Suchergebnisse

The public figures who proclaimed Lithuanian independence at the end of the First World War treated their move as a restoration of the state, thereby presenting modern Lithuania as a continuation of the Medieval grand duchy. Previous research has already discussed an important prerequisite to further strengthen that continuity: in the interwar period, historians contributed significantly to the understanding that the grand duchy continued to exist after the Union of Lublin, as part of the Commonwealth of the Two Nations. However, less is known about how the period between the third partition of the Commonwealth and the proclamation of the modern Lithuanian state was approached. This article analyses how history textbooks published before 1940 represented the milestones of national oppression and revival during that period. Based on an analysis of several dozen history textbooks, the article aims to show how their authors contributed to the homogenisation of attitudes towards the period 1795 to 1918 in Lithuanian history, and addresses the question of how those who had 'lived through the history' tried to present it to the younger generation.

The article analyses the cases of military actions in the territory of Western Lithuania and Latvia from 1915 to 1945. At the same time, attention is paid to the operational plans of the Lithuanian and Latvian military forces in the second half of the 1930s. Using this method of analysis, based on military history research, an alternative defence concept for small countries whose defence depends on allies not only with ground capabilities but also with naval military capabilities and capabilities to conduct air operations, is disclosed. The strategic directions in which armies invade and retreat in the Eastern Baltic region in the first half of the twentieth century are essentially the same. Only changing technologies, capability of mobility and firepower, and growing/increasing opportunities have affected the pace and geography of military action. In 1915, the Russian army did not concentrate its forces in Courland, and through it the German army saw the possibility of manoeuvring in the northern wing. This helped to defeat the enemy on the Venta-Dubysa river line and take advantage of the success and maintain the initiative to occupy the entire territory of Lithuania by the autumn and reach the left bank of the Daugava. These operations influenced the military planning of interwar Lithuania and Latvia. In 1941, the German forces invaded to the east in the same direction as in 1915, the only difference being that the enemy failed to stop them in Samogitia and Courland, although there was some stopping at Raseiniai near Dubysa. In 1944, the Red Army (RA) broke into the Baltic Sea near Palanga – which is what it failed to do in 1919 – forming the Courland pocket, a bridgehead in which German forces, defending the sea with a sea connection to Germany, were cut off for seven months, from 10 October to 9 May 1945. The Curonian Boiler/bridgehead forces surrendered only after the German capitulation. Klaipėda was defended by the German military for more than 3 months: from October 10, 1944 to January 28, 1945, when there was a threat that the land route through the Curonian Spit would be interrupted; they abandoned the city and left it to the Red Army without a battle.

The article analyses the cases of military actions in the territory of Western Lithuania and Latvia from 1915 to 1945. At the same time, attention is paid to the operational plans of the Lithuanian and Latvian military forces in the second half of the 1930s. Using this method of analysis, based on military history research, an alternative defence concept for small countries whose defence depends on allies not only with ground capabilities but also with naval military capabilities and capabilities to conduct air operations, is disclosed. The strategic directions in which armies invade and retreat in the Eastern Baltic region in the first half of the twentieth century are essentially the same. Only changing technologies, capability of mobility and firepower, and growing/increasing opportunities have affected the pace and geography of military action. In 1915, the Russian army did not concentrate its forces in Courland, and through it the German army saw the possibility of manoeuvring in the northern wing. This helped to defeat the enemy on the Venta-Dubysa river line and take advantage of the success and maintain the initiative to occupy the entire territory of Lithuania by the autumn and reach the left bank of the Daugava. These operations influenced the military planning of interwar Lithuania and Latvia. In 1941, the German forces invaded to the east in the same direction as in 1915, the only difference being that the enemy failed to stop them in Samogitia and Courland, although there was some stopping at Raseiniai near Dubysa. In 1944, the Red Army (RA) broke into the Baltic Sea near Palanga – which is what it failed to do in 1919 – forming the Courland pocket, a bridgehead in which German forces, defending the sea with a sea connection to Germany, were cut off for seven months, from 10 October to 9 May 1945. The Curonian Boiler/bridgehead forces surrendered only after the German capitulation. Klaipėda was defended by the German military for more than 3 months: from October 10, 1944 to January 28, 1945, when there was a threat that the land route through the Curonian Spit would be interrupted; they abandoned the city and left it to the Red Army without a battle.

The article analyses the cases of military actions in the territory of Western Lithuania and Latvia from 1915 to 1945. At the same time, attention is paid to the operational plans of the Lithuanian and Latvian military forces in the second half of the 1930s. Using this method of analysis, based on military history research, an alternative defence concept for small countries whose defence depends on allies not only with ground capabilities but also with naval military capabilities and capabilities to conduct air operations, is disclosed. The strategic directions in which armies invade and retreat in the Eastern Baltic region in the first half of the twentieth century are essentially the same. Only changing technologies, capability of mobility and firepower, and growing/increasing opportunities have affected the pace and geography of military action. In 1915, the Russian army did not concentrate its forces in Courland, and through it the German army saw the possibility of manoeuvring in the northern wing. This helped to defeat the enemy on the Venta-Dubysa river line and take advantage of the success and maintain the initiative to occupy the entire territory of Lithuania by the autumn and reach the left bank of the Daugava. These operations influenced the military planning of interwar Lithuania and Latvia. In 1941, the German forces invaded to the east in the same direction as in 1915, the only difference being that the enemy failed to stop them in Samogitia and Courland, although there was some stopping at Raseiniai near Dubysa. In 1944, the Red Army (RA) broke into the Baltic Sea near Palanga – which is what it failed to do in 1919 – forming the Courland pocket, a bridgehead in which German forces, defending the sea with a sea connection to Germany, were cut off for seven months, from 10 October to 9 May 1945. The Curonian Boiler/bridgehead forces surrendered only after the German capitulation. Klaipėda was defended by the German military for more than 3 months: from October 10, 1944 to January 28, 1945, when there was a threat that the land route through the Curonian Spit would be interrupted; they abandoned the city and left it to the Red Army without a battle.

The article analyses the cases of military actions in the territory of Western Lithuania and Latvia from 1915 to 1945. At the same time, attention is paid to the operational plans of the Lithuanian and Latvian military forces in the second half of the 1930s. Using this method of analysis, based on military history research, an alternative defence concept for small countries whose defence depends on allies not only with ground capabilities but also with naval military capabilities and capabilities to conduct air operations, is disclosed. The strategic directions in which armies invade and retreat in the Eastern Baltic region in the first half of the twentieth century are essentially the same. Only changing technologies, capability of mobility and firepower, and growing/increasing opportunities have affected the pace and geography of military action. In 1915, the Russian army did not concentrate its forces in Courland, and through it the German army saw the possibility of manoeuvring in the northern wing. This helped to defeat the enemy on the Venta-Dubysa river line and take advantage of the success and maintain the initiative to occupy the entire territory of Lithuania by the autumn and reach the left bank of the Daugava. These operations influenced the military planning of interwar Lithuania and Latvia. In 1941, the German forces invaded to the east in the same direction as in 1915, the only difference being that the enemy failed to stop them in Samogitia and Courland, although there was some stopping at Raseiniai near Dubysa. In 1944, the Red Army (RA) broke into the Baltic Sea near Palanga – which is what it failed to do in 1919 – forming the Courland pocket, a bridgehead in which German forces, defending the sea with a sea connection to Germany, were cut off for seven months, from 10 October to 9 May 1945. The Curonian Boiler/bridgehead forces surrendered only after the German capitulation. Klaipėda was defended by the German military for more than 3 months: from October 10, 1944 to January 28, 1945, when there was a threat that the land route through the Curonian Spit would be interrupted; they abandoned the city and left it to the Red Army without a battle.

Personal testimonies of the Great War, revealed in memoirs, diaries and publications by Lithuanians, have already been used by historians seeking clarification of the reflection of themilitary experience in Lithuania. This article shows that a significant part of these testimoniesappeared in the interwar period due to the intentional collection and publication of materialon military history, and their publication was often not random, but also had a political aspect. Moreover, the article complements earlier knowledge of the fact that the Great War was referredto not only when mentioning the German occupation. The many references to the Great War in the writings of Lithuanian intellectuals, and in the writings and speeches of politiciansin the interwar period, had much more varied reasons.

Personal testimonies of the Great War, revealed in memoirs, diaries and publications by Lithuanians, have already been used by historians seeking clarification of the reflection of themilitary experience in Lithuania. This article shows that a significant part of these testimoniesappeared in the interwar period due to the intentional collection and publication of materialon military history, and their publication was often not random, but also had a political aspect. Moreover, the article complements earlier knowledge of the fact that the Great War was referredto not only when mentioning the German occupation. The many references to the Great War in the writings of Lithuanian intellectuals, and in the writings and speeches of politiciansin the interwar period, had much more varied reasons.

Personal testimonies of the Great War, revealed in memoirs, diaries and publications by Lithuanians, have already been used by historians seeking clarification of the reflection of themilitary experience in Lithuania. This article shows that a significant part of these testimoniesappeared in the interwar period due to the intentional collection and publication of materialon military history, and their publication was often not random, but also had a political aspect. Moreover, the article complements earlier knowledge of the fact that the Great War was referredto not only when mentioning the German occupation. The many references to the Great War in the writings of Lithuanian intellectuals, and in the writings and speeches of politiciansin the interwar period, had much more varied reasons.

Personal testimonies of the Great War, revealed in memoirs, diaries and publications by Lithuanians, have already been used by historians seeking clarification of the reflection of themilitary experience in Lithuania. This article shows that a significant part of these testimoniesappeared in the interwar period due to the intentional collection and publication of materialon military history, and their publication was often not random, but also had a political aspect. Moreover, the article complements earlier knowledge of the fact that the Great War was referredto not only when mentioning the German occupation. The many references to the Great War in the writings of Lithuanian intellectuals, and in the writings and speeches of politiciansin the interwar period, had much more varied reasons.

The article focuses on the controversies of WWII, how the intertwining of history and politics impacts evaluation of the events of the war, the emphasis that is placed on historical memory and the possibilities of "forgetfulness", and politicization of the holocaust memory. On the basis of diaries and contemporary notes, the situation in German-occupied Lithuania, episodes of the holocaust, the activities of the Lithuanian police battalions, and the actions of the Soviet Army in occupied German territory is analyzed.

The article focuses on the controversies of WWII, how the intertwining of history and politics impacts evaluation of the events of the war, the emphasis that is placed on historical memory and the possibilities of "forgetfulness", and politicization of the holocaust memory. On the basis of diaries and contemporary notes, the situation in German-occupied Lithuania, episodes of the holocaust, the activities of the Lithuanian police battalions, and the actions of the Soviet Army in occupied German territory is analyzed.

During World War II Lithuania was ruled by three completely different political regimes. In the first year Lithuania was authoritarian state ruled by group of nationalists, in 1940 Lithuania was occupied by Soviet Union and in 1941 State was occupied by Nazi Germany. All these political powers was undemocratic and propagated their ideologies. One of the most important aspect of every ideology is to suggest new concept of time. This change of perception of time could be seen in the change of cultural memory. Article try to analyze this change using the most popular Lithuanian periodical press of the period. This research analyzed main historical periods and the most popular themes represented in the main newspapers. Using theories of Anthony D. Smith and Raoul Girardet research showed what historical periods was seen positively and what negatively, what was main historical heroes and enemies; also how foreign history was represented in the periodical press. The quantitative content analysis showed that while representations of history in the so called independent Lithuania and in Lithuania occupied by Nazis was quite similar, historical representations during first Soviet occupation was unique. Qualitative content analysis showed that there was three very different paradigms of cultural memories, represented in periodical press. Lithuanian nationalist mostly tried to promote Lithuanian medieval times and especially Lithuanian dukes and historical capital Vilnius, also they tried to justify their politics creating myth of great welfare during their rule. They praised Soviet history, criticized Poland and poles, but wrote about most of the countries quite neutral. During Soviet occupation all Lithuanian history was harshly criticized and showed as negative times, this regime promoted only few Lithuanian heroes who died young or was known for their left wing politics. Main historical past represented in the newspapers was history of Soviet Union, other countries was ignored. Main enemies of Soviets was Lithuanian gentry, and Lithuanian rulers of the past. During Nazi occupation there was more Lithuanian national history than German history, but the main appreciable historical periods was Lithuanian prehistory and the 19th Century. Regime promoted history of Lithuanian culture and language, but tried to ignore Lithuanian state. Foreign history was mostly binary – propaganda criticized Soviet Union as well as Tsarist Russia, USA and United Kingdom, but appreciated history of Italy, Japan, Finland, Turkey, Spain etc. Main historical enemies were of course Bolsheviks and Jews.

During World War II Lithuania was ruled by three completely different political regimes. In the first year Lithuania was authoritarian state ruled by group of nationalists, in 1940 Lithuania was occupied by Soviet Union and in 1941 State was occupied by Nazi Germany. All these political powers was undemocratic and propagated their ideologies. One of the most important aspect of every ideology is to suggest new concept of time. This change of perception of time could be seen in the change of cultural memory. Article try to analyze this change using the most popular Lithuanian periodical press of the period. This research analyzed main historical periods and the most popular themes represented in the main newspapers. Using theories of Anthony D. Smith and Raoul Girardet research showed what historical periods was seen positively and what negatively, what was main historical heroes and enemies; also how foreign history was represented in the periodical press. The quantitative content analysis showed that while representations of history in the so called independent Lithuania and in Lithuania occupied by Nazis was quite similar, historical representations during first Soviet occupation was unique. Qualitative content analysis showed that there was three very different paradigms of cultural memories, represented in periodical press. Lithuanian nationalist mostly tried to promote Lithuanian medieval times and especially Lithuanian dukes and historical capital Vilnius, also they tried to justify their politics creating myth of great welfare during their rule. They praised Soviet history, criticized Poland and poles, but wrote about most of the countries quite neutral. During Soviet occupation all Lithuanian history was harshly criticized and showed as negative times, this regime promoted only few Lithuanian heroes who died young or was known for their left wing politics. Main historical past represented in the newspapers was history of Soviet Union, other countries was ignored. Main enemies of Soviets was Lithuanian gentry, and Lithuanian rulers of the past. During Nazi occupation there was more Lithuanian national history than German history, but the main appreciable historical periods was Lithuanian prehistory and the 19th Century. Regime promoted history of Lithuanian culture and language, but tried to ignore Lithuanian state. Foreign history was mostly binary – propaganda criticized Soviet Union as well as Tsarist Russia, USA and United Kingdom, but appreciated history of Italy, Japan, Finland, Turkey, Spain etc. Main historical enemies were of course Bolsheviks and Jews.

During World War II Lithuania was ruled by three completely different political regimes. In the first year Lithuania was authoritarian state ruled by group of nationalists, in 1940 Lithuania was occupied by Soviet Union and in 1941 State was occupied by Nazi Germany. All these political powers was undemocratic and propagated their ideologies. One of the most important aspect of every ideology is to suggest new concept of time. This change of perception of time could be seen in the change of cultural memory. Article try to analyze this change using the most popular Lithuanian periodical press of the period. This research analyzed main historical periods and the most popular themes represented in the main newspapers. Using theories of Anthony D. Smith and Raoul Girardet research showed what historical periods was seen positively and what negatively, what was main historical heroes and enemies; also how foreign history was represented in the periodical press. The quantitative content analysis showed that while representations of history in the so called independent Lithuania and in Lithuania occupied by Nazis was quite similar, historical representations during first Soviet occupation was unique. Qualitative content analysis showed that there was three very different paradigms of cultural memories, represented in periodical press. Lithuanian nationalist mostly tried to promote Lithuanian medieval times and especially Lithuanian dukes and historical capital Vilnius, also they tried to justify their politics creating myth of great welfare during their rule. They praised Soviet history, criticized Poland and poles, but wrote about most of the countries quite neutral. During Soviet occupation all Lithuanian history was harshly criticized and showed as negative times, this regime promoted only few Lithuanian heroes who died young or was known for their left wing politics. Main historical past represented in the newspapers was history of Soviet Union, other countries was ignored. Main enemies of Soviets was Lithuanian gentry, and Lithuanian rulers of the past. During Nazi occupation there was more Lithuanian national history than German history, but the main appreciable historical periods was Lithuanian prehistory and the 19th Century. Regime promoted history of Lithuanian culture and language, but tried to ignore Lithuanian state. Foreign history was mostly binary – propaganda criticized Soviet Union as well as Tsarist Russia, USA and United Kingdom, but appreciated history of Italy, Japan, Finland, Turkey, Spain etc. Main historical enemies were of course Bolsheviks and Jews.