Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Visuomenės nuomonės veikimo sąlygos sovietinėje Lietuvoje
Get PDFOne of the main aims of the Soviet regime in Lithuania is to crush internal and external enemies. Discreditation of the enemy - creation of their negative image and opinion in the society is one of the means of that fight. Political changes after the death of Stalin and changes of the USSR international position forced KGB to use the means of psychological influence, pressure besides physical repression, actions of falsehood, discreditation, various provocations, and intimidation. In such a way, KGB wanted to hide political repression. In a struggle with inner enemies, KGB used the method of discreditation, which aims to damage authority, good name of an opponent, and trust of society in him by leaking out or interpreting negatively the facts of his life and activity in order to suppress their activity, lower the number of supporters and to justify the repression. The time of appearance of discreditable information, its form, and to what part of society it is designed is very important. In Soviet Lithuania, the discreditable information is related to the person\u27s past, his activity in independent Lithuania, during the first Soviet and Nazi occupation, and after the war period. Personal information, like diseases, love affairs, sexual orientations, crimes, and mistakes in the past was used also. After crushing armed resistance in 1953, anti-Soviet opposition turned into unarmed form of resistance. It is difficult to crush it with force; that is why every more important national, religious, and civil anti-Soviet action was followed by discreditation actions. There were a couple forms of discreditation actions - falsehood and slander campaign through press and spreading rumors, letters or petitions incited by KGB, criminalizations of political trials, putting dissent into mental hospitals. Those campaigns were carried out until the ninth decade, but during the rebirth period, they did not make any effect on public opinion. The biggest discreditation actions were carried against the biggest critics of the Soviet system - Lithuanian Catholic Church, dissidents, fighters for human rights and liberties, emigration organizations, and most active persons. The discreditation method was efficient just partly because KGB did not reach the main target - to make opposition end their anti-Soviet activity, although they overshadowed their good name, morale, and activity
Sovietinės lietuvių istoriografijos raidos lūžių paieškos: 1956 metai(?)
Get PDFThe XX Congress of the Soviet Union Communist Party which took place in February 1956 became a symbol of radical reforms in the Soviet Union. Liberation processes started in many fields of the totalitarian state: in political and social life, in culture, in science, and art. New changes rapidly reached allied Soviet republics where "thaw" also began. This article raises the question: Was the year 1956 the beginning of new discourses, polemics, and "revolt" against old methodological-ideological postulates in the Soviet Lithuanian historiography? The illusion of possible changes in history research in 1956 was created by the Lithuanian Communist Party (LCP) itself, which organized several meetings with Lithuanian intellectuals discussing the short history of Soviet Lithuania prepared by the History Institute. The Central Committee Bureau of LCP wanted to find out whether the official discourse introduced by the Bureau and by the director of the Institute Žiugžda follows the requirements of new conditions and whether this discourse is resistant to the possible accuses for political and ideological "mistakes" which could have come from Moscow. The intents of the Central Committee of LCP were misunderstood by some humanitarians who, during the general session of the Science Academy in February 1956, tried to provoke the discussion on the current situation in the History Institute and to propose a new director of the Institute. The elite of LCP ruined the possibility of radical changes by supporting Žiugžda and his scientific opponents were accused of "bourgeois nationalism". For this reason, the year 1956 in Lithuanian Soviet historiography did not become the beginning of radical changes but rather the period of status quo. With the changes of the Soviet system, this status quo also altered gradually giving historians more "freedom of manoeuvre". However, we could not speak about a quick and essential "thaw" in the Soviet Lithuanian historiography after 1956
Audiovizualinės istoriografijos atvejis Lietuvoje: televizijos laida „Būtovės slėpiniai"
Get PDFThis article defends the thesis that cooperation between science and audio-visual methods can become close enough to occasion the appearance of an audio-visual historiography, analogous to visual anthropology (in other words, ethnographic film), which is considered an independent form of presenting the process of inquiry under the governance of scientific methodologies.
The article discusses currently existing concepts of audio-visual historiography, defines the criteria for the identification of audio-visual historiography and presents the example of the Lithuanian television show "Būtovės slėpiniai" shown from 1993 to 2004. This television show is an example of the phenomenon of "Lithuanian" audio-visual historiography. It is said that the theoretical discourse in other countries includes two concepts of audio-visual historiography, one of which defines audio-visual historiography mainly through aesthetic criteria, whereas the other, while not denying the importance of aesthetic criteria, places requirements for the traditionally understood scientific recognition of the past first. Combining these concepts into one, a collection of audio-visual criteria emerges, upon which analysis of the show "Būtovės slėpiniai" is based. The analysis shows that "Būtovės slėpiniai" can be considered a representative of visual historiography
Rusijos ir Lietuvos santykiai XX amžiaus šiuolaikinėje lietuvių istoriografijoje
Get PDFIt is impossible to imagine the 20th century in the history of Russian and Lithuanian relations without the "Soviet power" brought on the bayonets of the Red Army. Lithuania successfully fended off the bayonets\u27 thrust in 1918-1919; however, these bayonets subdued Lithuania with insidiousness and constraint in 1940 and by force and violence in 1945. But in 1991-1993, these bayonets left Lithuania, taking away the memory of Soviet power.
Thus, the historical research on Russian-Lithuanian relations is in permanent difficulty, especially because of memory, forgetfulness, or even purposive historical policy. The situation of Lithuanian historiography, considering the aspect of political and scientific freedom, is obviously better than the one in Russia, although Lithuanian historians have not produced many substantial works on the 20th-century interstate relations. The most important works are devoted to the state\u27s foundation and the interwar period. Scientific works by Č. Laurinavičius, R. Lopata, A. Kasparavičius, Z. Butkus, and other historians written during the first decade of independence prove the existence of a strong school of diplomatic historiography. During the last five years, the trend of diplomatic historiography has been gradually replaced with the fashion of geopolitical interpretations, which are partly spread by former historians of diplomacy (Č. Laurinavičius, R. Lopata). Concentration on legal aspects of the 20th-century Lithuanian-Russian relations could be determined as a constant tendency in Lithuanian historiography. This tendency is strengthened by the fact that the communist era has never been legally or morally evaluated on the international scale.
It should be pointed out that historical research on occupation, repression, and anti-Soviet resistance seldom oversteps the factographic limits, and it is difficult for the authors working in this field to perceive their "material" through a prism of relations between two political subjects (the USSR and Lithuania). According to present historians, it was only the Lithuanian nation that suffered all misfortunes or changes related to the Soviet occupation. The concept of the Lithuanian state usually falls out of such historiography or appears in a remote place (Lithuania in 1940-1990: history of occupied Lithuania).
The situation of historical research during the last twenty years on Lithuanian-Russian relations, and especially on the collapse of the USSR and liberation of Lithuania, is the most dynamic and the most complicated at the same time. The historiographical fashion for professional Lithuanian historians is imposed by the memoirs of the political figures of that time, overviews and analysis of journalists, lawyers, and politologists, not to mention the works by foreign historians (A. E. Senn, F. Salzmann, B. Christophe)
Tautiniai santykiai Lietuvoje 1988-1992 metais
Get PDFDuring centuries Lithuania has saved a rich experience of a peaceful and easy disposition of different nations, which experienced a stiff task during the period of Lithuania\u27s sovereignty restoration and consolidation. The article analyses the relationship of national majorities Lithuanians, and national minorities - Russians, Poles, Jews, partly Belorussians and other. Russians and Poles are the biggest national minorities in Lithuania. Jews demonstrated an absolutely beneficial attitude to the Lithuanian statehood as distinct from the part of Russians and Poles.
The period is short, but it reflects the topic of national relationship in Lithuania. The basic factor, which was endangering the peaceful and easy disposition of nations in 1988, was the inflammatory activity of communistic structures, post-Soviet organizations. Pro-imperial forces were operating under a principle "divide-and-rule".
The article shows that the majority of other nations (Russians, Poles, Belorussians) were not against Lithuanians\u27 national movement, striving for independence, however the part of them became the hostages of pro-communistic organizations. The characters of communistic nomenclature managed to relate the national interest of Poles with the demand of territorial national autonomy. Whereas Jews approved of Lithuanians\u27 national objectives.
However, the national relationship in Lithuania was complicated by some mistakes of Movement and national institutions - the pronouncement of Lithuanian language as national without ascertaining the status of other languages, ensuing unrealistic demand in companies, agencies and organizations, which were administering its record-keeping in Russian language, to convert to Lithuanian language within two years. The relationship with Lithuanian Poles was complicated by the emotional treatment of historical past, the temerarious point, that they are Lithuanians with Polish manners; the relationship with Lithuanian Poles was complicated by a quite frequent harassment concerning the events of Soviet times, which aroused psychological experiences. The mythologized human consciousnesses, the immature political culture (objective justification of phenomenon) were increasing the international tension.
Tragic January events increased the foreign-borns\u27 approval to the objectives of Lithuanians.
In the pending period of national relationship the perception of problems was concurrent from general political and social-economical process. The complex attitude to the period of post-communistic transformations helps to fathom out the topicalities. After the failure of August putsch, the development of national relationship was largely determined by reforms, social-economical alterations, also the artificial increase of tension in society; relationship between Lithuanians and Jews, manifestation of anti-Semitism. Integration of Lithuanian Republic into the community of global nations, the admission of Constitution and other law certificates presumed the stabilization of national relationship
Istorinės atminties akademija - tikslai, nuveikti darbai, veiklos perspektyvos (dr. Aurimo Švedo ir prof. dr. Alfredo Bumblausko pokalbis)
No full textAcademy of Historical Memory (Istorinės atminties akademija - IAA) is an institution which was initiated by the members of the Department of Theory of History and History of Culture of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University. It was born on the 10th of March, 2006. In the institution\u27s official website, www.iaa.lt, the members of IAA declare their determination to respond to the tendencies of modern Lithuanian historical culture and to take part in the formation of new models of Lithuanian identity. The first year of activity for the IAA members was very intensive. The reasons of foundation of IAA, its past and future activities, were revealed by the head of the institution prof. Alfredas Bumblauskas who was interviewed by dr. Aurimas Švedas (Research papers "Studies of Lithuanian\u27s History") on the 8th of June, 2007.
During the discussion the following issues were reviewed: the theoretical and methodological principals formulated by Western historiography (Jörn Rüsen, Pierre Nora) which became the catalyst of IAA activity; the main questions which are now raised by the society to historians; the peculiarities of more than one hundred years existing traditional-stereotypical formula of Lithuanianism and the alternatives to the mentioned images, which emerged at the junction of the 20th and 21st centuries as well as the forms of spread of these alternatives
Latvijos ir Lietuvos istoriografijos paralelės: bandymai bendradarbiauti ir problemos tarpukaryje
Get PDFThe object of this study is the links and cooperation between Latvian-Lithuanian historians. Presumptions of historiographic parallels are being ventilated in the study on institutional and individual basis so that the links between past Latvian-Lithuanian historians would be identified.
The study describes the ways how cooperation of Lithuanian-Latvian historians was evidenced, when there were the most favourable circumstances: in the context of academic institutions\u27 launching and practice. The reasons for national historiography\u27s insularity are outlined, which did not enable the cooperation of academic historians to be developed. There are no specific cooperation facts highlighted in the study, but trends, the cooperation opportunities during the academic historiography genesis in Latvia and Lithuania (during interwar). The main Latvian-Lithuanian historiography trends presented in a study reflect well up till now characteristic institutional - academic, social indifference of Latvian-Lithuanian historiography