Latvian Legion, Battle of Kurland.

[r0lt0ns 2,444]

Many people don't even know where Latvia is. Let me tell you that we are located at North-Eastern Europe. Latvia is one of the three Baltic States which are right between Poland and Russia in nowdays.

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

So why do I decided to write about something small like Latvia? Well one of the reasons is that many people don't have any clue about our history and that's why there are many people who dare calling Latvian the same Russian. Now a bit of some older history than WW II. Latvian territory is populated since ~4th century. Those were the ancient Balt tribes that came in from other lands. Latvians as a nation had appeared from 19th century. It's called the First awakening of Latvian nation. During the 1800s Latvian territory belang to Russian Empire. Then came the Great War. Latvian men were mobilized into the Russian army and they had to fight their way through Prussia. That's when stuff went interesting. In 1915 the first Latvian Riflemen batallions were born within Russian army. They still fought side by side with Russian army, but their senior officers were Latvians. In 1917 the war for Russia was already over when German army invaded western Latvia - Kurland (Latvian: Kurzeme) and in 1918 it was already controlled by Germans, but before they managed to invade the capital of Riga, it was announced that Latvia has been proclaimed as an independent state. So Latvia had its own army and the territory was invaded by Germans. It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to Germans back outside of Latvia - so they did, but now another problem struck. Bolsheviks came in from the east Latvia and began their attack from their side. So Latvian forces had to fight back against Communists too. There were seviere battles until 1920 in Latvia, which was mainly fought by Latvian Riflemen. Latvia got helped by Estonians and Poles as well. Nevertheless, the country was completely destroyed. No railway tracks, no bridges - the capital has been front line for almost a year. Latvia managed to stand up. Starting everything from zero, in 1939 Latvia had its own airplanes and was producing the smallest photocamera in the world for that time - the Minox.

 

Then came the Second World War. Latvia had been occupied by Russia after the pact, but in September 4th, 1941 came in the Wehrmacht. Again from the western Latvia. They pushed Russians back to Leningrad. When German armies started to lose its grip in Russia, the Latvian Legion were formed withing Waffen SS in 1943.

 

[spoiler]

15th Latvian SS division, 32nd company, 2nd batallion in parade in Riga

[/spoiler]

 

[spoiler]

The shoulder badge of Latvian Legion

[/spoiler]

 

Those were the legendary 15th and 19th SS divisons which fought the battle of Kurland. Those were only infantry units, so there were no tanks or airplanes involved. Of course there were many airfields for German aviation in Latvia, but it didn't have anything to do with the Legion. The interesting thing is that both of those Latvian divisions fought togheter only once - in Volhov, Russia, 16th March, 1943. After the battles in the Eastern front, the 15th (First divison) was sent back to Germany. There were approximately 115 000 men mobilized into the Legion from which 15 000 - 20 000 gave their lives.

 

[spoiler]

Latvian Legion in Volhov

[/spoiler]

 

With severe battles the Legion along with all the rest of German divisions were pushed back to Latvia. There were battles in central Latvia, but at the end, they got ensieged in Kurland, western Latvia.

 

[spoiler]

Map of Kurland

[/spoiler]

 

There were 6 mature battles during the 7 months, though Russians never succeeded invading that territory. Perhaps it is because the German armies didn't have a place to run or perhaps because of the willing of fight from Latvian men. They didn't fight for the Hitler's ideology. They fought for Latvia. From those 115 000 men approx. 20% were volunteers, so don't call them nazis or whatelse. It's stated that they were volunteers, but that's just because of documentation - if they were mobilized - it would be another Nazi Germany's warcrime which it was.

 

The Red Army planned another, the 7th mature battle to fight, but it was too late to fight since on 8th May, 1945 Germany capitulated and the battle had ended. This is one of the places which was not invaded by Russians until the end of the war, so it's quite unique.

 

That's just theory. Everything would be great, but there is one but..

Since Latvia was basically split in two after the battle of Kurland had began, Russians took their opportunity to mobilize more men from the country. Men who were not young enough to mobilize in German army now were mobilized in Russian army. It was this very place where brother fought against brother.

 

There was a story from a Latvian in the Riflemen batallion in Red army during that battle -

 

"I was given an order to attack a bunker on the front line. I took a bunch of grenades with me and went on. When I was there, I threw about 7 grenades in the vent tube of the bunker. There were about 15 men inside of that bunker. The grenades went off and then I had to collect the dogtags and documents from the soldiers I killed to verify the kills. I took documents from one of the fallen German soldiers. I read his name and I discovered that he's my brother"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qURQSlUHDYI

 

 

I'm gonna be more than glad to answer any questions given.

 

Sources I used? My memories from history lessons. Of course, there is no problem getting precise numbers nstuff like that. This is mainly for you to know what happened here during the World War 2. Most of people think that this is a clean land without people living here. It's kinda not true.

[GM_Magnus 1,153]

Thank you very much for this writing.

 

As an American, it's always nice to hear other countries' history from them.

 

This phrase "It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to Germans back outside of Latvia" is very unclear. I suppose it means that "It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to push the Germans back outside of Latvia" but on first reading I thought it meant that "It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to back Germans outside of Latvia," which means something completely different. I don't want to be a grammar Nazi or anything, and there are other spelling and syntax errors, but they do not detract from the meaning of the post. Well done!

[r0lt0ns 2,444]

Thank you very much for this writing.

 

As an American, it's always nice to hear other countries' history from them.

 

This phrase "It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to Germans back outside of Latvia" is very unclear. I suppose it means that "It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to push the Germans back outside of Latvia" but on first reading I thought it meant that "It was already known that Latvian Riflemen had to back Germans outside of Latvia," which means something completely different. I don't want to be a grammar Nazi or anything, and there are other spelling and syntax errors, but they do not detract from the meaning of the post. Well done!

No, no, no, thank you for asking - I know that my English isn't that great when it comes to huge walls of text.
 What I meant is that Latvian Riflemen had to push Germans out of Latvia. I guess the word "back" is kinda not in right place here.

 

Thank you for your question, I really appreciate that ;)

[_Sev_ 1,115]

Hi r0lt0ns, nice to see you here.
We talked about this before and thanks for the nice article.
For other interrested people i can recommend the book "Between Giants" from Prit Buttar.

[hanwind 290]

Thanks for sharing info about Latvia. One thing that is easy to ask afterwards is why Latvia (as well as Estonia and Lithuania) did not resist Soviet invasion on 1939/1940? - it seems that there was not much to lose to try armed resistance as the country was anyway occupied (for about 50 years), the feared NKVD came and terrorized local population and the war anyway swept over the country in 1941 and 1944/1945 bringing all of its devastations (the very thing that the Latvian political decision makers in their time wanted to avoid).

 

Finland opposed Soviet territorial and military base demands and that led to war - it paid a heavy price for it but the country remained independent and avoided the full-scale sovietization that happened in Baltic countries. So the Balts paid much heavier prize for "peace" than the one paid by Finland for resistance and war. So looking from the cristal ball of the current knowledge it seems that Latvian governement and other Baltic states gained absolutely nothing by appeasing Soviets and letting their countries to be occupied without resistance in 1940.

I do not know much about the discussions of the Latvian (and Lithuanian/Estonian) decision makers of the situation but I guess that it went something like this:

Of course the Baltic states were small and isolated countries by the autumn 1939 - in comparison to Finland the chances of successfull military defence were smaller. But still: why to have Defence Forces or compulsory military service at all if there is no serious intention to use these assests against the most obvious and threatening invasion? I guess that the Balts were counting on German support against Soviet invasion but as that was ruled out by autumn 1939 it was deemed hopeless to resist Soviet demands which diminished the political indepence of the Baltic countries and ultimately led to the longtime occupation. And when it came to Britain and France, they could do nothing due to geographic distance and were not particularly interested to support the Balts against Soviet demands. Isolated as the Czechs in 1938 the Baltic governements had no other option than to surrender to Soviet demands in 1939/1940 but by doing so they also gave away the independence and accepted the sovietization of their countries without any fight. Logical development but somehow I feel that Soviets got what they wanted very easily.

 

Was the appeaseament toward Soviets absolutely the only possible choice and supported widely by the Latvian people? Would the people of Latvia and other Baltic countries have fought if their governements would have decided to resist and mobilize the Defence Forces for a war in 1939?

Edited June 10, 2015 by hanwind

[r0lt0ns 2,444]

-snip-

This is the biggest question that still remains here - did Latvia had to defend itself when Russians sent the ultimatum.

 

The biggest reason why Latvia's government did let the Russians come in was just because of the NKVD. Our government knew about the atrocities in USSR by that time, but the people still didn't. President of Latvia didn't want that to happen in Latvia - we had almost no chances to secure our borders for one simple reason: we were surrounded. Russians could enter Latvia from 3 different sides - from Estonia, Russia and Lithuania - that's what they did. They entered through the border of Russia and Lithuania. By that time Latvia's population was somewhere around 2 million. I can't tell the precise numbers in military for that time available, but it's clear that it wouldn't be enough to stop Red Army from invading Latvia. And Latvian government knew that. They wanted to evade complete annihalation that happened in the First World War resulting in front line right in the middle of Latvia's capital..

 

It all started in 1939 when USSR sent an ultimatum to Latvia, which declared that if Latvia has to allow Russian army to move unlimited ammount of men inside the country and allow Russian army to build Soviet Military bases within Latvia. The time was given 24 hours to reply. Latvia's government accepted the ultimatum and told people to remain calm - Soviets "are" our friends. They thought that it will be only temporarily, but we all know how it ended. In 1940 Latvia had an order to form up new government which would be loyal to USSR. There were "official" and "fair" elections and in that same year Latvia as an independent state disappeared from geographical maps.

 

We had forces to protect Latvia and perhaps if we formed up some kind of Alliance with Estonia and Lithuania, we could resist the invasion for about a month before all the ammonition would be used out. Latvia's military wasn't particularily strong, because as I said it has been only 20-30 years from the First World War which completely destroyed Latvia's infrastructure, so Latvia had to build everything from nothing. Though we had operational air force squadrons consisting from Gloster Gladiators and it was planned to buy new Hawker Hurricanes from UK as well, but sadly we never managed to live until that.. There are many factors why happened things that happened.

 

Though I wouldn't say that we gave up with no resistance at all. The National Resistance Force of Latvia held its grounds up until 1953, which was one of the longest periods of time in the world for guirellas to resist. Those were the famous "Hawks of Daugava" (Daugavas Vanagi) or Forest Brothers (Meža Brāļi)  and other groups of partisans or guirellas who eliminated nearly 500 000 NKVD staff members at that time. I even read a book about them. My family helped them by giving food that time.

 

I have one story about those guys too - I read that in the book.

 

"One of our guys got shot and killed in action. We burried him in the local forest. We set there the Christian cross and left him. When we went past his grave, we saw that the cross had been removed and broked from the grave. We set it back up. We came second time and NKVD had done it once again. Next time we attached a bomb to that cross and next time we went past that grave we saw an NKVD member blown to pieces."

 

Actually it really warms my heart reading those stories, because you can't possibly not hate such people. There were 2 mature deportations during the Soviet occupation - one in 1941 and other in 1949. First time they deported all the rich and educated people. Second time they deported all the farmers. All the military command had been shot and killed. It's was like Latvian Katyn, took place in Litene.

 

 

As our history teacher said - the only perhaps good thing that Russian occupation gave us was Russian language. Too bad that when  we got our independece back in 1991, our government didn't send all the Russians off from Latvia. Then it would peaceful here instead of something like this:

 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

Each year, the 9th May.

 

EDIT:

grammar fix

Edited June 10, 2015 by r0lt0ns

[Tzalafim 695]

This is the biggest question that still remains here - did Latvia had to defend itself when Russians sent the ultimatum.

 

The biggest reason why Latvia's government did let the Russians come in was just because of the NKVD. Our government knew about the atrocities in USSR by that time, but the people still didn't. President of Latvia didn't want that to happen in Latvia - we had almost no chances to secure our borders for one simple reason: we were surrounded. Russians could enter Latvia from 3 different sides - from Estonia, Russia and Lithuania - that's what they did. They entered through the border of Russia and Lithuania. By that time Latvia's population was somewhere around 2 million. I can't tell the precise numbers in military for that time available, but it's clear that it wouldn't be enough to stop Red Army from invading Latvia. And Latvian government knew that. They wanted to evade complete annihalation that happened in the First World War resulting in front line right in the middle of Latvia's capital..

 

It all started in 1939 when USSR sent an ultimatum to Latvia, which declared that if Latvia has to allow Russian army to move unlimited ammount of men inside the country and allow Russian army to build Soviet Military bases within Latvia. The time was given 24 hours to reply. Latvia's government accepted the ultimatum and told people to remain calm - Soviets "are" our friends. They thought that it will be only temporarily, but we all know how it ended. In 1940 Latvia had an order to form up new government which would be loyal to USSR. There were "official" and "fair" elections and in that same year Latvia as an independent state disappeared from geographical maps.

 

We had forces to protect Latvia and perhaps if we formed up some kind of Alliance with Estonia and Lithuania, we could resist the invasion for about a month before all the ammonition would be used out. Latvia's military wasn't particularily strong, because as I said it has been only 20-30 years from the First World War which completely destroyed Latvia's infrastructure, so Latvia had to build everything from nothing. Though we had operational air force squadrons consisting from Gloster Gladiators and it was planned to buy new Hawker Hurricanes from UK as well, but sadly we never managed to live until that.. There are many factors why happened things that happened.

 

Though I wouldn't say that we gave up with no resistance at all. The National Resistance Force of Latvia held its grounds up until 1953, which was one of the longest periods of time in the world for guirellas to resist. Those were the famous "Hawks of Daugava" (Daugavas Vanagi) or Forest Brothers (Meža Brāļi)  and other groups of partisans or guirellas who eliminated nearly 500 000 NKVD staff members at that time. I even read a book about them. My family helped them by giving food that time.

 

I have one story about those guys too - I read that in the book.

 

"One of our guys got shot and killed in action. We burried him in the local forest. We set there the Christian cross and left him. When we went past his grave, we saw that the cross had been removed and broked from the grave. We set it back up. We came second time and NKVD had done it once again. Next time we attached a bomb to that cross and next time we went past that grave we saw an NKVD member blown to pieces."

 

Actually it really warms my heart reading those stories, because you can't possibly not hate such people. There were 2 mature deportations during the Soviet occupation - one in 1941 and other in 1949. First time they deported all the rich and educated people. Second time they deported all the farmers. All the military command had been shot and killed. It's was like Latvian Katyn, took place in Litene.

 

 

As our history teacher said - the only perhaps good thing that Russian occupation gave us was Russian language. Too bad that when  we got our independece back in 1991, our government didn't send all the Russians off from Latvia. Then it would peaceful here instead of something like this:

 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

Each year, the 9th May.

 

EDIT:

grammar fix

Well that people is having a feast on Victory day.  Saint George ribbon is something to be proud of. I do not support the invasion of Latvia, but around the URSS there were aggresive regimes.

Most of the neighboring countries of the URSS send agents to subvert the communist regime, they made propaganda against the URSS, the tzarist regime had been accepted as the german nobility got rich. If any latvian say anything he was approach by their german masters and suggested with the shut up.

But most of the countries surrounding the URSS had a very aggresive stance against it, remember the feudal central coalition of central europe, they even invade the URSS along the nazis.

There are records of this every time the URSS had a soft stance, agents were sent to subvert the country, no NKVD in the border and the country would have been flooded of subversive agents coming from all around the world.

What I guess is that now the russians are not commies anymore, so the blackmailing should be over, so the russians do not need to invade any country. In Latvia where based a lot of the german nobility deposed from the tzarist empire ranting about things which now seems incredible and everybody were shaking hands.

Now the invasion of Latvia came to happen in the following pattern, the URSS has a so so relation with the Czechs, they would have fulfilled their treaty of defensive obligations, western powers did not want the URSS to cross their borders into central europe to get allies or friendly nations ( they are dangerous they are commies), no one said anything about the poor czechs, but something was clear. the URSS did not have strong allies, so the flip to Germany, and the germans approach the URSS and said this is for me and those are for you. and Latvia was invaded.

What should the URSS done? Make a plebiscite every 4 years as the one of Scotland in Latvia to let people decide if they wanted to live in the URSS or not, obviously once WW2 was ended.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tzalafim

[r0lt0ns 2,444]

Well that people is having a feast on Victory day.  Saint George ribbon is something to be proud of. I do not support the invasion of Latvia, but they were aggresive regimes

Victory day? The 9th May?

 

That's another topic to talk about. In my opinion it would be ok to dedicate it to the guys who gave their lives, not for the porpuses that is today - complete Russian propaganda, which flames up every side - both Legion members and Russians. The 16th March is a calm day where the old WW II veterans go and put flowers next to the monument dedicated to Latvian liberty. Then Russians flame up - it's supporting Nazism or whatever not. The 16th March were the day when 15th and 19th Latvian SS divisions fought togheter in Volhov. The Legion has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jewish slaughter or any war crimes. They were not involved, because they did not fight neither for Germany, neither for nazism. As I said, they fought for Latvia. And now they are blamed for praising nazism. Absolute nonsense, but oh well... I'm not going in details - I would probably get banned for being a nazi because I don't support the country that has killed so many innocent civilians - and here is the main idea why I don't support 9th May.

 

They say that it is dedicated for heroes that fought in the "great patriotic war". Who are the heroes, may I ask? Well a normal, clearily minded person would say that heroes are the people who really were fighting. Who were assigned to do front line assignaments or anything related to defeat the enemy. They think different. They say that an NKVD staff member who has shot his own mate for not going to die is a hero. There was another story about one NKVD officer. Here in Latvia and in other normal-thinking countries he would be a war criminal for raping a pregnant woman and killing her 3 children. They think different again - he is a hero and he has full rights to celebrate the 9th May. Is that really that fair? Is it fair that a person who has fought his way to Berlin is the same as a guy who shot all those who don't want to become machine gun meat? Are those who tortured poor civilians heroes? Obviously, yes))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

I'm not offending you, I'm not saying that you said something wrong, I just say the basic things that a normal person wouldn't have thought. I support that the old people come and put flowers and remember their fallen comerades, but certainly not in this manner and without people who had murdered innocent civilians.. Well...history is history and we live to make world better, though that doesn't mean that you don't have to know the rough past.

Edited June 10, 2015 by r0lt0ns

[Tzalafim 695]

Thanks for sharing info about Latvia. One thing that is easy to ask afterwards is why Latvia (as well as Estonia and Lithuania) did not resist Soviet invasion on 1939/1940? - it seems that there was not much to lose to try armed resistance as the country was anyway occupied (for about 50 years), the feared NKVD came and terrorized local population and the war anyway swept over the country in 1941 and 1944/1945 bringing all of its devastations (the very thing that the Latvian political decision makers in their time wanted to avoid).

 

Finland opposed Soviet territorial and military base demands and that led to war - it paid a heavy price for it but the country remained independent and avoided the full-scale sovietization that happened in Baltic countries. So the Balts paid much heavier prize for "peace" than the one paid by Finland for resistance and war. So looking from the cristal ball of the current knowledge it seems that Latvian governement and other Baltic states gained absolutely nothing by appeasing Soviets and letting their countries to be occupied without resistance in 1940.

I do not know much about the discussions of the Latvian (and Lithuanian/Estonian) decision makers of the situation but I guess that it went something like this:

Of course the Baltic states were small and isolated countries by the autumn 1939 - in comparison to Finland the chances of successfull military defence were smaller. But still: why to have Defence Forces or compulsory military service at all if there is no serious intention to use these assests against the most obvious and threatening invasion? I guess that the Balts were counting on German support against Soviet invasion but as that was ruled out by autumn 1939 it was deemed hopeless to resist Soviet demands which diminished the political indepence of the Baltic countries and ultimately led to the longtime occupation. And when it came to Britain and France, they could do nothing due to geographic distance and were not particularly interested to support the Balts against Soviet demands. Isolated as the Czechs in 1938 the Baltic governements had no other option than to surrender to Soviet demands in 1939/1940 but by doing so they also gave away the independence and accepted the sovietization of their countries without any fight. Logical development but somehow I feel that Soviets got what they wanted very easily.

 

Was the appeaseament toward Soviets absolutely the only possible choice and supported widely by the Latvian people? Would the people of Latvia and other Baltic countries have fought if their governements would have decided to resist and mobilize the Defence Forces for a war in 1939?

Would have Latvia been invaded if they decided to form an anti-fascist coalition along the URSS...??? Their german masters would have not allowed that. The russian german nobitity had its origin in the baltic states,

russian nobility had come to be educated in French, many russian writers wrote as much in russian as in french, the german nobility obviously do this but with german.

9th of may is one thing, soviet occupation is another thing to discuss. as the 9th of may is the end of a road where many changed allegiances, broke pacts, said one thing and made it all the way around.

The baltic states had a friendly relation with Germany and the West, when the partition of Poland came about, Latvians fell in the Soviet sphere and then the URSS invaded Latvians, but from the point of view of a soviet to negate allies to the fascist, as I say before, Latvia never had an anti-fascist stance, even when they were sold to the URSS.  And well the little countries are the first victims in these kind of conflicts.

The URSS had nothing to gain in Latvia, what the communist wanted a long time ago was to carry the revolution to Germany not to Latvia, so those territorials gains were not important for the URSS.

After WWII the West did not recognize the baltic states as part of the URSS. Who financed the III Reich? Who sold Latvia to the URSS, just follow the money, obviously this does not mean that your country should have been invaded, or in any case the URSS should have allowed the people of Latvia to have a referendum to decide where they want to live inside the URSS or not, but didn't happen, what was a huge mistake, the administration of Latvia cost much more than that of Novgorod, even Galicia or western Ukraine had nothing to offer but expenses, all those territories were a burden to the URSS....if the soviets would have follow the money they should have abandoned those territories, just kept the good Ukraine, the tzarist one, form Ruthenia in Galichina, (to have a viable Ukraine) and then make referemdums even in the tzarist Ukraine and baltics states, to let them decide what to do. What kind of association they want to have.

Now would have Latvia been invaded if this would have had an anti-facist stance?

 

The problem with the URSS was its economic regime, so any step backward was perceived as a weakness and the capitalist countries push even harder with propaganda, subversion, blackmailing, the only way to soften their stance was to create the warsaw pact. But you don't have a possible exit from there, but to do 1989

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tzalafim

[racer999 514]

One thing that is easy to ask afterwards is why Latvia (as well as Estonia and Lithuania) did not resist Soviet invasion on 1939/1940?

As r0lt0ns already stated the reason was the fear of total annihilation (Stalin wasn't exactly a kind man). However the fact that no shots were fired (there was no official resistance) is used by Russia till this day to deny the fact of occupation of the Baltic States. To them occupation is only when you take land in battle, against the (official)will of the people living there - taking it by other means is totally fine. Latvia obviously disagrees and so the argument whether or not the Baltic States were invaded and occupied still isn't settled to this day officially between Latvia and Russia.

 

Anyway, nice article r0lt0ns even if slightly one-sided.

Edited June 10, 2015 by racer999

[r0lt0ns 2,444]

Would have Latvia been invaded if they decided to form an anti-fascist coalition along the URSS...??? Their german masters would have not allowed that.

Latvia had no German masters. They were all gone right after the First World War when the original Latvian Riflemen kicked them out along with Communists on the other side of Latvia.

 

I think you misunderstood something.. Let me make it clear - Latvia, during the WW II, was occupied 3 times: The first Soviet invasion, The German invasion and then came the second Soviet invasion, which had severe battles in Kurland, where Latvian Legion along other German units were holding their ground for 7 months until Germany capitulated.

 

 

In 1941 there was a big deportation. It was when the Soviets came in the first time. That's why Latvians started to hate them, since they sent out ~15 000 people from Latvia just in one night. Then came the Germans, which were welcomed as liberators, though soon after that Latvians understood that Germany won't let Latvia be independent again. Latvia has never been in friends with Germany besides that time when they came in the first time, because Latvians thought that they won't be that bad as Communists.

 

 

As r0lt0ns already stated the reason was the fear of total annihilation (Stalin wasn't exactly a kind man). However the fact that no shots were fired (there was no official resistance) is used by Russia till this day to deny the fact of occupation of the Baltic States. To them occupation is only when you take land in battle, against the (official)will of the people living there - taking it by other means is totally fine. Latvia obviously disagrees and so the argument whether or not the Baltic States were invaded and occupied still isn't settled to this day officially between Latvia and Russia.

 

Anyway, nice article r0lt0ns even if slightly one-sided.

Thank you!

 

Latvian military did not open fire at Russians, that's true. Though on the other hand - Russians - set up a situation where they killed something like 7 Border Guards right before the ultimatum. After that they said that Latvian Border Guards opened fire first, so now Latvia is a huge threat to the small, poor USSR. Otherwise there wouldn't be a correct reason to occupation.

 

As I said earlier, the Battle of Kurland was extra painful for Latvians, since both Latvian Legion and Latvian Riflemen fought against each other right in that battle. Latvian Legion was a military formation in SS, but Latvian Riflemen - in Red Army. That's why I said that it was a battle "brother against brother". And it was not that uncommon at all for a Latvian mother to know that one of her brothers has killed the other one.. That's how it was, too bad.. And we have a decal for Latvian Riflemen in game as well. I wrote this article mainly because there are many people that every single SS formation fought for nazism, which is not true..

Edited June 10, 2015 by r0lt0ns

[Tzalafim 695]

As r0lt0ns already stated the reason was the fear of total annihilation (Stalin wasn't exactly a kind man). However the fact that no shots were fired (there was no official resistance) is used by Russia till this day to deny the fact of occupation of the Baltic States. To them occupation is only when you take land in battle, against the (official)will of the people living there - taking it by other means is totally fine. Latvia obviously disagrees and so the argument whether or not the Baltic States were invaded and occupied still isn't settled to this day officially between Latvia and Russia.

 

Anyway, nice article r0lt0ns even if slightly one-sided.

if the people is not allowed to consider what to do they are invaded, I know that the subject is not easy, I know that some russian can even joke about it, as they put their feet on a little country, and they don't have time to listen to the whining, but they are kept in check by the force you have there.  As I said before the URSS should have called to referemdums in all the western regions and let them decide what path to follow, this would have been more productive for everyone, this would have respected the autodetermination right for this peoples to decide how to live.

 

As a latvian obviously it is a pride to have defended its country its homeland, and as you described this could have turned into brother against brother. And then why there was no chance left for little countries before WW2?

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tzalafim