Vilis HāznersDOJ INS Post-Trial Brief—Annotated

The INS's simplistic account omits two crucial points regarding the nationalist movement and Latvia's war of independence.

1. The Baltic provinces had historically enjoyed more rights than other areas under the Russian empire. Nationalists lobbied for greater autonomy under the empire, not to leave the empire. The rise of Bolshevism created the all too prescient fear of subjugation, driving nationalists to declare Latvian independence.
2. Bolshevik forces in conflict with the nationalists declared Latvian "independence" on December 17, 1918. Territorial loss to the Bolsheviks had created circumstances so dire that the fledgling Latvian government was evacuated for safety to a British ship docked in Liepāja (Libau) on Latvia's western Baltic coast. While Germany had been defeated in the west, it was supported in the east in its war efforts to stem the spread of Bolshevism. Latvians successfully allied with the Germans to drive out the Bolsheviks, then turned on the Germans to drive them out as well. That historical memory of victory against all odds—and the manner in which it was achieved—was enshrined in Latvian Legion song.

Finnish and Baltic "cooperation" with Germany in WWII was driven by prior "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliances of last—or only—resort which had served them on their path to independence from Bolshevik Russia—a power which had once again attacked them. Not by Nazi sympathies.

Maximum extent of Bolshevik-controlled Latvia, January, 1919. Blue indicates the fraction of Latvia held by opposing German forces ostensibly for the benefit of Latvia (despite Baltic Germans declaring a Duchy). Latvians themselves held no territory. Compare that to the territory the red line demarcates, which the Latvian Legion and Wehrmacht forces still held at the end of WWII. It was perfectly reasonable for the Latvians to believe they could preserve their freedom against seemingly impossible odds.
1919 map from Armijas štāba Apmācības daļa - Latvijas Armija 20 gados (1940)

The INS is correct in its characterization of a "voting" scheme. However, it fails to indicate that Soviet troops had already been stationed in the Baltics by threat of force, and that the bogus and unconstitutionally conducted vote1 was fabricated after the USSR had invaded and occupied Latvia.

"Cost" is an odd term for the INS to use. Britain and France kept the peace at the "cost" of Sudetenland—ceding to Germany what they did not possess. Contending the USSR [similarly] kept the peace at the "cost" of half2 of Poland ignores that the USSR brutally invaded and occupied the eastern half under the pretence of "protecting" its non-Polish Slavic minorities, its justification being that the Polish state "no longer existed." The INS ignores the historical fact that Hitler and Stalin precipitated WWII in partnership as allies. The USSR even transmitted radio signals to help guide the invading Luftwaffe, and Moscow was so eager for Hitler's success that it prematurely sent a telegram to Berlin congratulating it on the fall of Warsaw.

Which begs the question: whose "historical facts?"