Language:
Lithuanian statehood: from past to future
Login / Register
> Home > A review of digitized documents: historical context and sources > The state of Lithuania placing itself on the international stage in 1918–1924
 

 The state of Lithuania placing itself on the international stage in 1918–1924

 

 

Foreign policy of the Republic of Lithuania was implemented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It coordinated the mission of the Republic of Lithuania abroad, supported diplomatic and consular relations of the Lithuanian state with foreign countries, relations with international organizations, led the activities of Lithuanian diplomatic and consular missions abroad, negotiated under its jurisdiction in the name of the Republic of Lithuania and drafted international agreements, supervised their execution, implemented orders of the Government on the development of trade and economic relations, defended the interests of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania abroad and addressed the issues of foreigners in Lithuania.

The process of developing the first Cabinet of Ministers is demonstrated by the minutes of the State Council[1]. Minutes No 104 of 4 November of the State Council contain the resolution on the establishment of nine ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; minutes No 106 of 5 November contain the information of the Chairman of the State Council Presidium Antanas Smetona that, on the basis of the fundamentals of the provisional constitution, the State Council Presidium delegated their duties of the Prime Minister to Prof. Augustinas Voldemaras, who became the minister of foreign affairs.

 

The Paris Peace Conference

Activities of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference are confirmed by meetings of the minutes of the delegation (LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 1–7), covering the period from 1919-03-07, when the first meeting of the delegation was held, to the last meeting No 108 of 1919-12-17, convened at the end of the official delegation activities. Minutes of the meetings of the delegation reveal most aspects of its work – from organizational issues to political decision-making.

Activities of the delegation can also be seen from the correspondence with the Lithuanian authorities (LCVA f .383, ap. 7, b. 19). The documents in the file can be divided into several groups. First of all, there are instructions of the Government of Lithuania and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the delegation, indicating the competences of the delegation, and the position to be taken on different matters. Another group of documents are briefings on the situation in Lithuania and abroad, doings of the Government of Lithuania – this type of material enables to obtain a complete picture of the situation in the country, taking over the authority from the Germans, Lithuania’s independence fights, and other political, economic and social issues during the time. The delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was receiving documents that were sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to all Lithuanian missions operating in foreign countries.

Important source for studying the activities of the Lithuanian delegation are telegrams to the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (F. 383, ap. 7, b .21, 22), sent to the delegation from a variety of sources, perfectly illustrating the issues raised and the matters solved – telegrams of foreign loans to the State of Lithuania, issues on the purchase of goods in foreign countries and delivering them to Lithuania. Telegrams were some of the fastest communication tools at the time, therefore naturally they have been used to solve pressing matters, and deliver information as soon as possible. Typically, telegram texts were short, revealing the heart of the matter, and later, through diplomatic courier, the delegation was receiving a much more detailed documentation.

 

Mission in foreign states

The dynamics and intensity of establishing the Lithuanian missions abroad are demonstrated by the lists of Lithuanian diplomatic missions abroad in the database. According to the list[2] of addresses of Lithuanian foreign diplomatic representative missions of 1919, Lithuania had twelve foreign missions: in Germany – representative ad interim P. V. Gailius, in England T. Norus-Naruševičius, in France O. Milašius, in Latvia D. Zaunius, in Finland and Estonia V. Gylys, in Denmark J. Savickis, in Sweden J. Aukštuolis, in Switzerland V. Sidzikauskas, in Italy – at the Emperor’s See, J. Šaulys, at the Holy See – priest J. Narjauskas, in America J. Čarneckis, in Moscow J. Baltrušaitis. In Transcaucasia, the Lithuanian interests were represented by Pr. Dailidė. The Lithuanian Government also had consuls in Liepaja and Petrograd, and a representative in Kharkov.

At the end of the process of international recognition of Lithuania, the nature and level of Lithuanian mission abroad has changed. In November 1924, Lithuania had 7 legations abroad which were led by the diplomats called Ambassadors Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary. In America it was K. Bizauskas, in England E. Galvanauskas, in Czechoslovakia and Romania D. Zaunius, in Italy P. Klimas, in Russia J. Baltrušaitis, and in Germany V. Sidzikauskas. Lithuanian mission offices were functioning in 9 countries, led by the chargéda‘affairs in Austria, in Switzerland and Hungary by V. Sidzikauskas, who resided in Berlin, in Denmark and Norway by I. Šeinius, who resided in Stockholm, in Estonia and Latvia by A. Aukštuolis, and in Vatican by J. Macevičius. In France, the Lithuanian interests were represented by O. Milašius, called delegue du gouvernement[3].

The appointment of the Lithuanian envoy to Germany in 1918 is testified by the mandate of November 1918 to Jurgis Šaulys to represent the State of Lithuania in Germany[4]. Activities of the Lithuanian embassy are described in the digitized files of the database. First of all, these are the files of the fund of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the LCSA No 383: Documents of correspondence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the Lithuanian embassy in Berlin (1919-02-01 –1919-12-01)[5].

It should be noted that while the main Lithuanian diplomatic efforts were concentrated in the Paris Peace Conference, the Lithuanian embassy in Berlin was one of the largest and most influential centres of the Lithuanian diplomacy, passing the information of the Government of Lithuania and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on to other diplomatic missions of Lithuania, and to the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. Among many telegrams in the file, there is a telegram of the Baltic lands commissioner Colonel Ward, with information about the recognition by the United Kingdom de facto[6].

One of the duties of Lithuanian diplomatic missions abroad was providing information to the Lithuanian press office in Kaunas. This is well illustrated by the letter of the Lithuanian embassy in Berlin to the Lithuanian press office in 1919[7]. The document states that the mission, as a body maintained by the state, must serve government agencies, and requires to indicate the source of all information received by the Berlin embassy, i.e. the Lithuanian embassy in Berlin, as well as to provide information to the press on an equal footing, regardless of its political or ideological orientation. “The exception, of course, should be done only for the press which goes against the Lithuanian state and its government”[8].

 Lithuanian mission activities in Switzerland in 1919 are revealed by the digitized file “Documents on the Lithuanian mission activities in Switzerland”[9]. It is clear that in 1919, one of the most important tasks of the Lithuanian diplomatic mission has been the dissemination of information and communication between Kaunas, Lithuania in Paris and other missions, monitoring and analysis of foreign news (l. 5). The file contains a press release of the press office of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference about the Lithuanian recognition by the British Government de facto[10] . The documents in the file also reveal the complex financial situation of diplomatic missions: J. Šaulys, who became the manager of the Lithuanian mission in Switzerland in October 1919, contacted the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference asking for a loan (l. 10–11). The working conditions of Lithuanian diplomats and methods through which they exchanged information are revealed by the letter of P. Klimas, the member of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, to the Lithuanian emissary in Berlin J. Šaulys written at the end of April 1919. For the informative content of the letter, it’s copy reached the Lithuanian mission in Switzerland (l. 89-91). The file contains several reports of the liaison officer to the military control commission of the League of Nations Lithuania of 1921 informing about the activities of the said commission[11].

The work of the Lithuanian mission in Switzerland in 1920-1921 is also illustrated by the file “Documents of the Lithuanian mission activities in Switzerland”[12]. It contains telegrams, notices for the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other documents revealing the situation of the time – Lithuania’s bid to join the League of Nations. One of the main objectives of the Lithuanian foreign policy – the strive for international recognition – is demonstrated by the message in the file about the meeting of the Lithuanian representative in Switzerland Vaclovas Sidzikauskas with the Swiss government for the recognition of Lithuania, that took place on 1 May 1921[13]. This is an informative document that reveals the stance on the recognition of Lithuania followed not only by Switzerland but also by neutral Scandinavian governments at the time. Switzerland was co-ordinating the matter of Lithuanian recognition with the governments of Scandinavia and other neutral countries, which also were not expedient in recognising Lithuania. The main reason for such delay was the unresolved issue of Vilnius area and the fact that Lithuania’s independence has not been recognized by the major powers. The paper presented also the arguments by which the Lithuanian diplomat attempted to affect such position of foreign countries – arguing in favour of the importance of recognition of the Lithuanian independence and for future cross-border relations, on the grounds that the recognition of Lithuania, after this is done by the majority of European countries, will no longer make major impression on Lithuanians, but rather will be treated by them as an ordinary fact. Another argument was based on an appeal to the Swiss neutrality; according to the Lithuanian diplomat, the main reason why most of the states do not recognize Lithuania, was political – pressure on Lithuania to resolve the conflict with Poland. V. Sidzikauskas reported that the Swiss were impressed by the fact that Lithuanian independence was recognised in Argentina.

Part of files reveal the history of the Lithuanian mission in the Scandinavian countries. The file “Correspondence of the Cabinet of Ministers with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the activities of Lithuania's missions in Latvia, Sweden, Finland” (1919-01-07–1920-04-20) contains the mandate issued on 1919-02-11 to Jurgis Savickas to represent Lithuania in Denmark[14]. Activities of Lithuanian diplomats in 1920-1921 are revealed by the LCSA files contained in the “Documents of the consular activities in Copenhagen”[15]. From these, it appears that in Denmark, like in other countries, Lithuanian diplomats followed and analyzed the local press and the prevailing trends in it, and reported their insights to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In turn, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sending them operational instructions, and informing about the official position of the Lithuanian Government on various issues. Diplomats were involved in meetings with politicians of the countries in which they represented Lithuania, and going to meetings in neighbouring countries. Another important function of diplomats was disseminating information about Lithuania – preparing various brochures, and distributing information about Lithuania in the foreign press. They also collected economic information and analysed Lithuanian export opportunities.

Activities of J. Savickis to disseminate information about Lithuania in Scandinavia is witnessed by the report to the Swedish press about the visit of the Lithuanian representative in Scandinavian countries in Sweden[16], to the Danish press “A country one has to know”[17]. It is likely that activities of the Lithuanian representative in Scandinavia, and intensive dissemination of information about Lithuania conducted by the Lithuanian press office in Stockholm, has influenced the establishment of the organization named Danish Society for supporting Lithuania in 1921. Representative J. Savickis helped them to organize the exhibition in Copenhagen. The purpose of the exhibition was “to reflect the painful Lithuanian way of life”, to introduce the Danes to the miseries suffered by the people of Lithuania in their fight for independence[18].

In the context of the Lithuanian–Polish conflict, important is the article by I. Šeinius, who headed the Lithuanian press offices in Stockholm, “The precedent of solving the Lithuanian–Polish disagreement”[19]. The precedent he named was the Swedish–Finnish conflict on the Alan islands and the decision of the League of Nations in this respect. As the head of the press office in Stockholm, I. Šeinius also monitored and analyzed the local press, and provided information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – “Korfanty and Zeligowski in the Scandinavian press”[20].

It may not be ruled out that active and purposeful operations of the Lithuanian mission in Scandinavia was one of the reasons due to which the Danish Riksdag decided to set up the Danish consulate in Kaunas in May 192 [21], and the Danish government adopted the resolution on the establishment of the Danish consulate in Kaunas on 7 June[22]. After several days, the Lithuanian Government approved the appointment of E. Biering as a Danish consul in Lithuania[23]. Another testimony of the establishment of the Danish Consulate in Lithuania is a telegram of J. Savickis about the appointment of the Danish Consul[24].

J. Savickis represented the interests of Lithuania also in Iceland. In 1922, after Iceland de jure recognized Lithuania’s independence, he met with a representative of Denmark in Iceland, and discussed opportunities for cooperation between the countries[25].

Excellent performance of J. Savickis is testified also by the fact that in September 1922 he was granted about a half-hour long private audience by the King of the Kingdom of Denmark, who “expressed his joy for the recovery of Lithuania and wished good luck in the future”[26].

Information about the activities of the Lithuanian representative in Denmark is provided from the file stored in the LCSA “Telegrams of consular activities in Copenhagen” 1919-04-25– 1921-12-29“[27]. In it are the telegrams of envoy J. Savickis to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the majority of them related to the financial and organizational consular matters, which demonstrate that this Lithuanian representative did not escape financial difficulties. Interesting is the telegram of J. Savickis of 28 November 1921 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J.Purickis. In it, J. Savickis writes, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed doubts about whether the Charge d affairs will be able to represent another two Scandinavian countries, because, so far, such practice has not been applied, meanwhile representatives with ministerial titles used to be appointed to represent foreign countries in Scandinavian countries[28].

The file contains three documents important for the de jure process of the recognition of the Lithuanian state. First of them is a telegram of the Lithuanian Foreign Minister received by I. Šeinius on 22 September 1921, informing that the Norwegian envoy in Copenhagen visited the Lithuanian mission, and, being authorized by its government, presented a written report that on 30 September the State Council will gather at the king’s palace and announce the recognition of Lithuania de jure[29].

Another important telegram is the report of Ignas Šeinius of 29 September 1921 to the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs that Denmark recognized Lithuania de jure on September 28 and the recognition note has been sent through the Danish consul in Lithuania, Biering[30]. In October 1921 J. Savickis informed the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, that, according to the report of the Swedish legation in Copenhagen, Sweden has recognized Lithuania de jure. The telegram noted that the mission received many congratulations for the recognition from the Nordic countries[31].

The telegrams from April 1919 of the Lithuanian Embassy in Copenhagen in the file provides a glimpse not only on the activities of the mission in Copenhagen, but also on the activities of all Lithuanian missions in the period as a whole. April telegrams in the file show the efforts of Lithuania’s representatives to organize a joint resistance of the Lithuanian army and the rest of the German armed forces in Lithuania to the Bolshevik invasion. The telegrams show that the dissatisfaction of German officers was caused by the joyful reception of the French military commission in Lithuania, for which the latter refused to contribute to the Lithuanian army’s military actions against the Bolsheviks. Lithuanian envoys in Berlin, Copenhagen, London, as well as the representatives of the Paris Peace Conference were instructed to exercise every effort for the Allied Powers to put pressure on the Germans to contribute to the Lithuanian organized military action[32].

Intense relations between Lithuania and Denmark are witnessed by another digitized file “Documents on the activities of the Danish consulate in Lithuania”[33], which, among other documents testifying the Lithuanian – Danish relations, contains a telegram of 1921-09-30 of the Danish Consul E. Biering in Lithuanian about the Lithuania’s de jure recognition and co-operation between the countries[34].

One of the first countries to recognize Lithuania de facto was Sweden (end of 1918) and Norway (mid 1919). At that time, the interests of Lithuania in the Scandinavian countries were represented by J. Aukštuolis – 1919 to February 1922, from February 1922 till end of 1923 the office of temporary fiduciary was held by J. Savickis who resided in Denmark, later to be replaced by I. Šeinius[35].

Like other diplomatic representatives of Lithuania, J. Aukštuolis took care of the recognition of the Lithuanian independence, and provided information on the current situation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. There is no doubt that the actions of the Lithuanian diplomatic mission in Sweden and Norway contributed to the fact that already in November 1920 the Swedish and Norwegian ruling circles were considering the issue of recognition of Lithuania de jure. The file “Documents on the activities of Lithuanian missions”[36] contains a letter of the Lithuanian representative in Sweden Jonas Aukštuolis of 6 November 1920 to the Lithuanian Foreign Minister Augustinas Voldemaras about the Swedish and Norwegian decision on de jure recognition of Lithuania[37].

Information about the activities of the Lithuanian embassy in Sweden in 1923 can be found in the digitized file “Correspondence with the Lithuanian mission in Stockholm”[38].

Information about the activities of Lithuanian missions in 1920 is presented in the files “Documents of Lithuanian missions’ operations[39]” and “Correspondence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the missions”[40]. Numerous documents – reports and telegrams – revealing activities of diplomats and topical issues emerging in correspondence, are presented in the files “Various documents, ELTA telegrams”, 1921-1923.[41] In this file there is an ELTA telegram of 14 November 1922 reporting that the Vatican has recognized Lithuania de jure[42], “Various documents, correspondence relating to the receipt of ELTA reports” contain the documents of 1923[43].

On 12 August 1919 J. Šliūpas was appointed the Lithuanian representative in Latvia[44]. On 27 November 1919 the manager of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, that the head of the Sanitation Department of the Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence lieutenant Dr. Pranciškus Vaiciuška is appointed as the Lithuanian state representative in Igaunija[45] (as was Estonia called at the time). On 20 December 1919, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania mandated P. Vaiciuška to represent Lithuania in Estonia[46]. This mandate can be found in the document file of “Lithuanian Estonian embassy”, 1940[47]. The correspondence of P. Vaiciuška with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the file shows that the envoy encountered certain financial difficulties – from salary payment issues, to the approval of the representative office’s estimate. In December, the representative was allowed to order the stamp “Lithuanian State Mission in the State of Igaunija[48]”. On 11 December 1919, the Lithuanian government has authorized P. Vaiciuška to be a delegation member in the conclusion of a ceasefire agreement between Lithuania and Soviet Russia[49].

In addition to telegrams, correspondence, normally present in the files of this kind, several documents should be mentioned specifically. First of all, it is a confidential report of 20 July 1920 of V. Gylys to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania providing information about the designated representative of the Finnish government to the Lithuanian and Latvian states, a Master of Philosophy Mr Silvander[50]. According to the representative of Lithuania, Mr Silvander was particularly interested in Lithuania, had prepared a book about it, and was in high favour of Lithuanians. Therefore, V. Gylys recommended to closely introduce him to “our players in the same field”, so that he receives “some coverage in our relations with the Poles” in advance. According to V. Gylys, there is a good chance of avoiding that the Poles in Lithuania inform him “according to their own liking”[51].

In March 1920, P. Vaiciuška was replaced by the Lithuanian representative in Finland and Estonia, V. Gylys[52]. On 10 April 1920, he informed the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the situation of the Lithuanian mission in Estonia. At the time, the mission only had a single room which was referred to as “bad”, and was not even paid. The document shows that the Lithuanian representative was the only person working in the office, and organising its work, he not only had to accept visitors on various issues, but also to prepare, print, and reprint various letters on a typewriter in a different language, to visit Estonian ministries on a wide range of matters, to deliver packages and telegrams. The representative reasonably doubted whether he will succeed in making important work if working under such conditions. According to V. Gylys, in order to take on more serious work, the ministry should provide funds for renting at least a 3-room apartment, buying a typewriter, and paying salaries, allowing to hire a good secretary and a servant[53].

Another file containing documents that reveal the history of the Lithuanian mission in Estonia and Finland are “Documents on the activities of missions and Estonia and Finland”[54]. Among its documents are the telegram of the High Lithuanian Defence Committee Chairman M. Sleževičius of 1921-02-26 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J.Purickis on the resumption of the Government of the Republic of Estonia to recognize Lithuania de jure[55].

 

Recognition of independence

The Swedish government was first contacted for the recognition on 22 October 1918. This was done by ​​a member of the Council of Lithuania M. Yčas, but the application has not been formalised. Sometime later, in the end of November 1918, the Lithuanian representative in Berlin J. Šaulys asked for recognition through the Swedish envoy in Berlin. Historiography does not provide information on when exactly he applied to Norway, however, the dates of de facto recognition by Sweden and Norway have been recorded. Sweden was the first country that recognized Lithuania de facto. The note of the envoy in Berlin is dated on 12 December 1918, when Lithuania actually did not yet become a state. In the beginning of 1919, the de facto[56] recognitions of Norway and Denmark were received.

The Lithuanian Government, seeing the delay of Western countries for the legal recognition of Lithuania’s independence, and seeking for peace to the land exhausted by the war, accepted the proposal to negotiate a peace from the Soviet Russia at the end of March 1920, presented back in September 1919. Negotiations began on May 7. In late May, it has been interrupted only for a while, and resumed in the second half of June. On 12 July 1920 Lithuania signed the Soviet–Russian peace treaty, recognising the Lithuanian sovereignty in its first paragraph. The recognition paragraph stated that the Lithuanian state autonomy and independence is recognized based on the principle of self-determination of people, and, with the exclusion of the tsarist imperialist policy, resulting in the Lithuanian connection to Russia[57].

Lithuanian preparation for peace talks with Soviet Russia, as well as the negotiation process is reflected in the digitized resources. Most information on this issue is presented in the files “Lithuanian – Russian negotiations on the peace treaty”[58] and the “Documents of the Lithuanian delegation to the peace negotiations with Soviet Russia”[59].

The file “Lithuanian – Russian negotiations on the peace treaty” includes documents covering the period from 1919-12-17 to 1923-12-17, revealing the preparation to negotiate a peace with Soviet Russia, as well as the negotiation process, and the aspirations and goals of the negotiating parties. Of these, one can distinguish the “Instruction to the Lithuanian envoy to Russia”[60]. It indicates that after the exchange of instruments of ratification of the peace treaty, the Lithuanian representative in Russia must maintain good relations with the Russian government and the Russian people, to defend the interests of the Lithuanian Government and Lithuanian citizens in Russia, to inform the Lithuanian Government about all matters in any way related to Lithuania and Lithuanian citizens. Special attention was paid to the provision of information about the Bolshevik government, its activities and potential crisis, Russia’s relations with foreign countries, Bolshevik negotiations with Antante, and public sentiment.

Draft military agreement between Russia and Lithuania in May 1920[61]. It states that Lithuania and Russia are in the actual war situation with Poland. As Poland had occupied the known Lithuanian and Russian territories, in order to recover the owned lands, Lithuania first discussed its borders in the draft agreement. It was indicated that the signatories will not, under any circumstances, start bilateral negotiations with Poland. Russia guaranteed to Lithuania the defence of its territory in the specified locations, and discussed the possibility of the signatories to provide assistance for military purposes by each other's railways, and military assistance. 5th paragraph of the draft agreement deals with the transfer of all armed forces of the Republic of Lithuania under the command of the Russian military commander and provide all kinds of information.

The telegram of 1920-03-09 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed that the Russians, who did not want to complicate their peace negotiations with the Poles, do not want to demarcate the Polish – Lithuanian border in the peace treaty, and offered to indicate the borders in the secret annexes to the treaty. It was indicated that peace talks with Estonia are acceptable to the Russians[62].

The telegrams at the end of April reflected the organisational matters of negotiations, and the opinion that the Lithuanian delegation should go to negotiations[63].

In the file we will find a report of vice-minister P. Klimas to the Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Voldemaras, with the information that the Cabinet has adopted a resolution to negotiate in Dorpat, and that it is decided to follow the ethnographic principle regarding the borders – the provinces of Kaunas, Vilnius and Suwalki, and part of Grodno province to Nemunas. It was also indicated that the negotiations will be based on the Estonian-Soviet Russian peace treaty, and listed the composition of the delegation[64].

On 8 May T. Norus-Naruševičius in his telegram informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania that Chicherin suggested the coordination of military action against Poland. The delegation did not respond to such waiting for the central government’s instructions. The telegram stated that the peace conditions will largely depend on the agreement at issue[65].

On May 9, the Lithuanian delegation for the peace with Russia received the instructions for the recognition of the independence of Lithuania in a separate act. It was believed that a single act of recognition is important only in the event that the negotiations would break up, and the delegation was instructed not to raise this issue at the moment, and if necessary, to explain to the Russians that the government is still considering the matter and has not yet issued specific instructions. In particularly, it emphasized the significance of borders, if it appears that an accord cannot be completely achieved, and it was instructed to state that the authorities consider negotiations to be impossible until Lithuania’s independence is recognized in a separate document[66]. Meanwhile, the telegram of 13 May of the delegation clearly illustrates Russia's position on this issue – the Russian negotiations delegation proposed the recognition of independence in a separate deed in case Lithuania contributes to military action against Poland[67]. The telegram of the same day of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Professor A. Voldemaras instructed to maintain the position that Lithuania will not contribute to Russia's ongoing war against Poland until a peace treaty is signed, since there is no guarantee that the Bolsheviks will not attack Lithuania afterwards[68].

One of the most important documents in this file is the report of the Lithuanian Prime Minister of 22 May 1920 to the Lithuanian delegation to peace with Russia on the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers which discussed the matter of revocation of the delegation from the negotiations. It provided the reasons for the withdrawal of the delegation: first, the boundaries proposed by the Bolsheviks do not differ much from those which the Poles tend to recognize, on the other hand, the Bolsheviks related the recognition of independence with the Lithuania’s participation in the war against Poland, which has a threefold significance: firstly, it shows that the non-questioning of the Lithuania’s independence declared by Chicherin is a bluff, secondly, the fact of negotiation with the Bolsheviks for military support can serve as a pretext for the Poles to attack Kaunas, and finally, thirdly, binding to the Bolsheviks would eject us from the Western orbit and include into the orbit of the Bolsheviks, and then, we would be completely dependent on their mercy. The motivation was also provided against the revocation of the delegation: termination of negotiations means the loss of opportunity for the recognition, secondly, it informally supports the Polish theory that the Bolsheviks had to be beaten, rather than negotiated. In view of everything, the middle option was chosen – to withdraw part of the delegation and also to suspend the negotiations. The Government’s instruction to the delegation: Norus, Bizauskas, Rozenbaunmas, Klesčinskas, Liutkus and Grinkevičius were invited to come back to Kaunas for verbal information. The negotiations were temporarily suspended. Before leaving, T. Norus-Naruševičius was obliged to obtain the last word of the Bolsheviks regarding the borders and the recognition of independence[69].

On the same day, such decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers in the telegram were commented by the chairman of the delegation for peace with Russia, T. Norus-Naruševičius. In his telegram to Kaunas he stated that Chicherin does not question the recognition of Lithuania and agrees to include the matter in the peace treaty as a separate item. They agreed to recognise independence in a separate document if Lithuania agrees to a joint military action against Poland. According to T. Norus-Naruševičius, withdrawal of part of the delegation would be understood by Russians as the willingness to discontinue the negotiations, which, in the opinion of the delegation, would be detrimental not only from the point of view of the West, but also for the relationship with Russia. Norus said that it is highly improbable that the Poles attack Kaunas when they are attacked by the Russians from the east. It is very important for the Russians that Lithuania does not enter into a military agreement with Poland[70].

Very informative documents are the reports of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Petras Klimas to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kaunas on the negotiations with the Soviet Russia[71]. The first report provides the overview of the progress of negotiations with the Soviet Russia from May 1 to May 25. The report states that during the negotiation period in question, only two issues were considered in substance. First, the recognition of Lithuanian independence in an individual document, indicating the motives according to which the Russian delegation refused to grant such recognition, and second, the matters of Lithuanian borders. P. Klimas said that the topic was mainly covering the Slonim land, where majority of the population consisted of Belarusians, and the ethnographic Lithuanian borders. The second report of P. Klimas to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs covers the negotiation period from 25 May to 13 June. P. Klimas said that during the three weeks they failed to reach significant agreements and the negotiations, in the absence of the chairman of the delegation, were basically halted. On the other hand, the Lithuanian delegation managed to find out Russia's position on other relevant issues in the negotiations – return of the art and cultural valuables, debts, compensation for damages, return of exiles and hostages.

The matter of peace treaty with Russia was discussed also at the meetings of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Constituent Seimas, held on May 30, and on June 4, 8, 11 and 13[72].

In the second half of June, the negotiations between Lithuania and Soviet Russia were resumed. In the encrypted telegram of 1 July the Lithuanian delegation was instructed not to terminate the negotiations for economic reasons, but if seeing that they will not succeed to obtain more, they were to make concessions to which the government would agree. Any concessions had to be made with the satisfaction of the minimum territorial requirement[73].

On 4 July, the encrypted telegram for the delegation instructed that, in case of satisfaction of the Lithuanian territorial requirements, the agreement should achieve as much economic benefit as possible, and the negotiations should be completed as soon as possible. It was recommended not to agree to moving the negotiations to Riga[74]. During the last round of negotiations, the Lithuanian delegation received more encrypted telegrams with guidelines or instructions.

Another file containing important information relating to the Lithuanian – Soviet Russia peace treaty, were the records of the Lithuanian delegation to the peace negotiations with Soviet Russia (draft peace treaty, protocols, instructions, and estimates)[75].

The file contains also the following digitized documents: agreement between the Soviet Russia and Estonia, which became a model for the Lithuanian delegation in the negotiations with the Soviet Russia[76].

Draft peace treaty between Lithuania and Soviet Russia[77], the final version of the treaty[78], and the general rules for the joint Lithuanian delegation for peace with Russia[79]. The Lithuanian delegation was divided into six subcommittees, each subcommittee and its chairman was responsible for a certain part of the treaty, and where the subcommittee was unable to settle some issues by a majority of vote, the issue was discussed by the entire delegation. The chairmen of subcommittees also had to represent the interests of Lithuania, and argue the position of the subcommittees in the negotiations. The chairman of the delegation was responsible for the activities of the delegation, and the communication with the Russian delegation. In cases of divergent views of the members of subcommittees, any issues had to be addressed by the majority vote of all delegation members. The following subcommittees were created: Political – responsible for the matters of borders, archives, documents and legislation, Borders – responsible for military affairs, border location in view of the strategic needs, exchange of prisoners, agreement on the evacuation from occupied territories, foreseeing the ways of protecting the Lithuanian borders; Financial–Economic – the issue of compensation of damages caused by the tsarist government by the Bolsheviks, settling the conditions for communication and concession; Captives Exchange and Citizenship Matters – responsible for the issues of exiles, hostages, prisoners and their property, General Corporate and Editorial Board; and the Committee for Economic Affairs.

Minutes of the meeting of 21 April 1920 appointing the members of the subcommittees[80].

Minutes of the meeting of 22 April 1920 adopting the common rules of the Lithuanian delegation to peace with Soviet Russia[81].

Letter of 26 April 1920 of the Peace Delegation to Soviet Russia to the Prime Minister asking to approve a draft treaty prepared by the delegation. The letter requested to approve it as soon as possible, upon agreement with the ministries, aligning the relevant items with their respective areas[82].

The file presented credentials to the delegation members to represent the interests of Lithuania in peace negotiations with Russia[83].

On 29 April 1920 instructions were issued for the Lithuanian delegation to the peace conference in Russia[84]. The delegation was authorized to represent Lithuanian affairs, and to negotiate and sign the treaty. Its members were appointed by the government, and listed the composition of the delegation – T. Naruševičius, P. Klimas, S. Rozenbaumas, J. Vailokaitis, Vytautas Raščkauskas, Kazys Bizauskas, Dom. Siemakško. If necessary, the delegation could include other persons, the president of the Council of State, or his representative vice-president, as well as the Prime Minister with a decisive vote in the delegation, who could only participate ex officio.

Instruction of 30 April 1920 of the Prime Minister for the chairman of the Lithuanian delegation to the peace talks with Russia, stating that the delegation members, experts and staff must not provide any information to Russia without the approval of the delegation or its chairman, about Lithuanian economic and political situation, as well as to negotiate separately with Russian representatives. Disregard of these instructions was equivalent to treason[85].

The file contains a draft treaty prepared by the delegation with corrections[86], also the draft document for the recognition of the independence of the state of Lithuania[87].

On 1 May 1920, the chairman of the Lithuanian delegation to peace with Soviet Russia received instructions issued on the basis of the resolutions passed on April 30 in the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers regarding the return of the Russian gold fund, evacuated from Lithuania, and the property not yet destroyed. If Russia refuses to compensate for lost property in cash, demanding to pay by the railway convention, in wood – in such case Lithuania cannot accept such Russian debt repayment[88].

 On 1 May 1920, the chairman of the Lithuanian delegation to peace with Soviet Russia received instructions issued on the basis of resolutions passed on April 30 in the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers regarding the Slonim land, indicating to defend all Lithuanian land, with no distinction between the areas populated by Lithuanians and Belarusians. The agreement should not resolve the matter of establishing the relations between the Lithuanians and Belarusians between the inner lands populated by the Lithuanians and Belarusians[89].

Instruction on Russian debts of 1 May 1920. In the meeting of April 29, the Cabinet decided that in the peace treaty Lithuania could accept a share of the Russian debt, incurred by Russia before the start of the Great War, only if the compensation for war damages that Russia will undertake to give us, will not be less than part of the Russian debt to be assumed by Lithuania to Russia’s creditors[90].

The letter of the delegation chairman T. Naruševičius of 1 June 1920 to the Prime Minister stating that during the work of the Lithuanian delegation in Russia, the terms of the treaty were discussed, and some items of the treaty were amended adhering to the substance matter. The letter was asking to pass the attached copy of the treaty for the verification of lawyers and experts, as, according to T. Naruševičius, the execution of the treaty will largely depend on its wording[91].

The letter of the delegation chairman T. Naruševičius of 1 June 1920 to the Prime Minister stating that Russia will not meet the Lithuanian economic conditions and financial requirements. In order to facilitate the work of the delegation, the Government was asked to discuss the areas in which the delegation could make concessions, and which requirements should be strictly followed. It was asked to determine the minimum requirements[92].

Draft Statute for the Implementation of the Lithuanian Peace Treaty with Russia to the Eastern Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs[93]. On 3 June 1920, the Statute for the Implementation of the Lithuanian Peace Treaty with Russia to the Eastern Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was approved.

The special division was tasked to monitor all information coming from different ministries, institutions and individuals, in implementing the indicated items of the treaty. The division also had the right to request information relating to the treaty, from different ministries, had the right to invite representatives of various ministries, as well as individual experts in the fields, if needed. The special department had to provide all information, instruction and issues to the Lithuanian commission on the execution of peace treaty with Russia in Moscow[94].

On 3 June 1920, the statute of the Lithuanian commission for the execution of peace treaty with Russia was approved.

The file also contains a copy of the Lithuanian – Ukrainian peace treaty[95], the agreement of Lithuania and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on the option for Lithuanian citizenship[96], financial documents submitted by the delegation – personal expenses of members[97], and financial statements[98]. Pro memoria of J. Šaulys of 21 October 1920 on the execution of the Lithuanian Peace Treaty with Russia[99] as well as the documents relating to the execution of the peace treaty[100], including a statement of Russia on the return of the Lithuania metrics fund[101].

In 1921, Lithuania was de jure recognized by 10 countries. The first to do this was Latvia, on 2 February. The translation of the note in which the Latvian government recognized Lithuania de jure reached the Lithuanian embassy in Washington as early as on February 12[102]. Estonia was the second. M. Sleževičius, the chairman of the Lithuanian Supreme Committee for Defence, informed the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J. Purickis about the decision of the Estonian government to recognize Lithuania de jure on 26 February[103]. It should be noted that the Government of the Republic of Lithuania contacted the Latvian, Estonian and Finnish governments for the recognition of independence on 23 October 1919.

On August 19 they received the recognition de jure from Switzerland. On the same date, the director of the Swiss Political Department informed the Lithuanian representative in Switzerland V. Sidzikauskas of this in his letter[104]. Lithuanian representative in Switzerland V. Sidzikauskas had a meeting with the Swiss authorities on 5 May regarding the recognition of independence of Lithuania. His report about this meeting was sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania[105]. The document is presented in the file.

In 1921 Lithuania de jure was also recognized by the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Finland and two countries of the American continent – Mexico and Brazil. A de facto recognition was received from Argentina.

In 1922, the process of Lithuanian international recognition was going on much faster. On January 5, Lithuania was de jure recognized by Czechoslovakia, and on May 9 by Venezuela.

Lithuanian representative in London Tomas Norus-Naruševičius reported to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania Vladas Jurgutis on the de jure recognition by Venezuela on 2 June 1922[106]. This message, along with other document demonstrating the activities of the Lithuanian representative office, is stored in the file “Documents of mission operations in England”[107].

On 23 May Lithuania was de jure recognized by Greece and Chile, by Bolivia on June 6, by Spain on July 27, by the United States on 28 July, and by Iceland on November 1.

On 11 November 1922, the Lithuanian embassy to the Holy See in its telegram informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania that Lithuania was de jure recognized by the Holy See[108]. The telegrams and other documents revealing the activities of the Lithuanian embassy to the Holy See, as well as the relations of Lithuania, seeking the recognition of independence, with the Vatican state, are stored in the file “Documents of the activities of the embassy in Vatican“ [109].

Shortly after Lithuania was de jure recognized by the Conference of Ambassadors on December 20, in other words, by the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Japan, on 27 December Lithuania received the de jure recognitions of Germany (Weimar Republic) and Belgium, and on 28 of Panama.

The major countries where slow in recognising the state of Lithuania de facto nor de jure. Great Britain was the first, it recognised the Lithuanian Government de facto on 24 September 1919. The Baltic lands assistant commissioner, Colonel Ward informed the Lithuanian mission in Berlin of this in his telegram of 25 September 1919[110]. On September 26, the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference also announced the de facto recognition of Great Britain[111].

France recognised de facto the independence of Lithuania on 11 May 1920. The telegram sent on 29 March 1919 by the Lithuanian representative in France Oscar Milosz to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania A. Voldemaras said that the consideration of the issue of Lithuanian recognition by the French parliament has started already in late March[112].

To the international recognition of Lithuania, the most significant year was 1922. At the meeting in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs[113] they focused on the steps to be taken to obtain Lithuania’s recognition de jure. The meeting approved the instruction aimed at coordinating the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to gain Lithuania’s recognition at the Genoa Conference. There are minutes of the meetings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs held in June-October 1922. (LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288). The digitized minutes contain the records of the consideration of the most important foreign policy issues of Lithuania at the time, related to the international recognition of the country, – discussions of techniques and strategies to obtain the recognition, and the situation in the beginning of the year when the recognition of Lithuania was being discussed at the Conference of Ambassadors of the League of Nations in summer and winter of 1922. Minutes No 34 contain information that during the Genoa Conference, French Prime Minister R. Poincare said that France does not oppose the recognition of Lithuania de jure, however he does not recommend to combine this issue with the Vilnius issue[114].

Important documents relating to the inspiration of the matter of recognition of the independence of Lithuania at the Ambassador Conference are presented in the file “Documents of Lithuania’s independence recognition, Lithuanian – Polish relations, discussion of the situation in the Klaipėda region at the Conference of Ambassadors”[115]. Among them is the list of states that recognised the independence of the Lithuanian state de jure and de facto drafted by the attaché to the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1922, the telegram of the secretary of the Lithuanian mission in Paris[116], Juozas Dobužis, of 1 July 1922, to the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania Vladas Jurgutis about the situation of the matter of de jure recognition of Lithuania at the Conference of Ambassadors[117], letter of the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ernestas Galvanauskas of 18 November 1922 to the Chairman of the Conference of Ambassadors Poincare Raimona on the consideration of Lithuania’s de jure recognition[118]. One of the most important documents in the file is the letter of the Conference of Ambassadors of 20 December 1922 to the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ernestas Galvanauskas announcing that Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan recognized Lithuania de jure[119]. The file also contains a letter of 1922-12-27 of the Belgian ambassador in Paris to the Lithuanian representative in Paris, Oscar Milosz, reporting that Belgium has recognized Lithuania de jure[120].

Lithuanian Foreign Minister V. Jurgutis was informed about the U.S. intentions to recognize the independence of Lithuania on 16 February 1922 by the Lithuanian representative in Washington V. Čarneckis[121]. Information is presented in the file “Documents about the activities[122] of the mission in the USA”. It also contains other documents demonstrating the Lithuanian mission in the United States. Notification of the fact that the United States have recognized Lithuania de jure, was sent on 30 July to the Lithuania’s mission in Russia[123]. This report, along with other documents of correspondence with the Lithuanian mission in Russia of 1922 is stored in the file “Correspondence with the Lithuanian representative in Russia on relevant matters“[124]. Adviser of the Lithuanian mission in Moscow L. Bagdonas reported to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania that the U.S. de jure recognized the Baltic states on 1 August 1922[125]. This report, together with other documents of the Lithuanian mission in Russia of 1922, are stored in the file “Documents on the activities of the mission in Russia”[126].

On 5 January 1923 the Lithuanian independence was recognised by Peru and Costa Rica, on 30 January – by Siam, on 9 February – by Paraguay, on 12 – by China, on 13 – by Liberia and on 26 December by Guatemala. On 5 May the recognition of Portugal, and on 11 May the recognition of Cuba were received. On 5 November the state Lithuania was recognised by Persia, on 6 November – by Ecuador. Finally, in 1924, Lithuania received de jure recognitions from Austria (7 February), Romania (21 August) and Bulgaria (3 November).

 

Lithuanian – Polish relations

Lithuanian – Polish relations in 1919 are reflected in the file “Documents about the activities of the Lithuanian mission in Poland”[127]. It contains the documents that demonstrate the attempts to regulate relations between Poland and Lithuania in 1919, to unite the forces of the two countries in the fight against the Bolsheviks. From the documents it appears that the main requirement of the Lithuanian Government for Poland was the recognition of independence of Lithuania with the capital city of Vilnius. The documents also reveal unwillingness of the Polish government to negotiate on setting the Lithuanian – Polish border, on the grounds that it should be done at the peace conference in Paris. Among the documents in the file is the telegram of the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Eustace Sapieha of 4 July 1920 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania reporting that Poland recognized the Lithuanian Government.

Much information about the Lithuanian – Polish relations and the conflict between the countries and its developments in 1990 is provided in the records of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference[128]. The meeting of the delegation on 12 March discussed the requirements to be presented by Lithuania to the Paris Peace Conference. In support of Lithuania’s independence, it presented the Lithuania’s position in relation to the neighbouring Poland, stating that Lithuania does not want to join Poland, because historically Poland has always been exploiting Lithuania, forcing it to sign the Lublin Union, and upon signing it, seized a lot of Lithuanian lands. The anarchy among privileged layers of society brought in a lot of confusion and was detrimental to the two countries, meanwhile the reviving Poland currently demonstrates aggressive tendencies against the state of Lithuania. The fact that at the Paris Conference Lithuania was encouraged to join with Poland, is shown by the report of A. Voldemaras presented on March 16 about his meeting with the French General Staff member Lorand (Meeting No 18). During the meeting, they discussed the Lithuanian border and military issues. The French representative invited Lithuania to join Poland.

In April, when the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference learned that the Polish army occupied Vilnius, at the department meeting on 25 April it was decided to make a statement against the Polish actions. The segment was also discussed on the meetings of the Lithuanian delegation on April 26 and April 29. Another protest against the Polish actions was discussed at the meeting No 53 on May 7. The possibility to negotiate with Polish representatives was discovered on May 8. The matter of Lithuania and Poland was continuously occurring in the meetings of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference.

The file “Documents on the activities of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference”[129] contains a series of reports on the situation in Lithuania in 1919, that are relevant to understanding the development of the Lithuanian – Polish conflict.

The history of Lithuanian – Polish relations in 1920 is reflected by the documents in the file “Documents about the Lithuanian – Polish negotiations on the Treaty of Suwalki on 1920-01-08–1920-12-08”[130].

At meeting of 6 January 1920 of the representatives of the Lithuanian and Polish governments in Kaunas, they negotiated the options on exchanging the prisoners of war[131]. Telegrams of 2-10 September 1920 of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J. Purickis and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland Sapieha discussed the possibility of negotiation[132].

Some of the documents in the file testify unsuccessful Lithuanian-Polish negotiations of 16-18 September 1920 in Kalvarijos. This is a statement No 1[133] of the Lithuanian delegation of 16 September, statement No 2[134] of the Lithuanian delegation of 17 September, and statement No 3[135] of the Lithuanian delegation of 18 September 1920. It also contains the Polish delegation’s statements to the Lithuanian delegation of 16 and 17 September 1920[136].

There is the authorisation signed on 27 September 1920 of P. Klimas to V. Čarneckis to represent Lithuania and to negotiate with Poland on September 27.[137]

The progress of negotiations in Suwalki is described by the phonograms of the Lithuanian delegates and representatives of the Lithuanian authorities, indicating the information provided to Kaunas by the Lithuanian negotiators as well as instructions for negotiators sent from Kaunas. Telegram of P. Klimas to K. Balutis of 30 September 1920[138]. The phonogram contains information to the Suwalki negotiating delegation that the Polish Foreign Minister Sapieha and Rozvadovsky in the presence of the England’s representative stated that all efforts of Poles behind Nemunas are made ​​exclusively for the purpose of military operations against the Bolsheviks. According to Sapieha’s statement, Suwalki negotiations must determine the demarcation line that indicates the current military formation, and the Polish delegation will continue to offer to continue talks in Riga. Rozvadovsky said that Poland will have sufficient military power to occupy Vilnius if Lithuanian’s begin persecuting the Polish Army in the territory of Lithuania. He did not clearly indicate what does the prosecution mean. As a result, the Cabinet of Ministers decided to take all necessary measures to avoid any excesses, that might give the Poles a pretext to implement those threats. The phonogram of K. Balutis to Lithuania of 1 October 1920[139] contains information about the meeting of negotiations in Suwalki that took place on 30 September.

Phonogram of P. Klimas to K. Balutis[140], of 1 October 1920, in which the Lithuanian delegation notifies that the set demarcation line will have no political significance in the future and that it is necessary to agree about it. It indicates that the negotiation can contribute to the removal of Polish and Russian troops from the territory of Lithuania, but emphasises that if such position is not acceptable to Poland, it may not be the cause of terminating the negotiations. It indicates that it is not necessary to require the armistice before setting the demarcation line and that it may be signed after setting the line. The line at which the Lithuanian Army was standing before the beginning of negotiations in Suwalki was indicated as an acceptable line. It was stated that it is worth to agree with such a line, to demonstrate the world our peacefulness, and not give any basis for the Poles to blame Lithuania for supporting the Bolsheviks. It is argued that the British promised comprehensive support to Lithuania as soon as after signing the Polish – Russian Peace Treaty or ceasefire, when the Polish and Soviet troops leave the territory of Lithuania. According to P. Klimas, the key is to achieve a modus vivendi which protects Vilnius and Vilnius–Varėna–Alytus railway. It was indicated to raise the question in the negotiations on the return of the confiscated military equipment and weapons, the locomotive and 36 wagons – the latter could not be returned after explosion of the Varėna – Marcinkonys bridge. P. Klimas notes that the Lithuanian – Polish dispute is referred to the League of Nations, therefore it was instructed to notify the authorities immediately if the Poles offered to continue negotiations in Riga. It was stated in the file that Lithuania would be a weaker party in the negotiations in Riga. In the phonogram of 3 October 1920 the Lithuanian negotiators were informed of the arrival of the military control mission of the League of Nations, the ongoing Polish military action and the occupied territories of Lithuania, and indicated the conditions and guidelines of the negotiations[141]. The phonogram of 4 October 1920 of P. Klimas to K. Balutis[142] contains the instructions in regard to this situation – if the League of Nations takes cold stance, and the Poles do not give up, to accept the line offered by the Poles on the grounds that the situation at the front is such that Lithuania cannot comply with their requirements persistently. It is indicated to obtain the launching of trains through Varėna. It was emphasized that in order to determine the demarcation line and the ceasefire, it is necessary to compromise.

The phonogram of 7 October 1920 of P. Klimas to K. Balutis[143] states the reasons for which the demarcation line was not laid across Bastūnai. According to B. K. Balutis, the Polish delegation took advantage of an excuse, allegedly that because of the presence of Bolsheviks it is not possible to draw the line in these territories. It was informed about the movement of the Polish troops from Lida towards Vilnius. It was indicated that the risk is really high. It was therefore recommended that the negotiations proceed in a very soft tone, “giving the promise on our behalf in the atmosphere of highly useful relations to guarantee the rights of Poles in Lithuania and even the opportunity to come into close neighbourly relations, if currently the Poles behave like gentlemen with Vilnius and in the absence of attacks on the city”. Then, it was instructed that it is necessary to demonstrate a very large hostility to the Poles because of the military action ongoing by the Polish army in Lithuania stating that the onslaught of Vilnius could finally endanger the relations between the two states. If now the Poles leave us alone – the future political prospects favourable for Poland are then possible. It also provided information about the Russian – Polish peace treaty intended to be signed in Riga, in which the Poles received the corridor Vileikio – Dysna, meaning that Lithuania was completely blocked off from Russia. On 7 October 1920, the phonogram of General Leut. Kattche to the Chief Military Commander[144] was received, identifying the most important agreements with the Poles – discussing the demarcation line established in the treaty, and informing that the Poles are committed to pass all Lithuanian trains, other than those related to the military. The contract enters into force on October 10 at 12:00 and will be in force until the final resolution of the territorial dispute between Lithuania and Poland. The phonogram of 7 October 1920 of K. Balutis to the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the Vice Minister P. Klimas[145], informing about the agreement reached with the Poles – the demarcation line, and the agreement on the movement of trains. The phonogram of 7 October 1920 of General Leut. Kattche to the Chief Military Commander[146] once again discussed the demarcation line, to which the military control commission of the League of Nations agreed. It was informed that the commission went by car to Varėna, and instructed to take all measures to maintain relations with the commission.

The file contains the text of the Suwalki Treaty[147] of 7 October 1920 introducing the Lithuanian-Polish agreements on the demarcation line, suspension of hostilities, exchange of prisoners, and the time of the treaty.

The file contains an informative document without date – the text of the referral of the Lithuanian Government to the League of Nations for breach of the Suwalki Treaty[148]. In the first paragraph it states that Poland breached the Suwalki Treaty which is a dangerous precedent in international relations and the League of Nations should not allow Poland, itself being a member of the League of Nations, to breach international treaties. The document also states that while Vilnius region is invaded by Poland, reconciliation can be achieved through direct negotiations. The occupation of Vilnius area by L. Zeligowski and the refusal of the Polish government to withdraw the troops under his direction is named in the document as “international gangsterism”, and the League of Nations is called to settle the situation urgently, because the situation undermines the authority of the League of Nations.

Report of B. K. Balutis of the conversation between him and T. Norus-Naruševičius on 23 October 1920 with Colonel Warde. The document reflects the attitude of the Lithuanian Government to the possible ceasefire with L. Zeligowski. The Lithuanian Government was determined not to begin negotiations with L. Zeligowski and, if necessary, to continue military action. Only at the initiative of the League of Nations or the Entente, the Government of Lithuania saw the possibilities to enter into negotiations[149].

Much of the information about the Lithuanian – Polish relations in 1920 are presented to the file “Documents of the adjustment of the Lithuanian – Polish conflict”[150].

Pressured by the Military Control Commission of the League of Nations, the Lithuanian Government resumed negotiations for a plebiscite in January 1921, however, in this stage of the negotiations Lithuanian proposals were also not taken into account. Finally, in the note to the League of Nations of 13 February 1921, the Government refused plebiscite in Vilnius and Vilnius area on the grounds that Vilnius, which is the capital city of Lithuania, is connected to Lithuania without a plebiscite.

Other Lithuanian-Polish negotiations began in Brussels at the end of April 1921 and lasted until the beginning of June. Negotiations were led by the then chairman of the League of Nations, Colonel P. Hymans. Lithuania was represented by P. Klimas, E. Galvanauskas and V. Jurgutis. In this stage of the negotiations, the project of P. Hymans consisting of 15 pages was presented, in which the economic and military conventions where combined on the basis of the foreign policy, dividing Lithuania to the administrator provinces of Kaunas and Vilnius, guaranteeing the Polish influence in the latter. The aim was to reach an agreement between Lithuania and Poland. The considerations of the project began in Brussels on 12 May while meetings were held on the same subject in Lithuania. Lithuania and Poland's positions were basically deviating and the negotiations stopped at an impasse, and finally were ceased on 3 June. The issue was again referred to the Council of the League of Nations, which decided to resume negotiations in September 1921. The second round of negotiations between Lithuania and Poland took place in Geneva. The new version of the Hymans project was presented for consideration.

Positions of Lithuanian diplomats in respect of the Hymans project are well illustrated by the protocols[151] of the Lithuanian foreign representatives conference, stored in the LCSA, Ignas Šeinius fund. Discussions on the issues of the Hymans project began on 27 October 1921 at the 7th congress meeting, in which the Hymans project was presented, discussing each item separately. The project acceptance or rejection possibility was first discussed in the context of international politics. It was stated that both rejection and acceptance of the Hymans project is risky, but the rejection would mean that “... as if Lithuania breaks ties with the world and it is no longer legally be helped”. At the 8th meeting on 28 October, the first issue of discussion became the attitude of Vilnius area inhabitants to the Hymans project. It was stated that Jews and Lithuanians are favourable in respect of the project and Poles of Vilnius region strongly condemn the project. It was also decided that in Poland the attitude to the Hymans project is twofold – some policymakers believe that the rejection of the project would be detrimental to the relationship of Poland and the League of Nations, while “Pilsudski and Co. simply believes to the facts and does not take into account anything else. They still do not abandon the idea to occupy the entire Lithuania and connect it to Poland with federal ties”. The Hymans project was also discussed in the context of Lithuania's domestic and economic situation. It was stated that the hostility of the population to the Hymans project is the consequence of activities of political parties and their leaders, meanwhile, the majority of population in the country and especially in the rural areas are “passive and indifferent”. It was believed that in economic terms the rejection could be very dangerous. In the 9th meeting, held on 29 September, the attitude of foreign countries – Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Russia – to the Hymans project was discussed. The participants of the meeting expressed arguments “for” and “against” the Hymans project. In the 11th meeting on 31 October they were discussing three options – acceptance, rejection, and acceptance with reservations of the Hymans project. Diplomats discussed and debated the potential consequences of each of the options. E. Galvanauskas informed the meeting participants that after interviews with public figures, political parties and members of political groups, it appeared that everyone is against the Hymans project, pointed out that most of the attitudes are based only on the internal political situation. Discussions continued on 1 November, that the 12th meeting which ended with the voting. Nobody voted for the project rejection and acceptance. “So nothing was left but accept it with reservations”. The meeting also formed the committee (P. Klimas, T. Norus-Naruševičius, V. Sidzikauskas), that had to prepare a response to the decision of September 20 of the League of Nations. Upon consideration of the response in the meetings of November 3 and 4, the committee was complemented by B. K. Balutis ir I. Jonynas, and the previously formed commission was delegated to edit the final response to the League of Nations in the French language. The response as the general attitude of the representatives of Congress was passed at the 17th meeting on November 5.

The decision of the representatives Congress to accept the Hymans project with reservations showing the intention of diplomats to continue to procrastinate and to continue the negotiations, in order to reclaim the occupied Vilnius region, did not receive support. In the votings held in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government nobody voted in favour of the project. Finally, on 24 December, the Lithuanian Government sent a note to the League of Nations, in which it said that the Government feels compelled to express regret that Lithuania cannot accept the recommended project of reconciliation. The second Hymans project was rejected also by the Polish Government[152].

On 13 January 1922, the Council of the League of Nations, discussing the Lithuanian-Polish negotiations in Geneva, decided to refuse to deal with the dispute of both parties. They convened a Military Control Commission, and decided to divide the neutral zone between Lithuania and Poland, and to draw new lines of demarcation. Lithuania disagreed with such decision of the League of Nations[153]. The division of the neutral zone between Lithuania and Poland was delayed and was reviewed again in the session of the League of Nations in September 1922.

In spite of the active opposition of Lithuania, on 3 February 1923 the League of Nations adopted a resolution on the liquidation of the neutral zone, and the commission of the League of Nations led by P. Saura that was the Lithuania at the time, drafted the line dividing the neutral zone. The Railway Warsaw–Vilnius–Daugavpils was left for Poland, Širvintos and Giedraičiai were returned to Lithuania.

The database contains the minutes[154] of the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations of 3 February 1923 in which it was decided to liquidate the neutral zone between Lithuania and Poland. It also indicates that the demarcation line will be temporary in nature, both countries are not allowed to reach it, and were instructed to refrain from any hostile action. During the meeting, the Lithuanian delegation submitted a declaration stating that the Lithuanian Government has repeatedly emphasised that it will not agree with any changes of the neutral zone, always insisting on the demarcation line, outlined by the Suwalki Treaty. It was stated that the neutral zone was established in the mutual Lithuanian and Polish Kaunas convention of 30 November 1920 (Lithuanian – Polish truce of 29 November 1920) and therefore the Lithuanian delegation is of the view that in this matter the Council of the League of Nations in general should not provide any recommendations, as neither Lithuania nor Poland has never requested this. The Lithuanian diplomats said that making changes in the treaty between the two countries without their consent would become a poor precedent and be contrary to the principle of sovereignty.

During the meeting, in the voting the discussed recommendations were accepted by the Council of the League of Nations and the Polish representative, while the representative of Lithuania voted against. The decision was made, that in spite of objections of Lithuania, the recommendations will take effect.

The document is stored in the file “documents on the consideration of the Lithuanian-Polish conflict in the League of Nations and at the Conference of Ambassadors”[155]. It provides documents from 1921-06-23 to October 1923, demonstrating the progress of the Polish-Lithuanian conflict resolution in the League of Nations and the Conference of Ambassadors, efforts of Lithuanian diplomats to escalate the issue in the international arena after decisions of the Conference of Ambassadors unfavourable to Lithuania[156].

The digitized file “Documents about the demarcation of the Lithuanian – Polish border of 1923-03-09–1923-05-02[157]” contain the Lithuanian government protest note in respect of the resolution of 15 March 1923 of the Conference of Ambassadors[158]. The protest note states that Lithuania does not have the opportunity to fight back to Poland for the illegal seizure of Vilnius region, solemnly declares that the Lithuanian Government does not recognize the resolution of 15 March 1923 of the Conference of Ambassadors, considers Vilnius to be the capital of Lithuania and the region of Vilnius – part of Lithuania. The document was made in French.

The Polish eastern borders set up in the Conference of Ambassadors are visualised in the map Les frontieres orientales de la Pologne[159].

 

Klaipėda region connection to Lithuania

The issue of dependence of Klaipėda port, and thus the Lithuania Minor to Lithuania has been raised already in the Paris Peace Conference. This is reflected in the protocols of the Lithuanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference[160], in the file “Documents of the Lithuanian delegation activities in the Paris Peace Conference”[161].

Many sources for the studies of the history of inclusion of Klaipėda region to Lithuania are presented in the file “Documents on the revolt of Klaipėda area and connection of Klaipėda to Lithuania”[162]. The file contains documents that reveal active efforts of Lithuanian diplomats in the matter of Klaipėda region. This is evidenced by reports sent to the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Lithuanian representatives in Great Britain, and Latvia. The reports provided information about the opinions on the issue of Klaipėda by different foreign politicians or diplomats, and guidance on how to deal with a given situation. Among the documents stored in the file is the message of the Lithuanian representative in Great Britain T. Naruševičius of 31 January 1923 about the talks held on 29–30 January 1923 on the matter of Klaipėda region with Lord Robert Cesil, Italian ambassador to Britain and Professor Simpsons, a message of the representative of Lithuania in Latvia D. Zaunius of 30 January to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which provides information about the attempts of the Polish Government representatives to ensure the solution of Klaipėda region issue in their favour, to convince the Entente countries to put pressure on Lithuania, as well as the position of Latvia on the issue of Klaipėda region.

Documents for the inclusion of Klaipėda region to Lithuania are important for the analysis of the situation in Klaipėda region[163]. They contain the translation to the Lithuanian language of the resolution[164] of the Council of the Conference of Ambassadors of 17 February 1923 on the inclusion of Klaipėda region to Lithuania, notices of the director of the Western and Policy Department of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs B. Balutis of January 1923 to the Lithuanian State Representative for Klaipėda region A. Smetona[165], High Lithuania Minor Rescue Committee Manifesto (poster) for the residents of Klaipėda region[166], and other documents.

Inclusion of Klaipėda region into Lithuania was finally legalized on 8 May 1924 by the Convention of Lithuania and the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan of 1924-05-08 on the territory of Klaipėda[167]. The document is stored in the file “Convention of Lithuania and the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan of 1924-05-08 on the territory of Klaipėda”, the trade and shipping agreement with Norway, the law on replacement of the monetary units that circulated in Lithuania with the litas, and drafts of other laws, statutes, regulations, and deeds[168].



[1] LCVA F. 1014, ap. 1., b. 21
[2] Lietuvos atstovybių užsienyje adresai // F. 923, ap. 1, b. 1296, l.
[3] LCVA, f. 648, ap. 1, b. 314, l. 25 – 26.
[4] 1918 m. lapkričio mėn. įgaliojimas Jurgiui Šauliui atstovauti Lietuvos valstybei Vokietijoje. LCVA, F. 383, ap. 18, b. 297, l. 100.
[5] LCVA F. 383, ap. 4, b. 135.
[6] LCVA F. 383, ap. 4, b. 135, l. 18
[7] LCVA F. 923, ap.1, b. 1296, l. 12 – 12 ap.
[8] LCVA f. 923, ap.1, b. 1296, l. 12 ap.
[9] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 249.
[10] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 249, l. 53.
[11] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 249, l. 92 – 99.
[12] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 174.
[13] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 174, l. 94 – 94 a.p.
[14] 1919-02-11 įgaliojimas Jurgiui Savickiui atstovauti Lietuvą Danijoje // LCVA. F. 923, ap. 1, b. 39, l. 58.
[15] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167.
[16] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 42
[17] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 43
[18] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 95.
[19] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 60 - 64
[20] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 65-69.
[21] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 36.
[22] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 167, l. 20.
[23] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 17, b. 29, l. 22.
[24] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 19, l. 108.
[25] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 17, b. 58, l. 156.
[26] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 17, b. 45, l. 10.
[27] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 365.
[28] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 365, l. 35
[29] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 365, l. 69-70.
[30] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 365, l. 68.
[31] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 365, l. 65.
[32] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 365, l. 726, 725, 723-724.
[33] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 169
[34] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 169, l. 16.
[35] Užsienio reikalų ministrai, p. 416-417
[36] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 78,
[37] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 78, l. 30.
[38] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 17, b. 20.
[39] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 78.
[40] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 3, b. 32.
[41] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 18, b. 46.
[42] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 18, b. 46, l. 153
[43] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 17, b. 58.
[44] LCVA. F.923, ap.1, b. 57, l. 65, 66 ap. Lietuvos Respublikos Ministrų Kabineto 1919-08-12 nutarimas dėl pirmojo Lietuvos atstovo Latvijoje J.Šliūpo ir karo atašė V. Natkevičiaus paskyrimo.
[45] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101, l. 69.
[46] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101, l.58 (prancūzų kalba) ir l. 59 (lietuvių kalba).
[47] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101.
[48] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101, l. 53
[49] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101, L. 54.
[50] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101, l. 14 – 14 a.p.
[51] Ten pat. 14 – 14 a.p.
[52] Ten pat, l. 49, 50, 51.
[53] LCVA. F.383, ap.3, b.101, l. 38-38 a.p.
[54] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 106
[55] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 106, l. 120.
[56] S. Grigaravičiūtė, 55-56
[57] Č. Laurinavičius. Lietuvos–Sovietų Rusijos taikos sutartis, p. 92.
[58] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77.
[59] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95
[60] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77., l. 218-219 a.p.
[61] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77., l. 212-213
 
[62] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 20
[63] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 182-183, 198-200, 196, 195.
[64] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l.175-179
[65] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 172.
[66] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 169.
[67] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 168.
[68] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 167
[69] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 194.
[70] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 166
[71] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 158-165, 143-145.
[72] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 149, 150, 154-154 a.p., 155, l. 156-156 a.p.
[73] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 123-124
[74] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 77, l. 119-120
[75] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95.
[76] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 10-27.
[77] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 243-253
[78] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 183-204
[79] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 179-181
[80] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 178.
[81] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 175-177.
[82] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 171-171a.p.
[83] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l.161-170
[84] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 157-160
[85] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 156
[86] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 146-155
[87] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 157-160
[88] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 144.
[89] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 143.
[90] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 142.
[91] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 141.
[92] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 140.
[93] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 137-139.
[94] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 135.
[95] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 88-93, 94-99, 100-105, 122-127, 128-133.
[96] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 106-109, 110-113, 114-117, 118-121.
[97] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 76-87
[98] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 54-75.
[99] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 42-46.
[100] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l.1-42.
[101] LCVA f. 923, ap. 1, b. 95, l. 5-7.
[102] LCVA F. 656, ap. 1, b. 224, l. 22.
[103] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 106, l. 120.
[104] LCVA F. 383, ap. 17 , b.20, l. 31.
[105] LCVA F. 383, ap. 17 , b.174, l. 94.
[106] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 261, l. 171.
[107] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 261
[108] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 289, l. 64, 68, 71
[109] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 289
[110] LCVA F. 383, ap, 4, b. 135, l. 18.
[111] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 249, l. 53.
[112] LCVA F. 383, ap. 7, b. 32, l. 18.
[113] [LCVA 383, ap. 7, b. 283, l. 34]
[114] LCVA 383, ap. 7, b. 383. Posėdis Nr. 34
[115] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 295.
[116]  LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 295, l. 40
[117] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 295, l. 223
[118] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 295, l. 71-74.
[119] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 295, l. 54-54a.
[120] LCVA, F. 383, ap. 7, b. 295, l. 45.
[121] LCVA F. 383 ap. 7, b. 260, l. 197.
[122] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 260.
[123] LCVA F. 383 ap., 5, b. 15, l. 212.
[124] LCVA F. 383 ap., 5, b. 15
[125] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b. 301, l. 145.
[126] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b.301.
[127] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 64
[128] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b.1.
[129] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b.19.
[130] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80
[131] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 3.
[132] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 169-171.
[133] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 46-48
[134] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 73
[135] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 44
[136] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 79-80, 102, 106-108.
[137] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 7.
[138] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 149
[139] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 136-138a.p.
[140] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 127-129.
[141] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 115-117.
[142] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 135.
[143] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 118-119.
[144] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 120-120 a.p.
[145] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 121-121a.p.
[146] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 122-123. 
[147] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 9-11.
[148] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 26-28.
[149] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 80, l. 4-5
[150] LCVA f. 383, ap. 7, b. 90.
[151] LCVA f. 675, ap. 1, b. 1, l. 1-39.
[152] Ministrai, p. 58-59.
[153] Ministrai, p. 91
[154] LCVA f. 671, ap. 1, b. 33, l. 19-25.
[155] LCVA f. 671, ap. 1, b. 33,
[156] LCVA f.671, ap.1, b.33, l. 155-166.
[157] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b. 413.
[158] LCVA, f. 383, ap. 7, b.413, l. 36–41.
[159] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b.413, l. 51.
[160] LCVA f.383, ap. 7, b. 1 – 7
[161] LCVA f.383, ap. 7, b. 19
[162] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b. 378
[163] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b. 61.
[164] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b. 61, l.34-36.
[165] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b. 61, l.46-59
[166] LCVA f. 383, ap.7, b. 61, l. 157
[167] LCVA f.923, ap.1, b. 374,  l. 200–207
[168] LCVA f.923, ap.1, b. 374.  

 

Recommend to a friend
<July 2019>
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234