Lithuanian Communist Party Research Articles

Release and return of repressed people in Lithuania In 1953–1957: between freedom and constraints

The topic of the article is the release and return of deportees and political prisoners to Lithuania. As the Soviet regime was modifying itself, it abandoned mass repressions as of 1953 and authorised a large part of the deportees to return home. According to the available information, in 1953–1958 over 40,000 people returned to Lithuania from exile and imprisonment. The release of political prisoners within the context of USSR’s repression is clearer. The release of a political prisoner could happen in three scenarios: (i) after serving the full sentence, (ii) prematurely, i.e. after serving 2/3 of the sentence, or (iii) after serving a fixed period in exile following the sentence at the labour camp, which was usually 5 years. The specific period of deportation was not fixed, the Soviet perpetrators used the term ‘na viečno’ (for eternity, forever). As a result, the communist authorities and repressive structures had to take various decisions to release the deportees: they had to adopt many orders and resolutions, and the fate of each family had to be decided by the commissions for the review of deportees’ cases. Therefore, in light of these complex procedures, the article focuses more on the release of the deportees. This paper examines the cooperation between the Lithuanian Communist Party and the repressive structures in their attempts to ensure a gradual return of deportees and political prisoners, as the return of the repressed was raising great concern for the Soviet authorities. Such concerns mainly resulted from the fact that some of the repressed were entitled to restitution of confiscated property (often no longer available), while there was a potential threat that a sudden or massive return of these people would incite the anti–Soviet sentiment in Lithuania. Research into the activities of the commissions for the review of deportees’ cases was based on archival documents. Both statistical data and deliberations of the fate of individual families by the commissions are presented in this paper. The analysis of the sources demonstrates a significant change as of 1956 triggered by several driving factors: the growing number of repressed returnees, the news of the 1956 Hungarian anti-Soviet uprising reaching Lithuania, and anti-Soviet demonstrations in Kaunas and Vilnius during the 1956 All Souls’ Day. Sensing danger the Lithuanian communist authorities took some precautionary measures. In January 1957, a decree banned the return to Lithuania of prominent Lithuanian statesmen, leaders of the armed resistance and anti–Soviet underground. At the same time, the returned deportees and political prisoners were ‘under supervision’ by strengthening the repressive apparatus of the LSSR’s KGB, by preventing the returnees from registering, from getting a job, and by prohibiting them from returning to their hometowns. In this way, the communist authorities achieved their goal: some of the returnees, unable to settle, went to Latvia, the Kaliningrad region, or even back to Siberia, where they had a guaranteed employment. In this way, the Lithuanian communist government tried to create a ‘critical mass’ of the Lithuanian population which it could lead towards a ‘bright communist future’.

Attitude of the Kremlin towards “heresy” shown by J. Paleckis in 1946–1950

The aim of this article is, referring to the documents from Russian State Archive of Social Political History and other sources, to reveal how the leaders of the Central Committee of the All-Soviet Union Communist party (bolsheviks) and officers from the Central Committee apparatus valued manifestations of national communism demonstrated by J. Paleckis and his conflicts concerning the issues of sovietization of Lithuania with A. Sniečkus. The other purpose of this paper is to find out whether J. Paleckis, emphasizing specific conditions in Lithuania and wishing to mitigate the course of sovietization, received any support from the leaders in the Kremlin; why A. Sniečkus, who used to criticize J. Paleckis, did not try to remove him from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party or dismiss him from the position of the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. This article presents efforts made by J. Paleckis in order to find allies in Moscow, establish patron-client type relationship with Andrei Zhdanov, a secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Soviet Union Communist party (bolsheviks). The analysis of the sources allows us to draw some conclusions. It could be maintained that the secretaries of the Central Committee of the All-Soviet Union Communist party (bolsheviks) and leaders of divisions of the Central Committee apparatus closely watched the conflict displayed between J. Paleckis and A. Sniečkus and the majority of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist party (bolsheviks) led by the latter. These communists were anxious for unhealthy working climate in the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist party (bolsheviks). J. Paleckis‘s political conflicts were caused by manifestation of his national communism ideology, tendency to take care of local interests and his intersection with strict Marxist classic position taken by A. Sniečkus and by majority of other members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist party (bolsheviks). It could be stated that political “heresy” of J. Paleckis, who was involved into a risky political games behind the scenes in order to make efforts and mitigate the course of sovietization policy, and his proposals to write into the agenda some elements of national communism seemed to the leaders of the Central Committee of the All-Soviet Union Communist party (bolsheviks) not just unnecessary but even hazardous. J. Paleckis’s attitude did not comply with provisions and interests of the authorities in the Kremlin, therefore, his efforts were not supported and were valued only negatively. On the other hand, the line of sovietization of Lithuania, to which A. Sniečkus adhered and his methods of governing the party, substantially coincided with the principal position of the authorities of the USSR, as well as with the general line of the Communist party, and, therefore, a prospect of losing the post of the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist party was negligible. J. Paleckis‘s efforts to compete with A. Sniečkus strengthened the authority of the latter. The first secretary of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist party deliberately avoided taking considerable sanctions against J. Paleckis, he did not seek to dismiss J. Paleckis from the position occupied. This would have not been beneficial to A. Sniečkus, because a potential strike from Moscow could be directed against J. Paleckis, a “nationalist” and “heretic”. If J. Paleckis had been removed from the political arena, nobody would have covered A. Sniečkus against potential Moscow repressions. Continuous stress caused by confrontation with J. Paleckis allowed A. Sniečkus to manifest himself as a flawless implementer of political line of the Centre and, because of this, to enhance his position as the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist party.

The concepts of a deportee and deportation in Lithuanian during the period of Soviet occupation: legal, ideological, administrative and social aspects

The subject of the article is the phenomenon of population transfer organized by the Soviets – deportations. The aim is to analyse and deconstruct the concepts of a deportee, deportation and exile using insights and methods of different scientific disciplines (sociology, history, law). The phenomenon of Soviet deportations is viewed from the perspective of a variety of sources and through examination of different source groups: Soviet sources of criminal law, administrative documents of the Lithuanian Communist Party, criminal court files and files of deportees, diaries and memoirs of the deportees themselves. The main question raised by the article is whether the legal status and actual situation of a deportee differed from that of a political prisoner. Could there a strict distinction be drawn between these two groups of repressed people in the Soviet system? In what circumstances the legal and factual situation of a “deportee” and “political offender” was similar?

Release and return of repressed people in Lithuania In 1953–1957: between freedom and constraints

The topic of the article is the release and return of deportees and political prisoners to Lithuania. As the Soviet regime was modifying itself, it abandoned mass repressions as of 1953 and authorised a large part of the deportees to return home. According to the available information, in 1953–1958 over 40,000 people returned to Lithuania from exile and imprisonment. The release of political prisoners within the context of USSR’s repression is clearer. The release of a political prisoner could happen in three scenarios: (i) after serving the full sentence, (ii) prematurely, i.e. after serving 2/3 of the sentence, or (iii) after serving a fixed period in exile following the sentence at the labour camp, which was usually 5 years. The specific period of deportation was not fixed, the Soviet perpetrators used the term ‘na viečno’ (for eternity, forever). As a result, the communist authorities and repressive structures had to take various decisions to release the deportees: they had to adopt many orders and resolutions, and the fate of each family had to be decided by the commissions for the review of deportees’ cases. Therefore, in light of these complex procedures, the article focuses more on the release of the deportees. This paper examines the cooperation between the Lithuanian Communist Party and the repressive structures in their attempts to ensure a gradual return of deportees and political prisoners, as the return of the repressed was raising great concern for the Soviet authorities. Such concerns mainly resulted from the fact that some of the repressed were entitled to restitution of confiscated property (often no longer available), while there was a potential threat that a sudden or massive return of these people would incite the anti–Soviet sentiment in Lithuania. Research into the activities of the commissions for the review of deportees’ cases was based on archival documents. Both statistical data and deliberations of the fate of individual families by the commissions are presented in this paper. The analysis of the sources demonstrates a significant change as of 1956 triggered by several driving factors: the growing number of repressed returnees, the news of the 1956 Hungarian anti-Soviet uprising reaching Lithuania, and anti-Soviet demonstrations in Kaunas and Vilnius during the 1956 All Souls’ Day. Sensing danger the Lithuanian communist authorities took some precautionary measures. In January 1957, a decree banned the return to Lithuania of prominent Lithuanian statesmen, leaders of the armed resistance and anti–Soviet underground. At the same time, the returned deportees and political prisoners were ‘under supervision’ by strengthening the repressive apparatus of the LSSR’s KGB, by preventing the returnees from registering, from getting a job, and by prohibiting them from returning to their hometowns. In this way, the communist authorities achieved their goal: some of the returnees, unable to settle, went to Latvia, the Kaliningrad region, or even back to Siberia, where they had a guaranteed employment. In this way, the Lithuanian communist government tried to create a ‘critical mass’ of the Lithuanian population which it could lead towards a ‘bright communist future’.

Sovietinė žemės reforma Lietuvoje 1944–1948 m.: politiniai ir socialiniai-ekonominiai aspektai

Based on Russian archival materials and other sources, the article reveals and analyses the political and social-economic aspects of the Soviet land reform of 1944–1948, examines statistical quantitative indicators. It seeks to reinterpret and reassess the objectives, the course, and the consequences of the land reform and to show how the socio-economic structure of the rural society was being changed and what it became. The results of the study suggest that it is reasonable to conclude that after the reform, Lithuania was dominated by small rather than medium-sized farms as claimed by Soviet historiography and the Soviet authorities. This was the result of a targeted and ollectivisation-oriented policy of the leadership of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and not the result of land shortage. The land reform can be seen as a social revolution, which led to radical qualitative socio-economic changes in the countryside, but the political goal of winning over a larger part of the peasantry to their side was not achieved.

Sovietų Sąjungos penktoji kolona Anykščių krašte tarpukario Lietuvoje

The communist underground movement which emerged in the provinces of Lithuania during the years of independence used to be involved in anti-state subversive activities in favour of the foreign state, the USSR, already before the occupation, thus laying down the foundations of a collaborative system. The Lithuanian Communist Party was a strictly centralised organisation consisting of LCP groups, districts, regions, and units which were governed by the Central Committee of the LCP through instructors appointed by this institution of the LCP. In Anykščiai and in the adjacent Kavarskas parish the first communist groups were created by members of the Communist Party of the whole of Russia (VKP (b)); Edvardas Makštys, former secretary of the revolutionary committee of the Švenčionys district, a teacher, and Alfonsas Karosas, former commissar of the RA division and a pharmacist. The communist underground movement founded by the Lithuanian bolsheviks was expanding, and new underground communist groups started to appear both in the parish centres of Anykščiai and Kavarskas and in the villages of these parishes. Communists from Anykščiai and Kavarskas were active in cooperation, and for some time they belonged to the same LCP Anykščiai volost. The communist movement in the LCP Anykščiai-Kavarskas volost (from 1934 onwards) was small and very scarce archival data suggest that during the years of independence in Anykščiai there were only three Lithuanian and one Russian communist, all the others were Jews. In Kavarskas, only Jews were members of communist organisations. The situation in Anykščiai and Kavarskas was quite the opposite: members of Communist and Komsomol groups operating in the villages of Anykščiai and Kavarskas volosts were exclusively Lithuanians, as there were almost no Jews living in rural areas. In terms of the total number of members and supporters of communist organisations in Anykščiai (in the towns and villages) during the years of independence, the number of communists, members of the Komsomol and the international organisation for the support of the revolutionary struggle (in Russian – MOPR) was fewer than 80 persons, which was less than 1 per cent (0.58) of the population in the volost (in September 1939, a total population of the volost was 13,741 person). All in all, in 1940 there were 18 communists and about 30 members of the Komsomol and the MOPR in Anykščiai volost, and the same number (about 30) of their supporters (mostly acting as sureties for the detained communists). In 1936, 37 members of communist organisations lived in Anykščiai (some of them were serving prison sentences at the time), 33 of whom were Jews, which constituted 2.34 per cent of the Jewish community in Anykščiai (according to the data from September 1939, there were 1,405 Jews living in Anykščiai). The Lithuanian security police successfully controlled the activities of the communists, and the latter did not constitute a major source of concern for the state. Due to the low number of communists and the hostility of the majority of the population towards them, they had no means and no way of changing the government, either by election (the LCP was banned in Lithuania) or by force. The situation changed radically after the occupation of Lithuania by the Soviet Russia, when the former fifth column – members of communist organisations and their supporters, together with the representatives of the occupiers, took over almost all the most important government posts and workplaces, and set about destroying everything connected with the independent state of Lithuania and its autonomy.

Image of Lithuanian Communists who Broke away from Moscow in the TV Show “Panorama” of the Lithuanian Television in January-March 1990

The transformation of communist societies into democratic ones in Europe in 1988-1990 is a massive and complicated phenomenon. Claiming that they were implementing democracy, the local communist regimes had been trying to maintain their influence in the states, for which they had a lot of resources, including the media. In terms of political communication, the mass media claimed not even the position of an individual actor next to politicians or the audience, but a puppet group of politicians. The liberating society began to look at non-communist political alternatives, while the communists were trying to maintain a monopoly. This also happened in 1990 in Lithuania, which was occupied by the Soviet Union. Hence the question arises, as the first democratic elections after the Second World War had approached, how did the media describe the Lithuanian Communist Party that seized power? Consecutive newspaper archives have survived to this day, therefore we can clearly see how the press has reflected the news of the political field. But what and how was streaming media TV broadcasting? Often these were working at the time say “I don’t remember anything” or tell generalized narratives. In addition, there is an argument that there are little remains left of the programs, which cannot provide a full context of what and how television had been showing. Based on the thesis of television theory and practice that a television report or other production is created based on a text, the texts of the program “Panorama” stored in the Central State Archive of Lithuania are used to prepare the article. The purpose of this article is to show how the journalists reflected the events related to the Lithuanian Communist Party in the main informational television show, what attitudes of the audience could be formed on this political force during the election campaign. The article publishes an analysis of the texts of the TV show “Panorama” related to the Lithuanian Communist Party, its leader Algirdas Brazauskas and the party’s activities.

Professors in Humanities at Vilnius University and the Doctrine in the Period of Activities of Donatas Sauka

The analysis of professors in Humanities at Vilnius University in 1948–1956, the period of studies and post-graduate course of Donatas Sauka, established that professors who had not accepted the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism and who had obtained their academic titles in independent Lithuania or pre-revolutionary Russia had left the university. During the first year of Soviet rule, a group of persons who had contributed to Lithuania’s incorporation into the USSR and undertaken to establish the doctrine at the university became professors. They were active in the 1940s and 1950s and created a climate of fear. Some lecturers who were neutral towards the doctrine had been granted the title of professors for their contribution to the science in order to raise the prestige of the university. A cluster of lecturers who attempted to interpret literature without applying primitive sociologisation was formed in the Department of Lithuanian Literature in mid 1950s. At the initiative of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party, actions were taken (1956–1961) to force the group of young lecturers to follow the requirements of the doctrine. Having defied the requirements, they were dismissed. D. Sauka belonged to the group, but had retained his job as a lecturer without changing his views towards the doctrine. Some professors, associate professors, and students at the university participated in the ideological cleansing of the Department of Lithuanian Literature. They were later promoted. During the 1960s, among literary scholars only Jurgis Lebedys became a professor. At that time, high qualification requirements for obtaining a professor’s title were set in the USSR. Those who had obtained the titles of professors had different approaches towards the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism. Some showed support only formally and expanded the scope of analysed issues by slowly validating new fields of knowledge and developed individual thinking; others attained high qualification and performed the actions of implementing the doctrine required by the party leaders; still others sought their personal goals by using maintenance of the doctrine as a pretext. The guardians of the doctrine created obstacles for unwanted persons in becoming professors by trying to prevent them from defending their doctoral (post-doctoral) theses and publishing their articles and works; they tried to create a wall of silence around them. In the 1970s, D. Sauka and Vytautas Kubilius defended their doctoral (post-doctoral) theses; both of them had surpassed the topics defined by the doctrine and opened new fields of knowledge in Lithuanian literature and culture. Attempts were made to prevent them from defending their theses, but thanks to the vigilance of his colleagues, D. Sauka defended his thesis and became a professor after four years. The approval of V. Kubilius’s doctoral (post-doctoral) title lasted six years, yet one of the strongest literary critics and scholars was not granted the title of professor from the Soviet university. In the 1980s, a number of students at Vilnius University obtained titles of professors. The doctrine itself had changed at that time, the communist government avoided scandals, the level of mentality was higher at the university, and simultaneously, the behaviour of lecturers themselves was self-censored; some of the guardians of the doctrine had voluntarily abandoned their position and those who appreciated the works of their talented colleagues appeared. At the juncture of the 1980s and 1990s, professors of Vilnius University became more prominent in the society: these were personalities that developed individual thinking of their own and others, done valuable work for the culture of Lithuania, retained relations with the nation and had the goal of creating an independent state of Lithuania.

Inventing the Communist Party of Lithuania as a Labour Movement. Narratives in Soviet Historiography

This study analyses and shows how the history of the Communist Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos komunistų partija, LKP) was constructed as the history of an organised labour movement in Soviet historiography. Most studies on Lithuanian workers and labour unions written between 1960 and 1988 searched for connections between the LKP and the labour movement, analysed the impact of the LKP on the workers and unions, and sometimes used the terms ‘workers’ or ‘labouring men’ as synonyms for members of the LKP. According to Soviet Lithuanian historians, labour unions, strikes, workers, and the whole organised labour movement that sympathised with Moscow, helped to gain influence among the citizens of Lithuania prior to the occupation in 1940. Because the labour history of Soviet Lithuania was tied to the history of the Lithuanian Communist Party, it is still hard to draw a line between the history of the workers and the history of the LKP, since the studies on workers, the labour movement and the history of the LKP written during Soviet times are treated as a product of the ideology. It is argued that Soviet Lithuanian labour history must be properly reviewed in order to reevaluate its relationship with contemporary historiography and today’s perception of the labour movement itself.

Žydai ir lietuviai Holokausto išvakarėse 1939–1940 metais

The long history of Jewish-Lithuanian relations was influenced by the changing social and economic realities and thus depended largely on the situational context, in which the two communities interacted with each other.1 The relationship that until the middle of the nineteenth century could be characterized by pre-modern social and economic contacts within an agrarian and traditional system had been inherited from the Grand Duchy period. After the middle of the nineteenth century, the emergence of modern and politicized Lithuanian nationalism changed the way in which Lithuanians came to view Jews. Attitudes towards Jews ranged from clerical anti-Judaism and modern anti-Semitism to tolerance within a secular framework. During the interwar period Jewish society was confronted by the necessity of adapting to a radically new reality: a state, in which formerly marginalized Lithuanian speakers quickly formed a majority in the country“™s urban centres, exerted political power, became competitors in the economy and professions. Despite the Smetona government“™s suppression of anti-Semitic outbreaks and the relatively low level of violence against Jews, anti-Semitism increased among the educated elite during the late 1930s. The domestic and international crises of 1939“’1940 transformed Lithuanian-Jewish relations radically. The first Soviet occupation of Lithuania in June 1940 sharply escalated the violent rhetoric against Jews: they were increasingly attacked as traitors to the country and the main source of Bolshevism. The myth of “Jewish power“ became a wide-spread meme among many Lithuanians and gained further credibility as resistance to Soviet power intensified. The Lithuanian Activist Front propagated the ideas of Jewish treason and Communist collaboration in its propaganda. However, it is true that there were brief periods when Jews represented a considerable part of the LCP (Lithuanian Communist Party) compared to the percentage of Jews within Lithuania. A closer study of the ethnic breakdown of the LCP reveals a complex situation, influenced by the constantly changing reality. The real levers of power were not at the disposal of insufficiently educated local Communists, but in the hands of Stalinist cadres, which were loyal to the Kremlin. Before June 1941, Soviet Lithuania was mainly controlled by Russophone newcomers from the USSR. The situational context of the foreign invasion, which evolved in diametrically opposite geopolitical directions, a number of narratives based on the myths of anti-Semitic disloyalty, and political extremism created a toxic atmosphere on the eve of the Holocaust.

Rašytojai Lietuvos komunistų partijos XX suvažiavime / Writers at the 20th Congress of the Lithuanian Communist Party

The article discusses the general situation of the Lithuanian Communist Party (LKP) in the Soviet period, analyses the motives which determined the entry of Lithuanian writers into the party and the approach of communist writers towards the party during the period of the National Revival with a special focus on the role of communist writers at the 20 th Congress of the LKP which took place on 19–23 December 1989 and in which the party split into an independent LKP and a pro-Soviet LKP-CPSU, which remained a part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Keywords: Lithuanian Communist Party (LKP), Central Committee (CC), Writers’ Union (WU), National Revival, government, Reform Movement of Lithuania Sąjūdis. Summary After living through a complicated period during the National Revival, at the 20th Congress of the Lithuanian Communist Party (LKP) held at the end of 1989 the LKP split into two parts: an independent LKP and a Moscow-dependent LKP. It was the moment which meant that Mikhail Gorbachev lost its main pillar – the support of the already independent LKP leader Algirdas Brazauskas (he was one of the most popular politicians among Lithuanian residents at that time) and the party under his leadership; the Kremlin had to rely on a small group of local communists which had not yet broken their ties with the CPSU but was not really popular in the Lithuanian society. On the scale of the Soviet Union the separation of the LKP was an unprecedented event in the whole USSR (a good example is contagious; it could have given rise to a fear that other union communist parties could have followed in the footsteps of Lithuania); it was a certain misdemeanour in the CPSU. The research revealed that the rapid Lithuanization of the LKP during the post-Stalin era was determined by a number of motives the main of which was the adjustment of its members to the Soviet system which enabled the communists to survive and opened the ways for active work in their own favour and often in favour of the Lithuanian nation. Whereas there was a number of Lithuanian patriots among the communists, including writers, in the face of the changing political circumstances they did not only choose to serve their nation and got involved in the processes of reform movement which began during the Lithuanian National Revival period but were also among the initiators of the reforms implemented at that time and the leaders of reform driving organisations (Writers’ Union) and the Reform Movement of Lithuania Sąjūdis. The membership in the communist party had a certain advantage over others as it protected its members from the potential repressions of the government during the National Revival. The active position expressed by the leaders in favour of the party renewal and their contribution to the drafting of documents of the independent LKP prompt a conclusion about an important role undertaken by the writers in preparing the soil for the emergence of the independent LKP even before the 20 th party congress. The 20th Congress of the LKP was attended by ten writers – delegates some of whom took the leading positions in the Reform Movement of Lithuania Sąjūdis: Vytautas Bubnys, member of the Sąjūdis Seimas’Council; Romas Gudaitis, secretary of the party organisation of the Writers’ Union, member of the Sąjūdis Seimas’Council, the USSR People’s deputy; Mykolas Karciauskas; Aleksandras-Raimondas Kasauskas; Kostas Kaukas; Alfonsas Maldonis; Justinas Marcinkevicius, member of the Sąjūdis Seimas’Council, deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR (1985–1990), USSR People’s deputy; Vytautas Martinkus, chairman of the Board of the Writers’ Union (WU); Vytautas Petkevicius, member of the Sąjūdis Seimas’Council; Valentinas Sventickas, secretary of the Board of the Writers’ Union. The election of writers into the majority of commissions during the 20th Congress of the LKP, chairmanship in the event, participation in discussions, voting in favour of establishment of the independent LKP, election of several writers to the leadership of the new independent LKP enable us to speak about their substantial contribution to the process of democratization of the communist party. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15823/istorija.2015.14

Attitudes Towards the Soviet Past in Lithuania: Three Strategies

The article provides an overview of the main strategies of perspectives on the Soviet past in Lithuania. It argues that it is possible to distinguish three discourses of history regarding the Soviet past, all of which have developed their own interpretations: the first, “Struggling Lithuania” has recently received support from part of Lithuanian society. The attitude of its authors is strongly criticized by a second group of intellectuals connected to the journal and publishing house “Naujasis Židinys – Aidai” (The New Hearth – Echoes). The third strategy is the still existing discourse of former communists, which is criticized by both “Struggling Lithuania” and – even more so – “Naujasis Židinys”. The memoirs discourse of the former nomenklatura is deeply rooted in the times of the National Front (Sąjūdis) at the end of the 80s. It formed in 1989 during the preparations by the Lithuanian communist party to separate from the CPSU, looking for its own legitimacy and expecting support in Lithuanian society.

PETRO GRIŠKEVIČIAUS PERSONALINIS TINKLAS: TARP KLANO IR KONSOLIDUOTOS NOMENKLATŪROS?

The notion of a clan of the first secretary in the soviet Lithuania or, in contrast, speaking about the consolidated titular nomenklatura enables to penetrate deeply into the governing of a soviet republic. The key questions here are: what kind of networks? Could the sort of networks and trust help us explain political dynamics in the soviet Lithuania and reasons why exactly Soviet Lithuanian Communist party became the first one in the Soviet Union that break with CPSU in 1989? What kind of circumstances and political context made possible the horizontal links among nomenklatura members and made nomenklatura likely to be a more consolidated network than the personal clan of the first secretary in such a centralized soviet system?Seeking to draw a difference between the clan and the consolidated titular nomenklatura, useful is the concept of krugavaya poruka presenting the Lithuanian nomenklatura as a cycle of functionaries bounded with interpersonal ties and collective responsibility against Moscow to drain out the political forms of nationalism in society. This article focuses on the personal network of Petras Griskevicius, the first secretary of the Communist party of Lithuania (1974–1987), revealing the importance of his networking in controlling the soviet Lithuanian nomenklatura.Griskevicius’ leadership network consisted of professionals and technocrats (functional nomenklatura), on the one hand, and the functionaries loyal to Griskevicius personally (Griskevicius’ personal clan) on the other. Tensions between members of functional nomenklatura and representatives of his personal clan appeared in many sectors of political, economic and social life of the republic. The article investigates cases of intelligentsia and technocracy in order to show how Griskevicius had used the competition between the functional nomenklatura and members of his personal clan aiming to gain more power.While the first secretary succeed in keeping balance among nomenklatura members, his power was limited by political circumstances. There were at least three factors that made possible the distinguished situation in the soviet Lithuania: 1) high expression of nationalism in society, 2) low status of the first secretary of the republic’s Communist party, 3) the role of the second secretary of the Communist party sent by Moscow into republic’s leadership.The obligation against Moscow to drain out political forms of nationalism in the republic led to functionalism in its nomenklatura leadership. Threat and political responsibility for the expression of nationalism demanded functional skills from party and soviet managers able to deal with political, social, and economic problems in the republic. For this reason, Griskevicius could not behave in the nepotism way by recruiting only trusted and personally loyal to him functionaries into leadership; he needed professionals.Secondly, in contrast to the “masters” in other republics, the first secretary of the soviet Lithuania had a comparatively low status in all-Union institutions. Both the first and second secretaries were only a member and a candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU. This low status of the first secretary in all-Union bureaucracy ranking made an impact on the behavior of the local nomenklatura, because it got a room for the personal play between the first and the second secretaries.

Neformalaus inteligentų tinklo veikla tarp sovietinio sistemiškumo ir alternatyvumo: „garažų storija“ (1977–1978)

Straipsnyje1 analizuojama viena pirmųjų kolektyvinių kultūrininkų peticijų kampanijų prieš režimo politiką – vadinamoji „garažų istorija“. Naudojantis tinklaveikos metodologine prieiga, analizuojami socialiniai ryšiai ir žmonių sąveikos kaip kolektyvinio veiksmo esminės sudedamosios dalys. Tyrime daugiausia dėmesio skiriama ne žmonių (ar grupių) santykiams su valdžios struktūromis, o keletui šios kolektyvinės akcijos vyksmo ypatybių, paaiškinančių jos sėkmę: vidinėms tinklo struktūrinėms savybėms (kas sudarė tinklą ir kaip jis funkcionavo), akcijos veikimo taktikai (kaip tinklas vykdė akciją) ir išorinėms prielaidoms (visuomenėje vyravusioms normoms, kaip antai pasitikėjimas ir bendradarbiavimas, skirtingų socialinių statusų reikšmei atsižvelgiant į kontekstą).1 Straipsnis parengtas įgyvendinant projektą „Nematoma sovietmečio Lietuvos visuomenė: neformaliųjų sisteminių ir nesisteminių tinklų skirties peržiūra (Nr. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-02-053)“. Mokslinis tyrimas finansuojamas Europos socialinio fondo lėšomis pagal visuotinės dotacijos priemonę.

The Lithuanian Cultural Elite and the End of the Soviet Union

Violeta Davoliute, The Making and Breaking of Lithuania: Memory and Modernity Wake of War. 211 pp. New York: Routledge, 2013. ISBN-13 978-0415714495. $155.00. To date, we know a good deal about making (Sovietization) and breaking (Singing Revolution) of Baltic socialist republics (SSRs), but socialist 1960s and 1970s are far less studied. (1) It was those decades that population of pacified Baltic republics began to adapt to conditions of new regime, and it is perhaps for this very reason that Baltic scholars so far have focused almost exclusively on topics like anti-Soviet resistance and reestablishment of independence. (2) Rein Taagepera and Romuald Misiunas have called years from 1954 to 1968 a period of re-emergence of national cultures, albeit with ideological genuflections. (3) More generally, it was also a time of economic stabilization, growing consumption, and more or less peaceful negotiations between citizens and Party on socialist values. (4) But this period also saw coming of age of a new generational cohort whose members had been raised authoritarian interwar republics, with their strong emphasis on patriotism. This is precisely group of people that Davoliute's book investigates. Despite tide, then, Davoliute's study focuses primarily on time when Lithuanian SSR (LSSR) was in process 1960s and 1970s. Her main objects of inquiry are die culturally active Lithuanians who responded to call of modernity, absorbed patterns of Thaw, and blended them successfully with renaissance of interwar national traditions (88). Her book focuses on inner Lidiuanian processes and this way alone breaks new ground history of Baltic republics, hitherto told most often a narrative of us vs. them. In contrast to earlier works on period, her book does not focus on suffering and resistance. Her focal point is instead rustic turn, a powerful undercurrent cultural of LSSR that began late 1960s and undermined discourse of progress and modernity, eventually leading to rustic revolution of late 1980s. Most notably, she presents the story of Lithuanian cultural mainstream (xvi) a way to challenge popular reference to collective suffering under foreign (Soviet) rule. For this purpose, author conducted in-depdi interviews with many leading intellectuals of time (their biographies are collected appendix). In many ways, Lithuania was different from its northern neighbors Baltic region. Lithuanian postwar armed resistance against Sovietization can be compared scale only to western Ukraine. (5) Lidiuania was distinct from Estonia and Latvia also terms of its political leadership. The career of Antanas Snieckus (1903-1974) was exceptionally long and robust: he became a member of Central Committee of Lithuanian Communist Party 1927 and first secretary 1936. With exception of his arrest 1939-40, he held this position until his death 1974. In contrast, leading Estonian and Latvian comrades sooner or later faced dramatic purges. (6) Moreover, whereas Estonia and Latvia experienced a mass influx of migrants from other republics that eventually threatened demographic majority of titular nationality, Lithuania left Union 1991 with a Slavic minority of only 20 percent, including 8 percent Poles, republic's traditional national minority. At same time, all three Baltic republics represented a Soviet West for many citizens (105), based on particular European outlook of Baltic cities, better standard of life on coast of Baltic Sea, and for some even a somewhat more relaxed ideological atmosphere. (7) In this respect, Davoliute supports Elena Zubkova's view that Baltic republics were used by Kremlin as showcases for achievements of science, culture, and industry (108) for a non-Soviet audience, but she refers also to phenomenal success of a number of Lithuanian actors cinema (108) who contributed to die positive image of their republic rest of USSR. …

The Role of the Second Party Secretary in the “Election” of the First: The Political Mechanism for the Appointment of the Head of Soviet Lithuania in 1974

On 5 February 1974, a Tuesday, the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) Ivan Kapitonov paid a visit to the Politburo member Mikhail Suslov at Moscow's Old Square. Kapitonov was accompanied by the Soviet Lithuanian functionary Valerii Kharazov, who presented to Suslov a blue notebook containing the opinions of the Lithuanian nomenklatura about the potential candidates for the position of first secretary of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party (LCP). Kharazov's visit to Suslov was the crucial moment in the appointment/ election of the new head of the republic after the death of Antanas Snieckus, who had held the position from 1940 to 1974. Kharazov (b. 1918) has survived in Lithuanian collective memory as one of the most ruthless Soviet governors-general. This was the title conferred behind their backs on all the second secretaries of the Central Committee of the LCP, who--with the exception of a brief period from 1953 to 1956--were not locals but Russians sent from Moscow. The political institution of the second secretaries was important for Moscow as a means of controlling the national republics--functionaries would be sent from Moscow to all the national republics (with the exception of the three Slavic republics). Having arrived in Soviet Lithuania, the second secretary directly supervised the work of important departments--notably those of Organizational Party Work and Administrative Organs, which oversaw the judicial system and the Committee for State Security (KGB). His key function was to supervise the work of the local nomenklatura and report regularly to the sector for Belorussia and the Baltic republics of the Department for Organizational Party Work of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Kharazov's career followed a trajectory similar to second secretaries of most other republics. Before being appointed to Lithuania, he worked as an instructor at the Department for Organizational Party Work of the Central Committee of the CPSU in Moscow. There he supervised the work of the party apparatus and administrative institutions in neighboring Belorussia. (1) In 1964, he was promoted to become an inspector in the Central Committee, already not attached to a concrete republic. Now he was directly responsible to the secretary and head of the Central Committee department rather than the head of the department sector. (2) Kharazov's duties included organizing inspections in the Soviet republics and leading commissions formed by the Central Committee for solving newly arisen problems or issues. Kharazov was not the only actor in this election. The workings of the Lithuanian nomenklatura, and in particular its use of personal relations, provide an opportunity to look more thoroughly into all-union politics from the local perspective. That investigation, in turn, makes possible distinctions between the statuses of Soviet republic and Russian region (oblast'), which fundamentally affected the nature of relations with the center. The long drawn-out interregnum, which began after the death of Snieckus on 22 January 1974 and ended with the election of Petras Griskevicius as the new first secretary on 18 February, is important not only as a case study of a period that marked a new stage in Soviet Lithuania's administration. It also sheds light on the changing relationship between the center and a Soviet republic in the Brezhnev era, as well as shifts in Moscow's cadre policy. Three main theoretical approaches have been used to analyze center-region relations in the Soviet system. Two approaches--the totalitarian and the corporatist--have a direct bearing on the subject of Soviet nationality policy, while the third one--the patron--client, or clientelistic approach--is generally used by scholars investigating center-region relations rather than nationality policy. I explain why the totalitarian approach is not sufficient as an explanatory model and how the two other models--corporatist and clientelistic--can be integrated in the concrete case of Lithuania in 1974. …

Hooligans, Hippies, and Immature Youth: Negotiating Communist Party Narratives of May 18, 1972 in Kaunas

In the aftermath of the street demonstrations in Kaunas in May 1972, Communist Party leaders developed a narrative of the events that downplayed nationalism or political dissent as motivating factors for the unrest. Initially, Soviet authorities blamed marginal elements in society, specifically hooligans and hippies, for instigating what they called a ‘disturbance of public order’. However, the demographics of participants forced Party leaders to explain why young people who were students, workers and even Komsomol members would take to the streets shouting slogans such as ‘freedom for Lithuania’ and ‘freedom for hippies’. As a result, the Communist Party focused on the failure to inculcate Soviet youth with proper ideological values, making them susceptible to manipulation by ‘hostile elements’. In doing so, Party leaders were able to use the political practice of self-criticism to keep the events of May 1972 within acceptable ideological bounds. However, the recognition of its own weaknesses did not stop the Lithuanian Communist Party from blaming other groups, such as parents, schools and cultural organizations, for failing to provide a proper upbringing for Soviet Lithuanian youth. Although cultural and intellectual organizations were only one of the factors blamed for the political immaturity of youth and their susceptibility to corrupting influences, they were the ones to suffer the consequences of the Soviet authorities’ crackdown after the street demonstrations. Through a process of applying and discarding various discursive options, Lithuanian communist officials were able to use Soviet ideological narratives to protect themselves from criticism and to eliminate disruptive cultural and intellectual leaders in Kaunas.

Political Intimacy

This article explores intersections between power, subjectivity, and laughter by focusing on Šluota ( The Broom), a humor and satire journal published by the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party during late socialism (1970s to mid-1980s). In Lithuania, while the official newspapers and journals were commonly distrusted, The Broom was perceived as a grassroots media. In this article, the author asks how officially sanctioned socialist humor was translated into readers’ sincere laughter; how sensual and political dialogue was created between state authorities, artists, and readers. The author shows that in the case of the official culture of humor presented in The Broom, laughter cannot be easily classified as performance of resistance or support for the regime. In The Broom, the discourse of power was never monologic and simply oppressive. It was situational, contextual, and changing. Officially sanctioned laughter was infused with and mediated by private emotions and values. Moreover, the journal provided space for artistic creativity and self-expression that reshaped official political aesthetics. Laughter blurred the distinctions between the state and the citizen, the public and the private, the hegemonic and the sincere. The author argues that laughter is an experience and a performance of political intimacy through which various agents imagine a self, society, and the state and reproduce various power orders. Political intimacy refers to coexistence of state authorities and other subjects in fields of social and political comfort, togetherness, and dialogue as well as in the zones of shared meanings and values.

The End of the Lithuanian Political "Patriarch's" Era

Abstract: Top political leadership can and often does play a crucial role in countries that transition from one political system to another. As a former Lithuanian Communist Party leader, the first president of independent Lithuania, and the longest-serving prime minister, Algirdas Brazauskas is one of a few Lithuanian policymakers who has left a profound impact on the country. This article reviews Brazauskas' rise to the pinnacles of political power, evaluates his pursued policies, and assesses the legacies he left behind after withdrawing from politics in 2006. The author also examines the claim that Lithuania is facing a leadership crisis in the aftermath of Brazauskas' departure. Keywords: Brazauskas, presidency, prime ministership, legacy, leadership vacuum ********** A political earthquake shook Lithuania on June 1, 2006, when a long-term political survivor, Algirdas Brazauskas--who served as Lithuania's prime minister from 2001-2006--decided to resign, together with all of his cabinet members. A prime minister's departure, in and of itself a commonplace occurrence in European politics, marked a profound turning point in Lithuania's political life. On the one hand, this event signified the end of what became referred to as the country's political patriarch's era of rule. On the other hand, analysts both in the country and abroad began pointing to the leaderless Lithuania phenomenon. was so much attention devoted to this single politician and his departure from a political scene in a small country on the Baltic coast? Individual studies of political leaders always tackle challenging questions: Why should one care about a particular individual? and Did he or she really matter as a leader? Before these questions are addressed, a quick clarification of terminology is in order. The term leadership, as used in this study, should not be understood as a simple holding of a high office position, but rather as a complex phenomenon that encompasses an important quality--the power to sway others and make people do things that they would not have otherwise done. Individuals in power positions are not only able to exercise leadership, but also to achieve success and leave a profound impact on their surroundings through the skillful exploitation of various opportunities (i.e., unique once-in-a-lifetime situations, redefined institutional structures, stretching of assigned constitutional powers, the political culture, or support by constituents) as well as their own personal skills. Studies of political leadership have shown that every individual leader certainly does not matter in all situations all of the time. For instance, Anthony Mughan's and Samuel Patterson's research suggests that leaders are likely to matter more under extreme political circumstances, such as crises and wars.j Furthermore, Timothy Colton and Robert Tucker, Martin Westlake, Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack, Archie Brown, and George Breslauer have established that leaders appear to be paramount in periods of transition or considerable change that a state undergoes. (2) Indeed, there is a general agreement among scholars of post-Communist states that leaders matter more when a genuine opportunity exists to change a state's policies. During such times, a leader often has power concentrated in his or her hands; institutions, conversely, remain weak, stay in conflict, or undergo administrative restructuring and are not able to obstruct a leader's policy choices and preferences. In such circumstances leaders have profound personal influence on their country's political life and policy choices. At the same time, these windows of opportunity rarely remain open for an extended period of time, and once they close, the influence of policymakers begins to diminish while that of bureaucratic structures gradually increases and solidifies. Naturally, this is only a general tendency, and the degree of leaders' influence in the policy-formation process varies on a case-by-case basis, primarily because [t]he capacity of actors to shape events is a variable not a constant. …

Vilnius University, Department of Archaeology (from the establishment until year 1966)

1940 m. rugsėjį Vilniaus universitete buvo įsteigta Archeologijos katedra. Švęsdami katedros įkūrimo 70 metų jubiliejų, galime apžvelgti gana sudėtingą nueitą kelią, katedroje dirbusių žmonių veiklą, jų indėlį į Lietuvos ir baltų genčių archeologijos mokslą, specialistų archeologų rengimą. Galima iš karto pažymėti, kad Archeologijos katedros, kaip ir viso lietuviškojo Vilniaus universiteto, veikla nuo 1940 m. yra susijusi su sunkiu ir labai sudėtingu Lietuvos istorijos tarpsniu. [...]