The following my writting story about poet Cvirka in Vilnius shows that Lithuanian elite does not change much. European Union, capitalism, NATO in Lithuania are only Potiomkin village. In reality Lithuanian elite are the same totalitarians, the same thieves and nepotists as in time of Stalin (what do you think, Grandchild of the Patriarch Gabrieliau Landsbergi, oh pardon, Mister Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leader of Ruling Party). Liberals, running Vilnius, started stealing through ladies with whom their sleep in secret from their spouses. When this scandal became known in all country, they started the ruckus about Cvirka. This is common approach of all Lithuanian elite. When you started stealing, shout about those whom you declare serving the Russians.
"Thus, the
fate of the Peter Cvirka monument has been decided. Observing the public space,
we can see that most people do not understand what such a decision is based on.
The first thought that comes to mind for a professional historian watching the
accusations against Cvirka: chaos and misunderstanding.
The accusers usually combine many different things
into one pile: worshiping Stalin, transporting the sun from Moscow, propaganda
texts, participating in repression (accused of even the deaths of thousands of
Lithuanians), leading the Writers' Union, and complaining about a colleague to
the KGB. An excellent example of such a mix is the article by Daiva Vilkelytė
(the author of the certificate about Cvirka), of similar quality and the
certificate itself. It seems to most people that it is simply a mixture of
complementary traits and actions of the writer's personality: if a person
worshiped the system, he was a collaborator, and if a collaborator, he
necessarily participated in repressions and almost destroyed Lithuanian
patriots with his own hands. If you’re already bad, it’s up to the bone marrow.
True, when it
comes to Salomėja Nėris, repression and complaints disappear from the arsenal
of prosecutors, so not everything is that simple - a collaborator is not
necessarily a complainant or a killer, everything is much more complicated.
Thus, the accusations are of various weights, deserving of different legal and
moral assessments. And it is not only about Cvirka that needs to be talked
about - the accusations against him reflect the (partial) public attitude
towards the Soviet era and those who lived then in general. In order to judge
and understand them at least somewhat reasonably, emotions need to be pushed
aside and chaos sorted out.
In order to
understand the essence of the allegations, I would divide them into four
conditional blocks. The first block is personal involvement in the repression
of specific people. Cvirka's signature requesting admission to the USSR did not
lead to subsequent repressions - after all, the request was fiction, the
occupation had already taken place, and the repressions began even before the
elections and signature of the People's Seimas. Specifically, Cvirka was
accused of complaining to the KGB about Kazys Jakubėnas, but Darius Pocevičius
recently proved that this accusation was unfounded and that Cvirka about Jakubėnas
did not complain and did not contribute to the repression. In her response,
Vilkelytė repeated the quotations and collaboration of Cvirka's propaganda
speeches, but basically silenced the history of Jakubėnas. Thus, there are no
arguments. All this means that the decision of the CRD Real Cultural Heritage
Assessment Council of 24.08.2021 not to apply the protection monument has
actually lost its basis - it refers only to the non-application of legal protection
“leaders of the German National Socialist Party or the USSR Communist Party or
other people ”. If participation in the repression is not proven, then Cvirka
was "convicted" incorrectly. Consequently, its monument must be
protected and must not be demolished. Yes, the certificate prepared by
Vilkelytė has legal force, and Pocevičius' article does not, but is the letter
of the law important to us, or if is it true?
If, in
order to demolish that monument that is so dazzling, it is necessary to rely on
crimes that did not exist, how does the current Lithuania differ from the
Stalinist USSR, where the evidence of the accusation was created by security
interrogators?
Anyone who is
indifferent to the pursuit of historical justice, even if they do not like Cvirka
and want to scratch his monument, should strive to do so not by stretching, but
by reasonable facts. In the meantime, I would suggest to indifferent people or
organizations (including the Writers' Union) to legally challenge the decision
of the CRD Real Cultural Heritage Assessment Council (this would suspend its
validity - the legal protection of the monument would return) and apply to the
Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Center.
After all,
court sentences can also be reviewed in the event of new facts (I think
everyone will agree that we are watching a kind of Cvirka court). And
Pocevičius obviously found new facts and presented a more accurate version of
events, therefore, at least for the time being, there are no facts that Cvirka
has participated in the repression of the Lithuanian population. Does that mean
he wasn’t a collaborator? By no means. But about that a little below.
In the
meantime, let us return to the allegations against Cvirka and Co. list.
The second
group of accusations is the Soviet regime, worship of Stalin in public, active
participation in propaganda. There are many texts confirming this for Cvirka. I
don't want to write much on this topic, suffice it to say that almost all the
creators who lived in Stalin's time can be included in this list. The names of
Kazys Bradūnas, Jakubėnas (of the same), Faust Kirša, Antanas Miškinis,
Putinas, Balys Sruoga are flying. And it’s just poetry
a, and where prose, public speeches, journalism -
there was in fact obligatory respect for the system everywhere. And not only in
writing: the competition of the Soviet Lithuanian flag (it is already
politics!) Was attended by the whole ring of young artists, including the
right, and Bronius Pundzius, who recently created the bust of Antanas Smetona, produced
the image of Stalin after the occupation.
What’s more,
what’s less, what’s sincere, what’s adaptable, and what’s out of fear, but
propaganda orders were fulfilled by the majority. Is it necessary to remove
their memorial plaques and rename the streets? It would remain a wilderness in
cultural memory. And trying to count the amount of enthusiasm and certainty
from propaganda texts and arrange the creators accordingly is a difficult task.
I do not say that Cvirka is the same as Antanas Miškinis, only that the
official languages are not a very reliable assessment tool.
The third
group of accusations was not so much the people themselves or their activities,
but the fact that the monuments to them or their interpretations of life and
work helped to establish the Soviet system. It is so often said that the
monument to Cvirka is socrealistic, and its footsteps worship the Soviet system,
even the minister engaged in such semiotics. A minute of searching the internet
and it is obvious that such sculptures "worshiping" the Soviet system
can be found all over the world. Here in the Philippines from 1908 to 1913 a
monument to the hero of the liberation struggle, José Rizal, was erected.
Exactly the same "social realism", a book in hand, a determined look
to the future. Only the memorial is much more pompous. There is no need to look
so far - the monument of 1936 to Vincas Kudirka is very reminiscent of his name
in Naumiestis ... Lenin. Hand raised, gaze into the distance, coat in hand. You
would not know when and for whom it was built, you would say social realism.
Simon Kairys,
a political scientist and lawyer interested in semiotics and Minister of
Culture, should delve deeper into the history of art and the dependence of
interpretations on the context. There aren’t so many sculptural poses anymore,
and social realism has just taken over. Because it is possible to offer to
demolish the First Palace of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which was
built with the intention to worship the system, to show the power of the
Supreme Soviet of the LSSR (that is, to lie about the actual situation - it had
no real powers). But, of course, I do not really deny that the monument to
Cvirka is socialist.
I would say that in an artistic sense it is
probably the most valuable social-realistic monument in Lithuania, and also the
only work of the sculpture classic Juozas Mikėnas left in its place.
And he
worships the Soviet system only in the consciousness of the greatest
anti-Soviets, well, yet historians and art critics scan such intentions. For
most people, it is simply a monument that has no ideological charge for a long
time. It is also constantly emphasized that the monument to Cvirka is not a
writer, but a loyal member of the Communist Party. It is always possible to use
official texts where this will be emphasized, but why are only official
intentions important? We what, in the Communist Party Plenary? After all,
others are possible, as well as Soviet ones. The 1959 Cvirka monument is no
longer Stalinism, but rather the first swallow of warming in the construction
of monuments, it is true not in form (it is socialist) but in content: it is no
longer built for military or political, but for cultural figures.
Among the intentions, in the Lithuanization of
Vilnius spaces is undoubtedly the first Soviet monument in Vilnius for a
Lithuanian, even with a book in his hand.
Demolition by
the intention of the builders alone is not only stupid but also dangerous.
Because it is possible to offer to demolish the First Palace of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, which was built with the intention to worship the
system, to show the power of the Supreme Soviet of the LSSR (that is, to lie
about the actual situation - it had no real powers).
Well, the
constantly emerging "offer" to return Lenin's sculptures, if you are
already so interested in Soviet heritage, is a typical reductio ad absurdum
that can be applied to any Soviet-era artifact. If anyone with a charge of
Soviet ideology is comparable to a monument to Lenin, then they must all be
removed. Seimas I Palace - necessarily. Unfortunately, such an emphasis on
Soviet interpretations is becoming more prevalent.
Julius Janonis
is probably the clearest example of such accusations. After committing suicide
before Lithuania's independence and before the Bolsheviks took power, he was
constantly obstructed by the fact that he was a member of the Bolshevik Party
and that Soviet propaganda tried to create the myth of a romantic revolutionary
from his life. Therefore, the idea of demolishing the monument to him in
Biržai is constantly emerging, the streets are still to be renamed. Since the
poet himself is not very much to blame (membership in the Bolshevik Party
before she was in power and without terror does not provide such an
opportunity), its propaganda use in the Soviet era hinders it, the iron logic
of anti-history fighters needs to be deleted from public space. It is a pity
for the accusers of Janonis himself, he took advantage of it, but it is
necessary in the fight against the Soviet past. Unfortunately, those who think
in this way forget some "details" - that such logic can be applied to
other creators of the past. For example, Žemaitė. If Janonis is an obstacle, the classic of our
literature, which, like Janonis, was used by Soviet propaganda, perhaps even
more, must be an obstacle to its critics of bourgeois, capitalist society.
What about
Juozas Biliūnas? Even the transportation of his remains in 1953 from Zakopane
and almost to him a shrine on Liudiškės mound turned into a manifestation of
Soviet nationality, useful to the regime. Well, the connection between the
built Light of Happiness and communism is not to be ruled out. It is even
strange that you do not hear calls to demolish this bastion of Soviet
propaganda.
And where else
is Kristijonas Donelaitis, with whom everything is clear: serfdom, criticism of
the gentlemen - just a communist writer, no less. Therefore, in the Soviet era,
he is so worshiped, the USSR pushed through the commemoration of its
anniversary on the world stage by UNESCO. And such a list can go on.
Thus, the
first three accusations against Cvirka are either unproven (participation in
repression) or are too broad to fit a large number of creators, particularly
floating to justify the demolition of the monument.
However,
another and the most important accusation remains - political collaboration,
active participation in the government structures of the occupation regime,
holding high positions. Cvirka participated in the activities of the puppet
People's Seimas (he was his second secretary), signed his declaration
requesting Lithuania's admission to the USSR, and participated in the
delegation to Moscow to request it. Despite the fact that in fact such an
activity meant nothing and did not lead to anything (not him, it is another),
it is clearly to be considered a collaboration. That is why the monument to
Cvirka is to be demolished, and attempts to cover it up with participation in
repression or semiotic "insights" of politicians are only a pretext.
And the
question immediately arises: why can't the monument be demolished on the legal
basis of the fact of Cvirka's collaboration, why are those stretches needed?
Everything is very simple - it is enough to look at a small and really
incomplete list of notable collaborators in 1940. I will not miss Salomėja
Nėris, Liudas Gira or Antanas Venclova. There are far fewer obvious, but no
less collaborative individuals. After the occupation of Lithuania, Vincas
Krėvė-Mickevičius became the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime
Minister of the Puppet People's Government, and when he took office, he was in
fact the Prime Minister. I would say collaborator no. 1 (or 2), politically far
more important than Cvirka. Memorial boards, schools, streets, VU auditorium,
literary prize are dedicated to him ... I would advise the renaming people to
roll up their sleeves - a lot of work awaits. Ernestas Galvanauskas, the former
Prime Minister of Lithuania, agreed to become a member of the People's
Government and was the Minister of Finance. Street, nominal scholarship at
Klaipeda University, vocational training center ... Liudas Dovydėnas is not
only the Deputy Speaker of the People's Seimas, but also the Deputy Speaker of
the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the LSSR. Formally, the posts are very
high, a definite collaborator. Like others on this list, did not retreat to the
USSR, avoided shooting, lived in the West. 1996 awarded the Order of Gediminas
of the 4th degree, the school named after him and the Writers' Union Prize for
the best novel. (Again, the writers didn't hit ...)
Stasys
Raštikis, the former commander of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, called not to
oppose the occupiers at the last meeting of the Lithuanian government, and
after the occupation was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Chief Liquidation Commission
of the Ministry of National Defense. This fact is silenced on Lithuanian
Wikipedia, but in 1996 Kaunas NCO School was named after the division general
Stasys Raštikis, and a monument to the general was erected there. Just a great
example of patriotism during the occupation for non-commissioned officers. By
the way, it is ironic that the Kazlų Rūda training ground handed over to this
school was named after Kazys Veverskis (one of the leaders of the anti-national
and anti-Soviet resistance, the creator of the Lithuanian Freedom Army). The
commander of real resistance symbolically obeys the traitor general. One
remains to marvel at the selective blindness of the patriotic KAM, which is as
interested in history as, to put it mildly, here. Maybe enough, the reader has
already figured out where to turn.
And why the
fact of collaboration cannot be used by politicians as the sole argument in the
Cvirka monument case. Because if the monument to Cvirka is demolished as a
result of collaboration, it is necessary to rename all the objects and remove
all the boards commemorating the people just listed (and not just them). That
is why paragraph 10.4 of the recently adopted Ministerial Order, on which the
CRD's Council for the Assessment of Immovable Cultural Heritage relied, does
not mention collaboration, let alone worship the Soviet regime. That is,
politicians fighting the Soviet past did not dare to evaluate the collaboration
unequivocally bad. And I’m glad that even those who see black and white mostly
in the past still did not dare to go further - common sense still exists.
However, this
does not mean that collaboration is good or that there is no need to discuss
it. On the contrary, it is necessary to discuss it precisely because it is a
very difficult thing, when in times of radical change a person knows little and
is distracted by propaganda winds. Here the famous Vidkun Quisling was
undoubtedly a patriot of Norway, only connecting her future with Germany. Why
can't it be assumed that Cvirka and other collaborators were Lithuanian
patriots, who saw the union with the USSR as the only way out? Before the
occupation, deliberations "as far as possible" - Germany or the USSR
- were widespread in Lithuania.
The activities
of Venclova or Justas Paleckis in the cultural sphere show real patriotism.
Whether this justifies their collaboration is another question. We do not know
what the collaborators knew about the situation in the USSR and what they
expected in the 1940s. There is evidence that Cvirka and Venclova planned to
reduce military spending and increase culture and education, which would
indicate that they were thinking, at least initially, about Lithuania's status
as a relatively independent protectorate. Before "joining" the USSR,
the press constantly emphasized that the Union had a common foreign policy,
army, law and finances, and outside these countries, the state republic
exercised state power independently. We don’t know how much Cvirka and others
believed that. This does not destroy the fact of their collaboration, it just
shows that not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance, and
sometimes it is worth asking: is collaboration always a crime? During the
discussion on collaboration, we would probably see that the tops of the
"wars" about Cvirka are repeated. Leading the army in the interwar
period outweighs collaboration in the face of occupation (how Cvirka’s writer’s
talent outweighs collaboration). It would be recalled that an active
collaborator could have seen, like Krėvė and Dovydėnas, without leaving with
the Soviets at the beginning of the war.
And what to do
with the poet Vytautas Montvila, who has not left for the USSR, and who is also
a constant obstacle? Juozas Baltušis remembered that Montvila was disappointed
with the Soviet regime some time after the occupation, maybe because of that he
did not leave. But there were no intercessors like Kreve, and he was shot as a
Komsomol member, even though he was not. Montvila did not hold any high
positions even in the Soviet Writers' Union - he cannot be considered a
political collaborator. Krėvė and Dovydėnas are collaborators, but they
remained. It seems that we still value the Soviets, only the opposite
Does the fact
that they "saw" erode their collaboration? After all, the
participation of Krėvė and Galvanauskas in the puppet government reassured the
society, which hoped that nothing terrible would happen in Lithuania, if such
respected people were in power. This had a greater impact than the speech of
Cvirka, who was still known as Bolshevik during the interwar period, not to
mention the poems of Montvila. Why do we treat Montvila differently? Because of
the difference in their talents or because Montvila was used by Soviet
propaganda in the style of Janonis? The dead have no right to vote? It seems
that we still value the Soviets, but vice versa: Cvirka and Montvila were
worshiped by the regime, so they should be deleted, and Krėvė and Dovydėnas -
no, so they are good.
Perhaps we
really need to go through a process analogous to post-war denacification and
condemn the names of collaborators damnatio memoriae - oblivion. Perhaps this
is necessary for the psychological public health. I can't rule it out, but in
that case let's be "scared", but rightly so - not only Cvirka has
collaborated and all collaborators need to be treated equally.
P. S. After
writing this text, I read an article by Kęstutis Girnius. What seems important
is his question, whether the still standing monument of Cvirka shows less state
and national self-esteem than the Western attitude towards Nazi collaborators,
as Girnius thinks? Maybe. Or maybe different historical experiences have led to
different behaviors as well? 1941 Lithuania still has a recent memory of the
long and harsh occupation of tsarist Russia, which allowed for a completely
different assessment of adaptation. Western European countries have not
experienced occupation for centuries, and collaboration and cooperation with
the Nazis has really dealt a blow to the pride of their populations. A
particularly striking example of France is that, after the war, the shame of
adapting was offset by myths about the resistance of the whole nation, even
though the vast majority of the French people cooperated with the Nazis until Nazis
reaped victories.
Another way to
compensate is to condemn those who did not fit too clearly into such a glorious
image. But the participants in the June uprising did not touch the
collaborators who held high positions during the occupation - all they had to
do was write repentant texts. Shoot the non-communist Montvila or Vincas
Grybas, and this is perhaps due to being mistaken for communists.
Perhaps the
history of Lithuania told the rebels that adaptation while living here is
difficult to avoid and therefore a less serious crime?
But those
interwar times are long gone. Sometimes it seems that it was from the Soviet
era that we inherited some kind of demolition "gene". At that time,
almost all monuments to independence or to the dukes were demolished in
Lithuania, and the neighboring Latvians were not so fierce - a huge monument to
independence stood in the center of Riga near the relatively small Lenin
throughout the Soviet era. And now and again it is necessary to cleanse from
the slightest manifestations of the unquenchable past, only the already Soviet.
And this is
not a public decision - public can in no way agree on the assessment of Cvirka and
his monument. The attempt to ignore this and to use the temporary power to
decide for everyone is a testament to the rather deplorable state of democracy
in Lithuania, the reluctance to find a consensus in the debate, even if it will
last another twenty years. And this poses a much greater threat to Lithuania
than a silent monument to a collaborator. And the worry that these lines
written in 1954 still are turning into reality:
I think,
That everyone poet
Must be
prosecutor
To the enemy."
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą