pointed first at Soviet-Russia and Nazi-Germany for cynically bargaining to divvy-up Europe with the Stalin-Molotov/Hitler-Ribbentrop Pact. The other middle-finger should be pointed at those who sacrificed the Latvians to this hell without a real choice. After all that gesturing, if anyone still wants to point a finger, turn the finger back to yourself and find the will and way to create a new and healthier Latvia, a Latvia that not only knows it was occupied (see Peteris for the grim facts: 14% (?) Russians and others “know,” 70% ethnic Latvians “know.” Correct me if wrong.) but also creates the broad alliances and state policies that serve Latvia so much better than it was served yesterday. 

Valters Nolendorfs (of the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia) recommended this book:
Los, los! Davai, davai! by Vilnis Bankovics
http://vip.latnet.lv/lpra/mazais.htm

Mazais cilvēks lielā karā by Artis Drēziņš
Latviešu karavīra Viļņa Bankoviča nesen izdotā grāmata “Los, los! Davai, davai! Otrais pasaules karš manās atmiņās”, manuprāt, varētu būt iesakāma vidusskolēniem kā papildu mācību līdzeklis par Latvijas vēsturi. Viens ir mācīties no vēsturnieku sarakstītām mācību grāmatām, pavisam kas cits (papildus) — izsekot viena jauna, tikko vidusskolu beiguša cilvēka dzīves gaitai laika posmā (1940 — 1950), par kuru šobrīd visvairāk tiek lauzts šķēpu. Vai latvieši krievu armiju sagaidīja kā atbrīvotāju no Ulmaņa kliķes? Vai latvieši bija fašistu līdzskrējēji un pakalpiņi, nezvēri un civiliedzīvotāju slepkavas frontē? Ko nozīmē mazas tautas pārstāvim dienēt svešas varas — gan vācu, gan vēlāk krievu — armijā? Kā ir tad, kad mēnešiem jācieš cietumā un vergu nometnēs bads, jāguļ pie mēslu mucas, jābaro utis un blaktis, jācīnās, mežonīgi jācīnās un jāstrādā, lai dabūtu riecienu skaidu maizes?

V. Bankovičam svešs didaktisks stils, viņš faktiski nepiesauc patriotismu un valstiskas vērtības. Jaunajam cilvēkam vienkārši gribas ar pašcieņu dzīvot un izdzīvot svešu ideoloģiju cīņā. Vienkārši un tajā pašā laikā tēlaini, bieži ar humoristisku piesitienu viņš apraksta 1940. gada notikumus, darbu Baložu kūdras purvā, vēlāk darba dienesta mācības Vācijā, cīņas Volhovas purvos, Vācijā, Čehijā, Polijā, dzīvi cietumā un nometnē Vorkutā, dienestu padomju armijas darba bataljonā Igaunijā. Šī grāmata ir dienasgrāmata un autora nolūks nav bijis kādu pārliecināt, bet gan izstāstīt — viņš pasauli neredz tikai baltu un melnu, piemēram, labus vārdus izpelnās krievu karavīri, kas viņu saņēma gūstā, jo tie bija cilvēcīgi, ēduši pat no viena katla. Šī grāmata ir stāsts arī par to, kā saglabāt cilvēcību un mazliet ironisku attieksmi pret dzīvi arī tad, kad šķiet, kad tas vienkārši nav iespējams: kad no bada pietūkusi seja, kad miesa no vienas vietas noklāta utīm, kad tev līdzās satrakojies čekists nošauj draugu, kad, lai nenosaltu, nakts jāpārlaiž, parokoties zem sniega, kad, šķiet, apstākļi tā sazvērējušies, lai tu no cilvēka kļūtu par zvēru. Bet mazajam cilvēkam, izrādās, pietiek spēka, lai stāvētu tam visam pāri un galu galā uzvarētu.

Atis Lejins has, as many currently ineffectual Latvian leaders, more posturing 20/20 hindsight about what “shoulda, coulda” been done in the past.  He includes such wisdom as:“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.” Yes, Ati, I guess they sure squashed that plan - and a lot more - just like also the Soviets squashed much - including Latvia.  But Atis would have stood up to it all and inspired the wimpy Latvian tauta to follow him.  Too bad we can’t replay the past to have today’s moral Latvian leaders with backbones and the unified Latvian tauta show these yesterday’s cowardly Latvians and their awful collaborationalist leaders how to be truly brave and courageous.  Atis Lejins, the Latvian John Kennedy, inspiring Latvians to throw other Latvians, especially old - if not already dead - under the speeding train that’s carrying Latvia to a new-and-better Latvian greatness, looking at today’s Latvian hero-leaders, in contrast to the old fools, demonstrate exemplary national solidarity, leadership, and courage.  Good luck, Atis Lejins, forming another political party - the Social Democrats.  That’s probably the answer.

“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.”

Sorry JKS - I should have prefaced my post with an appropriate delineation between your post and my subsequent rant.

Have to say that you’re one of the very few posters here that I find few points of argument with.

Vidas

Sunny Bernstein just had to ask:

ambersun - 24 March 2008 10:47 AM

Which “Latvians” volunteered to fight in the Soviet Red Army invading Latvia with the intent to occupy Latvia and revive the ghastly Soviet Latvia?

According to Latvian Army HQ staff officer Captain Krimuldēns, Army Operations Group Commander Colonel Ūdentiņš and a contingent of Latvian Army officers traveled over to Jonišķis in Lithuania to meet with Colonel General Pavlov on 17 June 1940.  Col. Ūdentiņš inquired: “What will be the nature of our relations and what are your intentions?” Pavlov responed: “The current regime of Ulmanis is unacceptable to us.  You will soon have a government which will be friendly to the USSR, and our armies will be allies.  We shall arm you from head to toe with the most modern weapons and armour.  Ūdentiņš further inquired: “Who are we to be allied against?” Pavlov: “Frankly, we will be united against our historic foe—Germany.  When we come into conflict, as you may surmise, we will take the fight into enemy territory, and as allies united we will march into Berlin.”

Also, it may interest you to know that many high-ranking Latvians willingly cooperated with the transition of the Latvian Army into the “People’s Army” (Tautas armija.) Former Prime Minister Ādolfs Bļodnieks recalled the situation thusly:

Komūnistu okupācijas sākumā, 1940. g. jūlijā agrākā Latvijas valdība, armija un vadītāji demokratiskie polītiķi vēlējās paglābt Latvijas armiju no sajaukšanas ar Sarkanarmiju un šinī sakarībā nelaiķis Dr. P. Kalniņš sasauca vairāku atbildīgu valstsvīru sanāksmi, kuŗu skaitā biju arī es, lai apspriestu un izlemtu, vai Brūno Kalniņam vajadzētu vai nevajadzētu uzņemties Latvijas armijas polītisko vadību, pieņemot, ka komūnisti, kam jau bija noteikšanas, tam piekristu. Iznākumā visi klātesošie vienbalsīgi nolēma, ka Brūno Kalniņam ir jāuzņemas šis smagais pienākums. šim atzinumam piekrita arī ģenerālis J. Balodis, ilggadīgais Latvijas kaŗa ministrs, kas vēlāk tika deportēts uz Sibiriju. To pašu atzina arī vairāki Latvijas armijas augstāki virsnieki.

(My rough translation:

At the onset of the Communist occupation in July 1940, elements of the former government of Latvia, its Army, and leading democratic politicians desired to prevent the absorption of the (Latvian) Army into the Red Army.  To this end, the late Dr. Paulis Kalniņš summoned reputable members of the nation’s leadership, myself included, to a meeting to decide whether or not Bruno Kalniņš should accept the position as political leader of the People’s Army, assuming that the communists would sanction this.  All present at this meeting unanimously decided that Bruno Kalniņš should accept this important burden.  The decision was endorsed by General Jānis Balodis, who would later be deported to Siberia.  It was accepted by the highest echelon of Latvian Army officers.)

Bruno Kalniņš held the rank of General and Commissar of the People’s Army for about three months.  One of his top aides was Ulmanis’ crony Colonel A. Kontrovskis.  Some high-ranking officers committed suicide before the occupation, a few others fled to Germany.  Most stayed at their posts, as instructed by Ulmanis.  The vast majority of the enlisted men in the Army also remained at their posts, although some deserted and were shot.

Having befriended and interviewed Dr. Bruno Kalniņš, I can attest that he sincerely believed that his efforts, in cooperation with Army Commander General R. Klaviņš, prevented the Latvian People’s Army from being deployed into Turkmenistan.  Furthermore, to his dying day Dr. Kalniņš insisted that mass demobilization and the reconfiguration of the People’s Army into a smaller territorial corps saved the lives of thousands upon thousands of Latvian soldiers.

Ambersun, I hope this answers your question as to which “Latvians” volunteered to be part of the Soviet Army.

regards,
/R

Thank you Elizabete for the excellent Atis Lejins English translation; this time I’ll save it in my hardrive.

And now it’s my turn with Ambersun.  I’m tired and don’t really much feel like engaging in any arguments, but when I saw what you wrote about Atis Lejins, I could not remain silent.  I find your statement about him, “...inspiring Latvians to throw other Latvians, especially old-if not already dead-under the speeding train...”, demeaning and insulting (OK, “unfair”, to be charitable). I don’t know if you know Atis or that much about him.  But I remember him when I was living in L.A. and he was attending UCLA.  He was a Latvian political activist even then, trying to sell those “Russia!  Get out of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia” bumper stickers which most people were rather embarassed about putting on their cars; he and the other latviesu puisi would sit around for hours debating about politics, specifically Latvian politics.  He was a nice guy and an ardent nationalist; at that time even considered by many as leaning too far over to the right.  He’s been to a lot of places since then--Afghanistan, Sweden to name a few, done a lot of things and no doubt has changed along with some of his political views as happens over the years to many of us.  But regardless, from everything I have heard/read what has not changed about him now as then, is his dedication, devotion to Latvia/the Latvian people, hardly the sort to throw/discard Latvians of any age under speeding trains.  And even though you may disagree with his statements (I’m not claiming to agree with EVERYTHING he always says), he still is and remains an intelligent, insightful person worth hearing out and--very much, a patriot.

Irena

Thank you, Roberts.  I read your interesting answer to your question: “...[W]hich “Latvians” volunteered to be part of the Soviet Army. “

Maybe now you will answer my question: “Which ‘Latvians’ volunteered to fight in the Soviet Red Army invading Latvia with the intent to occupy Latvia and revive the ghastly Soviet Latvia?”

.....Unless you also were saying that those Latvians who “volunteered” to be a part of the Soviet Army in order to help Latvians and Latvia to the best of their wireless understanding and isolated ability, like Dr. Bruno Kalnins, intended also to be helping in the Soviet occupation of Latvia and the revival and success of the ghastly Soviet Latvia.

ambersun, I think it’s the difference between you and my father (though, he is no longer here to confirm or deny my understanding)

You would say… oh, this happened and that happened, and it was MONSTROUS and it was UNFAIR, and it was BAD, but… mumble, mutter (LatviansoldiersservedintheGermanarmybuttheydidn’treallywantto)

While he would have said.  “Yes, I served in the Germany army.  These were the circumstances, if you’re really interested...”

Or, knowing him (and too many of his generation) he might have said… “Ja, nu, ta jau toreiz bija...” and suggested a shot and a game of zolite instead of talking about it.

Vieglas smiltis.

Sorry JKS - I should have prefaced my post with an appropriate delineation between your post and my subsequent rant.

Vidas

Thanks for the clarification, Vidas, I very much appreciate it.

Irena, I appreciate your defense of Atis Lejins since I do indeed also remember him from the “old days.” He certainly was a “super-letins” in the best sense of that term and worked hard for “the Latvian cause” when it was thankless and seemed near-hopeless. I lived in Left-leaning communities like Ann Arbor and Berkeley and experienced the accusations against Balts and Latvians up-close and up-front.  I was always a Latvian nationalist and patriot (in a good way :)) - but never a “super-letins” like Atis L. and so many of the real activists.  My thanks to them for the work they did in those days on my Latvian behalf while I was an activist for others and other causes.  What irony. My patriotic fires are being stoked by the unfolding of events in Latvia - where according to Peteris C., only 14% of Russians think Latvia was occupied and, even worse, only 70% of ethnic Latvians think Latvia was occupied - while the formerly take-no-prisoners-zeal of other formerly unequivocal nationalist Latvians appears to be cooling or morphing (?). It feels like a betrayal of all the “old marchers” and long-suffering patriots to get wimpy and waffling around the Latvian Legion issue because we don’t want to make waves and “invite” negative publicity.  It’s hard for me to accept what I view as a new political pragmatism replacing that old “ardent” nationalist zeal.  Maybe reading Atis Lejins or Karlis Streips on the March 16 Rememberance (or not) of the Latvian Legion - both guys from super-nationalist, trimda backgrounds - just reminds me too much of the impossibility of Latvian politics. I’m with Prof. Ezergailis when he writes in Diena (posted as the first entry) about the Latvian Legion - “starp nezinu un aizmirstibu” - that a defensive approach to the Legion is unnecessary and maybe, in fact, the image of the Latvian Legion can be positive if the “bruce” is appropriately treated - and the old Legionnaires don’t need to be - as an exaggeration, “pushed under the train” - sacrificed by their own nation - (not necessarily by Atis Lejins), or as suggested by many, just shunted off to Lestene.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Is that the Latvian nation’s preferred way to treat the “bruce?”

anita, your father was like my father - and most of the other Latvian men who talked among themselves about their war experiences, if they talked.  Prof. Ezergailis addresses this issue as not really having served the interest of Latvians since their honest, direct, and “unadorned” explanations about the war were not heard by the world.  Certainly not in any numbers.  The writings and memoirs of former Latvian soldiers were generally for other Latvians in Latvian.

The world instead heard the voices of many others who were not necessarily interested in conveying the Latvian story, especially if their own hands were truly guilty and still bloody, such as the defensive Germans and the aggressive-occupant Soviets.  To ignore that the Soviet propaganda machine worked relentlesly, convincingly, and perversely (by using Latvians) while Latvians were either “silenced behind the Iron Curtain” or just silent in the Trimda - or drinking a shot and playing zolite as you offer - is foolish and, to me at least, unnecessary, especially when Latvians are so unfairly maligned. 

My defense is the defense my father never offered.  My defense is an offense that won’t allow me to be insulted ever again as anyone who would be from a people who would in the majority and freely ever view “nazis as saviors.” The Latvian truth makes me free.  It would help if other Latvians didn’t go running, with tail-between-legs, every time someone unfairly, ignorantly, or malevolently calls us “SS” anything.  Maybe someone should suggest to all those like Donald H., and even worse Latvian-name-callers, still finding the desire and energy to attack the Latvians who never defended themselves, to just get a shot and play zolite.

“At the onset of the Communist occupation in July 1940, elements of the former government of Latvia, its Army, and leading democratic politicians desired to prevent the absorption of the (Latvian) Army into the Red Army.  To this end, the late Dr. Paulis Kalniņš summoned reputable members of the nation’s leadership, . . ., to a meeting to decide whether or not Bruno Kalniņš should accept the position as political leader of the People’s Army, assuming that the communists would sanction this.  All present at this meeting unanimously decided that Bruno Kalniņš should accept this important burden.  The decision was endorsed by General Jānis Balodis, who would later be deported to Siberia. “

Have to admit, I have not considered before some of the parallels of history.

Using Roberts’ translation in post # 81, I took the liberty to substitute some dates and names in the text:

After the German occupation in July 1941, elements of the former government of Latvia, its Army, and leading democratic politicians desired to prevent the scattering of the Latvian manpower among the German War machinery.  To this end, the ex-minister Valdmanis summoned available members of the nation’s remaining leadership. He proposed a national fighting force, which Germans, naturally declined. However, as the bolsheviks decimated German forces, German government had to reconsider Latvian requests lest Latvians would sabotage German efforts. Giving in to pressure against forced conscription Germans agreed to create organic Latvian brigade, later division, under Latvian command, subordinated to Waffen-SS. Latvian leaders agreed to offer the leadership of this “Latvian voluntary Legion” to retired General Bangerskis, whom, after some soul searching accepted this thankless position.

In my perspective, Bruno Kalnins turned over the Latvian Army to be butchered before converted in some soviet format, whereas Bangerskis recalled Latvian ideals and gathered and inspired Latvian fighting unit which was active until 1957, when due to American and British treachery it ceased to exist.

Kalnins’ name in my memory is always connected with his bolshevistic leanings. We learned that his social-democracy’s secret cooperation with bolsheviks was one of the reason Latvian nationalists had to tighten the government in 1934.

Kalnins’ name is fading out of history as bolshevism turns into liberalism. General Bangerskis will live as long as Latvians have their own military with Latvian ideals and faith in nations’ future.

“Dzimtenei mums, karaviriem, jaziedo viss – dziviba, veseliba, pat gimenes laime, nerunajot jau par materialo labklajibu. Vai patmiliba ir stadama augstak par visam sim vertibam?” (Gen. Bangerskis, 1943. g.  marta.)

Mr. L. L.

ambersun - 24 March 2008 10:47 AM

Aleksejs, what “Latvians” are you thinking of when you compare these Latvians to the “Latvians fighting on the Soviet side...who volunteered, whatever, to the Red Army?” Which “Latvians” volunteered to fight in the Soviet Red Army invading Latvia with the intent to occupy Latvia and revive the ghastly Soviet Latvia?

Many Latvians did. Would you suggest that not a single Latvian served in the Red Army? Would you offer any evidence? Many Latvian citizens of the pre-war Latvia did volunteer for the Red Army. Heck, even the deportations commemorated today in 1949 were committed by zealous Latvian communists, some of who lived in Latvia before the war. The Diena article this morning mentions the only person who got a life imprisonment for the crimes and his name is – ta! da! – Alfons Noviks. Some ethnic Latvians were part of the “intent to occupy Latvia and revive the ghastly Soviet Latvia.” The newspaper also mentions Augusts Eglitis and Ivans Zujans as two people who made the decision to deport anti-Soviet elements to Siberia.

As I mentioned it earlier, I agree with Ilze - this is a difficult part of Latvia’s history. And I don’t see how you can glorify one side and vilify the other. In fact, this morning’s collection of photographs posted on vdiena.lv over the weekend is an excellent illustration of that.

ambersun - 24 March 2008 07:37 PM

...while the formerly take-no-prisoners-zeal of other formerly unequivocal nationalist Latvians appears to be cooling or morphing (?). It feels like a betrayal of all the “old marchers” and long-suffering patriots to get wimpy and waffling around the Latvian Legion issue because we don’t want to make waves and “invite” negative publicity.  It’s hard for me to accept what I view as a new political pragmatism replacing that old “ardent” nationalist zeal. 

Would this mean, ambersun, that you’re finally answering my questions about Latvia’s relationship with Russia? Would this be that you finally could actually blame the Latvian government run by ethnic Latvians to forsake their principles and put on a cloak of pragmatism in the relationship with Russia? Could it be that the new Cold war of Mr. Lucas is actually being lost in Latvia without any participation of ethnic Russians in the government since 1994?

Thank you, ambersun, for your answers.