Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania, 1918-1924

Author(s): Tomas Balkelis

Source: Journal of Baltic Studies , Winter 2003, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Winter 2003), pp. 432-
456
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43212553

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Baltic Studies

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania,
1918 - 1924

Tomas Balkelis, University of Toronto

Abstract. This paper explores how population displacement operated in Lithua

in the immediate post-WWI period. In 1 9 1 8 the disintegration of the old imper
polity led to the emergence of a Lithuanian state. Beyond the field of battle, th
struggle to maintain the independence of Lithuania was characterised by
intense process of state and nation-building. All this hectic activity w
accompanied by population displacement on a scale first witnessed in 1915-16.
Unlike the military campaigns, these state-building efforts did not come to a
end in 1920. My argument is that population displacement presented t
Lithuanian authorities with an opportunity to claim and to establish Lithuan
refugees as potential members of a new nation-state, thereby defining its spati
demographic and cultural boundaries. The newly formed Lithuania offere
potential political homeland for tens of thousands of war refugees of variou
ethnic groups who had lived in the former north-western provinces before 1 9 1
but who were displaced by war. According to rough estimates, the total number
Lithuanian refugees who settled in the Russian interior stood at 550,000 at t
beginning of 1918. My paper explores their fate in the post-war period as well a
official policies of the new Lithuanian state adopted towards the refugees.
The logic of the homogenising national state required that the refugees had t
be persuaded or forced to abandon their divergent and multiple identities born
exile and rooted down in the single space of the national homeland. Nevertheless
the spatial pattern of 'the homeland' was still in flux, due to the border wa
between Lithuania, Soviet Russia and Poland in 1918-20. As a result, som
refugees were excluded from the ranks of Lithuanian citizenry. Their diffic
situation was further aggravated by famine in Russia in 1921, which called f
cooperation between Soviet Russia, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. Thus, on t
one hand, the refugees served as a focus for the propaganda of the belligere
states, while on the other hand their uncontrollable movement compelle
governments to co-operate.
The paper is based on two collections of primary documents: the files of th
Lithuanian Ministries of the Interior and Foreign Affairs.

Today stalemate
stalemateweandknow
trench
andwarfare,
that trench
in Eastern
if, in warfare,
Europe itthesetWest,
millions
in World Eastern War Europe I was characterized it set millions by
walking. Some historians suggested that by July 1917 the numbers of
displaced populations might have reached a figure of six million in the
former Russian Empire alone.1 Undoubtedly, such a mass movement of
peoples has left certain traces on histories of states, nations, and societies
of the region. The impact of displacement has recently become a hot
subject of study among different scholars.2
In this paper, I explore how population displacement operated in one
part of the former Russian Empire. In 1918 the disintegration of the old
imperial polity led to the emergence of an independent Lithuanian state.3
Yet, having emerged from the cauldron of World War I, the new state

JBS, Vol XXXIV, No 4 (Winter 2003) 432

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 433

quickly found itself immersed in new conflicts with Polish, Soviet a

White Russian armies. These conflicts continued until the end of 1920.
Beyond the field of battle, the struggle to maintain the independence of
Lithuania was characterised by an intense process of state and nation-
building, led by a young and ambitious nationalist elite. All this hectic
activity was accompanied by population displacement on a scale first
witnessed in 1915 and 1916. According to rough estimates, the total
number of Lithuanian refugees who settled in the Russian interior stood at
550,000 at the beginning of 191 8.4
If one can assume that a national identity of a people or ethnos is
usually premised on their continuous occupation of a single space, then the
emerging contours of Lithuanian nationalism implied that the displaced and
itinerant groups of population had to be domesticated or 'rooted down'.
Their itinerant identities and shifting political loyalties had to be
transformed into sedentary and fixed. Only those who would adopt
'homeland' as opposed to 'exile' could be construed as loyal citizens of the
new state. The need to domesticate the returning refugees implied that they
had to be registered, examined, classified, quarantined, screened and, if
necessary, rejected as 'undesirable elements' by the state institutions
responsible for their repatriation.
Unlike the military campaigns, these state-building efforts did not
come to an end in 1920. My argument in this article is that population
displacement presented the Lithuanian authorities with an opportunity to
claim and to establish Lithuanian refugees as potential members of a new
nation-state, thereby defining its spatial, demographic and ethnic
boundaries. The newly formed Lithuania offered a potential political
homeland for tens of thousands of war refugees of various ethnic groups
who had lived in the former provinces of Kaunas, Vilnius and Grodno
before 1914, but who were displaced by war. What was their fate in the
immediate post-war period? What policies did the new Lithuanian state
adopt towards them? To what extent were these policies a part of nation-
building in Lithuania?
I consider Lithuanian refugees as a specific socio-cultural category
continuously shaped not only by growing state repatriation strategies, but
also by the refugees' own experience of displacement. What motives
prompted them to return to Lithuania? What kind of personal choices did
they face as a consequence of their exile in Russia? How did those choices
affect the formation of their post-war identities and self-awareness? Did
their perceptions of a Lithuanian 'homeland' correspond to those
articulated by the state authorities, or did they try to develop their own
meanings of it?

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
434 Tomas Balkelis

The Chronology of Repatriation

The most intensive burst of repatriation took place in the ye

and 1920- 1921. 5 The return of refugees from Russia to Lithuan
shortly after the signing of the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk i
1918, and initially took place under the control of the German
government.6 The first refugee trains started reaching Lithuan
1918.7 Their return was an irregular process, which was interrup
outbreak of fresh hostilities in 1919 between the newly formed L
army, German troops and Bolshevik forces, who occupied most
Lithuania. But for some refugees (especially for those who were
in areas adjacent to Lithuania) the shifting and often fluid
boundaries presented an opportunity rather than an obstacle to th
home. Under the brief Bolshevik occupation, which lasted un
expulsion in August 1919, thousands of war refugees found their
Belorussia and Russia to eastern parts of Lithuania.8 In all, aroun
refugees returned to Lithuania in 1918 and 1919.
The state-organised return of refugees became possible only
conclusion of the Lithuanian-Soviet Russian peace treaty on 12 J
The treaty confirmed the border between Lithuania and Soviet R
made repatriation the business of state officials. This treaty, as
Lithuanian-Soviet Russian refugee return agreement (signed o
1920), marked the end of the 'spontaneous' repatriation of re
Official registration of those refugees willing to return to
continued until the end of 1922." By 1924 most of the refu
expressed the desire to return to Lithuania had left Soviet Russi
estimate is that around 350,000 refugees found their way to
during 1918-1924. For a country with a total population of appr
2.2 million, this meant that every sixth citizen was a refugee. M
about 185, 000 refugees chose not to, or could not return to Lith
quite a considerable loss in the demographic structure of
Lithuania.12
Repatriation in 1918 until the beginning of 1920, and from mid- 1920
until 1924 occurred under differing political conditions. Consequently, we
can identify distinct features both in the strategies of state officials and the
behaviour of the refugees. The essential difference between these two
periods remained the degree of state efforts to control, select, screen and, if
possible, to 'fix' the returning masses of refugees.13

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 435

The First Phase: Spontaneous Return, 1918 to mid-1920

According to Martynas Yeas, the Chairman of the Lithuanian Wa

Relief Committee (LWRC), formed in 1914, his staff laid the foundation
for an independent Lithuanian state, among the Lithuanian war refugees.1
Although its role as 'maker of the nation' subsequently became offic
orthodoxy, and tended to drown out the voices of ordinary refugees, th
LWRC played a crucial role in the early stage of repatriation. Its activiti
were instrumental in shaping the fragile national identities of the
Lithuanian refugees in exile. The committee was committed to securing n
only the political or cultural loyalties of the refugees but also to acting
the guardian of their values. As Yeas claimed:

The Committee provided care for hundreds of thousands of the

Lithuanians and protected their dispersed masses from moral degradation.
... Those who lost their national consciousness and had been transformed
into live corpses of our nation, joined in the common work with a new
impulse of love for our nation.15

The ideological guidelines of the LWRC included the goal "t

strengthen the ties of refugees with Lithuania and Lithuanian culture, an
to maintain among them a strong desire to return to their homeland."16 N
surprisingly, the committee was in the forefront of attempts to return
refugees to Lithuania after the Brest-Litovsk treaty at the beginning of
1918. Given the weakness of the Lithuanian government in 1918, whi
had yet to resolve its relationship with the German authorities, the LW
was the only institution capable of such a task at this time. It possessed
large network of around 250 local offices, which attended to the needs o
more than 100,000 Lithuanian refugees. The committee immediatel
started the registration of refugees through its local offices in the forme
Russian empire.
The task of making contact with potential returnees was easier wher
refugees formed tightly knit communities or belonged to various charitab
organizations, orphanages, hospitals and schools, as in Moscow, Petrograd
Voronezh, Kharkov, and Minsk. In these instances it was relatively
straightforward to register individuals. The Ukrainian Relief Committee
proceeded with the repatriation of 1 50 mentally handicapped patients, wh
had been evacuated from Vilnius in 1915. 17 Where appropriate, Lithuania
leaders negotiated with the German authorities. Thus the representative
the Georgian war relief committee, Pranas Dailidé, secured the permissio
of German officials to send Lithuanian refugees from Tbilisi back
Lithuania.18

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
436 Tomas Balkelis

However, many refugees, having heard news of the peace

proceeded to organize their return to Lithuania spontane
Ekaterinoslav they elected a committee (mostly from the ran
intelligentsia) and entrusted it with the task of securing the
permits and transportation.19 In Minsk a local relief committee c
its ranks five representatives responsible for repatriation. The firs
of Lithuanian refugees from Ekaterinoslav had to bribe various
and Russian officials eight times before it reached its destination.2
The motives that prompted refugees to return to Lithuania wer
and complex. Their 'emotional' attachment to their native environ
to family 'roots' was only one of the dominant motives facing th
pressures to which they were exposed and the adverse polit
- economic circumstances in which they found themselves. Other
included an ideological attachment to the cause of independent L
an expectation of better career and livelihood prospects, and con
basic safety and survival. If patriotic attachment was more p
among groups of the displaced intelligentsia, the fear of star
widespread among the majority of refugees. But in any event, th
of patriotism was itself subject to a shift in meaning.
The experience of 'exile', revolution and enemy action forc
refugees to redefine and re-evaluate their notions of 'homeland', h
reinforce their cultural and ethnic identities and to set them apart fr
populations. Thus, Veronika Janulaityté, a German-educated
working among Lithuanian refugees in Minsk, wrote in her memo

There was a revolution in Russia. Lithuanians became eager to retur

their homeland. They travelled by train, in horse carriages or by f
Minsk fell into the hands of Germans. The Lithuanian refugees wer
allowed to return to Lithuania. (But) Nobody wanted to stay in Russia

Significantly, Janulaityté complained that "nobody was waitin

in Lithuania". Not surprisingly, many felt the same way ha
personal contact with their relatives for several years.
The surviving evidence reveals something of the kaleidos
emotions that refugees experienced as they weighed up the choic
returning to the newly reconstituted homeland and staying in R
Ukraine. Many, totally disoriented by the hectic pace of events, f
to make a clear-cut choice. A deserter from the Tsarist army
Balčiūnas, expressed his uncertainty and doubt in the following te

When I return to the time [of 1918], I see more darkness than light i
soul ... It was a kind of chaos, neither peace, nor war; of revolution
Russia and in Germany; of the consolidation of an indepen

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 437

Lithuanian state. ... On the other hand - corruption and exploitation were
common everywhere. . .

Nevertheless, after some hesitation Švaistas-Balčiūnas chose to return

to his native land, but confusion and insecurity were common among those
refugees whose every day in exile was a struggle for survival.
As early as 1918, the Lithuanian refugees faced attempts by both
Bolshevik authorities and representatives of the LWRC to secure their
political loyalties. The ideals of the proletarian revolution seemed to
promise to many Lithuanian war refugees a bright future as citizens of the
first Soviet state. Numerous Bolshevik organizations vigorously conducted
socialist propaganda among the Lithuanian refugees, and in some cases
curbed the activities of rival Lithuanian refugee organizations. For
example, a local Lithuanian Bolshevik committee in Voronezh, led by
Zigmas Angarietis, sought to prepare refugees to operate illegally in
independent Lithuania.23 Pro-Bolshevik Lithuanians formed the most
powerful element among the ranks of the Soviet militia in Voronezh in
early 1918, and proceeded to arrest members of the local Lithuanian relief
committee, eight of whom were jailed. The Lithuanian Bolshevik
Commissariat in Moscow coordinated action such as this, in Voronezh and
elsewhere.24 Nor were the Bolsheviks alone in vying for the political
sympathies of the refugees. Stasys Raštikis, subsequently a general in the
Lithuanian army, recalled that Polish and Georgian officers in Tbilisi tried
to enlist him in their armed forces.25
Despite its increasing efforts to secure the political loyalties of the
refugees, the government had to recognise the fact that the final decision to
return or stay rested with the refugees themselves. A future Lithuanian
Minister of the Interior, Rapólas Skipitis, himself a refugee, managed to
return to Kaunas in April 1918. Before his return, he travelled extensively
to different communities of Lithuanian refugees in Russia, promoting the
idea of a 'new' Lithuania. In his memoirs he claimed, "... I was
passionately urging all our refugees and those Lithuanians who had lived
there before to come back to their fatherland Lithuania".26
The new Lithuanian government also intervened, primarily in order to
recruit technical specialists and other members of the intelligentsia among
the refugees, whose skills were in short supply. As a result, provincial
welfare committees in Russia compiled lists of doctors, students, teachers,
technicians, lawyers, priests, land-surveyors and university professors.27
This exercise did not take account of the ethnicity of the displaced
population: the young state desperately needed professional expertise.
Thus, in 1918 the government approved the admittance of Lithuanian
Jewish bankers, industrialists, merchants, doctors and teachers.28 In their

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
438 Tomas Balkelis

applications for Lithuanian citizenship most of them indicated that

knew the Lithuanian language and had worked in Lithuania before th
It is striking that many of them expressed a willingness to work as
servants for the time being, if need be without any salary.
Other refugees by contrast had only a limited number of travel op
Most tried to return by rail, but this was a hazardous undertaking. In
refugee trains were often caught in the crossfire between Bolsheviks,
to requisition stocks of food, and armed bands of 'bread-seekers'
refugees had to rely on the goodwill of locals, their knowledge of th
and upon bribes to corrupt Soviet officials or black marketeers. No w
that, under such harsh conditions, the journey home could take mont
former Tsarist officer, Jurgis Jakelaitis, wrote in his memoirs:

There were more than 100 of us, Lithuanians, in four train coache
mostly soldiers with families and little children. In our cargo car th
temperatures dropped below 20 degrees every day. Theťe was a met
stove in the middle, heated constantly, because we were always able to
steal some coal in train stations. It took us one month to get fro
29
Voronezh to Vilnius.

The worst enemy was starvation. Refugees travelling in large groups

were more fortunate in securing food than were individual families. They
tended to congregate according to their places of origin. For many refugees
the fact that there was no famine in Lithuania betokened a brighter future.
Upon his arrival in Lithuania, Jakelaitis was bewildered that people were
not starving there and that food was available in great abundance.
Lithuanian refugees represented a great mixture of ethnic and cultural
groups, united mostly by their common geographic origins and their
experience of displacement. Living in Russia had forced some of them to
adopt new languages and to accept non-Lithuanians as members of their
families.30 These encounters with non-Lithuanians were reinforced during
the return journey, as one refugee described:

Among the refugees conversation is conducted in all languages, or to be

more precise, in a mixture of all languages. Despite the fact that our train
could be called the 'special' train of Lithuanians, because most of the
travellers who return to the homeland are Lithuanians, the Lithuanian
language is not dominant... And it is easy to understand. Having lived for
so long in foreign lands, our countrymen intermarried with the
Ukrainians; the majority are bringing their wives from Ukraine to
Lithuania ... [and they] don't understand a word of Lithuanian. And the
entire Lithuanian family speaks to each other in Russian ...3I

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 439

The safety of refugees was not guaranteed even after having entered
Lithuanian territory. Jakelaitis and several of his friends who tried to get
from Vilnius to Kaunas with a help of a Jewish black-marketeer were first
robbed by the Bolsheviks, and then arrested by Germans as 'Red agitators'.
German, Lithuanian, Bolshevik and Polish troops threatened refugees with
arrest or even execution for having no official papers, accusing them of
espionage or desertion.32
Refugees' first encounters with Lithuanian troops in Kaunas testified to
their surprise, confusion and incapacity to comprehend the new political
realities of 1918. Some of them could not readily confront the new military
signs and power symbols of the Lithuanian state as somehow 'native' or
representative of the 'homeland'. Instead, these symbols had to be read and
interpreted anew:

At dawn my eyes noticed a strange view: a simple country fellow with

wooden shoes, padded coat, similar pants and with an emblem of the
Lithuanian tricolour on his sleeve. On his shoulder rested a Russian rifle.
Later I noticed more such fellows: one with shoes, the other with wooden
clogs. All them had very strange hats on their heads. And all of them had
the same flag-shaped triangle on their sleeves. ... I sneaked in closer and
said, 'Are you a Lithuanian?' He was surprised and replied, 'Of course,
are you blind?' I said, 'I'm very sorry. I just returned from Russia this
evening, I know nobody here. What is the meaning of this triangle on
your sleeve? ... Why do Germans allow you to carry the arms?' And the
soldier said, 'Man, did somebody just kick you out of heaven? All these
lads are volunteers of the Lithuanian army. ... Germans are only our
guests.' ... After this conversation with the soldier, I became bolder.33

Even if this experience was untypical, for many Lithuanian refugees

the new state symbols represented an unfamiliar and challenging political
reality.

The Second Phase: the Politics of Organised Return, 1920 - 1924

The organised return of refugees started only in the autumn of 1920,

following the signing of the Lithuanian-Soviet Russian refugee return
agreement. The agreement stated that those refugees who expressed a wish
to return were to be returned as soon as possible.34 Both sides agreed to
define as refugees those persons, "who had lived on the territory of either
side before the war, and who during the Great War in 1914-1917
voluntarily left their places of residence occupied by the enemy, under a
threat of occupation or were forced to evacuate by orders of the, Russian
civilian or military government".35 Conscripts of the Tsarist army were
included in this definition. People of non-Lithuanian descent who had

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
440 Tomas Balkelis

served as government or military officials in the Lithuanian provin

denied the status of refugee and thus deprived of any right to return. A
3 of the treaty stipulated that those repatriated had to be register
special lists and transported through designated refugee transfer c
The Soviet government agreed to provide transport for those Lith
refugees who had to travel from distant Russian territories.
The agreement also introduced a whole set of various rules
regulations regarding the transfer of refugee property. Each head
household was allowed no more than 130 kg. of baggage, excluding
luggage. Further articles stated that the first to be returned were th
had family members living in their destination country. The treat
included 'a special provision that those refugees who had live
Lithuanian lands occupied by Poland would be returned home only
those territories would be freed from Polish control. Thus, the
refugees trying to return to the former Vilnius and Grodno pr
remained unresolved until 1921 and served as a source of tension b
Poland and Lithuania (see below).
The Refugee Division of the Lithuanian Ministry of the Interior
two representatives to Soviet Russia, to bring refugees to Mos
registration, prior to sending them on to the Lithuanian border.36
instructions were "to check the papers of every person intending to
to Lithuania and allow only those who qualified under the conditions
refugee return agreement."37
The increased efforts by the Lithuanian government to rep
refugees corresponded to the stabilisation of the political situa
Lithuania and the consolidation of state institutions. Some Lithuan
officials realised that the return of Lithuanian war refugees could b
significant political and demographic factor in the survival of Lith
The increased public awareness of the refugee issue meant that effo
devoted to securing the return of ethnic Lithuanian refugees.
official claims that refugees would not be discriminated on the gr
their nationality and political loyalties, state officials gave prefere
ethnic Lithuanian refugees who wished to return.38 To be sure, this
always have the desired effect. One official commented in despair th

In general, trains from Ukraine reach us in total disarray. They conta

only about 29 per cent of Lithuanian citizens, while all the rest are so
kinds of 'doubtful elements'. ... Given all the circumstances and t
instructions with which I was entrusted, ... I have no other way out of t
situation except the following: to return all Jews, Poles and Russia
despite the visas issued by our Mission [in the Ukraine], or I myself w
have to return to Lithuania.39

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 441

We can see the new policy at work in a proposal (in August 1921) by
the Ministry of the Interior to change the rules of repatriation:

In order to prevent foreigners from coming to Lithuania, we should

introduce a new order starting in February. All Lithuanian citizens, whose
relatives are still in Russia, have to apply to a local authority, indicating
the refugees' addresses in Russia, date of departure and their place of
residence before the war. The person in charge, having verified whether
the persons are truly Lithuanian citizens, will send the data to the
Department of Social Control. The latter will draw up a list of the
refugees ... Only refugees from these lists will be allowed to enter
Lithuania.40

The new rules meant that refugees who had lost or had no relatives
living in Lithuania found it increasingly difficult to return to their
homeland. This change is reflected in the immigration statistics in 1921.
While in May only 25 per cent of refugees who applied for repatriation
were refused the right of return, by November this proportion had risen to
61 per cent. Among those allowed to return in November, 60 per cent were
Lithuanians, but only 18 per cent of the total comprised ethnic Russians,
while 1 1 per cent were Jews, and 9 per cent were Poles.41 Thus the stricter
policy produced a noticeable disparity along ethnic lines.

Repatriation

The most important institutions that determined the fate of individual

refugees were the Refugee Division at the Lithuanian Mission in Moscow
and the refugee quarantine facility in Obeliai on the Lithuanian - Latvian
border. Moscow was the first destination for thousands of Lithuanian
refugees who found themselves scattered all over the plains and cities of
European Russia, Ukraine and Siberia. From Moscow their journey
continued on cargo trains to the west: through Rezekne, Daugavpils,
KalkQnai to Obeliai.42
After being fed by Latvian authorities in Rezekne, they had to pass
through a Latvian quarantine. Those who were destined to the Vilnius and
Grodno provinces were forced off the trains and had to continue their
joumey under the surveillance of Polish officials.43 Neither the Latvian nor
Polish officials expressed great sympathy for the Lithuanian refugees, who
represented a mixture of ethnic groups, languages and cultures.
The procedure to secure the necessary papers for the return, first of all,
involved screening of the refugees by the Lithuanian officials in Moscow.
Refugees had to submit to the Lithuanian Mission to Soviet Russia or its
regional offices personal applications, to fill in special questionnaires and

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
442 Tomas Balkelis

to provide some official proof of their place of origin. Only by h

data verified locally, were they issued travel permits.44
Quarantine facilities had already been established by the
military authorities, who maintained a quarantine in Kalkūnai as
1918. Its purpose was both to filter out Bolshevik spies from th
refugees and to prevent the potential danger of epidemic dis
memoirs Švaistas-Balčiūnas wrote that:

The quarantine was located far from the town. ... Here I met people
different nationalities. All were displaced by war, on their way to n
places: Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Belorussia. ... One had to
here two weeks or longer until there was a sufficient.group of refug
a train. It was like in prison. Armed sentries and barbed wires
everywhere. Nobody could leave without a permit. ... Nobody wa
when they would be freed. ... The food was just enough to survive.
the first time in my life I tasted such disgusting bread and coffee 45

Refugees were forced through "something resembling a sauna.

were then taken by train to Vilnius and Kaunas, from where th
allowed to travel to their native places. Their freedom, howe
constrained, since the permits allowed them only to travel with
native district.

The new quarantine centre at Obeliai played a decisive

Lithuania's efforts to control and 'fix' the refugee popu
documented and screened refugees in a variety of ways. W
children were taken directly into quarantine, while men had to u
luggage into special barracks for disinfection. Being rewarded
pieces of soap per family, they had to proceed to a sauna, superv
Lithuanian doctors. After some cleaning and scrubbing, the refu
subject to political screening by a Commission of Refugees'
Officials registered them according to age, nationality, profession
arrival, destination, and date of repatriation.47
The quarantine's Commission was made up of representatives
Department of Social Security, the Ministry of Defence
Department of Municipalities.48 Significantly, it also include
from the Department of Intelligence and from the Lithuanian m
They were instructed to "gather information about political
refugees ... and to control their civil and political loyalty." The co
censored letters and telegrams of refugees, and had the right to s
personal belongings. The decision to allow an individual refugee t
Lithuania had to be accepted unanimously by all membe
commission. Those whose documents appeared insufficient,
suspicious or past doubtful were transferred to a refugee detent

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 443

where they had to spend weeks or even months until police departme
verified their attachment to an intended place of staying. Those who f
to qualify for citizenship were deported back to Soviet Russia. There
doubt that such screening of refugees was also determined
government's fear of Bolshevik infiltration.49
The fact that some refugees, having been issued with a vis
Moscow, were then denied them in Obeliai complicated their fate
added to the confusion. Merkys, a Lithuanian army commander, dealt w
the consequences of overcrowding in the temporary refugee camps, in
following manner:

The Russians refuse to accept back the persons whom we [originally]

acknowledged as our citizens, and these foreign refugees are forced to
stay in camps for an unlimited time

issued an order to the commandant of Eglaité not t

who are to be returned to Russia, and to the com
Prisoners not to accept them into the camps. ...
returned to the care of those institutions, which
Lithuania.50

Attempts to deport those who represented a po

sometimes led to tension between the military
service. Nor did they contribute to improved relat
Having secured her independence, Lithuania
economic problems. The country's economy wa
work of the repatriation officials was constantly p
of funds necessary for the return of such larg
Lithuania. In 1921, famine in European Ru
concentration of refugees in Moscow created a hu
the displaced. The Lithuanian authorities were not
it on their own. In October 1921 the Lithuanian Mission in Moscow
applied for urgent help from the Moscow City Soviet to secure the basic
minimum for Lithuanian refugees in the capital city. Lithuanian orphans
who sought refuge in Moscow were described as being "in a horrifying
condition: half-naked, exhausted by starvation and travel fatigue; many of
them having lost their relatives on the road and, therefore, in an extremely
depressed state".51 Unable to provide sufficient financial means for helping
the starving refugees, officials appealed to the Lithuanian Red Cross,
which assumed full responsibility for feeding the Lithuanian refugees in
Russia after February 1921 ; 52

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
444 Tomas Balkelis

Shifting Borders and Political Loyalties:

Refugees from Vilnius and Grodno

The return of displaced people implies that there should be a

space that can accept and accommodate them as permanent re
independent Lithuania this was complicated by the confusing
borders in the early post-war years. New state boundaries were fa
so-called historical boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Lithua
included most of Belorussia), as well as from the 'ethnic' bou
which Lithuanian speakers resided. The fact that Poland occupied
east of Lithuania created problems for the government in tryin
with the Lithuanian refugees returning to their native former V
Grodno provinces. Did government officials try to find any solut
problem? Did they consider the east Lithuanian refugees as fore
as potential citizens of independent Lithuania? How did int
rivalries between Poland, Lithuania and Soviet Russia affect
evacuation of this group of refugees?
In April 1919, Polish troops occupied Vilnius and the surr
region, forcing the government to evacuate the capital t
Although, the Lithuanian army managed to stabilize the Polish-
front in the middle of 1920, the Polish army re-took Vilnius in O
thousands of Lithuanian refugees from the former provinces of
Grodno the stalemate provided a chance to return home. Som
tried to return with other Lithuanian refugees through Latvia a
However, many (including those returning to independent L
attempted to reach their native provinces through Belorussia an
In 1920-1921 the urgency of their return was most of all dictat
worsening economic and humanitarian situation in Soviet Russia
In 1920 Lithuanian authorities faced a serious border control
they had to respond not only to manoeuvres by Polish forces, b
thousands of Lithuanian refugees trying to cross the Polish-L
demarcation line without any official sanction. The authorities r
this as a challenge to the future political and economic stability of
A report from Skipitis to the Minister of Defence, E. Galvan
February 1921 stated that:

We should enlarge our border guards' contingent by several t

because in the area of Vievis separate crowds of refugees returning f
Poland are able to get through on a daily basis. In the area of Obeli
border troops are so weak (30 soldiers for 60 miles) that not on
people travelling by foot or in horse carriages avoid our border gu
but even a train can cross the border without any supervision.53

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 445

Finally, in February 1921, unable to cope with the flow of illeg

refugees through the demarcation line with Poland, the government had
issue an order forcing all refugees to enter Lithuania only through t
quarantine in Obeliai.54 However, this measure did not necessarily impro
the situation, but created instead a chain of new problems. The quaranti
became flooded with the refugees travelling to Vilnius and Grodno
provinces, while the illegal migration through the demarcation line still
continued.55
Besides the financial constraints and the concern that 'undesirable
residents' could enter the country, there was also a fear that refugees might
bring into Lithuania an outbreak of cholera (see below).56 An additional
factor stimulating the government reluctance to accept the Lithuanian
refugees was the critical shortage of available housing in Lithuania.57
Thus, due to a variety of reasons, by summer 1921 the Lithuanian
refugees returning to the Vilnius and Grodno regions suddenly found
themselves uninvited guests in their own homeland. This inevitably led to
their worsening condition and another humanitarian crisis both in the
successor states and the former Russian empire. Gradually the crisis
became an international issue, which demanded the intervention not only of
Lithuanian, but also of Polish, Latvian and Soviet authorities. The
desperate situation of the refugees trying to move across borders threatened
the stability of all these states, already severely tested by war and economic
chaos. The worsening situation in which refugees found themselves called
for at least limited cooperation between the different belligerents. Soviet
Russia, Lithuania and Poland tried to solve the issue by trying to determine
which state should assume greater responsibility over the repatriation of the
Lithuanian refugees. However, the ensuing international negotiations also
meant that the refugees would be examined and demarcated in political as
well as ethnic terms.
Lithuania tried to solve the problem by attempting to persuade the
Polish government to transport the Vilnius-Grodno refugees from Kalkūnai
to their native places in the occupied territory.58 However, Poland agreed to
accept no more than a small number. Lithuanian officials complained that
the Polish authorities would allow "only those refugees, whom they like,
despite the fact that they originated from the Vilnius and Grodno
provinces. Jews are not accepted altogether, and, therefore, we do not know
where to place them."59 The worsening situation on the Latvian-Lithuanian
border prompted Skipitis to issue an urgent request to a foreign minister on
12 July 1921:

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
446 Tomas Balkelis

Due to the fact that Poles are not allowing the refugees, who are return
from Soviet Russia, to enter the occupied territories, I ask you to urgen
notify the Lithuanian Mission to Soviet Russia to stop the return of t
refugees travelling to the occupied zone.60

However, he added that "I think that the Lithuanian specialists,

could contribute to the common work of rebuilding the state, sho
returned to Lithuania, despite the fact that they come from the o
territories."
Although totally overwhelmed by the flow of the displace
Lithuanian authorities continued their work of segregating and selec
refugees. The educated refugees and various specialists continued t
high demand by state agencies. After 1921 the Lithuanian male ref
came to be increasingly treated as a potential source of recru
contending Lithuanian, Soviet Russian and Polish armies. In early 1
Soviet authorities became increasingly concerned at the possibil
Lithuanian men could be drafted into the Polish army. The Lit
Foreign Minister, J. Purickis, reported that:

The Russian Consulate to Lithuania in a personal conversation asked th

Foreign Ministry what to do with young males, who can be recruited
Zeligowski into his army. Should not they be sent to Kaunas an
mobilized there? The Russian consulate is expecting an answer as soon
possible. So far the Russian authorities are not allowing any males age
18-40 through the Polish border into the Vilnius province.61

Despite all official efforts, the Lithuanian refugees continued to

into Moscow and to gather at the Lithuanian borders, in a desperate
to leave Soviet Russia as soon as possible. Under pressure from the
authorities, the Lithuanian cabinet agreed to accept all Lithuanian r
coming from the occupied territories. Some of them later returned
the demarcation line with Poland to their native Vilnius and Grodno
provinces.62
Official documents shed little light on the emotions, moods and
political views of refugees originally from Vilnius and Grodno.
Nevertheless, Lithuanian officials in Moscow betrayed great anxiety about
their questionable political loyalties. Begging the authorities in Lithuania to
review their decision to stop repatriation, one of them pointed out that
"after selling their last rags, our citizens" condition becomes so horrible
that they die, and those who remain alive are cursing the Lithuanian
government'. He added that their situation entailed political risks, because
"in those lice-ridden refugee transfer centres they shout that the Lithuanian
government wants only the land of Vilnius and Grodno provinces, and it
does not care about living people". He noted alarmingly that some of the

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 447

refugees had already, out of a sense of bitterness at their treatmen

expressed their hatred of independent Lithuania. Alarmingly, the Po
were already conducting propaganda among them.63
The case of the Vilnius and Grodno refugees exemplified the
limitations and inconsistencies in the Lithuanian policies of repatriation
Faced with the prospect of increasing economic costs, the danger
epidemics and, most importantly, unstable state borders and potent
political instability, the government tended to abandon its nationals, desp
their critical situation. The shifting political borders and hostile interst
relations dictated their own practical policies towards the refugees.

Refugees' Ethnicity and the 'Jewish Question'

Public perceptions towards the displaced population expresse

themselves most directly in relation to Jewish refugees, and in particular
the policies adopted by the Minister of the Interior, Rapólas Skipitis. In h
memoirs, Skipitis devoted a substantial chapter to rebutting public critici
of his 'anti-state' immigration policies during 1921 and 1922, when he w
repeatedly accused of 'filling Lithuania with Jews.'64 He was criticized a
ridiculed not only in the press, but also by both right- and left-wi
political figures and institutions. His rival Jonas Vileišis, former Minist
of the Interior and a prominent figure in the Lithuanian pre-war nation
movement, personally reproached him for allowing 'too many' Jews fro
Russia into Lithuania.65 The Social Democratic newspaper Darbinin
[The Worker] voiced the same criticism:

We have to note that the majority of the refugees, who returned, are Jews.
Having illegally brought gold and various properties from Russia, they
conduct their 'business' here in Lithuania. And, we have to say, very
successfully.66

Predictably, similar criticism was echoed in the conservative Tèvynè

sargas [The Guardian of the Homeland]:
Due to the peculiar geographic, political and economic conditions of our
country, it became 'the Promised Land' for many foreigners. They are
streaming to our country from all places and bringing with them many
different dangers and unhappiness to the true citizens of our country and
to the state itself.67

The issue was picked up not only by the press, but also by som
members of the artistic intelligentsia, who publicly ridiculed t
stereotypical 'new Lithuanians' who had no grasp of the language. In 192
the satirical theatre company 'Vilkolakis' staged a play entitled 'Th

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
448 Tomas Balkelis

Quarantine of Sheep', which received great public acclaim for pu

the corrupt immigration policies in Obeliai and for simulta
satirizing Jewish refugees.68 Skipitis, a former member of the
regretted that:

My former colleagues from 'Vilkolakis' showed on stage h

Ukrainian Jew, who had never visited Lithuania, hurriedly learned
geography of Lithuania and, after sneaking past border controls, s
up in Kaunas. ... The jokes of 'Vilkolakis' had a serious effect on pub
opinion, setting it against the return of Jews from Russia.69

Public discontent became sufficiently strong to demand a deba

Parliament in January 1922. Tèvynès sargas berated Skipitis for
"mercy to the members of other nations."70 The official Lietuv
published statistics showing that Jewish refugees outnumbered
Jewish population by a factor of three, far higher than the corr
figure for Polish, Latvian and German refugees. The editorial co
that "perhaps the return of 'refugees' means the colonisation of
which is harmful to us."71 The fact that Jewish refugees includ
numbers of people who fled the Bolsheviks cut little ice w
Lithuanian politicians. The sharpest political attack against t
immigration policies of Skipitis came from the Christian Democ
adopted a special resolution urging the government to curb the n
Jewish refugees.72
Skipitis did not survive the onslaught. He was replaced in
1922 by the Christian Democrat K. Oleka. Oleka immediately int
tougher refugee controls in Obeliai by strengthening the border
cracking down on the black market.73 Politicians complained of
who could not name even one acquaintance in Lithuania or a p
city to which they were travelling, using this as support fo
controls on immigration. The new policy was reflected in the M
refusal to employ a Lithuanian Jew as representative of the L
Jewish Committee, despite the strong support that he received
Minister of Jewish Affairs of Lithuania.74 By 1922 repatriat
became much more conservative, exclusive and 'Lithuanising'.
greeted this change of heart, noting that 'it is sad that our gove
responded with strict measures only now, when in our capital K
may notice great numbers of these foreigners on every street co
it is better late than never.'75

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 449

Refugees and Contagious Disease

The risk of cholera and typhus in Lithuania presented governm

officials with a fresh challenge. In July 1921 the Department of H
warned Skipitis that the mass return of refugees carried a risk of ch
from Russia and recommended limiting the number of refugees in O
to 1,200 per week, vaccinating them and keeping individual refug
least 5 days in quarantine.76 His deputy refused to accept such ch
noting that "such limitations would disrupt their return, which wou
harmful to the refugees themselves and to the state which pays for
apparatus of the return."77 Mass repatriation continued unabated unt
issue of epidemics spilled out into the Lithuanian press. In May
Lietuvos iinios wrote:

The government announced the civil mobilisation of doctors to fight

contagious diseases. Well, we will mobilize against the diseases, which
can kill more than a battlefield. But we will ask the medical authorities
for one thing: don't infect us with contagious diseases. ... Refugees are
returning. They are bringing to us directly from Russia or from quarantine
in Obeliai infectious diseases.78

Similar press stories not only helped to form a negative public image of
the refugees, but also vilified them in the eyes of the Lithuanian society.
The refugees found it increasingly difficult to disperse their image as
bearers of diseases, which undoubtedly further limited their integration and
contacts with local communities.
The Ministry of the Interior tried to limit the consequences of the
epidemic by temporarily suspending further transportation of the refugees
from Moscow to Obeliai in December 1922.79 At the same time the
government responded to the public outcry by introducing a number of
limited reforms in the process of repatriation. It further limited the freedom
of refugees by imposing stricter controls not only on their identities, but
also on their bodies.
The weakest link in the repatriation system was its central institution,
the quarantine in Obeliai. As Sutkus wrote in his memoirs, "refugees of
one or another brand, all of them had to become submissive sheep in the
quarantine, if they wanted to find a home in Lithuania. Some of them were
'cut with scissors', others 'shaved with razors', while some were 'left
without their tails'..."80 Obeliai had become not only a major refugee-
processing centre, but also the place where those who arrived in thousands
attracted scores of local black-marketers, who traded in refugees'
belongings and offered to exchange currency.81

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
450 Tomas Balkelis

In the middle of 1921 the Ministry was forced to undertake

inspections of the quarantine, which revealed serious deficienci
internal organization, funding, administration as well as the style o
of some officials. In June the head of the Sanitation Department o
quarantine, Juškys, reported "that disinfections do not reach their
here."82 The shortage of necessary facilities and the great num
arriving refugees (often more than 1000 people at a time
disinfections a symbolic gesture only. It was impossible to isol
families or refugees from the healthy ones. He suggested leaving in
only a refugee transfer centre and proposed to establish a sep
quarantine without any additional functions of political control.
In July the Ministry sent its representative to Obeliai to clarif
situation. He reported:

In Obeliai now there is no quarantine in the true sense of the word. I

rather a refugee transfer point with a hospital, barracks and dispensary
the moment it does not protect the country from contagious diseases,
its significance is more political than sanitary.83

The problems continued into late 1921. The sauna stopped wo

was repaired, burned to the ground and was rebuilt for the second
the fall. The disinfection chamber was out of action for an entire m
because there were no thermometers, while 'there were several
which clothing was taken from the chamber infected with live lic
carcasses of slaughtered cattle were not buried properly, but
dumped into a local lake serving as a source of drinking water for
refugees.84 There were numerous cases of refugees stealing una
personal belongings of others. One barbed-wire fence was not suffic
prevent illegal trading in the quarantine (Skipitis objected on human
grounds to the erection of a second fence). Finally, the LMI came t
conclusion that the only way to stop the outbreak of epidemi
disinfect the quarantine itself between: old wooden beds were to "be
off and washed with disinfecting substances."85
Thus the Lithuanian authorities found themselves increa
overwhelmed by the flow of refugees. This was especially evi
government's inability to provide at least basic medical service
ailing bodies of the refugees. It was due to different adminis
divisions between various state institutions as well as to chronic sho
necessary resources. The outbreak of epidemics across the bor
successor states to the FRE hampered the work of officials and cont
to the negative image of refugees as 'bearers of contagious diseases
Lithuanian society. The fact that in 1921-1922 the percentage o
Lithuanian refugees increased in comparison with the early per

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 45 1

repatriation served as an additional reason for the government to tighten it

immigration policies. At the same time the refugees felt increasingl
vulnerable not only to political, but also to sanitary state control. Th
quarantine in Obeliai exemplified state efforts of 'fixing' not only th
political or national loyalties of refugees, but also their bodies.

Conclusions

Between 1918 and 1924 approximately 350,000 refugees, originally

from Lithuania and comprising diverse ethnic and social groups, made their
way to independent Lithuania. The repatriation of Lithuanian refugees
from the former Russian empire should be interpreted not only in the
immediate context of civil and inter-state wars but also in the context of
different processes of state formation. The continuing frontier wars meant
that the population displacement did not stop in 1918 but continued until
and beyond the refugees' return to their new political homeland.
Government repatriation policies thus primarily reflected the political need
to create and shape the category of 'the Lithuanian refugees' according to
the will of the repatriation officials. Genérally, beginning in 1922, the
official policies with respect to non-Lithuanian refugees assumed an
increasingly rigid character. This reflected not only the nature of the
political change in independent Lithuania, which from 1923 was ruled by
the right-wing Christian Democratic government, but also the increasing
nationalising attempts of the state bureaucracy to rid Lithuania of the
heritage of the multi-ethnic Russian empire.
The logic of the homogenising national state required that the refugees
had to be persuaded or forced to abandon their divergent and multiple
identities born in exile and to become 'rooted' in the exclusive space of the
national homeland. Nevertheless, the spatial pattern of 'the homeland' was
still in flux, due to the border wars between Lithuania, Soviet Russia and
Poland in 1918-1920. As a result some refugees, as in the case of those
from Vilnius and Grodno, found themselves excluded from the ranks of the
Lithuanian citizenry. Their difficult situation was further aggravated by
famine in Russia in 1921, which called for at least limited international co-
operation between Soviet Russia, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. Thus, on
the one hand, the refugees served as a focus for the propaganda of the
belligerent states, while on the other hand their uncontrollable movement
compelled governments to co-operate internationally.
If the early official repatriation policies implemented by the Minister of
the Interior, Skipitis, were relatively liberal, after mid- 1922 they became
more conservative and rigid. In 1922 the outbreak of contagious diseases,
inefficiency and corruption of the repatriation system and an unstable

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
452 Tomas Balkelis

economic situation contributed to the tendency that certain non-Lit

groups of refugees (mostly Jews) became vilified in the eyes of th
and some political groups. The refugees, increasingly perceive
harmful foreign element, were seen as a potential threat to co
stability. This was reflected in toughening repatriation policie
government for which the ethnic marker of refugees became the d
one, and led to the decreasing numbers of non-Lithuanian as op
ethnic Lithuanian refugees arriving to Lithuania.
For many refugees their first encounters with the symbo
institutions of an independent Lithuanian state were crucial in shapi
'fixed' national, as opposed to 'itinerant' multicultural, ide
However, those symbols of state power still were read and interpr
the light of their experience of displacement.

TABLE 1 Population Displaced from Lithuania to Russia during World War I

Population Displaced Returned from the former Did not return from
from Lithuania to Russia Russian empire to Lithuania the former Russian
during World War I

Lithuanians 250,000 150,000 65,000 35,000

Jews 160,000 35,000 45,000 80,000
Russians 90,000 30,000 5,000 55,000
Poles and others 50,000 30,000 5,000 15,000
TOTAL

Source: Skipitis, 26

Notes

1 . Gatrell, Peter. A Whole Empire Walking: Refugees in Russia during WWL

Bloomington, 1999, p. 212.
2. Marrus, Michael. The Unwanted: European Refugees in the 20th century . New York,
1985; Papastergiadis, Nikos. The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization,
Deterritorialization and Hybridity. Cambridge, 2000; Eksteins, Modris. Walking Since
Daybreak: A Story of Eastern Europe, World War Two, and the Heart of Our Century.
Toronto, 1999; Gatrell, Peter. A Whole Empire Walking : Refugees in Russia during
WWI. Bloomington, 1999.
3. Although the declaration of independence was issued on 16 February 1918, the
German government refused to acknowledge it and remained in control of Lithuania.
German forces stayed in the country until late 1918, while on November 7, 1918 the
Lithuanian Council formed the first Lithuanian government under A. Voldemaras.
4. Skipitis, Rapólas. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq statan [Building an Independent Lithuania].
Chicago, 1961, p. 265. The figure of 550, 000 refers to all former residents who have
left what is now Lithuanian territory, not only ethnic Lithuanians.
5. Čepénas, Pranas. Naujiļjiļ laikiļ Lietuvos istorija [History of Modern Lithuania].
Chicago, 1976, Vol. 2. Pp. 78-79.
6. Skipitis, Rapólas. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq, p. 259.
7. Švaistas-Balčiūnas, Juozas. Dangus debesyse: autoriaus išgyvenimai 1918-1919 [Sky
in the Clouds: Memoirs, 1918-1919]. London, 1967, p. 60.
8. Jakelaitis, Jurgis. Jeigu kas nors skaitys: atsiminimai [If Someone Will Read]. Kaunas,
1991. Pp. 218-231.

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 453

9. Lietuva [Lithuania], July 13, 1920, Nr. 144.

10. For the text of the agreement see, "Tremtiniiļ gr^žinimo sutartis tarp Lietuvos
Rusijos" in Vyriausybès žinios [Government News], Kaunas, August 3, 1920. Pp. 1-3
11. Lithuanian Ministry of the Interior (hereafter LMI) Fond [Fondas] 377, Sub-sectio
[Aplankas] 7, File [Byla] 4, p. 194. 377. The deadline of late 1921 apparently did no
apply to the Lithuanian refugees and optants in Siberia.
12. However, groups of refugees and individual refugees continued to make their way
Lithuania until as late as 1930. See, LMI 377, S.5, F. 212, 213.
13. The term 'fixing,' as applied to refugees, here implies any practises of state officials
monitor, control, select, screen, indoctrinate, isolate and quarantine refugees. Thus th
term will be used to denote both political and ideological strategies of a state to contr
political or national loyalties of refugees as well as such physical practises as thei
disinfections and quarantining.
14. The Lithuanian historian Adolfas Šapoka also acknowledged that "the committ
conducted this great welfare work with a certain political idea." Adolfas Šapok
Lietuvos istorija [Lithuanian History], Kaunas, 1936, p. 535.
15. Martynas Yčas, „Rusijos lietuviiļ pastangos kovose už Lietuvos nepriklausomybç," i
J.Barkauskas, ed., Pirmasis nepiklausomos Lietuvos dešimtmetis, 1918-1928 [The Fir
Decade of Independent Lithuania, 1918-1928]. Kaunas, 1990 (3rd edition), p. 25.
16. Ibid., p. 27.
17. Lithuanian Ministry of the Foreign Affaires (hereafter LMF) 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 251.
18. Raštikis, Stasys. Lietuvos likimo keliais : is mano uzrasiļ [Along the Road of
Lithuania's Fate: From My Notes]. Chicago, 1982. P. 108.
19. Lietuvos žinios [Lithuanian News]. Kaunas, 136, 1922. Pp. 140-1.
20. Janulaityté-Alseikiené, Veronika. 'Kūno pacientai ir dvasios draugai' [Body Patients
and Spiritual Friends]. Šiaurés Atènai , Vilnius, Nr. 43, 2001, p. 9.
21. Ibid.
22. Švaistas, p. 77.
23. Jakelaitis. Jeigu kas nors skaitys , p. 218. There was a generational divide among the
Lithuanian refugees in Voronezh: most of the students who attended the local
Lithuanian gymnasium enrolled in the ranks of the Soviet militia, while adult refugees
kept their distance from the Bolsheviks.
24. Skipitis. Nepriklausoma Lietuva: atsiminimai [Independent Lithuania : memoirs],
Chicago, 1967, p. 55.
25. Stasys. Lietuvos likimo keliais , p. 108.
26. Skipitis. Nepriklausoma Lietuva , p. 48.
27. LMI 377, S. 9, F. 2, p. 7.
28. LMI 377, S. 9, F. 2, p. 95.
29. Jakelaitis, p. 221.
30. Čepénas, p. 79.
31. Mikiļ Dédé, 'Lietuvos tremtiniai iš Ukraiņos'. Lietuvos žinios , Kaunas, 1922, Nr. 136,
140, 141.
32. Jakelaitis, pp. 227-9.
33. Jakelaitis, pp. 229-30. We do not know how many refugees joined the Lithuanian army
after their return, but some, like Raštikis, found the idea attractive. The fact that all army
volunteers were promised land could have served as an inducement to join the army.
34. "Tremtiniiļ gražinimo sutartis tarp Lietuvos ir Rusijos," Vyriausybès žinios , Kaunas,
(42) 3 August 1920, pp. 1-3.
35. Ibid, p. 1.
36. The Refugee Division at the LMI was established in the first half of 1919 (See, LMI
377, S.10). From October 1910, under a new ministry of E. Drauģelis it was

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
454 Tomas Balkelis

incorporated into the Department of Work and Social Protection at the LMI.
function was the return of WWI refugees to Lithuania.
37. Skipitis. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq statarli , p. 263.
38. In a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Juozas Purickis, Skipitis expr
concern over the inefficient work of the Lithuanian Mission to Ukraine and his
chairman Prof. Mošinskas: "The Lithuanian Mission to the Ukraine organized its work
so poorly that we are forced to return 50% of deportees from each train. At the same
time they are crossing out from the lists of deportees true Lithuanians. ... Prof.
Mošinskas pays little attention to such facts. The fact that his secretary is the person of
Polish orientation serves as grounds for complaints from many people." LMF 83, S. 5.
F.45, p. 136.
39. LMF 83, S. 5, F.45, p. 176
40. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 160
41. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 97. In May Lithuanians made up 27.2 per cent, Jews 29.8 per
cent, Russians 1 1.7 per cent, Poles 4.5 per cent of all refugees. In October 1921, only
38.5 'per cent of the refugees were allowed to enter Lithuania. Among them
Lithuanians made 39.6 per cent, Jews 27.6 per cent, Russians 23.4 per cent, Poles 8 per
cent and others 1.4 per cent Ibid., p. 156.
42. Skipitis. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq statarli , p. 264.
43. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 154.
44. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 34, p. 115.
45. Švaistas, Dangus debesyse, pp. 98-9.
46. Ibid., p. 98
47. LMI 377, S. 7, F. 78, p. 104.
48. LMI 377, S. 4, F. 12, p. 154.
49. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 144.
50. Letter dated 13 December 1921, in LMF 383, S. 5, F. 45, p. 3.
51. LMF 83, S.5, F. 45, p. 48.
52. LMI 377, S.5, F. 12, p. 7.
53. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 32.
54. Ibid.
55. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 90.
56. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 76: "Despite everything, the local troops allowed and still are
allowing individual refugees coming from Vilnius. This creates chaos and threatens the
country with a danger of epidemics." (Skipitis to the Minister of Defence, J. Šimkus,
dated 1 June 1921).
57. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 72.
58. ĻMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 52, telegram of Skipitis to the quarantine in Obeliai, 26 May,
1921.
59. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 59.
60. LMF 83, S.5, F.45, p. 61.
61. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 67, letter of Purickis to the Cabinet of Ministers, 6 July 1921.
62. Ibid.
63. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 73, letter of Baltrušaitis to the Director of the Easter
Department, Lisauskas, 23 May 1921.
64. Skipitis. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq statante p. 267.
65. Ibid.
66. Darbininkas [The Worker], Kaunas, 19, 30 July 1921, p. 7.
67. Têvynês sargas [The Fatherland's Guardian], Kaunas, 20 February 1920, p. 78.
68. One of the ideological leaders of 'Vilkolakis', Antanas Sutkus, later wrote that "
Obeliai there was supposed to be a state institution which had 4 to sift through' the
returnees." However, officials there conducted "the lucrative sale of citizenship rights",

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nation-Building and World War I Refugees in Lithuania 455

withholding documents from Lithuanian refugees in favor of strangers who possessed

sufficient financial means to bribe them. See Antanas Sutkus, Vilkolakio teatr
[Vilkolakis theatre], Vilnius, 1969, pp. 90-93. The picture on page 128 shows some o
the actors from 'Quarantine of Sheep' dressed up in 'Jewish' style.
69. Skipitis. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq statante p. 270.
70. Tèvynès sargas , Kaunas, 1 1, 30 January 1922, p. 50.
71. Lietuvos žinios , Kaunas, 25, 28 March 1922, p. 3.
72. For the full text of the resolution see LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12.
73. See 'Kazimieras Oleka,' in Lietuviiļ enciklopēdija [Lithuanian Encyclopedia], Vol.
Boston, 1963.
74. LMF 83, S. 5, F. 45, p. 71.
75. Lietuvos žinios , Kaunas, 170, 28 September 1922. Official data suggest that among
total number of 69,728 refugees who returned in 1921, Jews formed 37.4 per cent of t
total and Lithuanians 42.5 per cent. However, the number of Jews who never returned
Lithuania from the former Russian empire was 80,000 compared to 35,000 Lithuanian
Thus the supposition that most of the refugees in 1921-1922 were Jews is incorrect.
76. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 61.
77. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 6, letter from the Director of the Refugee Division, Kubil
to Skipitis, 6 July 1921.
78. Lietuvos žinios, Kaunas, 52, 3 May 1922.
79. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 132.
80. Sutkus. Vilkolakio teatras , p. 92.
81. LMI 377, S. 5, F.12. In his report to the minister Kubilius indicated: "The director
quarantine] explained that at one moment he forbade any entrance of the public in
the quarantine. However, people then would meet and even trade along the fence. .
agreed to give a permission to build a second fence."
82. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, pp. 66-68.
83. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, pp. 64-5.
84. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 158.
85. LMI 377, S. 5, F. 12, p. 161.

Sources

1 . Archival sources:
Lithuanian State Archives, Vilnius:
Collection of the Lithuanian Ministry of Interior, Fond Nr. 377,
Collection of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affaires, Fond Nr. 383,
Collection of the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense, Fond Nr. 299, 300.

2. Periodical publications:
Darbininkas
Lietuva
Lietuvos žinios

Tèvynès sargas
Siaurès Atènai
Vyriausybès žinios

3. Memoirs:
Gaucys, Povilas. Tarp dvieju pasauliiļ: iš mano atsiminimiļ, 1915-38 metai. Vilnius, 1992.
Gintneris, Antanas. Lietuva caro ir kaizerio naguose: atsiminimai iš Pirmojo Pasaulinio
karo laikiļ, 1914 - 1918. Chicago, 1970.
Jakelaitis, Jurgis. Jeigu kas nors skaitys : atsiminimai. Kaunas, 1991.

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 456 Tomas Balkelis

Janulaityté-Alseikiené, Veronika. "Kūno pacientai ir dvasios draugai." In Šiau

Vilnius, 43, 2001.
Jonaitis, J.F. Mano patyrimai Didžiojoj karèj. Boston, 1920.
Juodvalkis, Jonas. Mano dienos : atsiminimai. Chicago, 1973.
Lelis, Petras. Lietuvos keliu, 1910-1973 metai. Toronto, 1973.
Raštikis, Stasys. Kovose dèi Lietuvos: kario atsiminimai. Los Angeles, 1956-19
- . Lietuvos likimo keliais : iš mano užrašiļ. Chicago, 1982.
Skipitis, Rapólas. Nepriklausomq Lietuvq statant: atsiminimai. Chicago, 1961.
- . Nepriklausoma Lietuva: atsiminimai. Chicago, 1967.
Švaistas-Balčiūnas, Juozas. Dangus debesyse: autoriaus išgyvenimai 1918-19
1967.
Vaičiūnas, Petras. "Iš šiaures i vakarus." Lietuva , Kaunas, 36-38, 1920.
Vileišis, I. "Lietuviļ tautos taryba Charkove." Lietuva , Kaunas, 48 (330), F
192°.
Žukas, Konstantinas. Žvilgsnis ļpraeitļ : žmogaus ir kario atsiminimai. Vilnius, 1992.
1

4. Secondary sources:
Dunn, Sean, ed. Europe and Identity: the First World War and Contemporary Ethnic
Conflict. London, New York, 1996.
Eberhardt, Piotr. Przemiany narodowosciowe na Litwie. Warsaw, 1997-
Eidintas, Alfonsas. Lietuviiļ kolumbai: lietuviiļ emigracijos is torijos apybraiža. Vilnius, 1993.
Gatrell, Peter. A Whole Empire Walking: Refugees in Russia during World War I.
Bloomington, 1999.
Jurgéla, Petras. Generólas Povilas Plechavičius, New York, 1978.
Koncevičius, V. "Apžvalga darbuotés belaisviiļ gražinimo skyriaus prie Lietuvos
pasiuntinybés Berlyne nuo 1919 m. vasario 28 iki rugséjo mén. 18 d." Lietuva , Kaunas
2-3: 284-5, January 3-4, 1920.
Laurinavičius, Česlovas. Lietuvos-Sovietiļ Rusijos taikos sutartis. Vilnius, 1992.
Lietuviiļ enciklopēdija. Boston, Vol. 21, 1963.
Lietuvos respublikos Vidaus reikalu ministerijos istorine raida 1918-1919. Mokslinès
konferencijos, skirtos VRM 80-mečiui, medžiaga. Trakai, 1998.
Lukomski, Grzegorz. Wojna domowa: z dziejow konfliktu Polsko-Litewskiego 1918-1920.
Warsaw, 1997.
Makauskas, Bronius. Lietuvos istorija. Kaunas, 2000.
Radensky, Paul. "Žydq reikalu ministerija ir žydiļ tautiné autonomija Lietuvoje 1919-1923
metais." In Lietuvos istorijos metraš tis, Vilnius, 1996.
Ruseckas, Petras, ed. Lietuva Didžiajame kare. Vilnius, 1939.
Sutkus, Antanas. Vilkolakio teatras. Vilnius, 1969.
Šapofca, Adolfas. Lietuvos istorija. Kaunas, 1936.
Šleževičius, Mykolas. Tremtiniai Rusijoj ir jiļ "globêjai": oflcialūs M.Šleževičiaus
pranešimai Centro komitetui. Voronežas: Lietuviiļ reikaliļ komisariato kultūros ir
švietimo skyrius, 1918
The Misery of the Lithuanian Refugees in Russia : for the Benefit of the Lithuanian War
Relief Fund. Lausanne, 1915.
Truska, Liúdas. A.Smetona ir jo laikai. Vilnius, 1996.
Turnas- Vaižgantas. Rastai : su bègliais ir tremtiniais. XVI tomas, Kaunas, 1929.
Yčas, Martynas, "Rusijos lietuvi^ pastangos kovose už Lietuvos nepriklausomybç." In J.
Barkauskas, ed., Pirmasis nepiklausomos Lietuvos dešimtmetis, 1918-1928. Kaunas,
1990 (3d edition).

This content downloaded from

77.28.92.136 on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:23:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms