Suchergebnisse

This paper deals with concepts of images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi, and the Estonian Kaitseliit, with the aim of identifying factors that predetermined qualitative changes in these images in the different periods of activity of these paramilitary organisations. In addition, possible functions of the images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian riflemen are analysed. The study is based on the presumption that, in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi and the Estonian Kaitseliit, the formation of the images of ethnic minorities in the different periods of activity of these organisations (the struggles for independence, the formation of the parliamentary system, authoritarian coups and presidential power, and national political crises) was predetermined by the practice of attaching ethnic groups to the relative camps of allies or foes, and by the policy of dividing ethnic minorities into groups of 'reliable' and 'unreliable'.

This paper deals with concepts of images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi, and the Estonian Kaitseliit, with the aim of identifying factors that predetermined qualitative changes in these images in the different periods of activity of these paramilitary organisations. In addition, possible functions of the images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian riflemen are analysed. The study is based on the presumption that, in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi and the Estonian Kaitseliit, the formation of the images of ethnic minorities in the different periods of activity of these organisations (the struggles for independence, the formation of the parliamentary system, authoritarian coups and presidential power, and national political crises) was predetermined by the practice of attaching ethnic groups to the relative camps of allies or foes, and by the policy of dividing ethnic minorities into groups of 'reliable' and 'unreliable'.

This paper deals with concepts of images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi, and the Estonian Kaitseliit, with the aim of identifying factors that predetermined qualitative changes in these images in the different periods of activity of these paramilitary organisations. In addition, possible functions of the images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian riflemen are analysed. The study is based on the presumption that, in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi and the Estonian Kaitseliit, the formation of the images of ethnic minorities in the different periods of activity of these organisations (the struggles for independence, the formation of the parliamentary system, authoritarian coups and presidential power, and national political crises) was predetermined by the practice of attaching ethnic groups to the relative camps of allies or foes, and by the policy of dividing ethnic minorities into groups of 'reliable' and 'unreliable'.

This paper deals with concepts of images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi, and the Estonian Kaitseliit, with the aim of identifying factors that predetermined qualitative changes in these images in the different periods of activity of these paramilitary organisations. In addition, possible functions of the images of ethnic minorities in the ideologies of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian riflemen are analysed. The study is based on the presumption that, in the ideologies of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, the Latvian Aizsargi and the Estonian Kaitseliit, the formation of the images of ethnic minorities in the different periods of activity of these organisations (the struggles for independence, the formation of the parliamentary system, authoritarian coups and presidential power, and national political crises) was predetermined by the practice of attaching ethnic groups to the relative camps of allies or foes, and by the policy of dividing ethnic minorities into groups of 'reliable' and 'unreliable'.

Authoritarianism as a form of political regime became a widespread phenomenon in the inter-war Europe. It was also a part of Lithuanian and Polish history. The coup d'etat in Poland on May 12, 1926 claimed many more victims than the analogous event in Lit- huania. The 1926 coups in the two neighbouring countries put an end to the era of parlia- mentarianism, which had had its legal basis on the permanent constitutions (passed on March 17, 1921 in Poland and August 1, 1922 in Lithuania). The position of a Chief of State was established in Poland on November 14, 1918. It was legally consolidated by the Small Constitution of February 20, 1919. Both Jozef Pilsudski and Antanas Smetona had accumulated enough political experience to rule their respective countries after the coup. However, as politicians they were of different caliber. The authoritarian regime in Poland had its name – sanation. This term was supposed to mean the purification or a return to po- litical health. The main support of authoritarian regimes in both countries were the armed forces. This was more perceptible in Poland, especially after the death of Jozef Pilsudski. If Poland during the period of authoritarian rule retained the multi-party system, albeit re- stricted, then in Lithuania after the February 1, 1936 the one-party rule was established. The Polish parliament functioned without cessation all the way from 1926 to 1939, while in Lithuania the Seimas was absent from 1927 to 1936. In the Polish historiography the period of sanation is clearly divided into two periods: 1) the Pilsudski Era, which lasted from the May 1926 coup until the marshal's death on May 12, 1935; 2) the period of "the colonels' rule", which lasted from the May 12, 1935 to the Nazi occupation of Poland in September 1939. However, in Lithuania the whole period of authoritarian rule was presided by the sa- me personality – Antanas Smetona. Due to this reason it is difficult to discern any essential changes in the country's political system.

Authoritarianism as a form of political regime became a widespread phenomenon in the inter-war Europe. It was also a part of Lithuanian and Polish history. The coup d'etat in Poland on May 12, 1926 claimed many more victims than the analogous event in Lit- huania. The 1926 coups in the two neighbouring countries put an end to the era of parlia- mentarianism, which had had its legal basis on the permanent constitutions (passed on March 17, 1921 in Poland and August 1, 1922 in Lithuania). The position of a Chief of State was established in Poland on November 14, 1918. It was legally consolidated by the Small Constitution of February 20, 1919. Both Jozef Pilsudski and Antanas Smetona had accumulated enough political experience to rule their respective countries after the coup. However, as politicians they were of different caliber. The authoritarian regime in Poland had its name – sanation. This term was supposed to mean the purification or a return to po- litical health. The main support of authoritarian regimes in both countries were the armed forces. This was more perceptible in Poland, especially after the death of Jozef Pilsudski. If Poland during the period of authoritarian rule retained the multi-party system, albeit re- stricted, then in Lithuania after the February 1, 1936 the one-party rule was established. The Polish parliament functioned without cessation all the way from 1926 to 1939, while in Lithuania the Seimas was absent from 1927 to 1936. In the Polish historiography the period of sanation is clearly divided into two periods: 1) the Pilsudski Era, which lasted from the May 1926 coup until the marshal's death on May 12, 1935; 2) the period of "the colonels' rule", which lasted from the May 12, 1935 to the Nazi occupation of Poland in September 1939. However, in Lithuania the whole period of authoritarian rule was presided by the sa- me personality – Antanas Smetona. Due to this reason it is difficult to discern any essential changes in the country's political system.

The contemporary system of the national accounts (SNA) framework is used to re-analyse the pioneering calculation of the national income of Lithuania in 1924, which Albinas Rimka (1886–1944) published in 1926 as part of his preparations to take the office of Minister of Finance in the Left-of-the-Centre Peasant Populist and Social-Democratic parties coalition government. This government ruled Lithuania in June-December 1926, after the Christian Democrats defeat in the May 1926 election to the III Diet of the Republic of Lithuania. The "brutto national profit", measured by A. Rimka, corresponds to net national income (NNI) in the sense of the SNA. His estimate has a downward bias, because Rimka applied an excessive fixed capital depreciation rate to derive NNI from the gross national income (GNI) and did not include the value of the non-commercial public sector services (public goods) into GNI and NNI. The ultimate proof of the underestimation was the following: the NNI per capita (582 Litas), according to Rimka, is lower than the yearly subsistence minimum (633 LTL), according the consumption norms calculated by the Lithuanian Central Statistical Bureau for 1924. According to the author's minimal estimate, the NNI per capita was 748 LTL per capita, while GNI was 815 LTL per capita. In underestimating the real size of the Lithuanian economy, A. Rimka considered the taxation overload as the main issue and the new government proclaimed the budget cuts as the priority of its economic policy. It was implemented in the budget project prepared by A. Rimka for 1927. Among others, the austerity policies had to hit two powerful interest groups: the clergy, represented by the Christian Democrats, and the military officership, where a small Nationalist party had many sympathisers. Encouraged and supported by the Christian Democrats, the military staged a coup on 17 December 1926, ending the short period of parliamentary democracy in Lithuania (1920–1926). Typically, authoritarian coups in underdeveloped countries are provoked by the populist economic policies of the Leftist governments, causing inflation by government overspending to placate under-privileged social groups. The authoritarian coup in Lithuania in 1926 is a deviating case of democracy, undermined by the austerity policies of the Leftist government, caused (jointly with other causal conditions) by the mistakes in the macroeconomic measurements.

The contemporary system of the national accounts (SNA) framework is used to re-analyse the pioneering calculation of the national income of Lithuania in 1924, which Albinas Rimka (1886–1944) published in 1926 as part of his preparations to take the office of Minister of Finance in the Left-of-the-Centre Peasant Populist and Social-Democratic parties coalition government. This government ruled Lithuania in June-December 1926, after the Christian Democrats defeat in the May 1926 election to the III Diet of the Republic of Lithuania. The "brutto national profit", measured by A. Rimka, corresponds to net national income (NNI) in the sense of the SNA. His estimate has a downward bias, because Rimka applied an excessive fixed capital depreciation rate to derive NNI from the gross national income (GNI) and did not include the value of the non-commercial public sector services (public goods) into GNI and NNI. The ultimate proof of the underestimation was the following: the NNI per capita (582 Litas), according to Rimka, is lower than the yearly subsistence minimum (633 LTL), according the consumption norms calculated by the Lithuanian Central Statistical Bureau for 1924. According to the author's minimal estimate, the NNI per capita was 748 LTL per capita, while GNI was 815 LTL per capita. In underestimating the real size of the Lithuanian economy, A. Rimka considered the taxation overload as the main issue and the new government proclaimed the budget cuts as the priority of its economic policy. It was implemented in the budget project prepared by A. Rimka for 1927. Among others, the austerity policies had to hit two powerful interest groups: the clergy, represented by the Christian Democrats, and the military officership, where a small Nationalist party had many sympathisers. Encouraged and supported by the Christian Democrats, the military staged a coup on 17 December 1926, ending the short period of parliamentary democracy in Lithuania (1920–1926). Typically, authoritarian coups in underdeveloped countries are provoked by the populist economic policies of the Leftist governments, causing inflation by government overspending to placate under-privileged social groups. The authoritarian coup in Lithuania in 1926 is a deviating case of democracy, undermined by the austerity policies of the Leftist government, caused (jointly with other causal conditions) by the mistakes in the macroeconomic measurements.