Alleged Nazi Collaborators in the United States after World War IIChristoph Schiessl

Our review focuses on Schiessl's scholarship regarding:

1. Vilis Hāzners, the first Latvian-American to be charged as a Nazi collaborator; his deportation case galvanized the U.S. "hunt for Nazis among us," and
2. more widely, his treatment of the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Latvia and local collaborators.

Since this is a doctoral thesis in book form, we examined Shiessel's cited sources to validate his contentions.

Alleged Nazi–Soviet interregnum and “Germanless” Holocaustat page 17

We find Vilis Hāzners first mentioned in this passage:

Latvia and Estonia, similar to Lithuania, did not come under Soviet control until the summer of 1940, before the Germans invaded starting in June 1941. As in Lithuania, in Latvia the Selbstschutz formed as soon as the Soviet Army had disappeared. These local forces immediately began to locate, assemble, and murder Jews in their neighborhoods, before the German army had appeared in the area. Even after the arrival of the Germans, Latvian militia units were actively “cleansing” the countryside of Jews and Communists, in which the German authorities would not or could not effectively intervene until August 3, 1941. By August 10 of the same year the German authorities had picked reliable men from the Selbstschutz and organized them as Schutzmannschaften. By the end of the same month, the number of auxiliary policemen in Latvia was close to 3,000.a One of them was allegedly Vilis Hazners. Born in 1905 in Latvia, according to several Israeli witnesses at his 1977 denaturalization trial, he served as an officer in the Latvian Schutzmannschaft in 1941 in Riga and ordered the beating and killing of Jewish ghetto inmates. According to one witness, when Hazners gave orders, “he didn’t talk, he screamed. . . . People were beaten according to his orders and many of them disappeared.”b Purportedly, he also helped to push Jews into the burning Choral Synagogue in Riga, where as many as 1000 of them died.c At the end of the war, he found his way to a DP camp and finally entered the United States in 1956 under the Refugee Relief Act.

---

a	Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, “'Inventing' the Holocaust for Latvia: New Research,” in Zvi Gitelman, ed., Bitter Legacy: Confronting the Holocaust in the USSR (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), 104, 113; Breitman, Himmler’s Police Auxiliaries.
b	The Daily Messenger, Canandaigua, New York, November 1, 1977.
c	Bennington Banner, Bannington [sic.], Vermont, October 28, 1977.

Having named Hāzners as collaborator "Exhibit A," Schiessl introduces us to the full complement of "Germanless" Holocaust dogma:

1. Latvians (and Lithuanians) formed Nazi units to persecute Jews as soon as the Red Army retreated, even using German names for their "self-protection" units! and operated for weeks before the Germans arrived (see #2) — FALSE There was little chance for Latvian partisans to organize; any who did were fully occupied pursuing the retreating Soviets who just a week earlier had ripped family, friends, and relatives out of their homes and shipped them away in standing-room-only cattle cars to Siberia, tearing apart families as they separated men from the women and children. No one was interested in harming Jews, whose standing and relations in Latvian society was positive enough for (actual) anti-Semites to denounce Latvia as a "Jewish nation."
2. A significant period of time — two weeks — elapsed between the time the Red Army retreated and the Wehrmacht arrived — FALSE The Germans established complete control upon their arrival on the heels of the retreating Red Army. Germans were already in the center of Rīga and publishing their first daily newspaper edition (July 1, 1941, immediately shutting down the Latvian broadsheet Free Land that published for one day, the same day, only) while Russians were still fleeing the city northwest with many forces still on the wrong side of the Daugava.
3. Even after the Nazis established their occupational presence, they allowed armed Latvians to operate independently in persecuting Jews — FALSE The Germans immediately disarmed the populace under pain of death.
4. Continuing the above, it was at least August 3rd, more than a month since capturing the capital Rīga, before Germans managed to establish control — FALSE What did happen in August was that German civilian authorities took over from German military authorities, not that German authority was established.
5. Germans began formally creating "reliable" (in killing Jews) Schutzmannschaft collaborative units from the self-organized "reliable" Selbstschutz Latvians as of August 10th — FALSE The Germans established the Selbstschutz upon occupation. The Germans declared the Schutzmannschaftat the end of July, a month into the occupation, but only populated at the very end of 1941, mostly during 1942–1943, after the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Latvia had run its course. Meanwhile, Viktors Arājs met with Walter Stahlecker immediately after the inception of the occupation, the seed of what became one of a number of Latvian Einsatzkommando managed collaborationist Sicherheitsdienst (SD) units, all short-lived except for Arājs unit, which lasted most of the war. These were neither Selbstschutz nor Schutzmannschaft, nor formed from them.

   Most disturbingly, Schiessl accepts Selbst- ("self-") at face value. No. Everything that happened in Nazi-occupied Latvia took place under German initiation, management, and total control. Nothing the Nazis called "voluntary" was voluntary; nothing called "self" was initiated or controlled by locals. Stahlecker even ordered collaborators to pillage Jewish property while dressed in civilian clothes to mask German control and appear to be the populace run amok.

6. Between the 3rd of August and month-end, the Nazis organized 3,000 Holocaust collaborators. — FALSE Per the above point, collaborators were organized primarily under the Sicherheitsdienst ("SD"), the others being the Rīga police, reporting in to Roberts Štiglics, to Stahlecker. Nor did some sort of formal organization commence on August 3rd. Organization of both collaborators and unrelated border patrols and front-line reservists and combatants began immediately upon occupation. The primary issue here is that a German uniform was the only option for anyone intent on pursuing the Red Army or guarding against its return. It is grossly inaccurate to lump all "collaborators" together as if all were Holocaust collaborators.
7. Hāzners screamed at and beat Jews, and herded as many as 1,000 into a burning synagogue in Rīga to incinerate them alive — FALSE Schiessl prefixes "allegedly" and "purportedly" but does not indicate that allegations and witness identifications failed spectacularly under courtroom scrutiny. "1,000" reflects the inflation of victims typical of Soviet accusations made against individuals they have singled out for attack. Sources disagree on the actual number of victims, ranging from less than 100 to as many as 300, in the burning of the Great Choral Synagogue of Rīga. It is also likely the victims had already been shot. U.S. authorities entered multiple KGB propaganda publications into evidence against Hāzners.

Every one of Schiessl's contentions fits popular narratives of a local-led, "Germanless' Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Latvia and is FALSE.

Sources

Hans-Heinrich Wilhelmpages 104–105

Professor Bernhard Press, a survivor of the Holocaust in Latvia, has published an impressive book on the killing of the Jews in that Baltic state. In this account, based largely on his own recollections, Press emphasizes the role of Latvians in the annihilation of the Jews. He 1suggests that local forces began to arrest, concentrate, and murder their Jewish neighbors even before the German troops had occupied Riga and Dünaburg (Dvinsk, Daugavpils). Furthermore, Press 2suspects that there might well have been communications and agreements reached between the German authorities, operating clandestinely in Latvia, and various (Latvian) underground organizations, such as the Aiszargy [sic.], Perkonkrusts, former members of the police, security service, army, aviation clubs, student associations, and fraternities. Through these arrangements, the 3underground groups may have promised not only to support German military efforts to "liberate" Latvia, but also to "cleanse" Latvian cities of their Jewish population before or shortly after the advancing German troops arrived.

Press's strength is in personal narratives. However, in seeking an explanation for the thoroughness with which the Holocaust eradicated Latvia's Jewry, Press does not look to Stalin's deportations beheading of the Jewish community only a week before the Nazi invasion (5% of population, 12% of deportees), still reeling when the Nazis arrived. Nor does he look to the Germans having pre-planned every minutia of their industrialized slaughter of humanity. Instead, both Press and Max Kaufman (author of the first Latvian survivor memoir) believe the Latvian people betrayed them, even postulating an independent center of Latvian authority eradicating Jews continuing to function under Nazi occupation, as Schiessl indicates here regarding alleged eradication of Jews independent of the Germans after the occupation was established.No such center existed. We would note Press also falsely accuses Hāzners by name in his book.

Wilhelm, at least, does not accord more historical accuracy to Press's narrative of events than deserved, that Press's emphasis only "suggests...", "suspects...", and contends underground groups "may have...". However, a historian's mere repetition of allegations strongly suggests veracity.

The source ultimately cited, Press, offers false conspiracy theories about the organization and execution of the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Latvia.

Hans-Heinrich Wilhelmpage 114

When local forces went "too far" in their eagerness to "cleanse" the countryside, the German authorities tried not to take notice. Superiors were criticized by their subordinates, but often hesitated to intervene. Many were glad they had been told that they had nothing to do with the "inner conflicts" of Lithuania and Latvia. Leeb's Befehlshaber des rückwahrtigen Heeresgebietes (commander of the rear area) waited until August 3 to intervene, prohibiting unsystematic and arbitrary executions by local forces without German supervision and authorization, fully aware of the problem that the means were missing to compel his Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian auxiliaries to follow his advice.a

---

a	Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, Tagebuchaufzeichnungen und Lagebeurteilungen aus zwei Weltkriegen (Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 62 ff., especially p. 146 (diary of Fhr. v. Gneissenbach, entry August 11, 1941).

This is classic Nazi propaganda, including accounts of German officers "saving Jews" from brutal locals. The Germans established complete control as soon as they invaded. In many cases, the Germans could not even locate any acting "local" authorities, those having been in such positions prior to the Soviet invasion having been deported or killed. The notion that the Nazis could not control Latvian authorities or forces for more than a month following the invasion is preposterously false. Even as the Germans were invading Rīga on July 1st, they had already shut down the Latvian newspaper after printing a single broadsheet and published the first issue of Tēvija ("Fatherland") in its place.

Von Leeb commanded the Wehrmacht's Army Group North, including units collaborating with the SS in the murder of Jews. He was convicted at Nuremberg for disseminating Hitler's order for his "war of extermination" against the Soviet Union. (Hitler sacked von Leeb over disagreements in 1942.) Given von Leeb's invasion orders included eradication of Jews and killing enemy civilians, do we expect anything other than self-exculpatory blaming of "locals"?

In looking into von Leeb's personal role in the Holocaust, we found mention1 of his conversation with Army Group North Rear Area commander General Franz von Roques about Nazi shootings in Kovno, in which they concurred they had no influence on the Einsatzgruppe pogrom eradicating Jews and it was best to distance themselves. While perhaps true, their conclusion was self-serving and disingenuous, given Army Group North Rear Area worked hand-in-glove with Stahlecker's units in eradicating Jews behind the front line. Astoundingly, von Roques escaped being sent to prison after the war.

We can only surmise Wilhelm chose von Leeb's diary for its implied reliability in falsely alleging a "Germanless" Holocaust raged in Latvia for more than a month after the Nazis established their occupation.

What were the facts? Franz Wilhelm Stahlecker commanded the Einsatzgruppen forces tasked with eradicating Jewry. All anti-Jewish activities took place under complete German control. Even Latvian "locals" pillaging Jewish property were collaborators ordered to dress in civilian clothes so their actions would appear spontaneous, and "partisans" were disarmed at night by their German masters. Stahlecker documented that his attempt to incite local-led pogroms failed. Another report to Berlin bemoaned Latvian "passivity" in response to German attempts to incite anti-Semitism.

The source ultimately cited, von Leeb, was personally motivated to distance himself from the Holocaust as far as possible. The contention that an out-of-control Latvian populace marauded killing Jews for more than a month while the iron-fisted Nazi Germans were unable to establish control after occupying Latvia is blatanly false.

Richard Breitmanarticle

In Latvia, German authorities selected reliable men from the more or less spontaneously formed self-defense units that had sprung up as Russian troops evacuated the area. By 10 August the Latvian Schutzmannschaft had a commanding body consisting of 10 officers and 27 men; and all the Latvian police districts and branches, including the prison employees, were technically gathered under the umbrella of the Schutzmannschaft as well. Thus, the total number of Latvian Schutzmannschaft men was 174 officers and 2,799 men. Under the leadership of the Order Police, the 4Riga Schutzmannschaft was said to have participated in large and successful raids against Bolsheviks and Jews; it had also disarmed Latvian partisans in a wooded area southwest of Riga, and shot Communists and others considered political criminals.a2

---

a

Nuremberg Doc. L-180: Einsatzgruppe A, Gesamtbericht bis zurn 15. Oktober 1941 [Stahlecker's Report]. Publ. in International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, 42 vols. (Washington, 1949), 37: 679-80 [hereafter cited as TMWC]; NARA, RG 242, T-501, roll 2, frames 1103-5: Priitzmann, Bildung von Hilfspolizeiverbanden durch Landeseinwohner, 21 Aug. 1941.

Schiessl suggests all Latvians who served in the Schutzmannschaft were "reliable men" who could be counted on to murder Jews, and that in the first two months of military occupation, the Nazis had already organized nearly 3,000 Holocaust collaborators. In truth (and as Schiessl discusses elsewhere), Latvian collaborators: Arājs Kommando and the Rīga Prefecture were subordinated to the criminal SS Sicherheitsdienst ("SD"). The Order Police, Ordnungspolizei, were similarly subordinated. The 9th Ordnungspolizei battalion, for example, did most of the killings of Jews in Rīga before the members of Arājs Kommando were trained. Breitman conflates these with the unrelated Selbstschutz and subsequent Schutzmannschaft

Selbstschutz Rekrutierungsreserve battalions being sent to the Eastern Front were not yet Schutzmannschaft units. While the order to form the Schutzmannschaft was issued after a month of occupation, creation and manning of units only began toward the end of 1941 and beginning of 1942. Very few of the Latvian Schutzmannschaft units could have collaborated in the Holocaust in Latvia, as the vast majority of killing was over by then.

Breitman mixes fact and misconception when he refers to crimes “said” to have been done by the 4“Riga Schutzmannschaft” For example, during the Hāzners proceedings, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sent a desperate cable to German authorities seeking "ALL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE RIGAER SCHUTZMANNSCHAFT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON SHORT NOTICE". The Germans responded there was no such unit. They did list ten Schutzmannschaft battalions associated with the area — all established March-April 1942, well after the Holocaust in occupied Latvia. By then the Selbstschutz had been transitioned to the Schutzmannschaft. These were units Hāzners trained in his role as adjutant to Voldemārs Veiss for the aforementioned recruiting reserve. We can conclude that none of these battalions participated in the Holocaust because German military records confirmed Hāzners, their trainer, was not involved in the Holocaust.

Regarding Holocaust collaborators, Arājs Kommando, while formed shortly after the arrival of German occupational forces, only ramped up gradually in membership. Scholarship puts their count at some 300 during theat the height of the Holocaust in Latvia, while Arājs's trial records indicate 100-200 core members. Collaborators also include several similar but short-lived SD-subordinated units and Latvians serving in the at the Rīga central police precinct. However, allegations such as those stemming from post-war show trials in the Soviet Union, including that of the 18th Latvian Police Battalion slaughtering all of Slomin's Jews, deny historical facts and delete German responsibility.

Breitman's precision in numbers masks that he fails to identify Holocaust collaborators: the police at the Rīga Central Prison, Sicherheitsdienst, and units of the Ordnungspolizei. Instead, he names the Schutzmannschaft which were still the Selbstschutz at the time and uninvolved in the Holocaust.

The Daily MessengerNovember 1, 1977

Excerpting the relevant passage from the newspaper article3:

Wagenheim picked out Hazners in a World War II photograph as a man who had "screamed" orders to have Jews beaten.

He said Israeli officials then had identified the man in the photo as Hazners.

Wagenheim said the man in the photograph was in charge or guards who had beaten Jews while searching them for food.

"He didn't talk, he screamed," Wagenheim said of the man. "People were beaten according to his orders and many or them disappeared," he added. "Those who were taken to the guardhouse had a bad fate; many of them never came out alive.

"He was one of he officers who remained very clear in my memory because I was very afraid of him," Wagenheim said.

Wagenheim testified to having seen "Hazners" at the Rīga ghetto gate multiple times. However, there are a number of issues. Hāzners never had any reason to be there, himself documented to have been working elsewhere. The Justice Department suppressed exculpatory German war records.4 Ghetto witnesses who remembered "Hazners" didn't recall each other. Hundreds of other potential witnesses shown multiple photographs of Hazners, and who should have seen him when and where alleged, failed to identify him. Conveniently, Israeli authorities did not track how many ghetto inmates failed to recognize "Hāzners." Lastly, none of the witnesses knew the name "Hāzners" unless they were told it or "heard it" afterwards. No witness heard the "Hāzners" they fingered in the courtroom addressed as "Hāzners." None had encountered Hāzners before the Nazi occupation. In Wagenheim's case, he testified he did not "remember" Hāzners's name until Israeli authorities told it to him, and had not seen "Hāzners" closer than 15 to 20 meters away.

Notably, "1,000" is another sign of Soviet propaganda. Scholarship puts the victims of the synagogue burning in question, the Great Choral Synagogue, at 300; they likely were already shot dead. Hāzners's trial established he could not have been present. Moreover, a recently available source indicates that, according to Walter Stahlecker's Baltic-German interpreter, the Wehrmacht conducted the burning after failing to gather Latvians in the streets for the action.

Schiessl's prefacing "according to" in his narrative to testimony of war crimes as reported in the source is insufficient when the allegations failed scrutiny in court.

Bennington BannerOctober 28, 1977

This brief article relates the testimony Meir Lowenstein regarding "Hazners" at the ghetto, and that of two unnamed witnesses indicating Hāzners (quoting article) "personally beat Latvian Jews and forced them into the Choral Synagogue where as many as 1,000 Jews may have died."

Much as Hāzners was never at the ghetto gate, he was conclusively demonstrated to not have been at the Rīga synagogue when it was burned. One of the witnesses fingering Hāzners for the burning possessed the full collection of anti-Latvian KGB propaganda publications prominently featuring Hāzners (with photo), and which the INS entered into evidence at his deportation trial. Given Israeli authorities introduced pictures of Hāzners as a confirmed "war criminal" to hundreds of potential witnesses in their search for Arājs Kommando members, one could see where a witness could be swayed to testify, particularly if shown pictures of the "criminal" on multiple occasions.

Notably, two years after the case against Hāzners failed and the U.S. government's appeal denied, the USSR resurrected its accusations against him at the United Nations, shifting the scene of the crime to Belarus:

One of them [major war criminals who had escaped secretly to the United States after the war], Vilis Khazners, had been in Byelorussia and had "distinguished himself" on one occasion by herding Jews into a synagogue and burning it down. He [is] one of 300 war criminals still at large.

"Khazners" is the result of transliterating Hāzners to Хазнерс and back — a hallmark of Soviet fabrication.

Schiessl's prefacing "purportedly" in his narrative to testimony of war crimes as reported in the source is insufficient when the allegations failed scrutiny in court.

---

1	Mineau, A. Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity, Rodopi, 2004, ISBN: 9789042016330. LINK, page 104.
2	Brietman's article appeared originally at wiesenthal.com available at archive.org, 17 April 2007.
3	Israeli Witnesses Testify Against Alleged Ex-Nazi, by Joseph Mianowany, UPI.
4	The Department of Justice refused defense requests for German records in DOJ possession.

▲