Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

The aim of this paper is, by using Computational linguistics method to analyse collocations of ethnonyms leiši and lietuvieši ‘Lithuanians’ in “Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian” (Līdzsvarots mūsdienu latviešu valodas tekstu korpuss), compare contextual semantics of both ethnonyms. Comparing the frequency of use of the lexemes lietuvieši and leiši ‘Lithuanians’ in the modern Latvian language text corpus, the prevalence of the ethnonym lietuvieši is evident, therefore, the ethnonym leiši, regardless of its use as synonymic designation (sometimes in one and the same text), can be considered as an obsolete word. The desemantisation cases of the ethnonym leiši, detected in the corpus, show its oldness and varied functionality in Latvian language. The evidences to prove the statement of the “Modern Latvian Language Dictionary” (Mūsdienu latviešu valodas vārdnīca) that the lexeme leiši nowadays “carries slightly pejorative stylistically expressive colouring” were not found in the text corpus. In general, the image of a Lithuanian reflected in the modern Latvian language text corpus is rather positive – mostly in historical, language, culture and sports contexts, yet in the context of economics and emigration rather negative impression of Lithuanians is expressed.

The Lithuanian Taryba (Council of Lithuania), which was formed in September 1917, was the first body to concern itself with the foreign representation of modern Lithuania. After the peace treaty was concluded in Brest-Litovsk between Germany and the Bolshevik Russian government, and after Lithuania’s independence was recognised by the Kaiser (both in March 1918), the Taryba took up caring for war refugees and other issues. This involved dealing with former territories of European Russia to the east of the Ober Ost area, part of which had been occupied by Germany in early 1918, while in another part the Bolsheviks and the White Russians were competing for power in the emerging Russian civil war. The Taryba appointed authorised representatives for these purposes. The article examines how the Lithuanian Taryba and the German military authorities in the Ober Ost perceived the concept of an authorised representative, and explores the appointment, the responsibilities and the activities of two representatives of the Taryba, Teresė Prapuolenytė and Veronika Janulaitytė Alseikienė. The author examines whether their social status and education played any role in granting these women the power to represent the Lithuanian Taryba abroad.

The German occupation of Ober Ost during the First World War represented an undeniable incentive for further nation and state-building in the occupied lands. Although in the early 20th century education societies had already spread their networks, it was during the years of the German occupation that the centralisation and consolidation of the education network could take place. Regardless of the fact that some ideological divisions between education societies endured, both the limitations imposed by the occupying regime and the existence of a relief committee, the Lithuanian War Relief Committee, with the task to coordinate virtually all Lithuanian activities, functioned as means of rationalising the whole education system. Not only did the Lithuanian War Relief Committee try to overcome ideological divisions in the field of education, but its quasi-state structure also helped to create, finance and effectively direct the whole official network of Lithuanian educational institutions.

In the evaluation of the goals of the countries that fought in the First World War, one of the most persistent stereotypes testifies to the particular aggressiveness of the Kaiser’s Germany, and its exclusive role in the outbreak of the war. This opinion is directly related to Lithuania, when it comes to the expansionist approach of Germany with respect to the western border zones of the Russian Empire. The paper looks for the origins of these historiographic stereotypes, by analysing how the goals of Germany in the First World War were presented in Soviet historiography, and, in a broader sense, in socialist bloc historiography; and how Lithuanian historiography in the period of restored independence has been impacted by the approaches of foreign researchers. After looking at studies of recent resonant historiographic trends with respect to the military aims of the Kaiser’s Germany, and their traces in the Lithuanian study of history, the author makes an attempt to verify the validity of the statement about ‘German expansionism’ as regards Lithuania and the neighbouring region in the initial period of the war, which has been little explored in Lithuania.

The proclamation to the Polish nation on 14 (1) August 1914 signed by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich has interested more than one researcher. Researchers from Russia and other countries routinely refer to the document in their analysis of the Polish question. However, the proclamation itself has not been an object of research for a long time, although the circumstances of its appearance, its content, and its multiple political consequences might contribute not only to an analysis of the Polish question, but also, in a more general sense, to studies of the national question in the Russian Empire. The paper deals with the history of the proclamation to the Polish nation, the reasons for its appearance, and the characteristics of the text. It analyses the issue of its authorship, and the impact of the proclamation on general public feeling, and also discusses the consideration of the Polish question in the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire during the First World War.