Lietuvos istorijos studijos 2021-07-14T09:27:13+00:00 Tomas Vaiseta Open Journal Systems <p>Founded in 1992. Publishes articles on Lithuanian sociocultural and political history, cultural anthropology, heritage conservation and archaeology, the Lithuanian nation and its historical development.</p> What Was Protected by the State in Vilnius and Nowogródek Voivodeships Between 1928 and 1939? Evaluation and Listing of Cultural Monuments 2021-07-14T09:27:08+00:00 Viktorija Kurienė <p>This article focuses on the process of monument listing, done by conservators of Vilnius in interwar Poland and which provided the monuments state protection. Between 1931 and 1939, monument conservators made 202 decisions confirming monumental value to various objects of architecture, urbanistics, archeology and nature. In the text the listing and evaluation process is described by analyzing the register of monuments and the decisions it was based on. The documents from the archive of the Art Department of Vilnius voivodeship are used in the article. The analysis of the register of monuments is based on statistical methods. Interpretation and evaluation are based on analytical and comparative methods. The research leads to findings that monument listing was dominated by architecture. Objects of nature were announced monuments based on their cultural value. Officially the status of a monument was given on the grounds of its aesthetics, age or documental value. However, the inner motive was Polishness. Thus, the most frequent monuments were baroque Catholic churches. The patriotic context is also seen in nature protection. The process of monument listing was led by only one expert – a conservator of monuments. The monument status and state protection depended on their interests, expertise and power. The conservator cooperated only with a small group of Polish authority and intelligentsia, leaving the majority of society out of this heritage process. The decision confirming monumental value was a way to control and have an impact directly on the monument’s existence, indirectly – on the discourse of memory. The monument listing reveals values and identities of a Polish art historian working for the state. Consequently, these values and identities were projected for the whole society as universal. This type of discourse on heritage, conception and practice was common in Western countries in the 20th c.</p> 2021-07-14T03:25:29+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Viktorija Kurienė The Ethnographic Principle as a Phenomenon of History 2021-07-14T09:27:13+00:00 Česlovas Laurinavičius <p>The concept of the ethnographic principle is rarely found in the literature, and there is hardly a legal qualification for it. However, historical material (in cases of the Lithuanian, Czech, Bulgarian and Polish peoples) indicates that the ethnographic principle is a significant political and geopolitical phenomenon. This phenomen is especialy characteristic of the development of the peoples of the region of Central and Eastern Europe. First, the ethnographic principle was closely related to the national principle, although it did not coincide with it. The concept of the ethnographic principle points to the special anatomy of nation states, where the basis is ethnic / linguistic culture. Secondly, the advancement of culture to the fore indicated the recognition of its significance, which had not happened before. Consequently, it was a question of freeing this culture from the restrictions imposed on it and even compensating for the damage caused to it. Thirdly, the culture, raised to the state level, needed appropriate guarantees for the future. The article reveals the tendency of great states at the level of their policies and propaganda to act according to the ethnographic principle, thereby encouraging the formation of national states. However, when the latter became a fact, another tendency arose: the Western world began to apply the criteria of a liberal civil society to new states (according to the principle of jus civis romanus sum). This was too hard for the new states. In this context, the alternative was the Soviet ethno-federalist protectorate, which, although under the conditions of a repressive system, actually continued to implement the projections of the ethnographic principle. A fixed paradox: the ethnographic principle, which originated in the West as a variant of democratization, gained strength thanks to Russia, while the West remained, as it were, in aristocratic opposition to this course. The ethnographic principle has not yet acquired a clearer legal legitimacy. But as a historical category, it can serve as a study of the history of Modern times, and especially the Soviet period.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors Editorial Board and Table of Contents 2021-07-14T09:27:12+00:00 Alfredas Bumblauskas <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors Author Guidelines and Bibliographic Data 2021-07-14T09:27:12+00:00 Alfredas Bumblauskas <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors Philosophy and the Implementation of Marxism-Leninism in Lithuania’s Higher Education Institutions from 1944 to 1947 2021-07-14T09:27:11+00:00 Laurynas Peluritis <p>The article examines the introduction of Soviet Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) into the Lithuanian higher education system in 1944–1947. Based on archival sources and existing historiography, this paper explores the development of the higher education system in Lithuania during the first years of the Soviet occupation, including the translation, publication, and dissemination of ideological texts. It is argued that the introduction of Soviet Marxism in Lithuanian higher education institutions in 1944–1945 was carried out in a forced and chaotic manner, the organization of teaching and the preparation of ideological literature was slow, and there was a lack of staff to teach ideological courses. First came the creation of formal institutions (departments, divisions, institutes), and only then a consistent introduction of Marxist-Leninist teachings and the implementation of ideological control.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors Vagrant and Neglected Minors in Soviet Lithuania 1944–1954: The Problem and the Solutions 2021-07-14T09:27:11+00:00 Ieva Balčiūnė <p>This article presents the analysis of how the issue of vagrant and neglected (“беспризорные и безнадзорные”) minors in Soviet Lithuania was dealt with during the period of 1944–1954. After the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1944, stencil measures of dealing with the issue were imposed. However, the problem of vagrant and neglected minors in postwar Lithuania was specific and had changed. Therefore, the research reveals the dynamics of the problem and, by taking into account the Soviet Lithuanian context, the measures taken to solve it. Up until the beginning of the 1950s, vagrant and neglected minors were mostly street children and orphans from WWII. A considerable part of them had migrated from Russian and Belarusian territories in search for food. The government’s aims were to reduce their numbers, move them from the streets and change their official status. But in the 1950s, the problem, as it was seen, had transformed to juvenile delinquency and required respective measures. The research discovers how the system of custody, imprisonment, accommodation and care of these minors worked in early Soviet Lithuania.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors “The New Man” On-Demand: A Student in Lithuanian Schools of the Late Soviet Years (1964–1988) 2021-07-14T09:27:10+00:00 Akvilė Naudžiūnienė <p>This article presents a socio-historical study that combines an analysis of the theoretical model of the “new man” in the late Soviet period (1964–1988) with an empirical study of personal experiences of people who were students at schools in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (LSSR) during this period. The aim is to analyze how the teaching and learning process were organized during the late Soviet period in LSSR schools, how it was understood by the participants of this study, and what were the possible differences in the experiences of schoolchildren. Also, it is equally important to determine which of the schoolchildren’s experiences in this period could be qualified as “unifying experiences” that formed the mentality of the late Soviet period generation. These experiences are compared with the common Soviet vision of the “new man” education, which was also changing during the late Soviet period. While searching for the answer to how much of the theoretical “new man” model was adopted by this last Soviet generation in LSSR, we use a post-revisionist approach and focus on the narrative of everyday history&nbsp;– what it meant to be schoolchildren in Soviet schools. The research revealed that the formal institutionalization of collective life for schoolchildren through Pioneer or Komsomol organizations was ineffective in creating a collective community feeling between the young generation. During the late Soviet period in LSSR schools there were four main disciplinary practices: formal notices by writing or by word, unsanctioned physical punishments, preventive disciplinary practices, and informal shaming. The last informal disciplinary practice was considered by schoolchildren in todays perspective as the most effective means of discipline at schools. These practices reflected the model of monitoring each other in the adult Soviet society and formed the horizontal control system involving students, their parents, and teachers. The research revealed a preliminary informal social stratification of children in LSSR schools during the late Soviet period. It was not related to the vision of “the new man” education but encouraged an already existing division within the LSSR society. This was a complete departure from the ethical-moral visions of educating “the new man” in schools, which were based on the demolition of the established class division, enabling this “new man” to create a welfare of socialist society by their own hard work and heroic achievements.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors What Does It Mean: „Only History Could Explain It“? 2021-07-14T09:27:09+00:00 Hermann Lübbe Nerijus Šepetys <p>Tekstą iš vokiečių kalbos vertė ir pratarmę parašėNerijus Šepetys</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors Stanisław Kościałkowski and His Notebook: The Testimony of “Other” about Lithuanians in the Forced Labor Camp in Ural 2021-07-14T09:27:09+00:00 Algis Povilas Kasperavičius <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors Without Bigger Storms (on Dainius Noreika’s Thesis „Partisan War in Lithuania (1944–1953): The Issue of Social Structures“ 2021-07-14T09:27:08+00:00 Enrika Kripienė <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Authors