Lietuvos valstybingumo raida 1914-1918 metais

LTMonografijos autoriaus tyrimo objektas - Lietuvos valstybingumo raida Pirmojo pasaulinio karo laikotarpiu. Joje nagrinėjama, kokius tautos apsauginės (juridinės) būties modelius tuomet kūrė lietuvių politikai ir kaip stengėsi juos įgyvendinti. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Tautų apsisprendimas; Valstybės statusas; Tautinė demokratija; Valstybės atkūrimas; Limitotrofinė valstybė; Neomonarchizmas; Tautinė valstybė; Etnopolitinė orientacija; Lietuvos integralumas; Self-determinations of nations; State status; National democracy; Restoration of the state; Limitotrophic State; Neomonarchism; Nation state; Ethnopolitical orientation; Integrity of Lithuania.

ENA theme about the statehood includes a lot of questions. It is possible to speak about the realization of the statehood, its ways, means and methods, about the evolution of the statehood idea, its formation, stagnation, decline and rebirth, finally about the concept itself as about mental being of thą political society, as a synonym of the state, as, in general, about the elements of the state and about everything that is the state. According to the polysemantic meaning of the statehood concept it is used in the monograph in the meaning of the protectional (judicial) existence of a nation. We have chosen the question of the Lithuanian statehood from 1914 to 1918 as an object of our research and have discussed the models of the protectional (judicial) existence of a nation which had been matured by the Lithuanian politicians during World War I, its geopolitical character, ideological background, organizational structure and introduction into practice. In the historical literature the genesis of the Lithuanian statehood 1914-1918 is linked with two factors: the geopolitical constellation and the pecularities of the historical development of Lithuania. The latter are usually framed by the alternatives of national-peasant or Polish Lithuania (P. Klimas, Z. Ivinskis, В. Colliander, A. E. Senn, A. Eidintas, etc.). This premise is an especially characteristic feature of the national Lithuanian historiography and occurs as well in the works of the Soviet historians (B. Vaitkevičius, P. Vitkauskas), so it gives virtually no opportunity for the Lithuanian politicians of the 20th century to create the alternative ethnopolitical projects to Lithuania and complicates their analysis (P. Čepėnas, V. Trumpa).The other standpoint is represented by the historians who managed to perceive the alternatives of the historical process in Lithuania in a dichotomy of the national-peasant and civic Lithuania and who first of all derived the variety of the political orientation of the Lithuanians from it (M. Römeris, M. Biržiška, the Group of Studies of Lithuanian Rebirth History and with some reservations: Z. JundziH, J. Bardach, J. Jurkiewicz, W. Sukiennicki). The representatives of this historiographic group have used the historical-judicial and political-sociological sections that are applied in this book too. The basis of the sources of the book is formed from the published collections of documents, memoirs of the politicians of that time, periodicals and archival material (diaries of the Lithuanian politicians, epistolary, protocols of the conferences, documents from the offices of Foreign Affairs of the Great Powers, etc.) preserved in archives of Lithuania, Russia, Great Britain, France and the USA. The universally acknowledged geopolitical turning point of September, 1915 (O. Fedyshyn, K. Hovi, O. Hovi, D. Stevenson and others), became a criterion which stimulated the division of the book into two periods (the separate parts of the book): from June 1914 to September 1915 and from September 1915 to November 1918. In the first part the geostrategic visions of Europe, characteristic to the Continent at the second half of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th centuries, are discussed too. Since the second half of the 19th century the nationalism of small nations in Eastern and Central Europe forced the Empires to find new ways to ensure the functioning of a legitimate system. It proved that such Europe as created by the Congress of Vienna could not exist longer without radical reforms. One of the ways out appeared to be a national principle revealed by dependant communities for a protection of their ethnographic specifications.So with recognition of the status of an ethnic nation a tension between nationalism and legitimacy was reduced. The nationalism was given an opportunity for self-expression in a public (legal) way and legitimacy was quiet about its juridical monopoly, because at that time, according to the law, the ethnicity did not suppose a secession of the state. The appliance of these clauses touched upon the former Polish Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). Seeking to eliminate a restitutio in integrum possibility of the abolished-by-force state, Russia and Germany tried to limit the Polish liberation movement in the territory of ethnographic Poland and supported the anti-Polish policy of each other in the North-Western region and the region of Poznań. In this case Russian administration while setting of the ethnography against the political aspirations of the noblemen of the country, tried to emerge the strata of Lithuanianspeaking subjects who were loyal to the Empire and persuade public opinion that Russia was the only successor of the statehood of the GDL. [Extract, p. 208-209]

• Politikos mokslai / Political sciences
• Istorija / History