On March 27, 2019, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court peremptorily dismissed a complaint contending a Lithuanian government agency, the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Center, with Holocaust distortion for exonerating Holocaust leader Jonas Noreika.
Lithuanian courts are widely renowned for a lack of judicial independence – indeed, on February 20, 26 people, including eight judges, were arrested on charges of rigging judicial decisions. Few people realistically expect Lithuanian tribunals to be impartial, and this is all the more so with regard to the country’s carefully crafted official narrative that almost no Lithuanians willfully participated in the murder of 95% of their country’s Jewish population in 1941.
The facts that were introduced at trial were based upon records in the country’s own archives. At first, there was some hope that the court might actually study the record. On January 15, 2019, the court announced that it needed more time to consider the evidence and render a verdict. However, had the court been impartial, and concluded that a government agency was engaged in a Holocaust cover-up, the judges would have found themselves in untenable political and even social position. Accordingly, the case had to be denied, with the hope that either the plaintiff would give up or would take the matter up on appeal for other judges to contend with the issues.
Avoiding the facts presented, the court rationalized that the case could be dismissed for a number of non-substantive issues. First, the court accepted the argument that I have no standing – “no material interest” – to question the government’s refusal to acknowledge the Nazi-era war crimes of Jonas Noreika. Over 100 of my relatives were murdered. If that is not sufficient to establish a “material interest,” then it is clear that Lithuania believes that no one should have standing to challenge the official whitewashing of the murderers. The indisputable facts – and truth – about the Holocaust beginning in Lithuania, by Lithuanians, is something that the courts will do anything to avoid considering. Orwell himself would have been impressed at the gymnastics performed to reach the foregone conclusion.
There’s one more twist to the court’s decision. Because the plaintiff “lost,” the court ordered the plaintiff to the pay the government agency’s expenses in defending their Holocaust revisionism. This payment is not without historical precedent. Following Kristallnacht, the Nazis billed Jews a “Jew tax” for the damage Nazis perpetrated, and in Holland, Jews were made to pay their own train tickets to take them to Auschwitz where they would be murdered. The message is clear – if one has the temerity to challenge the government’s denial of the direct participation of Lithuanians in the Holocaust, he or she will pay the government’s costs of shoring up the narrative.
The days of attempting to extract from Jews taxes to cover the expenses of the oppressors have not passed. Lithuania would like to pass itself off as a modern, Western-oriented country but it is little changed from the nation of robber-murders who in 1941 cheerfully embraced and implemented the “values” of Nazism.