THE VOICE OF INTERNATIONAL LITHUANIA
VilNews has its own Google archive! Type a word in the above search box to find any article.
You can also follow us on Facebook. We have two different pages. Click to open and join.
|
In June 1941, the first massive arrest and deportation of the Lithuanian population was perpetrated. A cargo of 17.500 people were crammed into cattle cars. Moscow’s instruction often required separation of men from their families: some 4.000 men were separated and transported to concentration camps in the Krasnoyarsk territory while 13.500 women, children and elderly people were transported mostly to Kazakhstan, the Altai Mountains territory, Russia’s republic of Komi, the Tomsk region, and the Arctic zone.
As far back as in the first days of the Soviet occupation the searches for "people's enemies" commenced: only in July 12-16, 1940 more than 500 people were arrested - most of them were public men and politicians, army officers, office employees of the independent Lithuania. In the short run, among the dangerous enemies of the Soviet system were reckoned ordinary members of legal parties, organizations that existed in independent Lithuania, police officers, teachers and even Esperantists and philatelists. The repressive departments established pursuing the example of the Soviet Union took into their disposition Lithuanian archives and looked for the "anti-Soviet elements".
At the beginning of the Soviet period, Lithuanian people most of all suffered from deportations - forced mass removal from the domicile to the remote regions of the Soviet Union. The first mass deportation began on June 14, 1941, at night. People realizing nothing were woken up, sat into lorries and conveyed to the nearest railroad station. Thousands of people woken up from sleep (women, children and old people) were told to leave their homes in a hurry. Frightened, not realizing where and why they were taken, most of them failed to take with them even that formally permitted standard of 100 kg of necessities of life. Crammed into the goods wagons, choking from stuffiness without water and hot meal people were kept for several days in obscurity. Only completely formed trains moved to the East - women, old people and children were sent to deportation, the heads of the families - to prisons and camps. Over few days of June, more than 18 thousand people were taken out from Lithuania. This number would have been even larger but the war between Germany and the USSR started on June 22
People deported in 1941 experienced especially difficult fate. Though the war suspended the further deportation, the conditions of the deported became even harder. Upon arrival at the country impoverished by the nationalization and collectivization, allotting the last stock to the front, the deported interested Soviet authorities only as the charge free labour force. Most of the deported were accommodated in joint barracks and dug-outs. People got ill from the epidemics caused by the starvation and anti-sanitary conditions, many of them died, children first of all. In June, 1942, as soon as they began to accustom to their fate, almost half of Lithuanians were taken from Altai territory for real perish to the north of Yakut.
There Lithuanians were distributed to the isle of Tit Ari (at the mouth of the river Lena), Bykov peninsula (at the Laptev Sea), mouth of the river Jana, other places. Debarked from the barges and left in severe polar conditions without lodging, food, warm clothes they died from starvation and diseases. Less than a half of people deported in 1941 returned to Lithuania after 15 or more years. The condition of prisoners and men separated from their families was even more difficult. When the war ended, many of the camps were liquidated, and the prisoners were for hundreds of kilometers driven on foot to other camps. Hundreds of prisoners died on the way and did not reach new places of imprisonment. NKVD camps were enormous cemeteries, in which almost 8 thousand Lithuanians were buried during 1941-1944.
When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania for the second time in the autumn of 1944, the number of people reckoned among the "anti-Soviet elements" even increased. Not only members of resistance, but also members of their families, partisans' supporters, etc. were reckoned among them. Arrests and deportations of Lithuanian people were renewed.
People were taken to deportation by goods (cattle) wagons with as many people and things stuffed as it were possible. There were no even most necessary sanitary and hygiene conditions in the wagons, while the journey took several weeks or even a month. Sometimes people did not receive food for several days. Babies and elderly people died failing to undergo long and hard journey via the wide expanses of the USSR.
|
|
Special agents appointed from Moscow arranged Mass deportations. The lists of the families and individual persons subject to deportation - the main one and reserve (in case the fulfillment of the plan failed) were formed by the district's sections of repressive departments. The inclusion file was made for every deported family or person. The property of the deported family was seized and distributed. The deportations were prepared in advance and with great secrecy in order people would not skulk. |
The local authorities were notified about the prospect deportation only on the eve.
The greatest deportations were masked by very innocent, poetic names - codes used in the correspondence of Soviet departments, radio and telephone conversations. For example, the deportation of May 1948 was named "Vesna" ("Spring"), March 1949 - "Priboj" ("Surf"), October 1951 - "Osen" ("Autumn"). By the amount of the deported people the largest were deportations of May 1948, March, 1949 and October 1951. All of them were fulfilled following the resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR detailed by the puppet Council of Ministers of LSSR and the local MGB.
On May 22-27, 1948 more than 40 thousand people were deported from Lithuania (11 thousand children were among them). On March 25-28, 1949, almost 30 thousand people with more than 8 thousand children among them were deported. During the operation, third by the number of deported people, on October 2-3, 1951, almost 17 thousand people and more than 5 thousand children among them were taken away from Lithuania.
People were deported for various periods of time: for 20 years (in June 1941), for 10 years (1947 - April 1948), for unlimited period of time (in 1949 - 1953). Large penalties menaced for escaping from deportation.
The total number of Lithuanian people deported in 1940-1941, 1945-1952 exceeded 132 thousand. The major part of them was brought to Krasnoyarsk territory, Irkutsk and Tomsk regions
28 thousand from 132 thousand deported people perished from starvation, diseases and unbearable work. About 50 thousand of them could not return to Lithuania for a long time. The last Lithuanians were released from deportation only upon announcement of the order of the Presidium of Supreme Soviet of the USSR, dated January 7, 1960.
|
The conditions of Lithuanian people kept in prisons or camps were even more difficult. In 1950, 12 prisons, 8 subunits of concentration camps and 23 inner prisons functioned in Lithuania. It made only small part of the GULAG system. Annually thousands and tens of thousands of prisoners from Lithuania were sent to the prisons and camps scattered in the vast territory of the USSR. The prisoners were transported by stages - from one prison to another or directly to the specified camp. In 1944-1952, more than 142 thousand of Lithuanian people got into the camps of GULAG. As a rule, healthy people several years after getting into the camps became ailing. The death caused by the tortures while interrogating, difficult conditions of imprisonment, continuous starving, hard work was not an exception. In Far Siberia, Kazakhstan, other localities of the USSR, a great deal of graves of Lithuanians were left. By the data of KGB, about 17 thousand people returned to Lithuania from deportation and camps in 1955-1956. |
Lithuanian deportees and prisoners were made a cheap labour force deprived of all rights. People deported to Tomsk region or those who were in Tomsk's camps stung by gnats and blood sucking flies, in winter walking through the deepest snowdrifts, worked in taiga, prepared and floated rafts, gathered resin. In 1942, people deported to the frosty Frigid Zone fished and the rest of them left in the first place of deportation worked in sovkhozs of Altai territory. People exhausted by heat and thirst built roads in Kazakhstan deserts, worked at the cotton plantations of Tajikistan. Many Lithuanian deportees and prisoners worked in Ural Bauxite mines, Kuzbas and Vorkuta coal pits, Bodaib gold mines (Irkutsk region), gigantic sawmills of Igarka. The deportees were paid a little for their work, meanwhile the prisoners worked just for daily food ration which was cut for those who did not succeed to fulfill their quotas.
Source: http://www.travel-lithuania.com
Now also available in Lithuanian:
The 2011 bestselling novel ‘Between shades of gray’
The period of the mass deportations to Siberia of Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians is a very sad part in the history of the Baltics. It is virtually impossible to find a family in Lithuania that was not effected in some way by these crimes against humanity and brutality inflicted by Soviet Russia. What is almost equally as sad is the fact that to this day very few people in the world are aware that these atrocities took place.
There are people though that do not want these events to become lost in history. Why? To answer that question you would need to ask each and every person what their reason is. Is it to make the world aware of the courage of these people that suffered? Is it done in the hope that the world’s knowledge of these atrocities will help to prevent acts like this from happening again? Is it done with that the hope that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes will someday be brought to justice and forced to atone for their actions?
Again you would need to ask each and every person “spreading the word” what their reasons are. And dear readers maybe this is a good question to ask yourselves – Why should “the word be spread”?
We would like to introduce you to one of these people that is not allowing this sad part in Lithuanian and World history fade away. We are honored that this author is sharing with us her insight based on years of work.
Born and raised in Michigan, Ruta Sepetys is the daughter of a Lithuanian refugee. The nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia disappeared from maps in 1941 and did not reappear until 1990. As this is a story seldom told, Ruta wanted to give a voice to the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives during Stalin's cleansing of the Baltic region.
Ruta lives with her family in Tennessee. “Between Shades of Gray” is her first novel.
You can visit Ruta Sepetys at
www.rutasepetys.com
You can also visit
Ruta Sepetys' Facebook Page
Stalin's brutal deportations affected Chicago-area families
Lithuanians remember era in exhibit
Vytautas' drawing shows the gulag forced labor camps.
Photo by David Pierini.
A chapter of history largely unknown in the U.S. is being featured in an exhibit on Chicago's Southwest Side.
The Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture tells the story of Lithuanians deported to Siberia. They were among millions of people across the Soviet Union who Stalin forced out of their homes and sent away to perform labor for little or nothing.
By VYGAUDAS USACKAS
European Union's ambassador to Afghanistan
In the spring of 1983, I boarded a train for Kazakhstan along with other Lithuanians drafted into the Soviet military. Once there, we were to receive our orders for deployment to Afghanistan, where the Red Army was bogged down in what was to become one of the most notorious wars of the modern age.
As luck would have it, our commanding officer liked a drink, so once we got to Almaty, then Kazakhstan's capital, we plied him with as much vodka as poorly paid conscripts could afford. He got so drunk that he passed out and didn't wake up until our transport to Afghanistan was long gone.
We let him sleep, of course, and we never did get sent to fight the Afghans. We sat out the war, which helped bring down the Soviet Union, in Karaganda, far from the fighting.
Almost two decades later, I was sent to Kabul as the European Union's ambassador to Afghanistan. Every conversation I have with the Afghan people is informed by the intervening years, when I was on the frontline of Lithuania's fight for independence from the Soviet Union. It is that experience, fighting for the freedom and future of my own country, that helps me understand where Afghanistan finds itself today, on the precipice of despair.
My country, today among the smallest in Europe, was once among the biggest and richest. From the 13th to 15th centuries, it included in its territory Belarus, Ukraine and parts of what are today Poland and Russia. My father comes from a wealthy landowning family, my mother from simple farming folk. Despite representing different ends of the social spectrum, both families faced fierce persecution when the Soviets invaded in 1940. We had a few years' respite from the communists while the Nazis were in control during World War II. The Soviets re-occupied Lithuania in 1944.
My father and his parents were on the first train of deportees sent to Siberia, and they spent five years in the frozen labor camps between Kasnojarsk and Irkutsk. My mother was shot twice and has carried the bullets in her chest all her life—as souvenirs, we like to say. The family's land was confiscated.
During my two years as a Soviet soldier, I had to attend regular political indoctrination sessions, where we were told that the war in Afghanistan was one of "liberation." We had heard that one before, when the Soviets supposedly "liberated" Lithuania after the war.
VilNews discussion:
Jewish-Lithuanian relationships in the context of Holocaust and 600 years of coexistence
Donatas Januta and Olga Zabludoff
Dear VilNews Readers,
Many of you will have seen that we over the latest two months have had an ongoing discussion on the topic of Jewish-Lithuanian relations in the context of the Holocaust in Lithuania, as well as long term features of Lithuanian-Jewish coexistence between the 14th and the 20th centuries.
The debate has offered a unique opportunity to contextualise difficult questions, which are both sensitive and important.
The two most active debaters have been Olga Zabludoff and Donatas Januta. We present below a new post from Donatas, but recommend that all posts are read in chronological order to better understand the more overall context.
Go to our Section 5 or Section 12 to read all debate posts.
Donatas Januta: Reply to Olga Zabludoff re Holocaust in Lithuania
History 101: Double standards, red herrings, and one-way streets will not lead to understanding or reconciliation
My dear Olga, in the past you were so generous in trying to give me lessons in what you called Logic 101, but it turns out that when History 101 was being taught you must have skipped class. In discussing the Jewish monopoly in commerce and the trades and crafts in Lithuania, you say that it was the Lithuanians’ own choice not to go into those occupations, that they were free to select those occupations if they had so wanted. I am surprised how you disregard basic historical facts – even after Tautietis pointed you in the right direction in his comment to your Nov. 18th posting.
Donatas Januta: Reply to Olga Zabludoff re Holocaust in Lithuania
Donatas Januta
My dear Olga, in the past you were so generous in trying to give me lessons in what you called Logic 101, but it turns out that when History 101 was being taught you must have skipped class. In discussing the Jewish monopoly in commerce and the trades and crafts in Lithuania, you say that it was the Lithuanians’ own choice not to go into those occupations, that they were free to select those occupations if they had so wanted. I am surprised how you disregard basic historical facts – even after Tautietis pointed you in the right direction in his comment to your Nov. 18th posting.
While serfdom began to disappear in much of Western Europe during the Rennaisance, in Lithuania serfs were freed only in 1861. My great-grandparents were born serfs. Serfdom under the Russian empire was no different than slavery in the US South before the Civil War. A serf was tied to the landowner’s estate where he was forced to live and work. Serfs were bought and sold like cattle. If a serf escaped from the estate, the landowner got the government’s help to catch him and bring him back. The stories in Russian literature of landowners winning or losing their serfs over a game of cards are based on real life of that time.
The majority of Lithuanians, well over 90%, were peasant serfs. The landowners in Lithuania at that time were often foreigners – Polish, German, Russian, and some Polonized or Russianized Lithuanians. The urban dwellers, the “freemen”, who were the ones free to choose their occupations, consisted mostly of Jews, with Poles, Russians and some Germans, depending on which part of Lithuania you were in.
The emancipation of serfs in 1861 did not free them. The large landowner estates were left intact, and the former serfs still remained impoverished and tied to the land because other opportunities remained closed to them. Landowners were and spoke mostly Polish or Russian, government officials spoke only Russian. After unsuccessful Lithuanian uprisings against the Russians in 1830 and 1831, whose activists were executed or exiled to Siberia: “The rebels’ landholdings were parceled out to court favorites and other Russians in a far-reaching colonization process that led to a large Russian influx. .” (The Jews of Lithuania, Masha Greenbaum, p. 176). Russian was declared the official language of the country.
Available education to Lithuanians was limited – books and newspapers in the Lithuanian language were prohibited until 1904. Of the few Lithuanians who were fortunate enough to get an education – in Kiev, St. Petersburg, or Moscow – they could not get a position in Lithuania. Tautietis gave you the example of Dr. Basanavičius (1851-1927), known as Lithuania’s patriarch, who after obtaining his medical degree had to spend his most productive years in Bulgaria. One of my great-uncles ended up being a judge - in Odessa, where he had gone to be allowed to practice law.
My parents were the first generation of Lithuanians in several hundred years who had opportunities to leave the land, to obtain an education, to freely choose a profession, a craft, or a career in commerce. My grandparents – who worked the land their entire lives - encouraged and urged their sons and daughters to pursue education, so that they could leave the hard life of being a subsistence farmer, an opportunity that they themselves had been denied. So, Olga, do explain to me how the Lithuanians themselves “chose” not to go into the fields where Jews ended up having monopolies in Lithuania.
But let's continue with History 101. You quote from your uncle’s letters about the economic hardship his family was experiencing in Lithuania during the world-wide great depression. You also quote some selected parts from Schoenburg & Schoenburg’s Lithuanian Jewish Communities. Let me quote some other parts from Schoenburg & Schoenburg which relate to the Jewish economic condition in Lithuania in the latter part of the 19th and first part of the 20th centuries.
“One important manifestation was the phenomenal Jewish birth rate coupled with a relatively low infant mortality rate, which resulted in a large natural increase in the Jewish population.” (p. 29) “Within the Pale, the population [of Jews] was increasing so fast that Jewish competition among themselves was intense, resulting in less compensation and shoddier goods. * * * Job creation by new enterprises was insufficient to keep up with the rapidly increasing Jewish population. * * * The poorest portion of the Pale of Settlement was Lithuania.” (p. 31).
As a result of such economic pressures, many Jews emigrated, but so did many Lithuanians – including four of my great-uncles – because Lithuanian peasant farmers, the former serfs, were even poorer than the Jews. Nonetheless, in 1918, after much struggle, Lithuania gained its independence, and, as I noted above, that was the first time in several hundred years that Lithuanians had a free choice of occupations and began entering trades, professions and commerce. But, at that time, when Jews constituted about 7% of Lithuania’s population, “almost 90 percent of all Lithuanian trade was in Jewish hands.” (The Jews of Lithuania, Masha Greenbaum, p. 271).
So what do you think happened then? Economic competition is what happened. As Schoenburg and Schoenburg state above, the economic competition within the Jewish community itself was already intense, and as Lithuanians, who had previously been denied the opportunity, began entering occupations previously occupied exclusively by Jews, the economic condition of the Jews did not improve. And, to make things harder for everyone, it was happening in the middle of a world-wide depression. Yes, the government assisted in the establishment of farm cooperatives and related enterprises, just as the US government also has a department of agriculture with farm subsidies and the like.
I hope that the above History 101 lesson answers your question “when were the Lithuanian people not allowed to have a hand in their country’s economy or barred from any particular occupations.”
I do not understand at all why you feel that my statement that I am disappointed in Lithuania’s vote against Palestinian membership in UNESCO is “ultra-nationalist”. In essence, my comment was that I was disappointed that Lithuania in voting against the Palestinians chose political expediency over their previously stated consistent policy of support for self-determination for all peoples. And you say this also displays my “negative attitude toward Israel.” Not true. It only displays my difference of opinion from yours regarding one particular policy of Israel. Are we required to agree with all of Israel’s policies to avoid being considered anti-semitic? When even Jews themselves don’t agree with all of Israel’s policies, are you saying that I need to be more Jewish than Jews themselves?
I did not speculate that Dovid Katz was removed from his position because he doesn’t speak Lithuanian. Quite the contrary. I expressly stated that we did not know why his contract was not renewed, and in reply to Bertin’s assertion, I merely mentioned several other possibilities. Professor Šarunas Liekis, former director of the Vilnius Yiddish Institute where Katz was employed, however, has stated: “When his contract ended it was not renewed for professional reasons, the same reasons it was not renewed at Oxford.” (Jerusalem Post, Nov. 27, 2011).
As for Katz not knowing the Lithuanian language, Katz himself made that issue fair game by posturing himself as a self-appointed expert on present day Lithuania and present day Lithuanians, when he has no credentials, neither academic nor real world experience, on which to claim that.
Olga, your explanations to my two comments under your December 16th posting are just plain silly.
So what if, as you say, “Lithuanian Jews had been living and dancing in Lithuania for 700 years”? That just shows how distinct and separate Jews kept themselves from the Lithuanians among whom they lived, since during all those 700 years of dancing in Lithuania, Jews did not invite Lithuanian goyim to dance with them. And we can find a clue to that in your Schoenburg and Schoenburg, where the authors write: “The Jews felt superior to the ethnic peasant population . . .” (p. 41).
Writing about post World War I Lithuania, Masha Greenbaum writes: “Lithuanian Jewry was one of the least assimilated Jewish collectives in Europe. Jews in Lithuania displayed an unflinching will for autonomy and a united front in the struggle for [their own] cultural identity.” (p. 232) Jews and Lithuanians communicated in separate languages, worshipped separate religions, had separate schools, differed radically in dress and appearance, they did not share any customs or traditions, did not share social activities, did not share a culture and definitely did not dance together. Jews did not intermix with Lithuanians other than in the marketplace, and Litvak culture is a totally separate and distinct culture from ethnic Lithuanian culture.
A few years ago, a self-promoting publicist in Los Angeles suggested that some unnamed, and as far as one can tell non-existent, Yiddish dancers be invited to a Lithuanian folk dance festival. He was told that the purpose of that dance festival was to promote Lithuanian ethnic culture, not other cultures. Immediately followed a damning story in The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, complete with quotes and a large photo of that publicist, and quoting Efraim Zuroff who referred to the Lithuanian diaspora of my generation as being descendants of war criminals.
But that whole story, as I said before, is a total “red herring”, because no Yiddish dance group had asked to participate in the Lithuanian folk dance festival, just as no Yiddish group had ever invited any Lithuanian folk dancers to any Yiddish celebrations. Lithuanians understand and respect Litvaks’ desire to retain their Yiddish culture as a separate and distinct culture in its own right, and we, the inferior “ethnic peasant population”, would like the same consideration in return. But you and Zuroff & Co. think that we are asking too much, even calling our request an anti-semitic act. There's that double standard again.
Your and Zuroff & Co.’s repeated argument that there can be no Soviet genocide in Lithuania, i.e., no genocide other than the genocide of the Jews, because that would be equating the two – that argument is even sillier and is simply intellectual dishonesty. It’s like telling a person who was raped that you can’t put rapists in prison because we are putting murderers in prison, and if you put rapists there as well it will diminish the crime of the murderers. Yet the rapist and the murderer are both criminals. And genocide is genocide, whether it is against Jews, Armenians, Cambodians, Rwandans, Ukrainians or Lithuanians - "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",
And as far as what you speculate that Zuroff or Bertin may or may not have meant when they spoke, their own words themselves speak very clearly. They are both applying a double standard and for them it's strictly a one-way street: it’s permissible to prohibit Holocaust denial, but it is not permissible to prohibit denying the tragedies of the 50 years of the Soviet occupation; it’s permissible for Israel to search the world for every last geriatric prison guard, but it is not permissible for Lithuania to question the actions of Jewish bandits who robbed, tortured and murdered innocent villagers.
As I said before, Olga, to successfully embrace Lithuanian and Jewish history and find understanding and reconciliation, you won’t find it on Zuroff’s one-way street.
Kaliningrad and Belarus nuclear power plants. (NPP1 and 2)
on the border of Lithuania.
Prepared by:
Dr. Stan (Stasys) Backaitis, P.E., SAE Fellow1
Lithuanian American Council
One NPP containing two reactors, will be situated in Astravets, Belarus, approximately 20 km (12 miles) east of Lithuania and about 50 km (31 miles) from its capital city of Vilnius. The other set of two reactors will be constructed in the Kaliningrad enclave approximately 10 km (6 miles) south and west of Lithuania’s border. (The Kaliningrad enclave is a small patch of Russian-administered land wedged between the European Union nations of Poland and Lithuania.) In case of a nuclear disaster, the two NPPs pose a grave danger to Lithuania and other North-European countries.
Zones of nuclear endangerment by the Kaliningrad nuclear power plant.
Kaliningrad and Belarus nuclear power plants. (NPP1 and 2)
on the border of Lithuania.
One NPP containing two reactors, will be situated in Astravets, Belarus, approximately 20 km (12 miles) east of Lithuania and about 50 km (31 miles) from its capital city of Vilnius. The other set of two reactors will be constructed in the Kaliningrad enclave approximately 10 km (6 miles) south and west of Lithuania’s border. (The Kaliningrad enclave is a small patch of Russian-administered land wedged between the European Union nations of Poland and Lithuania.) In case of a nuclear disaster, the two NPPs pose a grave danger to Lithuania and other North-European countries.
The Kaliningrad and the Belarus NPPs, by being built on the borders of Lithuania, place the entire country in a ominous nuclear vise (Figure 1). A nuclear failure at either plant would expose large and densely populated areas of Lithuania to deadly radiation and nuclear poisoning. The NPP in Belarus would impact the entire metropolitan Vilnius region and thus more than a third of Lithuania’s population (Figure 2). A failure in the Kaliningrad NPP would place approximately a fourth of Lithuania’s population at risk. (Figure 3). In total, more than half of Lithuania’s population would be subjected to nuclear-based devastation in the event that both plants experience concurrent nuclear disasters. While such simultaneous NPP failures may at first appear to be remote, they are not beyond the realm of the possible. One need only consider Chernobyl and the 9/11 attack as well as human error, negligence, defects in planning and construction, acts of terror, war, seismic activity and aircraft crashes.
Lithuania is deeply concerned in that Russia and Belarus have not coordinated or reconciled the site selection with Lithuania from a safety standpoint. Lithuania deems the proposed sites as major and unnecessary risks to its survival not only in terms of potential radiation poisoning of its population, but also the consequent devas¬tation of its land and urban areas. Any new nuclear plant construction must consider the consequences of the meltdowns in Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. According to Gregory Yaczko, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in his report to the American Association for the dvancement of Science Symposium in 2011, the area affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster covers an 80 km radius, and at present it cannot be established when the displaced inhabitants could return to their homes.
Nuclear incidents do not recognize state or country borders, or even great bodies of water. As a case in point, Sweden suffered radioactive cesium contamination from the Chernobyl disaster even though it was some 500 miles distant from the site, including 200 miles over the Baltic Sea. It stands to reason that such volatile objects should not be constructed on the borders of a neighboring country exposing it to a risk of mortal danger. To preclude such an occurrence,
international conventions on nuclear safety require transparency, bilateral and multilateral review, and due process leading to a resolution of disputed issues. The parties of origin, in this case Russia and Belarus, are mandated to adhere to internationally established nuclear safety standards as established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Notwithstanding Lithuania’s numerous requests directed to Russia and Belarus for the site selection criteria as to both NPPs, neither Russian and Belarusan authorities have produced any substantive data but for self-serving conclusory assertions that they are in compliance with safety standards. In contrast, IAEA and Espoo conventions require that there be compliance with clearly stated processes before the construction of new NPPs. They include: justification, generic design assessment, strategic siting assessment, national policy statement, licensing and planning. The sequence of these internationally established procedures are logical and necessary, and should be strictly adhered to and not be preemptively dismissed by the parties of origin.
Figure 2. Zones of nuclear endangerment by the Belarus nuclear power plant.
Figure 3. Zones of nuclear endangerment by the Kaliningrad nuclear power plant.
Summary of Issues
The Lithuanian American Council (LAC) is concerned that once the construction of the Belarus and Kaliningrad NPPs has commenced, Lithuania will be confronted with an irreversible situation. LAC agrees with Lithuania’s authorities that NPPs planned at the currently designated Belarus and Kaliningrad sites, constitute a threat to Lithuania’s existence. The following considerations summarize our concerns:
1.Consequences from structural damage to the reactors caused by seismic disturbances, external impacts, and acts of terrorism;
2.Questionable structural, electrical and mechanical integrities of subject NPPs;
3.Sufficiency of water and other physical resources needed to contain the effects of a nuclear disaster;
4.Safety of Lithuania’s population in the event of minor and major NPP failures;
5.Provisions for notification of emergencies and evacuation of the populace;
6.Effects on water, vegetation and habitat over the entire land area of Lithuania, and Kaliningrad and Belarus regions;
7.Availability of funds to cover shelter and subsistence for evacuees;
8.Plans and provisions to resolve long term contamination effects;
9.Short term and long term storage and removal of spent nuclear fuel;
10.Consent of the populations at risk
1. Consequences from structural damage to the reactors caused by seismic effects, external impacts, and acts of terrorism
The recent Fukushima nuclear accident has focused the international community on the need to evaluate the risks and consequences of all possible scenarios potentially placing nuclear reactors at risk. Notwithstanding this international consensus, Belarusan and Russian authorities continue to ignore, or at best minimize, the risks of earthquakes on the reactors at the proposed NPP sites.
Belarus in the EIA states that:
There is a zone in the southwest part of the region (…) In 1908, according to the archives and literary sources, a big earthquake took place in Ostrovetsky district with the epicentre being near the settlement of Gudoai. It measured 6-7 on the MSK-64 scale and the effects were substantial in magnitude.
However, in the following sentence, Belarus authorities assert that the “….maximum probable earthquake magnitude would not be expected to exceed a level of 5,” based on their own self-serving and unsubstantiated evaluation that there exists a “…low probability of stronger earthquake.”
Russia has not made any public earthquake assessments in the Kaliningrad region, even though in the immediate vicinity of the proposed NPP a Richter 5 level earthquake was recorded as late as 2004.
Furthermore, Ivan Grabelnikov, the chief engineer overseeing the Kaliningrad NPP project, in the course of a technical conference conceded that neither the VVER-1200 reactors nor its buildings have undergone simulation testing with respect to potential aircraft crashes at the site. On the other hand, nuclear facilities operating in Western Europe are currently required to substantiate that new reactors will be able to withstand such impacts. A direct plane crash into a reactor containment building would not only destabilize the reactor, but would also jeopardize the integrity of the onsite storage facilities housing the spent but still radioactive nuclear fuel. To the best of LAC’s knowledge, no protection is provided against such incidents at either the Kaliningrad or Belarus sites. This is especially disconcerting as there exists a major north-south flight corridor over the planned NPP site in Belarus. It is also a matter of record that in 2005, a Russian fighter jet actually crashed in Lithuania near the planned Kaliningrad NPP site.
2. Questionable structural, electrical and mechanical integrities of subject NPPs
Recently Russian authorities claimed that comprehensive stress tests (allegedly applying standards beyond those adopted by the EU) were performed on all NPPs in the Russian Federation with positive results. However, the structural collapse of the Leningrad-2 NPP containment building in the summer of 2011 raises questions about the veracity of such claims and the validity of the tests. Russia’s own internal reports confirm that equipment failures at nuclear power plants are fairly frequent because of “…such underlying causes as mismanagement, flaws in maintenance organization, manufacturing and design defects.”
Furthermore, the VVER-1200 reactors belong to a completely new Russian reactor series, dubbed as AES-2006. They are touted by Rosatom as the latest and safest technological achievement. But the fact is, this reactor model has no extensive history of operation to substantiate such safety or reliability claims. During the construction of a similar reactor in China, the Russian contractor received repeated complaints from the Chinese concerning the quality of materials used and equipment employed. These concerns eventually led to a significant delay in the NPP construction. During the first year of operation, the reactor in China had to be stopped twice to deal with unplanned maintenance procedures.
Both, the Russian Federation and Belarus ought conduct risk and safety assessments for these particular reactors applying IAEA test and evaluation protocols and provide documented assessments for review by the European Commission as well as to the Republic of Lithuania, as the principle affected and aggrieving party.
3. Sufficiency of water and other physical resources needed to contain the effects of a nuclear disaster
Sufficient water resources are needed at NPPs not only to cool reactors in the course of normal operation, but also to contain nuclear fires and reduce the escape of nuclear contaminants into the atmosphere in the case of an accident. The Fukushima nuclear disaster required several million cubic meters of water merely to limit the spread of fire. During the nuclear fire, even the quantity of water in the large Fukushima cooling basin was insufficient. A significant quantity of water had be pumped directly from the ocean to the site.
Limited water supplies at the Belarus NPP are a particularly critical issue. There are no significant water resources in the region. The nearest sizeable stream that is to provide and fill the cooling basin is several miles away. It is approximately the size of the Rock Creek in Washington, D.C., flowing more in the rainy season and nearly dry during summer droughts. Furthermore, the stream’s water level is some 42 m. lower than the plateau of the terrain of the NPP. This further limits water availability to contain critical reactor events. While the size of the proposed cooling basin is not known, it is obvious that short of creating a very large lake, a limited size cooling basin would not be sufficient to contain a reactor meltdown.
It also needs to be pointed out that down-flowing waters from the nearby creeks merge into the Neris River which is less than 30 miles downstream and meanders through the center of the city of Vilnius. The river, before reaching Vilnius, becomes the principal source of potable water for nearly a million people living in the metropolitan Vilnius area. In the event of leakage or fallout of nuclear contaminants into the area’s waterways, Vilnius and the surrounding area would become uninhabitable and the land unsuitable for agricultural use. It would decimate the wildlife in the region, and for many miles would poison the entire downstream river basin that is situated entirely within Lithuania’s borders.
With regard to water resources for the Kaliningrad NPP, Russia is planning to divert part of the sizeable Nemunas River to fill the cooling basin. The river, 6 miles north of the NPP, constitutes a common border between Lithuania and the Kaliningrad oblast, until it reaches the delta area, some 40 miles to the west. LAC has no knowledge of how much water would be diverted to accommodate the Kaliningrad NPP, the size of the proposed cooling basin, and whether the volume of water would be sufficient to contain a nuclear meltdown. However, it is certain that any down-flowing return of contaminated water from the NPP into the river Nemunas would seriously endanger the downstream part of the entire river basin and the inhabitants living along its shores. Of even greater concern is the ecological impact on the Nemunas river delta, merely 40 miles downstream from the NPP site. The delta area is located entirely within the territory of Lithuania, with water flowing extremely slowly or not at all. Atomic residue from the Kaliningrad NPP would accumulate in significant quantities, creating a cesspool of irradiated nuclear waste. The delta area is not only densely populated, but it is also a major wildlife sanctuary, particularly as a stopover point for migratory birds between Europe’s northern nesting grounds in summer and southern grounds in Africa during the winter season. In case of nuclear poisoning of the delta waters, the entire ecosystem of central Europe would be jeopardized.
4. Safety of Lithuania’s population in the event of minor and major NPP failures
Radioactive materials escaping from a nuclear power plant can have varying effects depending on the type of failure and the distance of populated areas from the failure site. In the case of the Chernobyl disaster, 30 workers died within a month after being exposed to high levels of radiation at that site. Many others, in the thousands, sustained serious injuries from radioactive exposure. Some of them died later, but many suffered ongoing illnesses, traumatized for the remainder of their lives. In the Fukushima radiation zone in the wake of the meltdowns high death rates were recorded among the abandoned livestock. Of the 3,500 cattle that remained in the radiation zone, 2,500 died, and the remaining appear terminally ill.
Large doses of ionizing radiation can cause cell death, while lower doses may interfere with cellular proliferation. Response to radiation depends on rapidity and the portion of the body exposed. Significant illness is certain, and death is possible, when a whole-body dose exceeds 4.5 Gy delivered over a short time interval.
Children and pregnant women are more susceptible to radiation injury because of their higher rate of cellular proliferation. After the Chernobyl meltdown, over the period of 1990-1998, 60% of children tested were found suffering from radiation effects; 1,981 of them were diagnosed with thyroid cancer.
Victims subjected to a high level of radiation either die shortly after exposure (cerebrovascular syndrome) or, if they survive, will sustain incurable longer term damage to their intestines, suffering vomiting and diarrhea, and to their bone marrow resulting in weakened red cell production and eventual onset of cancer.
Lower dose damage in the first thirty days rarely cause immediate danger to human life (GI syndrome), but symptoms of radiation can be felt as chronic fatigue, headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, incurable sores, loss of hair, and eventually may develop into leukemia or other forms of cancer. Other effects could include genetic mutation, premature aging, and disorders of the nervous and mental systems.
The toxins and long term effect of radiation poisoning make it imperative that the impacted populace be immediately evacuated from the affected area to assure minimal exposure to radiation. It is also essential that needed medical assistance including medications be held in readiness and be made available to counteract the effects of radiation exposure.
Neither Russia nor Belarus has offered to discuss preparation and provision for such eventualities, and to date, the potential radiological impact of a nuclear accident on Lithuania’s population has not been properly addressed, let alone evaluated, by either of the project sponsors.
5. Provisions for notification of emergencies and evacuation of the populace
Early warning and extensive emergency evacuation provisions need to be established in bilateral discussions and treaties. Lithuania currently has a bilateral treaty with Belarus on early notification of nuclear accidents. Lithuania has also proposed such a treaty with the Russian Federation, but so far it has failed to respond. Furthermore, there are no discussions on how Russia and Belarus would facilitate, in the event of a nuclear disaster, the evacuation of Lithuania’s capital Vilnius and other densely populated areas. In the case of the Chernobyl accident, immediate evacuation of some 120,000 people during the first 24 hours had to be effected. Similarly, the Fukushima accident resulted in the evacuation of 170,000 people within a similar period. Since any Belarus and/or Kaliningrad NPP failures would affect mostly the people of Lithuania numbering in many hundreds of thousands, clear evacuation plans and adequate means to do so must be developed in bilateral agreements as required by the Espoo Convention.
6. Effects on water, vegetation and habitat over the entire land of Lithuania, and Kaliningrad and Belarus regions
In the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, large tracts of land were found to be contaminated. None of the agricultural products, be it vegetation or livestock, were suitable for human consumption. Even now several decades after the Chernobyl meltdown, the soil remains unsuitable for growing vegetation and raising animals.
Inasmuch as a significant nuclear leakage would involve contamination of major parts of Lithuania’s territory, bilateral agreements must be concluded, before any construction work is to commence, on procedures to avoid or minimize damage, and, on methods of compensation, including restitution of contaminated sites to their original condition. A model fund for restitution of contaminated areas has been developed by the United States. It is known as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund. The model could be used as a basis for negotiation between Lithuania and Russia/Belarus. The statute assures that parties or organizations responsible for contamination are held accountable for costly cleanup and restitution of the contaminated sites.
7. Availability of funds to cover shelter and subsistence for long term evacuees
The Chernobyl accident resulted in some 330,000 people being permanently displaced, sustaining loss of their homes, places of business, and employment. The Chernobyl accident and the measures taken to deal with its consequences have cost the Soviet Union at that time – and later Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine – hundreds of billions of dollars. Today, social benefits are paid to some 7 million people who have sustained harm from by the Chernobyl accident. Such payments are a huge burden on national budgets and, because of their size, in the long run, may not be sustainable.
Similar experience is facing the people of the Fukushima region. Of the 170,000 evacuated, some 70,000 people are unable to return to their former living areas as they are deemed too dangerous for habitation.
Any significant Belarus and Kaliningrad NPP failures involving a major radiation leakage or meltdown, would predominantly impact the people of Lithuania. Accordingly, adequate funds or insurance must be set aside by owners of the reactors and escrowed by a third party to pay for possible long term losses. Considering past experience, reluctance to acknowledge such events and even their severities, and refusal to honor agreements and promises, verbal assurances by the governments of Belarus and Russia to assume financial responsibility are inadequate. This question can only be resolved through ironclad commitments before any NPP construction is started.
8. Plans and provisions to resolve long term contamination effects
The Chernobyl accident involved the discharge of substantial quantities of radioactive substances into the environment. An area of 76,100 km2 was contaminated mostly with high concentrations of radioactive nuclides such as iodine 131, cesium-137 and strontium 90. The contaminations required mass evacuations of people. It disrupted the way of life and economic activity in various parts of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. In just the first year after the accident, 144,000 hectares of farm land were taken out of use, forestry work was stopped in an area of 492,000 hectares, and most industrial and agricultural enterprises ceased operations in the affected area.
Assuming a uniform circular dispersion pattern within a radius of 70 km., a Chernobyl level accident at the Belarus NPP could contaminate approximately 6,000 km2 (approx. 10%) of Lithuania’s territory by high concentrations of nuclides. The affected area would include the entire city of Vilnius with some 600,000 inhabitants. A Chernobyl level meltdown at the Kaliningrad NPP could affect more than 10,000 km2 or about 16% of Lithuania’s area. Since radiation contamination of buildings and land would have long term effects and prevent their use, agreements must be reached on how the contaminated objects would be restored to their pre-damage state, or what other type of remedies need to be considered. While the likelihood of a Chernobyl-type accident is small, nevertheless, Lithuania’s concerns must be addressed and consideration given to alternative sites.
Minimal acceptable distances from the NPP to Lithuania’s borders must be established and assurances given that drainage and down-flow of any contaminated waters into its territory will be prevented. This all must be determined by mutual agreement between parties before construction of the NPPs commences.
9. Short and long term storage and removal of spent nuclear fuel
Used nuclear fuel is a solid material that is initially securely stored at nuclear plant sites. This temporary storage is one component of an integrated spent fuel management system that addresses all facets of intermediate and long term storing of radioactive nuclear fuel.
Spent nuclear fuel that remains stored at nuclear power plants, is normally contained in steel-lined, concrete pools or basins filled with water. Upon initial cool-off period of some 5 to 10 years, it is transferred to massive, airtight steel or concrete-and-steel containers. Eventually, after several decades the spent fuel rods may be transferred to a permanent geologic repository unless recycled for reuse, or a new technology is discovered for their use in other applications.
The stored spent material, similar to virgin nuclear material used by the NPP, is subject to terrorist attacks, natural disasters such as power failures, overheating due to coolant leakage, destruction by acts of war, and accidental or targeted plane crashes. Any damage to containers and their content can result in a dangerous release of radioactive contaminants. While it may be assumed that eventually spent nuclear materials would be transferred from the Belarus NPP by way of safely packaged railroad containers to some permanent storage sites in Russia, LAC has no information confirming that such will occur.
Of equal concern is the handling and storage of radioactive materials at the Kaliningrad site, since it is less than six miles from Lithuania. LAC has no information as to Russia’s plans concerning the storing of the spent radioactive materials at the NPP site. Neither is there any information on the transportation provisions which will be employed to transfer the spent nuclear waste for permanent storage. Russia’s EIA report on the Kaliningrad NPP provides a statement that a route of transporting the spent materials from the NPP in Kaliningrad to a burial site will be defined in the working documentation. In as much as railroad transport of such materials through Lithuania might not be admissible, the only other way to remove the materials would be either by sea transport or air. Some Russian publications imply that spent nuclear fuel would be transported from the Kaliningrad NPP by the Baltic Sea to the nuclear waste repository in Sosnovy Bor, near Saint Petersburg. However, if such a transport mode would be employed, Russia’s current EIA is silent on possible perils to all of the Baltic sea countries in case of a shipwreck or partial cargo loss.
Even though Lithuania has posed questions to Russia and Belarus on methods of disposal of the spent fuel, the LAC notes that Russia to date has failed to address or even seriously acknowledge this critical issue.
10 Consent of affected public, alternative sites, bilateral agreements
Russia and Belarus are disregarding Lithuania’s objections to the proposed construction of nuclear plants adjacent to Lithuania’s border. The site locations for the nuclear reactors pose a threat to Lithuania’s survival as a nation. Accordingly, the construction of both NPPs are in violation of the Espoo and IAEA conventions.
The Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context of 1991 addresses the responsibilities of the Parties of origin (project initiators).
The Espoo Convention in Article 2 requires that:
1) The Parties shall, either individually or jointly, take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from proposed activities, and
2) the Party of origin shall provide, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, an opportunity to the public in the areas likely to be affected to participate in relevant environmental impact assessment procedures regarding proposed activities and shall ensure that the opportunity provided to the public of the affected Party is equivalent to that provided to the public of the Party of origin.
Article 5 notes that:
The Party of origin shall, after completion of the environmental impact assessment documentation, without undue delay enter into consultations with the affected Party concerning possible alternatives to the proposed activity, including the no-action alternative and possible measures to mitigate significant adverse transboundary impact and to monitor the effects of such measures at the expense of the Party of origin.
Article 6 states that:
The Party of origin shall provide to the affected Party the final decision on the proposed activity along with the reasons and considerations on which the decision was based.
Furthermore, the IAEA Commission decision, 1999/819/Euratom, of November 16, 1999, concerning the accession to the 1994 Convention on Nuclear Safety by the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) notes that “In choosing the site, one must consider, inter alia, its effect on the safety of the installation and the effects of the installation on individuals and the environment.” It notes further that other contracting parties in the vicinity of the site must also be consulted if the installation is likely to have consequences for them.
While Belarus claims to have presented Lithuania with an environmental impact assessment regarding its NPP, LAC is informed that the Lithuanian government has rejected the assessment saying that questions submitted to Belarus have not been responded to properly, and that claimed public hearings in Vilnius were either a sham or fabrication, and that actually no substantive consultations have taken place.
There was even less consultation with Russia regarding the Kaliningrad NPP. Russia has neither held public hearings nor offered to participate in bilateral consultations despite Lithuania’s request to do so.
It is noted that Constituents in Belarus and Kaliningrad as well as in Lithuania in a series of public demonstrations have repeatedly voiced their opposition to the construction of subject NPPs.
LAC is concerned that the NPPs’ site selections were based on political considerations rather than on Espoo and IAEA established criteria requiring that the selection be grounded on sound environmental criteria and particularly by addressing the safety of the population situated near the site.
Lithuania has filed a complaint with the secretariat of the Espoo Convention stating that Belarus, contrary to its assertion, has not complied with mandated procedures of the environment impact assessment process, as is required by the Espoo Convention. Lithuania has also submitted a similar note to the secretariat of the Espoo Convention on the deficiencies in Russia’s response regarding the proposed NPP in Kaliningrad. Russian authorities blatantly assert that they are in compliance with Espoo and are following its provisions, notwithstanding its failure to enter into any consultations with Lithuania.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis presented here regarding the two proposed NPP sites, it is amply clear that the EIA process has not been satisfactorily completed and that the requirements of the Espoo Convention have not been fulfilled by Russia and Belarus. Considering the potentially severe consequences for Lithuania in the event of a nuclear failure at either the Belarus or the Kaliningrad reactors, the international community must respond and insist that established nuclear standards be adhered to. LAC urges the United States legislative and executive branches to address Belarus and Russia’s governments insisting that they cease any further activity on these projects until the EIA process is accomplished and all issues are resolved in accordance with international nuclear safety standards, principles, and conventions.
Prepared by:
Dr. Stan (Stasys) Backaitis, P.E., SAE Fellow1
Lithuanian American Council
In the dense pine forests where the European Union’s eastern border meets Belarus, two giant nuclear reactors sit idle. Lithuania’s 3,000-megawatt Ignalina plant was once one of the most powerful nuclear facilities in the world. The Baltic state has shut down both reactors as a condition for its 2004 entry into the EU, which wants nothing to do with Ignalina’s Chernobyl-style technology. Now the EU debt crisis has forced Brussels to slash its budget for dismantling old Eastern European atomic stations, threatening to leave Ignalina in limbo.
When a reactor is decommissioned, the first task is to shut it down, a job that requires a lot more than simply flipping a switch. The next step in dismantling the power plant: Spent fuel is removed and the reactors, turbines, and generators are taken apart, a complex task. Ignalina’s turbine hall alone contains 190 kilometers of pipes. The EU, which sets budgets on a seven-year cycle, originally earmarked €1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) for decommissioning Ignalina and an additional €1.5 billion for similar projects in Slovakia and Bulgaria: Both sums are expected to be spent through 2013.
The problem is that for its 2014-20 budgetary cycle, the EU has only allotted the three countries a total of €500 million for the next stage of work. Ignalina General Director Žilvinas Jurkšus says he needs €870 million for the next phase of dismantling. As Lithuania can provide only €100 million, the rest must come from the EU, he says. Brussels insists that Lithuania will get only €210 million—its share of the €500 million.
Rokas Masiulis, General Manager of Klaipedos Nafta
The Klaipeda-based enterprise Klaipedos Nafta and the energy company Lietuvos Energija signed the preliminary contract that turned to be the first step in the negotiations regarding the volumes and terms of gas supply from the projected Liquefied natural gas (LNG) Terminal, the company reports to NASDAQ OMX Vilnius.
During the implementation of the LNG Terminal's project, the parties have committed to exchange information and specify all the related data necessary for the conclusion of the main agreement, reports LETA/ELTA.
The Contract also provides for Klaipedos Nafta, the company responsible for the project, to put all efforts so that the LNG Terminal's capacity would allow guaranteeing the total gas volume necessary for Lietuvos Energija.
The parties will specify the gas volumes, terms of delivery, pricing principles, distribution of responsibilities in the main Agreement that is expected to be signed by December 31, 2012.
The LNG Terminal in Klaipeda Seaport is expected to start its operation by the end of 2014.
CHRISTMAS IN LITHUANIA
Twelve different dishes are served on the table because Jesus had twelve apostles. All the dishes are strictly meatless: fish, herring, slizikai with poppy seed milk, kisielius (cranberry pudding), a dried fruit soup or compote, a salad of winter and dried vegetables, mushrooms, boiled or baked potatoes, sauerkraut (cooked, of course, without meat) and bread. Gero apetito! Skanaus!
Photo from: http://www.thebluegrassspecial.com
Text: Saulene Valskyte
Christmas is probably the most important celebration in the whole Christian world, but Lithuanian Christmas traditions are outstanding, even in this context. Lithuania has a very rich history and the many historical events have influenced our traditions – starting with hints of paganism, followed up by remains from the Soviet occupation, and finishing up with an intervention of the modern world. In this article I will tell you a little bit about our Christmas traditions – how they should be and what are still very much are also today. Gero apetito! Skanaus! Linksmu Kalėdų!
CHRISTMAS IN LITHUANIA
It‘s the most wonderful
time of the year...
Twelve different dishes are served on the table because Jesus had twelve apostles. All the dishes are strictly meatless: fish, herring, slizikai with poppy seed milk, kisielius (cranberry pudding), a dried fruit soup or compote, a salad of winter and dried vegetables, mushrooms, boiled or baked potatoes, sauerkraut (cooked, of course, without meat) and bread. Gero apetito! Skanaus!
Photo from: http://www.thebluegrassspecial.com
Text: Saulene Valskyte
Christmas is probably the most important celebration in the whole Christian world, but Lithuanian Christmas traditions are outstanding, even in this context. Lithuania has a very rich history and the many historical events have influenced our traditions – starting with hints of paganism, followed up by remains from the Soviet occupation, and finishing up with an intervention of the modern world. In this article I will tell you a little bit about our Christmas traditions – how they should be and what are still very much are also today. Gero apetito! Skanaus! Linksmu Kalėdų!
First of all I have to point out that in Lithuania Christmas Eve (Kūčios) supper is the most important part, normally celebrated at home with family and close relatives. Also lonely people are invited to the Christmas eve supper, because nobody should be alone at Christmas. Another important thing to say is that during Soviet occupation not everyone celebrated Christmas. For example my mother didn't celebrate as a child, because my grandma was afraid that if children said something at school they might get in to trouble and since my grandma, being a doctor, was already watched by authorities (everyone could be tracked by the authorities for all kinds of reasons, especially medical staff as they were working with what was considered criminals against the nation, and had possibilities to help them) she didn't want to risk.
Preparation for Christmas starts at the beginning of Advent. According to the folk calendar Advent is the peace, spiritual purification time, in this time farm work is completed. Advent begins with St. Andrew's day, lasts four weeks and ends on Christmas Eve. Advent means not only peace, but also a mysterious, mystical time, when the spirits of the spirit-world is trying to interfere in people's lives. The elders believed that this dark time the spirits are creeping around, trying to cause harm to people and their jobs, winter crops, livestock etc. Therefore, various prohibitions were abundant. That included household works, nutrition and entertainment. There were certain works forbidden at this time: deforestation, sheep shearing and other noisy activities. It was forbidden to dance, sing and party, also to stay up late in the evenings. People couldn't eat meat and fat food (with an exception for children and sick people). From all that there are only a few things left these days – some of people don't party as much and there are some that don't eat meat, but not during all Advent, usually just the last week before Christmas. One more tradition is to make Advent wreaths – a wreath with four candles (one candle per Advent week), it usually stands in the window and every week there is one more candle burning.
At the day of Christmas Eve all noisy works were strictly forbidden, because that would bring thunderstorms the upcoming summer. People washed themselves according to rituals. Then they were preparing the table for the supper. In Lithuania Christmas eve day is a national celebration, so no one has to work (shouldn't work, but all supermarkets and shops are usually open, just close a bit earlier).
Preparing a Christmas Eve table was very important. Now not so many people do it by the rules, but the right kind of preparation makes the Christmas Eve supper more special and fun. First of all there should be some straw put under the white tablecloth (after supper straws are used for some magic when each person draw a straw without looking, the length of a straw symbolizes length of the person’s life).
There is always one empty place at the table, for the spirits of dead relatives. Also, some food must be left in that plate for the following night. The Christmas Eve table is decorated with candles, that also are used for some magic after the supper. Pouring wax is another Christmas Eve ritual, the rules are: take a candle from table (the ones that were burning all night long) and pour the wax from them in to the water bowl without moving your hand around (the hand has to remain steady while pouring the wax). After the wax has become hard take it from the bowl and turn it, and you will see a strangely shaped figure. Hand that figure over to the oldest member of the family, who then will explain for you what he/she sees in it and what is waiting for you in the future.
The Christmas Eve supper should be eaten when the evening star rises, always including twelve dishes. Everyone has to try each dish.
Plotkelė – Christmas wafers.
Breaking plotkelė.
There is also a special white pastry that people can get in the church. Lithuanians call it "plotkelė" (Christmas wafer). There should be one for each member of the family. In the very beginning of the Kūčios supper starts everybody prays and then breaks plotkelė and tell what they wish for each others. The lotkelė is also known as kalėdaitis, paplotėlis, plokštainėlis or Dievo pyragai depending on the region of Lithuania a family is from.
Meat is forbidden until Christmas Day morning, the meatless supper is probably the one tradition that everyone in Lithuania still follows.
Some Christmas Eve games to play after the supper:
Draw Kūčiukai
This is game for single girls. Put your hand in to the bowl of Kučiukai and grab as many as you can, then put them on the table. If the number is even you will find a guy, if not you will remain single the coming year.
Kūčiukai
Pick up firewoods
It's very similar to Draw Kūčiukai. Go to the place where you are keeping the fire wood and take as many logs as you can. Than count them, if the number is even you won't be single next year if not you will remain single.
Glass of water
Before going to sleep eat as much herring or just fish as you can, and put a glass of water next to your bed. In your dream, a guy will hand you that water and he will became yours husband one day.
Throw a shoe
This is a game for those who still lives with their parents. Stand in the room so that your back would be facing the door and throw a shoe over your head or shoulder. Then look which way shoe has landed. If the shoe is facing the doors this year you will be leaving home, if it's facing into the room you will stay at your parents.
As I mentioned earlier, the Christmas Eve supper includes twelve dishes. There are some dishes that are "musts" and some optional. "Must" dishes on Christmas Eve table are Kūčiukai (It's very simple Christmas eve pastry with poppy seeds, it's not very sweet, but very delicious. It's made by mixing 0.5 kg of flour, a bit less than 200 ml of milk (water), 50 grams of oil, a pinch of salt, 20-30 g of yeast, a quarter cup of poppy,100 grams of sugar. Raise a dough a bit and form little kūčiukai, then bake it).
Another very traditional dish is cranberry pap. Pap can be served as a dessert or a drink, depending on the consistency of the pap (it's a berry drink or dessert made from water, berry juice, sugar and starch).
Because meat is strictly forbidden there are a lot of fish dishes on the table. Most popular are herring dishes. Herring with carrots, or red beets, are most common. Also all kinds of mushrooms are used for Christmas food.
Typical herring dish.
Now for a lot of people Christmas is associated with mandarins. This came from the times of Soviet occupation. There were mandarins appearing in shops all around Lithuania during Christmas time, so people were spending hours standing in huge lines outside the groceries, to get some fresh fruits in the middle of the winter. Of course because of communistic regime there were set certain amounts per person to buy, so fruits in wintertime were especially valued. Even now, and even for the younger generatio,n the smell of mandarins reminds us about Christmas.
Christmas is the time to celebrate and spend magical time with our families, and although we live in the modern world and have less and less time for ourselves, let’s stop for a minute, for Christmas, for ourselves, for our families and let’s make this celebration special, remembering our heritage, who we really are and what makes us special. Have a merry and very Lithuanian Christmas!
Linksmu Kalėdų from Saulene!
Throughout the former Soviet Union — which collapsed 20 years ago this December — the idea of a rule of law has failed miserably, with Russia and other countries maintaining a "pocket judiciary" that caters to the powerful and wealthy.
But the Western-leaning Baltics, members of NATO and the EU since 2004, might be expected to be an exception.
"The problem in the Baltic states is that you don't have the law used in that perverse sense (as in Russia), but you have all the real post-Soviet problems of judicial independence," said Andrew Wilson, an analyst at the European Council for Foreign Relations.
People in the Baltics look poorly on the judiciary. In Latvia, only 36 percent of the population trust their courts, according to a Eurobarometer survey in November 2010, while only 22 percent of Lithuanians trust their judiciary.
"I must say that Lithuania is among those countries where trust in judiciary institutions is lowest" in the EU, said Justice Minister Remigijus Simasius.
For many plaintiffs, the biggest frustration stems from the enormous backlog of cases and overloaded judges.
"I must say that Lithuania is among those countries where trust in judiciary institutions is lowest in the EU", said Justice Minister Remigijus Simasius.
Dear Editor,
I enjoy reading VilNews and, VilNews seems to touch on, if not already delve into, a variety of issues which are relevant to someone who may wish to retire in Lithuania. It might be interesting for much of your readership to more sharply focus on specific retirement issues such as comparisons and advantages of retiring in Lithuania, vs the US. This seems to be evolving as a hot topic in the US as many baby boomers face the reality of high living costs (particularly healthcare) and diminished pension resources.
Detailed and systematic comparisons of living costs, tax issues, health care and real estate ownership might even result in significant "foreign investment" into Lithuania by foreign, especially US retirees. My impression is that many of us Lithuanian-Americans have thought about this possibility. I know several who have taken action. Perhaps such "dreams" should be encouraged with facts, experiences, even government incentives. Thoughts?
Rimantas Aukstuolis
Cleveland, Ohio USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRE36VrVHMI
A must see, Outstanding story in Lithuanian from the 1950's and 1960's of How Santa Claus found out about Summer and the little children invited him to return and see what Summer is like. Excellent video. Outstanding graphics. Please keep in mind that there are two parts.
VilNews e-magazine is published in Vilnius, Lithuania. Editor-in-Chief: Mr. Aage Myhre. Inquires to the editors: editor@VilNews.com.
Code of Ethics: See Section 2 – about VilNews. VilNews is not responsible for content on external links/web pages.
HOW TO ADVERTISE IN VILNEWS.
All content is copyrighted © 2011. UAB ‘VilNews’.