Israelischer Journalist: Der estnische Präsident ist "Trivilisator" des Holocausts
Der Kommentator der israelischen Zeitung Haaretz Yossi Melman findet die Aussage von Toomas Hendrik Ilves, die er während seines Israel-Besuches gemacht hat, dass die historische Erfahrungen von Esten und Juden sehr ähnlich sind, beleidigend. Nach Ilves Meinung, waren die Esten und die Juden während des Zweiten Weltkrieges "Genossen im Unglück". Dabei hat Ilves bei seinem Auftritt in der Residenz des Präsidenten in Israel kein einziges Mal weder die Verfolgung der estnischen Juden, noch die Schuld der Esten bei ihrer Vernichtung erwähnt.
In seinem Artikel erinnert Yossi Melman Ilves daran, dass die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung aller drei baltischen Länder die nazistischen Okkupanten freundlich begrüßte, die ihrer Meinung nach die Befreiung von der sowjetischen Unterdrücken mit sich brachten. Die estnischen Juden hatten verglichen mit den lettischen und litauischen Juden noch Glück: nach dem Eindringen der Hitler-Armeen in die Sowjetunion 1941 hatten sie einige Wochen, um wegzufahren. So konnten 3,5 Tausend estnische Juden in die östliche Teile der UdSSR evakuiert werden. Ungefähr tausend Juden blieben in Estland. 993 von ihnen wurden von den Nazis und ihren Helfern aus der örtlichen Bevölkerung vernichtet. In die gegründete Konzentrationslager auf dem estnischen Territorium wurden Tausende Juden aus Deutschland, Österreich und anderen Ländern Europas deportiert und anschliessend vernichtet. Der 36. Bataillon der estnischen Polizei hat neben der SS bei der Vernichtung der jüdischen Bevölkerung der Stadt Novogrudok in Weissrussland teilgenommen.
Es ist schwer zu glauben, schreibt Melman, dass der Präsident Estlands solche Aussage spontan, ohne Nachzudenken machte. Toomas Ilves ist in Schweden geboren, lebte lange in den USA und beendete die Columbia University in New-York. Es ist klar, dass seine Aussagen nicht zufällig getroffen wurden. Ilves ist kein Holocaustleugner, er ist sein Trivilisator.
Den Terminus "Trivialisierung des Holocausts" hat in den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs der Leiter des Simon Wiesenthal Efraim Zuroff eingebracht. Zu Trivilisatoren des Holocausts zählt Zuroff eine Reihe der postsowjetischen und zentraleuropäischen Staaten, die in ihrem Eifer die Geschichte umzuschreiben, behaupten dass die sowjetische Okkupation keine kleinere Tragödie war als Nazismus.
Die Trivilisatoren behaupten, dass Holocaust kein singuläres Ereignis in der Geschichte war. Aus ihrer Sicht sind die Mörder der Juden, die mit den Nazis zusammengearbeitet haben und gegen die Sowjetmacht kämpften, Helden. Deswegen werde in diesen Ländern die Denkmäler für die sowjetischen Befreiern demontiert, an ihren Platz stellt man Denkmäler für die Kollaborateure.
Die Leader-Revisionisten möchten den 23. August zum Gedächtnistag an alle Opfer von totalitären Regimen erklären. Europa kann nicht wirklich eins werden, behaupten sie, wenn sie nicht sowohl Verbrechen des nazistischen als auch kommunistischen Regimen anerkennen wird. Falls die Revisionisten ihr Ziel erreichen, kann man den Tag des Gedenkens an die Holocaustsopfer einfach abschaffen. Wozu braucht man einen Extra-Tag des Gedenkens an die Opfer des Holocausts, wenn es ein vereintes Tag des Gedenkens an die Opfer des Totalitarismus geben wird, der die Täter mit den Opfern gleichsetzt?
Die Revision der Geschichte in Estland wurde zum Alltag. Nach internationalen Druck wurde der 27. Januar zum Gedenktag an die Opfer des Holocausts erklärt, doch eine Meinungsumfrage hat gezeigt, dass 93% der Esten diesem Beschluss negativ gegenüber stehen.
Posts mit dem Label Zuroff werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label Zuroff werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Montag, Juli 26, 2010
Dienstag, April 06, 2010
The threat of Baltic ultra-nationalism
The EU is wrong to ignore the resurgence of neofascism in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – it threatens European democracy
Efraim Zuroff - Guardian
No one can accuse the British press of ignoring the recent march in Riga of approximately 1,000 Latvian Waffen-SS veterans and their supporters. There were detailed news reports on all the aspects of the march, as well as regarding the counter-demonstration mounted by some 150 mostly ethnic Russian anti-fascists, in the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and the Times, all of which had journalists on the ground to report firsthand from the scene. This is ostensibly hardly surprising, given the fact that Latvia is a member of both the European Union and Nato. One would assume that an attempt to honour troops who fought alongside the Nazis would attract media attention, certainly in the capitals of those countries that made such great sacrifices to save the world from Hitler and Nazism.
Yet with the exception of Russia, the extensive coverage of the march in the British media was unique, not only in the European Union but also in the rest of the world, most surprisingly in the United States and Canada, where the event was virtually ignored. But even in the UK, the solid coverage of the march did not stem from a highly justified concern regarding the resurgence of neofascism in an EU member country, but for internal political reasons related to the upcoming general election. In fact, I believe that it is fair to say that if not for the fact that the Conservative party had created an alliance in the European parliament with several rightwing east European parties, among them Latvian Fatherland and Freedom party, which staunchly supports the march, the British media would no doubt would have ignored the march in Riga as well.
The best proof of this is their silence regarding a similar march conducted less than a week before in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius. The march in Lithuania, which also attracted about 1,000 participants, was organised to mark an anniversary of Lithuanian independence, but the message conveyed by both events was chillingly similar. If in Riga demonstrators carried signs with slogans such as "Jews, this Land is for Latvians", in Vilnius the main chant was "Lithuania for Lithuanians". Bearing flags with various neofascist symbols, the marchers in the Lithuanian capital sent a message of hostility to all minorities. In fact, on the same occasion two years earlier, the message was more explicit and included the famous Nazi slogan of "Juden raus" [Jews out] and specific advice to members of the Russian minority to seek residence elsewhere. In both cases, the number of participants is on the rise.
And while neither march was officially organised by the local government, the refusal of local political leaders o condemn them should concern the rest of the EU and Nato. The Lithuanian prime minister Andrius Kubilius said that the event was irrelevant and that his country was "truly a sufficiently tolerant state", like "Norway and Denmark". Quite a flippant remark, considering that it was Kazimieras Uoka, an MP from his own Conservative party, who took out the license for the demonstration. The Latvian foreign minister Maris Reikstins responded to critics of the Latvian Legion march by asserting that the event, which took place in the centre of the city and at its most sacred site (the Freedom Monument), was "private" and by condemning those who believe that any distinction should be made between the innocent victims of the Nazis and their local collaborators and those who died fighting for a victory of the Third Reich.
In this context, it was particularly shocking to read the remarks made by the new US ambassador to Lithuania, Anne E Derse, who in a speech last week at Vilnius University made no mention of the march but asserted that "The United States and Lithuania are partners in the fight against antisemitism and in efforts to address the legacy of the Holocaust." If Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, had been making serious progress in educating its people about the horrible crimes committed by local Nazi collaborators during the Holocaust and had made an honest effort to bring unprosecuted local killers to justice, then perhaps we could ignore the marches. But not a single Lithuanian, Latvian, or Estonian Nazi war criminal has been punished by a Baltic court since independence. Instead, Jewish anti-Nazi Soviet partisans in Lithuania have been singled out for legal harassment, and these countries are leading the campaign to equate communism with Nazism.
Regardless of whether the Tories add the Lithuanian Conservative party to their alliance in the European parliament, I think the time has come in the UK to stop treating the resurgence of neofascism in the Baltics as an election issue, and elsewhere in the EU to start treating it as a threat to the integrity of European democracy.
Efraim Zuroff - Guardian
No one can accuse the British press of ignoring the recent march in Riga of approximately 1,000 Latvian Waffen-SS veterans and their supporters. There were detailed news reports on all the aspects of the march, as well as regarding the counter-demonstration mounted by some 150 mostly ethnic Russian anti-fascists, in the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and the Times, all of which had journalists on the ground to report firsthand from the scene. This is ostensibly hardly surprising, given the fact that Latvia is a member of both the European Union and Nato. One would assume that an attempt to honour troops who fought alongside the Nazis would attract media attention, certainly in the capitals of those countries that made such great sacrifices to save the world from Hitler and Nazism.
Yet with the exception of Russia, the extensive coverage of the march in the British media was unique, not only in the European Union but also in the rest of the world, most surprisingly in the United States and Canada, where the event was virtually ignored. But even in the UK, the solid coverage of the march did not stem from a highly justified concern regarding the resurgence of neofascism in an EU member country, but for internal political reasons related to the upcoming general election. In fact, I believe that it is fair to say that if not for the fact that the Conservative party had created an alliance in the European parliament with several rightwing east European parties, among them Latvian Fatherland and Freedom party, which staunchly supports the march, the British media would no doubt would have ignored the march in Riga as well.
The best proof of this is their silence regarding a similar march conducted less than a week before in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius. The march in Lithuania, which also attracted about 1,000 participants, was organised to mark an anniversary of Lithuanian independence, but the message conveyed by both events was chillingly similar. If in Riga demonstrators carried signs with slogans such as "Jews, this Land is for Latvians", in Vilnius the main chant was "Lithuania for Lithuanians". Bearing flags with various neofascist symbols, the marchers in the Lithuanian capital sent a message of hostility to all minorities. In fact, on the same occasion two years earlier, the message was more explicit and included the famous Nazi slogan of "Juden raus" [Jews out] and specific advice to members of the Russian minority to seek residence elsewhere. In both cases, the number of participants is on the rise.
And while neither march was officially organised by the local government, the refusal of local political leaders o condemn them should concern the rest of the EU and Nato. The Lithuanian prime minister Andrius Kubilius said that the event was irrelevant and that his country was "truly a sufficiently tolerant state", like "Norway and Denmark". Quite a flippant remark, considering that it was Kazimieras Uoka, an MP from his own Conservative party, who took out the license for the demonstration. The Latvian foreign minister Maris Reikstins responded to critics of the Latvian Legion march by asserting that the event, which took place in the centre of the city and at its most sacred site (the Freedom Monument), was "private" and by condemning those who believe that any distinction should be made between the innocent victims of the Nazis and their local collaborators and those who died fighting for a victory of the Third Reich.
In this context, it was particularly shocking to read the remarks made by the new US ambassador to Lithuania, Anne E Derse, who in a speech last week at Vilnius University made no mention of the march but asserted that "The United States and Lithuania are partners in the fight against antisemitism and in efforts to address the legacy of the Holocaust." If Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, had been making serious progress in educating its people about the horrible crimes committed by local Nazi collaborators during the Holocaust and had made an honest effort to bring unprosecuted local killers to justice, then perhaps we could ignore the marches. But not a single Lithuanian, Latvian, or Estonian Nazi war criminal has been punished by a Baltic court since independence. Instead, Jewish anti-Nazi Soviet partisans in Lithuania have been singled out for legal harassment, and these countries are leading the campaign to equate communism with Nazism.
Regardless of whether the Tories add the Lithuanian Conservative party to their alliance in the European parliament, I think the time has come in the UK to stop treating the resurgence of neofascism in the Baltics as an election issue, and elsewhere in the EU to start treating it as a threat to the integrity of European democracy.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
