2016Efraim Zuroff, Simon Wiesenthal Center

Zuroff's use of quotes clearly implies falsehood whereas the description of the portrayal is actually correct.

What is commemorated is NOT fighting "side by side with Nazi troops." What is commemorated is the only time in the war that

1. both Latvian divisions fought together in battle, side by side
2. under a Latvian commander
3. and retook a heavily contested position after an incredibly fierce battle against the Red Army.

Zuroff falsely contends Latvians celebrate a Latvian-Nazi partnership. Nothing could be further from the facts. Indeed, German officers complained that Legionnaires were not trustworthy, rather, only reliable in resisting the Red Army reinvading Latvia.

Let us be clear. The Germans used Legionnaires as cannon fodder where they were too afraid to go themselves. Latvians would call the Legion still going into battle heroism. Hindsight that Legionnaires' hopes were doomed, knowing Latvia had already been betrayed to Stalin at Tehran in November–December of 1943, does not diminish that heroism.

Zuroff's historical recounting whitewashes the second Soviet coming. Since Zuroff uses "whitewash" to indict Eastern Europe in his "canard of equivalency" denunciations, he ought hold himself to a higher standard.

There was no magical transmogrification from the initial Soviet invasion and brutal occupation to a subsequent beneficent "ending" of Nazi occupation and benign "incorporation" into the Soviet family. Russia's propaganda attacks subsuming legitimate Holocaust activism prove the assault upon Latvia has yet to end, even twenty-nine years after the last Russian troops departed.2

For Zuroff, that some Latvians traitorously collaborated with the Nazis renders the Latvian heroism null and void. By the same logic, Zuroff should denounce the Congress for passing and President Obama for declaring March 29th to be National Vietnam War Veterans Day because by the very same logic, honoring Vietnam veterans honors war criminals and murderers because of those who took part in the My Lai Massacre.

"Choosing" poorly or well necessitates more than one option. Latvians had no choice. They had no arms of their own, both the Soviets then Nazis had seen to that. They had no military organization or infrastructure, the Soviets had seen to that. The U.S. was sending tanks, winter uniforms, rations, ammunition to the USSR The Germans were the only option to resist the Soviets, just as they had been after World War I. There was no choice, therefore no question of morality. There was only the hope of keeping the Red Army at bay long enough to keep it out and then turn on the Germans to drive them out as well. Latvians achieved their independence after WWI having controlled even less territory than the Courland Pocket in which they held out to the end of WWII. Latvians could not imagine both FDR and Churchill had betrayed them to Stalin.

Zuroff's historical syllogism is that "fighting against the Red Army" equals "fighting for Nazi victory." Keeping the Red Army out of Latvia did not require Nazi victory. That the Latvians held out in Courland until the end of the war despite Stalin sending in division after division to their slaughter, the Red Army suffering nearly 400,000 dead, wounded, or missing, and the loss of thousands of tanks, is the naked and indisputable proof. Latvians begged the Western Allies for arms to continue the fight, not knowing all of what was became "Eastern Europe" had already been signed, sealed and delivered to Stalin, not knowing that Roosevelt had actually joked with Stalin over the suggestion the U.S. might confront the USSR over the dissolution of the Baltic states. With everything against them, Baltic partisans still managed to resist Soviet occupation for well over a decade. That it was all for "naught" was not for lack of effort on the part of the Latvians, or because the notion of independence was some sort of mass delusion — or a lie. It was for naught because, contrary to the aftermath of World War I, when the Latvian provisional authority was offered refuge on a British ship docked in Liepāja (Libau), Britain had already "given" the Baltics to Stalin before WWII began.

Zuroff's historical syllogism creates his false "irony." Restoration of Latvian sovereignty required only the departure of both Germans and Russians. Taking Zuroff's argument to its logical conclusion, it was a precondition for the "ultimate restoration" of central/eastern European sovereignty that 100,000,000 Europeans be subjugated under Stalin after WWII. "Ultimately" could have just as easily been centuries instead of 50 years. Today's Latvians, born in the post-war Displaced Persons camps, born in exile of parents who had lost their homeland—lost everything—are certainly not thankful to Stalin for Latvia's restored independence, nor should they be.

That the hopes and dreams of the Latvians were ultimately doomed does not invalidate them. The Latvian end game was to turn against the Germans, not to continue to serve with them until Nazi victory was secured. By Zuroff's logic again, neither should the Jews of Mosada who resisted the Roman siege to their deaths be hailed as heroic because they, too, were doomed. The Latvian Legion wore Latvian flags under their uniforms. Not the Nazi swastika. Not the Bolshevik hammer and sickle. The test of the morality and motivations of a people lies in their hopes and dreams, not in their successes or failures in attaining them. The Latvians were doomed because the Western Allies lied about their support for Latvia—Britain even radioed the Legion to await an evacuation by sea that never came. Meanwhile, the only official act of the sovereign authorities of the Latvian nation in WWII was to assign its merchant marine to the Allied war effort, where it served with distinction and sacrifice.

Lastly, as we note on our home page, the Germans did hold out the possibility the return of Latvian sovereignty for continued resistance to the Red Army, so Zuroff is factually wrong in his "no basis whatsoever to assume" contention as well.

Not only does Zuroff contend Legionnaires were not freedom fighters because they were doomed, he tars them with the unrelated sins of collaborators. Arājs Kommando numbered 300-500 during the Holocaust (under direct German supervision at all times) in Latvia, over 1,000 later, operating outside Latvia. The police battalions which formed the initial basis of the Legion fought only on the Eastern Front and were not involved in the Holocaust. Some collaborators units were "joined" to the Legion late in the war, however, no one has ever been accused of a war crime in the service of the Legion. Even Zuroff himself had earlier acknowledged on Latvian TV that the Legion was not involved in the Holocaust. Did he think no one was listening? He knows it is the Legion and their sacrifices, not the Nazis, who Latvians commemorate and honor. Astoundingly, in 2010, Zuroff admitted he has no idea who those people are, who show up to honor the Legion — and who he denounces.3

It is deceitful to suggest Latvians, by honoring the Legion, honor Arājs & Company. No Latvian excuses Holocaust crimes for any reason. As already mentioned, Americans still honor, not condemn, Vietnam veterans despite the My Lai Massacre.

No one has attempted to "qualify" Latvian Holocaust perpetrators as worthy of honors.

We wonder if Zuroff has ever talked to a Latvian Legionnaire, and if so, if other than to denounce their fighting for the end of Western civilization.

What is the "accepted narrative" to which Zuroff alludes? First, let us clarify two definitions:

• liberate = restore legitimate sovereign authority to power;
• collaborate = cooperate traitorously with an invader/enemy against one's own sovereign country's citizens

We can't tell for sure what Zuroff's narrative is. Both Zuroff and Kremlin propagandists rail against Latvians attempting to rewrite the "accepted history" of WWII. However, since Zuroff has indicated that Latvians achieving freedom through the Nazi victory would have meant the end of Western civilization, we can venture an informed opinion. To the narrative.

Zuroff disallows the possibility that so-called "Eastern Europeans" were no different from western Europeans in that the overwhelming majority supported neither the Nazis, nor the Bolsheviks, nor the Holocaust. Recall the historical spheres of Europe:

• "eastern Europe" was "Russia in Europe," that is, Russia west of the Urals;
• western Europe was largely what we consider it today; while
• the territory between Germany and Russia was "central Europe"—the heart of Europe.

"Eastern Europe" is as much a Cold War artifact as the politically motivated "history" the Kremlin peddles. Seventy-eight years after WWII ended, German apologists and Russian propagandists continue to blame Nazi and Soviet atrocities on their "Eastern European" victims.

Zuroff reproduces at face value the press release masquerading as a news report written by an employee of the far left Kremlin-supporting German Die LINKE political party. The peaceful "German protesters" are, in actuality, members of a formerly Communist leftist anti-fascist group which has featured Kremlin-funded "anti-fascist" Josef Koren and his "Latvia Without Nazism"5 in Berlin and whose members have ties to organizations deemed by German intelligence to be "hostile to the constitutional order". One protester was barred from a flight to Latvia, while the five who had arrived were given the choice to turn around and go home or be detained. They chose detention as a publicity stunt, then texted their moral outrage from "jail".

No one is hiding crimes or criminals. It is Zuroff's perspective which is flawed. As far back as 37 years ago, Zuroff denounced Swedish authorities when they thoroughly investigated and ultimately dismissed his 1986 knowing submission of Soviet anti-Latvian propaganda—pointedly, to maximize Baltic insult, on Latvian Independence Day—of alleged Nazi war criminals. That incident conclusively demonstrates that Zuroff's definitions of "collaborator" and "crime" include any cooperation with Nazi Germany, even in the complete absence of the commitment of any actual crime, for example, accusing Aleksandrs Plensners, the highest ranking officer of the Latvian Legion, as a collaborator to be brought to justice. LINK

We address Zuroff's "false equating" accusation at length in our review of Christopher Hale's "Hitler's Foreign Executioners: Europe's Dirty Secret", specifically that Eastern Europeans equate "Red" (Soviet) and "Brown" (Nazi), and that the Prague Declaration calls for the equating of Nazism and Communism.

We would prefer to not surmise that Zuroff agrees with Russian propaganda railing against the Eastern Europeans for their attempts to re-write history. Where the Latvians are concerned, Zuroff's syllogistic history and refusal to acknowledge that Latvians only hoped to restore their independence—and even if they did, they were doomed so what the Latvians hoped for doesn't count, all that counts is that they fought for the end of Western civilization—the polarization Zuroff fuels between himself and Latvians will remain.