Vilis HāznersDOJ INS Post-Trial Brief—Annotated

The INS launches its summary of Hāzners's testimony by indicating what he did not state. One could claim almost anything as "not" said. But it is far more interesting that the INS chooses to word the situation as Hāzners stating he was elsewhere—meaning the INS merely has to cast doubt on "elsewhere," whereas what Hāzners actually contends is mistaken identity, opening up the issue of how he was "identified" in the first place: the Israeli investigator

• advertised in papers for witnesses, ostensibly against Arajs Kommando but including anyone ever accused of being a Nazi, also incorporating Wiesenthal's list from visiting displaced persons camps of those who had simply served in the Waffen-SS, anyone the Soviets had accused of being a Nazi, etc.;
• introduced all photos, at least one with Hāzners's name on the front, as "war criminals";
• did not keep records of how many failed to identify anyone or where those individuals had been held—for example how many other Rīga ghetto detainees were interviewed who would have been there the same time and place as the "witnesses" but who did not pick out any photo of "Hāzners"?; testimony did establish that some 150 to 200 potential witnesses had been shown Hāzners's photograph—we expect that would have been done on the basis they all would have had reason to encounter "Hāzners" at the Prefecture or Ghetto;
• and did not include photos of innocent individuals in her albums as a control to establish the likelihood of false positives such as that of Hāzners, assuming truthfulness on the part of all witnesses regarding events and experiences.

The INS contended Hāzners and other reported to the ad-hoc "Self-Government" headquarters on Merkela street (Brief pg. 7-8) where Hāzners received orders to pursue the Russians—said pursuit only referenced to transcripts. We do not have the transcripts available, however, we strongly believe this is yet another misrepresentation by the INS. The INS's contention that Hāzners should have only been at Merkela street, therefore anything else is a lie, is transparent and shameless fabrication.

As Hāzners recounts in his memoir, on the morning of the 1st, after a stiff drink with friends celebrating their freedom, he and others went first to the War Museum, where arms were being given out to Latvian partisans. (Recall, the Red Army fled Rīga ahead of the Wehrmacht entering.) When it was clear there were far fewer arms than those prepared to pursue the Bolsheviks, Hāzners asked if there were any officers he could talk to. "Yes," a building at the corner of Elizabetes street and Krišjānis Barons boulevard. Hāzners went there, where Osis and Veiss immediately recognized him and sent him, in command of about 40 men—as many rifles as they had been able to gather—to Mangaļsala. Once they arrived, Hāzners took command of about 200 men, counting his own and those already present in Mangļsala. (In his memoir, Hāzners also mentions seeing [defense witness] Vuškalns at Elizabetes street.)

The INS's logical contortions continue in an attempt to discredit Vuškalns' testimony. As Hāzners should have been at Merkela street and Vuškalns said he saw Hāzners at Elizabetes street, then Vuškalns was likely in neither place, that is, he is simply lying, meaning the INS can now simply ignore his testimony. The INS then contends, that even if Vuškalns did see Hāzners at Elizabetes street and did see him receive an order to deploy to Mangaļsala, since Vuškalns didn't actually go with Hāzners, there is no "proof" Hāzners actually went. Therefore, Hāzners could have just as likely stayed in town to beat Jews and burn a synagogue. You would think 200 men placed at his command would have noticed and complained. The INS's contention here is all the more preposterous because it extols Hāzners's patriotism and military professionalism elsewhere when it suits their narrative.

This was typical of the INS's doubt-layering approach. The INS had no smoking gun contradicting Hāzners's actual location other than witnesses who had never encountered Hāzners prior to the events they are testifying about contending it was Hāzners that they saw. (Recall, the INS's self-imposed disregard for German military records, except where it suited their organizational guilt-by-association.) In place of concrete contradiction, the INS's logic was:

• It's likely/unlikely that Hāzners...
• even if Hāzners did/was/didn't/wasn't, it's still possible he did/was/didn't/wasn't...
• and even if Hāzners did/was/didn't/wasn't, it's still possible he did/was/didn't/wasn't...
• и так далее.6

Note that there was clearly no lasting Latvian "authority" as by the end of that same day, July 1st, the Wehrmacht had already established the Hilfspolizei and the German authorities had already published the first issue, in Latvian, of the new Rīga propaganda newspaper, Tēvija ("Fatherland").

Having given itself license to ignore Vuškalns' testimony, the INS contends there is only one credible witness remaining regarding Hāzners's activities of the first week of July. Note also the INS's laying the groundwork for its ultimate contention that the Latvians were all friends and comrades in genocide lying to protect each other.

All three locations mentioned, Bolderāja, Mangaļsala, and Ziemeļblāzma are towns/suburbs on the Daugava north of Rīga. Today they are part of the greater Rīga district. Travel time today is roughly half an hour without traffic, an hour or more at peak time. We expect that in the days after the German occupation arrived, travel time contending with bombed out roads and German troop, vehicle, and tank traffic and military checkpoints would have been tortuously slow.