Užpulti gynėmės: 1940-1941 metų įvykiai ir jų ištakos

LTŠis straipsnių ir esė rinkinys iškelia du esminius argumentus. Pirmasis yra metodologinio pobūdžio: dokumentus svarbu ne vien skaityti, bet ir aiškinti, atsižvelgiant į jų atsiradimo kontekstą. Istorikai privalo turėti žinių apie dokumentų autorius, jų požiūrį, įsitikinimus, ketinimus, turimus išteklius ir informaciją, kuria jie tuo metu disponavo. Istorikai žvelgia į praeitį ir žino jos raidą bei istorinės raidos pasekmes. Tuo metu istorinėje scenoje veikiantieji asmenys žvelgia į ateitį, priiminėja sprendimus, negalėdami žinoti, kokie bus tų sprendimų rezultatai. Antroji knygos autoriaus tezė yra tvirtinimas, kad lietuviai, kaip ir visos tautos, užpulti turėjo teisę gintis. Kai kurie partizanai elgėsi garbingai, kiti - kvailai, treti - nusikalstamai. Bet tai galima pasakyti apie bet kurį sukilimą ir bet kurią kovojančią kariuomenę. Kai kurių partizanų padaryti nusikaltimai negali diskredituoti Birželio sukilimo. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvių-žydų santykiai; Antrasis pasaulinis karas; Sovietinė okupacija; Holokaustas; Birželio sukilimas; Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva; Nacių okupacija. Keywords: Lithuanian-Jewish relations; Second World War; Soviet occupation; Holocaust; June Uprising in Lithuania; German-occupied Lithuania; Nazi occupation.

ENThis collection of essays, reviews and talks develops two arguments. The first is methodological: documents should not be merely read but must be interpreted taking account of the context in which they originated. Historians must have information about the authors, their attitudes, beliefs, intentions, available resources and information. Historians look to the past and know outcomes, historical agents look to the future and cannot know the consequences of their actions. Interpreters of the June 1941 revolt and the subsequent Provisional Government, inevitably face the Jewish question: it is certainly the case that a large proportion of Jews in Lithuania were killed during the subsequent German occupation. But, I argue, that those who organized the revolt and the members of the Provisional government neither knew nor could have known about later efforts of the German occupational authorities to kill all Lithuanian Jews. Thus, because we do not blame people for unintended, and in this case unforeseeable consequences, Lithuanian authorities stand blameless for the Holocaust in Lithuania. Of course, there were guilty individuals, but no collective Lithuanian liability, resulting from actions of a lawful government.Because of the methodological principle, I include my essays on pre-war Lithuanian-Jewish relations. My surveys of major Lithuanian newspapers show that there was little antisemitism among educated Lithuanians, that major public figures condemned it, that the government used censorship to prevent antisemitism from developing into an ideology. An important witness is the Jewish weekly Apžvalga, which published an extensive series of interviews with Lithuanian leaders on Lithuanian-Jewish relations. The consensus among prominent government figures, intellectuals, churchmen was that antisemitism was not a serious problem in Lithuania. Some complained that Jews do not do enough to integrate themselves into Lithuanian life. Integration stands at the opposite extreme of Nazi eliminationism. There were some concerns about rising antisemitism among university students. [...]. [From the publication]