Vincentas Brizgys- a war criminal or not?

[Ryan81]

I've always been curious as to the question where one draws a line between someone who is a war criminal and someone who isn't.

The case of Vincentas Brizgys, Bishop of Kovno (Kaunas) in Lithuania during WW2 is a good example. I haven't read anything about him personally killing anyone or inciting people to violence but he called on all Lithuanians to refrain from helping the Jewish population.

Now, Christian morality is sacred to most practicing Christians (and non-practicing, too) As a high ranking religious figure, Brizgys should have been the first person to speak out against the murder of Jews in Lithuania yet he did the exact opposite: encouraged people NOT to help their fellow human-beings.

Now, strictly speaking, he wasn't inciting violence but he was neither encouraging resistance to Nazi occupation, a regime which was totally antithetical to the nature of Roman Catholicism and Christianity in general.
Now, he may well have been trying to save his own fellow Lithuanian Catholics at the expense of Lithuanian Jews by not making the Nazis mad and leading to reprisals but in the eyes of God, ALL people are equal and so really he was doing something which went against Christian doctrine.

In everyone else's opinion, does that make him a war criminal or simply someone who was a coward who couldn't bring himself to preach the Word of God?

[Cavalier]

I wouldn't regard this Lithuanian prelate as a war criminal, Ryan, because of his calls, presumably to Lithuanian Catholics, to refrain from aiding the Jews in Lithuania. It was a time of great upheaval, an enormously bloody and savage war conducted on a massive scale was being fought out in the western USSR, in and around the Baltic States, and he was quite possibly thinking of the safety of his flock when he made such calls. No-one could tell from one day to the next what was going to happen with any real degree of certainty and the danger from the most inhuman brutality of both the occupying Stalinist and Nazi police-state apparatuses and armies was acute, constant, and pervasive. Indeed, such times and events are quite honestly beyond the ken of us who have grown up in times and in countries which have only known peace, security, freedom, and plenty, and it would be near to impossible to make any kind of moral judgment on the bishop and his actions without having experienced such times and circumstances first hand. I sure as hell would not know how I would've behaved had I been in his position. Perhaps he could be accused of cowardice, but it would a very very hard call to make some 62 years after the end of the war by those of us who weren't there and have never experienced anything even fractionally or remotely similar. The man was probably caught in the most hideous and frightful dilemma and did what he thought best, and that is about all one can say.

[LWD]

I suspect it would be very difficult to win a conviction for war crimes in this case as he was urging inaction and had no authority over those whom he was addressing. Now if he actually helped the Nazis in some way the whole matter changes.

Based on the data provided it's not clear that he was a coward by the way. He may have been something worse but that would require more research to sustain.

[Ryan81]

I wouldn't regard this Lithuanian prelate as a war criminal, Ryan, because of his calls, presumably to Lithuanian Catholics, to refrain from aiding the Jews in Lithuania. It was a time of great upheaval, an enormously bloody and savage war conducted on a massive scale was being fought out in the western USSR, in and around the Baltic States, and he was quite possibly thinking of the safety of his flock when he made such calls. No-one could tell from one day to the next what was going to happen with any real degree of certainty and the danger from the most inhuman brutality of both the occupying Stalinist and Nazi police-state apparatuses and armies was acute, constant, and pervasive. Indeed, such times and events are quite honestly beyond the ken of us who have grown up in times and in countries which have only known peace, security, freedom, and plenty, and it would be near to impossible to make any kind of moral judgment on the bishop and his actions without having experienced such times and circumstances first hand. I sure as hell would not know how I would've behaved had I been in his position. Perhaps he could be accused of cowardice, but it would a very very hard call to make some 62 years after the end of the war by those of us who weren't there and have never experienced anything even fractionally or remotely similar. The man was probably caught in the most hideous and frightful dilemma and did what he thought best, and that is about all one can say.

I can certainly appreciate what you are saying, Cavalier. But there were both Protestant and Catholic religious figures who, even if they didn't physically oppose Nazism, did so in their sermons, letters to politicians, etc.
For example, Bernard Lichtenberg, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Alojzije Stepinac, etc.

Now, one can say that Brizgys' faith wasn't as strong as the above three's. But I do tend to agree that he can't really be labelled a war criminal because he never joined in the murder and didn't incite people to violence, unlike the Franciscan priest Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic of Jasenovac.

[Lit.]

Now, Christian morality is sacred to most practicing Christians (and non-practicing, too) As a high ranking religious figure, Brizgys should have been the first person to speak out against the murder of Jews in Lithuania yet he did the exact opposite: encouraged people NOT to help their fellow human-beings.

Could you please give us a reliable source to prove such a dreadful accusation.

Because we - Lithuanians know the opposite:

Ir naujų okupantų vokiečių atžvilgiu arkivyskupas laikėsi oriai. Jam vadovaujant ne tik buvo ginamos Bažnyčios teisės, bet ir visokeriopai remiami okupacinės valdžios terorizuojami žydai. Jau pirmosiomis okupacijos dienomis jis su vysk. V. Brizgiu pasirašė raštą Kauno karo komendantui, protestuodamas dėl okupantų savivalės pilnateisių Lietuvos piliečių žydų atžvilgiu (5).

Translation from Lithuanian:

"In the view of the new occupiers the Germans, the Archbishop (Juozapas Skvireckas) took a dignified stance. Under his leadership, not only were the rights of the Catholic Church defended, but in every way possible the Jews who were being terrorized by the German occupying government. In the very first days of the German Occupation he (Archbishop Juozapas Skvireckas) together with Bishop Vincentas Brizgys have signed an appeal to the war Commandant of Kaunas, protesting occupants' treatment towards rightful citizens of Lithuania - Jewish people. (5)

(5) Brizgys V. Katalikų Bažnyčia Lietuvoje 1941 - 1944 m. (The Catholic Church in Lithuania 1941-44") - Chicago, 1993. - P. 123.

(source: article "Arkivyskupas Juozas Skvireckas" by Arūnas Streikus, "Kauno Arkivyskupijos Naujienos", No. 3, winter of 1999)

http://www.lcn.lt/kaunas/kan/kan_3.html

[Penn44]

I've always been curious as to the question where one draws a line between someone who is a war criminal and someone who isn't.

Your question is very easy to answer and put to rest. Did the person in question violate any of the laws of war? If he did not, he is not a "war criminal."

The case of Vincentas Brizgys, Bishop of Kovno (Kaunas) in Lithuania during WW2 is a good example. I haven't read anything about him personally killing anyone or inciting people to violence but he called on all Lithuanians to refrain from helping the Jewish population.

Even if true, which Lit. asserts is not, the bishop still did not violate any of the laws of war, therefore, he is not a "war criminal."

In everyone else's opinion, does that make him a war criminal or simply someone who was a coward who couldn't bring himself to preach the Word of God?

1) He is not a war criminal (see above),
2) Whether he is a "coward" depends on the context of his situation and your view of morality and Christianity. You have not provided much in the way of the situational context in which the bishop had to work. Although not knowing the specifics of the bishop's situation, I can say that the Germans were known for shooting people who assisted Jews, and that perhaps discretion is often the better part of valour in certain circumstances.

Penn44

.

[Ryan81]

Now, Christian morality is sacred to most practicing Christians (and non-practicing, too) As a high ranking religious figure, Brizgys should have been the first person to speak out against the murder of Jews in Lithuania yet he did the exact opposite: encouraged people NOT to help their fellow human-beings.

Could you please give us a reliable source to prove such a dreadful accusation.

Because we - Lithuanians know the opposite:

Ir naujų okupantų vokiečių atžvilgiu arkivyskupas laikėsi oriai. Jam vadovaujant ne tik buvo ginamos Bažnyčios teisės, bet ir visokeriopai remiami okupacinės valdžios terorizuojami žydai. Jau pirmosiomis okupacijos dienomis jis su vysk. V. Brizgiu pasirašė raštą Kauno karo komendantui, protestuodamas dėl okupantų savivalės pilnateisių Lietuvos piliečių žydų atžvilgiu (5).

Translation from Lithuanian:

"In the view of the new occupiers the Germans, the Archbishop (Juozapas Skvireckas) took a dignified stance. Under his leadership, not only were the rights of the Catholic Church defended, but in every way possible the Jews who were being terrorized by the German occupying government. In the very first days of the German Occupation he (Archbishop Juozapas Skvireckas) together with Bishop Vincentas Brizgys have signed an appeal to the war Commandant of Kaunas, protesting occupants' treatment towards rightful citizens of Lithuania - Jewish people. (5)

(5) Brizgys V. Katalikų Bažnyčia Lietuvoje 1941 - 1944 m. (The Catholic Church in Lithuania 1941-44") - Chicago, 1993. - P. 123.

(source: article "Arkivyskupas Juozas Skvireckas" by Arūnas Streikus, "Kauno Arkivyskupijos Naujienos", No. 3, winter of 1999)

http://www.lcn.lt/kaunas/kan/kan_3.html

Certainly.

RSHA IV-A-1, Operational Report USSR No. 54 (48 copies), August 16, 1941, NO-2849 cited in Hilberg, Raul "The Destruction of the European Jews" 3rd Ed. p. 316

Unfortunately, the sources you quoted don't seem to conform with the historical record. My source is a primary source (from the Nazis themselves), whereas the two you quoted were written over 50 years later.

[Lit.]

Certainly.

RSHA IV-A-1, Operational Report USSR No. 54 (48 copies), August 16, 1941, NO-2849 cited in Hilberg, Raul "The Destruction of the European Jews" 3rd Ed. p. 316

Unfortunately, the sources you quoted don't seem to conform with the historical record. My source is a primary source (from the Nazis themselves), whereas the two you quoted were written over 50 years later.

Thank you Sir. Would you also be so kind to give me a link where I could possibly read this quotation about Vincentas Brizgys (mentioning German document) or just simply copy-paste it here. Thank you in advance.

[David Thompson]

Lit. asked:

Thank you Sir. Would you also be so kind to give me a link where I could possibly read this quotation about Vincentas Brizgys (mentioning German document) or just simply copy-paste it here. Thank you in advance.

From an earlier thread, at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 081#451081 :

The Chief of the Security Police and the SD
Berlin, August 16, 1941
48 copies
(36th copy)

Operational Situation Report USSR No. 54

Einsatzgruppe A
Location: Riga

EK 3
Kaunas

Organization of the Catholic Church in Lithuania

The attitude of the Church regarding the Jewish question is, in general, clear. In addition, Bishop Brisgys has forbidden all clergy-men to help Jews in any form whatsoever. He rejected several Jewish delegations who approached him personally and asked for his intervention with the German authorities. In the future he will not meet with any Jews at all. Conversion of Jews to the Catholic faith did not take place so far. The Church would also object to this type of conversion. It is convinced that the Jews would not come [to be converted] out of conviction but because of the possible advantages connected with it.

Executive Activity

Special actions (Sonderaktionen) were carried out as follows: July 22, 1941: Pagirai: 1 Jew liquidated

July 23, 1941: Kedainiai: 125 persons (83 Communist Jews, 12 Communist Jewesses, 14 Russian and 15 Lithuanian Communist officials, 1 Politruk liquidated)

July 25, 1941: Mariampol: 103 Jews (90 men, 13 women) liquidated July 28, 1941: Panevezys: 288 persons (234 Jews, 15 Jewesses, 19 Russian and 20 Lithuanian Communist officials)

July 29, 1941: Raseiniai: 257 persons (254 Jews, 3 Lithuanian Communist officials) liquidated

July 30, 1941: Agriogola: 30 persons (27 Jews and 11 Lithuanian Communist officials) liquidated

July 30, 1941: Wendziegola surroundings: 15 persons (Jews and 2 murderers)

July 31, 1941: Utena: 256 persons (235 Jews, 16 Jewesses, 2 Lithuanian Communist officials, 1 double robber and murderer)

August 1, 1941: Ukmerge: 300 persons (254 Jews, 42 Jewesses, 2 Lithuanian Communist officials, 1 former mayor of Janova who had set fire to the town, 1 Political Commissar)

August 2, 1941: Kaunas: 209 persons (171 Jews, 74 Jewesses, 4 Lithuanian Communist officials, among them one Jewish couple)

Between July 22 and August 3 the Kommando has liquidated 1592 persons.

The auxiliary police service companies were taken over by the regular police. They were given green armbands marked "Schutzmannschaften."
Again, vast political material was captured in Kaunas. Besides, political material was secured in offices and flats.

The ghettoization of the Jews in Kaunas, numbering about 25,000, is in full swing. Altogether, about 10,000 Jews have been resettled. The registration office (of the Lithuanian Sipo) has completed, under German supervision, a card index containing data on all Jews in Kaunas. The Jewish committee will also report soon on the financial situation and the professional use of the individual Jews.

[Ryan81]

Thank you, David.

Lit., I have read that Brizgys did sympathize with the plight of the Jewish population but did not show it openly, I assume because he thought the Lithuanians would face reprisals from the Nazis by harbouring the Jews.

For me, he is a lot like Bishop (later Cardinal) Alojzije Stepinac of Croatia. On the one hand, he clearly did not show his opposition to the Ustashas openly (he even showed his support in the beginning) but he did apparently save some Jews. His attitude towards the Serbian population seemed to be a lot more questionable, though, since he regularly referred to them as 'schismatics'