Policy vs. reality: intimate contact in Nazi-occupied Latvia

ABSTRACT

To better understand the contradictions between regulations and reality on consensual relations between German soldiers and Latvian women, this article investigates the development of Nazi sexual policies and how restrictions were dealt with by the Wehrmacht (German Army). This regulatory analysis is then applied to an evaluation of life in occupied Latvia. Analysis shows how such intimate contact was a continuous concern for the Nazis, how the debate on the ‘racial value’ of Latvians and their relations with Germans changed with the war, how perceived military needs affected and even altered this ‘value,’ and how, despite policy, such relationships flourished in occupied Latvia.

KEYWORDS:

• Nazi-occupied latvia
• nazi racial policy
• nazi sexual policy
• soldiers and locals
• children born of war

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program and from the innovation program under a Marie Skłodowska-Curie award, Grant No. 642571.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. It must be acknowledged that, in times of war, consensual relations are affected by the balance of power (Röger 2014, 5). Oftentimes such relationships formed as a mechanism for survival, for example, to attain food during war-induced shortages (see Tönsmeyer, Haslinger, and Laba 2018; Gertjejanssen 2004). Therefore, for the purposes of this article, consensual relationships are defined as those that are not explicitly violent.

2. It should also be mentioned that, although work related to intimate relations between locals and German soldiers during World War II and their offspring, their ‘children born of war’ (CBOW), has been conducted in some western European countries, in countries such as Norway (see Mochmann and Larsen 2008; Ericsson and Ellingsen 2006; Borgersrud 2006; Olsen 2006; Ellingsen 2004), Denmark (see Mochmann and Larsen 2008; Warring 2006; Øland 2006), France (see Virgili 2002, 2006, 2014), Finland (see Westerlund 2011), and the Netherlands (see Diederichs 2006), the topic is still understudied in the east, in countries once dominated by the USSR. While some scholars, including some discussed in this section, have addressed this topic in eastern Europe, in the former Czechoslovakia (see Šimůnek 2006), in Poland (see Röger 2011, 2014, 2015), and the former Soviet Union (see Mühlhäuser 2006, 2012; Gertjejanssen 2004), in eastern Europe, including in the Baltic countries, there is still a lack of scholarly work and a general awareness of the issue.

3. Generalkomissar in Riga, Rules on the Care of Children Born to German Soldiers and Local Women, 9 October 1942–16 December 1943. ‘On the care of children born out-of-wedlock, who have been created by German citizens to local women of the occupied Eastern Territories,’ 9 October 1942, Latvijas Nacionālais Arhīvs, Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīvs (National Archives of Latvia, Latvian State Historical Archives; hereafter– LVVA), P-69. f., 4. Apr., 105. l., 2. lp.

4. LVVA, P-69. f., 4. apr., 105. l., 2. lp.

5. Generalkomissar in Riga, Correspondence with the Reichskommissar of Ostland on Questions Regarding the Autonomy of the Baltic People and the Assimilation of these People and on Youths’ participation in the Reich Labor Service in Germany, 1941–1944. ‘Secret Document: On the marriage of Reich Germans and the inhabitants of the former Baltic nations,’ 7 June 1944, LVVA, P-69. f., 1a. apr., 6. l., 329. lp.

6. Reichskommissariat Ostland, Ordinance on the Ban of Out-of-Wedlock Relations between German Soldiers and Women of Local Ethnicity, 1941–1942. ‘On out-of-wedlock relations between Germans and people of alien races,’ 10 February 1942, LVVA, P-69. f., 1a. apr., 6. l., 329. lp.; LVVA, P-70. f., 3. apr., 32. l., 4. lp.

7. Generalkomissar in Riga, Correspondence with the Reichskommissar of Ostland on Questions Regarding the Autonomy of the Baltic People and the Assimilation of these People and on Youths’ participation in the Reich Labor Service in Germany, 1941–1944. Letter from the Commissioner of the Jelgava region, to the General Commissioner of Riga, 21 May 1942, LVVA, P-69. f., 1a. apr., 6. l., 284. lp.

8. ‘German ethnic policy tasks in Latvia,’ 29 December 1943, LVVA, P-69. f., 1a. apr., 6. l., 264–265. lp.

9. See, for example: Klaviņš 1946; Arklāns, Dzirkalis, and Silabriedis 1966; Samsons 1983.

10. While there have been some studies regarding aspects of everyday life during Nazi occupation, for example, on the use of alcohol (see Zellis 2006), on art during the occupation (see Kalnaćs 2005) and on women in Nazi-occupied Latvia (see Zellis 2007), most works regarding this period have been focused on high politics (see Lumans 2006), military history (see Neiburgs 2014; Zelče and Neiburgs 2018), and the Latvian Legion (see Ezergailis 1997; Lācis 2017). One of the most recent and extensive studies on daily life during Nazi occupation is Ikdienas dzīve Latvijā nacistiskās vācijas okupācijas laikā 1941–1945 (Evarts and Pavlovičs 2016).

11. For more on the Baltic Germans during World War II and their resettlement, see Plavnieks (2008, 49).

12. The Common Electronic Catalog of the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia.

13. Letters from Marina Gobziņa to Ingabourg Vītolis, Latvijas Okupācijas muzeja arhīvs (Archive of the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia; hereafter – LOMA), OMF 15,270/1–29.; Letters from Aīda to Ingabourg Vītolis, OMF 15,272/1–3; Letters from Skaidrīte to Ingabourg Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 16,894/1–28; Letters from Ingrīda Vīndedzis to Ingabourg Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/1–18.

14. Letter from Ivars Kronītis to employees of the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, 4 August 2004, LOMA.

15. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

16. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

17. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

18. Gobziņa to Vītolis, 22 April 1942, LOMA, OMF 15,270/4; Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

19. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

20. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

21. Gobziņa to Vītolis, 16 December 1941, LOMA, OMF 15,270/1; Vīndedzis to Vītolis, 20 January 1942, LOMA, OMF 15,271/3; Skaidrīte to Vītolis, 14 September 1941, LOMA, OMF 16,894/2; Vīndedzis to Vītolis, 20 January 1942, LOMA, OMF 15,271/3.

22. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, 19 January 1943, LOMA, OMF 15,271/9.

23. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

24. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, 20 January 1942, LOMA, OMF 15,271/3.

25. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

26. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, LOMA, OMF 15,271/2.

27. Gobziņa to Vītolis, 14 February 1942, LOMA, OMF 15,270/2.

28. Vīndedzis to Vītolis, 8 April 1942, LOMA, OMF 15,271/4.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 642571.

Notes on contributors

Oskars Gruziņš

Oskars Gruziņš has a bachelor's degree in History and Journalism from New York University and recieved his Masters in International Relations at the University of Kent’s Brussels School for International Studies. In Brussels, he worked in the European Parliament for Latvian MEP Sandra Kalniete. There he organized the work of the Reconciliation of European Histories Group, a group of nearly 50 MEPs addressing aspects of European history on the political level. He is currently completing his PhD at the University of Latvia.