Real
Heroes and Supposed Heroes
Who Protested and Why?
In May 2012 solemn funeral events
were held in Kaunas: the ashes of the interim prime minister
of the Provisional Government of Lithuania (hereinafter PG)
Juozas Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis were transferred from the
state of Connecticut in the United States, where he was buried
in 1974, to Kaunas, the former temporary capital of Lithuania.
There the ashes were reburied.
The day after the reburial the country’s
largest newspaper, Lietuvos rytas, published an interview
with Professor Egidijus Aleksandravičius conducted by journalist
Valdas Bartusavičius (English translation). The subject of
the interview was the reburial of Ambrazevičius’s ashes with
state honors, about which almost all the media of the country
were writing daily.
Though it may seem strange, Aleksandravičius’s
interview passed almost unnoticed, but considering he is
a prominent scholar and historian, professor, author of numerous
academic publications, director of the Institute of Emigration,
known in his homeland and abroad, and on the published program
of the September 2013 Fourth World Litvak Congress dedicated
to the 70th anniversary of the destruction of the Vilna Ghetto,
it makes sense to return to the subject of that interview
which remains current as ever.
Before starting the interview, Bartusavičius
provides an introduction, in which, foregoing the interviewee’s
opinion, he shares with the readers his own thoughts:
“The ceremony for the reburial of
Brazaitis gave rise to protests by Jews who judge negatively
the activities of the Provisional Government of 1941, which
published antisemitic statements. This led to the decision
by Vytautas Magnus University not to allow a conference on
Brazaitis which had been planned there.”
Which Jews were “annoyed” so much
that they protested? How can modern Jews have any connection
with the reburial of a man who died almost forty years ago?
There is no answer.
After complaining to the readers about
the Jews, who are often used as a convenient target in the
Lithuanian media, the Lietuvos rytas correspondent asks Professor
Aleksandravičius:
“Are the Jews justified in being angered
by the idea of honoring Brazaitis by reburying his remains
in his homeland?”
The question itself called for a simple
and clear answer: “Yes, they are,” or “No, they are not.”
Aleksandravičius did not find it necessary to clarify the
question, although he knew that the protest against the state’s
participation in the reburial of Ambrazevičius was expressed
not by “the Jews,” that is, a gray mass of phantoms, but
by a particular person, whom, by the way, Aleksandravičius
has known well and for a long time: chairman of the Jewish
Community of Lithuania Simon Alperovich (Simonas Alperavičius),
who headed the community for twenty years, until mid 2013.
He was elected head of the community by Lithuanian Jews six
times and is now the community’s honorary chairman. His direct
responsibilities include protecting the interests of the
community and each of its members. Therefore, it would be
more ethical to talk not about “the Jews” in general, but
about the head of the organized and officially acting community,
the Jewish Community of Lithuania, restored in our country
thanks to the restoration of Lithuanian independence, and about a specific person, Dr. Simon Alperovich.
(There were of course other protests too, both domestic and
international.)
Alperovich protested not against the
fact of the reburial, but against granting the reburial official
status. As a citizen of this country and as the head of his
organization, he has the right to express not just his own
opinion, but the opinion of the community as well. From the
point of view of the Jewish community and its chairman, Ambrazevičius
has no moral right to be honored and commemorated by the
Lithuanian state, because some of his 1941 government’s decisions
were antisemitic and helped implement the “final solution
of the Jewish question,” that is, the complete annihilation
of the Jews as a people.
The most shocking part of the interview
comes near the end. Instead of being relieved that his beloved
Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in Kaunas was spared the
international shame of an event honoring a major Nazi collaborator
in this part of the world, the professor is bitter that it
was cancelled! Bitter that “the Jews” somehow prevented such
a glorious event from gracing his university and that “they”
wielded some mystic power over his university’s administrators.
“This wasn’t the academic community
but a decision of the VMU administration which became frightened
that they were going to get hit over the head with a club
by the Jews.”
Turning now to the finer points of
the exchange, Bartusavičius’s allegation that Jews judge
the Provisional Government negatively because it made “antisemitic
statements” misrepresents the facts: every document adopted
by the Provisional Government is not just a “statement,”
but a regulation, a resolution, i.e., a binding document
of distinct importance. The Provisional Government adopted
seven major and many lesser resolutions whose purpose was
to implement the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people in Lithuania.
(See Lietuvos laikinoji vyriausybė: posėdžių protokolai.
1941 m. birželio 24 d. – rugpjūčio 4 d. Vilnius, 2001 . Parengė
dr. Arvydas Anušauskas; [Protocols of the Sessions of the
Provisional Government of Lithuania, June 24 - August 4,
1941.Vilnius, 2001. Prepared by Dr. Arvydas Anušauskas]).
◊
Provisional Government’s Records Give Testimony
There is no doubt that both interlocutors
are familiar with the Provisional Government’s protocols.
According to the documents, the activities of the PG in respect
to the so-called “Jewish question” are not as innocent as
made-to-order “experts” may seek to represent. They claim
that the establishment of the PG was an attempt to restore
the independence of Lithuania. The genocide of a people or
any section of a people because of their nationality is incompatible
with the restoration of independence.
From the protocols of the Provisional
Government of Lithuania:
Pages 17-18, Protocol #5, June 27,
1941:
“Minister Žemkalnis reported unusual
atrocities committed against Jews at the Lietūkis Garage
in Kaunas.
Resolved: Despite all the measures
that should be taken against the Jews for their Communist
activities and the damage they are inflicting upon the German
military, partisans and individual citizens should avoid
public executions of Jews. It has been found out that those
acts were committed by people who have nothing to do with
the staff of the activists, partisans’ headquarters, or the
Provisional Government of Lithuania.”
The resolution does not prohibit killing
Jews, it only recommends that public executions of Jews be
avoided. About 240,000 Jews lived in pre-war Lithuania. According
to the absurd belief of Ambrazevičius’s Government, they
all were engaged in “Communist activities.” It isn’t known
what evidence the government used to conclude that the murders
were committed by some “aliens” and that partisans of the
Lithuanian Activists Front were not involved in the massacre.
Page 19. Protocol #6, June 30, 1941:
“Having heard Kaunas city commandant
colonel Bobelis on the formation of an auxiliary police battalion
(Hilfstpolizeidienstbatalion) and a Jewish concentration
camp, the Cabinet resolved:
1. To provide advance payment for
the maintenance of the battalion for 10 days, calculating
this at 7,492 rubles per day; later, to allocate funds for
this purpose in accordance with estimates to be provided.
2. To approve the establishment of
a Jewish concentration camp and to assign the direction of
its creation to vice-minister of public works Mr. Švilpa
in cooperation with colonel Bobelis.”
Colonel Jurgis Bobelis was in charge
of the creation of a concentration camp in Kaunas’s Seventh
Fort and a Lithuanian Police Battalion. This special police
battalion was responsible for guarding and exterminating
Jews. The Provisional Government paid the battalion for its
service. Battalion officers carried out the murders. From
the establishment of the extermination camp till its closure
on September 10, 1941, battalion officers killed up to 5,000
Kaunas Jews.
Page 135. Appendix #1 to protocol
#31 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Lithuania, August 1, 1941.
The document named “Regulations on the Status of the Jews”
was adopted.
The “Regulations on the Status of
the Jews” adopted by the Provisional Government, regulating
the life of the Jews in Lithuania, were in essence similar
to the Nuremberg racial laws passed in Nazi Germany in 1935.
Under these regulations the Jews of Lithuania were deprived
of all human and civil rights. The adoption of this misanthropic
resolution was the last chance for the Provisional Government
to convince the Nazi administration of the PG’s loyalty to
occupational authorities. But it was too late: the attempt
to be two things at once – both Nazi and national Lithuanian
– failed: the PG was caught in the middle and forced to resign
by the Nazi administration. Since it was not anti-Nazi, however,
its ministers did not face any reprisals.
◊
“Our Heroes” are Not “Your Heroes”
Prof. Aleksandravičius did not reject
the journalist’s words about the peculiar role of “the Jews”
who were allegedly protesting against the reburial with full
honors of Ambrazevičius. The academic interpreted Bartusavičius’s
statement in his own way:
“This was caused by a disconnect in
the memory of Lithuanians and Jews. By reburying Brazaitis,
we wanted to show that the drama of Lithuanians hasn’t ended
yet. All of our heroes who during that tragic period of history
attempted to raise the flag of Lithuanian independence were
forced into compromises with stronger powers. These circumstances
enable people to portray them in terms of the great evil
of those times.”
It turns out that the problem is not
in “our heroes,” but in the fact that Jews and Lithuanians
understand the same historical events differently, and someone
“paints” the gleaming white robes of our heroes with grotesque
colors.
So, whom does Aleksandravičius call
“our heroes?” The Prime Minister and PG ministers? Police
Battalion officers in the Seventh Fort?
Doesn’t historian Aleksandravičius
know that “our heroes,” i.e., the PG, made a criminal decision
to establish an extermination camp at the Seventh Fort? That
the Lithuanian police began the “orderly and planned” murder
of the Jews? That from that moment on a new phase in the
Holocaust – the organized massacre of the Jews – began? With
his signature on the documents, “our hero” Ambrazevičius
turned the mass murder of Jews into a legalized procedure
which was performed by other of “our heroes” dressed in Lithuanian
national police uniform with the tricolor stripe of the Lithuanian
flag on their sleeves. Ambrazevičius did not admit his guilt
in the mass murder of the Lithuanian Jews to the end of his
life.
Who knows what those “heroes of ours”
thought during the sacrifice of the lives of thousands of
Jews? Did they think only of “raising the banner of independence,”
as historian Aleksandravičius affirmed? But in so doing they
turned their country into one of the European factories for
exterminating the Jews, into a vast cemetery of wholly innocent
people of both sexes and all ages, from very old men to babies.
The results indicate that this prospect did not scare “our
heroes,” neither in the PG nor in the police battalions.
Who exactly, according to the historian,
tried to “raise the banner of independence?” Is the scholar
not familiar with the Lithuanian Activists Front instructions
called Guidelines for the Liberation of Lithuania, dated
March 24, 1941? These instructions were published in the
Lithuanian language in Liudas Truska and Vigantas Vareikis’s
book The Preconditions for the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism in
Lithuania. The book is published in English, too (Liudas
Truska, Vygantas Vareikis. Holokausto prielaidos. Antisemitizmas
Lietuvoje, “The Preconditions for the Holocaust”. Margi raštai,
Vilnius, 2004).
These Lithuanian Activists Front instructions,
these Guidelines for the Liberation of Lithuania, dated March
24, 1941, stated:
“It is important to use the occasion
and get rid of the Jews. Therefore, you should create such
a heavy atmosphere for the Jews in the country that not a
Jew could dare even think that he can still have rights or
the opportunity to live in the new Lithuania. The goal is
to force all the Jews to flee from Lithuania along with red
Russians. The more of them that disappear from Lithuania
on this occasion, the easier it will be to get rid of them
completely in the end. The hospitality to the Jews in Lithuania
once provided by Vytautas the Great is abolished forever
for their recurring betrayal of the Lithuanian people.”
The author of these instructions was
Kazys Škirpa, founder of the Lithuanian Activist Front, whose
task was to organize the anti-Soviet uprising and assist
Hitler’s approaching troops. Škirpa was the first to come
up with the idea to create the Provisional Government of
Lithuania and to establish a Lithuanian dictatorship similar
to those in France, Norway and the countries of central and
southern Europe (Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria). He also outlined
the requisite members of the government he was to head.
German troops moved into Lithuania
lightning-flash-like, blitzkrieg-style. Anti-Soviet rebels
were the first to massacre Jews in settlements not yet occupied
by the Germans.
Trying to dress “their” rebels in
white, those among the current crop of Lithuanian historians
who carry out political agendas claim that the Nazi secret
services prepared “their own rebels” to carry out provocations
and pogroms, and they allegedly instigated the massacre at
the Lietūkis Garage and in Vilijampolė (Slobodka), even though
there is no convincing evidence for their version of events.
In the scenario they paint, the PG and LAF should even have
stopped the provocations, pogroms and atrocities…
Prof. Aleksandravičius has no illusions
about the prospects for somehow “forgetting” the Holocaust,
for shielding and not remembering anything about this tragedy.
This attempt recalls attempts by right-wing and radical-right
politicians of our time to equate the Holocaust with Stalinist
repressions.
One can do nothing but agree with
Aleksandravičius when he says:
“The Holocaust is and will remain
at the center of the memory of Lithuanians, even if we try
to avoid talking about in all sorts of ways.”
But it’s not about just how long the
Holocaust will stay in the core memory of Lithuanians. “Family
folklore” has huge importance in historical memory: family
stories and oral transmission of life experience are of great
educational value. What did past generations tell their descendants
about the Holocaust? What sort of memory did they generate
in their children and grandchildren? What do today’s parents
tell their children and grandchildren about the Holocaust?
What will today’s children and grandchildren think when they
learn that the facts from the history books and their teachers
do not coincide with family stories?
Apparently, today’s formalism, constituting
“a reasonable, rational lie” mixed up with the truth in history
books, is taking control of schoolchildren’s consciousness
and conception of the time and events of World War II; it
allows them to talk of the events of 72 years ago easily
and without any problems. It is evident how it will affect
the future of the country. Instead of acknowledging the bloody
nightmare of 1941-1944, which has no analogues in the long
history of Lithuania, they will be presented with delirious
tales and an explosive cocktail of lies and truths mixed
up together in the textbooks.
Aleksandravičius remains silent about
this. At the same time the doctor issues a prescription:
“Lithuanians and Jews need to learn to understand better
the memory of one another.” What does “understand the memory
of one another” mean? This is a controversial issue: the
murderers and their apologists find justification for themselves.
Their memory is shorter and more pliant to their masters.
But how, for instance, can one teach family and friends to
respect the memory of the killers? What do parents, children,
grandchildren know about the past of the murderers?
The professor’s following words seem
even weirder:
“I understand the Jews’ reaction,
it is based on a simplified, schematic opinion of the Provisional
Government. But we can not weed its anti-Semitic statements
out of the history.”
Let’s ignore the historian’s remark
about the “simplified” opinion of the Jews for the moment.
It is indeed strange to hear this doctor of social sciences
call the resolutions “statements.” A statement might appear
to be mere foolishness, but a resolution is an unforgivable
crime.
Bartusavičius reminds the historian:
“But Brazaitis in his memoirs told
about how he even tried to oppose the wave of antisemitism.”
The professor reasonably rejects the
journalist’s “hint”:
“Those memoirs were written after
World War II, in emigration, so they are only a secondary
source of information.”
And then he immediately agrees with
the journalist, surprising readers:
“But later activity by Brazaitis showed
that he was no anti-Semite. He didn’t even enter into compromises
with the Nazis to the extent Lithuanian Activist Front founder
Kazys Škirpa did.”
Thus the professor and the journalist
find common ground. But who is interested in the question
of whether the interim Prime Minister was an antisemite or
not, whether he compromised with someone or not, since in
placing his signature on them, Ambrazevičius made legal the
documents that doomed the Jew minority to death?
The executions of Jews at the Seventh
Fort began on the first day of his “work.” It’s not important
at all whether Ambrazevičius wept over his signature on the
resolution or rubbed his hands with glee. The PG’s resolution
on the establishment of the Lithuanian Police Battalion and
the extermination camp was a death sentence for Jewish citizens.
This resolution was tantamount to legal permission to murder
Jews.
But then, Aleksandravičius also calls
the Provisional Government’s resolutions verbal compromises.
He says:
“I only see the drama of a person
who was not able to foresee that it was dangerous to even
enter into verbal compromises with the great powers of evil
for the sake of the ideals of Lithuanian freedom.”
What “verbal compromises” does Aleksandravičius
find to justify Ambrazevičius? Of what ideals of freedom
does a person dream, when he signs the death sentences of
people who called Lithuania home for seven centuries?
Aleksandravičius undertakes the role
of PR agent for a defendant:
“This was an extraordinarily cultured
person, but the cataclysms of history fated him to become
the head of a government that had no power, in whose documents
it is possible to come across inscriptions that violate principles
of humanitarianism.”
Well, he has already come to “an extraordinary
cultured man,” as if the great culture of Bach and Goethe
prevented, say, the PhD Goebbels from committing horrendous
crimes! What documents, except these texts, has Aleksandravičius
found? What does “fated him to become” mean? Who dragged
him by the hand or at the point of a gun to the prime minister’s
chair? Among the PG members he was probably the only one
who had neither administrative experience nor specific knowledge
of the situation: if his head had not swollen at the prospect
of becoming the savior of Lithuania. If he hadn’t wanted
to become “king for a day,” no one would have forced him.
◊
How Ambrazevičius Became Prime Minister
The name of Ambrazevičius was not
among the PG members announced by Leonas Prapuolenis from
the studio of Kaunas radio on 23 June 1941. Kaunas radio
technician Vytautas Bagdonavičius simultaneously recorded
on a vinyl gramophone record the list of ministers, in this
way saving it for the history of Lithuania. The surname Ambrazevičius
was absent from that list. Kazys Škirpa, former chief of
staff of the Lithuanian army, former ambassador extraordinaire
and plenipotentiary minister of independent Lithuania to
Nazi Germany, was declared the PG’s prime minister; he was
known throughout Lithuania. There is no evidence to suggest
that Ambrazevičius enjoyed the most authority among the ministers.
At first there was need for this head
of the government, but Škirpa did not appear in Kaunas on
June 23, 1941. His absence sent a very disturbing signal
to the rest of the PG.
In Škirpa’s absence the situation
became uncertain and an atmosphere of confusion set in. They
felt the lack of prospects for the further work of the government.
Circumstances required good knowledge and strong connections
among the upper Nazi echelons where the fate of occupied
Lithuania was to be decided.
Škirpa was an insider in the Nazi
secret services and the German ruling elite. He was acquainted
with Ribbentrop and Hitler and met with them more than once
as the ambassador of the independent Republic of Lithuania.
Certainly, none of the ministers were
eager to take on responsibility for the fate of the national
government in Lithuania, all the more so because it was supposed
to be only a temporary substitution for Škirpa himself. It
was clear to all ministers that Škirpa was going to appear
in Kaunas. After creating the Lithuanian Activist Front,
preparing a revolt against the Soviets, developing the strategy
of the revolt, creating the provisional government and preparing
its proclamation, he couldn’t just stop at the very beginning
of the road and, as athletes put it, “throw the game.” Ambrazevičius
was chosen interim prime minister. Putting the least experienced
at a disadvantage is a common ploy by experienced bureaucrats.
So Ambrazevičius took on the duties
of the PG’s prime minister. Why did he agree to head the
government, having no foundation for doing so? Most likely
it was due to his inexperience.
◊
Back to the Interview
Out of the blue, the Lietuvos rytas
correspondent throws Aleksandravičius a life belt:
“Perhaps it should have been stressed
first of all that the person being reburied was an individual
who sought an exit from the complex plight of history, rather
than the head of a government?”
Aleksandravičius latches on to the
prompt as if it were a life belt.
“Truly it should be stressed that
at that time we did not have a state which was capable of
protecting its citizens even minimally. The Provisional Government
issued a declaration of independence, and in so doing seemingly
also declared the state of Lithuania was being restored,
but in fact it had no control whatsoever.”
But then he catches himself. After
all, as a trained academic, he should understand that if
a group of people make a declaration of independence but
possess no authority or independence in reality, it means
they are simply lying to the public.
So the scholar quickly changes the
subject and says indignantly:
“It is as if our right to have heroes
who could be judged simply as heroes has been taken away
from us.”
He adds:
“We are not unique in this respect.
The Ukrainians, for example, built a monument to Stepan Bandera,
he fought against the Nazis and fought against the Soviets,
though he was involved in the mass murder of Jews and Poles.”
Indeed, Bandera, as they say now,
was “cooler” than Ambrazevičius. He killed left and right,
everyone who came within eyesight. His sharp saber cut off
а lot of heads. This Ukrainian “hero” bothered himself particularly
much with Jewish heads. Unlike him, “our hero” did not kill
anyone personally, did not even fight against the Soviets,
spoke to the Germans in a very civilized manner, did not
touch Poles. Well, it was just the Jews…
Overall, nothing became clearer after
the conversation between Lietuvos rytas correspondent Bartusavičius
and Professor Aleksandravičius. Bartusevičius’s phrase that
“the Jews’ reaction” led to the decision by Vytautas Magnus
University not to allow a scheduled conference on Brazaitis
there stands unrefuted.
Some twenty days later an “Open Letter”
was published, signed by 41 prominent scientists, artists
and public figures, criticizing the reburial:
“We, the undersigned, citizens of
Lithuania, are definitely against the decision by the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania, the Seimas of the Republic,
Kaunas and other executives officials to honor the memory
of Juozas Ambrazevičius, the head of the Provisional Government
of Lithuania June-August 1941, who called himself Brazaitis
in exile.”
The names of those who signed the
protest are listed in alphabetical order, and therefore the
name Aleksandravičius happens to come first. Such is the
fate of history.
Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaitė didn’t participate in the reburial ceremonies,
yet on behalf of the country she expressed her opinion on
Ambrazevičius, posthumously awarding Juozas Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis
the Order of the Cross of Vytis, first degree, by her decree
of June 26, 2009. Lecture hall 608 at Kaunas’s Vytautas Magnus
University is named after Ambrazevičius. A bas-relief was
erected in his honor in the same building. His name was bestowed
upon streets in Kaunas and Marijampolė.
Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius and his government made up of Homeland
Union / Conservatives and Lithuanian Christian Democrats
did not participate in the official reburial events, although,
despite public protests, they allocated the money to conduct
this solemn sanctification of his memory. The government
was, as they say, “with him with all their hearts.”
A similar reburial took place eighteen years ago, in 1995, marking the 100th
anniversary of Kazys Škirpa’s birth. The ashes of the author
of the “Guidelines for the Liberation of Lithuania,” a
document saturated with antisemitism, were brought from
the United States to Kaunas and solemnly reburied at the
Petrašiūnai cemetery. Then-prime minister of independent
Lithuania Adolfas Sleževičius and defense minister Linas
Linkevičius (now minister of the foreign affairs) gave
speeches during the ceremony. The lowering of the ashes
into the grave was accompanied by the Lithuanian national
anthem and a gun salute. Today Škirpa’s grave is adorned
with one of the richest and most impressive of the monuments
there, always attracting visitors’ attention. Škirpa’s
name was immortalized in a street name in central Vilnius
and a street in Kaunas. Moreover, a memorial plaque marks
house no. 25 on Gedimino Street, in the center of Kaunas,
bearing the following inscription:
“In this house in 1925-1926 Kazys Škirpa worked, the creator of the Lithuanian
Armed Forces, participant of the struggle for independence,
a member of the Constituent Seimas, Chief of Staff, diplomat,
leader of the Lithuanian Activist Front, President of the
Provisional Government of Lithuania, Knight of the Cross
of Vytis, Colonel of the General Staff (1895-1979).”
This is the reality of political
life in Lithuania.
◊
A Word about the Real Heroes
Aleksandravičius states: “All
of our heroes” who during that tragic period of history
attempted to raise the flag of Lithuanian independence
“were forced” to make comprises with stronger powers.
Nevertheless, there really were
self-sacrificing people in Lithuania, people who did not
raise or lower any flags, but also did not compromise with
“stronger powers,” as the historian delicately calls groveling
before the Nazi occupiers. At all times of Lithuanian history
there have been people who did not compromise when it came
to their own conscience and humanity.
They are humanists, people of
great soul and nobility. They did not even suspect that
at that creepy time they were real heroes of their country
and their people. Ordinary people from different strata
of the non-Jewish population of Lithuania saved the doomed
Jews. Their feat was not one of minutes or hours: for months,
day after day, for three years, they risked their own lives
to save the lives of Jews. They defended the honor of their
people, not of “our heroes” imposed “from above” on Lithuanians.
In terrible times these heroes shared their shelters, food
and the warmth of their souls with the persecuted Jews,
risking not only their lives but also the lives of all
members of their families. At all times these rescuers
have remained the true heroes of Lithuania, those who selflessly
resisted Nazism, violence and fear. Sadly, there are so
few of them, but, fortunately, these holy people exist!
They do! They are the honor and conscience of the Lithuanian
people in the era of the Holocaust.
During the Cold War, when the
Soviet Union with Lithuania as part of it was separated
from the whole civilized world, the employees of Yad Vashem
(the National Institute of Victims of Nazism and the Heroes
of the Resistance in Israel) miraculously managed to find
out the names of more than 150 people who saved Jews. Rescuers
were awarded the highest distinction: Righteous among the
Nations. This title is given to people who risked their
own lives to save others from death.
After the restoration of independence,
Lithuania managed to track down more rescuers of Jews,
known as Righteous Among the Nations.
In Lithuania, the rescuers of
Jews, Lithuanian Righteous among the Nations included,
are awarded the Life Saving Cross. Presidents of Lithuania
Algirdas Brazauskas, Valdas Adamkus, Rolandas Paksas and
Dalia Grybauskaitė have presented this award to 1,246 people
so far.
Yad Vashem on its website recognized
844 rescuers from Lithuania as of 1 January 2013. The number
has been growing this year.
defendinghistory.com
|