LGGRTC LOGO

 

Linas Venclauskas. Lietuvos įvaizdžiai antinacinėje lietuvių spaudoje

 

 

Prasidėjus sovietų–nacių karui ir vokiečiams užėmus Lietuvos teritoriją iš pradžių valstybingumą manyta atkurti pasinaudojus karo padėtimi, tačiau greitai nusivilta ir suvokta, jog lietuvių ir nacių logika Lietuvos valstybingumo atžvilgiu gerokai skyrėsi. Ilgainiui naciai ėmė net drausti viešai kalbėti apie Lietuvos valstybingumą bei diskutuoti dėl būsimos Lietuvos santvarkos modelių. Taigi Vokietijai neatlikus lietuvių planuoto tilto į savarankiškumą vaidmens, o legalią spaudą prižiūrint vokiečių ir lietuvių cenzūrai diskusijos apie valstybingumą ir būsimą Lietuvos viziją nusikėlė į privačius pokalbius ir, žinoma, vis gausėjančią nelegalią pogrindžio spaudą.

Šio straipsnio tikslas – pristatyti įvairių pogrindinių periodinių leidinių, sykiu ir ideologinių stovyklų projektuotas Lietuvos vizijas bei būdus valstybingumui pasiekti, nes iki šiol istoriografijoje tėra keli daugiau aprašomojo pobūdžio tekstai, atpasakojantys anų tekstų mintis; tiesa, juose nusakomos tekstų autorių ideologinės stovyklos, bet nesiimama plačiau komentuoti anuometinių tekstų turinio. Mėgindami spręsti šią problemą kelsime keletą uždavinių: išanalizuoti, kaip tam tikros ideologinės orientacijos veikė būsimos Lietuvos vaizdinį, kokios aspiracijos pateikiamos bandant jį įgyvendinti: kam tenka priešo vaidmuo, kas pasirenkamas sąjungininku, kokia turi būti gyventojų elgsena, kaip jie turi reaguoti į esamą tvarką, kokie numatomi santykiai su kaimynais, ar svarstomas (ir kaip) mažumų klausimas. (TĘSINĮ SKAITYKITE ŽURNALE „GENOCIDAS IR REZISTENCIJA“)

 

The Vision of Lithuania in the Lithuanian Anti-Nazi Press

Summary

The aim of this article is to introduce the vision of Lithuania and ways to achieve statehood as presented by different Lithuanian underground publications of the Second World War. It also seeks to give a more detailed analysis of the content in the articles themselves, their contradictions, ideological principles, and attitudes towards the minorities.

Although the revolt of June 1941 failed to reach its goal, the restoration of Lithuanian independence, the idea itself was not surrendered. The historiography agrees that the LAF (the Lithuanian Activists’ Front) managed to enlist the main Lithuanian political powers for the restoration of statehood. However, after the uprising, those forces scattered again and acted in smaller or bigger units in the underground, until in 1943 they again succeeded in uniting into the Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania (VLIK) which expressed the most explicit (in 1944) image of independent Lithuania. In the VLIK, the political powers with completely different prospects managed to come to an agreement and a common ideology, thus creating real basis for acting together. However, the VLIK project was also utopian, in the sense that the predictions of Lithuanians concerning the end of the Second World War did not prove accurate.

The main powers which made up the core of the VLIK were: the Lithuanian Front, the Supreme Lithuanian Committee and the Lithuanian Freedom Fighters’ Union. Looking through the press of those organizations, one can easily detect their visions of democratic Lithuania. As already mentioned, the ideas closest to the true nature of democracy belonged to the newspaper Nepriklausoma Lietuva (Independent Lithuania) published by the peasant-populists who belonged to the VLIK group. The newspaper Į laisvę (To Freedom) published by the Lithuanian Front also proclaimed a democratic system; however, it was reformed in a way which noticeably digressed from the concept of democracy. The Front attempted to find a connection, though not very successfully, between democracy and socialist ideas; in the end, they suggested that the pluralism essential for democratic life be transformed to a mystified cult of unity and interests of the nation.

The press of the Lithuanian Freedom Fighters’ Union published a great deal on contemporary issues, noting how the occupation authorities should be treated. Nonetheless, their publication, Apžvalga (Review) did not avoid ambiguous statements complicating the concept of a Lithuanian vision. On the one hand, the Lithuanian Freedom Fighters’ Union also stood for a democratic Lithuania; on the other hand, the expressions in some of the publications contradicted the values democracy. For instance, calling Germans the naujažydžiai (“New Jewry”) could provoke hostility of both Germans, and Jews.

The press of the youngest generation, Atžalynas (New Growth) and Baltija (Baltics) presented the most ambivalent vision of Lithuania: a democratic Lithuania which is a stranger to the party system and disunity. The question whether democracy could be possible without pluralism was not even considered by the authors. Lithuania was to include Prussia since this supposedly was once Lithuanian land. According to the newspapers, Lithuania’s future should be decided by politicians, diplomacy, and arms. All these projects were rather utopian and more akin to “social engineering”, rather than to the creation of democracy.

Finally, even as the Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania (VLIK) was formed (its title already implies the dimension of citizenship, rather than nationality), none of the proposed visions of Lithuania included the issue of minorities, nor was there a dialogue with other nationalities. This notwithstanding, the two former major Lithuanian minorities, the Jews and Poles, managed to attract the attention of the underground press, which spoke of Jews in a neutral vein, providing only the deplorable statistics on their massacres, while the Poles continued to be considered the potential enemies of Lithuania, the possible invaders of Vilnius.

Elegant Double.gif (808 bytes)

I PRADZIAAtnaujinta: 2004-03-10
Pasiūlymai ir pastabos - CompanyWebmaster

© Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras