Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Lietuvos politinių partijų požiūris į Lenkiją 1920-1926 metais: nuo modus vivendi paieškų iki nuolatinės konfrontacijos
No full textIn the end of the First World War, Lithuanian (having just regained independence) international position was badly complicated by a terror conflict with Poland with respect to Vilnius that took place in 1919. However, despite the hostility to Poland entrenched in society, the leaders of political parties who envisioned the greatest danger to the state\u27s independence from Soviet Russia and Germany actively sought pacific means of resuming the historical capital of the state and for ways of friendly affiliation of interstate relations.
Modus vivendi appropriate for Poland and Lithuania was sought with the mediation of the League of Nations and great Western states in 1921 by the leaders of governing Christian Democrats and Union of Peasants parties. They were in favour of the second variant of Hymans\u27 project but only agreed to accept it on condition that the League of Nations would take into account the contra-suggestions of the Lithuanian Government which reduced Poland\u27s influence in domestic life. Having approved the project, there were hopes not only to regain the capital, to start economic relations useful for both countries, but also to receive support from great Western states, which was vital for Lithuania as for other Baltic states in seeking protection from the eventual threat of Soviet Russia and Germany.
The propagandistic campaign by the Lithuanian National Union and Social Democrats, which caused general tension in the country, as well as society\u27s and the military\u27s discontent with the Government and the governing political parties\u27 inability to resist the pressure, reflected a lack of civic consciousness and inner political consolidation in the state taking its first steps in democracy.
The political parties\u27 goal to use the problem of the relationship with Poland in their fight and in such a way obtain as great support from society as possible, further reduced the possibilities to solve the interstate conflict. As the Copenhagen negotiations in the autumn of 1925 illustrated, the Christian Democrats\u27 attempt to reduce the tension between the two small countries by starting economic relations of a narrow nature was met with strong hostility by the opposing Union of Peasants and National Union Parties, as well as by the majority of society supporting them. However, the attitude of the Christian Democrats that it was possible to launch economic relationships with Poland, and the Social Democrats\u27 belief that it was even crucial to do so, which were regarded as a first step in resuming Vilnius, in fact reflected that the leaders of the parties had enough rational reasoning as well as a mature attitude to international relations.
Unsuccessful attempts to regulate the conflict with Poland in a pacific way and to regain the historical capital made the leaders of the state\u27s political parties choose a state of permanent confrontation with Poland and seek support to ensure the safe existence of the state from the Soviet Union and Germany
Senosios kartos istorikų elgsenos modeliai sovietizacijos procesų akivaizdoje
Get PDFEver since Lithuania has restored its independence in 1990, wide-ranging debates have been taking place on a question of individual and societal conformance, resistance, and collaboration during the times of Soviet occupation. This article inquires into strategies and tactics of behavior that the most famous historians of independent Lithuania have chosen to pursue in the presence of existential and professional challenges made by the Soviet occupation and its totalitarian system.
The older generation of historians from independent Lithuania was deliberately isolated during the time of creating the Soviet model of history; their influence was limited as these scholars were directed to the "ideologically safe" spheres of work and were prevented from reading "complicated courses" to students. Historians with the "bourgeois past" were closely watched and some of them even came under the real threat of repressions. At the same time, authors and stewards of the Soviet model of history cynically attempted to use the authority of the historians of independent Lithuania by constantly assigning them tasks of conjuncture.
While facing existential and professional challenges, the old generation of Lithuanian historians had to choose from three, often contradictory, strategies of behavior:
First path was to separate themselves from the perversions of the Soviet reality by refusing to participate in joint projects and by assuming an apolitical attitude.
Second path was, consciously or not, to constantly seek to create controversy in the official Soviet discourse of history, while bringing upon themselves disgrace from the history stewards.
Third approach was to attempt to escape from the schemes and to correct the general constructs of Lithuanian history by influencing Soviet historiography with the usage of correct propositions and carefully chosen quotes from the Marxist-Leninist classics.
As the sovietization process was leaping forward, making a choice among resistance, conformance, and collaboration became an existential and professional challenge, which the elite of the interwar community of historians had to face every day
Lietuvos vaizd(avim)as šiuolaikiniuose Rusijos istorijos vadovėliuose
Get PDFThis article analyses Russian schoolbooks of history, which have been received from the bilateral Lithuanian-Russian Commission of Historians in 2007. The group comprises more than ten books selected by the Russian historians, all of which (except the textbook of Russian history) are used in Russian schools (mainly in secondary schools) up until these days. Not included are all subsequently published textbooks of modern Russian history, written for the 10th grade pupils, with a "blessing" of the president of the Russian Federation.
The analysis highlights the "Lithuanian" aspect, that is: how separate subjects of Lithuanian history are being delineated; in what contexts and meanings Lithuania and Lithuanians figure; what particular misapprehensions, mutilations, and mistakes are seen. The meaningful passages of Lithuanian history are discussed in factual, contextual, and evaluative aspects.
In the textbooks for 6 to 11 grades, the most attention is being paid to the early period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) (till the end of the 14th century), with special note to the process of the "unification of Russian lands." According to the typology suggested by the Russian historian Alexander Filiyushkin, the GDL is considered to be a "true Rus" and also a "victim of Lithuanians\u27 occupation." Generally, the medieval Lithuanian state is being perceived either as a "historical misunderstanding" or as "essentially Russian lands," while Lithuania in the Union with Poland, and particularly in the composition of the Russian Empire, receives only episodical mention in separate schoolbooks. In Russian schoolbooks of modern history, two passages are granted exceptional attention: the events related to the circumstances and results of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Overall, these schoolbooks comprehend a wide variety of material concerning the "Lithuanian question": objective and unfair exposition of major factual data, conscious and unconscious veilings, multiperspective and one-sided interpretations, neutral and subtle misrepresentations. However, all these problems related to Lithuanian history are equally characteristic of the representation of Russian history itself. Frequently, Russia is being perceived as a historically static and invariable "value." Most of the schoolbooks lack conceptuality, and this shortage is being (consciously or unconsciously) counterbalanced with mythical and ideological "leading ideas," such as political messianism, deterministic apologetics, and nationalism of a superstate. These assumptions, conditioned by peculiar outlook and sometimes reinforced with up-to-date principles of the politics of history, determine all veiling and sophistications when the matter concerns Lithuanian history
Vilniaus miesto muziejaus idėja tarptautiniuose kontekstuose. Rec.: Muziejiniai Vilniaus istorijos kontekstai: mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys/ Sud. ir moksi. redaktorė N. Keršytė. Vilnius: Kultūros, filosofijos ir meno institutas, 2008. 175 p.
No full textLietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės paveldo reikšmės populiariosiose tautinio naratyvo interpretacijose
No full textThe article presents the data of empirical research (namely, a representative survey of Lithuanian adult population as well as focused interviews) of popularity and uses of symbolic representations of the period of the Great Duchy of Lithuania. About a third part of inhabitants sets a great store on the heritage of the Great Duchy of Lithuania as significant for their national identity. The myths supporting the continuity of national identity (the founding, "descent" myths) grow in popularity, while the significance of the myths serving mobilization for collective action (that of the "golden age" and others) is on the decrease.
The significance of the interpretations of symbols and myths supporting civic-territorial dimensions of Lithuanian national identity increases as well: it is expressed in importance for contemporary identity of the values of tolerance, civic national identity, multiculturalism that are highlighted in popular interpretations. There are tendencies supporting social integration of ethnic groups, namely Polish and Lithuanian, in popular interpretations of the heritage of the Great Duchy of Lithuania: there are tendencies of "hybridization" in popularity and interpretations of some symbolic elements of that heritage among Poles and Lithuanians, and the importance of conflict interpretations of some symbols diminishes, especially in the interpretations of the younger generations
P. Žostautaitės pėdomis? Apie Ingridos Jakubavičienės daktaro disertaciją „Lietuvos vokiečių nacionalsocialistinė veikla (XX a. 3-4 dešimtmečiuose)" ir jos gynimą
Get PDFLietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo dalybos. Sud. A. Bumblauskas, Š. Liekis, G. Potašenko. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008. T. 5, 435 p.
No full textSud. A. Bumblauskas, Š. Liekis, G. Potašenko. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008. T. 5, 435 p
