Lietuvos šaulių sąjungos ir buvusių karių organizacijų bendros veiklos apžvalga (1923-1940)

LTStraipsnyje aptariamas Lietuvos šaulių sąjungos ir septynių buvusių karių organizacijų bendradarbiavimas 1923–1940 m. Analizuojami organizacijų įstatai, atkreipiant dėmesį į jų veiklos tikslus, kurių lyginimas leido nustatyti, kas jas siejo ir skyrė. Nagrinėjama, kokiose srityse ir kaip kiekviena buvusių karių organizacija bendradarbiavo su Lietuvos šaulių sąjunga. Išskirtinis dėmesys skiriamas Lietuvos kariuomenės kūrėjų savanorių sąjungai, nes kūrėjus savanorius ir šaulius siejo Nepriklausomybės kovų patirtis ir šaulių kiekis organizacijoje, lėmę aktyvesnį bendradarbiavimą. Atskleidžiamas Lietuvos šaulių sąjungos laikraščio „Trimitas“ indėlis pristatant organizacijas visuomenei ir skatinant bendradarbiavimą, nes tik Žydų karių sąjunga turėjo laikraštį „Apžvalga“, o kitos buvusių karių organizacijos periodinių leidinių neturėjo, tik leisdavo metinius arba proginius žurnalus. Visas organizacijas siejo noras puoselėti valstybingumą ir pasiryžimas prireikus ginti savo valstybę. [Iš leidinio]

ENFrom 1923 to 1940, seven organisations of former soldiers were in operation in Lithuania, i.e. Lithuanian Military Disability Union (Fraternity) ‘Vyčiai’ (Lithuanian Military Disability Union (1923), the Reserve Officers’ Union ( Lithuanian Reserve Officers’ Union (1924), the Lithuanian Army Creators Volunteers’ Union (1927), the Union of Jewish Soldiers, who participated in the battles for Independence (1933), the Corporation of Reserve Officers of Vytautas Magnus University ‘Ramovė’ (1935), and the Union of Army Forerunners (1937), which cooperated with the Riflemen’s Union in various respects. The study used the archive materials on the basis of which the aims and the publicised sources were compared. The sources were the newspaper ‘Trimitas’ issued by the Riflemen’s Union, which provided the information for the analysis of the former organisations and the possibility to answer the question of who the closest co-workers of the riflemen were. The common activity of the organisations of the former soldiers and the Riflemen’s Union was analysed by comparing their aims identified in the statute. It was found that the aims of all organisations were very similar, with the exception of the Union of Jewish Soldiers (JS), which was the only one to provide the idea of propagation of the RU (the Riflemen’s Union) ideas. Three organisations, i.e. the Lithuanian Military Disabled Union, Vytautas Magnus University Students Reserve Officers’ Corporation ‘Ramovė’, and the Army Forerunners’ Union, include an obligation in their regulations to cooperate with the organisations propagating the same ideas. Other organisations, such as the Lithuanian Military Disability Union ‘Vyčiai’, the Lithuanian Military Reserve Officers’ Union and the Lithuanian Army Creators Volunteers’ Union, did not include such obligation.The conclusion may be that the organisations of former soldiers in their statute failed to clearly define common actions with the RU. However, it may be stated that it was not only the aims that described cooperation with the RU. In fact, they were very patriotic organisations, and all joined members were involved in former battles for their homeland and were strongly determined to devote their lives to the welfare of the country. Their provisions were very close to the values of the RU and created conditions for common actions. The closest ties with the RU were maintained by the Lithuanian Army Creators Volunteers’ Union, which had their branch of riflemen volunteers in Kaunas. This organisation was actively supported by the RU by publishing relative information in their newspaper ‘Trimitas’. Also, the Vytautas Magnus University Reserve Officers’ Corporation ‘Ramovė’ was outstanding in its active cooperation with the RU, which joined the RU in corpore in 1938 and was the only one to behave like that. The Union of JS also had a group of riflemen members in Panevėžys; however, the organisations failed to actively cooperate. The common actions between the Military Disabled organisation and the RU were fragmentary and restricted only to celebrations of public holidays or congratulations on the occasions of annual congresses. Even though the cooperation between RU and organisations of former soldiers was of a different level, and more often, they operated separately, they were all united in cherishing statehood and determination to defend the homeland in case of need. [From the publication]