Vytautas
Landsbergis is one of the giants of the twentieth century.
Along with Poland’s Lech Wałęsa and then-Czechoslovakia’s
Václav Havel, Landsbergis led his people from foreign domination
to freedom and democracy. Nothing these gentlemen might later
on have said or done to their own legacies, particularly
in the subsequent century, can detract from their singular
achievements in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet
Union and the freedom of the subjugated nations on its western
periphery.
If Landsbergis is sometimes credited less than the other two, it is perhaps because
Lithuania is a much smaller country, and maybe even because
the January 1991 events, in which thirteen Lithuanian civilians
lost their lives, rendered the process there somewhat less
than purely peaceful.
Both arguments are spurious. First,
size doesn’t matter here; it’s location, location and location.
Lithuania, unlike Czechoslovakia and Poland, was part of
the Soviet Union, a constituent republic, annexed fully,
not a nominally independent Warsaw Pact state with its own
ostensible leaders and foreign diplomats. The courage needed
was greater and the probability of success considerably lower
at the outset. By leading the other two Baltic states in
pursuing freedom with courage and perseverance, Lithuania
under Landsbergis played a disproportionate part in the undoing
of the Soviet empire. That particular role could not have
been played by the Warsaw Pact states to the west on their
own.
As for the violence of January 1991
in Vilnius, the USSR’s willingness to use tanks and guns
against unarmed peaceful civilian demonstrators became a
wake-up call to the world to support Lithuania’s and other
states’ yearnings for peaceful transition to independence.
The image seen around the world, of music professor turned
freedom fighter Vytautas Landsbergis steadfastly informing
the planet that he will not leave the Seimas (Lithuanian
parliament) building come hell or high water, did not a little
in causing Gorbachov to blink and climb down. To those of
us who were here in Vilnius that winter, Vytautas Landsbergis
will remain one of the most inspirational personalities of
the era.
Full disclosure: In November 1990,
I persuaded my superiors at Oxford University to send me
as a representative to an event at the Lithuanian Legation
in London honoring the visit of Professor Landsbergis in
London in open and enthusiastic support for Lithuanian independence.
During his time as de facto head of
state, Landsbergis played a pivotal role in offering all
the country’s residents Lithuanian citizenship, irrespective
of race, language or family history (in sharp contrast to
Latvia and Estonia). Then, by stepping down gracefully after
free and fair elections chose other candidates for the newly
free country’s office of president, he cemented democracy
with Washingtonian grace.
◊
Fast forward to more recent years
of the twenty-first century. Landsbergis’s unshakeable earlier
role in history, which can never be changed retroactively,
nor should it, does not imply agreement with the politics
and ideas of the man’s twenty-first century incarnation as
a right-wing member of the European Parliament.
Over the last decade, MEP Landsbergis
has moved ever closer to Eastern Europe’s dangerous New Far
Right, the suave and smooth in-power far right that tries
hard to pass itself off as center-right to outsiders. That
phenomenon came to wider attention during the British Conservative
Party’s dalliance with far-right elements in Poland several
years ago, without the slightest ill-will on the part of
the UK party.
In 2005, he launched his campaign
demanding that Soviet symbols be banned in the whole of Europe
in exactly the same was as Nazi symbols are banned. It was
the first shot in the movement to “equalize for all of Europe”
(not just for local nationalist history) Nazism and Communism,
itself closely related to the East European far right’s wish
to obfuscate, diminish and altogether write the Holocaust
out of history as unique event (without denying a single
death, in a movement I have called Holocaust Obfuscation).
In the case of the Baltics, where much of this was coming
from, it was related in discernible measure to these countries
having the highest rates of Holocaust murder of their Jewish
populations in all of wartime Europe, and a desire to confound
and confuse that record and the larger issues into one mush
of “equal totalitarian regimes.”
In June 2008, he signed the Prague
Declaration, which highlights the word “same” five times,
in its insistence that all of Europe accept red-brown equality,
overhaul all of Europe’s textbooks to reflect that mantra,
legislate a mandatory mix-and-match day of jumbled remembrance
for victims of both regimes and more nonsense of that ilk.
The Prague Declaration has been condemned by Holocaust survivors,
the Wiesenthal Center, and a wide array of Jewish and non-Jewish
historians and community leaders. The British Parliament’s
MP John Mann, a renowned champion of human rights, has called
it a “sinister document.”
Most recently, MEP Landsbergis has
drifted more and more to the edge. There is the litany of
his efforts to undermine each and every piece of gay rights
legislation to come before the European Parliament (example).
Then there are the repeated efforts
to glorify local Nazi collaborators and actual killers on
the grounds that they were actually anti-Soviet heroes. This
is all well and beyond center-right.
A few disturbing examples.
In August 2011, MEP Landsbergis’s
Sąjūdis organization, was one of three organizations (along
with two pro-fascist partners, the “Lithuanian Union of June
22-28 Insurgents” and “Friends of the Lithuanian Front”)
that signed a public letter (English translation here) urging
Lithuanians to honor the 1941 Lithuanian Activist Front (LAF)
fascists who in effect unleashed the Holocaust by launching
murder, mutilation, humiliation and plunder in dozens of
Lithuanian towns before the Germans even arrived. Their earlier
leaflets made their intentions regarding Jewish citizens
of their country rather clear.
The most disturbing paragraph in the
August 2011 statement by the three organizations, including
Landsbergis’s Sąjūdis, reads as follows:
“So separately we would bring the
attention of thoughtful members of the Jewish community to
the fact that the NKVD “furazhki” who are now replaced by
yarmulkes [in other words: the KGB guys have now replaced
their classic NKVD/KGB hats with yarmulkes] might also have
their own, special agenda. An agenda that does not in any
way serve social harmony and justice.”
This was an untoward threat to the
country’s small and fragile remnant Jewish community, urging
that community to not dare have an opinion of the 2011 events
set up to honor the perpetrators that differs from that of
the right wing elites in government and elsewhere.
Then, on 19 October 2011, Landsbergis,
flanked by MP Zingeris and the neo-Nazi parade leading MP
Songaila, at a European Parliament conference, delivered
an infamous attack on the European Parliament’s refusal to
legally redefine the concept genocide as he would wish, insensitively
baiting colleagues with the words “But if they were not all
Gypsies…” In other words, if Soviet crimes did not target
“Gypsies” (Roma), it must be for that reason that Europe
won’t call these crimes genocide. This was an untoward and
insulting-to-Roma diatribe. All part of the “basement end”
of the Holocaust Obfuscation movement, that would like all
crimes to be genocide so that in effect none are genocide.
During the shameful May 2012 episode
of glorification of the 1941 Nazi puppet “prime minister”
Juozas Ambrazevičius (Brazaitis), including his reburial
with full honors in Kaunas, MEP Landsbergis served as backbone
of the effort, wholly insensitive to Jewish and Western concerns.
The American and other embassies helped persuade current
national leaders who had signed the order financing the events
to keep away themselves, but that did not affect him. Professor
Landsbergis attended and defended the reburial of the fascist
leader who personally signed the protocols confirming Nazi
orders for “all means” against the country’s Jews (though
avoiding “public executions”), for a concentration camp to
be set up for Jews (it was actually the already active torture
and murder site at the Seventh Fort near Kaunas), and for
“all of the Jews of Kaunas” to be locked up in a ghetto within
four weeks. Not to mention that the puppet prime minister
presided over the ongoing slaughter of Jewish citizens all
around him from day one by thousands of white-armbanded “heroes.” The small but proud Jewish community
in Lithuania did not remain silent.
Are those the European values that
MEP Landsbergis now espouses?
It seems so. He issued a “Dixi” statement
(English here) attacking the forty-one Lithuanian intellectuals
who signed the “post facto letter” (too little too late,
but better than nothing) criticizing the honoring of the
1941 Nazi puppet prime minister once all was said and done
(bold Lithuanian citizens spoke out unequivocally during
the events).
Landsbergis’s statement, dated 12
June 2012 (just over one month ago, this is all “current
events”), published in Bernardinai, is deeply disturbing.
Not enough that he himself descended to honor his country’s
participation in the Holocaust in 1941; he goes on to discredit
those who signed a mildly worded protest after the fact,
accusing them of being
“not brave enough to withhold their
names to what was on offer. Some ― I see from the names ―
should have been shaking considerably more…”
The statement begins with an attack
on his fellow MEP, Professor Leonidas Donskis, whom Landsbergis
seems to hold responsible for there being any criticism at
all of the honoring of a major Holocaust collaborator. Within
minutes of the scandal breaking in May, Professor Donskis
had issued a courageous statement, which he followed up with
an outstanding essay. MEP Donskis thereby did much to save
Lithuania’s honor in recent months and deserves a medal,
not a snide reference to his former television talk show,
“Without Anger,” itself a huge credit to free and respectful
discourse in Lithuania.
It is both ironic and sad that in
his statement, Landsbergis tries to use himself as an example
of someone whose legacy could be wrongfully twisted:
“I can only imagine what they will
write about me. Perhaps some psychological complex affects
these writers specifically, not necessarily as signatories
[of the open letter]. It seems as if that’s the origin of
the nervousness and inappropriate words, [inappropriate]
even to the facts. But I won’t dispute it. We live in a very
difficult and probably decisive time, we need to be less
destructive over a single sentence.”
The good news for Professor Landsbergis
will hopefully be that history will not detract from his
own historic achievements for freedom, justice and democracy
in the late twentieth century because of whatever nonsense
(alas much more than one sentence) he uttered in later decades.
The bad news is that he would compare
his own gallant record with the shameful 1941 Nazi puppet
who did the exact opposite, failing to stand up to an evil
empire, failing to treat equally all his citizens and to
stand up for the vulnerable amongst them, and then failing
to tell the truth during his subsequent decades. The 1941
Nazi puppet went much further, signing Nazi papers mandating
the isolation, incarceration and humiliation of citizens
of a certain ethnicity, even as “patriotic mobs” of the LAF
and related groups were on the streets slaughtering thousands
of Jewish citizens before his very eyes.
We rush to the defense of the twentieth
century Landsbergis, taking sincere umbrage at the twenty-first
century Landsbergis who dares compare his own old true self
with the shameful 1941 Nazi puppet whose ceremonial reburial
will not redeem him from the junk pile of European fascist
history. Quite to the contrary, it served to draw attention
to East European state-sponsored glorification of Nazi murderers,
collaborators and puppets.
◊
In other East European countries,
politicians who participate in the glorification of Nazi
collaborators, and whose organizations warn local Jewish
communities not to dare express dissent about Nazi-glorification
would tend to keep a certain diplomatic distance from “Jewish
things.”
Not in Lithuania. Some of the same
leading right-wing politicians who would attend an event
on a Monday to honor a Nazi collaborator complicit in the
murder of Lithuanian Jewish civilians in 1941 might have
no hesitation heading out on Tuesday to unveil a plaque in
memory of Holocaust victims, and a meeting on Wednesday with
naive North American, west European or Israeli visitors to
talk about his country’s dedication to embracing the Litvak
heritage of its murdered Jewish population. (Actually, “hijacking”
the legacy of the annihilated minority is more accurate than
“embracing” here. There is something of a Fake Litvak industry.)
In part, the double game is enabled
by the unique situation in the region of having a “court
Jew” in parliament. When the Prague Declaration was produced
in 2008, Lithuania’s MP Emanuelis Zingeris became the only
Jew in Europe to sign. It is of course still open to him
to simply issue a statement saying he made a mistake…
But this is not only about the one
Jewish MP. The desire to usurp and identity-thieve the Litvak
heritage as a neat and swell cover for historic revisionism
has led to many projects, usually Jew-free in their leadership,
which claim to carry the Litvak heritage forward. The list
is long enough for a proper study. One of the gems was the
“Litvak Foundation” whose director wrote an antisemitic article
shortly after stepping down from his post. Then there was
the mostly Litvak-less “Litvak Forum.” The list goes on.
Today’s central Vilnius is dotted with high-value property
featuring an array of “Jewish” institutions that do not have
a single Jewish member of staff (just think of the ramifications,
say, of an analogous string of snow-white entities dedicated
to African-American culture in a city in the United States).
In wider terms, the right-wing government
in power has learned to speak the language of naive foreign
Jewish dignitaries and roots-tourists, clueless Western descendants
of Litvaks, and American diplomats, persuading them to concentrate
on this or that plaque or memorial event, and to make light
of state-sponsored enabling of neo-Nazi marches in city centers
on independence day holidays; the criminalization of free
debate on the Holocaust; the glorification of perpetrators;
the defamation of survivors who resisted; the toleration
of front pages of national dailies reminiscent of 1930s Germany.
In this context, it is perhaps not
a surprise that the name of MEP Vytautas Landsbergis appears
on the board of the “Maceva” project to preserve and record
Jewish cemeteries in Lithuania (a most laudable goal, supported
by this journal). Or that his personal assistant’s spouse
is the world’s most energetic 24/7 monitor of Litvak forums
in cyberspace and has now succeeded to promote a politicized
Maceva[i] (with the Landsbergis brand on the board, make
no mistake, it is profoundly politicized) as the only formal
“Jewish” partner of this summer’s SLS in Vilnius, eclipsing
partnerships with the Jewish community and the Green House.
“Maceva” also features on its board the Vilnius intellectual
who thinks this journal’s editor practices Jewish black arts
to persuade folks of his opinions (our response here), and
the editor of Bernardinai, who publishes many fine articles
on Jewish culture in addition to articles glorifying of the
1941 collaborators and participants in the Holocaust, as
well as odes, by the archbishop and others, to the Nazi puppet prime minister recently reburied.
A pity on the naive foreigners who
think that all on the board are in it for the love of Litvaks,
Lithuanian Jewish culture, and the sacred need for the truth
to be told about the annihilation of the country’s Jewish
population during the Holocaust. Beyond eliminating from
the board those who work to downgrade the Lithuanian Holocaust,
supporters might gently suggest the addition of the country’s
250 mass graves to the project’s remit.
For the remnant of Lithuanian Jewry,
the “double game” being played by the New Far Right is distressing.
Hostility toward the victims and survivors of the Holocaust,
toward the accurate history, robust living Litvak culture,
and the present Jewish community and its stalwart liberal
supporters, can, they think, be “fixed” by joining this or
that board of a “Jewish” project. In this case, to focus
in on the graveyards of Litvak Jewry.
How convenient (and symbolic). After
all, graveyards don’t talk back. But their souls go marching
on. defendinghistory.com
|