Lithuania Surpassed Its Russian Teachers

Report No. 9R-598 is not an innocent historical disagreement. It is an official exoneration, manufactured by changing the rules of evidence to fit the result the state required.

When a document incriminates Kazys Škirpa, the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre demands personal authorship, a signature, and direct attribution. When an anonymous newspaper report favors him, none of that is required. The antisemitic program issued by the organization he founded and led is broken up among subordinates so that none of it reaches the leader. An unsupported rumor that he opposed persecution is admitted as fact. Expulsion and confiscation are presented as moderation, because the written program had not yet demanded extermination.

The verdict chose the method. The method did not produce the verdict.

This is an indictment of the state institution that produced that result. It brings five charges: manipulation of evidence, fabrication of an American verdict, continued publication after notice, use of Lithuania’s Western institutional standing to export the falsehood, and intimidation of the researcher who documented it.

The method has a provenance. Lithuania learned it under Soviet occupation, and it now performs the technique with a polish the Kremlin never achieved.

Count one — the dual standard. The charge is not that the Centre weighed the evidence badly. It is that the Centre used one rule for inculpatory evidence and the opposite rule for exculpatory evidence, in a single document, at the same time.

Report No. 9R-598 does not conceal the antisemitic record. It prints it, then defeats it. The report reproduces the March 19, 1941 demand that Jews leave and surrender their property. It reproduces the March 24 objective of removing Jews and revoking the protection they had held since Grand Duke Vytautas. It reproduces the call to free Lithuania from the “yoke of Jewry.” Each text is then assigned to a different faction, so that none of it attaches to Škirpa, and each incriminating document is required to bear his personal signature before it counts. Then the standard inverts. An anonymous item in a Chicago Lithuanian newspaper, sourced to “last reports from Berlin,” is admitted as proof that Škirpa forbade the persecution of Jews, with no order, telegram, or signature behind it. Inculpatory documents required personal authorship. Exculpatory rumor required none. I set out the full analysis in “The Škirpa Report Cannot Stand.”

That is not source criticism. It is result-oriented adjudication. The Lithuanian Jewish Community, representing 32 Lithuanian and foreign Jewish organizations, categorically rejected the report and named Škirpa’s antisemitism directly. The objection is not a private quarrel of mine. It is on the record. Finding: the Centre changed the rules of admissibility according to the conclusion each document supported.

Count two — the forged American verdict. For years the Centre represented that the United States had investigated Juozas Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis and exonerated him, and that the Department of Justice had rehabilitated him. It identified no court, no case number, no adjudicating authority, and no statute under which any rehabilitation occurred. The American record shows the administrative termination of an immigration matter. It shows no verdict.

Congressman Brad Sherman corrected Lithuania in 2019, again in 2021, and again in 2026. On May 12, 2026, the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself conceded that the “complete exoneration” language was legally imprecise and that administrative discontinuation is not judicial exoneration under United States law. As of mid-July 2026, the Centre’s website still published the rehabilitation claim. I documented this in “The Verdict America Never Issued” and again in “US Congress Exposes Lithuania’s Holocaust Fraud.” Finding: the Centre attributed to the United States a judgment that no American authority ever issued.

Count three — persistence after notice. An error becomes something else once an institution has been placed on notice, shown the record, and corrected by the very government whose authority it invoked, yet continues to publish anyway.

Corrected in 2019. Corrected in 2021. Corrected in 2026. The claim remained.

Before notice, Lithuania could plead incompetence. After three corrections it cannot. Continued publication after repeated notice is not error. It is institutional adoption of the falsehood. Finding: the Centre knew and published regardless.

Count four — export under Western credentials. Russian propaganda is discounted on sight, because everyone knows the source. Lithuania solved that problem. It routes the identical method through a state institution that carries the word genocide in its name, then exports the result under Lithuania’s standing inside NATO, the European Union, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The packaging is Western scholarship; the content is Soviet fabrication. A false certificate signed in Vilnius travels on the credibility of the Western institutions Lithuania entered.

This is where the pupil passed the teacher. Lithuania used the invented authority of its ally to launder one of its own Holocaust perpetrators, then forced American officials to fact-check an official Lithuanian institution and left its allies to discover the forgery. The export is not hypothetical: the fabricated American verdict traveled in the Centre’s own official letters, Nos. 55R-21 and 14R-82, and had to be corrected inside the United States Congress. Moscow manufactures Russian verdicts. Lithuania manufactured an American one and forced Washington to disown it. Finding: the Centre used Lithuania’s Western institutional standing to give a state fabrication the appearance of allied credibility.

Count five — intimidation of the researcher. When the documents defeat the state, the state reaches for the prosecutor. Since July 18, 2018, the Centre has kept a public page suggesting that my research may violate the Constitution and Criminal Code. In the same paragraph, it repeats the false claim that the United States Department of Justice rehabilitated Brazaitis. The page remained online and unchanged as of July 15, 2026.

Note the asymmetry. When Lithuania assesses its own heroes, evidentiary uncertainty produces exoneration. When a Jew challenges that exoneration, evidentiary disagreement is recast as potential crime. It did not intimidate me. It identified the institution. Finding: the Centre answered evidence with the threat of criminal law.

The defendant is the state, not the nation. None of this touches ordinary Lithuanians, who inherited this machinery and are entitled to be rid of it. They are also entitled to be rid of the LGGRTC—an institution that brings shame upon the nation, discredits Lithuania before its allies, and damages the legitimacy and credibility of the state in whose name it speaks. The defendant is identifiable. Report No. 9R-598 bears the names of Director General Arūnas Bubnys and historian Alfredas Rukšėnas. The 2015 certificate that supplied its template was signed by Director General Teresė Birutė Burauskaitė, decorated by the state for “fostering historical truth.” The Centre is not a private society. It is a statutory, publicly funded institution whose findings issue on official letterhead, are used to govern public commemoration, and are exported abroad as the position of the Lithuanian state.

The political class has protected the institution that produced the result. The Centre’s own council could not obtain documents from the leadership it supervises and refused to approve the 2025 annual report. When that council nominated Donata Kabelkė to succeed Bubnys, the Seimas rejected her by secret ballot on June 11, 2026: 28 in favor, 43 against, and 18 abstentions. No legislator had to attach a name to the outcome. An institution that manufactures historical accountability is sustained by a legislature that exercises institutional accountability anonymously. Bubnys’s term has expired; he remains in place.

Lithuania holds a specific distinction. It had the highest rate of Jewish murder in Europe. Its own citizens killed the overwhelming majority of a community that had lived on that soil for six centuries. The state has not punished a single perpetrator of that slaughter. An institution built on that record cannot be trusted to certify which of the killers was innocent.

The rejected remedy. I offered the state an opportunity to repair it. I re-applied to run the Centre and offered to do the work without compensation. I know the files, the frauds, the litigation, the forged American verdict, and the method that produced them. I proposed the only cure that defeats a propaganda machine: tell the whole truth before Moscow weaponizes the omissions.

Lithuania’s leaders warn that Russia regards the Baltic states as its next targets and may seek to test NATO unity. Yet the LGGRTC supplies Moscow with precisely the weapons it needs. It falsifies history through the method Lithuania condemns in Russia, discredits the democratic legitimacy Lithuania asks the West to defend, and damages the American alliance by placing an invented verdict in Washington’s mouth and compelling Congress to correct Lithuania publicly.

Lithuania fears Russian disinformation while manufacturing its own state-certified version. It asks America to protect it from Moscow while handing Moscow evidence with which to discredit both Lithuania and the alliance. Russia does not need to invent the contradiction. The LGGRTC produces it.

The Centre’s conduct supplied its answer. It does not want facts. It wants the verdict.

Findings and remedy. The charge is not that Lithuania remembers selectively. The charge is that a Lithuanian state institution applied contradictory evidentiary standards to manufacture a predetermined exoneration; attributed to the United States a judgment no American authority issued; continued publishing that claim after three corrections; used its standing inside NATO, the European Union, and IHRA to give the result Western credibility and export it abroad; and invoked criminal law against the researcher who documented it.

The remedy follows the charge. Withdraw Report No. 9R-598. Remove every claim that the United States exonerated or rehabilitated Brazaitis. Publish the complete source collation behind the Škirpa certificate. Identify the officials who approved the representations. Send formal corrections to every foreign government, institution, and official that received the false representations. Submit all of the Centre’s Holocaust-related findings to independent international review.

Lithuania turned Holocaust revisionism into scholarship, exported it under Western credentials, and forged the signature of the ally it deceived. I described the earlier stage of this in “The Kremlin Method, Practiced in Vilnius.”

The pupil surpassed the master.
That is not a compliment. It is the charge.