Search

1942 m. pavasarį užsienio reikalų sekretorius Anthony Edenas, ruošdamas Jungtinės Karalystės ir Sovietų Sąjungos strateginio bendradarbiavimo sutartį, kaip galimo kompromiso su Stalinu variantą parengė projektus, kuriais buvo numatyta riboto Baltijos valstybių suvereniteto galimybė. Teoriškai galima samprotauti, kad jeigu kompromisas būtų įgyvendintas, sovietai būtų gavę galimybę steigti Rytų Pabaltijyje savo karines bazes, bet Baltijos valstybės būtų išsaugojusios tam tikrą savarankiškumą – tai galėjo turėti palankesnes pasekmes tiek baltų nacijoms, tiek visam Vidurio Rytų Europos regionui. Henry'io Kissingerio nuomone, pasiekti kompromisą su Stalinu sutrukdė JAV prezidento Franklino D. Roosevelto idealizmas. Atliktas tyrimas atskleidžia Baltijos valstybių veiksnio vietą didžiosios politikos „virtuvėje“ ir leidžia teigti, kad Baltijos valstybių klausimo raidai negatyvų poveikį turėjo didžiųjų valstybių tarpusavio varžybos dėl galios ir dominavimo. In 1942, when drafting a strategic cooperation treaty between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, the foreign secretary Anthony Eden was responsible for preparing projects to solve the Balts’ problems, based on which the Baltic States could preserve limited sovereignty. This aspect has received little attention in historiography, seemingly because it is treated as an ephemeral, insignificant episode. It cannot be dismissed that the provision of a compromise with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, which was in principle impossible, did apply. However, historical material suggests a different conclusion. This article was also inspired by Henry Kissinger’s opinion that it was the idealism of the US president Franklin D. Roosevelt that prevented Western states from reaching a compromise with Stalin. This article reveals what went on ‘behind the scenes’ in big politics: how the Baltic States factor, in itself rather insignificant to the big states, allows for identifying the prime goal of those big states, to seek power and dominance. Keywords: Anthony Eden, Summner Welles, Adolf Berle, Atlantic Charter, security, cooperation in trust, ascendancy.

Paskutinę XX SSKP suvažiavimo dieną uždarame posėdyje pirmasis Komunistų partijos sekretorius Nikita Chruščiovas pasakė kalbą, kurioje ne tik kritikavo, bet ir kaltino Staliną dėl įvairių nusikaltimų. SSKP Centro komitetas nutarė N. Chruščiovo kalbos spaudoje neskelbti, tačiau su jos tekstu supažindinti partijos narius, komjaunimo aktyvą bei „tarybinio aparato darbuotojus“. 1956 m. kovą redaguotas kalbos tekstas išsiuntinėtas partinėms organizacijoms. Išplėstas ir galinčių susipažinti su N. Chruščiovo kalba asmenų ratas – pranešimas buvo skaitomas ir aptarinėjamas įvairiuose, neretai atviruose, susirinkimuose. Keliasdešimt N. Chruščiovo pranešimo egzempliorių rusų ir lietuvių kalbomis gavo ir Trakų rajono partijos komitetas. [...]

The subject of this article thesis is Polish-Russian diplomatic relations in the early years of the reign of Wladislaw IV Vasa (1632–1635). The thesis focuses on the diplomatic activities conducted between the two countries during the Smolensk war in the years 1632–1634 and immediately after the end of the war. A particularly important issue is the Polish and Russian envoys exchanged in order to ratify peace of Polyanovka. Tematem artykułu są polsko-rosyjskie stosunki dyplomatyczne w pierwszych latach panowania Władysława IV Wazy (1632–1635). Praca koncentruje się na aktywności dyplomatycznej prowadzonej między obu krajami podczas wojny smoleńskiej w latach 1632–1634 i tuż po jej zakończeniu. Szczególnie ważny wątek stanowią wzajemne poselstwa odbywane w celu ratyfikacji pokoju polanowskiego.

Straipsnyje tiriami žymiems Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės didikams, valstybės veikėjams ir karvedžiams, Jonui Karoliui Chodkevičiui ir Aleksandrui Chodkevičiui, dedikuoti muzikos leidiniai. XVII a. pradžioje Venecijoje publikuotus leidinius didikams dedikavo italų kompozitoriai Giovanni Valentini ir Giulio Osculati. Ryšys su jais užsimezgė ne Italijoje, kur didikai studijavo ir keliavo, bet Abiejų Tautų Respublikoje. Kompozitoriai kurį laiką tarnavo jungtinės Lietuvos ir Lenkijos Valstybės valdovo Zigmanto Vazos muzikų kapeloje. Motetų rinkiniai tiriami iš viešosios tarptautinės reprezentacijos perspektyvos. Matyti, kad greta suprantamo G. Valentini ir G. Osculati viešumo siekio, noro įamžinti, skleisti savo kūrybą Europoje, šie muzikos leidiniai atliepė kitų asmenų viešumo interesus. Leidiniai reprezentuoja Zigmantą Vazą, dosnų meno mecenatą, parodomas jo pirmaujantis socialinis statusas. Dedikacijos laiškai skirti Chodkevičiams pagerbti, didinti jų žinomumą Abiejų Tautų Respublikoje ir už jos ribų. Jie aukština didikų nuopelnus karo kampanijose, mini svarbias ano meto politines aktualijas – pergales Livonijos kare, Chodkevičių nuopelnus ginant valstybę. Ano meto konfesinių pokyčių – reformacijos ir kontrreformacijos – kontekste šie notografiniai šaltiniai vertintini kaip didikų konfesinės tapatybės atspindys. Publikuojamų kūrinių žanras – katalikiški sakraliniai motetai – atliepia nuoseklų Chodkevičių konfesinį pasirinkimą. The article deals with the collections of printed music dedicated to the distinguished nobles, statesmen and military commanders of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, brothers Jan Karol and Aleksander Chodkiewicz. These collections were printed in Venice in the beginning of the 17th century and dedicated to the Lithuanian magnates by Italian composers Giovanni Valentini and Giulio Osculati. However, it was not in their home country where composers became acquainted with the above-mentioned noblemen who had studied and travelled extensively in Italy but in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In fact, both composers had served for certain periods of time as musicians in the Polish court chapel under Sigismund III Vasa. The said collections of motets are being examined here with an emphasis on publicity and international representation. The author notes that besides the reasonable expectations of both Italian composers to raise their public profiles, to publish and disseminate their work in Europe, these personal aspirations also resonated with the interests of other public figures. They both represent Sigismund III Vasa, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, as a generous patron and a leading social figure. The dedications were intended to glorify the Chodkiewicz and raise their profile within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and beyond. They account for the magnates’ victories in major military campaigns of the time, such as those achieved during the Polish–Swedish war of 1600–1611, as well as Chodkiewicz’s merits in defence of the state. Within the context of shifting confessional identities at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (i.e. the Reformation and the CounterReformation movements) these notated sources should be considered as a reflection of the magnates’ confessional identity. The very genre of printed works – motets for Catholic church service – reflects Chodkiewicz's firm selfdetermination as Roman Catholics.

The article’s main objective is to present the relationship between the Antanas Smetona regime and the Catholic opposition in 1929–32, and an evaluation of the repressive measures applied during this period. An analysis of various sources revealed that the actions of the right-wing nationalist government toward the Catholic opposition – which included the clergy, Catholic social organisations, and the Christian Democrats – were extremely harsh, significantly since the Catholic movement did not threaten the state sovereignty, public order, or political doctrine carried out by the Lithuanian president. The 1929–32 timeframe refers to the period of the greatest tension in the conflict between the Lithuanian government and the Catholic Church. The conflict between the Republic of Lithuania and the Vatican divided society, thus disrupting the existing positive diplomatic relations, which were reflected in the signing of the concordat in 1927.

Per pastaruosius tris dešimtmečius ne kartą esu susidūręs su nuostaba ar netgi gavęs tiesų klausimą: kaipgi atsitiko, kad žymaus komunistų veikėjo anūkas užaugo visiškai priešingų pažiūrų. Paprastai atsakau panašiai kaip ir tai paskambinusiai moteriai, arba cituoju Valerijos Novodvorskajos autobiografiją: Novodvorskaja tapo tikra komuniste, tokia teisinga ir tikra, kad pavirto antikomuniste. Vis dėlto šios lakoniškos frazės, nors ir taiklios bei nužyminčios kažkuriuos svarbiausius aspektus, mažai tepasako apie patį virsmo mechanizmą. Nors virsmo procesas man atrodo visiškai natūralus ar net banalus (o nuostaboje dėl tokio virsmo įžvelgiu per daug pagarbos komunistinei ideologijai), klausimams vis besikartojant, atrodo, kad vis tik verta vieną kartą papasakoti išsamiau. Keli biografijos faktai, skaitytojui galbūt padėsiantys geriau suprasti, kodėl aukščiau minėti klausimai pateikiami man gana dažnai. Gimiau 1968 m. Vilniuje. Mano motina Ninel Preikšaitė, gimusi 1936 m. Maskvoje, buvo Kazio Preikšo (1903–1961), sovietinio ir partinio veikėjo (1940–1948 m. LKP CK sekretorius propagandai, 1948–1960 m. LSSR Ministrų Sovieto pirmininko pavaduotojas, LSSR Užsienio reikalų ministras) dukra iš pirmos santuokos. Tėvas – Baku, Azerbaidžane, gimęs ir užaugęs rusas, tad ir pirmoji, gimtoji kalba, kuria prašnekau, yra rusų. Vaikystėje klausiausi močiutės lopšinių jidiš kalba, lietuvių pramokau darželyje, o deramai įvaldžiau tik besimokydamas Vilniaus Salomėjos Nėries mokykloje. Paauglystėje dalyvavau besikuriančiuose krepšinio ir futbolo sirgalių judėjimuose, o Sąjūdžio veikloje dalyvavau nuo pat pirmosios dienos – 1988 m. birželio 3 d. Vien šie padriki faktai gana aiškiai nužymi pažiūrų raidos trajektoriją, kurią tolesniame pasakojime ir siekiu aptarti.

The article highlights the perception and assessments of the Grand Hetman of Lithuania Janush Radziwill by contemporaries; acceptance of Swedish protection by him in 1655; as well as it clarifies the reasons for such a step by the Hetman through the prism of his own vision and understanding that difficult situation for principality and ways out of it. It is determined that after the attack of Swedish troops in the summer of 1655 on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the situation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania deteriorated sharply, as its territory was at the epicenter of the military confrontation (at the same time it was in war with Moscow state). In this situation J. Radziwill and part of the political elite considered the acceptance of Swedish protection to be an effective means for saving the principality. It is found out his step caused the accusation of contemporaries in treason both the Commonwealth and King Jan Casimir. It is found out that a good reason for the acceptance of the Swedish protection by J. Radzvill was Warsaw support absence in the face of military threat to the principality from Sweden and Muscovy, thus it was impossible to fight against them simultaneously. The factor that pushed hetman to such a step was Vilna capture by Moscow troops and the capitulation of the crown army near Uysts in late July 1655. On one hand, Lithuania's acceptance of the Swedish monarch protection threatened the integrity of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which according to the results of Lublin Union in 1569 was proclaimed a state of two components - the Crown and Lithuania. However, on the other hand as Lithuania was left alone with the military aggression of Muscovy and Sweden, it was an attempt to save the principality and strengthen its political influence.

1917 m. rugsėjo mėn. sudaryta Lietuvos Taryba pirmoji pradėjo rūpintis atstovavimu moderniajai Lietuvai užsienyje. Po to, kai 1918 m. kovą kaizerinės Vokietijos ir bolševikų Rusijos vyriausybės atstovai Brest Litovske sudarė taikos sutartį, o Lietuvos nepriklausomybę pripažino Vokietijos kaizeris, Taryba ėmė rūpintis karo pabėgėlių ir kitais reikalais. Tai įtraukė ją į klausimus, susijusius su buvusiomis europinės Rusijos teritorijomis, likusiomis į rytus nuo Ober Osto srities: dalį jų 1918 m. pradžioje okupavo Vokietija, kitoje dalyje bolševikai ir baltieji grūmėsi dėl valdžios prasidedančiame Rusijos pilietiniame kare. Tuo reikalu Taryba skyrė įgaliotinius. Straipsnyje tiriama, kaip Lietuvos Taryba ir Vokietijos okupacinė valdžia suvokė įgaliotinio sampratą, ir nagrinėjama dviejų Lietuvos Tarybos įgaliotinių – Teresės Prapuolenytės ir Veronikos Janulaitytės-Alseikienės – paskyrimas, kompetencija ir veikla. Autorė aiškinasi, ar suteikiant šioms moterims įgaliojimus atstovauti Lietuvos Tarybai užsienyje turėjo reikšmės jų socialinis statusas ir išsilavinimas. The Lithuanian Taryba (Council of Lithuania), which was formed in September 1917, was the first body to concern itself with the foreign representation of modern Lithuania. After the peace treaty was concluded in Brest-Litovsk between Germany and the Bolshevik Russian government, and after Lithuania’s independence was recognised by the Kaiser (both in March 1918), the Taryba took up caring for war refugees and other issues. This involved dealing with former territories of European Russia to the east of the Ober Ost area, part of which had been occupied by Germany in early 1918, while in another part the Bolsheviks and the White Russians were competing for power in the emerging Russian civil war. The Taryba appointed authorised representatives for these purposes. The article examines how the Lithuanian Taryba and the German military authorities in the Ober Ost perceived the concept of an authorised representative, and explores the appointment, the responsibilities and the activities of two representatives of the Taryba, Teresė Prapuolenytė and Veronika Janulaitytė Alseikienė. The author examines whether their social status and education played any role in granting these women the power to represent the Lithuanian Taryba abroad.

The article describes the facts and examines the Polish-Lithuanian territo¬rial dispute of 1919-1920, which occurred during the time of the formation of independent states in Central and Eastern Europe following World War I. The parade of the newly pro¬claimed states of the Czechoslovak Republic, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Western Ukrainian People's Republic, each of which had territorial claims against its neighbours, created a precedent for a series of frontier military actions. Hungar¬ian-Czechoslovak, Polish-German, Polish-Czechoslovak, Polish-Lithuanian, and Polish-Ukrainian territorial conflicts persisted until 1923, following the signing of the Armistice in 1918. The issue of a territorial dispute between the Second Polish Republic and the Republic of Lithuania over the city of Wilno (Vilnius) and the Vilnius area is explored through the per¬spective of those historical events. Military actions, including a Polish-inspired "insurrec¬tion," continued as a result of a reluctance to follow political agreements and ignore demar¬cation lines. The goal was to construct a federal state that would act as a deterrent to Russian imperial ambitions in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. Lithuania, on the other hand, was rather cautious of the idea of forming a state made up of the lands of "Poland-Lithuania-Belarus-Ukraine," even if the borders favoured the Second Polish Republic. Anticipating the dangers of assimilation and the refusal to accept Lithuania without Vilnius, the Lithuanian government seemed uncompromising in its dealings with Poles yet cordial with Russians. As a result, the Polish federalist project failed.

Straipsnyje analizuojamas Boguslavo Radvilos autografas. Aiškinamasi, kuriuo kursyvu (humanistiniu, gotikiniu, mišriuoju) įvairiais gyvenimo periodais kunigaikštis rašė, koks buvo jo rankos kaitos pobūdis ir priežastys. Svarstoma, kaip didiko autografas koreliuoja su to laiko lotyniškojo kursyvo tendencijomis. The article dwells on the autograph of Boguslavas Radvila (Bogusław Radziwiłł) (1620–1669). The earliest autograph of the duke in the analysed material is detected in two letters in the Polish language dating back to 1622, and one letter in the same language dating back to 1623, written in his name by an adult to Kristupas II Radvila (Krzysztof Radziwiłł). The assumption is that the validation ręką swą in the letters of 1622 and the subscription, signature and validation in the letter of 1623 were made by the young duke while his hand was being held by an adult. The slightly different ductus of Boguslavas’ ‘autograph’, as observed in the letters, suggests that this might have been two different adults. It still remains unclear whether Boguslavas, who grew up in his mother’s German household and only spoke German, was taught to write in the German Gothic Cursive. While in the custody of his uncle Kristupas II Radvila, from 1629 to 1633, Boguslavas Radvila was taught to write, and used four different version of Italian Humanist Bastard. Based on the chronology, these versions are conditionally referred to as the first, the second, the third and the fourth. Letters in Polish to his uncle dating from 1629 and 1630 were written in the first and second versions. Letters to his uncle in Latin dating from 1630–1633 were written or signed (if they were written by somebody else) in the third and fourth versions. For a child’s hand, most letters are written calligraphically. The abundance of decorative elements suggests that Boguslavas was increasingly in control of the quill, and that he had talent. In addition, it points to the fact that when teaching a nobleman to write, the focus was on calligraphy. It still remains unclear why the letters in Latin were written in different versions of Humanist Bastard to those in Polish. The cautious assumption can be made that this was due to the preference of the duke’s teachers for those particular versions of testeggiata cursive. Consistent changes in Radvila’s autograph from a child’s to an adult’s hand could not be traced. Undoubtedly, the autograph was influenced by his studies between 1637 and 1648, and his visits to countries (Germany, the Netherlands, France and England) where the national script was Gothic Cursive, though Italian Humanist Bastard and French Humanist Bastard were also used. By 1641, the duke’s hand had already changed. The autograph was half-cursive, and included Gothic forms of d and z which had not been used in childhood. By 1645, Boguslavas Radvila’s hand had been fully trained, and the autograph had fully formed in the shape of cursive ductus. The choice of cursive was subject to the language of the text. Accuracy when writing was also an important factor. Based on the nature of the cursive used, four versions of the nobleman’s autograph can be distinguished: a Humanistic, a Mixed one, and two Gothic, one German Gothic and the other French Gothic. Texts in Polish and Latin (insertions in the text) were written either in Humanistic or in Mixed Cursive. Italian Humanistic Bastard served as the basis for the Humanistic autograph. However, quite a few of its characteristic features had paled, had been modified, or substituted with elements of French Humanistic Bastard, Gothic or Gothicised characters. The more accurate the duke was, the more elements of Italian Humanistic Bastard could be detected in his autograph. Occasionally, some features of French Humanistic Bastard can be identified (a letter or two). When writing in a fast and casual manner, the number of Gothic and Gothicised elements increased, which made the cursive Mixed. Texts in French were written in Gothic French Cursive. When the duke was not accurate enough, the number of Humanistic elements in his French Gothic autograph increased. This was Mixed Cursive with elements of French Gothic Cursive. Texts in German were written in German Gothic Cursive, under the influence of Humanistic Cursive. This is obvious in the ductus and occasional Humanistic form of the letters. Boguslavas Radvila’s autograph was subject to change: it either became neater or more casual. The calligraphic, or close to calligraphy, and casual, at times almost illegible, version of his cursive can be distinguished. Differences in the autograph can be explained by the duke’s attitude when writing, and by his physical well-being. Boguslavas Radvila’s autograph is evidence of the two types of Roman Cursive that were used at that time. At the same time, the duke joins the ranks of those who mastered two different cursives.

Grand Lithuanian Hetman Paweł Jan Sapieha in 1655–1662, during the wars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with Moscow and Sweden, gave out of his own coffers 1,985,520 zlotys for military purposes. Most of the money was used for military hauls and the payment of wages. This was due to the reduction of tax revenues to the treasury, because large areas of the Polish-Lithuanian state were under Muscovite and Swedish occupation. The aim of this article is to analyze the military accounts of Paweł Jan Sapieha and their structure against a wide comparative background, i.e. accounts of other Lithuanian and Crown hetmans of the second half of the 17th century.

The article explains the reasons for the disappearance of the interest of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the solution of the "Ukrainian problem" in the Commonwealth, which was observed during the second half of 1655, and, accordingly, their domestic and foreign policy orientations. It is determined that after the attack of the Polish Commonwealth on 1655 in the summer of 1655, and in a state of war with the Moscow state, several groups emerged in the midst of the ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the Swedish, the pro-Moscow and the pro-Polish. Instead, there is no evidence that clearly demonstrates the existence of a pro-Ukrainian group. It remains unclear what position the supporters of other vectors of Lithuania’s foreign policy have taken regarding Cossack Ukraine, which included the political elite of the principality – J. Radziwill, P. Sapiga, V. Honsiewski, and other officials. It was found that in the conditions of attack of Russian and Swedish troops among the Lithuanian nobility there was a sharp loss of interest in solving the "Ukrainian problem". Much more important was the problem of saving the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and asserting certain representatives of power circles or groups of noble families of their own pragmatic interests. Moreover, the search for the best ways and means of their realization was connected mainly with two foreign policy vectors: Swedish and Russian. Some influential in the principality of the families saw the salvation of their position in support of King Jan Casimir and the preservation of the unity of the Commonwealth. Under such conditions, the actual "Ukrainian problem" in the summer – in the autumn of 1655 disappeared from view of the Lithuanian nobility.

Calvinist Reformation in Lithuania had a completely different look than in the Crown. It lacked strong urban centres in which Lutheranism would flourish. Calvinism was mainly supported by the nobility (Mikolaj “the Red” Radziwill and Mikolaj “the Black” Radziwill), who wanted to make this confession a state religion in case of the independence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Radziwill’s prob- 89 Wyroku szcześliwie nie wykonano, zob. Zbi o r pomnik o w reformacyi… , s. 194–195. 90 LMAB, sygn. F 40/989, k. 2–13v., LMAB F 40 517, Zb o r S l ucki 1662–1823 , s. 2, oraz LMAB, sygn. F 40/ 91, Akta zboru w S l ucku , s. 23. Ludwika Karolina ksiezna Radziwillowa potwierdza przywileje i nadania ziemskie oraz finansowe w 1687 roku dla zborow w Slucku, Kopiskach, Kojdanowie, Lubeczanskiemu. Bielickiemu, Sieleckiemu i Dokudowskiemu, oryginalne przywileje zaginely podczas wojen szwedzkich i moskiewskich. ably wanted to subordinate Sigismund Augustus to their influence and create a strong, own state. Calvinism was an independent religion to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Building of Reformed churches was associated with colonization of Lithuania and the construction of its economy and political development. Too strong dependence of Calvinism on the first generation of the Radziwill’s families leaders, caused the successive generations of families attracted by Catholicism to fight against Calvinism and effectively undermined its dominant position. Finally, at the end of the seventeenth century, this religion has lost its sense of importance. Many churches were destroyed, many people changed religion. The article is the first attempt of presenting the Reformed churches in Lithuania. It presents also a history of few churches (like main church in Vilno), furnishing of interiors (table for the Lord’s Supper, on which there was a desk for the Brest bible, the pulpit – called the cathedral – and others. Text is a kind of supplement and a summary of research on the Calvinist architecture of the Grand Duchy