Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Pranešimų ir straipsnių rinkinys „Steigiamajam Seimui - 90" / sud. S. Kaubrys, A. Vyšniauskas (Lietuvos valstybingumo paveldas. T. l). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2011. 251 p.
No full textLietuvos politinių ir diplomatinių santykių su Prancūzija užmezgimas (1918-1920): nepasitikėjimo mainai
Get PDFIn 1918, the Lithuanian state was re-established referring to the principle of self-determination of nations. Hence, the first Lithuanian government expected to receive the due support and recognition from the most powerful winners of World War I, including France. However, one of the most influential architects of \u27New Europe\u27, the French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, conceived this new Baltic state as a potential territory of democratic Russia, which the French allies seeked to restore, and later on of Poland. According to this politician who presided at the Paris Peace Conference, Lithuania was meant to become a federal part of one of these states. His rather skeptical attitude towards the statehood of Lithuania emanated from doubts as to whether a new state would be able to retain its political autonomy while bordering with Germany and the Soviet Russia; such opinion also resulted from aspirations to consolidate a \u27cordon sanitaire\u27 between the two potential enemies of France. Another important factor was the sense of mistrust with regard to the state that had been created on the Germany\u27s occupied territory.
Members of the Lithuanian delegation headed by the minister of foreign affairs Augustinas Voldemaras were present at the Paris Peace Conference and intermediated between their own and French governments, but could not dissipate the atmosphere of mistrust in the state being represented. Another intermediary, the French military mission headed by a lieutenant-colonel Constantin Reboul, was the first unit representing the Entente in Lithuania. C. Reboul\u27s proposals to enter into commercial relations and send some of the military training instructors as well as munition to the Lithuanian armed forces did not receive the expected support in France. The advantages offered under the strengthened French cultural influence, i.e. training instructors at military school, charity of vaccination against zymotic diseases and some favourable political proposals, were all outweighed by the sense of mistrust expressed by the Lithuanian government with regard to the mission which initially had been made welcome. Such an obvious lack of confidence resulted from C. Reboul\u27s tireless efforts to bring Lithuania and Poland together, with the aim at forming a common federal state. The mission encouraged the French government to concede the Klaipėda Region (Memel Territory) to Lithuania. However, it was France that from 20 January 1920 became in charge of the Region as the administering state. The emerged obstacle in the way of annexing the seaboard areas with the Port of Klaipėda resulted in the Lithuanian government\u27s dissatisfaction, which in turn raised new difficulties for a benevolent cooperation with both the French government and its respective mission. The Lithuanian government deliberately put economic and political pressure on the Klaipėda Region administration governed by the General Dominique Joseph Odry, with the purpose to take control over the Region as a matter of urgency.
The unfavourable attitude of the Lithuanian government and the public towards the French policy was anchored by the demarcation line which was defined at the time when Poland laid its claims to the southern and eastern territories of Lithuania. The second demarcation line, determined by the Marshal Ferdinand Foch, was met in an especially adverse manner. The demarcation lines, which were supposed to divide the territories of the states temporarily at war, eventually led to the long-lasting issue of Vilnius Region. The French government provided the necessary financial aid and trainings, thus strengthening the Polish Army, but did not preclude its ally from advancing on the Lithuanian territory. Therefore, the Lithuanians considered the French government as a culprit of the Polish military aggression. The public discontent reached its apogee on 17 August 1919 when demonstrations and meetings were held against the French policy.
The Cabinet of Alexandre Millerand, in function from 20 January 1920, was less tolerant towards the Polish political pressure on Lithuania. His political decisions were an ice-breaking point of the bilateral relations, though short in duration and fragile. On May 11, the French government de facto recognized the Lithuanian government. Such diplomatic gesture was met rather unresponsively, being cast into shadow by other political events. After the areas of interest in Europe had been divided among the great powers, Great Britain became prevalent in the Baltic states. Improvement of the relations was then interrupted by the coup of Lucjan Żeligowski in October 1920. The French military mission provided support to the participants of the coup, since Georges Leygues\u27 government was in favour of Poland, but such an attitude provoked a new major wave of mistrust with regard to France. In summer 1920, Lithuania was no longer conceived by the French politicians as the land of nowhere, quoting Alfred Jarry\u27s "Ubu Roi", although only a few among them could have been truly in sympathy with this new state
Lietuvos istorikų darbotvarkę atnaujinantis tyrimas (apie Nerijaus Babinsko daktaro disertaciją Moldova XIV a. viduryje - XVI a. viduryje kaip socialinės struktūros tipologijos problema ir jos gynimą)
Get PDF
Lietuvos politinių partijų užsienio politikos nuostatos 1918-1919 metais: orientacija į Didžiąją Britaniją
Get PDF
Buvusios Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės lenkų tautiniai demokratai ir lietuvių tautinis atgimimas XX amžiaus pradžioje
Get PDFThe fundamentals of the Lithuanian national revival date back to the eighties of the 19th century when in the environment of Lithuanian intellectuals a conception of publishing a newspaper in the Lithuanian language and printed in the Latin alphabet arose. Among the many persons involved in the implementation of this project, doctor Jonas Basanavičius played an outstanding role; he did not put up with failures in obtaining the publishing concession for the territory of the Russian Empire and decided to do it in Prussian Lithuania - in Ragainė and consequently to smuggle the copies of the newspaper across the border to the area of Great Lithuania. "Aušra" - "Jutrzenka" was supposed to become the "daybreak of the national revival of Lithuania". National democrats in Vilnius treated the Lithuanian national movement rather in transitional categories, as a long-term action or aspirations of getting wide autonomy in the future. Lithuania, in the territorial-historical aspect, was treated as a body formed by all nationalities inhabiting this area, favouring simultaneously the equality of rights of them all. They were critical only about the actions of Lithuanian activists - "litwomans"
Sovietų politinio elito nacių antisemitinės propagandos laikinai okupuotose SSRS teritorijose traktuotė: doktrinos diktatas ir pragmatiški poreikiai
No full text-Straipsnis skirtas analizuoti, kaip sovietų politinis elitas interpretavo vidaus ir užsienio komunikacijos kanalais gaunamus pranešimus apie nacių antisemitinę propagandą Rytuose.Straipsnio objektas yra nacių propaganda laikinai okupuotose SSRS teritorijose, tema - sovietų politinio elito nacių propagandos traktuotė.Autorė kartais sąmoningai išeina už temos chronologinių ribų.Straipsnyje autorė pateikia plačią nacių propagandos okupuotose SSRS teritorijose istoriografinę apžvalgą, daug dėmesio skirdama vadinamajam trečiajam laikotarpiui (nuo XX a. paskutinio dešimtmečio iki mūsų laikų), analizuoja svarbiausias tyrimo kryptis, detaliau aptardama iki šiol mažiau tyrinėtus klausimus, kritikuoja kai kuriuos amerikiečių autorius, kurie griežtai neigiamai vertina nacių propagandos efektyvumą tiek okupuotose teritorijose, tiek JAV.Polemizuodama su Danieliu Lerneriu, autorė remiasi 1939 m. JAV vykusios apklausos duomenimis.Apklausos tikslas - gauti atsakymą į klausimą, ar su žydais reikia elgtis kaip ir su kitais amerikiečiais. Tik 39 % amerikiečių atsakė, kad su žydais reikia elgtis kaip ir su likusiais; apie 10 % - kad žydus reikia deportuoti iš JAV; 54 % - kad žydai gali likti JAV tik tuo atveju, jeigu įstatymas juos atskirs nuo kitų krašto gyventojų. Taigi 1939 m. absoliučios daugumos amerikiečių pažiūros buvo antisemitinės. Antisemitizmas JAV stiprėjo ir po Antrojo pasaulinio karo. Tai liudija pateikiamas Tomo Mano ir Alberto Einšteino susirašinėjimas.Nacių antisemitinės propagandos laikinai okupuotose SSRS teritorijose sovietų politinio elito traktuotė transliacijose šalies viduje ir užsieniui siekė skirtingų tikslų. Šalies viduje režimas laikėsi savos doktrinos. Faktiškai realūs įvykiai buvo pajungiami „sovietinio patriotizmo" ideologemos reikalavimams. Tai atliko teigiamą vaidmenį, karo metais mobilizuojant sovietinę visuomenę.Užsienio politikoje Stalino režimas nacių antisemitinę propagandą laikinai okupuotose sovietų teritorijose panaudojo žydų gyventojų aukų temai traktuoti. Čia režimas pirmiausia vadovavosi pragmatiniais sumetimais ir stengėsi gauti pasaulio žydų bendruomenių materialinę bei moralinę paramą, siekė remtis jų lobistinėmis galimybėmis paveikti JAV ir Didžiosios Britanijos vyriausybes, kad būtų atidarytas Antrasis frontas. Galop tikslas buvo sėkmingai pasiektas
Kaip šiandien lietuviškoje istoriografijoje keičiasi žvilgsnis į Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos epochą?
Get PDFThe aim of the article is to evaluate the methodological and ideological developments in the historiography of the epoch of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the comparative perspective of the last century. Methodologically, "the Golden Age" is exactly recorded at present in the Lithuanian historiography of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After reestablishing independence in 1990, Lithuanian historians refused the heritage of Soviet historiography, started integrating the Western theoretical discourse and have created a unique model of the development of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the European civilization, proposed by Edvardas Gudavičius. The receptions and transformations of this paradigmic model have been continuing until now in the transition from the political history to the history of society and everyday life, from an ethnolinguistically monoperspective to the liberal multicultural great narrative. Ideologically, the developments in the Lithuanian historiography of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are analyzed on the basis of nowadays\u27 comparative studies of nationalism. This allowed to uncover the ethnocultural positions of interwar Lithuanian historians, the intuitionalism of the Soviet times and the constructivism of today, which implicate the cognitive step from "the plough of the nation" to the "Lithuanian europeism" in the Lithuanian collective consciousness