16-osios lietuviškosios šaulių divizijos kariai žydai: istorija ir atminimas

LTAtkūrus Lietuvos nepriklausomybę, susitelkimas į Holokausto problematiką ir istorijos mokslo desovietizacijos pastangos trukdė įdėmiau pažvelgti į Lietuvos žydų dalies, nacistinės Vokietijos ir Sovietų Sąjungos karo metais patekusios į 16-ąją lietuviškąją šaulių diviziją (LŠD), likimą. Tuo tarpu Antrojo pasaulinio karo laikotarpiu sukurtas ir vėlesniais sovietmečio periodais palaikytas 16-osios LŠD naratyvas (kaip Didžiojo Tėvynės karo mitas) su tikrąja šio Raudonosios armijos (RA) junginio istorija turėjo mažai ką bendra. Sovietmečiu karo metų įvykiai buvo perteikiami vadovaujantis ideologinės sistemos ir politinės konjunktūros reikalavimais. Didžiojo Tėvynės karo mitas buvo pradėtas dekonstruoti nepriklausomos Lietuvos laikotarpiu, sykiu dekonstruotas (bet ne perkurtas) ir sovietmečiu sukurtas 16-osios LŠD vaizdinys. Tačiau 16-osios LŠD karių žydų, jų frontinio gyvenimo realybė bei ekstremaliomis karo sąlygomis tarpusių santykių su ginklo draugais (lietuvių ir rusų tautybių kariais) tema neretai buvo apeinama kaip „nepatogus“ klausimas. Atsižvelgiant į susiklosčiusią istoriografinę situaciją, monografijoje „16-osios lietuviškosios šaulių divizijos kariai žydai. Istorija ir atminimas“ susitelkta į dvejopą tyrimo objektą (ir tikslą): 1) mikrolygmenį – žydų karių tarnybos 16-ojoje LŠD patirtis ir 2) makrolygmenį – šio RA junginio bei jo žydiškojo dėmens panaudą SSRS (Lietuvos SSR), lietuvių išeivijos JAV, Izraelio, nepriklausomos Lietuvos naratyvuose, atminimo kultūrose ir Rusijos Federacijos inspiruoto „informacinio karo“ erdvėje. Monografijoje, įvertinus 16-osios LŠD žydų karių istorijos ir atminimo kontroversijas, atskleidžiami kompleksiški skirtingų požiūrių į šio RA junginio istoriją aspektai, kuriantys prielaidas atsisakyti tiek jo vaizdinio romantizavimo, tiek nuvertinimo ir marginalizavimo. [patogupirkti.lt]

ENIn the years of Soviet occupation, Jewish history and culture were ignored, their heritage devastated, and the theme of Holocaust got into official historiography, with rare exceptions, only in the shape of cliches approved by Soviet ideology, i.e. labelling it as the massacres of Sower people, Soviet citizens, peaceful people, or civilians. After the restoration of Lithuania's independence, an academic discourse of Jewish history began to take shape. Not only did research in the cultural heritage of the Litvaks start, but efforts were also made to study the history of Jewish communities which were to reveal the significance of the Jewish ethnic-religious group in the texture of the State of Lithuania (and its statehood). The history of the Holocaust was also included, in order not only to factually reveal the process of killing the majority of Jewish citizens in Lithuania, but also to create preconditions for the contemporary Lithuanian society to perceive the Jewish genocide as the bloodiest page of the history of Lithuania as well as the Lithuanian nation in the 20th century. On the other hand, the focus on the problems of the Holocaust and the efforts to de-Sovietise the science of history hindered a closer look at the fate of the Lithuanian Jews who joined the Red Army during the war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Therefore, the topic of Jewish soldiers serving in the 16th Lithuanian Rifle Division, their daily life on the front, and relations with their companions-in-arms (Lithuanian and Russian soldiers) in extreme war conditions was often bypassed as an „awkward" issue.The 16th Division was one of the units of the Red Army formed on a territorial basis during the Second World War (or, in accordance with the prevailing version of the Russian remembrance culture, the Great Patriotic War). The resolution of the Soviet Defense Committee of 18 December 1941 to form a division as a predominantly Lithuanian military unit was politicised. The 16th Division was to become a tool of the Kremlin intended to strengthen its political claims to Lithuania as an integral part of the USSR. The image was formed that, during the war, the Lithuanian nation did not give up and actively supported the Soviet government, while the 16th Division defended the actual interests of Lithuanian society on the front. This image was further developed in the Soviet narrative. It sought to establish the aforementioned propaganda cliche which had little in common with reality. The events of the war years were conveyed in accordance with the requirements of the ideological system and political conjuncture. The idealised and ideologicised narrative of the 16th Division, which had prevailed during the Soviet era, began to change in the years of Lithuania's National Revival. During the period in question, quite a few images that the Soviet regime had previously tried to inculcate in the public were questioned, including the images of the Division as a Lithuanian unit and the Division as a liberator. The historiography of independent Lithuania has quite extensively studied the history of the 16th Division as a military unit: the composition of the Division, its military preparedness, maneuvers, and participation in hostilities. Nevertheless, so far, either in the historiography of Lithuania or other countries there has been no more consistent research into the "microclimate" of the 16th Division: soldiers' morale, motivation, loyalty to the Soviet regime, relationships between soldiers of different ethnic groups, and recollections in communities. [.Given the current historiographical situation, the authors of the monograph focused on a dual research object: 1) the experience of the military service of the Jews in the 16th Lithuanian Rifle Division and 2) the place of the said Red Army unit in the remembrance cultures of contemporary Lithuania, Israel, and the Russian Federation. A comprehensive analysis of the Second World War-formed material and social forms of people's daily routines, the microworld of their lives, and the ways of their thinking and behaviour was chosen as the best way to get to know the front experiences of Jewish soldiers who had served in the 16th Division and to reveal their relationships with the non-Jewish soldiers in the same military unit. In the studies of the history of soldiers' daily routine, traditional historical sources (archival documents, publications in the press) were supplemented by the material of oral history, memoirs, diaries, and letters. The analysis of ego-documents (diaries, letters, and memoirs) in the research in the Second World War and Sovietology had been of exceptional importance. [From the publication]