2023Defending History

Latvians do not gather in Rīga to worship the Allgemeine-SS or the elite had to document multi-generational Aryan purity, cavity-free teeth and 20:20 vision Waffen-SS — whom even the Wehrmacht feared. To contend Latvians do so is a lie worthy of Hitler's große Lüge. The irony is not lost on us that Defending History employs the big lie to attack Latvians. One cannot fear to criticize what does not exist.

Latvian commemoration of the Legion, observed for seventy-four years since 1952, was not on anyone's radar until after Latvia regained its independence following half a century of brutal Soviet occupation. The Kremlin took exception to the "glorification" of Latvians who fought against the Red Army's reinvasion — not a "liberation." But in the propagandist halls of the Kremlin and Defending History's editorial office, fighting in the hope of freedom from both Germans and Russians, as after World War I, is Latvian propaganda whitewashing the Latvian Legion's Hitlerite alliance with the Nazis.

Parroting Kremlin propaganda and aligning with the Kremlin-funded Josef Koren-led Latvia Without Nazism branch of Putin's World Without Nazism is the very definition of a "Putinist." Take, for example, the late Congressman Richard Brodsky's 2013 denouncement of the annual gathering, extolling his personal involvement with Putin's provocateurs:

I'm part of a group, World Without Nazism, that has members from all over the world and monitors Nazi incidents and organizations all over the world.

Compare Defending History's denunciation and tone to that of the Russian Foreign Ministry also commenting on this year's commemoration1:

On March 16, Riga hosted a traditional gathering of former Waffen-SS legionnaires and their admirers. The marchers, including current politicians — leaders of radical right parties, members of parliament — openly displayed Nazi symbols despite the formal legislative prohibition in Latvia, and held a flower-laying ceremony in memory of the Nazi punishers.

On the eve of the march, Latvian President Egils Levits, famous for sympathising with the “heroic deeds” of the Waffen-SS, spoke at a conference on National Resistance Movement Remembrance Day (this is what the local authorities call Hitler’s collaborators) and again urged a “correct” perspective on Latvia’s history of “heroically fighting the Soviet occupiers.”

Russia strongly condemns the ongoing neo-Nazi revelry in the Baltic countries. Nazism was defeated in 1945 and its current pathetic followers have no future.

We looked through photos of this year's procession and found no Nazi flags or swastikas.

Defending History invokes derision as misdirection to ignore the simple truth that the birth and continuing existence of "anti-Nazi-glorification" protests in Rīga are purely and precisely the product of Kremlin-funded "Russian provocateurs." There is a reason there is no native Latvian-led "anti-Nazi" group: because there is no plague of widespread Nazism against which to protest — not because Latvians are all Nazis and would naturally not protest against themselves.

Below, tentacles of Kremlin-funded World Without Nazism. View in gallery and magnify to read detail.

Credited to Māris Diņģelis

This statement is nonsensical. Putin does not rule Latvia. Moreover, he is the chief promoter of the fallacy that Latvians — and all other peoples opposing Russian geopolitical aggression — are Nazis, and would be the last to stifle such contentions. As for "simple truths," everything Defending History peddles here is a lie.

Continuing its crass derision, Defending History lodges another complaint that this year's commemoration failed to garner attention and that the Latvian press is a complicit agent in the annual glorification.

Neither the 100,000+ Latvians under Wehrmacht command nor 100,000+ Latvians under Red Army command fought "for" the Nazis or the Soviets. Both were brutal occupying powers, not allies. Nevertheless, some scholars have fantastically contended Latvians fought their own "civil war" within WWII, having "chosen" different sides. In truth, Latvian units that met each other in combat refused to engage. Legionnaires fought for the flag they wore under their uniforms, close to their hearts: a Latvian flag, and the hope of repeating the miracle of independence only a generation earlier: driving out the Russians and then driving out the Germans, as enshrined in Latvian Legion song.

Defending History embraces Efraim Zuroff's syllogism that the only possible outcome for Latvia's future following WWII was to make the conscious "choice" of either Nazi or Soviet subjugation, and that had the Legion succeeded in its "choice" of siding with the Nazis, it would have meant the end of Western civilization. Not to mention the Nazis were going to deport all the Latvians and settle the territory with Germans, regardless. Zuroff, as does Defending History here, believes the only moral "choice" for the Latvian people was to willingly submit to the return of brutalizing Soviet occupation, however long that lasted, in the hope Latvia might some day restore its freedom.

Latvians chose freedom. Should any people choose less?

Parenthetically, as the end of the war became inevitable, the Germans did dangle "restoring" Latvia's sovereignty in return for continued resistance against the Red Army. The firebombing of Dresden, where in-person negotiations were scheduled to start the next day, cut that short.

Latvians declare independence and seek Allied support, to no avail

We arrive at Defending History's grotesque, morally repugnant victim-blaming: the malicious and malignant contention that Latvian resistance to Soviet reoccupation prolonged World War II, killing countless more Jews in Hitler's death camps.

Soviet historiography records that the Red Army bypassed the Courland Pocket (western Latvia), where Legionnaires and Wehrmacht held out to the end of the war even continuing to fight for a week beyond the German surrender, still hoping for Allied intervention to restore an independent Latvia. And why bypass it? Because neither Latvia nor Latvia's Courland in particular had any strategic value.

Stalin, however, cognizant that Latvians held none of their own territory when they declared independence on November 18, 1918, yet ultimately drove out both Russians and Germans, was intent on stamping out Latvia. In a brutal campaign that lasted nine months (October 1944 through March 1945) until the end of the war, over a span of six major offensives which barely moved the front, Stalin sent in division after division to their slaughter. The Red Army suffered 394,000 casualties, lost more than 2,600 tanks including American-provided Shermans, 900 artillery pieces, and more than 1,400 machine guns.

The "empirical" lesson is not the contention that Latvians delayed Allied victory. The "empirical" lesson is that Stalin demonstrably, to the detriment of Allied victory, prioritized reconquering Latvia over defeating Hitler.2

Below, the "road to Berlin," showing pre-WWII borders and Courland, circled.

Latvia's Courland, circled, had no strategic value whatsoever. That Courland was forced to surrender after WWII ended only underscores Stalin's waste of human life and resources in his obsession to conquer the last remnant of Latvia not under Soviet control.

But what about Legionnaires in the final Battle for Berlin? Latvian surrendered to the Western Allies as soon possible, but until then their only option was to keep fighting.

The Red Army began to outflank the Latvians from the west, crossing Saarlandstraße [Stressmannstraße to 1935 and after 1947] in places, threatening the Reich Chancellery itself. "Citadel"'s commandant lieutenant colonel Zeiferts was responsible for this sector, and so, having gathered the last reserves — half a company from the Nordland sapper battalion, an incomplete Latvian (Laiviņš') company, and a Spanish volunteer group — at 15:00 o'clock of April 29th he launched a counter-attack at the block's southwest corner and dislodged the Red Army from the ruins in the Europahaus area. To this very day, legionnaire Jānis Puglis remembers [their] overpowering attack and his last battle. "Our counter-attack was dramatic. Only after the war did we find out, that on the opposite (south) side of Anhalter Straße's short city block were concentrated all three battalions of the 102nd Red Army regiment, and they obviously had no shortage of ammunition. Our counter-attack succeeded, we beat back the Russians beyond Europahaus, while our neighbors made it to Anhalter Bahnhof, but it cost us dearly. Those only lightly wounded made it there on their own; we, seriously wounded, remained laying under the enemy's intense fire. Having been driven back beyond Anhalter Straße, the Russian soldiers who had lost this battle replenished their ammunition and, having reloaded their weapons, fired a hail of bullets. During the attack, one of ours had been mortally wounded; dying, he leaned against the brick wall fence and so he remained standing. The other side concentrated heavy fire on him. After each hit, the dead legionnaire jumped like in some adventure movie, and it seemed, that he kept trying to get up on his feet so he could continue his heroic charge against the enemy bullets... I'm awaiting rescue — in the evening twilight, gazing at the fallen legionnaire, slowly bleeding out and losing consciousness...." — a Legionnaire's diary

Latvians fought the Red Army to the death in the ruins of Berlin. But why?

Critics point to Latvians' "bravery" and "tenacity" in battle and being the "most decorated" foreign Waffen-SS units as evidence of their commitment to Nazism. False. Then why did Latvians surrounded in battle with no chance to escape fight to the last man? Because surrender to the Russians was a fate worse than death. Legionnaire diaries record coming across bodies of their fallen comrades, gruesomely tortured, even skinned alive.

Defending History piles on more ad hominem derision, repeating the lie Latvians are Hitlerite fascists.

Latvians "swore" to obey commands to Hitler in his capacity as head of the German military only in fighting against the Red Army on the Eastern Front. There was no personal oath to Hitler. Latvia was occupied. By the close of the war, the Nazis had illegally and forcibly conscripted every Latvian male born after 1905. Whether sworn to get a rifle to pursue the retreating Red Army or sworn later as conscripts, any oath under such conditions to an occupier is meaningless. As already mentioned, Latvians wore their true oath, a Latvian flag, under their uniform. German officers complained to Berlin that Latvians owed no allegiance and could only be counted on to fight to keep the Russians out of Latvia. It is reprehensible to suggest Legionnaires bore any allegiance to Nazism or Hitler.

Defending History's notion of free speech appears to apply only to their perceived right to promulgate outright lies about the Latvian Legion, its allegiances, and the motives of those commemorating the sacrifices of the Legion.

Commemoration belongs at the center of Rīga, its solemn procession concluding at the Freedom Monument. To move it anywhere else would only give credence to lies.

There was no Latvian Waffen-SS during the Holocaust years. The Holocaust in Latvia took place in the last six months of 1941. Remnants of actions extended into 1942. The Latvian Legion was formed in early 1943 from combat battalions uninvolved in the Holocaust already serving under the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.

That Latvia is "known" for more than the achievements of the Latvian people is owed to their being slandered as Nazi glorifiers. Defending History's factless diatribe is just one of countless examples. No neo-Nazi ever attended the annual Legionnaire commemoration until Kremlin-paid lackeys and usurped Holocaust activists began to chant in unison that Latvians "worship" Nazis — and then pointed to actual domestic and foreign neo-Nazis they incited to attend as confirming their portrayal of Latvia as the epicenter of Nazi worship, described as the "heartland of fascism."

Defending History features a cornucopia of Binet's misinformed anti-Latvian accusations regarding the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Latvia.

There was no "Latvian" or "Baltic" Holocaust. There was only the "Nazi" Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Latvia and the Nazi-occupied Baltics. There was no "Latvia," only Reichskommissariat Ostland. The only WWII remnant of a free Latvia, its merchant fleet, served in the Allied campaign with distinction.