Four years after the release of my documentary Baltic Truth—a film I made alone, practically without the backing of any major Jewish organization, on a budget I scraped together myself—the evidence keeps confirming the thesis. Lithuania’s latest exhibit of institutional contradiction comes from a regional museum website.

The Kėdainių krašto muziejus, a Lithuanian state-funded museum, publishes on its official website a detailed account of Lithuanian participation in the murder of 2,076 Jews in Kėdainiai on August 28, 1941. The text, authored by Dr. Arūnas Bubnys—former head of the LGGRTC’s Genocide Research Department and subsequently LGGRTC director—names Lithuanian perpetrators by name, rank, and institutional role. It documents the chain of command from the Lithuanian Provisional Government to the local police unit. It records the ghetto, the expropriation, the coordination meeting held the night before, and the massacre itself: 710 men, 767 women, 599 children shot at the Smilga River. It records that afterward, the perpetrators gathered at a local resident’s home and celebrated.

This text is published on Lithuanian state infrastructure, funded by Lithuanian state money, accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

Artur Fridman, a private Jewish Lithuanian citizen, posted on Facebook about the Holocaust in Lithuania. The state charged him with a criminal offense under Case No. 02-2-00512-24.

The state publishes what it prosecutes.

Fridman did not name perpetrators by name and rank. The museum did. Fridman did not cite the Jäger Report. The museum did. Fridman did not record property transferred to perpetrators after the murders. The museum did. The museum page is more detailed, more specific, and more damning than anything Fridman posted. No prosecution has been opened against the museum or against Bubnys. The only operative difference is that Fridman is a Jew, and the museum is a state institution.

In my recent series Lithuania, Poland, and Congress, I showed that Lithuania articulated a governing doctrine of public honor—when disqualifying facts emerge, the responsible authority is obliged to act—then refused to apply that doctrine to its own Holocaust-linked national canon. The Kėdainiai page extends the pattern: Lithuania has a double standard not only for commemoration but for speech itself. The museum page identifies Juozas Ambrazevičius as head of the Provisional Government during these murders—the same Ambrazevičius whose fabricated American “exoneration” was exposed by Congressman Brad Sherman in letters to Lithuania’s prime minister (2019), ambassador (2021), and ambassador again (March 2026). Lithuania never corrected the record.

Silvia Foti, Jonas Noreika’s granddaughter, spent twenty years discovering that her grandfather signed orders establishing ghettos and distributing Jewish property. Nearly seventy documents link him to the Holocaust. She published her findings in Storm in the Land of Rain: A Mother’s Dying Wish Becomes Her Daughter’s Nightmare. Lithuania’s LGGRTC dismissed her work but did not prosecute her. Foti is a Lithuanian Catholic. Fridman is a Jewish citizen. The museum publishes. Foti publishes. Bubnys publishes. No prosecution follows. Fridman posts on Facebook. The state acts. The variable is not the content. The variable is the identity of the speaker.

One Jew, and Nobody Came

I made Baltic Truth alone. One filmmaker, one production company, no institutional support. I bring this up because Artur Fridman is in a worse position than I ever was. He is not an American citizen with the protection of distance. He is a Jewish man living inside Lithuania, under the jurisdiction of a state that has aimed its criminal code at him for speaking about the murder of his own community.

He does not have AJC issuing statements on his behalf. He does not have the Conference of Presidents mobilizing diplomatic pressure. He does not have the World Jewish Congress filing briefs. He does not have the ADL running a public campaign. He has a Facebook post, a criminal file, and the knowledge that the entire institutional apparatus of organized Jewish life has left him to face Lithuania alone.

A single Jew is being criminally prosecuted by a European state with the highest Jewish murder rate on the continent—for posting about the Holocaust. The organized Jewish world, with its billions in endowments, its armies of lawyers, its conferences and galas and mission statements about “Never Again,” has done nothing.

What is the purpose of a Jewish organization if not this? If the entire infrastructure of Jewish institutional life cannot protect one Jew being victimized by the state apparatus of a perpetrator country, then that infrastructure does not exist to protect Jews. It exists to protect itself.

AJC actively advocated for Lithuania’s accession to the EU and NATO. The implicit bargain was clear: Lithuania would join the democratic West and, in exchange, confront its Holocaust history honestly. Lithuania got EU membership, NATO membership, diplomatic legitimacy, and the security umbrella. Then Lithuania fabricated an American “exoneration” of Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis and maintained it after Congressional exposure. It reburied Ramanauskas-Vanagas with full state honors while the LGGRTC’s own files documented his Soviet recruitment. It dismissed approximately thirty Holocaust-related legal actions on procedural grounds. It declared Noreika a rescuer of Jews while holding his signed ghetto orders. And it prosecuted Fridman.

AJC helped Lithuania through the door. AJC vouched. Where is AJC now?

AJC’s silence provides cover. Every conference AJC attends with Lithuanian officials without raising the Fridman prosecution normalizes the prosecution. Every diplomatic engagement in which AJC treats Lithuania as a partner in good standing communicates that there will be no institutional Jewish consequence. Lithuania listens—not to what Jewish organizations say in private, but to what they tolerate in public.

Whose interests is AJC serving—Lithuania’s or the Jewish people’s? Right now, from where I stand, it is impossible to tell the difference.

Membership That Should Be Withdrawn

AJC’s failure is institutional. But the failure extends beyond Jewish organizations. Lithuania’s NATO and EU membership was granted on the understanding that it would meet democratic commitments: protection of fundamental rights, the rule of law, honest engagement with historical responsibility. As Dillon Hosier has documented extensively, Lithuania has not met those commitments.

A state that fabricates historical exonerations using allied government documents has not met its commitments. A state that prosecutes a Jewish citizen for historical speech while publishing the same content through its own museums has not met its commitments. A state whose own Seimas-created expert council describes its central historical institution as “de facto a bureaucratic institution”—as reported by LRT in March 2026—has not met its commitments.

NATO membership and EU membership are not entitlements. They are conditional on conduct. If the conditions under which Lithuania was admitted have not been met, the membership should be withdrawn until Lithuania demonstrates through action—not ceremony—that it will honor what it promised. A state that prosecutes a Jew for talking about the Holocaust does not belong in an alliance of democracies.

Four years after Baltic Truth, the same institutions manipulate history and the same revisionism remains in place. The museum page is the evidence. The prosecution is the policy. AJC’s silence is the permission. And one Jewish man in Lithuania is paying the price for all of it—alone.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)