In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

8 Was Lithuania a Pogrom-Free Zone? (1881–1940) VLADAS SIRUTAVICIUS AND DARIUS STALIUNAS Until very recently, evaluations of the relations between Lithuanians and Jews generally reflected the ethnic identity of individual authors. Thus, Lithuanian and general historiography asserted that—prior to the events of 1941—life in Lithuania was not characterized by everyday violence against Jews, to say nothing of eruptions of mass violence described as anti-Jewish pogroms.1 In contrast, some Jewish authors considered that conflict and a level of violence that foreshadowed the Holocaust prevailed in Lithuanian–Jewish relations prior to 1941.2 Postulating a tradition of nonviolence, Lithuanians sought to explain some local inhabitants’ participation in the mass killing of Jews by emphasizing the influence of the policies of Nazi Germany. Jewish historians interpreted the events of 1941 and those following as a manifestation of a deep Lithuanian hostility toward Jews that could be triggered by certain political conditions. Recent research suggests that both sets of explanations are far too simplistic. In order to better understand the post-1941 situation, it is vital to examine anti-Jewish violence as well as other aspects of interethnic relations in the preceding period. A useful starting point is a consideration of the first modern mass violence against Jews in Eastern Europe, the pogroms of 1881–1882. The assumption of contemporaries and of modern historiography was that the so-called northwest region of the Russian Empire (present-day Lithuania and Belarus) managed to avoid pogroms, unlike the empire’s southern, Ukrainian region.3 Recently, Russian historians have challenged this assumption.4 To resolve this dispute, it would be useful to offer a specific definition of what phenomena fall into the category of a “pogrom.” Usually, the term pogrom is defined as a collective act of violence committed by one segment of the population against another. The term is usually applied to anti-Jewish acts aimed at the destruction of property or violence against individuals, in some instances even leading to fatalities.5 WAS LITHUANIA A POGROM-FREE ZONE? (1881–1940) 145 Collective acts of violence are analyzed in academic literature on the basis of several criteria: their mass character, intensity, and duration. While there is a basic scholarly consensus regarding these indicators, there is less agreement about their qualitative aspects. For example, what are the benchmarks for the degree of intensity, the number of participants, or the duration ? Are the three indicators of equal importance? The authors of this article seek to answer these questions in the course of an examination of anti-Jewish violence in the northwest region of the tsarist empire, and interwar Lithuania. A pogrom is defined simply as acts of violence committed by a group of people against Jews, who are targeted specifically because of their identity as Jews. The violence must have a mass character, occurring either in areas of concentration, such as marketplaces , or dispersed over a specific inhabited area. Special attention is directed to the mass nature of the violence, particularly to its intensity, the involvement of groups, as well as to whether the aggression was directed against property and/or persons. We do not consider duration to be of equal significance, since it was shaped by such factors as the number of people involved, the intensity of the acts of violence, and the actions of the authorities . On the other hand, we argue that the reaction of the responsible authorities (primarily local) should be an important indicator that shapes collective acts of violence. It is precisely the reaction of public authorities— indicated by their assessment of the situation and their practical actions— that best demonstrates the social importance and significance of eruptions of coercion and violence. The causes of pogroms are a topic of continued scholarly debate. Some researchers argue for the impossibility of ever establishing precise causality .6 Those who do, fall into two broad categories: those who find psychological explanations, seeking the sources of violence in the individual’s mentality and behavior, and those who favor structural factors, considering that various social, economic, and political changes in society prompt ethnic tension, aggression, and eruptions of violence. These are not hardand -fast categories, and some scholars have attempted to combine them.7 Utilizing existing scholarship, we seek to ascertain what factors prompted ethnic tensions to intensify and develop into pogroms in the lands of Lithuania. The most recent research has demonstrated that, contrary to past assumptions , pogroms in Lithuania occurred and were not just isolated phenomena . True, growing tensions between...

Share