Antisemitism in inter-war Lithuania: an analysis of two cases

EN[...] In conclusion, analysis shows that, while the two outbreaks of antisemitism in interwar Lithuania examined in this paper shared some features, they were also differed in some respects. The factors in common are well known to historians - social and economic difficulties, political instability and so on. But with regard to the campaign of sign spoiling, an important cause seemed to be the discrepancy between the status of Lithuanian as the state language and culture and its low prestige in the public space. This could be understood as a humiliation for which the destruction of signs in the languages of the "oppressors" was felt to be a sort of redress and a way to regain national pride. On the other hand, the violence in 1929 by Lithuanian right-wing radicals in Kaunas, Viljampolė (Slobodke neighbourhood) seemed to be related to that groups deeply rooted identification of Jews with communists. Both incidents were instigated by right wing radical groups, which produced antisemitic propaganda to fuel their campaigns. In the sign defacement campaign, antisemitic propaganda was found in the press in general and in the Riflemens Union paper Trimitas in particular, but also in propaganda produced by the Lithuanian Fascist Executive Committee. Slogans in the press and in posters calling for a campaign to "purify" the public space of foreign languages created support within the Lithuanian community at large. Signs were defaced on a massive and organized scale by soldiers, lower-ranking officers, riflemen and students. The authorities reacted to the incidents ambivalently, probably because those lower-ranking bureaucrats responsible for security and the maintenance of public order were themselves sympathetic to the antisemitic activists, as were sections of the general public.It is the case that no signboard vandals were ever formally identified and arrested and no judicial proceedings were initiated, despite police documents showing that some of the more active participants of the smearing campaign were indeed known. It was only national officials who brought this campaign to an end, with their demands for stricter controls. The violence in 1929, in contrast, had few policemen or secret police officers taking part, but again, local officials took little interest and only the highest state officials responded with rigour. While these state officials saw the suppression of ethnic conflict as important to the stability of the regime itself, there was an even more potent explanation for their rigorous response. The perpetrators were part of a power struggle at the highest levels of Lithuanian politics and when their side lost, they were prosecuted.