That's on BBC. That's how they see it. There are many things I won't dispute with, yet there are some details that surprise me.
I hold an opinion that the Museum of Genocide Victims must be renamed the Museum of Victims of the Soviet Occupation. Yet I'm sure the current name, however unwise, was not chosen in order to obfuscate the Holocaust. I'm embarrassed at the fact that "double genocide" pseudo-theory is still alive in some minds. Yet I completely disagree that the Prague Declaration may be designed in order to trivialize Holocaust memory. (Or that it may be equating Communism and Nazism - this opinion was not expressed this time. It is just about how both were evil, in their unique ways, yet both left their marks in some parts of Europe. What's more, the impact of one can hardly be discussed without understanding the impact of another, just because the regimes replaced one another in a short period of time in the same territory). I see how war crimes investigation can be controversial, if we talk about anti-Nazi partisan conflict with the local population (which took place at Kaniūkai). But the case is not about the ethnicity of the people involved.
I can see there is some anti-Semitism here still, and I'm really unhappy because of this. Yet I cannot agree all the examples given were completely relevant to the topic.