Humanities Source Ultimate

The purpose of the article is to highlight the characteristics of economic nationalism through an analysis of the relations between Lithuanians and ethnic minorities (Jews) in cases of the protectionist economic policy of the Lithuanian government as well as ethnic discrimination and ethnic conflicts in 1930 1940. The author of the article has highlighted the general characteristics typical of economic nationalism in a number of forms. Firstly, the protectionist economic policy of the government, the aim whereof was to oust entrepreneurs of other nationalities, especially Jewish, and to increase the relative number of Lithuanians in the trade and banking business sectors. Secondly, the discriminatory policy of the authorities against Jewish individuals to ensure that the latter could not take civil service positions in state and municipal institutions (which in fact eliminated them from working within the authorities). Thirdly, causing ethnic discord in the media, shaping a negative and hostile opinion about ethnic minorities, e.g. by accusing Russians of Russification and labelling them as invaders; by accusing Jews of stealing businesses from Lithuanians and labelling them as exploiters of Lithuanians; by accusing Poles of Polonization and anti-Lithuanian attitudes, etc. Fourthly, activities of economic organizations or movements targeting ethnic minorities and demanding to restrict their businesses, boycott their goods and services. Fifthly, public rallies and demonstrations instigating the nationalist sentiment, e.g. the typical slogan of nationalist rallies “Lithuania for Lithuanians”, “making the business Lithuanian again”, “Lithuania to become Lithuanian”. Finally, provoking ethnic conflicts or acts of violence against ethnic minorities (including damaging property by arson or otherwise, and physical violence against representatives of ethnic minorities. The author of the article has drawn several conclusions, the main being that there were multiple reasons which prompted the rise of economic nationalism. They were primarily related to the economic, social, and cultural gap between ethnic minorities and Lithuanians. In particular, the protectionist economic policy (which exhibited certain aspects of ethnic discrimination) pursued by the Lithuanian government with the aim of ousting entrepreneurs of several nationalities from industrial, financial, and trade sectors widened the economic gap between ethnic minorities and Lithuanians. Another important reason for the development of economic nationalism was the building of a nation state, where ethnic minorities were perceived as an obstacle to an ethnocentric state, its economic modernization, and to Lithuanians competing with representatives of other nationalities. At the local level, ethnic conflicts would sometimes escalate into physical violence, essentially against one ethnic minority (Jews). This was, to some extent, affected by the anti-Semitic sentiment instigated in the press, the anti-Semitic activities of some organizations, and, partly, the protectionist economic policy pursued by the government that aimed to restrict or oust Jews from key businesses. The study of Lithuanian-Jewish relations from the perspective of economic nationalism expands the field of research on anti-Semitism as a phenomenon in interwar Lithuania. And looking ahead, we must show zero tolerance for the acts instigating national hatred and they must always entail criminal prosecution to prevent the nationalist sentiment (anti-Semitism) from spreading in our society.

The aim of the article is to compare the attitudes and actions of the Lithuanian government and citizens in the war of the Soviet Union against Finland and to highlight its essential characteristics. The author of the article defines two objectives: 1) to indicate what reasons influenced the choice of Lithuania to stay neutral during the military aggression of the Soviet Union against Finland; and 2) to reveal by what means some citizens helped Finland, and whether this did not contradict the neutrality policy of the Lithuanian government. Actions of Lithuanian government and its citizensare examined based on the research methods of document analysis, qualitative content analysis, and the comparative method. The sources used for this article are documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania in Lithuanian Central State Archives, Lithuanian volunteers’ documents in the Military Archives in Helsinki, Lithuanian citizens letters written in 1939–1940 to the Finnish Consul in Lithuania in the Joensuu Regional Archives which were published in the collection of documents compiled by the author of this article. We also use reports and political articles of that time printed in the pro-Government daily Lietuvos aidas (Echo of Lithuania), military magazines such as Kardas (Sword), Karys (Soldier), and Trimitas (Trumpet). Accordingly, the author of the article concludes that the policy of neutrality in Lithuania did not bring the expected results of preserved statehood: the USSR occupied the country in 1940. There was no common view in society on the observance of neutrality in the event of the war between the Soviet Union and Finland as the active position of some of inhabitants striving to help Finland was contrary to the Lithuanian government’s policy of neutrality. Lithuanian citizens’ support for Finland can be seen as an expression of civic virtues in the country under the authoritarian regime of that time, since it was necessary to take an active civic position that did not coincide with the policy of the government.

The article discloses features of dissidence manifested in Lithuania during the Soviet regime in the 1960–1980s through the analysis of dissident activities of Aleksandras Štromas (1931–1999) and Tomas Venclova (b. 1937). The analysis presented in the article yields several conclusions. Firstly, the main reasons for dissident activities of Štromas and Venclova targeted against the Soviet regime were the occupation of the Baltic states and undergoing repressions, deportations, illegal arrests, violations of human rights, and aggressive policy of the USSR in supressing the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 by military force. Secondly, with no illusions regarding the Soviet political system, Štromas and Venclova gradually got involved in the dissident activities. At first, they formed unofficial circles of self-education, established connections with Russian dissidents, contributed to underground press, and founded and supported the Lithuanian Helsinki group. Later their criticism of the regime led Štromas and Venclova to forced emigration to the West where they actively continued intellectual struggle against the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and Sovietization of the Baltic people. Thirdly, depending on their daily political behaviour, people of the occupied Baltic states, in view of Štromas, could be divided into three groups: 1) unconditional conformists (collaborators) consisting of those who served the Soviet authorities without reservations with rather simple objectives, i.e., to satisfy their basic needs, ensure personal safety, and rise to the highest possible ranks in their party and professional career; 2) conservationists (partial conformists) who perfectly adjusted to the Soviet rule, conscientiously worked on its behalf, or participated in the official life in other ways, but made every effort to preserve the nation’s identity and integrity, historic memory, native language, traditional culture and monuments; and 3) active “extra-structural” dissidents who simply refused to adjust to the Soviet order and found themselves outside the Communist control system. Finally, the majority of societies in the occupied Baltic states were conformists and their behaviour was determined by the perception that political regimes are subject to change. Štromas believed that the Baltic people were ready to progress to free and independent existence on the first favourable occasion. His insights were confirmed by the restoration of independence of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in the 1990s.

The article discusses the origins of the University of Lithuania to mark the centenary of its establishment. The purpose of the article is to disclose the fundamental disagreements and compromises of politicians and intellectuals on founding the University of Lithuania in Kaunas through the analysis of the political discourse of the 1918–1920s. The following conclusions have been made in the article. 1) The main disagreement between the politicians and the academic community focused on the issue whether the university needed to be founded for the state, or both for the state and society. 2) The ruling majority (the Christian Democrats) at the Constituent Assembly sought to open a Catholic university of humanities. The minority opposition (the Popular Peasants, Socialist-Populists, and Social Democrats) did not agree with that idea and aimed at a secular and versatile university with faculties of natural science and exact science. 3) The compromise was reached as a secular and versatile university was founded with faculties of natural science and exact science with considerable autonomy. It set favourable legal pre-conditions for the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy to grow into a Catholic university in the future. 4) From its opening in 1922, the University of Lithuania became quite an international place where professors from foreign countries including Latvia worked and shared their knowledge. 5) In 1922–1939, four professors of the University of Latvia were awarded degrees of Honorary Doctorate of the University of Lithuania (later Vytautas Magnus University) for their scholar contribution to the University.

Based on theoretical insights into nationalism, this article concentrates on the political discourse of the 1910s which was focused on two questions. First, what kind of arguments were used in favour and against on mapping different models of Lithuanian state? And second, why most of the Lithuanian politicians supported the idea of an independent state in the context of theories of nationalism? The following conclusions have been made in this article: 1. Lithuanian politicians stated several arguments against the autonomy of Lithuania within the state of Russia (P. Klimas and A. Voldemaras), and against a common federal state of Lithuania and Belarus (J. Purickis). 2. They also presented pros and cons concerning a federal state of Poland and Lithuania. The arguments in favour were associated with the security, economic benefit and international recognition de jure of the state. The arguments against mainly concerned the disagreements between Lithuanians and Poles in the past, and national conflicts regarding the decision of Lithuanians to build a state of Lithuania in the ethnic territory (A. Voldemaras, P. Klimas). 3. When discussing a model of a state as a federation of Lithuania and Latvia, all the arguments were only in favour due to common historical and cultural experiences, possibilities to build a common and competitive economy, also considering security and geopolitical factors in pursuing recognition de jure (J. Šliūpas). 4. Comparison of various models of restoration of statehood of Lithuania reveals that the Lithuanian politicians were unanimously against Lithuania with a status of autonomy within the state of Russia, and against a common federal state with Poland or Belarus (P. Klimas, A. Voldemaras, J. Purickis, J. Šliūpas). However, their opinions diverged concerning a federal state of Lithuania and Latvia. J. Šliūpas was the only consistent and loyal proponent of this model of a state. 5. The nationalism in Lithuania in the early 20th century was defined in terms of “objective and ethnic” (P. Klimas) as well as “subjective and political” (A. Voldemaras) factors, i.e., based on them, every nation has the right to take a decision to build an independent state. 6. The majority of Lithuanian politicians unanimously agreed that neither autonomy nor a federation with another state could resolve national conflicts in the early 20th century. Consequently, the ultimate goal of the Lithuanian nation was to build its independent state of Lithuania.

Televizijos reklama poveikio siekia trimis pagrindiniais komponentais – tekstu, vaizdu ir garsu. Jais perteikiamos intencijos, atskleidžiančios pranešimo siuntėjo tikslus. Pragmatinės lingvistikos tyrinėjimai apima kalbos vartojimą ir jos vartotojus. Todėl pragmatinės lingvistikos pranašumu, taip pat ir skiriamuoju bruožu nuo kitų lingvistikos mokslo šakų, laikoma jos savybė analizuoti tekstui žmonių priskiriamas prasmes, prielaidas, tikslus, veiksmų rūšis (pavyzdžiui, prašymus), kurias jie vykdo kalbėdami, o trūkumu – tai, kad ypač sunku analizuoti nuosekliai ir objektyviai. Reklama nėra vien tik verbalinis pranešimas, jos vaizdas ir garsas – lygiaverčiai komponentai, kurių santykį tam tikroje reklamoje lemia kūrėjų išmonė ir laikotarpio mados, tendencijos. Taigi šio straipsnio objektas – televizijos reklamų komunikatas. Straipsnio tikslas – pabandyti atskleisti televizijos reklamų teksto, vaizdo ir garso sąveiką ir jos simbolikos reikšmę. Tekstą, vaizdą ir garsą sudaro ženklai, kuriais koduojamas pranešimas, tik skiriasi tų ženklų rūšis. Kodai dažnai sudaromi naudojantis didžiajai visuomenės daliai suprantama simbolika, kuri realius dalykus paverčia adresatų siekiamybėmis, troškimais, norais – įvairiomis abstrakcijomis, kurios siūlomos kartu su reklamuojamu produktu. Straipsnyje pateikiama klasifikacija parodo galimas reklamos komponentų kombinacijas, jų intencijas bei kaip tam tikrais ženklais koduojamos žinutės adresatui. Pateiktoje televizijos reklamų klasifikacijoje išryškėja tam tikri dėsningumai derinant televizijos reklamose tris jos pagrindinius komponentus – tekstą, vaizdą ir garsą. Galimos skirtingos jų kombinacijos, tačiau kiekviena iš jų atskleidžia, perteikia reikalingus reklamuojamam produktui bruožus, naudodamosi simboliais, realius dalykus susieja su abstrakcijomis, kuriomis labiausiai žavisi adresatas – troškimais, norias, siekiamybėmis ir pan. Tiek vaizdu, tiek garsu galima perteikti tas pačias idėjas, mintis, simbolius kaip ir tekstu.