No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
One of the blank areas of Latvian history is the period of German occupation 1941-45. Especially obscure are the crimes against humanity and war crimes committied during that period. It is so in the West among the emigrés, and the situation is no better in Soviet Latvia. It is a taboo topic all around—the Soviets have made it taboo by sitting on the evidence, the Latvians abroad have made it taboo for their own convoluted reasons.
1. At the Nürnberg trial of major war criminals under the USSR series 522 documents were submitted. International Military Tribunal—Nuremberg. Trial of Major War Criminals, 14 November 1945 to 1 October 1946, vol. 42, publiched at Nürnberg, Germany, 1949.Google Scholar
2. Nuremberg, , vo. XI, p. 498.Google Scholar
3. Report of the Extraordinary State Commission on Crimes in Latvia—USSR 41 is not reprinted in the published documents series but is available in the National Archives, RG 238, Collection of World War II War Crimes.Google Scholar
4. USSR 41, p. 2.Google Scholar
5. For an early emigré assessment of manpower losses during World War II see K. Zīverts, “Latvijas iedzivotāju zaudējumi vācu okupacijas laikā, Latvijas zipas, 18/4/1953.Google Scholar
6. Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, vol. IV, The Einsatzgruppen Case, Nürnberg, October 1946-April 1949. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949(?). Official transcripts of the above trials are available in mimeographed form at the National Archives and Library of Congress. The documentary index of this case has been published by the National Archives. Nürnberg War Crimes Trials Record of Case 9: Einsatzgruppen (SS), United States of America V. Otto Ohlendorf Et Al. September 15, 1947-April 10, 1948. Compiled by John Mendelsohn, National Archives and Records Service, Washington, 1978.Google Scholar
7. Prava, Tiesas. Par Vācu—fašistiko iebrucēju laundarbibām Latvijas, Lietuvas un Igaunijas Padomju Sociālistisko Republiku teritorijā. APP, Riga, 1966.Google Scholar
8. Samsons, Dzintars and others.Google Scholar
9. Mēs apsūdzam, Riga: Liesma, 1965.Google Scholar
10. Imants Lašinskis, a KGB agent who defected to the West, tells us that Ducmanis' portrayal of the Latvians had become something of a joke among his Riga colleagues. “Kalpibas gadi,” Latvija šodien, 1986, p. 68.Google Scholar
11. There may, perhaps, be a more benign interpretation of Ducmanis possible. Through the medium of the pamphlets he might have intended to communicate a message to his erstwhile colleagues in the West to reform their pro-Nazi proclivities, thus becoming a more effective spokesmen for their nation.Google Scholar
12. The Indictment of Arājs lists Ducmanis' pamphlet as a source of information. It was not, however, ever used as evidence in the trial.Google Scholar
13. The first Latvian whom INS sued for deportations was Boleslavs Maikovskis, in 1976. The second was Vilis Håzners in 1977.Google Scholar
14. The effect of this Ducmanis line is evident in a series of journalistic works appearing in America, among which we can name Rochelle G. Saides's, The Outraged Conscience: Seekers of Justice for Nazi War Criminals in America, (Albany: University of New York Press, 1984). Blum, Howard, Wanted, Quadrangle, N.Y. 1977. Christopher Simpson, Blowback, The First Full Account of America's recruitment of Nazis, and its Disastrous Effect on our Domestic and Foreign Policy, Weidenfeld and Nickolson, 1988). This refusal to draw a distinction between various police and military units is evident in Allan A. Ryan, Jr., Quiet Neighbors, Prosecuting Nazi War Criminals in America, (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jonaovitch, 1984).Google Scholar
15. For a full discussion of the nature of Soviet evidence see Ryan, op.cit., Chapter 3, “The Moscow agreement,” p.p. 65-93.Google Scholar
16. This attempt to keep a lid on evidence does not seem to be very successful, for usually at least the verdicts can be obtained in one way or another. This procedure, however, can slow down the collection of evidence.Google Scholar