Mark Kurzem’s The Mascot: Between facts and myths
ULDIS NEIBURGS *
The Museum of the Occupation of Latvia
Kurzem, Mark. The Mascot. The extraordinary story of a young Jewish boy and an SS
extermination squad. London: Rider, 2007. 340 pages.
The Western world’s extensive historical-literary writings have very recently been
augmented by The Mascot, whose recounted events are linked in the closest possible way to
Latvian history in the period of German National Socialist occupation. History books not
uncommonly provide the basis for many films, but the present case presents the reverse: this
published work continues the path of the 2002 documentary film of the same name1, screened
at several film festivals in Australia, the USA and Europe, and repeats the film’s sensational
story of the fate of a young boy in World War II and his secret that was only revealed half a
century later. The book’s author Mark Kurzem is the son of the main hero of that story,
Australian resident Uldis Kurzemnieks (Alex Kurzem), and who has now set a permanent
record of his father’s story in a history book.
According to this book‘s version, only in 1997 did Uldis reveal to Mark and his other close
relatives that he was not a Russian boy, who had lost his family in the war and had emigrated
to Australia post-war along with his adopting family, but was instead a Jewish boy, whose
family had been killed in the Holocaust and who only though amazing circumstances had
managed to save his own life. (By other accounts Uldis’ adoptive father’s family had known
the full details much earlier). In the Summer of 1942 the young boy was saved by soldiers of
the 18th Courland [in Latvian - Kurzeme] –Latvian Schutzmannschaft (Police) Battalion. [In
World War II police units were formed of various nationalities in Eastern Europe to assist in
internal security in German held areas; battalion-size units were variously employed as
combat troops, used for guard duties or for "cleanup" operations]. Paradoxically, it was
precisely members of this battalion who were put on trial by the Latvian Soviet Socialist
Republic’s High Court in 1961, charged with the extermination of Jews in the Belarus city of
Slonim. Five of those found guilty were shot, while another four were given 15-year prison
sentences.2 Historian Andrew Ezergailis has repeatedly stressed that the trial was fabricated
* Uldis Neiburgs, M.A., History, (University of Latvia, 1998). Doctoral Candidate in History, University of
Latvia. Researcher, Museum of the Occupation of Latvia. (Email - uldis.neiburgs@omf.lv). Translated into
English by Dr Uldis Ozolins, Ph.D, Politics (Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 1988) Lecturer in Politics
at La Trobe University, Melbourne; Academic and translator (Email - uldis@languagesolutions.com.au).
Translation prepared with the financial assistance of the Latvian Federation of Australia and New Zealand Inc.
(Email - info@laaj.org.au).
1
Documentary film "The Mascot", Caneva Media Production, 2002, 55 min. Written and produced by Mark
Kurzem & Lina Caneva.
2
LVA [Latvijas Valsts arhīvs - Latvian State Archive], fonds 1986, series 1, file 44109.. Criminal proceedings
against Jānis Bumbērs, Osvalds Jēkabs Lapiņš, Francis Eglājs-Lemešonoks, Jevgēņijs Lūsis, Voldemārs Ogriņš,
Voldemārs Širmahers, Eduarda Šķeters, Ernests Viļnis, Jāzeps Zlamets; Film Journal "Padomju Latvija" [Soviet
Latvia], 1961., No. 12; Bambere, M. Vilkači uz tiesas sola. [Werewolves in the Dock] Cīņa. 1961. March 22 to
April 18.
1
by the KGB, his argument being that the charges were based on contradictory testimony,
including self-indictment. The trial did not even attempt to determine the date of the mass
killing; the descriptions given of the charged crime differed from the standard organising
pattern by which the Germans exterminated Jews, and so on3. By contrast, upon release of the
film and publication of The Mascot, various Western mass media now carry the story that its
hero was saved by those who killed his family and at any moment could have killed him
also.4 Uldis Kurzemnieks’ story had been long known in the exile Latvian community, but
only in the last few years has it become clear that the main details of the story were quite
different to what was believed.5
We can read in the book how even until the end of the 1990s Uldis Kurzemnieks did not have
a clue as to his origins. Two words had been deeply etched into his memory – Koidanov and
Panok – because he had quietly recited these words to himself at the time when as a young
boy he lost his family. He was around five years old when the town in which he lived was
stormed by soldiers who moved the local residents to an enclosure. One night his mother had
told him that they would die the next day, so he had to be stout-hearted. That night the boy
arose, dressed, kissed his sleeping mother, went out of the house and snuck out through a
hole in the enclosure. At dawn he awoke to the sound of gunshots. He saw how his mother
and younger brother and sister were killed. He ran into the forest and for a long time
wandered there. Once he found a soldier’s corpse and removed its coat and boots. He fed on
berries and whatever else he could find, at times he even sucked on his coat cuffs, imagining
they were bread. Even though he was small he had learnt to climb trees, which helped him
now to avoid the wolves by tying himself to tree branches before falling asleep,. From time to
time he was fortunate enough to have a farmer agree to his sleeping in their farmhouse. In
such circumstances of war, stress and hunger the boy even forgot his own name and where he
came from.6
Contemporary historical research has clarified that after the invasion of the USSR by Nazi
Germany on June 22, 1941, the destruction of Jews, communists and other ‘dangerous
elements’ in Belarus was carried out by the German security service [SD - Sicherheitsdienst]
Operational Group (Einsatzgruppe) "B". Koidanov‘s Jewish population was exterminated on
October 21, 1941, when in a few hours 1000 people were killed (other accounts say 1,920
3
Ezergailis, A. Reabilitāciju 18. un 21. latviešu palīgpolicijas bataljonam [Rehabilitation of the 18th. and 21st.
Latvian Auxiliary Police Battalions]. Atmoda Atpūtai. 1994. July 6 & 9; Ezergailis, A. Safabricētās prāvas:
Karavīri bija nevainīgi [Fabricated trials: Soldiers were innocent]. Laiks. 1999. April 17; Ezergailis, A.
Vēsturnieka versija par padomju paraugprāvām [A historian’s version of Soviet show trials]. Nacionālā
Neatkarība. 1999. August 18 &25.
4
Kurzem, M. My father was a child mascot for the SS. The Observer Review. February 29. 2004; Kermond, C.
The Mascot. The Age. April 8. 2004; Craig, O. The tale of a Nazi mascot. The Sunday Telegraph. June 10. 2007;
Spanton, T. I was ‘youngest Nazi’... they never knew I’m Jewish. Sun. June 15. 2007; Bryant, N. The secret
history of the Nazi mascot. BBC News. August 21. 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/europe/6945847.stm.
5
Kalējs, J. [Šmits A.], Uldis Kurzemnieks. Pēdējā kara ugunīs Austrumu frontē atrasta zēna stāsts [Uldis
Kurzemnieks. The story of a boy found in the cross-fire of the Eastern front in the last War] . Austrālijas
Latvietis. 1958. Jūnijs May 24 – June 21; Neiburgs, U. Ulda Kurzemnieka noslēpums. [Uldis Kurzemnieks’
secret] Latvijas Avīze: Mājas Viesis. 2004. May 7; Neiburgs, U. Uldis Kurzemnieks. Austrālijas Latvietis. 2004.
May 19 to June 2.
6
Kurzem, M. The Mascot. The extraordinary story of a young Jewish boy and an SS extermination squad.
London: Rider, 2007. Pp. 33--48.
2
people – U.N.). The 11th German Reserve Police Battalion operated in that area under the
command of Major Franz Lechthaler, who also had under his command the 2nd (later 12th)
Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalion, led by Captain A. Impulevičius.7 The Koidanov
shootings were carried out by this battalion’s 1st Company led by Lieutenant Z.Kemzura. 8
However, a different version is also available, that part of Koidanov’s Jews were moved as
early as Summer 1941 to the Minsk ghetto. Therefore its not possible to definitively exclude
the possibility that the boy may have escaped from the Minsk ghetto in the Spring of 1942, as
the likelihood of his being able to survive several months in the forest in bitter winter
conditions seems rather doubtful; moreover, this period is recounted rather vaguely in the
book.
Various descriptions of Uldis’ further activites are carried in wartime publications, but they
should preferably be seen as only approximate accounts, and were to a greater or lesser extent
influenced by propaganda or censorship.9 However, contrary to his father’s long-recounted
version that he was found by soldiers who were searching for partisans in the forest, Mark
Kurzem writes that the reality was otherwise. A Belarus farmer had sighted the boy in the
forest and considered him Jewish. He had brutally beaten the boy, then dragged him to a
village and given him to soldiers who had been killing Jews and partisans.10 One of these
soldiers was Corporal Jēkabs Kūlis (1914 - ?) (In the book he is called a Sergeant, but this
rank was given to him only on January 1, 1944). Kūlis had taken the boy to a nearby
schoolhouse and stressed to the boy he must not tell anyone he is Jewish, thus saving his life.
The log book of the 18th Police Battalion has survived to our day, and in it Kūlis is first
mentioned on July 7, 194211, which makes it plausible that Uldis came to be with Latvian
soldiers at this time.12
7
Иоффе, Э. К вопросу о коллаборационизме в Беларуси в 1941-1944 гг. Евреи Беларуси. Иcтория и
кулътура. Сборник статей. III--IV. Минск, 1998. C. 165 [Yoffe, E. On the question of collaboration in
Belarus in 1941-44. In Belarus Jews. History and Culture. Collected Papers. III-IV. Minsk, 1998; Stang, K.
Hilfspolizisten und Soldaten: Das 2./12. litauische Schutzmannschaftsbataillon in Kaunas und Weißrußland. Die
Wehrmacht. Mythos und Realität. [Police Reserves and Soldiers: The 2/12 Lithuanian Police Battalion in
Kaunas and Belarus. In The Wehrmacht. Myths and Realities]. Munich, 1999. S. 858-878; Bubnys, A. Die
litauischen Hilfspolizeibataillone und der Holocaust. Holocaust in Litauen. Krieg, Judenmorde und
Kollaboration im Jahre 1941. [The Lithuanian Police Reserve Battalion and the Holocaust. The Holocaust in
Lithuania. War, Jewish killing and collaboration in the year 1941] Cologne, 2003. S. 117.--131.
8
Lithuanian Special Archive [Lietuvos Ypatingasis archyvas], fonds K-1, series 58, b. 47386/3, t. 9, pp. 378-379.
9
I. L. Uldis Kurzemnieks. Daugavas Vēstnesis. 1942. November 1; V.v.J.S. Ziemsvētkos kristīsim audžudēlu
[At Christmas we will christen our adopted son]. Daugavas Vanagi. 1942. 20. novembris; Rolavs, A. Ulža
Kurzemnieka darbi un nedarbi [Uldis Kurzemnieks’ good deeds and mischiefs]. Daugavas Vanagi. 1943. 30.
jūlijs.
10
Kurzem, M. The Mascot. Pp. 49--59.
11
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace Archives, Stanford, USA (henceforth -- HI), Latvian
Central Committee, Box. 99, Folder 3; Box. 125, Folder 10; LVA, 2395. f., 151., 177. microfilm
12
J. Kūlis is mentioned again in battalion records on October 26, 1942, when he joins a sapper squad, and when
his battalion was included in the Latvian Legion [the military force formed by the Germans from Latvians to
fight on the Eastern front], from June 1, 1943 he continued his military duties in the 8th Company, 2(40)
Regiment, 2nd Latvian Brigade (Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīvs = Latvian State History Archive, fonds P 180,
series 5., file 332, page 14); LKM - Latvijas Kara muzejs [Latvian War Museum] "Daugavas Vanagu"
[Returned soldiers’ organisation ‘Hawks of Daugava’] Legion archive in Germany). The last time Uldis
Kurzemnieks met J. Kūlis was in 1943 on the Volkhov front, and after that was for a long time was convinced
that Kūlis had been killed in the war, but in 1958 he unexpectedly received a letter from Kūlis and learnt that he
3
However, there is no basis for author Mark Kurzem’s claim that Uldis was taken in by those
persons who had, very likely, exterminated his family13. Our currently available 18th Police
Battalion wartime records clearly show that the Battalion was formed on Janury 5, 1942 in
Riga. Commanded by Captain Fridrichs Rubenis and consisting of 429 men, it was deployed
to Minsk only on May 4, 1942, already several months after the the destruction of Jews in
Koidanov. On June 4 the 18th Battalion went to Stolbtsi, where it took up guard duty and
participated in battles against Soviet partisans around Naliboki and Derevno villages. On
August 15 it returned to Stolbtsi, but on August 19 it arrived in Slonim, where it remained
until August 22.14 Certain sections of the Battalion were involved in guarding the perimeter
of the Slonim ghetto on August 20, when 400 of the remaining Jews in the ghetto were killed;
however it is more unlikely than likely that members of this battalion themselves possibly
engaged in the shooting.15 Apart from that, together with Belarus self-defence units the
battalion fought against Soviet partisans, some of whom were in Jewish units. According to
A.Ezergailis, if any Latvians had participated in the Slonim murders, most likely they could
have been Latvian SD units that at that time were operating in the Minsk district.16
In order to understand the events described in the book, it is important to determine if the 18th
Battalion was directly involved with the German security police and SD Operational Group
‘B’ and the extermination of Jews, and what was its role in battling partisans. Furthermore it
must be remembered that, unlike crimes against civilians, combat action against Soviet
partisans is not regarded as a war crime from the perspective of international law.17 The
protagonist of the book Uldis Kurzemnieks a few years ago claimed that at the time when he
was found by Latvian soldiers, he did not speak Latvian and did not know that such a country
as Latvia existed. At the time he was in Belarus there were numerous battalions stationed
there, not only Latvian but also German, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Belarusian, Lithuanian and
others: “Who was shooting people, I can’t precisely say. Yes, Latvians were also doing so,
but really I think they were shooting partisans, not Jews.”18 The work of the 18th Battalion in
Belarus had been clearly described by Corporal Kārlis Zirnis on August 14, 1945, while a
POW of the English:
and his wife and son were living in a New York suburb. Uldis did not reply to this letter. (Kurzem, M. The
Mascot. P. 100).
13
Ibid. P.235
14
HI, Latvian Central Committee, Box. 99, Folder 3; Box. 125, Folder 10; LVA, 2395. f., 151., 177. microfilm.
15
“The Slonim incident was a surprise, which we only learnt about when we had taken up our positions. We
were convinced that this was an engagement against partisans, and that we had to surround a certain district of
the city, which later turned out to be the ghetto. Under no circumstances were we to go inside (the ghetto) or to
be anywhere else except on its outside. I am convinced that from our outfit no-one went against orders. That
means that no-one was able to participate directly in the killing of the Jews. Likewise, never in further
discussion did I ever hear that any of the Latvians would have done so. (18 th Police Battalion, 1st Company
soldier’s testimony, September 10, 1994, A. Ezergailis’ private archives.)
16
Ezergailis, A. The Holocaust in Latvia, 1941--1944: The Missing Center. -- Riga: The Historical Institute of
Latvia, 1996. Pp. 324--327; Ezergailis, A. Nazi/Soviet Disinformation about the Holocaust in Nazi-Occupied
Latvia. Daugavas Vanagi: Who Are They? Revisited. Riga: Latvian 50 Years Museum of Occupation Fund,
2005. Pp. 45--50.
17
Ezergailis, A. Nazi/Soviet Disinformation .... Pp. 44--45.
18
Conversation with Uldis Kurzemnieks, April 25, 2004.
4
From here we commenced operations against bandits, involving long marches, which
often amounted to 50 to 60km a day […] Latvians had commanded respect through
their fearlessness. We were called the ‘green death’ in the region, so that it often
happened that when inhabitants of a village saw us coming they would flee their
houses and run into the forest, and we had to get them to return home by force […]
We were relocated to Slonim, where we took up guard duty, because the SD men
liquidated the ghetto, here we had to be eye witnesses to the SD men’s pitilessness.19
On the other hand, in post-war publications issued in exile it was stressed that it was a
substantial relief that Belarusians, like Ukrainians, were disposed to be friendly towards
Latvian soldiers and in all ways supported them. It was different with the Germans.20
The 18th Police Battalion was also involved in the anti-partisan operation ‘Swamp Fever’
(Sumpffieber), which lasted from August 22 to September 21, 1942 to the north of Minsk.
Historian Kārlis Kangeris has written about this and similar actions in these terms:
On the whole it should be concluded that the story of Latvian Police battalions, at
least in the context of the large-scale operations against partisans, is not as
unequivocal as, for example, Soviet history long maintained - that they were mass
murderer units - or, as Holocaust research still always maintains, that the main role of
the Police battalions in these anti-partisan operations was the killing of Jews.
Likewise it is not possible to maintain the view that the Latvian Police battalions’ war
was ‘clean’.21
Documents show that from August 28-29, 1942 the 18th Police Battalion together with the 1st
SS Infantry Brigade participated in the burning down of a village and the shooting of all its
inhabitants, but they do not show the role of each of the units in this operation. 22 To perhaps
better clarify what was done by the Germans and what had to be done by the Latvians we are
helped by the previously mentioned writing of Kārlis Zirnis:
The forays to clear the forests [of partisans] continued, and accompanying us were
German Gestapo and SD men, who punished disobedient villages, using various
techniques. The most usual punishment was to drive all the people into farm sheds,
raking them with gunfire and afterwards setting fire to them so they would burn; they
also used even more brutal methods […] In all a disquiet started to develop about the
German actions, against which we could not do anything. Rubenis had been sidelined
as an Officer going against the Germans, and we were now subordinated directly to
19
HI, Latvian Central Committee, Box. 1, Folder 1; LVA, 2395. f., 1. microfilm.
Latviešu karavīrs Otra pasaules kara laikā. 2. sēj.: Pirmās latviešu aizsardzības vienības Otrā pasaules karā.
[The Latvian Soldier in World War II, vol 2: The first Latvian defence units in World War II] Västerås, Sweden,
1972. Pp.142--144.
21
Kangeris, K. Latviešu policijas bataljoni lielajās "partizānu apkarošanas" akcijās. Totalitārie okupācijas
režīmi Latvijā 1940.--1964. gadā: Latvijas Vēsturnieku komisijas 2003. gada pētījumi [The Latvian Police
battalions in the large-scale ‘anti-partisan’ operations. Totalitarian Occupation Regimes in Latvia 1940-1964:
2003 Research of the Latvian History Commission] Rīga, 2004. Pp.351—352, Latvian History Commission
Publications vol.13.
22
Bundesarchiv [German National Archives] Berlin, R-70-SU/16.
20
5
Major Erzum, a Baltic German, and we saw through his actions what we did not want
to see and which we should not have seen with our eyes.23
We can only guess how much of this also had to be seen by Uldis’ eyes.
After returning to Stolbtsi, in October 1942 the 18th Police Battalion was sent to Hansevichi,
where it continued to participate in actions against partisans. At the beginning of May 1943
the battalion returned to Riga and was quartered at the Church of the Cross Barracks. On June
1 of the same year it was incorporated as the 3rd battalion of the Latvian Legion 2nd Brigade 2
(40th) Infantry Regiment (later the 19th Division, 43rd Regiment). [The Latvian Legion was
the military force formed by the Germans mainly from conscripted Latvians to fight the
Soviets on the Eastern front]. The Legion was engaged in front-line action from the Volkhov
swamps South-east of Leningrad to the siege of Courland [a number of German and Latvian
divisions defended an enclave on the Courland peninsula against the Soviet advance until the
end of the War]. Uldis remembers that he was together with Latvian soldiers in Belarus, then
after the battalion was incorporated into the Legion, in training in Velikiye Luki, and at the
Volkhov front, but in October 1943 he was sent back to Riga, which Uldis had on a few
occasions already visited with Kūlis during periods of leave. However, Mark Kurzem seems
exaggerated and not always truthful when he claims that he will never understand why the
soldiers decided to allow the boy to remain alive, perhaps they had a moment’s inkling of
their own humanity, while they were drinking and killing.24
In the book particular attention is paid to Latvian Legion Colonel Kārlis Lobe (1895–1985)
who, according Mark Kurzem’s thinking, had a significant role in determining Uldis’ fate.
However the facts do not accord with the oft-repeated claim in the book that Lobe had been
the commander of the 18th Battalion or even of a Latvian Police Brigade at the time the
Battalion was in Belarus. If Uldis’ first meeting with Lobe really did take place already in
Belarus in 1942, and not later in Riga or Volkhov, that could better be explained by the fact
that, from February 21 to November 21, 1942 as the Chief of Staff of Riga Order Police
Headquarters, but after that until February 1943 as the Adviser to the Directorate of Internal
Security for the Self-Administration of the Land [a German-controlled institution with
restricted authority], Lobe could have travelled to inspect Latvian Police battalions located on
the Eastern front.25 Fundamentally, Mark Kurzem uncritically repeats the accusations against
Lobe made in the then Soviet propaganda publications,26 whose accord with historical reality
is rather limited.27 Although in the book’s introduction Mark thanks Latvian historian A.
23
HI, Latvian Central Committee, Box. 1, Folder 1; LVA, 2395. f., 1. microfilm.
Kurzem, M. My father was a child mascot for the SS. The Observer Review. February 29. 2004.
25
The Latvian Soldier in World War II, vol 2: pp. 35, 37.
26
Avotiņš, E., Dzirkalis, J., Pētersons, V. Daugavas Vanagi: Who are they? Riga, 1963. Pp. 76--83, 162--163;
Dzirkalis, J. Kāpēc viņi bēga: Patiesība par Latviešu nacionālo fondu Zviedrijā. [Whey they fled: the truth
about the Latvian National Fund in Sweden]. Riga, 1965, pp.88 – 97; Arklāns, B., Dzirkalis, J., Silabriedis, J.
Viņi bez maskas [They - unmasked]. Riga, 1966. Pp.91--95.; Documentary film "Vēsture apsūdz" [History
Accuses], 1970.
27
Vīksne, R. Ebreju iznīcināšana Ventspilī 1941. gadā. Holokausta izpētes jautājumi Latvijā. [Extermination of
Jews in Ventspils in 1941. Questions in Holocaust Research in Latvia]. Riga, 2003. Pp.67--100. Latvian
Historical Commission publications, vol.8; Deland, M. The Swedish--Latvian Relief Committee, German-Baltic
and Swedish Intelligence and Impact on the Reception of War Criminals in Sweden. Latvija nacistiskās Vācijas
okupācijas varā 1941—1945 [Latvia in the Grip of Nazi German Occupation 1941-1945]. Rīga, 2004. Pp188-196. Latvian Historical Commission publications, vol.11.
24
6
Ezergailis for support that has helped him to better understand the structure and activities of
the Latvian Police during the period of German occupation, many of the descriptions in the
book show that the author’s understanding was only partial. It is difficult to concur with
Mark’s view that it was precisely the Baltic volunteer Police brigades and other units that had
constituted the German security Police and SD operative groups, or that the 18th Police
Battalion had been an ‘SS extermination squad’, which had in the beginning existed as a
Police Brigade, after that was incorporated in the Wehrmacht, but later became an SS unit.
Mark also without foundation regards Lobe as belonging to the Latvian Nazi elite and being a
member of the SS organisation responsible for the destruction of several tens of thousands of
Jews in Slonim, in Rumbula [a forest near Riga that was the scene of mass killings of Jews in
November and December 1941] and elsewhere.28
In regard to Lobe it cannot be denied that from July 9, 1941 to August 29 he was the selfdefence forces commander in Ventspils and that these units’ members during that time
participated in the German SD organised imprisonment and then consequent extermination of
Jewish males in the Ventspils city and environs. Likewise Lobe for a while also commanded
the 280th (Bolderāja) Latvian Police battalion, which was formed on January 23, 1943 in
Bolderāja (a suburb of Riga) and then again dissolved on April 9 after it had participated in
the German-organised anti-partisan campaign ‘Winter Magic’ (Winterzauber) in Belarus.29
Notwithstanding that while residing in Stockholm in the 1960s-1970s, Lobe was forced to
both give evidence to various investigations, and turn to the courts himself to sue for
defamation from accusations he had participated in war crimes,30 his direct participation in
such crimes had never been proven and more likely is to be doubted. Deeper and more
precise research into Lobe’s wartime activities was also not helped by the fact that the
accusations against him had largely Soviet origins and as such had arisen for political
purposes, as well as the fact that the late 1960s saw the 25 year statute of limitations, which
by Swedish law meant that formal proceedings against him were no longer possible.31 In
discussions with Uldis himself, he remembered that he met Colonel Lobe in Volkhov and
was also with him in Latvia, when they visited wounded soldiers in hospital, as well as
stating: “I cannot say anything bad about him. At the time I signed and sent to Stockholm a
declaration that Lobe had been a good person.”32 Nevertheless Mark writes that Uldis had
been forced into doing this by his adoptive father Jēkabs Dzenis (1893--1979), whose
importance in Uldis’ later life was to be even greater than that of Lobe.33
Captain Dzenis had fought in World War I and Latvia’s War of Independence, for which he
was decorated in 1922 with Latvia’s highest military decoration - the ‘Lāčplēša Kara ordenis’
3rd class [‘Bearslayer military medal’ named after a mythical Latvian hero]. During the
German Occupation he was Director of the ‘Laima’ confectionery factory. It was this
‘Laima’ which took into its care the 18th Police Battalion (later the Latvian Legion’s 2nd
(43rd) regiment) following the tradition that larger enterprises would take a Latvian military
28
Kurzem, M. The Mascot. Pp. 19, 106, 127, 133, 145, 234, 235.
The Latvian Soldier in World War II, vol 2: pp.262-264.
30
Deland, M. Karlis Lobe -- The Swedish Interrogations. Report in the Stockholm University, 2006.
31
Lööw, H. Swedish Policy Towards Suspected War Criminals, 1945-87. Scandinavian Journal of History. 14,
1989, (No.2). Pp. 135--153; Sweden – A Scandinavian Haven for Baltic War Criminals. Zurof, E. Occupation:
Nazi-Hunter. The Continuing Search for the Perpetrators of the Holocaust. Hoboken, 1994. Pp. 341--351.
32
Conversation with Uldis Kurzemnieks April 25, 2004.
33
Kurzem, M. The Mascot. Pp. 23--24, 192--193.
29
7
unit under their wing, preparing parcels for them and looking after soldiers’ families.34 In
Riga Uldis came into the Dzenis family and later became a full-fledged member of it.35 Uldis
began his education at Riga 49th Primary School, but spent his free time at Dzenis’ apartment
in Valdemara Street as well as at his seaside summer house in Carnikava and at the ‘Laima’
factory children’s camp in Dzintari at Riga’s seashore. Evidence for this can be found in the
edition of the documentary film series "Ausland Woche" [The Week Abroad] of October 2
1943, which shows children of the Latvian Legion soldiers at a vacation home in Riga’s
seaside district Jūrmala. Playing with them is Uldis, dressed in a stylised Waffen-SS uniform
with the red-white-red Latvian flag emblem and the rank of a decorated soldier.36 News of
Uldis’ life in the Dzenis family is also to be found in the wartime press,37 and the boy is well
remembered by witnesses at this time.38
Meanwhile, as author Mark poorly understands what was the actual disposition of Latvian
society at the time, his father’s wartime wearing of the uniform seemingly has been the
reason to erroneously write that Latvians had thus flirted with Nazism, etc.39 No less absurd
are other comments made in the book, for example, that the emblem of the 1918 War of
Independence and of the Latvian army – a sunrise – is called the Latvian SS symbol; likewise
the comment that ‘Lāčplēsis’ (meaning the organisation of those who had received the
‘Bearslayer’ military decoration) had been a Latvian fascist organisation; Latvians are called
Nazis and anti-semites, who had welcomed the German occupation, and their going into exile
as refugees towards the end of World War II was done with the intent of “covering their
tracks” and hiding their participation in war crimes etc.40
In October 1944, as the Red Army was approaching Riga, the Dzenis family including Uldis
fled as refugees to Germany. After the end of World War II they spent several years in the
Geesthacht Displaced Persons camp near Hamburg, where Uldis finished Latvian primary
school and together with Latvian children was confirmed in the local church. In 1949 the
Dzenis family took the opportunity to leave for Australia, where after their steamer Nelly
dropped anchor in Melbourne, the family went first of all to the Bonegilla Migrant Reception
Evidence of this is provided in photographs taken in Riga on June 9 1943, where J. Dzenis and ‘Laima’
factory women workers can be seen giving a send-off to the battalion soldiers going to the front. (LKM,
inventory no. 5-1024 -- 5-1030-FT/p).
35
Pulkvedis Kārlis Lobe 70-gadnieks [Colonel Kārlis Lobe is 70]. Stockholm, 1965. P.35.
36
The camera operator caught little Uldis marching proudly at the head of the children, playing ‘blind chicken’
games and after that resting on the beach. Shots are also taken of the Latvian flag near the children’s beds, a
‘Laima’ chocolate box used to make sand-castles, and also of Dzenis himself, together with the children and
their carers. (Documentary "Ausland Woche" [The Week Abroad], October 2 1943).
37
A.O. Uldis Kurzemnieks Rīgas Jūrmalā [Uldis Kurzemnieks at Riga seashore Jūrmala]. Daugavas Vanagi.
July 27 1943; Uldis Kurzemnieks Dzintaros [Uldis Kurzemnieks at Dzintari – a Jūrmala district]. Tēvija. August
24 1943; Bl. Pie mūsu leģionāru krustdēla -- 10 gadus vecā Ulda Kurzemnieka [With our Legionnaire’s godson,
10 year old Uldis Kurzemnieks]. Zemgale. August 24 1943.
38
J.Dzenis’ daughter Ausma remembers that she had seen Uldis a few times at her father’s apartment in Riga
and at the Carnikava house in the summer of 1944. As she was at the time a 14 year old girl, she didn’t show
much interest in Uldis, but she remembers that he was full of bravado, and always said that he was a Latvian. In
April of 1944 then 10 year old Jānis Kasparsons also spent time with Uldis. Today he remembers that both boys
played together and got into all sorts of mischief, as well as remembering Uldis proudly striding around
Carnikava railway station, dressed in a Legion uniform (Conversation with A.Dzenis and J.Kasparsons April
28, 2004).
39
Kurzem, M. The Mascot. Pp. 119, 327.
40
Ibid Pp. 92-93, 105--106, 140, 162, 181, 201, 235.
34
8
Centre. After that Uldis for a while worked on the railways, then as an elephant keeper in a
travelling circus, but later as an electrician and TV repairman. In 1956 Uldis married Patricia,
an Australian, and they brought three sons into the world. Today Uldis is over 70 and lives in
the Melbourne suburb of Altona.41 However in the content of The Mascot, both as
documentary film and book, numerous imprecisions have crept in, not only regarding the 18th
Police Battalion and the activities of Latvian soldiers during World War II, but also regarding
Uldis’ life in the Dzenis family in Latvia and later going into exile in Germany and Australia,
which have repeatedly been identified by eyewitnesses to these events.42
After long remaining silent, in 1998 for the first time Uldis together with his eldest son Mark
travelled to Belarus in search of the truth. They found that Koidanov was a small town in prewar Belarus that is now called Dzershinsk. Arriving there, they found the place where the
town’s inhabitants were exterrninated on October 21, 1941. They were able to meet a person,
Erik Galperin, who later turned out to be Uldis’ half-brother since his father had, despite all,
managed to survive both Auschwitz and Dachau concentration camps and after the war
returned to his homeland. In Koidanov Uldis managed to find a house that looked exactly like
the one the lad had maintained among his childhood memories. An apple tree was still
growing in the garden, the one he had climbed as a boy. Uldis looked through Erik’s family
photos and saw faces that were very like his own. Erik recounted that ‘Panok’ was the name
of the family that had lived in the neighbouring house, all of whom had perished in the war.
After this trip, Uldis is convinced that his real name was Ilja, son of Solomon and Hanna
Galperin, who lived in Koidanov. On that day he placed a wreath on the mass cemetery,
believing that his mother and other family members lay there.43
41
Craig, O. The tale of a Nazi mascot. The Sunday Telegraph. June 10. 2007.
“The Director of ‘Laima’ (confectionery factory) was Jēkabs Dzenis, a retired Latvian Army Headquarters
Captain decorated with the ‘Lāčplēsis’ (Bearslayer) medal. At first he was the enterprise’s main bookkeeper,
and during the first year-long Soviet occupation (1940-41) the former director was deported. During the German
occupation (1941-44), when the factory recommenced its operations, Dzenis took on the leadership of ‘Laima’.
In the film Mascot the impression can arise from a discussion between Mark and Uldis that the factory was
taken from Jews and Dzenis was installed as Director. As far as I know, the Latvian pre-war authoritarian leader
Kārlis Ulmanis nationalised ‘Laima’ before the War together with many other foreign owned enterprises […]
Later, when visiting Dzenis’ property in Carnikava, Uldis says that Dzenis received it for participating in the
‘revolution’ as a good Boshevik! Dzenis was granted the property in Carnikava as a ‘Lāčplēsis’ medal earner
through his participation in the Latvian War of Independence after World War I, just as others who had earned
that decoration.” (Letter from family member Edgars Laķis to Uldis Neiburgs, April 24, 2004); “My wife Ināra
remembers Uldis even from the time in Latvia. His father worked as a manager at ‘Laima’, and that’s where this
boy from the front appeared, and he had spent time at the factory and savoured sweets left and right […] The
statement that only the children of the higher Latvian Nazi echelons participated in the childrens’ camp was
revolting. Ināra remembers that ‘Laima’ workers’ children were at these camps.” (Letter from family in-law
Juris Zemītis to Uldis Neiburgs, April 28, 2004); “Actually I came to know as far back as the time I travelled to
Australia to visit my father and sisters in 1976. He [Uldis] came to visit our father, and one night we had a long
talk. Then my father said that Uldis was Jewish. […] Even then, when we met in Australia, he had a longing for
his near ones. He even beseeched me, but unfortunately I lost his real name and surname he had given me, and
at that time I feared to look for those relatives.” (A. Dzenis recounting of Uldis, Latvian Radio 1, ‘Gadsimta
griežos’ [‘The century’s changes’] May 7, 2004). “I came into the Dzenis family in 1947, marrying Dzenis’
middle daughter Mirdza, and it is painful to read Mark’s fantasies about them. Jēkabs was a decorated hero of
the War for Independence, an undoubted patriot and a Latvian in the deepest recesses of his heart, not a handboy of the fascists […] Mark has written the book, but I cannot free myself from the feeling that Uldis has also
deceived us, allowing Mark to write such untruths.” (Edgars Laķis ‘Par Uldi Kurzemnieku.’ [About Uldis
Kurzemnieks] Austrālijas Latvietis. August 29, 2007.
43
Kurzem, M. The Mascot. Pp. 269--304
42
9
After the revelations of his past and the filming of The Mascot, Uldis has encountered the
most divergent responses – some of his friends have distanced themselves from him, and his
story has been interpreted in contradictory ways by the local Latvian community. When he
gave his testimony to the Holocaust Centre in Melbourne, many responded not with
sympathy but with criticism. There were even people who said that if this story is true, he
should remain silent and be ashamed, for he had volunteered for an SS battalion at the age of
five and shares the guilt for the murder of six million Jews. Today Uldis says that “at times
he feels like there are two people within him, who had remained silent for many years, but
who now have awoken and don’t get on particularly well together.”44 Responding to remarks
that he should hate the Nazis, Uldis says of himself “Hatred will not help me” and “I am what
I am […] I was born a Jew, I was raised by Nazis and Latvians, and I married in the Catholic
Church.” Talking about the documentary The Mascot, Uldis admits that the film-makers in
some parts did not depict events as they really were, because “Australians did not have much
knowledge of World War II in Europe. Yes, they know something of Japan, but not of
Europe. There are a few mistakes, perhaps not large ones, but they are there. Those films
after all are made so that they would be somewhat more sensational.” Uldis stresses that in
all the interviews where he has been asked, he has said that he is grateful to Latvians for
saving him. “I have nothing against Latvians, but you hear many say, that Latvians are bad.
But all I can reply is that they have always behaved well towards me. They took the place of
my father and mother.”45
To sum up, in evaluating The Mascot as a book, we can note that it is a competently and
interestingly written story about an atypical Holocaust survivor, which undoubtedly can
arouse considerable interest in Western society. It would seem that this has also been the aim
of the book – not only to reveal Uldis Kurzemnieks’ wartime experiences, but to do so if
possible dramatically and sensationally. At the same time it must be admitted that the book’s
author Mark Kurzem has often enough not at all come close to objectively understanding
wartime events in Eastern Europe. Being poorly acquainted with and making little use of
original Latvian historical materials, which could have at least partly altered his assumptions
about events, the books’ author all too often presents a very subjective and only partially
historically realistic view of his father’s wartime experiences. Unfortunately the many errors
and factual mistakes not only diminish the quality of the book’s contents, but also without
basis cast a shadow over Latvian society. It is paradoxical that, even though the book devotes
much space to Latvians and Latvians, it has not appeared in a Latvian translation and its
authors have not been motivated involve Latvian historians in the controversial questions the
book touches upon.
Manuscript from the Yearbook of the Museum of the Occupation Museum of Latvia
2006.
© Latvijas Okupācijas muzeja biedrība. © Uldis Neiburgs. © Uldis Ozoliņš
(translation) (2007).
44
45
Kurzem, M. My father was a child mascot for the SS. The Observer Review. February 29, 2004.
Interview with Uldis Kurzemnieks, April 25, 2004.
10