Antisemitic tension during the 1905 revolution in Lithuania

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: 1905 m. revoliucija; Antisemitinė įtampa; Antisemitizmo apraiškos; Kauno gubernija; Lietuvos istorija, XX a.; Vilniaus gubernija; Žydai; 1905 revolution; Antisemitic tension; History of Lithuania, 20th century; Jews; Kaunas Gubernia; Lithuania; Tensions of anti-Semitism; Vilnius Gubernia.

EN[...] The period of the 1905 Revolution in Lithuania is not only the time of a social movement and national (Lithuanian) uprising but also one when ethnic tensions increased in comparison with certain other periods. It was also a time of rising antisemitic sentiment in parts of Gentile society. In some cases, this tension developed into physical violence. There is no doubt that the events in Dusetos on Easter of 1905 meet many of the criteria listed in definitions of a pogrom. Several other incidents (in Telšiai and Gargždai [Kovno Gubernia] and Varanavo [Vilna Gubernia]) also could be described as pogroms, with certain reservations. The strengthening of antisemitic sentiment and the development of some incidents of ethnic tension into physical conflicts were conditioned in part by events that took place beyond Lithuanian borders. Anti-Jewish pogroms in other parts of the empire emboldened local antisemites, creating the impression that the authorities would tolerate violence against Jews. Moreover, the revolutionary period, like other instances of political collapse, formed favourable conditions for remodelling the ethnic hierarchy, in this case allowing Christians to "put the Jews in their place". The cases of opposition to the police or army witnessed during occasions of mass violence against Jews, as at Gargždai, for example, show that people no longer trusted the authorities to maintain order. At the same time, of course, local reasons also generated antisemitic sentiment and even violence. One of the most visible of such reasons was economic nationalism, which was evident in certain incidents (for example, at Viekšniai and Dusetos).However, the number of pogroms (depending on how we define them, there were one or four), the number of people who suffered during them (there was one fatality) and the damage done were very small compared to the numbers in many other regions of the empire with a large Jewish population. The organisation of Jewish self-defence units and the actions of local authorities were important factors in halting antisemitic violence, but they were scarcely decisive. Jewish self-defence organisations were also formed in towns and cities of the empire where more severe pogroms took place. Self-defence units could put a stop to small incidents of violence or even deter potential "pogromshchiks", but the acquisition of firearms and the use thereof could have a contrary effect and encourage even greater antisemitic wrath. During the pogrom in Dusetos, for example, victims appeared after the Jews began shooting, that is, after Jews were seen to have broken the accepted "rules of the game". The actions of local authorities and sometimes of the central authorities were the same in Lithuania as in other parts of the empire. It is important to stress that there were pogroms in the Grodno Gubernia, also controlled by the governor general of Vilna, and that the Białystok Pogrom resulted in a great number of victims, a situation that was avoided in the Vilna Gubernia. In addition to the country’s economic backwardness, which tended to discourage serious economic rivalry, especially in the towns, an important reason for the small scale of anti-Jewish violence in Lithuania during the 1905 Revolution was the local ethno-confessional situation. Catholics, who made up the majority, were, like the Jews, persecuted by the imperial authorities. Hence, they had no cause to rise to defend the "ancient regime".Furthermore, the Lithuanian national movement, especially its left wing, had not only a clearly expressed anti-imperial character but also on occasion an anti-Russian one. Anti-Polish sentiment was also typical of this movement: The left wing fought against the Polish estate owners for social reasons, while the right wing sought to protect Lithuanians from Polonisation. The antiPolish and anti-Russian nature of the Lithuanian national movement encouraged its members to seek out allies; given the ethnic constitution of Lithuania, only Jews could fulfil this role. This treatment of Jews as potential allies was more typical of a section of the Lithuanian political elite than the peasantry. Still, the message sent to the masses by the leaders of the national movement at least did not generate antipathy towards the Jews, even if it did not encourage the grassroots to regard the Jewish community as Lithuanian allies. [Extract, p. 86-88]