Donatas Januta: Reply to Olga Zabludoff re Holocaust in Lithuania

Embracing history between Lithuanians and Jews can’t be a one way street

Donatas Januta

Dear Olga,
 
You are very eloquent in stating your position.  But even people of good will and good intentions can have honest differences of opinion, and sometimes are simply wrong.  I am glad that you and I agree on the very basic matter of our debate, i.e., that the Holocaust was the worst  genocide in European history, and that Jews and Lithuanians both suffered terribly during World War II and its aftermath.  

I sincerely try hard to find common ground on the issues under discussion, until I finally have to admit that perhaps on some of them, it is not possible.  As I said in my first post in this series, there are some details that we may never agree on, because Lithuanians and Jews each view those events from separate experiences, from a separate history, from a separate reality.  Over the years, there has also been inaccurate information disseminated on both sides – some intentionally, some perhaps unintentionally due to inevitable human biases, and some as wishful thinking.

Speaking about your perceived contributions by Jews to Lithuania’s economy, you say if Jews had not been present in Lithuania, the country’s economy may have been even worse.  True.  But if the Lithuanian’s themselves had been allowed to have a broader hand in the economy, it might have been a lot better, too.  That’s also true.  We simply don’t know.  So, I am not sure that this type of speculation is helpful.  In replying to you I was merely speaking of what was, not what might or might not have been.
Let me respond further to your “Logic 101” lesson about the rules of supply and demand.   Even in the case of  low prices due to the under-demand or over-supply that you refer to, if  there is no monopoly and no price-fixing, there is still competition and bargaining, even though it happens at low price levels.   My point was that there was no competition, no bargaining, all the buyers had agreed on the same low price.   That’s what’s called price-fixing in a monopoly. 

Please recall that when I wrote about the Jewish traders all offering the same below-subsistence  low price for farmers’ entire year’s labors, I expressly stated that I was not passing judgment on how that situation came about, meaning I was not putting blame on anyone. That would be a separate issue.  I was simply responding to your comment, by saying that it is not easy to evaluate the contribution of Jewish merchants to Lithuania’s economy, and that  it is generally accepted that monopolies have a negative impact on a country’s economy. 

You ask what has changed to alter my earlier favorable impression of  Dovid Katz.  I thought I illustrated that in one of my previous posts in this discussion, when I referred to Katz’ article with its screaming headline claiming that Lithuania’s vote on Palestinian membership in UNESCO, i.e., Lithuania’s vote in support of  Israel’s position, was, according to Katz, simply an example of Lithuania’s “duplicity”.  If anything, it was an example of Lithuania’s cowardice in succumbing to pressure from Israel and Israel’s ally the United States.  But, if Lithuania had voted against Israel’s position, Katz would then have called it an example of  Lithuania’s “anti-Semitism”. Lithuania can’t seem to do anything right, as far as Katz  is concerned.  Katz has gone from being a respected scholar and is now becoming simply another pamphleteer. 

As for Zuroff, I still remember what he said when the Los Angeles Lithuanian Community  declined an ill-conceived suggestion by a self-serving publicist to invite some non-existent “Yiddish dancers” to a folk dance festival.  Zuroff attributed it to Lithuanian anti-Semitism, and said that it was to be expected, for the Lithuanian émigré community consisted largely of  descendants of war criminals.  

So Zuroff   blames not only an entire ethnic group, but also later generations.  Demonizing entire ethnic groups - where have we seen that before?     Am I being “ultra-nationalist” when I take exception to that?       I can partially understand Zuroff.  He has a constituency to satisfy and a mission, and keeping people emotionally worked up rather than viewing things rationally and objectively, is part of his fundraising tactics.   But both,  Zuroff, and now Katz, are simply sowing more discord between peoples.

Is Irena Veisaitė, who in her post here states she agrees with what I said about Zuroff – is she one of the “far-right ultra-nationalists” in Lithuania that you refer to?   Is  Yves Plasseraud, who in his article here decries the “demonization” of Lithuania, one as well?   Or are they, intelligent, thoughtful,  rational and well-informėd people, who sincerely hope for  a reconciliation, rather than further discord, between Jews and Lithuanians?   

Consider this about the  Kaniukai village slaughter.  You say that  the Jewish partisans attacked a heavily armed village, and that there was a battle.  Some of the Jewish partisans who participated in their early memoirs did boast of a “battle” and of “house to house” fighting.  No one disputes that whatever happened there, that except for those who escaped,  the entire village was wiped out – every man, woman, child, farm animal, and dwelling.  But in a January 31, 1944 radiogram, the head of the Soviet partisan movement in that area, Genrikas Zimanas, informed Antanas Sniečkus, the head of the Lithuanian Communist Party, that the partisans had suffered no casualties.  This is confirmed by other sources as well.

So, how  is it that in this “battle” against this “heavily armed” group,  with “house to house” fighting, there were no casualties on the partisan side?  What kind of  battle could that have been?   Wiping out an entire “heavily armed” village and not suffering a single casualty – that’s a miracle akin to the parting of the Red Sea.

 The archival records about Kaniukai, mostly Soviet and Polish but some Lithuanian, show that this was an attack on a simple village, like any other village, where a few men might have had some old hunting rifles for self-defense.  Many of  the victims were burned to death alive in their homes.  Others were slaughtered in unspeakable ways.  The Jewish partisans who had boasted about the “battle” in their early memoirs, after being questioned about some of the facts,  even they backed off  from those early claims.  This was simply a total criminal slaughter of ordinary villagers who had in the past tried to defend their livelihood against the partisans/bandits.  So, Olga, you are simply wrong on your facts. 

In assessing the Jewish partisan movement in Rudninkai forest, from which the attack against Kaniukai came, Israeli istorian Dov Levin, a former member of one of those partisan units, explains these kinds of actions by stating that in those partisan units there was “wide-spread social anomie”, i.e., the collapse of the social structures governing society, which included “open hate and hostility towards the local population”.   How else could you explain former partisans’ Rachel Margolin’s, Abraham Zelnikow,  Zalman Wylozni’s, and Joseph Harmatz’  admitted acts that I cited in my October 26, 2011  post here.  Those were and are criminal acts against civilians.  Those were  not “battles” against Nazis. 

You say that the majority of Soviet partisans were not Jewish.  I can’t speak for the Soviet partisans on all fronts, but here are some statistics of the ones in Rudninkai forest.    The partisan group “For Victory” had 106 Jews out of a total 119 members;  “Avenger” had 100 Jews out of a total 106 members;  “Struggle” had 58 Jews out of 76 total; and “Death to Facism” had 39 Jews of a total of 60.   There were others.

Why are you against investigation of, as you put it, “unproven” crimes?   That is the purpose of an investigation – to verify or to find evidence which would either “prove” or “disprove” a crime.  If the crime has already been “proven” there is nothing to investigate.

You make the generalized statement that in Lithuania in 1941 there was “inconceivable savagery” when “hate and greed replaced love and loyalty”, as if that applied across the board to all Lithuanians.  Yet, previously you agreed that 99.5% of Lithuanians were neither directly nor indirectly involved in the killings. You previously blamed the 99.5% for standing by doing nothing.   The Germans announced that anyone harboring Jews would be killed together with their family.  And everyone had seen that the Germans were serious about killing.   It is a wonder that as many Lithuanians did risk their own lives and those of their families to shelter Jews.  What could the others of  the 99.5%  have done that would have changed the German organized  outcome?   

There are other points on which you and I disagree – the very definition of what constitutes genocide, the so-called “double genocide” red herring, the  June 1941 uprising against the Soviets,  but at this point it is not entirely clear what our discussion has accomplished.  We seem to have arrived at an impasse.
Saulius Suziedėlis, another contributor to VilNews, says that Lithuanians should embrace the history of 1941.  But which one?  Do we embrace Irena Veisate and Yves Plasseraud’s version, or Zuroff and now Katz’ version?   That’s where the disagreements lie.   I personally find a lot to embrace in Dov Levin’s version, who is not only a historian, but who also was there.

You say you want the history of the Holocaust presented truthfully.  So do I.   But it should not be a one way street.   What I would also like to see, is to have the Soviet inflicted tragedies, including the “Kaniukai” slaughter, be recognized and acknowledgment in the West for what they were,  just as the German inflicted tragedies have been, and to have their perpetrators judged as the criminals that they were and are.  And I don’t see how that is disrespectful of the Jewish dead or the Jewish survivors, or how it has anything to do with the Holocaust.