I
was probably one of the first to have read Stankeras’s article
“The Nurnberg War Crimes Tribunal: The Biggest Legal Farce
in History.” See, I have a friend who supplies large amounts
of interesting information and having found something with
the enticing title of “biggest legal farce,” he asked for
my opinion immediately. I read it. I was surprised, but not
very; the internet is full of this kind and similar kinds
of writings, including the gigantic “academic” revisionism
web pages.
Neither was I surprised that it was printed in Veidas. The magazine has long
disappointed with its history pieces, back when Veidas on
the July 6 holiday published a “special project” in its History
section which, incidentally, also included a Stankeras article
about the onset of World War II, which historian friends
[comrade historians] also seriously criticized formally [for
its inappropriateness]. That this article about the Nuremberg
trials was also Stankeras’s, I still didn’t know (for some
reason Veidas doesn’t indicate authorship in the internet
versions of its articles [or just in this article?]).
My first opinion was that this was
probably a translation from Russian of a text by “black hundreds”
or some skinhead text (in terms of style) which made no pretense
of hiding its sympathies for Nazi ideology. With the addition,
of course, of several examples of [perceived historical]
wrongs important to Lithuanians. So I wrote a small comment
under the piece, stressing that the author was hopelessly
lacking in objectivity, doing so without intending to get
involved in deeper discussions. It was obvious to me that
this was a case where discussion is doomed to hopelessness
from the start.
I did share some of my impressions
of the piece a little bit with acquaintances, we shrugged
our shoulders. And by the way, a virtual acquaintance from
the Veidas editorial office who has since become an active
defender of the piece’s “Freedom of Opinion” and of Stankeras,
initially shared my misgivings on the quality of the piece.
Right after, a conference on xenophobia
and legal methods to control it took place at Vilnius University,
which I attended. Listening to one speaker talk about banning
“hate crimes,” I remembered the piece [in Veidas], and I
presented a question about it to the lecturers who had studied
the banning of such crimes in the legal systems of different
countries. No one else [at the conference] had read the piece.
While listening to the answers, it occurred to me that the
bold phrase “the legend of the 6 million supposedly murdered
Jews” might not be merely a hate crime, but Holocaust denial.
Later, in correspondence with fellow
attorneys, we also considered the piece and more or less
agreed that it would be almost impossible to apply Lithuanian
criminal code article 170 to the author (whose identity we
still did not know). The disposition of criminal code article
170 requires that denial or trivialization be done “in a
threatening, aggressive or insulting manner, or that public
order is disturbed because of it” (and this phrase was included
exactly so that the criminal code wouldn’t hinder “historical
discussions). So if, for example, something similar to “blood-sucking
Jews” or “Zionists’ conspiracy” had been written, it would
be much simpler. Now, insult or aggression has to be judged
according to just the word “legend” and the now legendary
(excuse the pun) “allegedly.” Which, as one could understand
from the claims of Veidas publisher Sarafinas, the editors
put in the wrong place. The editors? Does that mean that
the word “allegedly” did not occur in Stankeras’s text at
all? That’s the idea I get, at least.
In any event, my discussion and consideration
of this piece would have ended here with a simply judgment.
A biased, worthless publication aimed at creating provocation,
especially for Veidas, which still considers itself very
serious, although as I noted before, I have harbored no great
illusions about some Veidas authors for a long time now.
The author’s sympathy [empathy] for the Nazis is obvious
to me, and the figure of 6 million didn’t even have to come
into it. His accounts of Rudolph Hess, as a peacemaker, of
poor oppressed Germany and of how horribly the leaders of
Germany were treated at Nuremberg. And barely a word about
what Germany and the Nazis themselves did to their victims,
and why after all the Nuremberg tribunal descended upon her
[made Germany face legal responsibility]. I thought maybe
I would throw together a small text in reply about how it
was with Nuremberg and its injustices.
But two days later a storm erupted
among members of the New Left-95 movement and other people
who had been angered after encountering the [Stankeras] piece.
They took the matter much more seriously, even calling Veidas
editor Sindeikis and publisher Sarafinas. Other writings
by Stankeras were dragged out into the light which give the
rather clear impression that the topic of Nazi Germany is
the subject of more than just academic interest on the author’s
part (e.g., an article about the swastika which, according
to its title, should explain how the swastika was “compromised,”
[twisted to nefarious purposes] but which nowhere else mentions
that “compromising.”)
The whole thing progressed like a
snowball rolling downhill: the letter from the ambassadors
(singed, incidentally, by our closest neighbors, the Estonians
and the Poles), [interior minister] Palaitis’s suggestion
to Stankeras to resign voluntarily, the Simon Wiesenthal
Center’s invitation to bring Stankeras to account for Holocaust
denial and, of course, the stirring of all patriotai.lt [fascist/nationalist
website] and other people fighting for racial purity and
against civilized, democratic forms of life, their indignation
over kowtowing to other countries, their sympathy [empathy]
for “innocently guilty” Stankeras, their aversion to the
“thought police,” and so on. Meanwhile several fellow attorneys
distributed excerpts from at least several European Court
of Human Rights cases which recognized that statements similar
[to Stankeras’s] are to be treated as Holocaust denial.
And if initially it appeared to me
that [interior minister] Palaitis’s actions in regard to
Stankeras were rushed and unconsidered, now I think exactly
the same thing, but for different reasons. Truly in a democratic
state it isn’t appropriate to ask a person who is possible
facing legal prosecution to leave their job. The individual
is considered innocent until guilt has been proven. What
really needed to have been done was to ask the Senior Commission
on Public Service Ethics to determine whether Stankeras’s
“off work-time” writings were consistent with his job. Now
it has come about [in effect] that Palaitis has protected
Stankeras from the Senior Commission on Public Service Ethics
and has also left Stankeras without the opportunity to sue,
for example, if his activity hadn’t been found to be in violation
of public service ethics and he was fired for some other
reason.
What will happen with a pretrial investigation
and its results regarding Stankeras? I think it will be negative,
because our article 170 of the criminal code it will be difficult.
But to fail to perceive a denial in the infamous piece [by
Stankeras] and according to the article of law, as Audrius
Baciulis, Ricardas Cekutis and others have tried to claim,
is very hard for me to understand overall. That impression
was only strengthened by an interview with Stankeras on slaptai.lt
where he explains it this way: “Read carefully. Any rational,
educated person will say that the author is only disputing
the scale of the Holocaust in that publication. Perhaps six
million Jews were killed. But perhaps ten million Jews. Am
I not allowed to dispute this figure? Aren’t there many different
versions?” Yes, one can dispute the numbers. But usually
there is a different kind of behavior when the numbers are
doubted. I think no one would have had big complaints against
Stankeras if he had written: “During the Nuremberg process the calculation was first arrived at that Nazi Germany had murdered about 6
million Jews. Later research provided (such and such) numbers.”
But to call the universally recognized numbers “legend”—that’s
not doubt. You will likely agree that the word “legend” has
a certain sense, usually [it is] intended to stress the incredibility
or hyperbole of a phenomenon. At least I’ve never heard the
metaphor of “legend” used to make the insignificant significant.
For example, what would you think if a historian called the
participation of Lithuanians at Zalgiris [the Battle of Grunewald]
“a legend,” or, for example, this phrase: “In nationalist
historiography all possible means are employed to support
the legend that ‘forest brothers’ [partisans] allegedly fought
Soviet structures”?
If the case goes to court (I think
it will), the defense will doubtless clutch to the argument
that this is a discussion of the exact number of victims
and doesn’t concern the very essence of the phenomenon [doesn’t
touch on the Holocaust itself], and likely will claim that
such “doubts” are neither aggressive nor insulting. Of course,
that’s a bit cleverer than Sarafinas’s hopeless statements
that “allegedly” was inserted in the wrong place. By the
way, the claim that the quotation is “taken out of context”
is being made frequently. But taking the quote in the context
of the piece just makes the author’s problems greater, not
smaller. As I said before, the piece itself in no way resembles
popularized academic material, and, excluding the segment
about the “achievements” of the USSR (and this also contained
errors: no matter how hard the USSR pushed for the Katyn
massacre to be recognized as a crime of the Nazis, the tribunal
did not do that), this is more like an emotional collection
of revisionist theses. If you want to see how real studies on crimes committed by the allies look, read,
for example, British historian Antony [Anthony?] Beevor.
On the other hand, clearly, it would
be a shame if, for example, Stankeras were convicted for
denial while much more horrid texts of simply atavistic hatred,
for example, on the lndp.lt [Lithuanian Nazi website] “forum”
were left out there with no attention from law enforcement.
As pokaris.info and similar “information sources” will continue
to operate. That, incidentally, illustrates yet another problem:
the protection of anonymous unpunishability [the problem
of prosecuting people for anonymous internet comments?].
Looking over the comments under Stankeras’s piece, it’s clear
that there is much more there that is worthy of article 170
than the author’s words. To tell the truth, I don’t even
have any illusions that they will be taught anything even
if, let’s say, a guilty verdict came down in the Stankeras
case. Maybe one or two would bite their tongue. But just
bringing a person to account for a comment on the internet
is much more complicated than it might seem.
Veidas’s position is completely incomprehensible
to me. Both Sindeikis and Sarafinas’s “apologies” are weak,
and Sarafinas’s is even pathetic (especially concerning that
“allegedly,” a word whose placement doesn’t change the essential
meaning). A serious publication would have taken such a controversial
and, equally important, clearly unprofessional piece down
immediately and put an apology in its place. Even unphilosophic
[?] songs say: “Everyone gets a second chance, in order to
say ‘sorry’.” This piece has “hung” on the internet until
now [even now], as what? As a banner in the battle against
“well-organized radicals” (Baciulis’s words on those who
were angered [in his “Thought Police” piece on Veidas]? As
a monument to freedom of speech? Or simply as a witness to
insensitivity to the suffering of others?
And another question come sup here:
why? Why, it seems, when curricula are talking about the
tragedy of the Holocaust rather seriously, why do those who
dream of global conspiracies, who circulate the theory of
“double genocide,” always pop up? Is it perhaps because all
education on the Holocaust (and other tragedies) is “governmental”
[decreed top-down]? Without trying to think about it, without
seeing the tragedy of the Jews of Lithuania as our common
tragedy? After all one rarely [probably a typo, author means
“often”] hears that it was “better” under the German occupation,
since the Germans almost didn’t touch the Lithuanians, but
the Jews... Those Jews are foreign. Why this is the perception,
I think I know, partially. The Germans didn’t change radically
the social structure, they “just” destroyed the people they
selected, and moreover, they made use of Lithuanians [to
do it]. And death, however frightful it is, especially when
it doesn’t concern family, is quickly forgotten. Thus I understand,
in part, why the Soviet occupation left a deeper trace of horror in the minds of Lithuanians:
they had enough time to change everything, no one was left
out. And it is only the rare person who realizes that after
World War II of the people who had lived in Vilnius were
practically no one was left, the majority of them had been
killed. I really do get shivers from that, but maybe it’s
just me being [too] sensitive.
And—if I consider this completely
personally—I don’t believe Stankeras wanted to deny the Holocaust
in his piece the way that refined and politically motivated
anti-Semites do (e.g., Iranian president Mahmoud Achmadinejad).
I think this piece was exactly a pure expression of domestic
[everyday] Lithuanian anti-Semitism. I wouldn’t be surprised
if the word “legend” had arisen automatically, without reflective
thought, without considering its weight. As the traditional
Lithuanian reply to all hard questions connected with Jews,
their assets and their extermination: “What do those Jews
want from us? They didn’t give up Dushansky [Lithuania requested
the extradition from Israel of a former Soviet security figure
alleged by some Lithuanians to have taken part or ordered
the mass murder of a village of Lithuanians; Israel didn’t
honor the request], they fraternize with Bolsheviks” and
etc. Is this some sort of alleviating circumstance? No, I
think it’s just a symptom of the general state of society.
And, it seems to me, that’s worse than one individual denier, even if he is very active.
And after all, Stankeras’s writings
and his defenders do also again serve pro-Russian (or even
pro-Soviet?) forces: Paleckis and his supporters who are
talking about an “anti-fascist front.” They will make the
Kremlin quite glad.
Comments:
Poklius 2010-12-03 11:04
Once at school during a history lesson
we tried to add up the numbers of victims of the Jewish genocide.
We got about 2.6 million. So if I doubt the authenticity
of this number, does that mean I need to be punished?
wvaidas 2010-12-03 10:37
A horrible wave arose over a contemptible
little article. Clearly the printing of such spam does Veidas
no honor, but the reaction to this garbage is too hypertrophied
[sic]. Zilinskas is writing the truth, but also (having written
this article) he is also contradicting himself. On the one
hand, he says the internet is full of candidates for article
170, and on the other, that Stankeras doesn’t merit so much
attention. So why is there so much written/analyzed/discussed
on a topic that doesn’t matter? Why when Radzvilas publishes
his address, or Medalinskas invites [someone] to a forum
to discuss truly important questions, there is either no
reaction or almost none. And yes on Liaucius’s balvon [?]
“hung” on the Green Bridge, or on this garbage, please, the
internet is breaking under the burden of the amount of opinions
and comments.
slapyvardis 2010-12-03 09:57
it’s interesting whether someone will
analyze the “contribution” of the neo-leftist radicals in
trying to create another scandal?
Vytautas Barva 2010-12-03 09:45
“By the way, the claim that the quotation
is “taken out of context” is being made frequently. But taking
the quote in the context of the piece just makes the author’s
problems greater, not smaller.” I agree very much with this
insight.
St.B. 2010-12-03 08:39
Stankeras has been analyzed exaustively
Great! But not enough. I see a provocation dividing Jews
against Lithuanians and I see another parallel provocation
setting Lithuanians against Jews. I.e. Donskis’s article,where
Lithuanians were very insultingly called naphthalic, operetic
and other kinds of anti-Semites.and even “sceintifically”determined,that
our patriarchs were anti-Semites.Who will analyze Donskis’s
behavior?Who of all will stand against the incitement to
hatred based on nationalism constantly taking place in our
media?P.S.A very similar method with the Russians.As soon
as there is an article in Lithuania against Russians then
in parallel the same day there is one against Lithuanians
in Russia.
|