Dėl 1926 m. gruodžio 17 d. valstybės perversmo vertinimo l¡etuvių sovietinėje istoriografijoje

LTStraipsnyje, remiantis XX a. lietuvių ir kitų šalių istoriografija, taip pat autorės bei kitų atsiminimais, aptariamas 1926 m. gruodžio 17 d. valstybės perversmo Lietuvoje vertinimas sovietmečio lietuvių istoriografijoje. Iš esmės aptariami du šios problemos aspektai. Kodėl perversmo pobūdis Lietuvoje gyvenusių ir dirbusių tarybinių istorikų buvo vadinamas tik vienu terminu – fašistinis? Ir kodėl sovietinių istorikų buvo revizuojamos bei falsifikuojamos Lietuvos tautininkų partijos įvykdyto perversmo kai kurios diskusinės nuostatos, pareikštos tiek sovietinėje, tiek lietuvių tautinėje istoriografijoje, tiek ir veikaluose, paskelbtuose iki SSRS okupacijos ar po jos Lietuvoje bei emigracijoje. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Autoritarinis vaidymas; Autoritarizmas; Diktatūra; Fašizmas; Kominternas; Kominternas, Lietuvos komunistų partija; Lietuvos komunistų partija; Neofašizmas; Perversmas; Totalitarizmas; Authoritarian rule; Authoritarianism; Coup-d'etat, Comintern; Dictatorship; Fascism; Komintern; Lithuanian Communist Party; Neo-fascism; The Lithuanian Communist Party; Totalitarianism.

ENThe article also introduces new facts employed by Soviet Lithuanian historians in their dispute with national historians who published their works in independent Lithuania or in emigration. These facts seldom had solid basis; most often they were falsified. On the other hand, the works by independent Lithuania’s historians as well as those in emigration did not reveal a homogeneous evaluation of the coup of 1926 because each of them viewed this event depending upon his/her political sympathies and party affiliations. The above mentioned works, however, did not evoke further discussions in 1950–1988 because it was strictly forbidden to mention the authors and their works which were published abroad and did not conform to Marxist ideology. Instead pseudo discussions were initiated which aimed to brainwash readers, instill Marxist point of view without, in many cases, even mentioning the opponent. This way the society, especially the younger generation, was supposed to be educated in pro-Soviet, pro-Russian Marxist spirit.The author, on the basis of historical materials of the 20th century Lithuanian and foreign writers as well as her own recollections, aims to give an answer to the question why Lithuanian historians of the Soviet period writing about the coup of December 17, 1926, staged by the Lithuanian National Union, applied the term fascist coup. Actually, this was mainly determined by the fact that soon after the coup Lithuanian Communist party and Komsomol Central committee issued a proclamation in which the coup of 1926 was characterized as fascist, gory and imperialistic, inspired by the political forces of Western Europe. These characteristics were later confirmed by the Comintern documents. The above mentioned theoretical propositions were further supported by concrete facts and new statements in Lithuanian historic literature and the works by Lithuanian Communist party leaders, namely V. Kapsukas, Z. Angarietis and others. Their publications, in their turn, served as a basis for monographs, textbooks, dissertations, articles, etc prepared and published by Lithuanian historians. Historians, who lived and worked under the Soviet occupation, had to adhere to this point of view. Even for the slightest attempt to revise the term fascist coup, to call the coup pro-fascist or something else, historians were severely criticized during the discussions of their prepared for publication works. Historians who published works challenging the statements of Marxist methodology were criticized in the media, their viewpoint and behaviour were discussed and condemned by their colleagues at workplaces. [From the publication]