Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Ginčai ir jų sprendimas XV amžiaus Lietuvoje: apgautų pirklių bei nusikaltusių kunigų pavyzdžiai
Get PDFThis article examines briefly the resolution of conflicts within two separate mediaeval social groups, namely the merchant communities of Gdansk, Vilnius and Kaunas during the first seven years of Casimir l and IV\u27s reign in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Roman Catholic clergy of the dioceses of Vilnius and Žemaitija involved in criminal cases reviewed by the Papal Curia. Attention is paid to the importance of social concepts such as friendship and charity, and the restoration of good repute. This article forms part of a broader study of Lithuania during the reign of Casimir Jagiellonczyk
Vokietijos ir Sovietų politikos poveikis Baltijos sąjungos kūrimui 1919-1940 metais
Get PDFFollowing the weakening of Russia and Germany, modern Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – were established during World War I. Even though they succeeded in liberating themselves from the foreign yoke, the newly created states found it impossible to break free from the political and diplomatic influence exerted by the said great states. Postwar democratic development, outburst of democracy in international relations, the foreign policy conducted by England and France in North-Eastern part of Europe, as well as the activities of the Nations Union could lessen this influence only to a certain extent. The process of breaking totally free from this influence was also hindered by the failure of the Baltic countries to unite, join their efforts and thus stabilize the position of the region on the international political scene.
The unification and cohesion of the region was also impeded by USSR and Germany, which implemented a conscious and well planned policy, deliberated on the top hierarchy level. It was conceived as a precondition towards the revisionism about to be introduced. In the attempt to undermine the unity of the Baltic states and hinder the establishment of the Union, both big states applied an extremely wide range of measures. Within this context, the following five measures, most widely applicable to implement the strategy, will be identified and dealt with:
The first measure: Direct threats, mostly practiced by the Soviets. Latvia and Estonia were instructed that in the case of establishing the Union confrontation policy would be introduced, with the Soviet troops deployed near their borders. Lithuania was threatened with an immediate termination of any support related to the Vilnius problem.
The second measure: Measures of economic pressure were applied, luring the Baltic countries with the benefit related to the income from Soviet transit and rules of export restrictions to Germany.
The third measure: Attempts were undertaken to discredit the most active supporters of the Baltic union, to oust them from power and force them to resign.
The fourth measure: Attempts were made to cause tension and discord among the Baltic countries; disagreements on various matters were instigated, in particular focusing on the conflict between Lithuania and Poland. Preconceived notion was imposed in Lithuania that its union with Latvia and Estonia would result in reconciliation with Poland, which would not return Vilnius afterwards. Germany tried to exert its influence in Latvia and Estonia, shaping an opinion that ostensibly they should not join forces with Lithuania, which governed the „German“ Klaipėda. After all, Lithuania was known to be a backward country, devoid of any civilization. Furthermore, attempts were made to instill enmity among the politicians of the Baltic countries, by working on their personal ambitions.
The fifth measure: The USSR and German politicians and diplomats preferred to penetrate into the „natural“ political process of the Baltic countries rather than plot artificial intrigues. They supported the political forces which opposed the establishment of the Union or were in favour of such a version of the Union which had no potential future. Attempts were made to instill animosity among supporters of different versions of the Union; apart from the prevailing discord and disagreements, additional measures were taken to promote hardliner tactics. Furthermore, it was attempted to instill hostility among different institutions involved in foreign policy.
The measures hindering progress in the Baltic states were well matched to the particularities of the political process in every country in question. The pursuit to curb the establishment of the Baltic Union was characterised by the collaboration between the USSR and Germany, resulting in a greater efficiency of the measure applied.
More pronounced interferences into the consolidation of the Baltic countries are traced back to the mid 20-ies, reaching the peak in 1925, when both big states completed the elaboration of special programs of such interferences. The intense unification process was discontinued that year, to be renewed only in 1934, when the Baltic Antante was established. It was in Lithuania’s interests then to draw closer to Latvia and Estonia – after Poland and Germany had signed nonaggression pact, Lithuania’s international situation worsened. The Soviets no longer hindered the establishment of the Baltic Antante – they were hoping to use Lithuania as a platform to exert influence upon all three Baltic countries, as well as include them into the „Eastern pact“ project.
The Baltic Antante succeeded in neutralizing the impact of the USSR and Germany towards the foreign policy of its members, at least to a certain extent. Latvia and Estonia, united in the same organization with Lithuania, undermined the latter’s position, which was quite favourable to the Soviets. Furthermore, Estonia’s friendly predisposition towards the policies conducted by Nazi Germany was curbed. The establishment of the Baltic Antante was predetermined by the changes on the international arena; its activities were also terminated by an external factor, namely, by the occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
Rec.: Streikus A. Diplomatas Stasys Antanas Bačkis. Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras, 2007. 292 p.
Get PDFSovietų Lietuva ir išeivija: kultūrinių ryšių projektas
Get PDFThe active search for cultural ties with Lithuanians in exile, which started in the middle 1960s, was a well planned action aimed at the strengthening of the Soviet regime. Its main purpose was not to start a genuine dialogue between two branches of Lithuanian culture, but to demonstrate the superiority of Soviet Lithuanian culture over the culture cherished in exile. The representation of emigre art and especially of intellectual works in Lithuania was very limited until the late 1980s and mostly connected with obtaining positive comments from emigre authors in regard to Soviet cultural policy. The spread of Soviet Lithuanian culture among emigres was clearly the main aim of cultural ties. The emigre community was disinformed by primarily presenting those creative works in which the symbols of the common national heritage subtly concealed a world outlook inspired by Soviet ideology. Thus, the appearance of a normal cultural life was imitated with the hope that it would help to win over the part of the emigre society, which had already lost the hope of the rapid restoration of statehood. Other different means were also used for disinformation: special publications in the exile press, infiltrations of KGB agents among persons who had close relations with famous exile cultural workers.
Although the main aims the Soviet regime fostered in the field of cultural ties with the emigres were always the same, there were some changes in tactics. The quite large openness toward the exile community, which was characteristic for the first stage, from the middle of 1960s until 1972, died out later when the ideologisation of public life intensified. The attempts of liberal wing exile to use cultural ties as a way to enter into more close relations with the creative intelligentsia in Lithuania were discovered by the Soviet security rather quickly and more or less controlled. In 1970s and the early 1980s the main attention was directed to the communication with distinguished cultural workers living abroad. In the same period there were also attempts to set up a new centre, controlled by the Soviet regime, which could serve as the basis for cultural ties in the future. When such attempts failed and the regime became more open from the middle of 1980s, it started more boldly to establish ties with the liberal wing of the emigres again.
 
Ar Rusija pripažino Lietuvos okupaciją? - Rec.: SSRS ir Lietuva Antrojo pasaulinio karo metais: dokumentų rinkinys
Get PDFAr Rusija pripažino Lietuvos okupaciją? - Rec.: SSRS ir Lietuva Antrojo pasaulinio karo metais: dokumentų rinkinys (CCCP и Литва в годы Второй мировой войны: сборник документов). Vilnius, 2006. T. 1. - 774 p
Vilniaus bastioniniai įtvirtinimai XVII-XVIII amžiuje
Get PDFIn 1648 the modernization of the defensive system of Vilnius town had been started. Preparing for a war with Moscow, it was planned to ring the capital of the Great Duchy of Lithuania with bastion fortifications. The best source to reconstruct the new concept of defense is the 1737 plan of Vilnius. The facts state that Vilnius was surrounded by two lines of defensive fortifications. The first line was equipped opposite the defensive town wall and served as reinforcement of this complex. In the second half of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries, these bastion fortifications were urbanized - they were divided into plots. Their relations are not clear with the former additional fortifications of the defensive wall. The second line (the ring) of bastion fortifications was equipped distantly from the center of town. This line surrounded the territories of suburbia and access to the castles. Hypothetically we suppose the second defensive ring at least repeated the configuration of the former defensive control system. In the second half of the 17th century, the equipped second line of bastion fortifications could differ from the one depicted in the 1737 plan of Vilnius. Supposedly, Vilnius was planned to be ringed by solid fortification of bastions. It is certainly true that until the attack on the town by the Moscow army, the works were not finished. Hypothetical sections have been attempted to reconstruct by mapping burial grounds with massive graves of the middle of the 17th and 18th centuries. The facts state that people were massively buried in the surroundings of unusable or unequipped fortifications. The burial sites of victims of war and epidemic in the surroundings of fortifications could influence the establishment of town graveyards at the end of the 18th century until the beginning of the 20th century. The ramparts were reconstructed in the 18th century. Single fortifications were located in open sites outside the town. It is essential for further research and safeguarding of bastion fortifications as intellectual development of the Polish-Lithuanian state
Mugės ir jų vaidmuo prekybos struktūroje Vilniaus ir Kauno gubernijose 1861-1914 metais
Get PDFVilnius and Kaunas province didn\u27t have large-scale fairs. Traditionally, they lasted 1-2 days, sometimes - a couple of weeks, rarely - a month. Each fair had its own traditions and specialization. Before the appearance of railway and factory production, fairs played a very important role in wholesale trade: the key transactions were carried out through the fairs system. Tendencies of fairs\u27 decline appeared after the economic reforms in 1861. With Lithuanian involvement in the interlocal market of trade, the importance of foreign and interregional trade was growing, and the network of domestic trade was increasing. However, the quantitative spread of the latter was decreasing the turnover of separate markets. Also, the expansion of the fairs network from the eighties of the 19th century noticeably decreased the trade turnovers of a separate fair and reduced the importance of fairs as a form of wholesale trade. Such a phenomenon should be explained not just by the economic backwardness of the country, domination of agrarian trade, but by the modernization of structures of transport, production, and commerce. With the expansion of factory production and the increased extent of production after 1861, the seasonal prevalence of fairs and their locality were not meeting the modern requirements for the realization of goods. Permanent industry trade of consumer goods was creating modern outlet forms. Because of the specifics of trade in fairs, wholesale of factory goods didn\u27t spread here even since the middle of the eighties when the number of factories and the amount of industrial goods were increasing. Just a small part of industrial goods for consumers\u27 needs was getting into the fairs through the retail trade system, which was creating its own network for the realization of goods in the seventies-eighties of the 19th century. Since the end of the 19th century, the main goods assortment and the biggest part of trade turnover in Vilnius and Kaunas province fairs were the products of agriculture. Laying of railways improved communication, constant trade relationships with the industrial centers began, which revitalized the interregional transportation of goods from/into abroad. With the permanent goods realization possibilities, the industrial enterprises did not have to wait for the coming fairs. Since then, industrial products were sold out through the modern permanent outlet system of goods (wholesale warehouses and special shops), and the products of agriculture in fairs and through special networks of wholesale warehouses, established for agricultural products. The latter took some part of fairs outlet and quantitatively decreased the transportation of goods into fairs. Such differentiation of the outlet for goods caused a great decrease in the trade turnover in fairs, their role in the trade structure fell down, and their importance was reduced just to the local level. The decline of the latter was also influenced by the growth of the network of markets in the second part of the 19th century. Under the market conditions, the seasonal prevalence of fairs only partly satisfied peasants and artisans, since marts\u27 working schedules were more constant (1-3 times a week), and they too were great competitors of the fairs. Wholesale warehouses, special consumer goods shops, and marts all decreased the importance of the fairs. Fairs became places for the realization of artisans\u27 and farmers\u27 production. There, artisans and farmers, making for the market, could sell their products without a mediator. That is why the increasing number of fairs was one effect of the growth of the commercialization of agriculture, integration of the peasant\u27s economy into the market, and his conversion into an entrepreneur
Stambiosios pramonės atsiradimas Klaipėdos krašte (XIX amžiaus pabaiga - XX amžiaus pradžia)
Get PDFIndustrialization in Germany in the 19th century was not a homogeneous process. Firstly, the industrial upheaval started and quickly permeated into the West German lands. The rail freight and the system of factories based on heavy mechanical production and hired labor started and developed there. Meanwhile, the provinces of Prussia were rather poor, even at the end of the 19th century. Talking at this point, the most behindhand was the province of East Prussia. That slippage was mainly conditioned by poor natural resources, adverse geopolitical situation, financial deficiency, undeveloped infrastructure, and other important factors. The investment was impeded by the unsafe frontier with the Russian Empire, the major German trade sets could not find any serious interests there, whereas the province bourgeoisie was too conservative and tried to avoid any novelty. One of the most sequestered and the least modernized districts of the province was Klaipėda Region (Memelland), mostly determined by the specific historical development of the city of Klaipėda, which left the seaport located in a very convenient spot, yet without any natural economical rearward. Consequently, the development of the city was rather slow (Klaipėda had only 17,490 inhabitants in 1861), and there were no other important trading centers in the region. The entire economics of Klaipėda substantially depended on the opportunity to intercede in trading between Russia and other European countries. However, those opportunities were constricted because of the rivalry with Königsberg, which was the center of East Prussia, and the protectionist politics of the Russian Empire. The Russian governance was developing Liepāja (Libau) port in the latter part of the 19th century, thus nurturing another strong contestant to Klaipėda. Therefore, the trading set of Klaipėda\u27s Region was not able to hoard up a large capital and hesitated to invest in modern branches of economics. The enterprisers of other regions of Germany established almost all of the first major industrial corporations of Klaipėda. Oddly enough, the mining company laid the foundations for the heavy industry in the region of scarce resources. The corporation named Stantien & Becker used industrial methods to mine amber from the bottom of the Curonian Lagoon near Juodkrantė (Schwarzort) from 1862 until 1891. The company wrung 2250 tons of amber during that period. Throughout the working years, it was the biggest company in the land of East Prussia. The amber was realized in Southeast Europe and Asia. Union, the factory of chemical production that manufactured artificial fertilizers, was another big industrial company in Klaipėda\u27s region. The fabrication required a great deal of stock, and a fair amount of it was transported from Spain, USA, and even Australia. At the end of the 19th century, two more great industrial companies were established - the corporation of wood manufacturing and the cellulose factory. The latter one soon became the biggest company in the region. The factory produced more than thirty thousand tons of cellulose per year, before World War I, and the greatest part of the production was realized in foreign countries
