Regime of martial law in Republic of Lithuania in 1919 - 1940 ; Karo padėties režimas Lietuvos Respublikoje 1919 - 1940 m

Owner

Description

VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY THE LITHUANIAN INSTITUTE OF HISTORY Modestas KUODYS REGIME OF MARTIAL LAW IN REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IN 1919 – 1940 SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION HUMANITIES, HISTORY (05 H) KAUNAS, 2009 This dissertation was prepared in the period of 2005 – 2009 at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, Lithuania The doctoral study licence is granted to Vytautas Magnus University together with the Institute of Lithuanian History by resolution No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the 15th of July Scientific supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pranas Janauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H) The dissertation is defended at Vytautas Magnus University at the Council of Scientific Field of History of Vytautas Magnus University and the Institute of Lithuanian History Chairman: Dr. Rimantas Miknys (Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, History – 05 H) Members: Prof. Dr. Habil. Zenonas Butkus (Vilnius University, Humanities, History – 05 H) Dr. Algimantas Kasparavičius (Institute of Lithuanian History, Humanities, History – 05H) Prof. Dr. Šarūnas Liekis (Mykolas Romeris University, Humanities, History – 05H) Dr. Jonas Vaičenonis (Vytautas Magnus University, Huamanities, History – 05H) Opponents: Prof. Dr. Habil. Mindaugas Maksimaitis (Mykolas Romeris University, Social sciences, Law – 01S) Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Sujets

• HIStory
• Martial law
• Military administration

Informations

• Publié par: vytautas_magnus_university
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 10
• Langue: English

Extrait

VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY THE LITHUANIAN INSTITUTE OF HISTORY           Modestas KUODYS     REGIME OF MARTIAL LAW IN REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IN 1919 – 1940       SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION   HUMANITIES, HISTORY (05 H)                       KAUNAS, 2009  

This dissertation was prepared in the period of 2005 – 2009 at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, Lithuania     The doctoral study licence is granted to Vytautas Magnus University together with the Institute of Lithuanian History by resolution No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the 15th of July       Scientific supervisor:   Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pranas Janauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H)     The dissertation is defended at Vytautas Magnus University at the Council of Scientific Field of History of Vytautas Magnus University and the Institute of Lithuanian History   Chairman:    Dr.Rimantas Miknys(Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, History – 05 H)   Members:   Prof. Dr. Habil.Zenonas ButkusUniversity, Humanities, History – 05 H)(Vilnius Dr.Algimantas Kasparavičius(Institute of Lithuanian History, Humanities, History – 05H) Prof. Dr.Šarūnas Liekis(Mykolas Romeris University, Humanities, History –05H) Dr.Jonas Vaičenonis(Vytautas Magnus University, Huamanities, History – 05H)     Opponents:   Prof. Dr. Habil.Mindaugas Maksimaitis(Mykolas Romeris University, Social sciences, Law – 01S) Assoc. Prof. Dr.Vygantas Vareikis(Klaip÷da University, Humanities, History – 05H)   The official defence of the dissertation will be held at 14:00 on the 20th of November, 2009, at a public sitting of the defence Board at Vytautas Magnus University, in the Adolfas Šapoka lecture - hall (No. 508), K. Donelaičio street 52, Kaunas   Address: K. Donelaičio street 52, LT-44246, Kaunas Lithuania Phone: [phone]   This summary of the doctoral dissertation was sent out on the.... th October 2009 The dissertation is available at the National M. Mavydas library, library o Vytautas Magnus University and library of Institute of Lithuanian History

 

VYTAUTO DIDIOJO UNIVERSITETAS LIETUVOS ISTORIJOS INSTITUTAS             Modestas KUODYS   KARO PADöTIES REIMAS LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOJE 1919 – 1940 M.       DAKTARO DISERTACIJOS SANTRAUKA HUMANITARINIAI MOKSLAI, ISTORIJA (05 H)                       KAUNAS, 2009

 

Disertacija rengta 2005 – 2009 metais Vytauto Didoijo universitete Doktorantūros teis÷suteikta Vytauto Didiojo universitetui, kartu suLietuvos istorijos institutu 2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausyb÷s nutarimu Nr. 926.   Mokslinis vadovas:     Doc.dr. Pranas Janauskas (Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai,  Istorija 05 – H)   Disertacija bus ginama Vytauto Didiojo universiteto ir Lietuvos istorijos instituto  Humanitariniųmokslųsrities istorijos krypties taryboje   Pirmininkas:   dr.Rimantas Miknys(Lietuvos istorijos institutas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05 H) prof. habil. dr.Zenonas Butkus(Vilniaus universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05H ) dr.Algimantas Kasparavičius(Lietuvos istorijos institutas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05H) prof. dr.Šarūnas Liekis (Mykolo Romerio universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05H) dr.Jonas Vaičenonis(Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05H)   Oponentai:   prof. habil. dr.Mindaugas Maksimaitis(Mykolo Romerio universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, teis÷– 01S) doc. dr.Vygantas Vareikis(Klaip÷dos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05H)   Disertacija bus ginama viešame Humanitariniųmokslųsrities istorijos krypties tarybos pos÷dyje, kuris vyks 2009 m. lapkrič Vytauto Didiojo universitetoio 20 d. 14 val. Adolfo Šapokos auditorijoje (Nr. 508), K. Donelaičio g. 52.   Adresas: K. Donelaičg. 52, LT – 44244, Kaunas, Lietuvaio Tel.: [phone]   Disertacijos santrauka išsiuntin÷ta 2009 m. spalio .... d.   Disertacijągalima perskaityti Lietuvos nacionalin÷je M. Mavydo, Vytauto Didiojo universiteto ir Lietuvos istorijos instituto bibliotekose            

 

SUMMARY    We have chosen a phenomenon that was never coherently studied in the Lithuanian historiography – the regime of martial law in the Republic of Lithuania 1919 – 1940 – as theobject of this dissertation research exclusive protective measure of a. This state and its regime is normally temporary while in Lithuania it became permanent – no precedents for this can be found among the states of the contemporary Europe. Such an exclusive legal - administrative regime, lasting for two decades, turned to be an inseparable part of the political system, its influence was not limited to development of various institutions, it also had impact on the development of the whole society.  This doctoral dissertation encompasses a rather wide range of issues. Whether the martial law was the one and only imperative condition for preservation of Lithuania’s statehood? This controversial and rhetorical in itself problem served as a hypothesis for this research. In search for possible answers to the raised issue the causes of such a long term existence of the exclusive legal - administrative regime, characteristics of its functioning, meaning to the state and society were also scrutinized. Having all said above in consideration we formulated theobjective of the research to educe the – evolution the regime of the martial law in the Republic of Lithuania 1919 – 1940, factors determining it, while analyzing and assessing the most important political, institutional, social aspects of this phenomenon and their interactions. Archival and published sources, academic literature serves as a basis in reaching the set objective. Ninetasks representing the phases of realization of the goals described above are as follows: 1)   To present the kinds and legislation of the exclusive regime 2)   To analyze the political circumstances that determined the long lasting martial law 3)   To define characteristics and practice of the martial law regime policy formulation 4)   To highlight the impact of the martial law to the national armed forces 5)   To estimate influence of the martial law to massing and protection of national guard reserve

 

5

6) To describe the role of the martial law to protection of the citizens and state’s regime 7)   characterize the influence of the martial law to the state’s legal systemTo 8)   in the country under the martial law and after it wasTo compare the life of recalled 9)   To illustrate the impact of the long term martial law to the state itself and to relations of its own citizen  The analytical and descriptive methods were used in this research. These are traditional methods, widely applied in many researches sharing a common character, when a historian has to deal with a great quantity of information from various sources which frequently is non informative or contradictory in order to establish in a consistent and all – round manner an evolution of a complex political – social phenomenon in a clearly defined timeline.  The timeline of the research is rather wide - it covers the period from the beginning of the 1919 to middle of the 1940. This period covers the year of the independent Republic of Lithuania and almost throughout the entire indicated period the martial law was enacted. The beginning of the period is marked by the enacting the martial law in the early days of the state, while the end of the period stands for the state’s loss of sovereignty.  Voluminous academic literature on various topics of the interwar Lithuania's domestic and foreign politics and a broad base of archival and published sources were used when working on this dissertation.  During the period, lasting longer than half of a century, a great number of academic works, dedicated for the development of the independent Republic of Lithuania (1918 – 1940), were published. A great range of topics were examined in these works. The problem of martial law existence, lasting more than two decades, received some coverage in these researches as well. Nevertheless that coverage usually was extremely fragmentary and only in some cases included comments on circumstances of the enacting the martial law, legal basis, nature of administrative restrictions, practice of their implementation, their meaning and the like. The exclusive regime's impact on social processes was only minimally analyzed. Yet the long term martial law was only examined in the context of certain issues of law, politics or army. The most informative

6

from this perspective are the researches, carried by J. Bulavas, M. Maksimaitis, L. Truska, J. Vaičenonis. They form thehistoriographical backgroundof this dissertation.  However the biggest attention in course of this research was paid to the impressive massive of varioussources. The most of the authentic information on work of war superintendants’ offices, their relations with other governmental and law enforcement offices, formulation of the martial law politics, was gathered at Lithuanian central state archive, in funds of army, departments of the Ministry of internal affairs, government. Certain useful documents were found in the Department of manuscripts at The Library of the Lithuanian academy of sciences and at the Kaunas regional archive.  Published digests of legislative acts, administrative orders, circular notes, as well as stenographs of the parliamentary meetings were very important groups of sources.  The works of academics, experts in law and other fields were very useful for analysis of certain issues. Likewise was the statistical data, published in various celebratory or generalized publications.  Considerable attention during the process of information collection was paid to the Lithuanian interwar press. Specialized press and publications dedicated to soldiers, shooters, policemen, rail men, lawyers were particularly informative. The press of the main national parties was also examined, and similarly were the most important national daily newspapers, some Lithuanian newspapers from Klaip÷da region.  Some original remarks, helpful for understanding, evaluation of documentary material, were found in the memoirs of former high ranking officers, some veterans of Freedom struggle, state officials, ministers, press workers, public figures and other more or less prominent people.      The structure of the dissertation was modeled combining problematical and chronological principles of data arrangement. The work consists of the auxiliary parts, like introduction, other components supplied at the end of the work and of four chapters, respectively divided in sections and sub – sections.  The first chapter is committed to a general characteristic of the exclusive regime per se chapter provides with the definition, historical examples, sorts of exclusive. This (special) regimen realized in the Republic of Lithuania, their legal regulation, territorial changes of the exceptive regime and administrative structure.

 

7

 The exclusive (special) regimen is a temporary, exceptive legal regime, designed for management of extreme situations and provided by the Constitution. In most European countries the legislation, regulating regimes of this nature were formulated following the French example in the 19 th century. The principle provisions in that legislation were rather universal and remain almost the same in the course of time. Upon imposition of the martial law authority of military and civil administration usually grows, human rights are restricted, social activities are significantly restrained, censorship exists, people may be imposed with various labor and pecuniary obligations, practice of administration of justice changes: military courts are established, preventive and penal administrative sanctions are applied on broad basis. The interwar Lithuanian legislation of the exclusive regimen was mostly influenced by the tsarist Russia counterparts. For two decades the order of the martial law, powers and functions of military officers in Lithuania were regulated by the Exclusive articles of state defense, adopted in 1919 and subsequently amended many times. Alternatively, in 1925 the law on “Enhanced state’s security” regime was enacted. It provided the minitser of internal affairs, superiors of  regions and police with broad powers to control social sphere. Provisions from both laws with some amendments and supplements got into the law on "Exclusive time" in 1939 and into its new edition of 1940.  In the first half of the third decade Exclusive articles of state defense were in power in Kaunas and its vicinity, spots were military forces were located, railway zones and a narrow strip alongside the line of demarcation, while from the end of December of 1926 to the end of October of 1938 they were equally applicable throughout the entire country. In 1939 and in the first half of 1940 in Lithuania, except the ripped off Klaip÷da region and Vilnius region, along with the martial law the “enhanced state’s security” was in operation.  On the first days of the soviet occupation it was substituted  for the martial law, but the prior situation was soon reestablished, not for a long term though.     In 1919 – 1920 the structure of the regime of the martial law administration consisted  of more than twenty municipal and regional superintendants’ offices (however some of them operated for a very short time). In 1922 – 1926 the territory where Exclusive articles of state defense were applicable was limited and all superintendant's offices were transformed into nine war regions. In 1927 the number of war regions grew to

8

seventeen (they were based in Alytus, Birai, Kaunas, K÷dainiai, Klaip÷da, Marijampol÷, Maeikiai, Panev÷ys, Raseiniai, Rokiškis, Šiauliai, Taura÷iTš ilae g,, Trakai, Ukmerg÷Utena, Vilkaviškis) and soon were officially renamed into, superintendants’ offices again. In 1936 four more war superintendants’ offices were established (in Lazdijai, Kretinga, Šakiai, Zarasai) and in 1939 – 1940 two more of them were established in Vilnius and Švenčion÷ 1919 – 1923 municipal andliai. In regional superintendants’ offices, having staff of superintendants, their adjutants, war officers and squads having a various number of conscript soldiers, were coordinated by the chief of the Local army brigade, and the similarly composed superintendants’ offices of ten stations and sectors were coordinated by the Railway war commander. At the top of this whole military administrative system was the Minister of national defense, who had a special adjutant, called "martial law affairs referent" throughout the period from 1927 to 1938. During the first years of the martial law superintendants’ offices were usually ran by rather young officers of lower ranks - few of them had a rank as high as captain's. Then the state was lacking officers and in case of appointing a person to some responsible position, the main factors for consideration was not an education or experience but motivation and organization skills. Whereas in the second decade of the Lithuanian independency men, appointed to the position of a superintendent were elder, usually having a rank of a colonel lieutenant or a colonel. Most of the officers, who ran war superintendants’ offices during the Freedom struggles, had successful carriers later on.  In course of maintaining the martial law order superintendants were actively aided by structures of the Ministry of internal affairs: superiors of regions and various sorts of the police. In 1938 – 1940 these officials exercised the provisions of the “enhanced security” regimen in the country. Most of the former war superintendants, used to successfully work in the system of internal affairs after their retirement. There were vice ministers, heads of departments among them.  Thesecond chapter the  ofdissertation is dedicated to the consequent analysis of political decisions, incident to the martial law and exercised in the highest plies of government, the circumstances of their making, public and behind the scene discussions, as well as to the discussing the formation of principles of administering the exclusive regimen, their practical implementation in the local level.

 

9

 In 1920 – 1926 the decisions, concerning the martial law, were entered by the democratically elected parliaments, following the procedures, laid down in the Constitution. Every such political step spurred hot debates between the parliamentary majority of Christian democrats, standing for greater limitation of civil rights and liberties, and their persistent though not effective opponents from the left wing, first of all social democrats. The latter blamed the ruling political power for wishes to embed dictatorship, illegal persecution of political opponents, breach of human rights. The issue of the martial law had become the value dilemma for Lithuanian political elite, the situation where a compromise could hardly be found. In the first half of the third decade, due to active work of opposition, sufficiently effective parliamentary control mechanism for the martial law mechanism was built, and that allowed mitigating the negative consequences of this phenomenon in the public life. At the very same time the powers in force were making efforts to broaden and sophisticate the legal basis constraining social life in order to keep important administrative controls in their hands when ill repute in the eyes of public, savagely criticized by the opposition the martial law is postponed.  In the midst of 1926 following the change of the balance of powers in the Parliament the left wing was given the chance to bring into life their radical program of democratization, yet this turn struck the internal balance in the state, stimulated the antinational and the ultra right powers, brought contradistinguishment into the society. The failed experiment was soon interrupted by the military coup d’état,radically changing the course of the state’s development.  During the parliamentary period the permanent existence of the martial law was officially justified by unstable situation in the country, activity of illegal destructive underground movements and perennial threat from Poland. Speaking of the latter it takes to remember that even after the Freedom struggles were over Lithuania officially hold it to the statement it is in war with Poland. Effectively it was a symbolic stance, demonstrating the resolution of a small country to regain its historical capital Vilnius. The official state of war among these states was revoked only on December 10, 1927 on the initiative of the League of Nations. However diplomatic relations between reconciled countries were not reestablished till 1938, the territorial dispute remained unsolved. In Lithuania there still was the martial law imposed by the sole will of the

10

authoritarian president. It was mostly determined by internal motives, not by foreign policy factors. The exclusive regime in the state could only slightly strengthen Lithuanian defensive capabilities in case of external aggression.  Thus already in the first years of A. Smetona’s dictatorship there were contemplations of possibilities of changing the martial law into a sort of an alternative police – administrative exclusive state. There was a wish to retreat the army from functions, alien to it in the times of peace. Furthermore, such normalization of internal life had to improve the image of the nationalist government both in the eyes of own citizen and international society. Question of transformation of the exclusive regimen was rather frequently asked in 1928 – 1930 and in 1936. However the requests from the opposition powers, recommendations from the army command did not accelerated practical actions as the president did not resolve to weaken or refuse his principal support – martial law regime. The real changes only occurred as a result of open Nazi Germany pressure. In March of 1938 it presented Lithuanian government with a memorandum of 11 articles, in which it demanded a recall of the martial law and satisfaction of other requests concerning Klaip÷da region. Kaunas, having no international support, had to accept the ultimatum and promise to exercise the demanded changes. Despite of this, nationalists’ government desperately searched for legal possibilities to maintain effective measures of social control and fighting against antinational activities after a recall of the martial law. Special alternative legislature and supplements to already existing legal acts were being prepared. However they were not enacted due to fear of hostile reaction from Germany. On October 1 st , 1938 the martial law was recalled not only throughout Lithuania but in Klaip÷da region as well. The authoritarian government concealed actual circumstances regarding this decision in attempt to protect its prestige and provided the public with embellished, propaganda version of the situation.  Such manner of dialog between government and its citizens was of great use to the Soviet Union, when it occupied Lithuania in the summer of 1940. People, all the time having heard only reassuring, far from reality president's explanations, watched the events that were crucial to their country apathetically and being lost. Puppet “people’s government” successfully used the measures providedby the exclusive state to fight opponents and unreliable persons. For this purpose it enacted a new, well improved law

 

11