Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Baltijos valstybių klausimas Vakarų valstybių politikoje 1944-1945 metais
Get PDFThe considerations of the three Great powers in the final years (1944-1945) of World War II and the question of the Baltic states within the context of international relations and diplomacy of these powers are discussed in the article.
In the last years of World War II, the United States were engaged in the creation of the new post-war international organizational model. Participation of the Soviet Union in these postwar plans was an essential condition. In that period of World War II, the question of Baltic states had no significant and independent role in the entire international balance of power. This opinion is grounded on the examples from diplomatic papers which confirm that Baltic states in inter-Allied relations were treated only as a bargaining agent.
Considering that in the Teheran conference (1943), Western states accorded the two of the Baltic states to Soviet interest sphere, the U.S. and Britain entered the Yalta conference (1945) with no illusions as to the fate of the Baltic States in particular and Eastern Europe in general.
The only one positive aspect regarding Baltic state survived - notwithstanding Soviet attempts, Western states remained firm in its legal commitment regarding Lithuania and the other Baltic States - to not recognize the forcible annexation of Baltic states. Accordingly, Western Allies did not recognize Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians as "Soviet citizens" within the context of the 1945 Repatriation Agreement.
In reality, the decisive effect of World War II was attempts to retain balance of power in international politics, but not moral or legal commitments. The end of World War II did not restore the independence of Lithuania and other Baltic states. The postwar international system that was leading to division of Europe, bipolar world, and Cold War was the adversity that influenced the plight of small states and nations
Feodalizmo Vakarų Europoje genezė ir reikšmė pasaulio istorijos procesui: L. Vasiljevo ir E. Gudavičiaus sampratos
Get PDFThe purpose of this article is to compare E. Gudavičius\u27 conception of feudalism with the Russian orientalist L. Vasilyev\u27s attitude to this issue. Both historians treat themselves as Marxists (in the Western meaning of it, i.e. supporters of the Asian mode of production). Consequently, their views on the development of the history of mankind are similar but not equal. In this article, feudalism is treated as a historical and socioeconomic formation and some stage of human development during which the feudal mode of production was dominating. L. Vasilyev describes the stage of feudalism in Western Europe as the age of orientalisation of social structure, i.e. as a regress. Only the rebirth of Antiquity bore capitalism. E. Gudavičius stresses that feudalism created an individual producer (peasant) farm and consequently it was an essential progress in the social development of the societies of Western Europe. The character of the social structure of Germanic kingdoms in the early Middle Ages differed essentially from oriental societies in the stage of early politogenesis. The reason for that was the alodization of Germanic society. So the prefeudal stage (the term of E. Gudavičius) as well as the feudal stage was unique in both chronological and geographical senses (as for this aspect, Western Europe is comparable maybe only with medieval Japan). In the early Middle Ages, a necessary condition of the feudalisation of the periphery of Western Europe was the influence of the neighbouring (already feudal) countries. Otherwise, the social structure of peripheral societies would have been developing like in the Orient. L. Vasilyev affirms convincingly that market relations in Germanic society in the early Middle Ages were suppressed by vertical (subordinating) and corporative connections. In this sense, Western Europe became similar to the Orient. Nevertheless, the main difference was that private property remained in Western Europe. Private property enabled the development of market relations when civilization and technologies were restored. Medieval cities and burghers undermined feudalism and were the first sprouts of the capitalist structure. L. Vasilyev\u27s statement that capitalism is the consequence of a structural rebirth of Antiquity is not very convincing. The structural heritage of Antiquity was a primary stimulus during the process of the genesis of feudalism. Later, feudalism developed spontaneously and the part of the heritage of Antiquity was only auxiliary. It is very doubtful that the historical experiment of the structural synthesis took place in medieval Western Europe (according to L. Vasilyev\u27s conception it also took place in the Hellenistic Orient and in the Byzantine Empire). Already, during the stage of the genesis of feudalism, a social mutation (i.e. qualitative change) took place in Western Europe. So, in general, there was no more structural synthesis but spontaneous development. On the other hand, the mentioned L. Vasilyev\u27s conception was not adapted to much more prospective cases like the Philippines and especially Latin America
Antireliginė propaganda Lietuvoje 1944-1970 metais
Get PDFIm Beitrag analysiert man die Entstehung des Mechanismus der antireligiösen Propaganda in Litauen nach der sowjetischen Okkupation. Das Modell dieser Propaganda, das ohne großen Veränderungen bis dem Zusammenbruch des Regimes funktionierte, wurde in zwei Etappen eingesetzt. Der erste Anstoß wurde Ende 1947 gegeben, der zweite - nach einem Jahrzehnt. Am Anfang wurde die atheistische Indoktrinierung der Gesellschaft meistens durch Presse und Vorlesungen vollzogen, im Laufe der zweiten Welle wurden auch neue Formen ergriffen. Im Beitrag beschreibt man alte Kanäle der atheistischen Propaganda, die das sowjetische Regime benutzte: Presse, Vorlesungen, Museen, Kino, Radio und TV, Kunst, neue quasireligiöse Rituale und Feste. Man analysiert auch die wichtigsten Dokumente und Beratungen der sowjetischen Regierung, in denen über die Aufgaben und Methoden der antireligiösen Propaganda geredet wurde
Nuosavybės santykių modelis sovietiniame Lietuvos kaime. Stungių kaimo atvejis
Get PDFAfter a collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuania (as well as most of Central and East European countries) is sometimes entitled as "the second echelon", agrarian region or the periphery of Western civilisation. The cultural and economical lag of Lithuania is often said to be caused by a mental gap, which was constructed by a model of collectivism and planned economy. Herewith, slowly changing categories in cognition impact reflections on market economy model and its mode of functioning. The ideological and physical installation of collectivism and disruption of private sector during Sovietism contradicted the centenary traditions of private farming in Lithuania. With the recovery of independence, speedy land economy, property and social reforms in the village met the expressions of collectivism practice and shadow private farming tradition that were implanted during Sovietism. This evoked the feeling of uncertainty and social strain in the village, and often results in a form of mass protest of farmers. The purpose of this study is to determine the status of property relations in the rural community during Sovietism by using a private sector concept. The research comprises of three chapters: 1. Soviet economic and social policy in Lithuanian village. 2. Property relations in Lithuanian Soviet village. 3. The relationship between differentiation of rural society and property sectors in Sovietism. During Sovietism private sector was being eliminated from the market contrary to state sector, because it was treated as a rudiment of commercial activities and therefore contradicted the society model that was constructed by the official Communist ideology. Legally, a person was enabled to possess private property only for uncommercial purposes. All personal and real estates as well as their output were controlled by the state. The Soviet power structures were unsuccessful in totally eliminating private sector and practically, private sector, producing surplus production for commercial purposes, remained a half-legal, informal and shadow structure in village. For the rural society it was one of the main sources of incomes, resources for which were rendered from the state sector. The survival of individual (private) farming tradition in Sovietism that was expressed by possessing individual farmland and realising surplus product determined the vitality of private sector. Proprietors used to spend almost all of their time free from work in the collective or state farms for own land cultivation and surplus product production. The shadow status of the private sector influenced a perverted evolution of property relations formation, which distinguished by a private sector development process that dubbed state sector functions. This resulted in increasing volume of private farms and the process of transformation of collective or state farms into cooperative associations during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sovietism in village has formed the specific understanding about economy, its administrative principles and rational behaviour skills, and also a relatively strict social differentiation. Economy management was understood as an execution of the directives from the superior power structures, allocation of tasks and control of their processing. Good execution of a task corresponded to bigger volume of material resources used and smaller amount of tasks received. This was achieved only when having good relations with power structures. According to different accession to resource allocation process, the privileged society groups had formed. In the case of village, the privileged group consisted of representatives from collective or soviet farm ruling layer. Though aforementioned layer had to follow the Soviet power directives and to control the situation in farms, it was also active in private farming activities. The status and its indicative privileges guaranteed the immunity of this ruling layer
Apie Ryšardo Gaidžio disertaciją „Prorusiškos politinės orientacijos Lietuvos aukštuomenė (1864-1917 m.)"
Get PDFLietuvos siekiai atgauti lenkų užimtas žemes 1920 metų vasarą
Get PDFComplicated and hostile relations between Poland and Lithuania developed since the very beginning of the restored independence. The Polish ruling strata of society were unwilling to recognize independent Lithuania and resorted to diverse measures to subjugate her. Under the pretext of the fight against the Bolsheviks, the Poles occupied a vast territory of Lithuania by the beginning of the 1920 summer. A state of undeclared war arose between Lithuania and Poland.
Due to the adverse military actions against the Bolsheviks, the Poles were forced to mitigate their policy with respect to Lithuania. On July 4th, 1920, reluctant as they were, the Poles recognized Lithuania de facto and, within a few days, they committed themselves to the allies to make over Vilnius and its region to Lithuania. Under the peace treaty of July 12th, 1920, concluded with Soviet Russia, Lithuania was recognized as an independent and sovereign state, and its borders were delineated.
With the Poles in full retreat from Lithuania, a good opportunity presented itself for recovering the other lands which had been formerly occupied by the Poles. The Lithuanian troops started successful actions to fulfill this task and by the end of 1920 they had liberated nearly all the lands which by the peace treaty of July 4th of the same year had been defined as Lithuania\u27s territory. Unfortunately, this task was not brought to an end, for having defeated the Bolsheviks near Warsaw, the Poles renewed their intrusion into the southern territories of Lithuania.  
Rękopisy kronik krzyžackich z XVI-XIX wieku przechowywane w Centralnym Archiwum Zakonu Niemieckiego w Wiedniu - XVI-XIX a. kryžiuočių kronikų rankraščiai Centriniame Vokiečių ordino archyve Vienoje
No full text
Lietuvos ir Čekoslovakijos prekybos santykių reguliavimas: derybos ir susitarimai 1931-1939 metais
Get PDFThe world great economic depression had influence on Lithuanian economics only in 1931, and then in Czechoslovakia became aware of its negative results earlier. In 1931 the highest possible negative trade balance for Lithuania was a result of great economic depression and the difference between import and export of goods, i.e., 19 mln. Lt. In 1932 in Lithuania was discussed the question of balance decreasing and searching for a new market for Lithuanian agriculture products in Czechoslovakia. At the period of great depression, Czechoslovakia introduced quotas for butter, pigs, eggs, fats, and geese. The quotas were introduced for the products that Lithuania was interested in exporting and to decrease the trade balance with Czechoslovakia. In 1932, Lithuanian representative J. Aukštuolis went to Prague. He had to search for new markets for Lithuanian products and to find contacts with Czechoslovakian trade people and official persons. The official persons of Czechoslovakia didn’t want to give licenses for Lithuanian agricultural products because they wanted to protect their market. In 1932, in autumn, in Prague after long discussions began negotiations between Lithuanian and Czechoslovakian delegations. The goal of the negotiation was to determine quotas for Lithuania. This negotiation was sharp and serious, but the Lithuanian delegation got quotas for some agricultural products. Since 1932 it was the tradition that the Lithuanian delegation went to Prague and negotiated with Czechoslovakia for quota determination. In 1936 and 1937, quotas were determined by the intermediation of embassies. Czechoslovakia didn’t want to determine quotas for Lithuania because it was afraid of other states\u27 interests. The Lithuanian delegation was satisfied with the negotiation results only in 1932 and in 1934. In 1932-1937, the Czechoslovakian delegation didn’t agree to sign an agreement with Lithuania. All negotiations finished only in oral agreement. Since 1932 Lithuania began to limit imports, and it influenced Czechoslovakia\u27s interests to export textile products. In 1937, the trade balance was active for Lithuania. Czechoslovakia began to review the trade perspectives with Lithuania because of the change in trade relations. In 1938 and 1939, official persons of Lithuania and Czechoslovakia signed an agreement for trade development. There were determined how much and what products states must sell to each other