Dear readers,

On 15 June 1940, Soviet Russia invaded Lithuania. This was the beginning of Lithuania’s loss of freedom for more than fifty years and the beginning of one of the saddest and most tragic parts of Lithuania’s history. There has been much talk and speculation about how this invasion came about and what Lithuania did, or as some would accuse didn’t do, to prevent it. To shed clear light on this topic, we would like to share with you parts of the personal memoirs of Juozas Urbšys who was a member of the group that personally met with Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin. After reading these fascinating and very informative memoirs we are sure you will have a better appreciation for the precarious situation the leaders of the then free Republic of Lithuania were in and what they did to try to protect the lives of the Lithuanian people.

We will share these memoirs in 4 parts. Here is part 4 of 4

ULTIMATUM.

OCCUPATION.

p. 28

The Lithuanian government decided to send its Minister of Foreign Affairs to Moscow to find out once and for all what was expected of Lithuania. Pozdniakov was appraised of this. After several days, Natkevičius telegraphed from Moscow that Molotov wished to speak with the Prime Minister.

On June 7, Prime Minister A. Merkys arrived in Moscow where he stayed until June 12. During that time he had several meetings with Molotov. The latter had invented yet another accusation: Lithuania, apparently, had entered into a military agreement with Latvia and Estonia against the Soviet Union. What an empty fabrication! Estonia and Latvia, at the beginning of their independence, had entered into a mutual military agreement, openly declared and known to all, including the Soviet Union which had concluded mutual assistance treaties with both countries. Lithuania, however, had never been party to the Estonian/Latvian military convention, nor had it made any other war treaty with them.

On June 11, the government of Lithuania sent its Minister of Foreign Affairs to aid A. Merkys. That same evening we were received by Molotov. We explained that now, as always, and especially in view of the international situation, Lithuania sought friendly relations with the Soviet Union based on reciprocal loyalty and fidelity to treaties. Molotov was not the least bit interested in listening to our speech.

A. Merkys flew to Kaunas on June 12, leaving me in Moscow.

Prime Minister Antanas Merkys

Minister Plenipotentiary Natkevičius and I try knocking on other doors in hopes of getting some clarification elsewhere. To this end we visit Assistant Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Dekanozov, who would later direct Lithuania's annexation and who would be shot together with Beria after the Second World War.

I question him about the matter concerning us, hoping to ascertain what it was that the Soviet Union expected of Lithuania.

— The matter is now in government hands and I, personally, can do nothing, — was Dekanozov's answer.

I had brought with me a letter from the President of the Republic of Lithuania, Antanas Smetona, addressed to the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Kalinin. In the letter, President Smetona solemnly asserts Lithuania's fidelity to traditional friendly relations between the two countries and states that Lithuania has no overt or covert commitments to any third nation which would not be compatible with such relations or with any Lithuanian/Soviet treaties.

"The government of the Republic of Lithuania and I, personally, had always made, and will continue to make, a concerted effort so that the treaty of October 10, 1939 will be most faithfully executed," wrote the President of Lithuania.

Minister Natkevičius and I requested a meeting with M. Kalinin to which he agreed. We gave him the letter. After reading it, this high-ranking Soviet official replied with something akin to:

— These issues are now under consideration by the government of the Soviet Union and I cannot interfere.

* * *

Ca-ta-stro-phe!

Let us remember a moment of the late evening meeting of October 3, 1939 in the Kremlin when Stalin declared to the Lithuanian delegation that the Soviet Union and Germany had agreed to divide up Lithuania and Molotov had talked of "new ways." New ways, indeed. Now it becomes clear that these new ways were paved for the same old purpose — so that hobnailed boots could trample foreign soil.

Midnight on June 14, Molotov summons us to the Kremlin. Natkevičius and I go.

— I have an important announcement for the government of Lithuania, — states Molotov picking up a written message from the table and reading it.

It was the worst kind of ultimatum. Worst in the sense that normally an ultimatum in international affairs means a categorical demand, precluding any further arguments or contradictions, which one country makes to another threatening the use of military force if its demands are not met within the time frame set by the ultimatum. This document, as we will see, was written in such a way, and further clarified by Molotov in words which would leave no doubt or hope, that no matter what concessions Lithuania made, the Soviet Union would still occupy it with its military might.

The first part of the ultimatum deals with reprimands, the second with demands.

The reprimands are divided into two paragraphs. The first harshly repeats the Soviet Union's version of the alleged abduction of Soviet soldiers, now clearly affirming that this was carried out by institutions of the Lithuanian government. That same paragraph mentions "mass arrests and deportations to concentration camps of Lithuanian citizens among whom are those individuals who serve Soviet army troops." All of these allegations are one-sidedly presented as facts which show that "the government of Lithuania grossly violates" the treaty of mutual assistance and is "preparing to attack (!) Soviet army bases established according to that treaty."

The second paragraph of the reprimands ascertains that "the government of Lithuania entered into a military alliance with Latvia and Estonia." That fictitious accusation of Molotov's is presented as a fact showing how "the government of Lithuania brusquely" violated Article 6 of the Soviet/Lithuanian mutual assistance treaty.

Had these accusations had some basis in fact, they would have been dealt with according to the procedures set forth in the September 28,1926 treaty of non-aggression between Lithuania and the Soviet Union. Article 5 of that treaty clearly states that in the event of a conflict arising between the two countries, and one which they could not resolve by diplomatic means, that Lithuania and the Soviet Union would appoint the necessary commissions. Hence, the Soviet Union, by one-sidedly resorting to military force to purportedly regulate not a real but an artificial conflict of its own making, was the one that grossly violated the treaty of non-aggression, and together with it, all of the other treaties linking the two countries.

This brings to mind the July 5,1933 treaty regarding the definition of an aggressor which stipulated that the use of armed force by one country against the other cannot be justified by that country's "political, economic, or social structure, the faults attributed to its administration, or to unrest arising from strikes ..."

The second part of the ultimatum demands:

"1. That Minister of the Interior Skučas and Director of State Security Povilaitis be put on trial as those directly responsible for the acts of provocation against Soviet garrisons in Lithuania;

  
General Kazimieras Skučas and Augustinas Povilaitis

2. That a government willing and capable of assuring the conscientious execution of the treaty of mutual assistance between the Soviet Union and Lithuania, and one resolved to suppress the foes of this treaty, be formed at once in Lithuania;

3. That free passage into Lithuanian territory be guaranteed immediately for those Soviet army units which will be situated in the most important centers of Lithuania and which will be large enough to assure the fulfillment of the Soviet/Lithuanian treaty of mutual assistance and the interdiction of the acts of provocation perpetrated against the Soviet garrisons in Lithuania."

All of these demands are clearly contrary to the treaty of mutual assistance which the ultimatum purports to defend, especially to Article 7 which reads:

"The execution of this treaty shall in no way infringe upon the sovereign rights of the contracting countries, and especially their system of government, their economic and social systems, their military means, or generally, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs."

Finally, the time limit for the ultimatum is set forth:

"The government of the Soviet Union expects a response from the government of Lithuania by 10 A.M. on June 15. Non-receipt of a response by that time will be taken to be a refusal to comply with the above-made demands of the Soviet Union."

Having read this aloud, Molotov handed it to me. I read it again silently. What to do? Or say? Stunned silence on my part.

— I am afraid of what this ultimatum means for Lithuania, — I finally say, feeling that these are not the requisite words.

Words? Like peas thrown against a wall.

Molotov cried out angrily:

—You've sold Lithuania right and left enough times! We know how much the fate of Lithuania means to you.

I waited for his effrontery to subside and after a moment asked:

— Wouldn't it be possible to extend the time limit of the ultimatum? It's almost one in the morning. We won't be able to submit it to our government on time. It still had to be coded.

To which Molotov replied:

— It's not necessary to submit the reasons for the ultimatum. The three points can be coded quickly and you should get a response by 10 A.M. Even so, whatever your reply may be, the army will march into Lithuania tomorrow.

(Tomorrow . . . Not tomorrow, today. Tomorrow had already begun . . . )

We return to the legation with the document burning a hole in our pockets. We feel dishonored, trampled, violated.

We try telephoning Kaunas and cannot get through. Evidently all the lines are busy. There is no time to code the message. We send the three paragraphs of the demands and the time limit for the ultimatum in an open telegram.

Towards morning our call to Kaunas finally comes through. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs answers. The director of the legal administration department, Voldemaras Vytautas Černeckis, comes to the phone.

— Good morning, — I say, — I have until 10 A.M. to report whether or not the government accepts the Soviet Union's ultimatum. What can I say?

I am not going to try and reconstruct Černeckis's words. The sound of his voice sufficiently echoes the tragedy of the situation. I feel that my question, too, must sound strange to his ears, almost incomprehensible. It's as if he were saying: "What kind of talk can there be about acceptance or refusal? That doesn't change a thing. The Soviet army is still going to march into Lithuania."

Finally, in a tired and dispirited voice, he says:

— It accepts.

This would be an apt place to honor the memory of this noble patriot. He had married a Lithuanian woman from America and they had raised a large and handsome Lithuanian family. Because she was born in the U.S., his wife had the right to become an American citizen, and through their marriage, so did he. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania, the U.S. Embassy offered to issue them American passports so that they and their family could go to the States. Černeckis, however, was unwilling to leave his country in its time of misfortune and stayed in Lithuania. Unfortunately, not for long. The newcomer Soviets deported him and his entire family to Siberia. There they incarcerated him in a camp where he died. "Assuring" the "fulfillment" of the non-aggression treaty, they deported his wife and four children beyond the Arctic Circle to the mouth of the Lena River.

On the morning of June 15, Natkevičius and I ask to see Molotov. After a bit, the phone rings:

— Molotov awaits you.

Molotov and Pozdniakov receive us. I say:

— The government of Lithuania accepts your ultimatum.

— Good, — says Pozdniakov, and raising his tone of voice, he adds — But your government continues to carry out policies hostile to ours. We've just received word that it has named Raštikis as the new Prime Minister. How can you name a new prime minister without our knowledge or our consent?

— But you have demanded that a new government be formed ... — I try to explain.

— True, but it has to be acceptable to us. That's why you must confer with us about its composition.

(...)

(Here Urbšys reiterates Article 7 of the mutual assistance treaty and its specification of non-interference in internal affairs.)

p. 33

And now look — Lithuania, a sovereign nation, can not even form its own government without the Soviet Union's approval.

— Very well, — continues Molotov in a calmer tone, — our special emissary will leave for Lithuania today. I still don't know who it will be.

He stares at me for a while thinking something to himself.

— Your president will have to confer with him about the composition of the new government. With him and with comrade Pozdniakov, — finishes Molotov.

The above-mentioned Dekanozov, Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, was named that special emissary.

We telegraphed Kaunas of what we have heard from Molotov. Natkevičius says:

— Why not add that Skučas and Povilaitis not try to escape? Why should they be afraid of a trial? Their escape would only appear to be an admission of guilt.

So we telegraphed it ... How naive we still were . . . We thought that, all of this notwithstanding, Lithuania would remain an independent nation. Natkevičius supposed that it would be accorded the status that Mongolia had at the time. We presumed Lithuanian courts would publicly consider the case of Skučas and Povilaitis. The first paragraph of the ultimatum even required that they be put on trial. By ordering the arrest of these two individuals, Prime Minister Merkys was carrying out the demands of the ultimatum. And who heard about any such trial, or even about their fate? — They disappeared into the depths of the NKVD's labyrinths never to resurface. (Author's note, p. 34: "Skučas and Povilaitis were apprehended near the Prussian border, jailed and later executed," in Jerzy Ochmanski, Historia Litwi, 1967)

Ensignia of the NKVD

On June 15, in Moscow's grand theater, the final performance celebrating the decade of Byelorussia was being put on. Natkevičius asked whether or not we were going. I replied in the negative. Nonetheless, Natkevičius tried to persuade me to go by arguing that such a demonstration would be pointless.

We went. I was given a seat in the loge next to German Ambassador von Schulenburg, though whether this was for reasons of protocal or for others, I do not know.

Since I am to leave tomorrow, it would be fitting to pay a farewell visit to Molotov. The legation phoned the Protocol Department which quickly returned the call saying that although Molotov was to be at a reception in the Kremlin honoring the Byelorussians he would absent himself briefly to receive me at 11:30 in the evening.

Once again we went to the Kremlin for what would be, at least for me, the last time. Molotov, having left the reception, received us in good spirits. For some reason, he asked my opinion about Justas Paleckis. I replied that the man seemed to me a sincere Lithuanian patriot. I knew nothing then, nor could I have guessed, of the role which the Kremlin had foreseen for Justas Paleckis.

As he bid us farewell, Molotov looked attentively at Natkevičius and me, saying:

— The two of you will be able to work in the new system.

—Thank you.

Molotov now feels totally the master of Lithuania. And why not, considering how many troops he's crammed in there? As a Russian, he knows yog kto palku vzial tot i kapral or in the approximate Lithuanian version, the one holding the cudgel chases who he wants to.

The following morning, the 16th of June, I am on a Swedish passenger plane to Riga. The closer we get to Latvia the more Soviet fighter planes there are in the sky. On the same day that the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania its armies also took over Latvia and Estonia. Two fighters approach our plane, one on either side, and instruct us to land. We follow them to a military airfield and some sort of official alights from our plane. The rest of us wait. After about fifteen minutes he returns and we are airborne once again.

In Riga, I change to a train.

Soon I will be in Lithuania, my one and only, my dear and beloved country……

Photo courtesy of Lituanus

DEKANOZOV TAKES COMMAND OF LITHUANIA

p. 35;

The airport of Šiauliai is abuzz with Soviet military aircraft. At Kėdainiai, a "mutual assistance" tank partially protrudes from behind the station house.

How dismal. Past Jonava, several of the ultimatum's tanks rattle along a rye field path to the highway……

We would like to thank Lituanus for their kind permission to share this article with you.

LITUANUS

LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Volume 34, No. 2 - Summer 1989
Editor of this issue: Antanas Dundzila

Memoirs of Juozas Urbšys
Translated and edited by Sigita Naujokaitis

http://www.lituanus.org

The history of the amazing Lithuanian city written by the great poet most qualified to write about it. This book includes a dialogue between the author and Nobel Prize laureate Czeslaw Milosz about the city. An absolutely indispensable work on the city that produced John Gielgud, Bernard Berenson and the Budapest String Quartet. 

This is the fourth in a series of excerpts from Tomas Venclova’s book “Vilnius a Personal History”:

TODAY: Lithuanians,
“The Saracens of the North”

Saracen was a term used by the ancient Romans to refer to a people who lived in desert areas in and around the Roman province of Arabia, and who were distinguished from Arabs.

The Order of Teutonic Knights and all of Europe called the Lithuanians, “the Saracens of the North.” Established at the time of the Crusades in Palestine, the Order was responsible for fighting the war against the Moslems, but the Knights soon had to be shifted to the Baltic coast. To the Order’s zealous members, Lithuania represented the menacing “Other,” an empire of barbarism, of primeval darkness: Europe’s subconscious that had to be enlightened, controlled, and punished. The Lithuanians, on the other hand, considered the Knights of the Order as a no-less-menacing “Other.” What the Knights saw as heroic deeds, the Lithuanians considered brazen robbery and murder―and vice versa. There have not been many conflicts in Europe of comparable length and tenacity as the war between the two powers, which lasted some two hundred years. The Knights founded Thorn, Marienburg, Königsberg, and numerous other castles ― but they did not get farther than the Neman River (in Lithuanian: Nemunas). Gediminas, according to tradition, is said to have died in battle at the Neman; his ashes were buried on the hill next to the Vilnius Castle. Another branch of the Teutonic Order governed Riga and Tallinn, but they too were brought to a standstill north of the Lithuanian territory, where the Lithuanian-Latvian border is today.

The first time I went to Vienna, I wanted above all to visit the church that to this day belongs to the Order of the Teutonic Knights. Situated in the center of the city, it is very modest. A member of the Order, a peaceful-looking old man smoking a pipe, acted as my guide. He took me through the small church museum and showed me documents of the Order and maps of old Lithuania and its neighboring lands. I was the sole visitor, probably the only one that day. It may sound ridiculous, but I felt somewhat triumphant: practically nothing is left of the Order besides this church and its little museum, while my country, which was attacked by the Knights and which they wanted to destroy, still endures. The way I felt reflects how deeply rooted the history of this war is in Lithuanian consciousness. The Romantics found in this an inexhaustible source of inspiration, as Byron found in the Orient. The most popular theme is the story of Grandmaster Konrad von Wallenrode, who unsuccessfully marched against Vilnius, was disliked by his subordinates, and died young. Mickiewicz wrote a poem about him: it is full of unexpected twists and turns, almost like a spy novel, and it gradually becomes clear that Wallenrode was actually a Lithuanian who had infiltrated the upper level of the Order so that he could destroy it from within. Of course this is pure fantasy, but the name Wallenrode has become a symbol in Lithuania and Poland: quite a few Nazi and Communist collaborators have tried to justify themselves, both privately and publicly, saying that they acted in the interest of their own people, as he did. Another figure who has found his way into world literature conspired with Wallenrode: Henry Bolingbroke, the future King Henry IV of England, founder of the dynasty of the Red Rose and hero of the eponymous play by Shakespeare. In 1390, Henry Bolingbroke, with three hundred Englishmen and Wallenrode’s knights, briefly occupied Vilnius. According to Bolingbroke, the city was built of wood at that time and had no protective walls, but in fact it already had a large stone castle. The attackers set the city and a smaller castle on fire, but they could not capture the large one.

Toward the end of the fourteenth century, this war became hopeless for Lithuania. It reminds me of the recent war in Chechnya; the hatred on both sides and the extent of the destruction are comparable. The descendants of Gediminas tried to find allies. After several futile attempts, they realized they would have to convert to Christianity in order to deprive the Knights of their most important argument. I do not think that dogmatic fine points were important to the Lithuanians; but the Orthodox Faith, that is to say, the Eastern Heresy, was a dubious defense against the Teutonic Knights. On the other hand, being forced to accept Christianity by the Teutonic Order would have meant capitulation and the collapse of the state. It was at this point that Poland came to their aid, having some accounts of its own to settle with the Knights. It was suggested that the grandson of Gediminas, Jogaila (Jagiełło), marry the thirteen-year-old Polish Princess Jadwiga (Hedwig), who had lost her father; that he have himself baptized; and that he become the ruler of both countries. Jogaila agreed. For him, this was not a romantic union but a political calculation. However, Jadwiga resisted. She loved the son of an Austrian duke, but even more importantly, she was afraid of the thirty-year-old Lithuanian barbarian. It is said that she sent a trusted nobleman to Vilnius who was to report to her what he found out about the prince of that wild land. The emissary went to a banquet feast with Jogaila, was even said to have joined him in a sauna, and let Jadwiga know that she had nothing to fear. Nonetheless, the marriage was not a happy one; Jadwiga died soon afterward, leaving no heirs. Jogaila married three more times. Finally, at an advanced age, he had children with his fourth wife, thus founding the renowned Jagiellon Dynasty. Supposedly, all European ruling families have the blood of Jogaila and Gediminas in their veins.

Jogaila accepted the Polish crown, ordered the destruction of the pagan sanctuary in Vilnius, extinguished the sacrificial fires, killed the sacred snakes, and on the same spot erected a new cathedral that was even larger than Mindaugas’s. He and his cousin Vytautas baptized the heathen subjects, pushing them into the river in droves and giving the whole lot the same Catholic name. It is said that the two rulers even translated the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria, and the Credo into Lithuanian. Jogaila moved to Krakow, the Polish capital, leaving Vilnius and its castles to Vytautas. The united Lithuanians and Poles together resisted the Teutonic Order, and, in their decisive victory at the Battle of Grunwald (1410), they managed to remove the Order from the political equation once and for all. The defeated Order, as we know, became a museum piece. But it has preserved its place in the sphere of myth. The Knights of the Order continue to symbolize the fatal danger emanating from the West, a phantasm that always appears ― or is artificially conjured up ― whenever the political situation warrants. During the First World War, the army of Kaiser Wilhelm was compared to the Teutonic Knights, even by the Germans themselves. And during the Second World War, the rulers of the Soviet Union, using the same symbolism, were partially successful in their attempts to manipulate public opinion. Somewhat later, Lithuanian newspapers printed a photograph of Konrad Adenauer wearing the cloak of the Order (he was in fact a member of the Knights); but most Lithuanians ignored it, as they did almost all Soviet propaganda. The Adenauer photo may finally have destroyed the myth. In any case, Lithuanian opponents of European Union membership did not seek recourse in it to support their position.

The history of the amazing Lithuanian city written by the great poet most qualified to write about it. This book includes a dialogue between the author and Nobel Prize laureate Czeslaw Milosz about the city. An absolutely indispensable work on the city that produced John Gielgud, Bernard Berenson and the Budapest String Quartet.

This is the third in a series of excerpts from Tomas Venclova’s book “Vilnius a Personal History”:

PAGAN LITHUANIA

In world history, the year 1323 does not stand out in any way, but it is worth remembering that this was the period when the Renaissance was beginning in Europe: Dante had been dead for two years; Petrarch was just nineteen years old; and Giotto was fifty-six. (He had already painted the frescoes in Padua and Assisi.) That same year, Count Orgaz died in Spain. According to tradition, two saints assisted in a wondrous manner at his funeral ― much later this became the subject of one of El Greco’s most famous paintings. At the same time Vilnius was being founded, another famous heathen capital was established at the other end of the world: Mexico’s Tenochtitlan, only to be destroyed two hundred years later by Spanish conquistadors.

In the Europe of that time, Lithuania was an amazing exception. Similar states had existed about a thousand years before, at the time of the great migration of peoples, but they fell into oblivion. The neighboring peoples ― the East Slavs and Poles ― had long worshipped Jesus Christ, even though they had different dogmas, liturgies, and church languages. Christianity had been forced on the Old Prussians and Letts by the Teutonic Knights. In contrast, the Lithuanians were the only ones on the continent who held on to their original faith, and the battles with the Knights only strengthened them in their determination. What’s more, they annexed Christian peoples to their state, just as the Franks and the old Anglo-Saxons had once done. They did not destroy the local Christian holy places, but treated them with respect.

What was this old belief like? The nineteenth-century Romantics, including Mickiewicz, spoke of a veritable Lithuanian pantheon and tried to reconstruct it from the few ancient reports that were available. Teodor Narbutt stands out among these Romantics. He produced a nine-volume Lithuanian history, the first volume devoted exclusively to mythology. The gods mentioned by him correspond to the gods of Olympus and, less frequently, to those of the Edda. Narbutt collected statuettes and heathen Lithuanian documents, all of which have turned out to be forgeries. Somewhat more credible is a sixteenth-century enumeration of gods that brings their number to five hundred. From this it is clear that the Lithuanians did not have a pantheon like those in the works of Homer and Virgil, but that they worshipped whatever they encountered: especially trees and fire, but also rivers, stones, birds, bees, and even household items. There were spirits concealed in everything: usually they were small, funny demons; and, less often, more powerful beings. The most powerful was Perkūnas, the god of thunder, who fought against Velinas, the embodiment of water and original chaos. Mythologists are trying to find a connection between Velinas and the Indian Varuna, and missionaries did use his name for the Christian spirit of evil who is today called velnias (“devil”) in Lithuanian. The first book in the Lithuanian language, a Protestant catechism, says that some of the heathens pray to Perkūnas; others to Laukosargas, protector of grain; and still others to Žemėpatis, who takes care of cattle. Those who subscribe to evil magic call on Kaukai and Aitvarai for help; the names of these two not particularly dangerous demons turn up in fairy tales to this day.

We know that the Lithuanians sacrificed animals and sometimes also human beings. It was quite common to burn high-ranking prisoners at the stake. Moreover, the corpses of their own people, together with their horses, falcons, and dogs were also burned, and the claws of wild animals were thrown into the funeral pyre so that the deceased would have an easier time climbing the hill. Apparently Gediminas, who remained unbaptized to the end, was also cremated in this manner in the Šventaragis Valley. The priests were called vaidila: some Lithuanian patriots claim that Wojtyła, the Polish family name of Pope John Paul II, derives from this word. Historians of old report that snakes were considered sacred, probably because they were seen as representatives of the underworld―the world of the dead, and of rebirth. The Lithuanians kept them in their houses and gave them milk, a custom that was retained in the Vilnius area up to and into the twentieth century. To kill a snake was to violate a taboo.  The Soviets annulled that taboo for good, as well as many more significant ones.

Apparently, there really was a pagan sanctuary at the foot of the hill in Vilnius, but presumably it was the only one in the entire country. It is said that all the churches of Vilnius were erected on pagan places of worship.  Milda, the goddess of love, was supposedly worshipped where the baroque Church of SS. Peter and Paul stands today, and Ragutis, the god of drinking―a Lithuanian Dionysus―was once honored where the Orthodox Pjatnitskaja Church is located. But this is just speculation by Narbutt and other Romantics. Still, the city of Gediminas―in those early times when its houses were still built of wood and in many places of brushwood and clay―apparently had not only one or more castles, but also numerous sacred places: springs and groves that were considered holy sites. The first Christian missionary to visit these lands, St. Adalbert, was put to death because he carelessly entered one such grove. In Vilnius, Catholics and Orthodox Christians still honor other martyrs who were killed by the heathens; but these are probably just pious legends. Christians had no reason to be alarmed in the heathen city.  In his letters, Gediminas writes that there are Franciscan and Dominican churches in Vilnius in which they could pray to their God. One of these churches is still standing, although it has been rebuilt many times. It is St. Nicholas, located in a remote corner of the Old City, an example of a primitive, cozy Gothic style, with a rhythmic gable that delights the onlooker with its calm and stillness. As you step inside and stand under the low, star-studded, vaulted ceiling, you feel as though you were in a box or a cabinet. The church is first mentioned in the era of Gediminas’s grandsons; even then, it was built of stone and considered to be ancient.

It is entirely possible that a more complex pagan cult was created during Gediminas’s time to sanction his unusual State. Surrounded as it was by Christianity, this cult would have had no chance of survival. The rulers themselves leaned toward Orthodox Christianity, which offered a tempting opportunity to unite the East Slavic territories under their scepter. Vilnius competed with Moscow. Algirdas, the son of Gediminas, launched three attacks against Moscow and even got as far as the Kremlin, but the Muscovites bought themselves off. At this point, the fate of Eastern Europe could have taken an unexpected turn: Moscow might have remained insignificant, and Vilnius could have taken its place in history. But we shall leave these alternative historical scenarios where they belong―in the sphere of speculation. Moscow won the historical struggle and became the city with the dubious reputation it has today. It also captured Vilnius several times. But in the days of Gediminas’s immediate successors, the map of Eastern Europe looked completely different from the one we know now. In Pushkin’s drama, Boris Godunov, one scene takes place “in a country inn on the Lithuanian border.” I once asked my Slavic Studies students to show me on a map where this inn was located. They all searched for it along the present-day Lithuanian border, that is to say some twenty miles from Vilnius. Actually, it was just seventy miles from Moscow.

The era of a powerful pagan Lithuania impressed not only the Romantics. It also became the most important myth of Lithuanian nationalism. The intellectuals who set the philological revolution in motion by reviving Lithuanian and making it the official state language early in the twentieth century liked to claim that paganism was an almost perfect belief―tolerant and related to the old Indian Vedas. This profoundly pagan worldview was supposedly destroyed by narrow-minded Christian fanatics and replaced by nothing good. Such views cropped up again shortly before the collapse of Soviet power. Young people at Vilnius University, or associated with it, founded the “Romuva” Society. The name referred to medieval chronicles in which the most important Lithuanian shrine was called “Romuva”―a name invented by the chroniclers presumably to counterbalance Rome. Officially, the Communist rulers opposed the Romuva Society, but they secretly supported it because of its opposition to the Catholic Church, which had caused the Communists a great deal of inconvenience. The members of Romuva celebrated pagan festivals, baptized infants by annointing their heads with lake water, and spoke publicly of the heritage of the ancient Aryans, who had risen to be superior to the Slavs and other peoples.

It is hardly necessary to mention what unpleasant memories this triggers. The Romuva Society still exists today; it has even elected a high priest and built sacrificial altars on a couple of Vilnius’s hills. Occasionally, it reports sensational finds when the presumed relics of a shrine are dug up once again in somebody’s backyard. After the restoration of Lithuanian independence, a few members of Parliament proposed that the same rights be extended to Paganism ―“the Old Worship” they called it ― as are accorded to the other traditional religions. A poet I know explained to me that Lithuania should do what Japan has done: if people in Japan can pray in Shinto houses of worship and at the same time consider themselves Buddhists, then Lithuanians can be Pagans and at the same time Catholics. So far, little has come of such proposals. It is interesting of course that of all European capitals north of Athens and Rome, Vilnius is the only one in which there is a stratum of heathen memories―but this artificial heathenism is a curiosity, and most people realize that it in no way resembles the old forms of belief. There doesn’t seem to be any real depth to the chaos of the Lithuanian pagans; they weren’t bad warriors, but they didn’t have the stone churches, the icons, or the literature and church music their Christian neighbors could take pride in. Nevertheless, Algirdas Brazauskas, the first president of a once-again independent Lithuania, was inaugurated twice: first in Gediminas’s Castle with a heathen ritual the patriots had invented, and the second time in a Catholic ceremony at the Cathedral. Today, the presidential inauguration ceremony no longer features such neo-pagan pageants.

Dear readers,

On 15 June 1940, Soviet Russia invaded Lithuania. This was the beginning of Lithuania’s loss of freedom for more than fifty years and the beginning of one of the saddest and most tragic parts of Lithuania’s history. There has been much talk and speculation about how this invasion came about and what Lithuania did, or as some would accuse didn’t do, to prevent it. To shed clear light on this topic, we would like to share with you parts of the personal memoirs of Juozas Urbšys who was a member of the group that personally met with Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin. After reading these fascinating and very informative memoirs we are sure you will have a better appreciation for the precarious situation the leaders of the then free Republic of Lithuania were in and what they did to try to protect the lives of the Lithuanian people.

We will share these memoirs in 4 parts. Here is part 3 of 4

WE ACCUSTOM OURSELVES TO ARMY BASES. LIGHTNING OUT OF A CLEAR BLUE SKY.

p. 23

Once the mutual assistance pact had been signed the Soviet Union lost no time establishing army bases in Naujoji Vilnia, Gaižiūnai of Jonava, Prienai, and Alytus. Questions arose daily regarding the deployment and stationing of troops but, with both sides acting in good faith, they were satisfactorily answered.

Pozdniakov was now minister extraordinary and plenipotentiary.

The sentiments that had been stirred up by these events subsided and life went on as usual. While negotiations were underway, or whatever passed for "negotiations", we defended our position and points of view. Now that there was a treaty, the government of Lithuania had resolved to faithfully abide by it though whether the other side would really hold to article VII, regarding sovereign rights and non-interference in internal affairs, neither the members of government nor the ordinary citizens were wholeheartedly convinced.

(...)

(Government officials calmed the public by reiterating that Lithuania remained, as before, an independent and entirely sovereign nation. These official statements were repeated in the Soviet press, but to his query whether or not Stalin or Molotov would receive him in an unofficial capacity to discuss these issues, Urbšys received no reply.

In 1940, around the middle of May, Urbšys was invited by the General Secretary to the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Sobolev, who informed him that of the three Baltic Republics Lithuania had the most satisfactorily dealt with its Soviet bases. Not long afterwards, Urbšys was visited by Soviet General Lokstinov who informed him that two Soviet soldiers had apparently been apprehended by some Lithuanians and locked in a celler until they could escape. To Urbšys this seemed barely credible and he told Lokstinov that this sounded like something from "A Thousand and One Nights." Following this, on May 25, 7940, Molotov summoned Natkevičius to the Kremlin, was most unamica-ble towards him, and read the written statement which the Soviet government was sending the Lithuanian government. The statement posited that yet another two Soviet soldiers had disappeared in Lithuania and that the Soviet government knew for a fact that their disappearance was organized by individuals who were aided by the Lithuanian government. The statement went on to say that the Soviet government regarded such actions as provocations leading to serious consequences and demanded that the Lithuanian government cease such actions and immediately find and return the missing soldiers or else the Soviet government would be forced to use whatever means necessary to obtain satisfaction. Urbšys's impression was that Stalin and Molotov were picking a fight.

Following a meeting of the President of Lithuania and his ministers, and after an investigation of the allegations found them to be baseless, a note was transmitted to Pozdniakov stating that the Lithuanian government found no incriminating facts but that it would continue its inquiry if it were given additional data regarding the individuals and offices which Molotov had in mind.

21-ojo Ministrų kabineto nariai su Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidentu A. Smetona prezidentūroje.
Iš kairės: K. Musteikis, A. Merkys, A. Tamošaitis, A. Smetona, E. Galvanauskas, K. Skučas,
K. Bizauskas, J. Urbšys, J. Masiliūnas, K. Jokantas, J. Audėnas. Kaunas, 1939 m.

Molotov's response to Natkevičius was that he did not take the note seriously. Furthermore, he had no intention of providing any further information, but rather, continued to angrily assert that the Lithuanian government refused to take any steps whatsoever.)

p. 26

What sort of steps did he deem necessary? Only the gods and, of course, he and Stalin, knew.

Not long ago Molotov had said that "any imperialist country would occupy Lithuania and that would be that. Unlike us who do not do such things. We would not be Bolsheviks if we did not search for new ways." The ways may be new but was not the end result the same as from the old ones?

Day after day, the atmosphere surrounding the relations between the two countries was made more and more complex (just as Ribbentrop and Hitler had done before taking Klaipėda.) Everyday more and more of a smokescreen was created, apparently to cover up these "new ways."

A lot of "smoke" was not necessary in Europe at that time. As the war begun by Hitlerite Germany spread, everyone had enough problems of his own. What is more, the West was simply waiting for the Soviet Union to make a move in Germany's direction — with those two battling each other, the easier it would be for the West.

The official publication "Falsifikatory istorii — Historical information. Ogiz, Gozpolitizdat, 1948," on page 63, portrays and justifies the massive entry of Soviet troops into Lithuania in mid-June of 1940 thusly:

In this way the Soviet Union's defense against Hitlerite aggression was also strengthened in the North by moving the line of defense in the Leningrad region 150 kilometers to the north of Leningrad, up to and including Vyborg.

But that does not mean that the formation of the "Eastern" front has been completed from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Pacts had been signed with the Baltic countries but there were still not enough Soviet troops necessary to maintain the defenses. Moldavia and Bukovina were once again formally joined to the Soviet Union, but there again, there were not enough Soviet troops for defense purposes. In the middle of June, 1940, the Soviet army marched into Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. That same year, on June 27, the Soviet army entered Bukovina and Moldavia, both of which had been rent from the Soviet Union following the October revolution by Romania. This is how the Eastern front was formed from the Baltic to the Black Sea as a counter to Hitlerite aggression."

So that is why the Soviet army entered sovereign independent republics. Evidently, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian territory was needed to protect the Soviets against Hitlerite aggression (which at the time was only a possibility since aggression against the Soviet Union broke out but a year later.)

(...)

p. 27

On May 28, 1940 the Lithuanian government delivered another note to the government of the Soviet Union informing it that it had created a special commission to investigate the Soviet allegations and repeatedly asking it for more information without which it could not begin its work. The Lithuanian government proposed that representatives from the Soviet garrisons also be a part of the commission.

However, that same evening, TASS publicly declared the accusations against Lithuania. The situation was becoming tragic. Day in and day out Stalin and Molotov were terrorizing the Lithuanian government with reproaches and accusations which it could neither trace nor verify since the authors of these accusations were maliciously sabotaging the investigations. To keep the atmosphere from heating up any further and still believing that relations could be normalized, the Lithuanian government was not making any public declarations. At any rate, it could only categorically deny the accusations made against it and thus come into open conflict with the Soviet Union. Understandably, such a forced silence on the part of the Lithuanian government in view of the accusations, publicly and categorically, lodged against it was making the Lithuanian people very uneasy.

TASS's declaration alluded to an event which actually occurred involving a Red Army soldier by the name of Butayev. The soldier had deserted his unit and gone into hiding somewhere. The Soviet garrison command asked Lithuanian authorities to find Butayev and return him to his unit. The Lithuanian police had a difficult time finding him, more so since they could not publicize the search. They finally succeeded in locating him. When the police asked him to come with them, Butayev jumped out the window and started to run. The police pursued him and Butayev, seeing that there was no escape, shot himself. The incident was reported immediately to the Soviet army command in Lithuania which sent its own commission in to investigate. The commission made a sketch of the area and took possession of the corpse. Initially it was thought that he had shot himself through the mouth since he was bleeding from that orifice. After the Soviets had examined the body and performed an autopsy, it was evident that he had shot himself in the chest. At first there was some doubt as to whether Butayev had shot himself or had been shot at, but the autopsy made clear that he had committed suicide. That was how this particularly unpleasant incident was dealt with at the time. Now, however, TASS had interwoven this incident with its other insinuations seemingly hoping that it would lend them greater credence.

We would like to thank Lituanus for their kind permission to share this article with you.
LITUANUS
LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Volume 34, No. 2 - Summer 1989
Editor of this issue: Antanas Dundzila
Memoirs of Juozas Urbšys
Translated and edited by Sigita Naujokaitis
http://www.lituanus.org

Eugene Rangayah
March 2, 2011

I am not sure about the source of the information entitled Jews in South Africa. Especially with regards to point 3, which clearly, in my opinion, is aimed at marginalising the involvement of Muslims in the anti-apartheid struggle. The comparison made is with regards to the Muslim population in the Cape region. One would have to understand which race group makes up that population in order to understand their perspective. That region’s Muslim population is made up of the “Coloured/Mixed Race” or “Cape Malay” race group. This race group has had an association with the Afrikaaners, which goes back centuries! In point of fact, most of the Coloured people who I have encountered, often associate themselves with their Afrikaaner heritage(from a race perspective) rather than their African heritage. At times referring to themselves as Akrikaaners, based on Afrikaans being the first language.
In order for one to gain a full perspective on the Muslim involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle you would need to consider other race groups as well. In the Indian community in South Africa, over 80% of the anti-apartheid activists were Muslims. Look up the following people: Ismail Kathrada, Ismail Meer, Fathima Meer, Ahmed Kathrada, Yusuf Dadoo, Yusuf Cachalia, I could go on listing names.
At the end of the day, what is more important, is that people regardless of religion or race, took the initiative to join the struggle to oppose Apartheid.

Eugene Rangayah
March 2, 2011

Further to my comment above, one also has to acknowledge that Jews were regarded as White in Apartheid South Africa and enjoyed the benefits afforded to them as White South Africans. Some chose to oppose it, who have been duly honoured, and some chose to ride the wave of these benefits.

Grant
March 3, 2011

Correct – Jews were regarded as white in South Africa and did enjoy all the privileges. What made their sacrifices even more remarkable was that they put themselves at risk and all the privileges at risk to fight a fight where they were not victims themselves.
The “Coloreds” and Indians were a disadvantaged community, so they were fighting for themselves with self interest at stake.
What made Jewish sacrifice so remarkable was that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, and still they participated at 25 times their proportion to the white community. Remarkable! If they had fought at a rate of twice their proportion to the population, that would have been remarkable by itself, but 25 times. Wow!

Eugene Rangayah
March 8, 2011

I appreciate that White South Africans, who chose to join the struggle had everything to lose. That is not what I dispute about the article. The article, in my opinion, does a direct comparison between Muslim and Jewish participation in the anti-apartheid movement, resulting in the Muslim involvement being marginalised. Why does it not measure Hindu, Buddhist or Christian involvement? I do not think that this forum, should be used as an instrument to spruce up anyone’s involvement in the anti-apartheid movement at the expense of others. If the intention was to highlight the contribution of the Jewish community, then that’s fine, as it is the Litvak forum, but definitely not at the expense of the Muslims or any other religious sect.

Apparently you have no vision; your President is being knocked for standing up to the USA; and your young people are leaving in droves for better job opportunities and education in foreign lands.

I have been visiting Lietuva since 2003, before you joined the EU. Previous to that I had contacts with Lithuanians who spent their holidays in England. In those eight years I have seen Lietuva changing, going places, advancing, taking its place in the modern world. At the same time, my country (Britain) has been going down the pan.

Clearly corruption in public life is a problem in Lietuva, as it is in Britain. The difference is that Lietuva impeaches its politicians, whereas we literally let ours get away with murder. It is virtually impossible to have corrupt politicians removed from the British Parliament. The new British Government has promised reforms to remedy this situation, but as recent events have shown that corruption is endemic at all levels in both our Houses of Parliament, the chance of a swift adoption of anti-corruption measures is unlikely.

I’m English (of Swedish decent) so cannot speak for America where clearly most emigrants went to escape Nazi and Soviet domination in the 1930s and 40s. I suspect much of the economic migration of recent years is directed towards Britain, which is obviously cheaper to get to, and will let Lithuanians and Poles in without hindrance, unlike the US and other European countries.

We have a saying “The grass is/isn’t greener on the other side”. Be under no illusion; the grass is not greener in Britain. Much of the right-wing press (which is virtually all of it) is very anti Lithuanians and Poles who come here “stealing our jobs, occupying our houses, poncing off the State, stealing, sex trafficking, scrounging etc”. Rarely mentioned is the contribution to our economy by doing jobs that our British scroungers and benefit claimants won’t do. I’ve personally known university educated Lithuanians who have worked in abattoirs and done cleaning jobs in order to earn a living here. Many of the less well educated Lithuanians have been unable to find work and become homeless without receiving any help from Social Services. It is not surprising that many have returned disillusioned to Lietuva and Poland.

Why do you knock your education? From my experience, and that of former Lithuanian student friends, it is much better in your country. Whilst on holiday here, one of them managed to sit in on a week of classes at a local further education college (gymnasium). She was appalled at the attitude of the students who were quite obviously not there to learn. She gave up any idea of continuing her studies in Britain. Her sister, who is now working as an architect (a vocation under threat due to Government economic cutbacks) in London, recently married, and said she would move back to Lietuva when her children are born, so they could get a good education. It is shameful that many young people who have been through the British education system cannot read and write adequately, and have very little knowledge of life outside their small social environment. “Where is Lithuania?” is a question I am often asked, which echoes the inscription on the front of a tee-shirt I bought from Vilnius University in 2003.

Since I started visiting Lietuva, I have seen the rise of supermarkets, a lot of new buildings, motorways, new trains. Not always for the best; supermarkets have decimated the street kiosks and small shops, just as they have done in Britain. How you restrain the power of these organisations I don’t know, but be warned, if you don’t, they will destroy the fabric of your society. I’ve noticed many Coca-Cola machines sprouting on the streets of cities, but what really angers me is that in the supermarkets they have pushed gira out of the fridges onto the shelves – who wants’ to drink warm gira? I refuse to buy Coke both here and in Lietuva. Fortunately there is alus, but there are restrictions on where it can be drunk.

People in the West look at the average multi-storey housing block with disgust. In Britain we have an antipathy towards multi-storey communal living. Everybody wants their own little box to hide away in; and for all except the very rich, those little boxes are shrinking rapidly. I’ve been in many flats in Panevėžys, Vilnius and Kaunas, and been pleasantly surprised how clean and well-furnished they are, even where the outsides are tatty and the roads and pavements are diabolical. Many put the interiors of British homes to shame. Outside, British homes, cities and open spaces are regarded as dumping grounds for all kinds or rubbish. Dog mess on pavements is a recurring subject of letters to local papers. Your old ladies who go round picking up what very little litter there is in Lietuva, would have a field day in London or all other cities in Britain. Except of course, with few exceptions, road sweeping tends to happen only in the early morning by huge mechanised vacuum cleaners.

Obviously with increasing wealth, the desire to own your own house rather than a flat is taking hold in Lietuva. As in Britain, this can be a dangerous trend. I, like many thousands of home owners, lost my house due to repossession when Government-induced financial policies caused the mortgage payments to be unaffordable. I have seen housing estates and a large school in Panevėžys abandoned as a consequence of the financial crash of Russia in the early days of independence. However, as someone interested in architecture, I am impressed by the variety of designs on your new estates, compared to the collection of small identical boxes on the average British housing estate.

Before I leave the subject of housing, I must praise the design of much of the Council built multi-storey housing estates in Lietuva (and Latvija). Not only are the designs interesting, unlike British equivalent developments which were built on the cheap post war, but the greenery around them can be beautiful. There are “garden cities” in Britain, but the norm is concrete rather than grass and trees.

You have lovely countryside with huge areas of gorgeous forest, pretty lakes and rivers with clean water which won’t poison you if you bathe in them.

As for President Grybauskaite opposing the American’s security plans GOOD FOR HER! If only other World leaders had the guts over the years to make a stand against some of the corrupt and monetarist behaviour of the USA, the World might (?) be a better and safer place.

Lietuva, don’t keep knocking yourself.
Aš mieltu Lietuva!

Tony Olsson
North Devon, United Kingdom

Dear readers,

On 15 June 1940, Soviet Russia invaded Lithuania. This was the beginning of Lithuania’s loss of freedom for more than fifty years and the beginning of one of the saddest and most tragic parts of Lithuania’s history. There has been much talk and speculation about how this invasion came about and what Lithuania did, or as some would accuse didn’t do, to prevent it. To shed clear light on this topic, we would like to share with you parts of the personal memoirs of Juozas Urbšys who was a member of the group that personally met with Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin. After reading these fascinating and very informative memoirs we are sure you will have a better appreciation for the precarious situation the leaders of the then free Republic of Lithuania were in and what they did to try to protect the lives of the Lithuanian people.

We will share these memoirs in 4 parts. Here is part 2 of 4 

VILNIUS! ARMY GARRISONS …... 

p. 12

(That same morning Urbšys flew from Moscow to Kaunas carrying with him the drafts of the two treaties and the two maps of Lithuania.

He pondered the war raging in Europe and the Soviet/German agreement which left the fate of Lithuania in the hands of the Soviet Union and dependent on its good or ill will. Urbšys entertained some optimistic thoughts about Soviet promises of non-intervention in Lithuanian internal affairs and the possibility that at war's end they would dismantle their army bases leaving Lithuania to go on with its independent life. He also thought that this was perhaps the last chance to reclaim Vilnius.

Juho Kusti Paasikivi

On the same plane with Urbšys were the Finnish envoy to the Soviet Union, Passikivi, and his wife. Urbšys remarks wistfully that, unlike him, they seemed calm and in a good mood. He points out that the future did not spare them. The Soviet Union, having established bases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, decided that they wanted some in Finland. Finland refused to sign an agreement permitting this and on December 1, 1939 a war broke out between the two countries ending with a peace treaty signed on March 12, 1940. According to its terms, Finland ceded to the Soviet Union the isthmus of Karelia with its city of Viipuri (Vyborg) and leased the Hanko peninsula to them for thirty years.)

p. 13

Back in Kaunas, I reported to the government on the situation. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Latvia signed a mutual assistance treaty with the Soviet Union including, of course, the provision for Soviet troops on its territory. Our envoy in Berlin, having spoken to an official of the German Foreign Ministry regarding Germany's agreement with the Soviet Union to take a portion of Lithuania's territory, was told that Germany was dismissing this matter with a wave of the hand (laesst diese Sache unter den Tisch fallen).

(Urbšys then refers back to a previous citation from the French encyclopedia and notes, wryly, that Germany received about seven and a half million dollars from the Soviet Union for this "wave of its hand.")

The government of Lithuania decides to offer the Soviet Union a mutual assistance pact stipulating that there be no Soviet garrisons on its territory in peacetime. However, this pact would provide for a peacetime military collaboration between the two countries with the possibility of combining their armed forces in the event of enemy aggression.

In other words, there will be two treaties:

1. The treaty regarding Vilnius, such as the Soviet Union offered;

2. A treaty of mutual assistance with no Soviet troops stationed in Lithuania in peacetime but foreseeing a close military alliance of the two countries during wartime.

Our delegation is enlarged for the future negotiations in Moscow and now consists of the Deputy Prime Minister Kazys Bizauskas, General of the Army Stasys Raštikis, and, of course, our minister in Moscow Ladas Natkevičius. I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, am asked to be chairman.

OUR WORDS — LIKE PEAS AGAINST A WALL

p. 14

In all likelihood, it was on the evening of October 7th that the delegation arrived in Moscow. We lodged at the Hotel Nacional. That same evening, the Lithuanian representatives were invited to the Kremlin where they were received by Molotov Potemkin, and Pozdniakov.

During the entire trip from Kaunas to Moscow I had racked my brain for the right words to make these muscovite officials understand that the introduction of Soviet troops into Lithuanian territory when neither country was at war was not only detrimental to Lithuania, whose sovereignty and national pride would be wounded, but to the Soviet Union as well. Had not the leaders of the Soviet Union, any number of times, openly condemned the establishment of military bases on foreign soil as injurious to the sovereignty of and a constant threat to those countries in which they were established? Had they not termed the treaties leading to the establishment of such bases as unjust? How then to convince them that a mutual assistance pact safeguarding the equal rights of both countries and freely entered into without the presence of a foreign army in time of peace would be a greater guarantee of security for both countries since it would be warranted by the approval of the entire nation?

Once again we arrive at the Kremlin. Molotov and I sit facing one another at the long conference table. To my right, Bizauskas, Natkevičius, Raštikis. To Molotov's left — Potemkin, Pozdniakov. The head of the table is empty; behind it, in the shadows, a door to the chambers beyond stands open.

I begin to set forth my anxious thoughts. I remind them of Lithuania's past and the fact that, from antiquity, Lithuania has been independent, a lover of freedom in whom this love has never perished. I remind them of czarist times, of the suppression of printing, of the abjection in which Lithuanians were held in their own country. I summon up the July 12, 1920 peace treaty based on that vaunted principle of the October revolution, the right of nations to self-determination, a treaty which was freely entered into by both nations, with no coercion, and which was to have lasted for all time.

Continuing on, I remark on the beneficial effect that such a high-minded and freely entered into treaty had on the relations between Lithuania and the Soviet Union. Relations which, from the signing of the treaty till now, had been excellent. In Lithuania, I tell them, there is a fund of good will towards the Soviet Union whose proclaimed ideas regarding the peaceful coexistence of nations and the need for international relations based on truth and justice have been, and continue to be, close to our hearts. Lithuania has always been loyal to the Soviet Union never engaging in any international intrigues against it.

Coming to the mutual assistance pact, I submit that in the belief of the Lithuanian government the basing of troops on Lithuanian soil when neither the Soviet Union nor Lithuania was at war with anyone would sow the seeds of mistrust between the two countries, depress the Lithuanian people, and turn the nation against the Soviet Union, for Lithuania would regard such a movement of troops onto its territory as nothing other than occupation. There would be constant misunderstanding between the armies as well as between the stationed troops and civilians. In the international arena, the presence of a foreign army on its territory would degrade the status of Lithuania to that of a dependent nation. Neither the Soviet Union's nor Lithuania's defense interests would be served by such a military action when there was no evident need for it. The security of both nations, however, would be greatly abetted by a defense treaty freely entered into by the two as sovereign nations.

I see Molotov nodding his head as I speak, as if in agreement. Hope kindles in my heart. The other members of our delegation later told me that they, too, had felt the same way.

Suddenly, Stalin appeared in the doorway of the far wall and came sullenly to the table. One could infer that he had been listening to the proceedings from the other room. We stood to greet him.

I said to him:

— In your absence, I was apprising the chairman (indicating Molotov with my eyes) of the views of the Lithuanian government regarding the matter we are deliberating. If you will permit me, I will briefly repeat my arguments.

— Very well, — he said, — sit down.

We all sit while Stalin remains standing. Watching him with upraised eyes as I briefly resume what I have just said, I see that he is getting impatient. He interrupts. I become even more succinct. Finally, Stalin cuts off my speech with:

— You argue too much (vy slishkom mnogo dokazyvaj'ete).

I sum up by saying that the government of Lithuania accepts the idea of a mutual assistance pact. However, it offers its own proposal for such a treaty which in its view, because it would not infringe on either country's independence, would be a surer guarantor of security. The essential difference between the two is that, until the war situation in Europe makes it inevitable, the Soviet Union would not deploy its army on Lithuanian territory.

Neither Stalin nor Molotov show the least bit of interest in the Lithuanian proposal. Troops will have to be brought in. They remind us once again that under the circumstances any capitalist country would simply occupy Lithuania while they, on the contrary, had no designs on either the independence of Lithuania or its internal affairs.

The following day (which was probably the eight of October), seeing that all arguments were fruitless, I implore Stalin in the name of the friendship between Lithuania and the Soviet Union to renounce sending troops into Lithuanian territory. His answer is a short and unsparing "No (Nyet)!"

I can no longer negotiate for I would be exceeding my authorization. Since the Soviet Union does not agree to our proposals, we must refer back to our government for further instructions. I then repeat the same question I had asked during our first meeting, that is, if the Lithuanian government would agree to any Soviet troops at all, could they not be based just in the newly re-acquired territory of Vilnius? The army must be stationed throughout the entire country, asserts Stalin.

The Moscow newspapers of October seventh or eighth had printed an article, together with pictures, about the meetings and demonstrations which had taken place in Vilnius, then still under Soviet rule. Not having those papers in front of me now, I could not say for sure what the demonstrators' demands were. I suspect that they were asking to be incorporated into the Soviet Union or, for what amounts to the same thing, the establishment of a Soviet regime. No other kinds of demonstrations would have been permitted.

One way or another, on October eighth Molotov brought these demonstrations to the attention of the Lithuanian delegation adding that the Soviet government could not placate the working people of Vilnius for long if they ignored their demands. It would be best to secure the necessary authorization and to sign a mutual assistance treaty today, he warned.

THE SIGNING

p. 17

On October 9, Deputy Prime Minister Kazys Bizauskas and General of the Army Stasys Raštikis left for Kaunas to inform the government about the progress of the negotiations.

The choice facing the Lithuanian government was as follows:

1. Either sign the mutual assistance treaty as demanded, thereby according the Soviet Union the right to establish a set number of military bases at specific locations on Lithuanian territory, and regain Vilnius and part of its territory;

2. Or, refuse to sign the treaty, fore sake Vilnius, and enter into a ruinous conflict with the Soviet Union. A graphic example of the form which such a conflict could take was the Finnish experience which I have alluded to earlier.

Understandably, the government of Lithuania chose the first alternative.

On October 10, Bizauskas and Raštikis returned to Moscow with this decision. The entire delegation then went to the Kremlin. Now that the Lithuanian government had acceded to the Soviet Union's demands it seemed that we would have no further difficulties. That was not entirely so.

We were met at the Kremlin by Molotov, Potemkin, and Pozdniakov. Stalin was absent. Molotov announced that the Soviet government had decided to join into one the texts of the two treaties agreed to earlier thus forming "The treaty of the cession of Vilnius to the Republic of Lithuania and of mutual assistance between Lithuania and the Soviet Union."

Familiarizing themselves with the new draft, the members of the Lithuanian delegation note that the length of time the treaty is in force has been extended to 15 years. This time frame, however, applies only to Articles 2-7, i.e., those establishing the obligations of mutual assistance. Article number one, dealing with the cession of Vilnius and its territory, is without time limit, that is, perpetual.

From further discussions we learn that the size of the army contingent to be sent in has also been increased. We attempt to voice our displeasure at these changes but are summarily cut off by Molotov announcing that this was Stalin's own decision and therefore further alterations are impossible. He orders an old text be brought in showing Stalin's changes in his own hand.

— There, you see, — he says, brandishing that contrived evidence.

— We would like to return to the legation and confer, — I tell Molotov.

— You can confer here. We will give you a separate room.

— We would be more comfortable at the legation.

Returning to the legation we look for the "safest" room in which to consult together. You see, the building used as our legation is being rented from the Soviet fund of government houses. Soviet repairmen work on the premises when something needs fixing. Our legation staff is almost certain that hidden microphones have been installed. Perhaps Molotov knew what he was talking about when he proposed that we consult right there in the Kremlin.

Having established that, talk all we want, we could negotiate nothing better, we "decide" to accept the changes.

This time when we return to the Kremlin, besides Molotov, Potemkin and Pozdniakov, we find an elderly officer, a representative of the Red Army.

— It seems that the staff has not drawn in for itself the line demarcating that which is to be under German control. Give them the map which we gave you during our first meeting. They'll draw in what's necessary and return it to you, — says Molotov.

I remove the map from my briefcase and hand it over to the officer adding:

— Only please do not forget to return it.

— Certainly, certainly. We'll draw in the line and return the map.

That is the last we saw of that map . . . In comes Stalin. Molotov tells him:

— All is taken care of with our Lithuanian friends (S litovskimi druzyami vsio uzhie ulazhieno).

— How's that, — replies Stalin, — until our offices prepare everything we can take some refreshment here together.

— Moreover, — he adds — now we must appoint a minister plenipotentiary to Lithuania (Karski having been called back, Pozdniakov was acting only as charge d'affaires.)

— What's your opinion? — he asks Molotov.

— It needs some thought.

Since the question was raised in front of us, I interject with a smile:

— You don't have to look any further than Mr. Pozdniakov who is already well acquainted with Lithuania.

Pozdniakov, somewhat befuddled, mumbled something or other. They only word I could make out was "exhaustion."

— You were sitting in jail, or what? — asks Stalin bluntly.

— No, but . . . and Pozdniakov mentions some family misfortunes.

Some cold food and drinks are brought to the other end of the conference table. Voroshilov and Zhdanov, with several days worth of stubble, join us. We talk and take some refreshment.

Stalin pokes fun at the Polish ambassador (whose name, I believe, is Grzybowski) who decided to protest the Soviet army's entry into Polish territory on September 17th. He condemns Rydz-Smigly for fleeing Poland and leaving the country to its misfortunes. Now there's a leader for you!

Stalin and Kliment Vorshilov

Voroshilov jokes:

— We propose to Ribbentrop that Germany and Japan accept us into the Antikomintern pact.

On the whole, Voroshilov seems like a humorous man.

A smallish fellow comes in, most likely from the office, to inquire about something. Stalin pours him a glassful of spirits and says:

— Drink!

The young man protests somewhat ceremoniously.

— Drink! Drink! Come, come. A Russian likes to drink (Piej, piej niechievo tut! Russkij chieloviek vypitj liubit!)

The young man lifts the glass, drains it in a gulp, and wipes his mouth with the back of his hand. Stalin offers him something to eat.

— Thank you. That's not necessary.

Some functionaries announce that the treaty is ready for signing. We all go to Molotov's large desk. Two photographers are let in. Molotov and I sign the Russian text, the Lithuanian one is not ready. He and I will sign that one alone tomorrow.

Now our signing is "immortalized" by the photographers. Behind the treaty table on the Russian side also stand Stalin, Voroshilov, and Zhdanov. On our side, the members of our delegation.

October 10, 7939 in Kremlin, I. to r.: Natkevičius, Molotov, (sitting) luozas Urbšys, Bizauskas, Raštikis, Potemkin, Stalin, Voroshilov, Zhdanov, Pozdniakov.

The treaty is signed. We return to our refreshments and sit for a while. It would appear to be time to leave. I stand . . .

— No, no, sit down! We are going to the cinema, — insists Stalin.

And indeed, after a bit, we put on our coats and take the elevator down to the Kremlin courtyard. The cool night air is refreshing. We walk along with Stalin in the lead. In front of us rises a small old, somewhat bowed, Russian Orthodox church. We turn toward its portal.

— Ivan the Terrible used to walk through here, — remarks Stalin.

Narrow steps lead downwards as if to a cellar. The modern interior dissipates all the reminiscences of antiquity inspired by the exterior. Close by the screen several benches are sparsely set about, perhaps eight of them. We sit on separate benches: Stalin with Bizauskas, Voroshilov with Raštikis, I with Zhdanov. I do not remember Molotov  with us in the church. Perhaps he was excused and had gone home.

To our right there is a niche, most likely a previous addition of some sort, in which stands a table set with sweets and drinks.

On the screen — a parade of athletes. It is a long film, and perhaps when viewed with a lighter head, a pleasant one. At last "The End" flashes on screen.

Now, home to the hotel? No!

Stalin orders that another film be shown. This time "Volga, Volga ..." appears on the screen. No doubt a boat filled with happy singing youth floats along that river. Zhdanov whispers his pleasure and pride in the film and explains it to me. All of this barely reaches my consciousness. That this were over once and for all ... The end, at least.

It was after seven in the morning when we finally left the Kremlin for our hotel. To go to bed or not to? It was light already.

I summon the bellboy, a polite young man in a white jacket, and ask him for the morning papers and some coffee.

— Coffee, yes, but there are no papers yet. They're late today for some reason. No doubt something special's in the making, — he replies.

The papers appear around midday. On the front pages are the treaties we signed last night and the accompanying photographs.

At the Kremlin, at two o'clock in the afternoon, Molotov and I finish up the night's work by signing the Lithuanian text of the treaty. One could almost dress a wound with Molotov, he is so unctuous. I mention something about leaving.

— Oh no, no! — he interjects — We don't let our friends leave like that. We must celebrate.

(...)

p. 22

That same evening we left by train for our country. Molotov and other high-ranking Soviet officials, together with a military honor guard, accompanied us to the Byelorussian station.

We ride towards Vilnius and riding with us are foreign army bases for Gaižiūnai, Prienai, Alytus, and Naujoji Vilnia. One hand gives and other hand takes. Or grabs by the throat? Time will tell.

The passing Russian forests and empty autumn plains are somberly quiet and sleepy. What a dissonance between that tranquillity and my uneasy heart. "I was tormented by the contrast between the majestic serenity of nature and the deep anguish of my soul." (E. Herrict, Episodes 1940-1944). Thus the President of the French Parliament recalled his journey from Paris to Vouvray when he was forced to flee the German-occupied capital. Fortunately, he still had some place to flee to ..

We would like to thank Lituanus for their kind permission to share this article with you.

LITUANUS

LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Volume 34, No. 2 - Summer 1989
Editor of this issue: Antanas Dundzila

Memoirs of Juozas Urbšys
Translated and edited by Sigita Naujokaitis

http://www.lituanus.org

This article is from the book “VILNIUS a Personal History” written by Tomas Venclova.
From reading Mr. Venclova’s Bio you can understand why we are excited and honoured to have him as one of the contributing writers for VilNews. In the future we will continue to post excerpts from his book for your reading enjoyment. We thank the publisher, The Sheep Meadow Press for their gracious consent in allowing us to share Mr. Venclova’s book with you and we would like to direct you to The University Press of New England who is the book’s distributor.

Published at:
Sheep Meadow Press
http://sheepmeadowpress.com/
Distributed by:
University Press of New England
http://www.upne.com/index_new.html

MINDAUGAS, GEDIMINAS and VILNIUS

The first Lithuanian ruler, Mindaugas, is wreathed in mystery and ambiguity―almost as much as St. Christopher on the city’s coat of arms. His rise occurred at a time when Lithuania first confronted the German knights, the so-called Knights of the Teutonic Order. Like most founders and unifiers of nations, Mindaugas probably was not a very attractive character. He did away with the majority of his opponents (among them, quite a few of his relatives), adopted Christianity, was crowned King by the Pope, but then broke with Christianity after his wife’s death―in any case, that is what the Teutonic Knights claimed. His wife’s sister, who was married to Grand Duke Daumantas, came to the funeral. According to the story, “The king shamelessly violated the law, robbing the woman of her honor by force and keeping her as his wedded wife.” Daumantas killed Mindaugas and fled to the Russian city of Pskov, where he adopted the Orthodox Christian faith. He became a famous ruler and was later canonized. Meanwhile, for a good half-century the Lithuanian state disappeared from history: what happened during this time is beyond reliable historical knowledge.

What is clear is that there were no longer any kings, only grand dukes. (After the First World War an attempt was made to restore the old monarchy. When the German Prince von Urach was called to the throne, he intended to call himself Mindaugas II. But the idea never went beyond this operetta-like plan.) Historians, relying less on documents than on patriotism, have been trying to prove that the story of Mindaugas is connected with Vilnius: he was said to have been crowned and murdered in this settlement. In any case, he is credited with having built the first cathedral, whose Romanesque ruins can be found in the vaulted cellars of the present-day Cathedral. When Daumantas took revenge against Mindaugas, they say, the cathedral again became a pagan place of worship. Ardent supporters of this tale have even found twelve stone steps and the sacrificial altar of the cult site.

Admittedly, like most stories from that period, this one has a touch of the absurd. Still, Mindaugas became the symbol of the threatened state. Not long ago, a memorial to him was erected at the mouth of the Vilnia. A somewhat naïve play* portrays him as the first Lithuanian patriot. It influenced the generation that subsequently took to the barricades for the liberation of the country from Communism. Nevertheless, the true founder of the city was not Mindaugas, but Gediminas, a ruler who came to power after this “blank” period in the history of Vilnius.

Legend has it that at first Gediminas did not rule here but in Trakai, a town surrounded by lakes, not far from the present-day capital. During his lifetime this distance seemed greater than it does today, for between the two cities lay a forest only traces of which are left. On an island in one of the lakes of Trakai there stands a huge stone castle that was built not by Gediminas, but by one of his successors. From Trakai, Gediminas set out to go hunting at the confluence of the Neris and Vilnia. The aforementioned Latin history continues the tale: “On the peak of the hill with his spear he killed a forest bull (our word for it is “aurochs”) driven toward him out of the forest thicket and the steep mountain slopes. Tired from the daylong hunt and happy at having killed the beast, he spent the night in Šventaragis Valley. In his dream he saw, on the peak of the same hill where he had killed the animal, a huge wolf that looked as if it were made completely of iron or was wearing iron armor. Hundreds of other wolves howled within it, and their howling echoed across the surrounding fields and forests.”

By happy coincidence, the pagan high priest Lizdeika lived nearby and interpreted the dream. He said a city as hard as iron and with a reputation as powerful as the howling of wolves must be founded on this spot. “And the ruler heard him out and thought the high priest had correctly interpreted the will of the gods. After observing all the rituals, he determined that the site for the castle was to be the spot where he had just killed the aurochs.” At this point, the myth turns into reality. Today, a castle built of masonry walls and stone―the oldest structure in the Vilnius―still stands on the hill, its rough appearance a contrast to the city’s later, more sophisticated architecture. But in its own way the castle fits in with the skyscrapers that now rise on the far shore of the Neris. History repeats itself: both then as now, naked pragmatism rules―then for defense, now for commerce. Just as in Trakai, the castle dates to a time somewhat later than Gediminas’s rule, but, like the hill, it bears his name.

The prophetic dream and its consequences are familiar to cultural anthropologists and mythologists, who note that the wolf links the foundation myths of Vilnius and Rome: the animal stands for the symbol of tribal leaders throughout Europe. Gediminas doesn’t dream just anywhere; he dreams in the Šventaragis Valley, at a sacred place. The name of the valley―the low plain where Vilnius Cathedral stands―is derived from the words šventas (“holy”), and ragas (“horn”). It is still called that today. “Horn” may refer to the bend in the river. Medieval chroniclers even invented a Duke Šventaragis who supposedly reigned sometime between Mindaugas and Gediminas. All that the chronicles say of him is that he ordered a funerary site to be constructed at the confluence of the rivers where, according to pagan tradition, he, his successors, and the most important ruling families would be cremated. In other words, there was already a religious center in the valley, obviously a place of worship―perhaps the one that was built on the ruins of Mindaugas’s Cathedral. Clearly, it was no accident that Lizdeika turned up. A contemporary researcher maintains that it was the high priest who advised Gediminas to spend the night near the burial site in the valley rather than in one of the nearby houses. Only at a religious site can you have a dream that will determine the future for hundreds of years. And when you prepare for a prophetic dream, you have to offer a bull, better yet a wild aurochs, as the animal sacrifice―hence, the theme of the hunt.

Lizdeika is also a figure with roots in the world of ritual and myth. He is the only Lithuanian pagan high priest whose name has entered the chronicles. His name has the same root as lizdas (“nest”)―apparently, the priest had been abandoned as a child and was found in an eagle’s nest. Mythologists consider this a typical shaman story of the sort that was common among many tribes in the Eurasian lowland plains. The old chroniclers invented a more conventional genealogy for Lizdeika: he is supposed to have been a high-ranking relative of Gediminas, who was concealed from his enemies in a tree. Incidentally, the Lithuanian noble family Radziwiłł traces its origins to Lizdeika―the name Radziwiłł (Lithuanian: Radvila) is equivalent to “foundling.” Did these beautiful and amazing adventures really take place? It’s a question that cannot be answered. The myth is part of reality and has a clear meaning: Gediminas founded the political capital at the place where the religious capital already existed, and then he blended the two. Lizdeika, by virtue of his authority, sanctioned the act.

From the Memoirs of Juozas Urbšys

Dear readers,

On 15 June 1940, Soviet Russia invaded Lithuania. This was the beginning of Lithuania’s loss of freedom for more than fifty years and the beginning of one of the saddest and most tragic parts of Lithuania’s history. There has been much talk and speculation about how this invasion came about and what Lithuania did, or as some would accuse didn’t do, to prevent it. To shed clear light on this topic, we would like to share with you parts of the personal memoirs of Juozas Urbšys who was a member of the group that personally met with Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin. After reading these fascinating and very informative memoirs we are sure you will have a better appreciation for the precarious situation the leaders of the then free Republic of Lithuania were in and what they did to try to protect the lives of the Lithuanian people.

We will share these memoirs in 4 parts. Here is part 1 of 4 - IN MOSCOW

Introduction by editor Antanas Dundzila

Juozas Urbšys, Lithuanian diplomat and statesman, was born in 1896 and currently resides in Kaunas (at the time this article was first published in 1989 Mr. Urbšys was residing in Kaunas. Mr. Urbšys died on April 30, 1991. After lying in state at the city of Kaunas' War Museum, he was entombed in Petrašiūnai Cemetery in Kaunas).

He began his long career in the service of his country during World War I as a member of the Lithuanian Central Relief Committee in Moscow (1915-16). An officer in the Lithuanian army, he retired in 1922 to join the diplomatic corps and served in a number of posts in Berlin, Paris, Riga, and Kaunas. He served as Minister of Foreign Affairs (1938-40) during a particularly difficult time in Lithuania's history. His tenure saw the Polish ultimatum of 1938, the German seizure of the Klaipėda Territory in 1939, the forced stationing of Soviet garrisons in Lithuania from October 10,1939, and ultimately, the Soviet occupation of the country subsequent to the ultimatum of June 14, 1940.

Urbšys and his wife were arrested on July 16, 1940 and deported to the Soviet Union (Soviet authorities sent him initially to a prison in Tambov; he was later moved to prisons in Saratov, Ivanov and elsewhere. Of his 13 years in prison, 11 were spent in solitary confinement). In 1956, they were permitted to return to Lithuania. Urbšys (then worked translating a number of works of French literature into Lithuanian, and presently subsists on a meager pension.

Urbšys's memoirs, quite astoundingly, appeared in the Soviet Lithuanian press in September of 1988. One of the few remaining eye-witnesses to the cynical manipulations, both Soviet and German, preceding the occupation of Lithuania, Urbšys, at 93, has recently addressed mass rallies in Vilnius and Kaunas.

The following excerpts are translated from the Lithuanian edition of Urbšys's memoirs and are paginated accordingly.

IN MOSCOW

p.8

On the third of October 1939, I, as Lithuania's Foreign Minister, flew to Moscow via Riga. At Moscow airport, decorated for the occasion with Lithuanian and Soviet flags, I was met by a group which included Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, an elderly man, whose name, if memory serves me correctly, was Lozovsky. That same evening, together with the Lithuanian envoy in Moscow, Ladas Natkevičius, we were invited to the Kremlin.

Lithuanian delegation before departing to Moscow in October, 1939.

Urbšys is third from left.

Arriving a little before eleven we waited with other automobiles to pass through the gates while uniformed secret police formed us into a line. At the door of the government offices we were met by an official in military uniform who introduced himself as "Commander of the Workers' and Peasants' Government Offices." We exchanged greetings and the commander led us to an elevator which took us to the second or third floor, I do not remember which. In the cloakroom an elderly attendant typical of such places took our coats.

We stepped into the waiting room. There sat one or two taciturn almost dour, young men surrounded by telephones and dressed in civilian clothing. They announced our arrival to whom it was necessary and, opening a door, let us into a further room.

A spacious hall. In the right corner (looking from the door) a large writing desk laden with telephones. In the left, a door opening onto yet another room. Almost directly in front of the open door stretched a long conference table. This then was the office of V. M. Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and the Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Molotov, Potemkin, Deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and Pozdniakov, Charge of Lithuanian Affairs in the Soviet Union, awaited us. We sat down at the further end of the conference table near the open door.

Before long, Stalin appeared in the doorway: graying, rather thick hair combed upwards, luxuriant mustaches, thick-set frame; a sand colored jacked buttoned down the front with the collar turned back at the neck revealing a thin white band, peasant trousers of the same color stuffed into soft low black boots. A closer look revealed that these supposedly ordinary clothes and shoes were of exceptional quality fabric and workmanship.

Then began negotiations between two sovereign nations, each enjoying equal rights, whose friendly relations, as we have seen, were based on solemnly signed accords still in effect. One would have thought that this was a golden opportunity for a socialist nation to display its moral superiority to the world and a chance for it to prevail forever upon the heart of a small but noble one.

Stalin began to speak and without beating around the bush stated bluntly that the Soviet Union had made a pact with Germany (Hitlerite, Fascist Germany!) granting the major portion of Lithuania to the Soviet Union and a narrow strip of border to Germany. Placing a map of Lithuania on the table, he pointed to the line drawn in on independent Lithuania's territory demarcating the Soviet and German "domains." So this is what Molotov had hidden up his sleeve when, having already made a pact with Ribbentrop, he told Natkevičius that he was expecting a particularly amicable comportment from Lithuania.

(...)

p. 10

I try to protest against this apportionment of an independent nation saying that Lithuania least of all expected this from its ally the Soviet Union. I refrain from saying too much: a vision of Vilnius, the city and its territory, which the government of Lithuania has sent me here to regain, looms before me. Stalin explains that, on the contrary, the Soviet Union wants no such division and if the Germans renounce their claim then the strip of border will remain part of Lithuania. The ambassador of Germany, von Schulenburg, can be summoned immediately to discuss this question.

Molotov intones:

— Any imperialist country would simply occupy Lithuania and that would be that. Unlike us. We wouldn't be Bolsheviks if we didn't search for new ways. . .

His words would seem consolatory if one knew for certain that these new ways would not rejoin the old well-traveled ones in the end.

Stalin concretizes:

— We have to sign two treaties: one dealing with the return of Vilnius, and the other regarding mutual assistance.

He spreads out a second map of Lithuania on the table, one more felicitous to the Lithuanian heart. The line drawn in on it shows Vilnius and a portion of the territory to its east ceded to Lithuania. However, this line, passing very close to the capital, is a far cry from all the territory recognized as Lithuanian in the July 20, 1920 peace treaty.

I inform Stalin that the government of Lithuania had but one thing in mind when they sent me to Moscow and that I was empowered to discuss solely the matter of Vilnius with the government of the Soviet Union.

— A mutual assistance treaty, — I continue, — is an entirely new thing which I have not been authorized to discuss. I must return to Kaunas and inform my government of this.

I ask for a copy of the text for the proposed treaty so that my report can be as factual as possible. The Soviet men reply that they will furnish us with a copy of the pact tomorrow.

Tomorrow had in fact begun, for Natkevičius and I left the Kremlin a good deal after midnight.

We had just returned to the legation when a phone call summoned us once again to the Kremlin. We arrived around two in the morning. The same individuals awaited us. They handed us drafts of two treaties: the first, dealing with the return of Vilnius and its territory to Lithuania, and the second, with Lithuanian and Soviet mutual assistance. The latter provided for the permanent placement on Lithuanian territory of, I do not recall the exact number, but no less than 50,000 Soviet troops.

Having read through this draft, I exclaim:

— But this is the occupation of Lithuania!

Stalin and Molotov both smile. The former assures me that this is what Estonia said at first, also. The Soviet Union was not seeking to endanger Lithuania's independence. Rather, the Soviet army stationed in Lithuania would guarantee that the Soviet Union would defend Lithuania in the event of an attack. Thus the Soviet army would be working to insure Lithuania's security.

— Our troops will help you put down a communist insurrection should one occur in Lithuania, — added Stalin smiling.

Perhaps sensing how heavily Stalin's words weighed on us, Molotov began to explain how the Soviet Union would remain as friendly as before towards Lithuania. The Soviets were preferring a mutual assistance treaty because they wished our country well. Such a pact had already been signed with Estonia and that country was not complaining, was it? Latvia would soon sign the same. Did Lithuania want to threaten the entire system of defense?

Stalin, meanwhile, agreed to cut the size of the Soviet army contingent to be sent to Lithuania to 35,000. He was seemingly unaware that Lithuania had such a small army and understood its reluctance to have more Soviet troops than its own. In our argument against the stationing of Soviet garrisons, we had pointed out, among other things, that the army being sent to Lithuania would be twice the size of the Lithuanian army.

Remembering that my instructions do not permit me to negotiate the stationing of troops in Lithuania, I speak hypothetically hoping to garner enough essential information to present as complete a report as possible to my government. I ask whether the contingent could not be reduced to 20,000 and confined to the newly reclaimed territory thus leaving the rest of the country unaffected. Stalin reasserts that troops must be stationed at specific locations throughout the entire country. He will not require that they be sent to Kaunas, however, since he realizes that it would be disconcerting to have another nation's army present at the seat of government. A portion of the Soviet army is to be posted in the territory of Vilnius, though not in the capital itself, of course, but in Naujoji Vilnia. The final number of troops was still, apparently, open to debate.

It looks as if everything has been said. Natkevičius and I rise to leave. Half in jest, I console myself aloud with my ill-starred fate, for having just borne Germany's blow, wresting the Klaipėda territory from us, now another such blow . . .

Stalin retorts:

— Germany grabbed territory from you. We, on the contrary, are ceding some to you. There can be no comparison!

— I am by no means comparing Germany's methods with those of the Soviet Union. Rather, I am grateful that so difficult a matter for Lithuania is being discussed with us in this deliberative atmosphere.

Molotov suggests that we telephone our government to get the necessary authorization. I reply that it is impossible to discuss such a matter over the phone. Stalin concurs.

What an interesting coincidence. When Ribbentrop handed us the ultimatum regarding the annexation of the Klaipėda territory, and when I protested that I had to return to Kaunas to inform my government, he, too, suggested that I get the necessary authorization from my government by telephone.

We would like to thank Lituanus for their kind permission to share this article with you.

LITUANUS

LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Volume 34, No. 2 - Summer 1989
Editor of this issue: Antanas Dundzila

Memoirs of Juozas Urbšys
Translated and edited by Sigita Naujokaitis

http://www.lituanus.org

 
Audrius Simaitis

VilNews invites you to participate in a discussion about Lithuania’s health care system.
Introduction by Audrius Simaitis,
Consultant Cardiologist at Royal Cornwall Hospital, UK.

One of the things that strikes one the most in Lithuania is the fact that management’s mentality in the health care system has undergone little change since Soviet times. This is out of proportion in comparison with other fields like education and business.

Any outsider would immediately ask: why?
The answer most probably could be found comparing the State owned medical field with the predominantly private sector of odontology.

The State owned medical field is ineffective, tarnished by corruption. National and European surveys reveal the public in general is significantly dissatisfied. Physicians are happy neither with salary levels nor with working conditions. The emigration rates of the doctors are increasingly in worrying proportions.

Odontology is the opposite. No corruption scandals, doctors are earning good salaries, customers are happy, and there is very little emigration amongst the dentists.

One country, two different worlds. Why?

The surveys regarding State owned medicine reveal that most people do not like the system; they do not understand the aim of the current reforms. At the same time people express very strong satisfaction rates with the particular care of the physicians and particular service provided by the Hospital. These kinds of answers mean one thing: people do not like the system, however they like the doctors. For the doctors it means a lot of personal effort to sustain the inefficient system.

The Swedish report in 2002 and The World Bank report in 2009 clearly indicated that problem too. The former report stated that the heads of the Hospitals demonstrated old - fashioned ways in dealing with their employees. In 2009 The World bank report came to the same conclusion emphasizing that there was obvious need to strengthen the management skills of those administering the Hospitals.

Very little if anything has been done since then. On the opposite, six years ago Parliament issued a law declaring that the there is no retirement age limit for the heads of the hospitals. They are the only category in the country to have such indulgence. There is no control and accountability for their actions, as any of the Boards in the hospitals do not have any decision making power. As the result of that most of doctors and nurses live in apathy. They are disinterested in the health care system in general.

The Health Care ministry acknowledges this problem. There was a quite strong statement in the outline of the current reform in 2009. The Ministry states that there is a need to create collective ways of management to control the unilateral decisions of the Directors of the Hospitals. President Dalia Grybauskaite supports the idea of the rotation of the Directors.

Despite that very little progress was made towards the implementation of these ideas. In next 5-10 years health care systems of all countries will face an unprecedented challenge in the need of financial resources. There will be no more cash in the system. Therefore the only way to sustain the current levels of health care is through more efficient use of the resources.

This could only be achieved if ordinary doctors and nurses feel the interest and if they feel that they are a part of the system. With the current old-fashioned way the management does not allow that.

Therefore will Lithuanian health care be ready and able to live up to challenge in next five- ten years?

 
Professor Vic Pakalnis

I had a wonderful trip to Vilnius this past summer and I came away with a view of Lithuania that was full of admiration and hope. It filled me with pride that my parents were born there and that my DNA is tied to that corner of the world.

I have made a few observations while I was there that I feel need to be addressed and discussed. While I may not be an expert on everything, I do know mining, nuclear power, and the public administration , so this is what I will share with you. Lithuania does not seem to have any natural resources; this is amazing to me, for all around Lithuania are countries with oil, minerals and industrial materials. Despite all of this, there is nothing major within Lithuanian borders. Either Lithuania is truly a barren place or you need some expertise in geological and mineral exploration.

We can help with this! In Canada the largest mining show in the world happens in Toronto, Ontario. For instance, next week ( or next year ) at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), the Lithuanian government could provide an incentive to mining developers, such as a tax-free period , and let them find the mineral wealth that likely exists in the land. The TMX (who operates our stock exchange) also finances over 70% of all mining deals in the world. Canada can do good work with Lithuania, and I for one would love to see both our countries prosper.

The second item on my list is one that I am sure many Lithuanians would agree upon: Lithuania needs a reliable source of energy to call their own. Being dependent on fossil fuel plants, and dependant on Russia for fuel and power is not only dirty from an environmental perspective but is also very expensive. My solution is that Lithuania needs a CANDU reactor. In short, CANDU is the Canadian nuclear reactor that are the safest and most flexible reactor I have ever seen, but do not use enriched uranium which is a major component for nuclear weapons. Canada would be a good trading partner for this, as we need to sell CANDU technology to join the market in Europe.

A third observation I made is that Lithuania needs to overhaul its public service. On my visit I met with a number of Lithuanian public servants and with students and faculty at Mykolas Romeris University. I was told that the "old guard" within the public service are so used to the soviet system of centralized planning and the adage ``They pretend to pay me and I pretend to work,`` that not enough gets done. Inefficiency and petty corruption are a real problem that faces many countries that broke free of the soviet union, so there is nothing to be ashamed of; it simply must be fixed. I was very impressed with the students I met and the younger generation, who are bright and still optimistic. These bright minds could easily be trained to drive a professional and non-partisan public service. With adequate pay and a truly accountable system that ensures rewards of pay for performance, as well as corrections for non-performance, the system could be one Lithuanians would be proud of.

Cheers
Vic

Vic Pakalnis , P.Eng. , MBA , M.Eng.
Professor
Kinross Professorship in Mining & Sustainability
The Robert M. Buchan Department of Mining
Goodwin Hall - 25 Union st , Room 325B
Queen's University
Kingston , Ontario Canada K7L 3N6
Tel 613-533-3327
Fax 613-533-6597
pakalnis@queensu.ca

Two good debates from 2010

To give you a better idea of the debates we've had in the previous year, we reproduce below two articles and the subsequent response to these received from our readers:

LACK OF COMMON SENSE BY PEOPLE POSITIONED AND TASKED WITH LEADERSHIP

Thank you Mr. Myhre for this copy and mostly for your gallant effort in pointing to the lack of common sense by people positioned and tasked with leadership in very important matters. After decades of Communist style living it is possible that the population has not yet regained clarity, confidence and with it the will to keep self serving arrogance out of ranks of the Nation's leaders.  

Best regards,

Algirdas Vaitkus

Mission Viejo, California

I CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR COURAGE AND CLARITY

Dear Aage,

Bravo on an excellent issue. I congratulate you on your courage and clarity. Whether people agree or disagree with whatever point, I do hope many understand how much love, care and constructive friendship you are offering to your adopted country. Nothing can be better for a new democracy than a spirit of free civic debate and encouraging more and more local people to.... stay and debate!

Cheers

Dovid Katz

North Wales 

THE NECESSITY TO DEVELOP A CULTURE OF MUTUAL TRUST AND RESPECT

Dear Aage!

Could not resist myself writing you and congratulating you for very good article! Enjoyed reading it!

It illustrates perfectly the Adizes management methodology (ref. www.adizes.com), which I am working with currently. It talks about necessity to develop a culture of mutual trust and respect within any organization in order to be successful (could be business organization or country). And one of the important elements creating such culture is willingness to hear and understand other people and other opinions.

You just provided a perfect example about the lack of mutual trust and respect in Lithuanian society! Very well done!

Best regards,

Virginijus Kundrotas

Kaunas

ANOTHER WELL-WRITTEN AND INFORMATIVE ISSUE OF VILNEWS

Hello Aage,

Congratulations on another well-written and informative issue of VilNews. The issues addressed speak for themselves.

I would like to bring to your attention another issue that you might like to look into, i.e. the subject of Lithuanian artists abroad. There is currently an exhibit at Radvilu Rumai Museum focusing on Lithuanian artists abroad. One of the featured artists, Danute Nitecki, is local to the San Francisco Bay Area, http://www.ldm.lt/RRM/Dovana_nepriklausomai_Lietuvai.htm

Danute opened her home to the local Lithuanian community this Easter for a 4th year in a row. Her biggest concern these days is finding a long term home for her art. I would bet that her concern is common to other Lithuanian artists living abroad.

Do you think that this is something the national government might like to address, or would it be better to approach local municipalities, or private organizations.

Best regards,
Algis Ratnikas
San Francisco, USA

WE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT OUR LEADERS HAVE BEEN FINANCIALLY CONSERVATIVE

Hi,

I am new to your newsletter, but I find your observations thought provoking, which is always good, whether one agrees or not, as it provides a basis for growth. So much in circulation in today's media is just fluff with little meaning or value. 

One point in counterbalance. There is a lot of criticism of Lithuania's government, and while I agree that things could have been done better, we should be very, very glad that our leaders have been financially conservative, unlike the leadership of Vilnius, which has created huge debts for our children to pay, while goods and services were bought at inflated prices that helped cronies. 

People look to the fantasy of the US and think that government can spend freely. The US is truly living in a fantasy world that works so long as they can convince foreign countries to hoard US dollars and keep them off the domestic US market. This option is not available for Lithuania. The result, sooner or later, is super inflation like what existed in Germany around 1923 when the taxi drivers purposely drove their fares by a bak so they could adjust the rate by the latest mark value. I myself have a couple billion marks from that time. 

Iki,

Arturas Baranauskas

Vilnius

EASIER TO OBTAIN AN AUDIENCE WITH THE POPE,

THAN WITH A MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF LITHUANIA

Dear Mr. Myhre,

I enjoy your positive articles about Lithuania and send them to some 70 friends around the world. The less positive, I keep to myself.

You have lived long enough in Lithuania and must realize that many of the problems of the present day Lithuania are due to their reluctance to learn from the Western countries or accept advice from Lithuanians who lived and studied in the West. The relative success of Lithuania after World War I was largely due to the replacement of Russian educated officials by those who got their degrees in the West. My own father was the first Lithuanian with a degree in forestry from a Western university and introduced major reforms in the forest management, which survived even during the Communist occupation.

Alas, after 20 years of restoration of independence to paraphrase Kipling "The East is East, the West is West and the twain shall never (so far) meet". I spoke to a number of Lithuanians with degrees from top Western universities, who don't want to return to Lithuania - according to them, the "natives" know everything better.

I might add that for me it was easier to obtain an audience with the Pope, than with a Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania.

Yours sincerely,

Ambassador Algirdas Zemaitis (ret.)

Vilnius – Rome

LISTEN TO SCANDINAVIAN ADVICE, NOT ARROGANTLY

ASSUMING THAT WE THE LITHUANIANS KNOW BEST

Hello Aage,

Hope you had a good Easter.  I have just read the latest edition of VilNews, thank you for another good job.  I agree with your editorial comments.  In particular: "Being a Norwegian, I believe Norway and the other Scandinavian countries would have been willing to stretch to great lengths to provide help and advice for the crisis–hit Lithuania and the two other Baltic States. But they had to be asked.  Our Lithuanian leaders should refrain from arrogance and avoid ignorance by seeking advice where good help and advice is to be found, domestically and internationally. Can they do that, there is every reason to foresee a bright future for this nation."

I have two comments to make on that.  First, I believe that even now it's not too late to ask the Scandinavian countries for help.  But you are exactly right: the Scandinavian countries would want in return a guarantee that whatever help they give will be used wisely, listen to Scandinavian advice, not arrogantly assuming that we the Lithuanians know best.  Closely linked to this is the second thing: no one wants to give help if they think it's going to be wasted corruptly.  Lithuanians need to be able to give the Scandinavian aid-givers a chance to supervise what is going on, the right to inspect and audit, to make sure that the aid is being used as agreed, and not to build the villas of mafiozai and corrupt politicians and public servants on land that they have misappropriated from public forests and lakefronts.

Which brings me back to my key theme (sorry if I'm repetitious):  Lithuania will not make much serious progress until bigger efforts are made to stamp out bribery and corruption.  

Best regards
Gintautas Kaminskas 
Wollongong, Australia

"DUMMHEIT UND STOLZ WACHSEN AUF EINEM HOLZ".

Dear Aage,

Thank you for the fine arrogance story.  Along the lines of your airport comparison, attached is another shameful blemish on the airport. I wholeheartedly agree that the airport is the first image of a country to the visitor. The dungeon like interior structure for processing the arriving passengers certainly doesn't leave much of an image.

I wrote a story in Draugas on robber like taxi fees from the airport to downtown Vilnius.  Also that the taxicabs are drenched with nicotine odor and loud blaring Russian radio music listened by mostly Russian speaking taxicab drivers, causing my daughter to ask whether we really have arrived in Lithuania. 

There is no cash pay-phone at the airport. To make even a local call one has to buy an expensive multiple call pay phone card, and how would a non-Lithuanian speaking visitor find out about that. Moreover, lack of an official non-commercial welcome and information center or booth to the arriving non-Lithuanian speaking foreigner is another striking example of not understanding the impact of an image that a foreign visitor receives. 

On arrogance. Several months ago I had arranged a visit between the minister of energy and a CEO of an important nuclear reactor manufacturer. The meeting was supposed to be for the benefit of the minister on information of what is forthcoming in the future, particularly in small reactors and the possibility of establishing a European affiliate of the company in Lithuania. 

The minister graciously extended an invitation to the CEO, but the minister's secretariat refused to extend even the slightest courtesy to this visit, such as picking up the visitor from the airport and transporting him to the meeting, setting up a meeting agenda, or even providing to the visitor's office the address of the ministry.  They claimed that this was just another sales visit, and the visitor should take care of everything on his own.  As a result the CEO canceled the meeting and eventually went to London. The European affiliate was established in the UK. Thus through such arrogance another opportunity was lost.   

There is a lot truth in the German proverb "Dummheit und Stolz wachsen auf einem Holz".

Best regards,

Stan Backaitis

Washington, USA

SENDING E-MAIL TO LITHUANIA IS LIKE

SENDING IT TO THE BLACK HOLE OF THE UNIVERSE

Dear Aage:

I wish to ad another bit of advise to your fine article on Ignorance.

Lithuania's business people and government officials are yet to learn the necessity of good communications. Without a two way communication there is no possibility for further contacts. One of the most frustrating experiences I had was in e-mail (before that it was in regular "snail mail") communications.  I would write and write but receive no reply (with only a few exceptions). 

When I was working, our management had a rule - "answer all letters received in not more than three days.  If there is no answer to be given, than at least acknowledge the receipt". 

One of my American colleagues, who was sincerely trying to help Lithuania, said "Sending e-mail to Lithuania is like sending it to the black hole of the universe.  Everything goes one way and nothing comes back".  No wander he is now disenchanted and helping others.

Vytautas Sliupas, P.E.

www.aukfoundation.org

Burlingame, California

LITHUANIA'S BUSINESS PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

ARE YET TO LEARN THE NECESSITY OF GOOD COMMUNICATIONS

Dear Aage:

I totally agree with Mr. Sliupas! [ref. his above letter]  I once sent an e-mail to a Lithuanian who responded eight months later! And that is just one example -- there have been numerous others.  Perhaps they just prefer face-to-face communication, but don't know how to communicate that to you :-).

Jennifer Lambert

USA

Section Editor

LIISA LEITZINGER

Liisa Leitzinger moved to Lithuania from Finland 15 years ago. She has graduated from Vilnius University and worked as Vilnius City Guide for tourists from Finland and as a director of a small guest house and restaurant “Mano Liza” in Vilnius Old Town. “My guests are always pleasantly surprised about Lithuania”, says Liisa, “hotels are relatively new and unique, food has homemade taste to it, prices are the lowest in Europe and the Vilnius Old Town charm never fails!”

Contact email: liisa.leitzinger@gmail.com

Web page: www.hotelinvilnius.com

EVALDA ŠIŠKAUSKIENĖ

Evalda Šiškauskienė is a prominent part of Lithuania‘s hotel, restaraunt and hospitality industry. Her twenty five years of experience includes various director positions at some of the finest hotels in Vilnius and ownership of three very popular restaurants in the Vilnius area. From 1991to 2008 she served as President of Lithuanian Hotel and Restaurant Association and was recently reelected for another four years. She is also experienced in lobbying and working with government, state institutions and ministries. She is also an EXCOM member in HOTREC - HOTREC is the trade association of hotels, restaurants and cafes in the European Union bringing together 40 national hospitality associations in 24 countries across Europe - from Portugal to Finland and from Ireland to Greece. Evalda has Masters degrees in Philology from Vilnius Univesity and also studied Psychology.She is fluent in Lithuanian, Russian and English. She is now part of  “ JP STUDIO” Hotel Consultancy Company.

Email: evalda@lvra.lt

Web site: www.jpstudija.lt

BARBARA ISHERWOOD

Barbara Isherwood is President of IWAV (the International Women's Association of Vilnius), a charitable organization and support group that unites women living in Lithuania.  IWAV organizes monthly coffee mornings to which all members and newcomers are invited to share news or just chat and enjoy the treats.  The association also offers many other opportunities to socialize; from Lunch Bunch to Book Club to Playgroup to regular Evening Socials. IWAV is also an increasingly important charitable presence in Lithuania as each year we host a very popular Charity Christmas Bazaar and a springtime Breast Cancer Awareness Event.

Email: barbara@mikelittle.lt