Unpacking Lavrov's Hitler Controversy: Separating Fact from Fabrication
Expectably, the panel refused to engage with Lavrov's unsubstantiated assertions, delegating the duty to other journalists, international politicians, and the public at large.
Reactions, as could be anticipated, were predictable. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba expressed his displeasure on Twitter, stating that "today, Russia is filled with hatred towards other nations." US State Department spokesperson Ned Price denounced Lavrov's "underhanded behavior." German government spokesperson Steffen Hebenstreit deemed the propaganda unworthy of further commentary.
Israel, however, presented an exception. Lavrov's audacious audacity sparked immediate alarm and prompted the nation's leadership to abandon diplomatic nuance. Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid denounced the remarks as both historically false and antisemitic. In a scathing retort, Lapid questioned the logic behind attributing blame for anti-Semitism to the victims themselves, stating, "it is the lowest form of racism to blame Jews for anti-Semitism."
Since then, Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly expressed regret for Lavrov's remarks.
Lavrov's remarks evoke three key issues: his take on Ukraine, his portrayal of Hitler, and his conception of Jewish (or any other) identity.
Anti-Semitism in modern Ukraine has a complex history. Following World War I, widespread anti-Semitic violence erupted, resulting in the deaths of thousands. The catalyst was not solely Ukrainian, as Polish and White Russian troops also contributed to the carnage.
Two decades later, the Holocaust once again reared its head. The period witnessed Ukraine's nationalists collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes serving as auxiliary police forces and other times functioning as concentration camp guards. Despite this, on the cusp of the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary elections, a coalition of far-right parties garnered only 2.1% of the vote, a comparatively meager showing in the context of other European racist movements.
Lavrov's presentation of Ukraine shares a problematic history in collective Russian memory. While the rhetorical device of "denazification" functions as a convenient cover for "deukrainization," the notion of historical legitimacy appears to be lacking for Lavrov and Putin.
As for Hitler, it is a widely established fact that he was not Jewish. The origins of such false claims stem from the speculation of his mysterious grandfather's potentially Jewish heritage and the desire to eschew responsibility for Hitler's anti-Semitic policies by ascribing them to self-loathing.
The so-called story, which some continue to advance without evidence, suggests that Maria Schicklgruber (Adolf's grandmother) was employed as a cook by the Frankenbergs in Graz, where she was allegedly impregnated by a family member, possibly her 19-year-old son. However, the veracity of this tale is disputable as it lacks any substantiation.
In actuality, Jews were expelled from Graz in the 15th century, paving the way for their eventual return only a few centuries later. The legends that have emerged from this account ought to be treated with caution.
Adolf Hitler's remembrance continues to inspire much debate. Among the more intriguing aspects of Lavrov's controversy lies his oblique references to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Jewish President of Ukraine. While Lavrov is factually correct in his statement that Zelenskyy's Jewish heritage has no bearing on Ukrainian opinions, his insinuations of Zelenskyy as a proxy for Jewish influence are both illogical and problematic.
To highlight another notable example, Bruno Kreisky, the Jewish Austrian chancellor from 1970 to 1983, faced rampant anti-Semitism during his tenure. Kreisky's Jewish heritage did not dictate his political leanings, nor was it a predictor of political preferences among his constituents.
Lavrov seems to be categorically wrong when positing that many anti-Semites are themselves Jewish, as this assertion contradicts his very own principles. It follows that Zelensky's Jewish lineage does not inform Ukrainian politics in any significant way, nor is it indicative of anti-Semitism among the Ukrainian populace. It remains unclear whom Lavrov was referencing when citing "Jewish anti-Semites," other than the enigmatic case of Hitler.
Lavrov's remarks have, in a sense, reclaimed a familiar and time-honored tool from the arsenal of anti-Semites. Historically, accusations of Judaism were used by antagonists as a means of justifying persecution and outrage against Jews. Lavrov may have been aware of the historical precedent of such a tactic or perhaps even were conscious of the inconsistency in his argument. Ultimately, contemporary propaganda from Moscow continues to thrive on misinformation and distortion.
Despite Lavrov's attempts to deflect criticism, his remarks about Hitler and the Holocaust have sparked widespread controversy and condemnation. The Russian Foreign Minister's employment of nefarious techniques to undermine historical evidence and perpetuate antisemitism has been roundly criticized by public figures and the academic community alike.
