Istoriografija apie sovietmetį Lietuvoje

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Istoriografija apie sovietmetį Lietuvoje
Alternative Title:
Historiography on the Soviet era in Lithuania
Authors:
Čepaitienė, Rasa
In the Journal:
Lituanistica, 2024, 3, 226-250
Subject Category:
LT
Istoriografija / Historiography; Politinė istorija / Political history; Kultūros istorija / Cultural history; 1940-1990. Lietuva okupacijų metais; Lietuva (Lithuania).
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje pateikiama sovietinės priklausomybės metams (1940–1941 ir 1944– 1990) skirtos lietuvių istoriografijos apžvalga santykyje su svarbiausiomis Vakarų sovietologijos kryptimis. Konstatuojama, kad per daugiau nei 30 nepriklausomybės metų šioje srityje lietuvių istorikams pavyko nemažai nuveikti. Sovietinis laikotarpis jų darbuose analizuojamas įvairiais pjūviais ir aspektais, pradedant nomenklatūros kolektyvinio portreto rekonstrukcija ir baigiant kasdienybe bei viešo / privataus gyvenimo sankirtomis totalitarinės visuomenės sąlygomis. Šie tyrimai ir kai kurių iš jų publikavimo sukelti viešieji debatai taip pat turi įtakos kitoms mokslo populiarinimo sritims, pavyzdžiui, muziejinių parodų rengimui. Daroma išvada, kad sovietmečio istoriografijos srityje atlikti tyrimai netiesiogiai, bet kai kuriais požiūriais reikšmingai sąlygojo tiek oficialiosios istorijos politikos, tiek ir populiarių vaizdinių apie sovietmetį susiformavimą. Tačiau pastaruoju metu pastebimas profesionalių tyrimų atitrūkimas nuo viešojoje erdvėje intensyvėjančių politinių diskusijų apie desovietizacijos poreikį ir tikslus tampa reikšminga kliūtimi gilesnei visuomenės edukacijai apie šį komplikuotą laikotarpį. Raktažodžiai: sovietinis laikotarpis, istoriografija, sovietologija, totalitarizmas, revizionizmas, postrevizionizmas, sovietinės kultūros tyrimai.

ENThe article provides an overview of Lithuanian historiography on the years of dependence (1940–1941 and 1944–1990) in relation to the most important trends in Western Sovietology. The new narrative of the history of Lithuania takes the exposure of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its geopolitical implications as its starting point. This narrative highlighted the crimes committed against Lithuania by the two totalitarian regimes and the aspirations for liberation. This ‘occupation paradigm’, established at the time, is still dominant in Lithuania’s public discourse and is similar to the historical narratives of the other two Baltic countries. Lithuania’s peculiarity is that its cultural memory places emphasis not only on the victims of Stalinist repressions but also on the fighters against totalitarianism: the anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet armed underground. Despite this, the de-Sovietisation that began in Lithuania in 1990 took on certain specific features: unlike in other Baltic countries, lustration has not been completed here. The most important external and internal factors that contributed to the change in Lithuanian historiography during the transition period were the following: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful end of the Cold War; the interest of the public and the new political-academic-cultural elite in filling in the so-called ‘white spots’ of history, which manifested itself in the establishment of ideologically unengaged centres of historical research and studies; the sudden rise of the traumatic memory of repressions that had been frozen by the regime for decades and the emergence of the ‘communities of memory’ based on this memory (exiles, political prisoners, dissidents), which eventually became involved in the creation of the new grand historical narrative.These fundamental changes also led to the rewriting of autobiographies, including the publication of memoirs of Soviet figures at various levels and scales, and other documentary production (films, historical broadcasts, ceremonies of the transportation of the remains of Stalin’s victims from the locations of their exile in Siberia and reburial in Lithuania, memorial laws, public debates, museum exhibitions, etc.). Given this broader socio-political context, the development of Lithuanian historiography on the Soviet era can be conditionally divided into two phases. From 1989 to around 2005, a stronger focus was placed on the processes and circumstances of ‘hard’ Sovietisation, starting from the efforts to fill in the ‘white spots’ of history (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the first Soviet occupation, the June Uprising) to the scale and consequences of Soviet repression. Research on the occupation, the annexation, and the Sovietisation of society was broadened and studies into the networks alternative to the Soviet regime (the underground, the peaceful resistance of the Catholic Church, etc.) were conducted. During that period, much attention was devoted to the depiction of the ‘collective portrait of the nomenklatura’. Although from around 2005 onwards, in the second phase of research on ‘soft Sovietisation’, studies into the themes of the first phase were continued, greater interest was shown in analysing what lies between resistance and collaboration, i.e., adaptation to the Soviet system. Studies carried out in this area made it possible to draw clearer contours of the ‘collective portrait of the intelligentsia’ and to reconstruct the informal networks of the members of society whose activities had a significant impact on the world outlook and values of Lithuanians at the time. Significant progress was also made in exploring the state of national culture during the Soviet period.In the recent decade, with the aim at shedding more light on the specificities of the ‘boredom society’ of the late Soviet period, the field of research has been increasingly broadened to include Soviet economy and the analysis of informal socio-economic relations and everyday life. Gradually, historical scholarship is moving towards comparative studies of deeper layers of social history, such as collectivisation, industrialisation, and urbanisation, Lithuania as a part of the Soviet ‘Little West’, etc. In their recent texts, the Lithuanian historians avoid looking at Soviet society and culture as a single entity strictly controlled by the regime and ideology and easily divided into binary oppositions. At the same time, however, there is a danger of straying to the other extreme, when, imperceptibly, the totalitarian regime seems to be normalised and, or of maintaining the view that Soviet authorities had no influence on culture or people’s everyday lives. Although the topic of ‘internal’ or ‘unarmed’ resistance in the post-Stalin period is still quite popular in Lithuania, it is important not to lose sight of the processes through which the authorities consolidated their influence in various spheres of life, as well as the extent to which it regulated society, culture, and everyday life at different periods. The brief discussion of the Lithuanian historiography on the Soviet period in this paper in terms of the path it has covered so far and its main trends suggests that it only partially coincides with the paradigms that are distinguished in classical Sovietology (totalitarianism, revisionism, post-revisionism, transitology). [...].

DOI:
10.6001/lituanistica.2024.70.3.4
ISSN:
0235-716X; 2424-4716
Subject:
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/63887
Updated:
2026-03-18 19:06:30
Metrics:
Views: 2
Export:
Download