Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

On 13 August 1949, in Užpelkiai Forest in northern Lithuania, on the border of the Grinkiškis and Baisogala rural districts in Radviliškis County, a battle by Lithuanian partisans that had a significant impact on the history of the Prisikėlimas (Resurrection) district took place. The leaders of the Lietuvos Laisvės Kovos Sąjūdis (Movement for the Struggle for Lithuania’s Freedom) operated in this district. Based on the approach of modern conflict archaeology, the authors of the article, helped by volunteers, determined the location of the Battle of Užpelkiai Forest (in the Grinkiškis rural district, Radviliškis County), and collected a lot of new archaeological and historical data, in order to reconstruct the progress of the attack by MGB (Ministry of State Security) troops and the partisan defence. By referring to complex research results, the article gives the surnames and duties in the organisation of all the partisans who participated, as well as the circumstances and progress of the battle. It shows the importance of the Battle of Užpelkiai Forest to the Lietuvos Laisvės Kovos Sąjūdis in 1949–1950. The case study of field research into the battle in the partisan war shows how complex historical and archaeological research complements the picture of the partisan war with facts and artefacts, clarifies or denies old interpretations, and leads us to new ones.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the phenomenon of warriors (fighters) as one of the most important components of Medieval warfare, has increased in popularity in Lithuanian historiography. Archaeologists and historians usually analyse Balt warriors differently, because of the different methodology and understanding of the development of the state; therefore, the genesis, functionality, structure and decay of warbands (supposedly, in the 14th century) are perceived very differently. This paper has three objectives: 1) descriptive research to revise different opinions on warriors between archaeologists and historians; 2) comparison to find similarities and differences in the understanding of warriors between the two disciplines; and 3) an analysis of the problems of the chronology, definition and arguments of warriors in works by Lithuanian archaeologists and historians. The article shows that the work of archaeologists and historians falls short of the method of comparison in analysing this development prior to the creation of military-social structures in Western and Central Europe. Also, only a few archaeologists and historians have attempted to define the meaning of the word ‘warrior’ within the social structures of Balt society.

The 13th and early 14th century was a time when Lithuania emerged as a grand duchy and became one of the biggest expansion forces in northeast Europe. Unfortunately, we have no information today about what the equipment of a Lithuanian warrior looked like at that time, except for archaeological data and poor historical sources. The aim of this article is to show that by using this apparently quite scanty information, we can create not only an image of the arms and armour used by a particular warrior; there is also a possibility to retrace specific features of warfare by Lithuanians. The search for analogues should not be limited to archaeology. Much information can be obtained from sources in the fine arts and applied arts. The analysis of Medieval art can be as important as research into weapons itself, because an archaeologically discovered object can easily be recognised in fine arts sources. However, this information should be analysed carefully, taking into account certain factors (the special conditions of Medieval art) that may cause the study to go in the wrong direction.

This paper discusses recent quantitative research on defence spending in interwar Lithuania, and provides a comparison between the burden of defence spending in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland in 1924, 1938 and 1939, which are the only years with available data on the total expenditure in Lithuania. Although contemporary mainstream economic science does not consider the military sector as unproductive (it ‘produces’ security services), it still sees it as a burden to the economy, because defence spending decreases private consumption, along with private and public civil investment. Two indicators of this burden are discussed: the share of defence spending in total state spending, and the ratio of defence spending to gross national income (GNI) or gross domestic product (GDP). In recent research on defence spending in interwar Lithuania, only the size and changes in nominal expenditure have so far been measured, without taking into consideration changes in the purchasing power of the litas. The main findings of the application of the second indicator include the fact that among the Baltic countries (including Finland), the Latvian economy was most heavily burdened by defence spending in 1924–1925. On the eve of the Second World War, however, Lithuania became the leader.

On 17 March 1938, Warsaw delivered an ultimatum to Kaunas. After the 18 years of non-existent official diplomatic relations with Poland due to the occupation of Vilnius in 1920, Lithuania was forced to renew them. The acceptance of the ultimatum in Lithuania heavily influenced the prestige of the authoritarian regime, but opened a new stage in relations between Lithuania and Poland on the eve of the Second World War. In addition to the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Lithuania Franciszek Charwat, Poland appointed Leon Mitkiewicz (1896–1972) as its military attaché to the diplomatic mission in Kaunas. Having scrupulously documented his life and service, Mitkiewicz observed Lithuania both before and after his appointment. He also conducted numerous political-military analyses, trying to assess the direction of international and geopolitical events. The article gives an overview of Mitkiewicz’s notes on Polish-Lithuanian relations, and Lithuania and its war potential both before and after the 1938 ultimatum.