1
Alfonsas Eidintas. Jews, Lithuanians and the Holocaust. Trans. Vijolė Arbas and Advardas Tuskenis. Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2003. Trans. of Žydai, lietuviai ir holokaustas. 2002.
Alfonsas Eidintas, a historian, former head of the Institute of History department at the Lithuanian Academy of Science, and diplomat, is one of the foremost researchers of the Holocaust. He has served as the Lithuanian ambassador to the USA, Canada, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, Cyprus, Ethiopia, and Norway. He has written a number of books on Lithuanian political and diplomatic history, and currently (2011) is aSenior Researcher at the University of Vilnius’s International Relations Department.
Eidintas’s book, Jews, Lithuanians, and the Holocaust, is important background reading to the Holocaust in Lithuania. It is readily available in Lithuanian (Žydai, lietuviai ir holokaustas, 2002), but very difficult to find in English. Therefore, I have summarized it here.
Eidintas’s primary audience is Lithuanian, not necessarily Jewish. He argues that Lithuanians must face up to their country’s role in perpetrating the Holocaust, although he stresses that only a minority of Lithuanians were active collaborators. He points out that Lithuania is now a poorer country for the loss of its Jews (in mass murders and through emigration), and frank and open discussion between Lithuanians and Jews is essential.
Eidintas’s book contains a few specific references to Skuodas, which I have quoted in full. These passages appear on pp. 48, 101, 106, 161, 264-5, 280-81, and 355. The longer passages on 264-5 and 280-81 detail the murders of Skuodas’s Jewish women and children at Alka Hill, near Dimitravas.
At times, I add a few of my own observations; these appear in square brackets or footnotes.
Available academic reviews of this book:
Ginaite, Sara. “Book Review.” Canadian Slavonic Papers, 46.1-2 (2004): 259
Michalski, Thomas A. “Book Review.” Lituanus 49 (2003).
Senn, Alfred E. “Reflections on the Holocaust in Lithuania.” Lituanus 47 (2001).
Summary:
Section 1: “Our Žydeliai”: Lithuanians and Jews – Neighbours (pp. 24-164)
Lithuanians and Jews during the late 19th Century (24-40)
In the 19th century, during the time that Russia ruled Lithuania, a Lithuanian nationalist movement began to grow, aimed at forging a Lithuanian national consciousness in opposition to the imperial domination of Russian language, culture, and politics. The Russian Empire Government had established the “Jewish Pale of Settlement,” forcing many Jews out of central Russia and into more outlying regions, including Lithuania, and also regulating the Jewish community’s economic and educational activities. Forbidden to own land or work in certain professions, almost all Jews in Lithuania lived in towns and townships, working in crafts, production, and trade. Jews thus stood in sharp contrast with Lithuanians,[1] who were primarily a rural people, living in villages or farmsteads and working in agriculture.
As a result of the religious, social, and economic differences between the two groups, most Lithuanians did not understand Jews and tended to look down on them, distrusting and making fun of them. In particular, members and leaders of the Lithuanian nationalist movement, who usually originated from the peasantry, inherited generally negative attitudes towards Jews. However, according to Eidintas, these attitudes “were not necessarily against Jews per se, so much as nationalistic decisions” (30), for example nationalists’ enthusiastic approval of Lithuanian business enterprises and denigration of Jewish establishments. Lithuanians saw Jews as economic competitors, and this often increased suspicion and general negativity towards their Jewish neighbours. “The peasant felt that he was being robbed – by the Russian government in taxation, and by the Jewish merchant or trader at stores, markets, and inns” (37).
Eidintas points out, however, that the often negative attitudes towards Jews did not always translate into behaviour. For example, most Lithuanians continued to frequent Jewish businesses, even when there was a Lithuanian competitor, due to habit, long-standing acquaintance, or even friendship. Lithuanian attitudes towards Jews were mixed and often contradictory. In fact, the Lithuanian word for “Jew,” žydelis, a diminutive, could be used not only as an insult, but in a friendly, affectionate way, depending on the situation. Many Lithuanians acknowledged that Jews were good at trade and generally sober and industrious, and writers in the popular press sometimes held up their behaviour as a model for others to follow. And when Lithuanian-Jewish conflicts did arise due to social separation and misunderstanding, they were generally minor: namecalling, fistfights, or petty vandalism such as breaking windows. By and large, Jews and Lithuanians, despite the occasional squabble, coexisted relatively peacefully.
The Jew in Peasant Consciousness (40-47)
Generally speaking, Lithuanian peasants tolerated, but did not understand Jews, whom they considered alien and foreign, different in religion, dress, language, and appearance. (Of course, many Jews put up their own social barriers in order to define themselves as Jewish and avoid assimilation.) Furthermore, in some deep sense, Lithuanians did not consider Jews to be people, because it was thought that, like animals, they did not have souls.
Again, the picture is a complex one. Many traits of Jews – love of education, industriousness, group solidarity, and so on – were widely acknowledged and admired. But in general, concludes Eidintas, the main reason for Lithuanian antipathy towards Jews was economic: Lithuanians were “dependent on the Jewish trader, moneylender, and merchant. Dependency caused antipathy, and in certain cases, intolerance” (47).
Jews and Lithuanians at Townships (47-63)
Early in this section, Eidintas refers to a late-19th century description of Skuodas: “There were 40 Catholic farmers; the numbers of Jews were an uncountable many. Jews kept saloons and engaged in trade, whereas the Catholics had a brick church and three priests” (48). Eidintas then goes on to build a detailed picture of Jewish life and trade in the townships, and Lithuanian attitudes towards their Jewish neighbours, which, as we have seen, ranged from approval to fear and contempt. But generally speaking, “all in Lithuania lived relatively peaceful provincial lives without experiencing any major injustices. They scolded and swore at each other, but by the same, sold and traded with one another” (54). Football matches took place between Lithuanian and Jewish teams, and Jews provided hostelry services to Lithuanians coming into town for short stays, providing lodging, food, and supplies, often on a friendly, ongoing basis. When there were disagreements between Christians and Jews, the Christian would sometimes complain to the local rabbi, who would mediate the dispute.
Role of Jews in the Reinstatement of Lithuanian Independence (63-76)
In 1918, Lithuania achieved independence from Russia, with the help of Jewish volunteers who fought in the wars for independence, participated in the work of Lithuania’s National Council, and took part in the Paris Peace Conference after World War I. The Paris Declaration, signed on August 5, 1919, promised Lithuanian Jews rights in the areas of politics, citizenship, religion, education, and language. No other country in Europe recognized the interests of Jews to this extent. Unfortunately, these promises did not fully materialize, and many Jews became disillusioned.
At the same time, Jews in the townships began to face increasing competition from Lithuanians in business and trade, as the new government supported Christian Lithuanians in their efforts to establish cooperatives and other businesses. Eidintas points out, “It was natural for a rural nation to attempt … to equalize economic opportunities” (69), but this strategy created pressure for Jews, who were finding their traditional opportunities in trade and commerce narrowing. However, Jews continued to enjoy a great deal of success. Just prior to World War II, Jews still controlled a sizeable share of imports and exports, and 54% of small trading companies were Jewish-owned. Lithuanian Jewish professionals were also well represented, and, overall, Jews were better educated than their Christian neighbours.
At the same time as, and partly motivated by, the increasing nationalism of Lithuania, Zionism became increasingly important as a Jewish focus of nationalism. Having grown up with the Russian language and culture, many Jews were unable or unwilling to adapt to the Lithuanian language and culture after Lithuanian independence, and Zionism supplied an attractive alternative. Zionists were further encouraged by the success of Lithuanian and Polish struggles for independence. In this atmosphere, national Jewish schools, especially the Zionist-created Hebrew “Tarbut” [Culture] schools, were established and flourished, as did Zionist cultural youth groups like Hashomer Hatzair [The Young Guard].
As for attitudes of Christian Lithuanians towards Jews, there were no major changes from previous decades. There was some intolerance and acts of physical violence, but there were no racist organizations or organized attacks against Jews: no “obvious and tolerated anti-Semitism or curtailments of Jewish freedoms in Lithuania as there was in Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania” (76).
Lack of Tolerance (76-95)
Lithuanian nationalism aimed to reinstate the nationhood and statehood of Lithuania; but unfortunately, “formation of a nation, truly based on citizenship [i.e. equal rights for all Lithuanians, regardless of religion, language, culture, and so on] apparently was before its time” (77). Nationalist factions with various agendas and demands accelerated after independence. There was painting-over of Yiddish street signs. Jewish financiers opposed the introduction of the lita, the national currency. These, and other incidents, were picked up by the nationalistic press, which agitated against Jews. In the 1930s, right-wing nationalists increased in numbers and power, and anti-Semitic statements in the press grew stronger and more numerous. Physical attacks against Jews increased, usually instigated by younger and more poorly educated Lithuanians, often high-school students. However, such attacks were not legally sanctioned, and many participants in anti-Jewish violence were arrested and punished.
Eidintas argues that anti-Jewish harassment and attacks were not at all typical of daily life everywhere in Lithuania, but were rather the exceptions (92); at the same time, he recognizes that such events, while relatively uncommon, instilled well-grounded fear into Lithuanian Jewish communities. While government policies were not anti-Semitic, there were no institutions for preventing anti-Jewish attacks, and neither schools nor churches taught young people a spirit of tolerance for their Jewish neighbours. Thus some ordinary Christian Lithuanians, many young and/or ill-educated, were motivated to attack their Jewish neighbours, fuelled by long-standing religious intolerance, economic competition, nationalistic fervour, and lack of day-to-day familiarity with Jews.
Economic Discord (95-110)
In the 1930s, attempts by Lithuanian nationalists to “Lithuanianize” trade and finance brought hardships to many Jews, who found themselves being squeezed out of their former livelihoods. In the late 1930s, economic competition intensified to the point where Lithuanians were urged to boycott Jewish businesses. For example, in Skuodas, early in 1939, hand-written anti-Jewish flyers were circulated in a public high school and the open-air market, urging Lithuanians to avoid Jews, who were said to control trade, industry, and town life. While Jewish and Lithuanian businesspeople did at times work together and cooperate closely, anti-Jewish accusations increased in the press during the 1930s, primarily attacking Jewish businesspeople, though more general anti-Semitic statements also appeared. The Lithuanian government, however, sharply criticized these attacks and attempted to curtail anti-Jewish displays and prejudice generally.
Unfortunately, historic pressures worked to worsen the already tense situation. With the Nazi takeover of Klaipeda (Memel) in 1939, refugees flooded into the bordering regions of Lithuania. The price of food increased by up to 35%, and economic competition increased. The anti-Jewish mood intensified, and rumours of Jewish criminal activity broke out. For example, in August 1939, a fire broke out in the town of Gargždai, destroying over 150 buildings. In Kretinga and Skuodas, it was rumoured that Jews had set the fire and would do so again. Lithuanian security officers tried to quell the rumours, and the Jewish press appealed to Lithuanians for reason and mutual understanding, but to little effect.
Jews from Germany and Poland (110-122)
In the 1930s, both Polish and German anti-Semitism influenced Lithuanian politicians and public activists. Anti-Jewish laws and restrictions in Germany were known to, but not always approved by, Lithuanian intellectuals, at least one of whom (Prof. Mykolas Römeris, Folksblat June, 1935) warned that “those who are proclaiming this radical hatred of Jews and are trying to destroy them, are equally as ready to destroy the nation of Lithuania” (113).
Sympathetic attitudes towards Jews were also expressed in Lithuania. In 1937, Lithuanian officials issued visas to Jewish passengers travelling from Germany, successfully appealing Lithuanian regulations against the issuance of such visas. Lithuanians also contributed to the rescue of Jews from Nazi-occupied Poland in 1939, providing housing for some 12,000 Polish Jews, and allowing those who could not emigrate onwards to remain in the country.
Despite such attempts to lessen the plight of Jews, anti-Jewish sentiments, inflamed by the radically right-wing, pro-German element in Lithuania, intensified. Many Jews looked hopefully towards the Soviet Union, where they were (ostensibly) considered equal citizens, whereas some anti-Communist Lithuanian nationalists, considering themselves “Aryans,” hoped an understanding with Hitler could be reached. Serious conflict between the two groups was inevitable.
Association of Jews with Communists (122-33)
For various social, historic, and economic reasons, many Lithuanian Jews aligned themselves with the political left, some joining the Lithuanian Communist Party. Because the Communist Party was illegal in Lithuania (which had only 20 years previously achieved independence from Russia), its members were of concern to the Lithuanian police and security forces. Because most Communist Party members came from towns and townships, where most Jews resided, Jews became identified with communists among the police, security forces, and the public at large, who often “ceased to differentiate communist Jews from the majority of non-communist Jews in their documents and … minds” (124). This identification of all Jews with communists in the minds of Lithuanians was to have serious implications after the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1940.
Lithuanians and Jews during the First Year under the Soviets, 1940-41 (133-58)
Unlike their Christian neighbours, who remembered Russia’s previous occupation of Lithuania with resentment and hostility, many Jews welcomed the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in June 1940, seeing the Soviets as their saviours from the Nazis. Even those Jews who disliked the Soviets preferred the new regime to the Germans as the lesser of two evils.
After the Soviet occupation, membership in the Communist Party grew substantially. Most of those who joined were Jewish, and though they were in the minority of Party members, 36% overall (133), the fact that they had not previously taken a large role in administration made them visible. Many nationalistic Lithuanians, already predisposed against Jews, identified them with the Communist Party, though they “appeared not to see, and did not want to see those of their own countryfolk [i.e. Christian Lithuanians] who were collaborating with Soviets in 1940” (134), and also disregarding the majority of Jews who were not communists.
In the minds of most Lithuanians, encouraged by the propaganda mills of Nazi Germany, Jews in general quickly became identified with the Soviet oppressor. The embracing, or at least tolerance, of communism by many Jews infuriated nationalistic Lithuanians, some of whom began to express publicly their wish for the arrival of the Germans. Tensions and acts of physical violence between Jews and Lithuanians increased. Anti-Jewish demonstrations took place. In spite of the fact that the Jewish community was not homogeneous and only a minority of Jews sympathized with the communists, Jews were blamed, among other things, for “Sovietization, arrests of Lithuanians, destruction of the army, separation of the Catholic Church from the state … [and] betray[ing] the nation of Lithuania” (145).
“Jewish” Jews (158-163)
Eidintas points out that many religious Jews, Zionists, and those without socialist leanings did not approve of the communist sympathies of their compatriots. These Jews, however, were ignored by nationalistic Lithuanians, who saw – and denounced – only the attitudes and actions of pro-communist Jews. Nationalistic Lithuanians also did not notice that after the occupation, Soviet arrests were targeting Jewish leaders as well as Lithuanians, or that up to 7000 Jews, along with their Lithuanian neighbours, were deported to Siberia, among them Dovydas Mirke, a pharmacist from Skuodas. Soviets also destroyed the Jewish educational system, banning Hebrew-language schools, shutting down Jewish gymnasiums, revising the curriculum, and replacing traditional Jewish holidays with May Day, Lenin Day, and so forth. By 1941, only one Yiddish-language newspaper remained.