Archive for 2011

Donatas Januta: Reply to Olga Zabludoff re Holocaust in Lithuania

The ‘Green House’ has been
used as a red herring*

Donatas Januta

Dear Olga,
 
You are absolutely correct that the Jews had little choice but earn their living as merchants and traders.  I was not judging how they got there.   But regardless how they got there, I was only responding to their activities there, to your claim regarding Jewish contribution to the Lithuanian nation’s economy.  
 
Let’s examine it from another perspective.    During czarist Russian times, Jews were excluded from Russia major, or “mother Russia”, and were relegated to what was considered the Pale of Settlement, such as Lithuania.   So, rather than comparing the economies of Eastern Europe to Western Europe (though German Prussia, very much part of Western Europe, was right next door to Lithuania) let’s compare the economies of that part of Eastern Europe which had a substantial Jewish population, i.e. Lithuania, with that part of Eastern Europe which did not have any significant Jewish population, i.e., “mother Russia”. 
 
So, Jews participated in Lithuania’s economy, and in mother Russia’s they did not.  Yet the economies of both places were pretty much the same on the eve of World War II  -  depressed and backward.    I.e., I don’t see that the Jewish contribution made any difference.    I agree, Jews kept their part of the economy in Lithuania running, but there were no noticeable gains or progress comparing to that very backward part of Eastern Europe which was without any significant number of Jews, "mother Russia".   Again, I am not assigning any “fault” here, but merely trying to state my understanding of life in that time and place.
 
You are also absolutely right that the majority of Jewish businesses were mom-and-pop operations run out their front rooms, which usually faced the town’s market square.   And I have read poignant stories of Jewish families – parents, children, old folks – waiting anxiously to see what the weather would bring on market day.   If it rained it would be a poor market day, and much of their livelihood depended on market day sales.    This was true in the inter-war years as well as earlier.
 
But let me say a thing about monopoly, and also share a personal part of my family’s history as you shared yours.   My father’s family comes from Ylakiai region (Yiddish:  “Yelok”).   During World War I, the entire town, consisting of wooden houses as most towns were then, burned down.   While it was being rebuilt, a Jewish family - parents, a grandfather, and a small boy about my father’s age - lived for about a year and a half in my grandparents’ house.   Their grandfather died in my grandfather’s house.  My father used to play with the Jewish boy, and he used to speak fondly of that year and a half.   My grandfather at that time had served six years as a conscript in the czar’s army in the Crimea, and had come back to take over the family farm from his own widowed mother, my great-grandmother.
 
My father also told me how, riding in their horse-drawn wagon with my grandfather from the marketplace about twelve years later, my grandfather, a former soldier and rugged hard-working farmer, was in tears, because the price he was able to get for the entire year’s crop was not enough to even pay his hired help, much less feed his own family.  My grandfather did not have much hired help.   He worked the farm mostly with his sons, and hired some extra hands at harvest time.   All the traders, the crop buyers, at the market were Jewish, and they all offered the same low price for the crop.  These type scenes repeated in marketplaces throughout Lithuania.  I think that qualifies as a monopoly and price-fixing.    Again, I am not seeking to place fault here on how such a situation came about, but only trying to state how life was in that time and place. 
 
I think that Kubilius’ statement that you quote, was simply an attempt on his part to  build bridges and to show that he came to Israel in good faith.  His talk about Jewish involvement in Lithuania’s development “of science, economy and culture” is simply him being courteous to his hosts.   (Come on, Olga, how much science was developed in Lithuania, anyway?  Neither Lithuania’s Jewish merchants, nor Lithuania’s farmers built any cyclotrons in Lithuania, as I recall.  Or did I miss that?)  
 
As for Dovid Katz, I had the pleasure to meet him a couple of times in Vilnius a few years back, and have had other communications with him.   Back then I found him to be thoughtful and helpful in commenting on some information I needed.   But I really feel that, especially recently, he has gone off the deep end and joined Zuroff’s followers on the issue of Jewish and Lithuanian relations.   I also note that Yves Plasseraud also makes the point that the much maligned Green House, that is so often and so prominently trotted out by Zuroff and his followers, is not the only Holocaust museum in Lithuania.   The Green House is really not that significant of itself, but it has been used as a red herring, and is representative of the less than total honesty in some of the dialogue on these issues. 
 
I would also comment a bit on Irena Veisatė’s note, some of whose writings I have enjoyed in the past.    Ms. Veisaitė is absolutely right that the fight of the Jewish partisans against the Nazis was and is completely justified.   The atrocities that some of them committed, such as the slaughter of the Kaniukai (“Koniuchy”) villagers, however, were and are criminal.    If Ms. Vesaitė reads my first article carefully, I did not refer to the 16th  Soviet Lithuanian rifle division as “bandits”.    I was merely using that Soviet division as an example that not all groups labeled “Lithuanian” were composed only or even mostly of Lithuanians.   The word “bandits” was used by one of the Jewish partizans himself to describe his own partizan group:    Joseph Harmatz:  “We came in like bandits and, after all, we were robbing the local peasants of their livelihood.”
 
Dear Ms. Vesaitė, my suggestion that Jews and Lithuanians each grieve separately was not intended to mean that each should ignore the other’s tragedy.    I was trying to address the two separately because speaking of them together, i.e., even  mentioning them in the same article, causes some people to claim that one is equating the two.   I was merely trying to find a way to avoid the discord which so often arises from that.

* Red Herring:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Dr. Irena Veisaite : Re Holocaust in Lithuania

We have to build bridges

Dr. Irena Veisaite.

Dear Aage,

I fully share with you the view that people are thinking in a different way and have the right to express their position and feelings. But I am also convinced that different arguments should be expressed at the same time, if possible, on the same page.

Dr. Yves Plasseraud is well known as a fighter for minority rights and against any xenophobic trends including also anti-Semitism.

I decided to write this little note only because I noticed some concrete mistakes in the articles of Mr. Bertini and Donatas Januta.

The comments of Dr. Yves Plasseraud did not intend to analyze the history or perception of the Holocaust in Lithuania. His intention was only to react to many non-objective comments in some Jewish press which are misleading.  Among Jews are some people who never want to acknowledge positive changes in the perception of the Holocaust in Lithuania, especially by the government, academic circles, educational institutions, including schools and keep repeating the same criticism over and over.  Such comments do a lot of harm to the development of Jewish-Lithuanian relations and create a false image of the country. To overcome stereotypes and hatred you indeed need a lot of time and positive thinking from both sides.

Misunderstandings occur sometimes just because of lack of knowledge. This was, in my opinion the case with the article written, maybe, with the best intention by Donatas Jonata. Just a few examples taken from his article:

-The “double genocide” theory is used a lot in Lithuania as shown by J. Mikelinskas popular writings or the existence of the Genocide Museum without even seriously mentioning the Jewish genocide. I know it was recently corrected, but I did not see it yet.
-The 16 soviet division was fighting against Nazi-Germany. Of course “à la guerre comme à la guerre”, some crimes are committed by any army, but to call them just « bandits » is not fair. It was a regular Soviet army unit.
- Soviet partisans of Jewish origin were first of all saving their own lives. They had no way out. Their fight against Nazis is completely justified.
- It was not fully understood during the IIWW, but to treat today Nazi Germany as a liberator or friend of Lithuania would be a big mistake. The Nazis started already during the war a colonization process in Lithuania.  We also know now very well their plans for the future, their strategic plan’s “OST”…
- It is true that, in pre WWII Lithuania, Jews lived in many ways separately and tried to preserve their own traditions and faith. But I could not agree that Jews did not do anything in or for the country and its culture... And this is more and more acknowledged today by Lithuanian historians.
I fully agree with Mr. Jonata‘s evaluation of Zuroff, also that ethnic Lithuanians and Jews found themselves in different existential situations at the beginning of the IIWW. This was very well understood by Ona Simaite already in the beginning of the 50-ies, but you should not forget, that the Soviets deported also over 7000 Jews in 1941, that they   destroyed Jewish culture during the II soviet occupation, etc.
I think that Mr. Jonata is right not to agree with Mr. Bertini, but his statement that Lithuanians and Jews should grieve their own tragedies separately is not productive. The Holocaust is also part of Lithuanian history as soviet deportations were part of Jewish history, but still not to compare with the total annihilation of the Litvaks during the Holocaust. I would like to emphasize the main statement of Professor Suziedelis, which was published in VilNews». 

« If Lithuanians are to “own their own history,” he believes, they must do three things:

• view Jewish history as part of Lithuanian history as a whole. “In the past,” Dr. Suzedelis says, “Jews wrote about Jews and Lithuanians wrote about Lithuanians.”  Today, this is changing.  An increasing number of ethnic Lithuanians are studying Jewish history.

• understand the Holocaust as the central event of the Nazi occupation. “The genocide of the Jews constitutes the greatest single atrocity in modern Lithuanian history.”

• assess Lithuanian participation in that event “without evasion, without squirming.” “

We have to build bridges.
Irena Veisaite

Holocaust in Lithuania ; Response to Mr. Didier Bertin.

The Lithuanian authorities are
better than most in the region

Dr. Yves Plasseraud

By Yves Plasseraud, Paris

I would like to answer briefly to the paper of my compatriot Didier Bertin, posted in VilNews on October 15. Discussion is always positive and I welcome his contribution.

I would first like to point out that my incriminated paper only concerned the attitude of some intellectuals vis-a-vis the Holocaust question in Lithuania and by no means « the martyrdom of the jewish people » in itself.

Now, concerning Bertin’s reaction, I note that although many points he raises are unfortunately true and worth mentioning,  I cannot agree with him on several issues :

The Lithuanian authorities are certainly not 100% right in their treatment of the jewish question, but, they are better than most of their counterparts in the region. Presidents Landsbergis and Brazauskas were among the first head of states of Middle Europe to admit WWII crimes again Jews from the part of compatriots and to apologise for them.

I certainly never obliterated the participation of Lithuanians in the Shoah, current neo-nazi parades or the danger of the Double génocide notion. On the contrary, I often denounced them. To mention only one french publication, see the Histoire de la Lituanie,  Un millénaire (Armeline, 2009), which I  directed : chapters X (A. Anusauskas) & XI (A. Bubnys) on WWI and the Shoah.

The Green house is not the only museum carrying exhibits about the Holocaust : The Panerai museum, the Naugarduko Tolerance Center, and now the Genocide Museum should also be mentioned.

I would be interested to know more about « the many other negative facts »  which I forgot in this respect.  I have been active in this field for more than 25 years and I do not have the impression to have ever treated the question lightly. I would only remind M. Bertin that, in 1993, I was among the organizers of the first post indépendance conférence in Vilnius on the topic of Lithuanian-Jewish relations1 !

Olga Zabludoff: Reply to Donatas Januta re Holocaust in Lithuania (3)

I dare to hope that our debate
can build bridges to a better
understanding

Olga Zabludoff

Dear Donatas,

The last paragraph in your article of 8 November is a good place to begin my response. I concur that our differences of opinion as well as our areas of agreement should be viewed as an exchange of honest, healthy dialogue. I would even dare to hope that it can begin to build bridges to a better understanding of all the issues we wander into.

For a moment let’s forget about the Lithuanian economy during medieval times. It’s really hard to relate to. Let’s move forward to the more modern economy of the inter-war years. Yes, on the eve of World War 1 Lithuania was economically backward. But that had nothing to do with your claim that the Jews did not contribute to the economy. Like the rest of Eastern Europe at the time, economic development was lagging in Lithuania. Modern economic strides began in Western Europe much earlier than it did in Eastern Europe.

You speak of the Jews having had a monopoly as merchants, traders, shopkeepers and craftsmen. There was no such thing as a monopoly in these small and scattered operations. These were mostly mom-and-pop businesses run out of front rooms in their homes. Of course, like everyone else, they tried to get the best prices they could, but to speak of anti-trust laws and anti-price-fixing laws is totally out of context for that environment.

Another point of importance is that Jews had little choice but to make their living as merchants and traders. Traditionally they were excluded from other occupations and professions. For example, my father had studied engineering in St. Petersburg only to discover when he returned to Lithuania that it was impossible for a Jew to find employment as an engineer. Instead, he became a bank manager in the Jewish Peoples’ Bank.

I still think you are underestimating the contributions of the Jews to the Lithuanian economy, so let me quote from an article which appeared in the Lithuania Tribune of 12/23/10 during the visit of Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius to Israel:
“Prime Minister Kubilius has agreed that the Lithuanian history is unimaginable without the Lithuanian Jewish community that has left a deep imprint on our history and our lives. Since the times of Vytautas the Great, it has always been an integral part of the Lithuanian society, closely involved in the development of science, economy and culture.”

One major difference of opinion in our discussions concerns the definition of “genocide.” The term “genocide” was first applied in 1944 in regard to the attempted extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany. It clearly refers to the systematic killing or extermination of a whole people. Obviously, and unfortunately, there have been other genocides, but the Soviet regime did not liquidate the majority of Lithuanians. That the Soviets committed terrible crimes against the Lithuanians is a given, that the nation lost political leaders, army officers, clergymen and others is undisputed. But the Lithuanian population was very far from being exterminated.

To say that there were other genocides does not diminish the Holocaust, but to equate the Holocaust with events that were not genocides is to diminish the Holocaust. Comparing incomparables, equating unequals is a distortion of history.

I’m sure that Professor Dovid Katz can easily defend himself, so I won’t venture into that area. From reading his articles in the various media and on his website www.defendinghistory.com  I have to assert that he is courageously outspoken and is probably feared and shunned by many in the Lithuanian government. But if they would only listen to him, I believe it would help them accomplish what they say they are sincerely trying to do: to improve their damaged relationship with their small Lithuanian-Jewish community and, consequently, with world Jewry.

Professor Katz analyzes politics and politicians from a vantage point that few other scholars have reached. He should be valued in Lithuania, not feared, if the government wants to deal with its Jewish problems in a realistic way to create a better tomorrow for themselves and their people.