VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY

Asta PETRAITYTĖ-BRIEDIENĖ

THE ACTIVITY OF THE HEAD OF THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF LITHUANIA STASYS LOZORAITIS (1940-1983)

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, History (05 H)

Kaunas, 2011 This dissertation was prepared in the period of 2005 - 2011 at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, Lithuania

The doctoral study license is granted to Vytautas Magnus University by resolution No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the 15th of July, 2003

Scientific supervisor:

Dr. Daiva Dapkutė (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H)

The dissertation is defended at Vytautas Magnus University at the Council of Scientific Field of History of Vytautas Magnus University

Chairman:

Prof. Habil. Dr. Egidijus Aleksandravičius (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H)

Members:

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sandra Grigaravičiūtė (Vilnius Pedagogical University, Humanities, History – 05 H) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Algirdas Jakubčionis (Vilnius University, Humanities, History – 05 H) Prof Dr. Bronius Makauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saulius Pivoras (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H)

Opponents:

Prof. Dr. Juozas Skirius (Vilnius Pedagogical University, Humanities, History – 05 H) Dr. Algimantas Kasparavičius (The Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, History – 05 H)

The official defense of the dissertation will be held at 11:00 on the 20th of May, 2011, at a public sitting of the defense Board at Vytautas Magnus University, in the Adolfas Šapoka lecture - hall (No. 508), K. Donelaičio Street 52, Kaunas

Address: K. Donelaičio Street 52, LT-44244, Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: (+370 37) 32 783 6

The summary of the doctoral dissertation was sent out in the… th April 2011 The dissertation is available at the National Martynas Mažvydas library, library of Vytautas Magnus University and library of Institute of Lithuanian History

2 VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS

Asta PETRAITYTĖ-BRIEDIENĖ

LIETUVOS DIPLOMATIJOS ŠEFO STASIO LOZORAIČIO VEIKLA (1940-1983)

Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, istorija (05 H)

Kaunas, 2011

3 Disertacija rengta 2005-2011 metais Vytauto Didžiojo universitete

Doktorantūros teisė suteikta Vytauto Didžiojo universitetui 2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimu Nr. 926.

Mokslinė vadovė: Dr. Daiva Dapkutė (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H)

Disertacija bus ginama Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Humanitarinių mokslų srities istorijos krypties taryboje

Pirmininkas: Prof. habil. dr. Egidijus Aleksandravičius (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H)

Nariai: Doc. dr. Sandra Grigaravičiūtė (Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H) Doc. dr. Algirdas Jakubčionis (Vilniaus universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H) Prof. dr. Bronius Makauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H) Doc. dr. Saulius Pivoras (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H)

Oponentai: Prof. dr. Juozas Skirius (Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H) Dr. Algimantas Kasparavičius (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Istorija – 05 H)

Disertacija bus ginama viešame Humanitarinių mokslų srities istorijos krypties tarybos posėdyje, kuris vyks 2011 m. gegužės 20 d. 11.00 val. Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Adolfo Šapokos auditorijoje (nr. 508), K. Donelaičio g. 52.

Adresas: K. Donelaičio g. 52, LT-44244, Kaunas, Lietuva Tel.: (8 37) 327836

Disertacijos santrauka išsiuntinėta 2011 m. balandžio ... d.

Disertaciją galima perskaityti Lietuvos nacionalinėje Martyno Mažvydo, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto ir Lietuvos istorijos instituto bibliotekose.

4 THE ACTIVITY OF THE HEAD OF THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF LITHUANIA STASYS LOZORAITIS (1940-1983)

Introduction The Diplomatic Service of Lithuania (DSL), which acted abroad during 1940-1991, its history and diplomatic practice itself nowadays is acknowledged as exceptional and unique. It was the only one state authority, more precisely part of it, which remained and did not terminate its activity after occupation of the country. DSL not only acted, patronized and protected its country people but was also officially or not officially acknowledged by certain states, such as the USA, Great Britain, France and the Holy See. Overstepping the limits of usual official diplomatic activity DSL had all available means for independence. The other objective of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania was to remain acknowledged, keep up, and that was the most difficult task of DSL because its acknowledgement necessary for the institutional activity was alive and the only connection with independent Lithuania and the proof of Lithuania’s statehood. Stasys Lozoraitis (1898-1983) was the Head of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania from 1940 until his death in 1983. The activity of the Head of DSL lasted for more than forty years and first of all was designated for retention of all diplomatic service. However, this activity was not narrowly emblematical and was not limited by mentoring of DSL framed into “primus inter pares”. The influence of S. Lozoraitis was also sensible among Lithuanian emigrants. Retaining the distance necessary for the leader of a state institution he chose the form of intellectual dialogue in relations with the most active political and non- governmental organizations of the Lithuanian emigration. In his opinion, position, decisions and their motivation in particular disclose complicated relations of the diplomatic service itself and political Lithuanian emigration. Diplomatic struggle for Lithuania, attitude towards the case of Lithuania’s independence as well as the evaluation and the foresight of international politics nowadays allow introducing S. Lozoraitis as a unique example of a mature statesman and diplomat. Object of research. Until now no researchers had thoroughly and deeply studied activity of the Head of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania within the years of the occupation. This activity is closely related to the history of the whole DSL and particularly to its separate episodes. The connections and relations of the Head of DSL

5 with the political organizations of Lithuanian emigration and with the main its members is one more part of S. Lozoraitis activity. The influence of the diplomat on the actions of Lithuania release has left significant imprints in history of the Lithuanian emigration and in the case of the liberation of Lithuania. Aim of research. To analyze the activity of S. Lozoraitis, the Head of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania, to separate and present the most important stages of this activity, as well as reveal the role of S. Lozoraitis in the actions of DSL and separate the organizations of Lithuanian Emigration with a view to the liberty and independence of Lithuania. Tasks of research. To disclose the activity of S. Lozoraitis during 1940-1945; to introduce the status of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania and S. Lozoraitis after the occupation of Lithuania; to analyze the limits and possibilities of the actions of the Head of DSL and to reveal the attitude of the diplomats towards the powers of the chief of diplomacy; to explore the activity of S. Lozoraitis in the diplomatic service when dealing with the issues of retention of the legations and personnel; to analyze the relations and cooperation of the Head of DSL with the political groups of the Lithuanian emigration such as the Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania (SCLL) and the representatives of the liberal wing; to disclose and analyze S. Lozoraitis’ political decisions, provisions, attitude towards the case of the liberty of Lithuania and towards the struggle for the restoration of independence; to assess the influence of S. Lozoraitis as a politician to the development of Lithuania statehood and the political life of emigration. Chronological boundaries. The years from 1940 until 1983, i.e. from the occupation of Lithuania (15th June, 1940) and the commencement of the powers of the Head of DSL until the death of S. Lozoraitis. Nevertheless, these boundaries are logically overstepped in the text. It is returned to the beginning of 20th century and the career of S. Lozoraitis, his coming to the diplomatic service and his activity within the years of independent Lithuania are presented. Historiography. No exceptional attention of researchers had been paid to the biography of S. Lozoraitis until now. This diplomat in Lithuanian historiography is more often mentioned as the minister of foreign affairs than the Head of DSL. It stands to reason

6 that S. Lozoraitis is introduced as a minister of foreign affairs in majority of studies where the political peripatetic of prewar period was analyzed. Literature. During the years of activity of DSL diplomats themselves had thoughts to write a history of the Lithuanian diplomacy since 1918. However all their intentions remained as intentions with the exception of the history “Diplomatic Service of Lithuania (1940 06 15 – 1990 03 11)” written by S. A. Bačkis, PhD. Without any doubt, much more would be known about the activity of S. Lozoraitis within the years of Lithuania occupation if the idea about the history of DSL would have been realized. Until now the most circumstantial published text about the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania in emigration is the book “Lead by Destiny: the Activity of Diplomatic Service of Lithuania in Exile (1940-1991)” written by the diplomat and historian L. Jonušauskas. His history of DSL is the first systematic and chronologically useful text about the activity of diplomats during the years of Lithuania occupation. However, the role of the Head of DSL and the whole activity are essentially revealed only through his relations with SCLL that were thoroughly analyzed by the author. The works of authors who wrote about DSL and its members such as V. Bartusevičius, A. Gerutis, J. Skirius, A. Streikus, J. Žėkaitė, O. Žukauskienė have help to uncover the activity of the Head of DSL. S. Lozoraitis is mentioned as the Head of Diplomatic Service in these works. It is natural that his activity, influence and motivation of the decisions as of a nominal research object were secondary matter and were not analyzed deeper. The name of S. Lozoraitis is also mentioned, although in most cases only fragmentarily, irrespective of the described object, organization or person, in the historiography of 1940-1990 dedicated for the political history of Lithuanian emigration. The same characteristic would suit to the historiography of the soviet period. The real exceptions would be the scientific texts of D. Dapkutė and “Tired hero. Jonas Deksnys in the Service of Three Intelligences” by L. Mockūnas in which S. Lozoraitis is presented as an active participant in the events of 5th and 6th decades who was interested in the situation of the country and through the different persons tried to maintain the relations with the resistance in the country as these relations were priority and valuable for S. Lozoraitis.

7 Critical and disputable texts and reviews published in various publications or periodical press in various years were especially useful while reviewing and sorting out the historiography material. They allowed having a deeper look into the activity and environment of the Head of DSL. Sources. The listed historiography data are supplemented, specified, corrected or even compensated by the material of sources. Sources used in this work might be grouped as follows: archival and published sources, periodical press and interview. The largest and the most important part of the sources consist of the archival material. The main source was the archive of the Head of DSL S. Lozoraitis stored in the Office of the Chief Archivist of Lithuania (f. 668). On purpose to present the activity of the Head of DSL more precisely and detailed archives of the following diplomats were used as well: K. Graužinis, PhD, A. Simutis, A. Gerutis, PhD, and E. Turauskas. Although the better parts of these archives concur but each of them is unique due to the private correspondence and draft material. Attention was also paid to the archival foundation of other famous members of the political Lithuanian emigration such as M. Krupavičius, V. Sidzikauskas, V. Rastenis, K. Drunga – Jurgis Valiulis, H. Žemelis, L. Mockūnas, B. Raila, B. Nemickas, priest J. Petrošius, L. Šmulkštys. A valuable part of the sources consists of the published documents, contemporary diaries, memoirs and telling. While restoring the history of the political activity of the Head of DSL particularly important were the speeches of S. Lozoraitis. However there are not many texts of S. Lozoraitis published in the editions of the Lithuanian emigration or in periodical press. Noticeably larger part of his texts is the speeches or congratulations on the occasion of 16th February.

I. The years of independence: environment and career S. Lozoraitis had served as Lithuanian Minister of Foreign affairs from 1934 to 1938. He was a diplomat, politician and public man. S. Lozoraitis was born in Kaunas on 5th September, 1898. The environment which definitely had huge influence on his fundamental attitude was inherited from his father M. Lozoraitis, who was a jurist and lawyer, an active participant of the revival and a bell-ringer. S. Lozoraitis had finished four classes in Kaunas and then left to Russia. He had learned in Voronezh, M. Yčas gymnasium. He graduated with gold in 1918. Then came back to Lithuania and started

8 to work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After one year S. Lozoraitis had moved to chancery of the ministers of the Republic of Lithuania, and he had become a chief of ministers’ affairs in 1922. S. Lozoraitis was invited to work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 1st April, 1923. A few weeks later he was sent to work in the legation of Lithuania in Berlin and worked there until 1929. S. Lozoraitis became the first secretary in 1925, and since 1928 he worked as a counselor. While residing in Germany he attended law lectures in Berlin University. Straight from Germany S. Lozoraitis was sent to work as a counselor in the legation of Lithuania at the Holy See where he raised up to charge d‘affaires or minister plenipotentiary in 1931. After coming back to Lithuania in summer of 1932 S. Lozoraitis became a director of Policy Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. After being a minister of foreign affairs D. Zaunius had retired, A. Smetona, the President of the Republic of Lithuania, convinced S. Lozoraitis to hold one of the most important political positions. He was appointed to the chief of Lithuania’s foreign policy by the order of the President dated on the 12th June, 1934. First significant achievement of S. Lozoraitis as a minister was The Baltic Entente Treaty signed in Geneva on the 12th September, 1934. Good relations with Western Europe countries and neighbors’ countries were priorities of the diplomat’s activity. For diplomatic merits S. Lozoraitis was elected and became a member of the prestigious International Diplomatic Academy of Paris in 1935. After the ultimatum of Poland delivered to the government of the Republic of Lithuania in March, 1938 S. Lozoraitis intended to resign from the minister of foreign affairs. However, President A. Smetona did not accept the resignation of the minister. S. Lozoraitis worked as a chief of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs until the end of 1938. Later he worked as plenipotentiary minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was in chair of committee which tackled problems with Germany after occupation of Klaipėda region. S. Lozoraitis was appointed to an extraordinary and plenipotentiary minister of Lithuania in Italy at the beginning of 1939 and worked there until the closure of legation on 27th August, 1940. After Soviets had occupied the building of legation S. Lozoraitis with his family moved to live in the legation of Lithuania at the Holy See. In the same year S. Lozoraitis was nominated to the Head of the Diplomatic

9 Service of Lithuania and after appointment to the prime minister pursuant to the Kybartai Acts to deputize President of the Republic of Lithuania.

II. The activity of S. Lozoraitis during the World War II 2. 1. Hard summer of 1940 In autumn of 1939 S. Lozoraitis in his own initiative met with his colleagues, diplomats B. K. Balutis and P. Klimas, in Paris. Together they had prepared memorandum as action plan after possible soviets aggression. S. Lozoraitis himself took the document to Kaunas but despite his visits and talks in authorities no attention was paid to the document on that time. According to the telegram of the minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J. Urbšys after catastrophe had befallen on State S. Lozoraitis became the Head of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania and took coordinative actions on the first days. S. Lozoraitis wrote about occupied Lithuania, order dictated by foreigners and therefore the incapability to express the will freely in his first pro memoriam after the occupation dated on 5th July, 1940. S. Lozoraitis in this text of pro memoriam sort of highlighted the most important moves of the soviet occupation and particularly emphasized the illegitimacy of puppet government. Thus he had separated the independent Lithuania from occupied and incapable to express its will country. S. Lozoraitis had followed this allotment during all next decades of his activity and acted only pursuant to the legislation and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and referred to activity model of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. After soviet had requested for the legation in Italy S. Lozoraitis tried to save all present state property. Thus documents, archives and other property had been moved to the legation of Lithuania at the Holy See. S. Lozoraitis with his family was also made to move to live and work in this legation. Before the stage-managed election of People’s Seimas and freewill entry of Lithuania into Soviet Union, under order of the Head of DSL all ministers of Lithuania residuary abroad lodged the notes of protest during 21-23rd July and 3-4th August, 1940. In the text of protest S. Lozoraitis wrote that the new Seimas which could not express its freewill was only the instrument of occupants and, therefore, resolutions of the Seimas did not express the will of nation and were not binding.

10 Hard summer of 1940, chronology of its events constantly caused certain doubts and questions, particularly in Lithuanian Emigration, if everything had been done and done properly. According to the opinion of S. Lozoraitis, everything was done correctly and in due time and this allowed retaining the Diplomatic Service for several decades. When speaking about the fact of Lithuania occupation and events of summer, 1940 S. Lozoraitis first of all brought up the international policy and events hostile to Lithuania. Blaming firstly foreign aggressor he clearly separated the independent Lithuania from the occupied one. Further guidelines of the activity of the Head of DSL were formed by another strong attitude: speaking about their aggression is a strong weapon when fighting with occupants.

2. 2. From exile government to National Committee After shock related to soviet occupation part of political Lithuanian Emigration started considering and planning formation of provisional government. It was a standard approach as repeating scenario of years 1917-1918 was expected. When talking to diplomats in summer of 1940 the Head of DSL repeatedly mentioned that all diplomats who could leave their residence must meet. However objective obstacles, firstly the war, constantly impeded the meeting. First official meeting of DSL members and the Head of DSL was held in Rome on 19-25th September, 1940. S. Lozoraitis, S. Girdvainis, colonel K. Škirpa and E. Turauskas participated in the meeting. Second meeting of these diplomats was held in Bern a few days later and the third meeting took place in Bern on 16-21st November, 1940. After considerations in Rome, National Committee was established on 25th September, 1940. National Committee was comprised of four members: chairman E. Galvanauskas, S. Lozoraitis (deputy chairman), colonel K. Škirpa and E. Turauskas. R. Skipitis was appointed to be delegate of Committee in the USA. It bespeaks that diplomats seriously assessed the benefit of the USA and its policy in the case of liberation of Lithuania and sagaciously forecasted not only present but also future geopolitical domination. Nevertheless, S. Lozoraitis alleged in the meetings that it was too early to speak about the formation of government while clear relations of soviets with other countries had not been formed. The National Committee of Lithuania was established under Czech model created during the World War I. It was supposed to act as a political body which does not need

11 status of a state institution and the official accreditation of foreign countries. Although National Committee was established, it did not perform any public activity because, according to S. Lozoraitis, differently from circumstances during World War I, it could not assert publicly because then it was possible to move without restraint, meet, act publicly, open office, obtain public sympathy or specific support. Therefore S. Lozoraitis was made to choose the form of non-public activity and alleged that the Committee would speak out only on proper time. More than six months after establishment of National Committee some diplomats suggested expanding it and thought that all ministers should meet and ask assistance of Lithuanian American while others on the contrary sadly adjudged that single center is necessary but it hardly could be achieved. After Nazi entry into Lithuania in July, 1941 S. Lozoraitis went to Bern where he met his colleagues J. Šaulys, PhD, A. Gerutis, PhD, and E. Turauskas. According to the texts of meeting protocol the Head of DSL thought that provisional government should be evaluated approvingly and respected if it complied with independence law. After his offer it was refused to announce memoranda as they could conflict with positions of provisional government. Assessing events in Lithuania as manifestations of the restoration of independence S. Lozoraitis continually raised the idea of totally independent country as a priority. During the meeting diplomats also considered the future of National Committee of Lithuania. S. Lozoraitis tended to continue its activity. He did not refuse this idea after a year when he was in Bern on 21st May-14th June, 1942. S. Lozoraitis did not agree with opinion of J. Šaulys, PhD, that Committee is inactive and therefore must be abandoned. The Head of DSL thought that Committee could be active in the future. This position of S. Lozoraitis meant that he sort of revitalized Committee after the only act announced by chairman E. Galvanauskas on 22nd June, 1941 in which colonel K. Škirpa was invited to form the government of Lithuania on behalf of the National Committee of Lithuania in accordance to Constitution of 1938. Diplomats did not manage to meet later on due to the state of war. Due to the same reasons all members of the National Committee had never met. Although National Committee failed the idea and its guidelines remained. In the words of Head of DSL one minimal center similar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was needed.

12 2. 3. “Kybartai Acts” So-called Kybartai Acts were made-up for activity of the National Committee of Lithuania. They associate first of all with S. Lozoraitis. First allusions of Kybartai Acts are in the memorandum of ministers in 1939 where continuity of state and constitutional substantiation was emphasized. After a while these Acts were mentioned in the meetings in Rome in autumn, 1940. S. Lozoraitis thought that it was necessary to come out of dead state concerning office assignment – succession, to retain the continuity of independent state and to have the supporting document. Such document could be signed only by the President of the Republic. Therefore documents were prepared and signed in Bern on 23rd November, 1940 with denoted antedate (15th June, 1940) and fictitious place (Kybartai). Following articles 97 and 71 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania President A. Smetona had oust from office prime minister A. Merkys and his cabinet council and had appointed S. Lozoraitis to the new prime minister in the first Act; the second Act was to authorize S. Lozoraitis to deputize the President of the Republic. Then S. Lozoraitis unified three main supreme authorities of the independent country – the minister of foreign affairs (in frames of the Head of DSL), the prime minister and the President. In spring of 1941 S. Lozoraitis intended to relinquish titles of Kybartai Acts due to internal disaffection in the DSL as colonel K. Škirpa expected to become titular of Kybartai Acts and to encourage the pursuit of pro-German policy. However, the Acts were not cancelled. It is noted in the Lithuanian historiography that S. Lozoraitis referred to Kybartai Acts twice: he sent letters to the leaders of Great Britain, USA and France on 19-20th September, 1945. And on 21st March, 1946 S. Lozoraitis appointed J. Šaulys, PhD, E. Turauskas and A. Gerutis, PhD, to Lithuania delegation in the last session of the League of Nations. It should be specified that Kybartai Acts overall were not used under their purpose, because it was only informed about these Acts and the titles were used to sign the letters dedicated to the leaders of great foreign states – USA, France and Great Britain – and to the general secretary of the League of Nations. It was not announcement for Lithuanian beyond and on the side of iron curtain or to the entire world but only proclamation to American, French and British leaders and the leader of international institution. Silence from the side of foreign governments to whose letters signed by S. Lozoraitis as Acts Titular was as litmus showing the attitude of foreigners

13 towards such documents and generally abilities and perspectives of Lithuanian to achieve their goals in the case of liberation of Lithuania. Subsequently S. Lozoraitis left Kybartai Acts only as the untouchable documents which perhaps could be useful in the case of liberation of Lithuania but only in the future. “Unobserved” in the international expanse, for which they had been designated, Kybartai Acts unfortunately became a rock-hard in the hands of political emigration opposing S. Lozoraitis, as these Acts were seen not only as juridical authorization although with the fiction shadow but as the heritage of A. Smetona regime. Kybartai Acts were considered to be the heritage of internal policy of Lithuania, i.e. the authoritarian regime, but not the documents proving statehood and its continuity to the international community. Kybartai Acts were discussed in 1978 for the last time. S. Lozoraitis contemplated if documents might be used and applied in the conjuncture of international condition, where they had been intended to be used, after more than thirty years. However, even then he admitted that there is little hope and this determined decision of diplomat to neither transfer powers of Kybartai Acts to the other person nor institute an heir by the testament.

III. The Diplomatic Service of Lithuania in exile 3. 1. Beyond the boundaries of the traditional diplomacy Diplomatic Service of Lithuania acted beyond the state boundaries alone for more fifty years after losing its direct and juridical subordination to the State and its institutions but retaining its continuity. During the World War II and after it DSL did not hold usual cross-border negotiations and did not ratify international treaties as the authorized persons. In other words DSL did not perform certain functions because there was no institution which could authorize DSL to act. Members of DSL met with the ministers of foreign affairs or officers of these Ministries of the countries which accredited or had not officially accredited the DSL. Activity of DSL in the Lithuanian space of Emigration can also be called unconventional diplomacy. During all the years of occupation the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania performed its usual, although well-defined obligations such as supervision of activity of the representative offices (legations and consulates), responsibility for their property,

14 archives, issue or renewal of passports, acquisition and analysis of information about common international political condition, reaction of foreign states to the case of liberation of Lithuania. Simultaneously Lithuanian diplomats had accomplished functions not related to their service such as relief. S. Lozoraitis paid extraordinary attention to Lithuanian students who had studied in Western Europe universities. Thus diplomats not only represented their country-people and defended their occupied state as usual, but also took over and performed activity of other authorities of Lithuania alongside with their direct obligations.

3. 2. In Service for lifetime Approximately one hundred members of legations and personnel of consulates were residing in legations of Lithuania abroad until 15th June, 1940. Only twenty diplomats in legations and about thirty diplomats in consulates left and survived after the above- mentioned date. The vast majority of these diplomats were appointed to their places of residing by offer or appointment of the minister of foreign affairs of Lithuania S. Lozoraitis during 1934-1938. Within first months after occupation of Lithuania almost all diplomats who subsequently continued on working were ready either to go back to Lithuania, or to resign the office and emigrate. On purpose to retain diplomatic offices S. Lozoraitis proposed the first two persons of personnel to continue on working. Other members of personnel had to retire voluntarily or not. The head of DSL unofficially gave preference to officially accredited legations and considered their needs to be priority versus other legations. S. Lozoraitis solved conflicts both of personnel maintenance in legations and internecine conflicts inside the legations. Perhaps the strongest disagreements were local, between the diplomats who worked alongside. More friction among the colleagues was observed within the first year of occupation. Although the Head of DSL followed provisions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania but essentially there were no administrative sanctions or penalties that could discipline the colleagues. Secondly, during more than fifty years of activity the whole diplomatic service had never met. Only those persons who worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania until 15th June, 1940 (until the occupation) could take over the diplomatic

15 position of the dead member of DSL or do career. Such “tactics” was dictated by the foreigners, i.e. the states that still accredited diplomats. And it was a factor determining personnel during all activity of DSL.

IV. The Head of the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania 4. 1. Between the facts and interpretations: telegram of J. Urbšys The position of S. Lozoraitis as the Head of DSL based only on the text of J. Urbšys telegram No.288 (“if a catastrophe befell here, Lozoraitis is appointed to the Chief of our diplomacy residing abroad and Klimas and Šaulys are appointed to the first and the second deputy respectively”) provokes a lot of questions nowadays as well. Only one sentence of the telegram is frequently quoted, while in fact the text is much broader, and it differs by the numbering and encryption which does not change the essence of the contents. After reading the whole text of the telegram, it might be suspected that it was sent only as the information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the legations, and the last sentence overall is recorded sort of accidentally. The final decision concerning the appointment of S. Lozoraitis to the Head of DSL as well as P. Klimas and J. Šaulys, PhD, to his deputies was made by A. Smetona, the President of the Republic of Lithuania, and J. Urbšys, the minister of foreign affairs. If the appointment the Head of DSL would had be sent as a separate document, and statement on the letter of the law would had been at the beginning of the appointment, then the position would had gained the legal foundation not only in the frames of martial order. If there would be at least one explanatory sentence written the value of such document would be even greater. Then such “foundation” would have been very useful to the diplomats themselves while coordinating their activities and diminishing the doubts and disputes of the political Lithuanian emigration in regard of the status of the Head of DSL.

4. 2. The limits of the Head powers When assessing and looking deeper, it is obvious that the Head of DSL could not remain only in the role of “primus inter pares” and in the frames of DSL activity. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1938, the minister of foreign affairs could only nominate the candidacies of diplomats, and the appointment

16 was signed exceptionally by the President. The minister of foreign affairs himself could only appoint to the temporary minister plenipotentiary. So within the years of DSL activity the Head of DSL had been signing, generally by the title charge d‘affaires, the acts of diplomats’ appointment to the new places of residence or letters of the promotion in the service. But there also had been exceptions. Under the order of the Head of DSL after the death of diplomat his position was devolved to another diplomat, usually to the former deputy of the diplomat. Majority of DSL members had risen in the service under the offer of the Head of DSL. The highest diplomatic titles were granted only to F. Meier who was residing in Brazil and S. A. Bačkis, PhD, who was residing in France. Although the powers of the Head of DSL had not been determined and documented but S. Lozoraitis acted minimally overstepping the ambit of habitually working minister of foreign affairs where his experience was the biggest especially among the diplomats who survived after the occupation of Lithuania.

4. 3. Primus inter pares. The issue of recognition It seems that it could not be complicated for the Head of DSL to work with colleague diplomats as practically it was a well-known corps of the same composition led by the Head of DSL during the period of independence. S. Lozoraitis, who not only it was not officially recognized or not recognized as the representative of Lithuania, but all was lost and the diplomatic post and the Embassy of Lithuania's diplomacy chief positions and rights based on the basis of the fall of 1939 a memorandum prepared by the three diplomats, who would appoint a chief of DSL. In the telegram No. 288 minister of foreign affairs J. Urbšys appointing him to the Head of DSL noted only the surname and the position, but did not indicate the powers of activity: to lead or coordinate. However, it seems that S. Lozoraitis already then clearly chose one of two methods of actions and thus defines the limits of his activity. Refusing an advisory part, he emphasized his right to lead firstly the accredited legations. S. Lozoraitis could quite easily get in touch with the members of the Diplomatic Service in summer of 1940, but later, mainly due to the war front, the communication became more and more complicated. Colleague P. Žadeikis recommended to S. Lozoraitis, incapable to “concentrate and drive” due to the state of war, to transfer the position of

17 the Head of DSL to the deputy of the Head of DSL J. Šaulys, PhD, or P. Žadeikis. With the consent of the President, J. Šaulys, PhD, substituted S. Lozoraitis from the end of 1941 until the 15th November, 1945. Archival documents of the war and postwar years reveal the problem of all the service and the Head of the service that troubled all of them within the first decades after the occupation. They did not admit that the Head of DSL had more powers or any powers at all. They had called S. Lozoraitis in different titles (the Head, the chairman, minister) in the official letters. But in public the diplomats defended and did not allow the others, strangers, i.e. the ones beyond the boundaries of DSL, disclaiming the authority of the Head of DSL. In the end of considerations on the authority of the Head of DSL we notice that only S. Lozoraitis himself had never changed his provisions concerning the legality of the authority of the Head of DSL. The telegram sent by the minister of foreign affairs of Lithuania probably was the significant red “line” in the political biography of S. Lozoraitis.

4. 4. The issue of the deputies and successors Three persons were appointed to the first executive members of DSL. However, essentially S. Lozoraitis was alone. The first deputy, P. Klimas, was arrested by Nazi in 19th September, 1943 despite his diplomatic status. As it was mentioned above, J. Šaulys, PhD, deputized for the Head of DSL during the war. He died in 1948. As the Head of DSL lost his deputies the issue of new deputies had been raised from time to time. Perhaps even S. Lozoraitis himself discussed this problem in the private environment but actual discussions began only in 1978. More specifically, it was more discussed about the successor, i.e. the person who would displace S. Lozoraitis in the position of the Head of DSL, than about deputy or deputies. Concerning this problem S. Lozoraitis appealed to his fellow ministers and consuls. On 20th August, 1978 S. Lozoraitis sent an assignment to Washington for S. A. Bačkis, PhD, who was residing there and appointed him to the deputy and, in case of death of S. Lozoraitis, to the new Head of DSL. When appointing the successor of the Head of DSL S. Lozoraitis referred to the text of the telegram of the last minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Lithuania and sort

18 of gave himself the powers of the minister of foreign affairs. This is one more proof that he could not remain only in the frames of “primus inter pares”. In other words, S. Lozoraitis looked at the position of the Head of DSL only from the legal side. He treated himself and colleague diplomats as the persons authorized by the government and who must carry out the commitments made under the oath.

V. Rome – Washington – Paris – Rome: 5. 1. All roads lead to the USA After the death of P. Žadeikis, the leader of Lithuanian legation in the USA on 11th May, 1957, who was residing in the USA since 1935, not only the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania, but also politically active society of the Lithuanian emigration on either side of the Atlantic had reacted. Coming to Washington the Head of DSL several times visited the United States Department of State where his candidacy as a possible new leader of the legation in Washington was discussed. However, the United States Department of State chose J. Kajeckas, which was residing in Lithuanian legation in Washington. First of all, it was a usual diplomatic procedure. Secondly, the decision was influenced by the Lithuanian emigration which was especially politically active, and, unfortunately, disjointed, society, and was the largest of the three occupied Baltic states. Part of the Lithuanian emigration in the USA strongly opposed to S. Lozoraitis and disagreed with his authorization. Lithuanian emigration, from the Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania to American Lithuanian Council (ALC), constantly criticized the activity of S. Lozoraitis and called him “tautininkas” and “smetonininkas”. Some of them had an aversion to continuously express their own negative opinion about the Head of DSL and his powers to the United States Department of State. In other words, the local Lithuanians lost the battle for the post in Washington to other local Lithuanians. J. Kajeckas could be useful to the latter. Next to the “Lithuanian” reason it should be noted and the other much more important reasons. One of them was the titles and the competence of S. Lozoraitis. His figure, when residing in the USA, would have been more noticeable than in Western Europe. Despite the fact, that the USA was the strongest pillar in the case of Lithuania liberation, in the context of the “Cold War” United States avoided to provoke the Soviets and give them any counter argument. The USA avoided the noise especially unnecessary noise both in

19 the states and beyond them and stayed away of showing any noticeable attention. So “exclusion” of S. Lozoraitis to the USA did not mean that United States Department of State did not accredit the Head of DSL. On the contrary, by not approving him as a new leader of Lithuanian legation in Washington, the United States Department of State did not allow him to resign from more important position.

5. 2. Crisis in Paris When during the war P. Klimas was arrested by Nazi, in order to retain the diplomatic succession he was displaced by the adviser of the legation S. A. Bačkis, PhD, who intended to retire from the Diplomatic Service for several times. He left to Washington to represent independent Lithuania in 1960 and was displaced by the Head of DSL (officially since 15th June, 1960). Until then S. Lozoraitis at least once a year had been arriving to Paris. While S. A. Bačkis, PhD, was preparing to leave, S. Lozoraitis firstly offered the position to Professor J. Baltrušaitis (junior), whose scientific authority and acquaintanceship could be very useful for Lithuanian diplomats. But after all the talks and negotiations S. Lozoraitis took Lithuanian diplomatic post in Paris himself after he had received a diplomatic card from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France. This decision had at least several reasons. First of all, an unadvertised verbal prescription of the United States Department of State was fulfilled and thus the financial problem was solved. Secondly, when Prof. J. Baltrušaitis (junior) was persuaded to be the representative in France and A. Liutkus was appointed to the secretary, S. Lozoraitis could stay in Rome, as was requested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France. Thus the political issue was solved: the French, protecting relations with the Soviets, did not want that such important political figure as the Head of DSL would be in Paris and would pay a disadvantageous attention on him. The first few years of residence in Paris for S. Lozoraitis were calm and usual. In 1964 the Head of DSL, Prof. J. Baltrušaitis (junior), A. Liutkus and J. Kajeckas disagreed about the financial issues, because S. Lozoraitis refused to send disbursements to A. Liutkus due to his absolute inactivity. According to the scheme later stated by S. Lozoraitis, in 1965 he was accused for the postponement of February 16th celebration and after a year he was accused for the message published in the French edition about the modest commemoration of Lithuania

20 independence and about the form of invitation to the event which did not cater for the officers of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Then S. Lozoraitis had lost his diplomatic card (his colleague from Latvia lost his own diplomatic card too). As the Head of DSL found no sense in negotiating and explaining with Prof. J. Baltrušaitis (junior) and A. Liutkus any more he began consulting with colleague diplomats. While being in Washington in autumn of 1968 S. Lozoraitis held a small meeting of diplomats. After the meeting the Head of DSL S. Lozoraitis cut the connections with Paris and informed the United States Department of State about that. His decision was supported by the rest members of DSL. Prof. J. Baltrušaitis (junior) continued on working beyond the limits of DSL and this was an exceptional situation in the frames on traditional diplomacy. He appropriated diplomatic titles and had been signing as a representative of Lithuania. Prof. J. Baltrušaitis (junior) artfully used the contacts with important political persons or just their names and thus assured the political support of the United States Department of State and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Essentially, this support determined the completion of crisis in Paris. Prof. J. Baltrušaitis (junior) had worked alone in the legation of Lithuania until his death.

VI. The relations of S. Lozoraitis with the political groups of emigration 6. 1. Relations with the Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania 6. 1. 1. The first attempts to negotiate: conferences of Bern and Paris Various anti-Soviet and anti-Nazi resistance groups were organized in Lithuania after the loss of independence. One of them was the Supreme Committee for Liberation of Lithuania (SCLL) founded in the underground on the 25th November, 1943, which was disbanded on the spring of next year (Nazi arrested several members of the Committee during May and June of 1944) and was restored in Germany on autumn. The Committee existed for a short time in Lithuania, and all its activities, based on the party principles, were more of coordinative nature. The legal base and program of SCLL restored in the emigration was the declaration already announced in Lithuania on 16th of February, 1944. The main goal of the Committee was the sovereign rights recovery and execution of the state of Lithuania. During the war and after it SCLL raised serious confusions by

21 its public speeches, statements, notes and memorandums not only in motherland or later at Lithuanian emigration strata, not only among own diplomats but also among strangers. SCLL expected to reach its main goal quickly and easily: exile government. Diplomatic service of Lithuania accepted the invitation of SCLL members for dialog considering such SCLL actions. Two meetings of DSL and SCLL members took place in Bern on the 21st-26th of July, 1946 and in Paris on the 5th-15th of August, 1947. As S. A. Bačkis, PhD, said, these conferences were the examples of S. Lozoraitis activity. The sorest problem of Bern conference was Executive Council (EC). Therefore Political commission (consisting of S. Lozoraitis, S. A. Bačkis, PhD, and V. Sidzikauskas) was formed, which, after refection of several projects, unanimously decided to form an executive body of seven members, i.e. The Executive Council. The place of the chief for foreign politics was proposed for the Head of DSL S. Lozoraitis in this political body. Reserved problems for him as for the chief had to be passed for disposal by common order, but all the problems of DSL remained under his competence as for the Head of DSL. The Executive Council was formed on the 23rd of November, 1946, when E. Galvanauskas agreed to be its chairman. However S. Lozoraitis did not became the chief of foreign politics. Such his decision was determined by V. Sidzikauskas appointment to EC chairman, when E. Galvanauskas retired after a short time. Secondly, the first actions of the Council (usurpation of functions of exile government, requirements for subordination of diplomats and international negotiations with Polish exile) apparently contradicted S. Lozoraitis attitude. He saw that he would not be able to intercept the imprudent, unconsidered or even harmful actions of the Council, rather than to govern the foreign politics leaded by EC. The fact that SCLL did not renounce its goals to become the exile government and to subordinate the diplomats made all DSL to step back from the settlements of Bern. Therefore after a year the acceptance of DSL members to participate in the second conference had one goal: to restrain SCLL, which kept on interfering to their existence and international acknowledgement, and was appropriating the titles of authorities. The tone of diplomats and unanimous position showed up in the second conference. The greatest disputes took place in the closed session (occurred on 11th of September, 1947). Unfortunately, the both parties were talking in different languages in it, and finally the

22 whole discussion of the session became a dissension about the titles and competence. Consequently the result of this session and finally of the whole Paris conference was that members of SCLL narrowed down all the reasons of controversy with the Diplomatic service of Lithuania to the Kybartai Acts and the conflict only with S. Lozoraitis. These two conferences of SCLL and diplomats consultations were the most important, as uncovered the principle attitudes and main disagreements of both parties.

6. 1. 2. Councils for the councils No mutual desirable and admissible arrangements were agreed in Bern and Paris conferences. DSL kept on possessing its juridical rights, and SCLL kept on its goals: exile government, subordination of diplomats and active interference with activities of DSL. Committee began to take even more active part not only in Lithuanian emigration but also out of its boundaries. SCLL, persistently pursuing the status of exile government, needed an approval of DSL and a consensus with its Head. From the first meetings of SCLL and DSL, S. Lozoraitis stick to the option that it will be hard to negotiate as long as M. Krupavičius did not refuse his main goal (exile government). Thus such his position determined that all meetings and councils of leading members of SCLL and the Head of DSL were only for the councils (where S. Lozoraitis tried not to stay alone) and revolved in a whirl of explanations of “subordinations” and “diplomatic representative”. It is necessary to point out that not only the subordination of DSL, exclusive provisions in foreign politics and area of diplomacy or different attitudes towards the powers of the Head of DSL and the Kybartai Acts precluded to agree, work and cooperate, when looking for the exact reasons of the conflict between S. Lozoraitis alone and SCLL. Their course of actions and chosen tactics in the case of liberation of Lithuania were also different. S. Lozoraitis always was talking about the passive resistance, protection of the nation, was against the guerilla war, as leading only to the physical extermination of the nation. SCLL was acting conversely.

6. 1. 3. The war for Bonn In 1952 SCLL established a diplomatic service, which was called the Foreign Affairs Service (FAS) of Executive Council. This step meant that alongside of DSL, accredited

23 or supported by the international community, and puppet Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of Lithuanian SSR the Committee intended to establish the third institution supervising the foreign affairs. Thus SCLL tried to set the whole DSL against the accomplished fact which would be necessary acknowledged by diplomats on purpose to avoid dualism. This strategy of SCLL actions S. Lozoraitis envisaged yet in 1947. Therefore in the beginning of fifties the issue of “two type diplomats” was solved in the meetings of SCLL with the Head of DSL. DSL and S. Lozoraitis were emphatically against the new, according to S. Lozoraitis, “exile diplomats” because having no institutional relation with independent Lithuania these diplomats would reject firstly the statehood, its continuity and the fact of occupation and also would not fit even into the frames of exceptional international diplomatic law. The utmost war between SCLL and DSL was for Bonn. After P. Karvelis, PhD, became the chairman of SCLL FAS he started to knock to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Western countries on his own, to use his party acquaintances especially with Christian Democrats of Germany and to appoint an agent of SCLL in Bonn by overstepping to the zone supervised by DSL. In the end of 1951 the Head of DSL appealed to the ultimate authorities of Germany in respect of representation, and in the beginning of next year official Bonn answered S. Lozoraitis that interest of Lithuania can be represented unofficially and that relations would be maintained through the contemporary ambassador of Germany in Rome or during visits of S. Lozoraitis in Bonn. Within the same year while visiting the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Head of DSL had made another step. He asked about the diplomatic representative of Lithuania in Bonn who would live in Bonn (before appealing to official Bonn S. Lozoraitis had consulted with the diplomat of the USA residing in Germany who agreed with such plans and consented that his agreeable opinion would be reported to German). Thus two fronts of struggle were established: struggle of diplomats with the foreigners for the Lithuanian representative in Germany and the struggle of diplomats with their own people for the Lithuanian representative in Germany. Attempts of S. Lozoraitis to agree with SCLL and in this way to seem unanimous at least for international community were unsuccessful. Then S. Lozoraitis started to look for another solution, firstly finding out the attitude of Bonn towards the activity of SCLL and P. Karvelis, PhD. After he had received the approval of German government

24 he appointed A. Gerutis, PhD, to unofficial diplomatic representative of Lithuania under the Government of Germany. History of “The War for Bonn” is exclusive because it was a chance to establish one more, although in diplomatic point a very limited position and which was almost lost due to the internal disputes and conflicts of the political Lithuanian emigration. SCLL openly stood for exile government or line of political realism (personal interests, benefit, power and dominance) which obviously intersected with the position of the whole DSL institutionalized in the frames of state continuity and personal line of S. Lozoraitis political idealism (patterning of desirable system, its allegation and liberalism). These were the main reasons that caused the controversies between SCLL and the Head of DSL.

6. 2. The formation of like-minded block S. Lozoraitis did not adhere to any party, movement or organization. However, he was constantly labeled as tautininkas: within prewar period because of his successful career while leader of the tautininkai President A. Smetona was ruling the country, and after the occupation of Lithuania as if he had relations with the tautininkai in emigration whose transformation and ideas were closer to S. Lozoraitis due to their resistance content. The Head of DSL and J. Šaulys, PhD, met with the participants of resistance from Lithuania J. Deksnys and A. Vokietaitis on 27-30th August, 1947. They informed diplomats about the resistance in Lithuania and the relations with the foreign states. The decision of diplomats to cooperate with the newcomers was determined by their own preference to the country and relations with it. In the end of the same year the General of the Democratic Resistance Movement Delegated Abroad (BDPS UD) was established and its spirit was J. Deksnys. The main remit of activity of Delegated representatives abroad was offering of information both to Lithuania and abroad by delivering monthly reports. J. Deksnys and S. Lozoraitis were the main makers of resistance strategy and both of them could do what was necessary and possible in the case of Lithuania liberation on that time by supporting and holding but not disturbing each other.

25 General of the Democratic Resistance Movement Delegated Abroad (BDPS UD) existed for less than a year because the part of its members turned to the internal fights and thus politicizing the whole resistance activity. When leaving to Lithuania J. Deksnys left Professor S. Žymantas in place of himself and S. Lozoraitis agreed to cooperate with Prof. S. Žymantas. It was the beginning of the activity of the new group – Lithuanian Resistance Concord (LRC). LRC next to the main objective (the independence of Lithuania) had another one – to support the Head of DSL S. Lozoraitis against SCLL which was difficult to agree with. Within the first year LRC acted on conspiracy principles but in 1951 it was spoken up about the appearance of LRC publicly. S. Lozoraitis consented with that. Thus it was expected to become a political unit and perhaps to reach a very faraway aim, i.e. to become an exile government. Therefore LRC desired to establish a body of almost the same structure as the Executive Council of SCLL. S. Lozoraitis would have retained the diplomatic service in that body and Kybartai Acts would be acknowledged in the reserve. When becoming a partial organization the members of LRC needed public authorities, especially in the struggle with SCLL, and therefore S. Lozoraitis was treated as guarantee of authority and political weight which would allow forming the future exile government. However, S. Lozoraitis and the diplomats behaved as statesmen and remained loyal to their original position, i.e. neutrality in the disputes of dabbling Lithuanian emigration, their party disunities and internal struggles. Therefore the neutrality of S. Lozoraitis was the main reason of his controversies with LRC. Although considered to be the strategist of LRC, diplomat was trying to stay in background and did not relate him with the organization. As S. Lozoraitis did not understand the critics and imputation of excessive discretion, even hesitancy and passivity, limiting by countenance and by role of intermediary, he did not get into major disputes as he did not get involved into open struggle with SCLL. However, the Head of DSL, who stayed away of publicity and avoided even symbolic subordination from public organizations and on this account disagreeing with LRC, had used their position and strategy against SCLL, i.e. only concrete opposition organization could “take away the fire” from S. Lozoraitis and put him to the position of intermediary.

26 6. 3. “The Stranger among in-group” It might be observed after looking through the relations of S. Lozoraitis with the political groups of the Lithuanian emigration that officially the whole DSL sort of remained apart all meetings and councils and only the Head of DSL lead. S. Lozoraitis constantly emphasized that he represents the position of the whole DSL and speaks on behalf of his own and his colleague diplomats and used it as an argument in the negotiations. Officially the members of DSL emphasized that, e.g. negotiations with SCLL is one of the commitments of the Head, and despite that diplomats care about this issue it is not their competence. However notwithstanding the officially declared unanimous opinion of DSL, attitudes of DSL or its certain members towards the political Lithuanian emigration differed and this made the authority of S. Lozoraitis as the Head weaker and did not help in negotiations with public organizations. According to the opinion of some diplomats S. Lozoraitis needlessly got into the party games of public organizations and this would not behoove to him as to the Head of DSL. It should be mentioned that SCLL even made a peculiar struggle for the diplomats. Thus it managed to attract diplomats, followers of catholic wing for a short time. In consequence not only political Lithuanian emigration was dividing into parties, had different ideologies or creed. The same attributes of split if not division can be found in the Diplomatic Service of Lithuania despite of publicly declared statehood and non- party. Due to such circumstances the Head of DSL started to act with care in regard of his colleagues. With years passing by S. Lozoraitis received more and more support from colleagues.

VII. Other activities: between formality distance and privacy Independence declaration and anniversary of its commemoration is a national holiday for every nation. In the archives of the Head of DSL there are kept the drafts of the welcome speeches for the 16th of February (prepared from 1960 to 1979). In these texts his attitude as of a diplomat and a citizen is unveiled towards the state, nation and international politics. The main addressee of S. Lozoraitis welcome speeches is the nation, where people of the occupied country are specifically emphasized. The Head of DSL adored the 16th February as an expression of the nation consciousness and as an act of independent decision for the further its development which was not incidental.

27 In his speeches S. Lozoraitis particularly amplified the brutality of the Soviet occupation which he compared with the Hitler regime. S. Lozoraitis, without the avoidance of critics form the high politics, stated that after the World War II the entrenched peace was only alleged though democratic countries had won, because half of Europe still was subjugated and a lassitude and passivity of the postwar democracy, the disbelief in applied foreign policy, when justice and morality were not defended even orally, were observed in the other part of Europe. Therefore S. Lozoraitis, reacting to the silent attitude of Western countries towards the occupied states, sent protest letters to the United Nations, to the chairmen of General Assembly, speaking up against the violation of agreements, the occupation of Lithuania, and reminding the charter of the United Nations which was perpetually violated by the Soviets. S. Lozoraitis exceptionally appreciated and endorsed the relations with the country, which could provide the vitality and intellectual impulse to the Lithuanian emigration. Thus S. Lozoraitis, besides the struggle against the Soviets, chose one more fight, a fight for the whole nation, its vitality, which had to be sustained and retained. Therefore the important direction of S. Lozoraitis political thinking was his observance of the principle of country’s primacy. He affirmed that the country will administer by itself in the future when it is free. That is the right of the country. The diplomat thought that the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania could not be annihilated, modified, revoked or a new one enacted abroad, when the country was occupied. Such matters should be pursued only in the country, and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1938, which was especially criticized in the emigration dabbling at politics, is not an obstacle to care for Lithuania and its liberation. According to the Head of the diplomacy the new constitution will be necessary only when the country is liberated from the Soviet occupation and it will be determined by the nation itself. Thus S. Lozoraitis drew up a scheme for the restoration of independence based on the legal letter as far back as 1949, and which was realized on the 11th March, 1990.

Conclusions 1. S. Lozoraitis reasonably evaluated the realties of international policy and envisaged future turning-points of Lithuania and its foreign policy yet at the end of 1939. Despite a friendly agreement signed between Lithuania and the Soviet Union on 10th October,

28 1939 he did not believe in official Soviets policy. Therefore, on his own initiative S. Lozoraitis met with the diplomats B. K. Balutis and P. Klimas in Paris where they had prepared so-called memorandum of three ministers as future activity guidelines in the case of State occupation. S. Lozoraitis presented a memorandum in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. However, despite his proclamation and remainders both then and a few months until occupation, memorandum and its recommendations were not taken into account. 2. A few weeks before occupation of Lithuania the minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J. Urbšys sent telegram No 288 to the legations of Lithuania. At the end of telegram he appointed S. Lozoraitis to be the Head of Diplomatic Service of Lithuania in the case of State catastrophe. P. Klimas and J. Šaulys, PhD, were assigned to deputies of the Head of DSL. After occupation of Lithuania, S. Lozoraitis as the Head of DSL right away started coordination of activity of the diplomats residing abroad. He had precisely and reasonably estimated the dates of lodging the notes of protest (concerning stage- managed “public election” and the entry of Lithuania into the Soviet Union) to foreign states and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. Simultaneously he started to form behavior of the whole DSL (loyalty to the State and Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, but not to the system, legal dimension), its survival policy (diminution of personnel to two persons and their retention, financing, retention of real estate and archives’ security) preferring legations officially accredited at free world. Under his order none of the buildings of the legation of the Republic of Lithuania was directly received by soviets. 3. S. Lozoraitis treated the telegram of the minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Lithuania J. Urbšys as the order and followed it. However, members of DSL treated the telegram and more precisely its powers and action limits differently. This called out reformation discussions among the diplomats. Remaining in the “primus inter pares” frames S. Lozoraitis essentially acted in the thinkable at that date limits of institution of the minister of foreign affairs. And in a few cases he had to overstep these limits while nominating or vesting diplomatic ranks to the members of DSL. On purpose to avoid new internal conflicts S. Lozoraitis constantly consulted with the member of DSL relating to various issues and did not appoint new deputies of the Head of DSL. Just in

29 the last year of his activity (1978) S. Lozoraitis appointed the deputy of the Head of DSL and the heir in case of his death. 4. During the first months after occupation S. Lozoraitis consulting with his colleagues diplomats started to form the National Committee of Lithuania. Assessing the international situation S. Lozoraitis did not agree with the idea of forming the exile government and considered it as useless and adverse to the statehood of Lithuania. The Formation of Committee, in which S. Lozoraitis was appointed to the deputy of chairman, was an attempt to establish institution morally accredited in the international space. Due to the war state and circumstances following thereof the National Committee of Lithuania did not develop larger and more significant activity. 5. Following the idea of the National Committee of Lithuania Kybartai Acts were concluded in Bern on 23rd November, 1940. Pursuant to Kybartai Acts authority of the prime minister and the deputy of President of the Republic of Lithuania was delegated to S. Lozoraitis under the order of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. It was attempt to deny all previous changes in authorities after 15th June, 1940 as illegal and occurred not under free will, i.e. under order or under influence of Soviets. Kybartai Acts, signed antedate and fictitious place (Kybartai, 15th June, 1940) were first of all dedicated to the international community as documents proving the continuity of statehood. S. Lozoraitis neither used these documents directly nor referred to them (only two times (in autumn of 1945 and spring of 1946) he signed the documents using titles of the Acts) but he also did not deny or cancel Kybartai Acts. Under decision of S. Lozoraitis Kybartai Acts was not used officially and their powers were not transferred to the other person or persons due to unfavorable condition of international politics. 6. S. Lozoraitis maintained relations with the political Lithuanian Emigration. He constantly met with leaders of SCLL and had close contacts with LRC and its predecessors. Deciding factors in relations of S. Lozoraitis with both organized SCLL and transformed liberal wing were attitude towards statehood, its continuity, Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1938 and also position in relations with the country. Attitude of S. Lozoraitis to keep the dialog with political Lithuanian Emigration but to remain mediator and only in the frames of intellectual communication was assessed ambiguously not only among public organizations but also inside the DSL. Complicated relations of the Head of DSL with the political Lithuanian Emigration

30 were essentially determined by the different approaches of him and the whole DSL to the reality of foreign policy and international diplomacy. 7. Attitude of S. Lozoraitis towards occupation of Lithuania, strict disjuncture between the independent and occupied State (where only occupants are accused of the statehood loss), his preference to the nation in the country and its constitutional right (only nation residing in the country and being independent has right to cancel or announce new constitution, to choose political system) as well as promotion of the passive resistance and relations with the country describe the guidelines of his political thinking. On the ground of these guidelines or following the scheme of Recovery of Independence of Lithuania, declared by S. Lozoraitis in 1949, the Act of 11th March, 1990 was prepared: when declaring independence and retaining the continuity of statehood it was referred to the last Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1938. Thereafter articles of Constitution concerning political system and authorities were straight away stopped as inapplicable to the time reality and the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was accepted. 8. The Head of the DSL S. Lozoraitis as well as the whole Diplomatic Service of Lithuania acted out of traditional diplomacy limits when a few decades the State deleted from the World political map had been represented. The destiny of DSL essentially depended on reality of the international politics (particularly emphasizing bilateral relations of various countries with soviets), attitude of world-power states that accredited DSL and the position in respect of these realities. Therefore the Head of DSL consulted with authorities of foreign countries, first of all USA and took into account their recommendations during the main or critical moments for DSL activity (e.g. issues of legations in Washington, Paris and Bona). It signified untrue, indirect behavior dictated by the great policy or certain foreign countries as well as shadow subordination. 9. When solving internal problems of DSL and also issues of its survival within the frames of international diplomacy, the Head of DSL has retained this part of state institution (in certain cases in the frames of de jure and/or de facto).

31 LIETUVOS DIPLOMATIJOS ŠEFO STASIO LOZORAIČIO VEIKLA (1940-1983)

Santrauka

1940-1991 metais užsienyje veikusi Lietuvos diplomatinė tarnyba (LDT), jos istorija ir pati diplomatinė praktika šiandien pripažįstamos išskirtinėmis bei unikaliomis. Ji buvo vienintelė po šalies okupacijos išlikusi ir savo veiklos nenutraukusi valstybinė institucija, o tiksliau – jos dalis. LDT ne tik veikė, globojo bei gynė savo tautiečius, bet ir buvo oficialiai ar neoficialiai pripažįstama kai kurių valstybių (JAV, D. Britanija, Prancūzija, Šv. Sostas). Peržengdama įprastinio oficialaus diplomatinio veikimo ribas, ji visomis galimomis priemonėmis kovojo už savo šalies nepriklausomybę. Kitas jos tikslas – likti pripažinta, išsilaikyti ir tai buvo sunkiausias LDT uždavinys. Nes jos pripažinimas, be ko praktiškai būtų neįmanoma institucinė veikla, buvo gyva ir vienintelė jungtis su nepriklausoma Lietuva, jos valstybingumo įrodymas. 1940-1983 metais arba iki pat mirties Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos šefu buvo Stasys Lozoraitis (1898-1983). Daugiau kaip keturiasdešimt metų trukusi LDT šefo veikla, pirmiausia, buvo skirta visos diplomatinės tarnybos išsaugojimui. Tačiau ji nebuvo tik siaurai simbolinė, neapsiribojo vien LDT kuravimu, įrėmintu į „primus inter pares“ rėmus. S. Lozoraičio įtaka buvo juntama ir lietuvių išeivijoje. Laikydamasis valstybinės institucijos vadovui privalomo atstumo, jis rinkosi intelektualinio dialogo formą santykiuose su aktyviausiomis politinėmis ir visuomeninėmis lietuvių išeivijos organizacijomis. Jo nuomonė, požiūris, sprendimai ir ypač jų motyvacijos atskleidžia ir sudėtingus pačios diplomatinės tarnybos, ir politinės lietuvių išeivijos santykius. Diplomatinė kova už Lietuvą, požiūris į jos laisvinimo bylą ir tarptautinės politikos vertinimai bei įžvalgos šiandien leidžia S. Lozoraitį pristatyti kaip unikalų, brandaus valstybininko ir diplomato pavyzdį. Tyrimo objektas. Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos šefo S. Lozoraičio veikla okupacijos metais iki šiol nėra sulaukusi atidesnio ir skvarbesnio tyrinėtojų dėmesio. Ji yra tampriai susijusi su visos LDT istorija ir ypač atskirais jos epizodais. LDT šefo ryšiai ir santykiai su politinėmis lietuvių išeivijos organizacijomis bei pagrindiniais jų veikėjais yra dar

32 viena S. Lozoraičio veiklos dalis. Diplomato įtaka visai lietuvių vadavimo akcijai paliko ryškius pėdsakus lietuvių išeivijos istorijoje, Lietuvos laisvinimo byloje. Tyrimo tikslas. Išanalizuoti Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos šefo S. Lozoraičio veiklą, pristatyti bei išskirti svarbiausius jos etapus, taip pat atskleisti S. Lozoraičio vaidmenį lietuvių diplomatinės tarnybos bei atskirų lietuvių išeivijos organizacijų veikloje, siekiant Lietuvos laisvės ir nepriklausomybės. Tyrimo uždaviniai. Atskleisti S. Lozoraičio veiklą 1940-1945 metais; pristatyti Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos ir paties S. Lozoraičio padėtį po Lietuvos okupacijos; išanalizuoti LDT šefo veikimo ribas ir galimybes, taip pat atskleisti pačių diplomatų požiūrį į diplomatijos šefo įgaliojimus; ištirti S. Lozoraičio veiklą diplomatinėje tarnyboje, sprendžiant personalo ir pasiuntinybių išsaugojimo klausimus; išanalizuoti LDT šefo santykius ir bendradarbiavimą su lietuvių išeivijos politinėmis grupėmis, kaip Vyriausiuoju Lietuvos Išlaisvinimo komitetu (VLIK) ir liberaliojo sparno atstovais; atskleisti ir analizuoti S. Lozoraičio politinius sprendimus, nuostatas, požiūrį į Lietuvos laisvės bylą ir į kovą už valstybės nepriklausomybės atstatymą; įvertinti jo, kaip politiko, įtaką Lietuvos valstybingumo raidai ir išeivijos politiniam gyvenimui. Chronologinės ribos. 1940 – 1983 metai. Tai yra nuo Lietuvos okupacijos (1940 m. birželio 15 d.), LDT šefo įgaliojimų veikimo pradžios, iki pat S. Lozoraičio mirties. Tačiau tekste šios ribos yra logiškai peržengiamos, pirmoje dalyje grįždama į XX amžiaus pradžią ir parodoma S. Lozoraičio karjera, jo atėjimas į diplomatinę tarnybą bei veikla Nepriklausomos Lietuvos metais. Istoriografija. Iki šiol S. Lozoraičio biografija nėra sulaukusi išskirtinio tyrinėtojų dėmesio. Lietuviškoje istoriografijoje diplomato pavardė dažniau minima ne kaip LDT šefo, bet kaip Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministro. Suprantama, kad tik pastaruoju titulu jis pristatomas daugumoje prieškario laikotarpio politines peripetijas tyrinėjusių mokslininkų darbuose. Literatūra. Dar LDT veikimo metais patys diplomatai turėjo minčių parašyti lietuviškos diplomatijos istoriją nuo pat 1918 metų. Tačiau visų jų ketinimai tokiais ir liko (išimtimi būtų dr. S. A. Bačkio parašyta istorija “Lietuvos diplomatinė tarnyba (1940 06 15 – 1990 03 11)“). Neabejotina, kad jei sumanymas parašyti išsamią LDT istoriją būtų buvęs įgyvendintas, apie S. Lozoraičio veiklą Lietuvos okupacijos metais būtų žinoma daug daugiau.

33 Iki šiol Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos išeivijoje tema paskelbtu išsamiausiu tekstu lieka diplomato ir istoriko L. Jonušausko knyga „Likimo vedami: Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos egzilyje veikla (1940-1991)“. Jo parašyta LDT istorija yra ir pirmas susistemintas bei chronologiškai naudingas tekstas apie diplomatų veiklą Lietuvos okupacijos metais. Tačiau joje LDT šefo vaidmuo ir visa veikla atskleidžiamos iš esmės tik per jo santykius su VLIK, kuriuos autorius išsamiai ištyrinėjo. LDT šefo veiklai nušviesti padėjo autorių (kaip V. Bartusevičiaus, A. Geručio, J. Skiriaus, A. Streikaus, J. Žėkaitės, O. Žukauskienės), rašiusių apie LDT ir jos narius, darbai. Juose S. Lozoraitis minimas kaip diplomatinės tarnybos šefas. Suprantama, kad jo, kaip nepagrindinio tyrimų objekto, veikla, įtakos ir sprendimų motyvacijos čia lieka be atidesnio žvilgsnio, antrame plane. Nepriklausomai nuo aprašomo objekto, organizacijos ar asmens, dažniausiai tik fragmentiškai S. Lozoraičio pavardė paminima ir 1940-1990 metų istoriografijoje, skirtoje lietuvių išeivijos politiniai istorijai. Tokia pati charakteristika tiktų ir sovietmečio istoriografijai. Tam tikra išimtimi būtų L. Mockūno „Pavargęs herojus. Jonas Deksnys trijų žvalgybų tarnyboje“ ir D. Dapkutės moksliniai tekstai, kuriuose S. Lozoraitis pristatomas kaip aktyvus 5-6 dešimtmečio įvykių dalyvis, domėjęsis krašto likimu, bandęs per atskirus asmenis palaikyti paties prioritetiniais laikytus ir vertinamus ryšius su pasipriešinimu krašte. Peržiūrint ir atrenkant istoriografinę medžiagą, ypač pravertė kritiniai, polemizuojantys bei recenziniai tekstai, publikuoti įvairaus laikotarpio leidiniuose ar periodikoje. Jie leido į LDT šefo veiklą bei aplinką pažvelgti aštresniu žvilgsniu. Šaltiniai. Išvardintus istoriografinius duomenis papildo, patikslina, pataiso ar net kompensuoja šaltinių medžiaga. Darbe naudotus šaltinius galima skirti į kelias grupes: archyvinius ir publikuotus šaltinius, periodinė spaudą bei interviu. Svarbiausią ir didžiausią šaltinių dalį sudaro archyvinė medžiaga. Pagrindinis šaltinis - LDT šefo S. Lozoraičio archyvas, saugomas Lietuvos Centriniame Valstybės archyve (f. 668). Siekiant kuo išsamiau ir tiksliau pristatyti LDT šefo veiklą, buvo naudoti ir kitų diplomatų archyviniai fondai: dr. K. Graužinio, A. Simučio, dr. A. Geručio, E. Turausko. Nors jų turinys didesne dalimi dubliuojasi vienas su kitu, tačiau kiekvienas jų yra unikalus dėl privačios korespondencijos, juodraštinės medžiagos. Be dėmesio neliko

34 kitų žymių politinės lietuvių išeivijos veikėjų, kaip M. Krupavičiaus, V. Sidzikausko, V. Rastenio, K. Drungos – Jurgio Valiulio, A. Damušio, H. Žemelio, L. Mockūno, B. Railos, B. Nemicko, kun. J. Petrošiaus, L. Šmulkščio archyviniai palikimai. Vertingą šaltinių dalį sudaro publikuoti dokumentai, taip pat amžininkų dienoraščiai, atsiminimai, pasakojimai. Rekonstruojant LDT šefo politinės veiklos istoriją ypač svarbus buvo jo paties žodis. Tačiau S. Lozoraičio tekstų, paskelbtų lietuvių išeivijos leidiniuose ar periodinėje spaudoje, nėra daug. Pastebimai didesnė jo tekstų dalis yra sveikinimai ar kalbos, tradiciškai Vasario 16-osios proga. Darbo struktūra: be įvado, išvadų, šaltinių bei literatūros sąrašo darbą sudaro septynios darbo dalys ir keturi priedai. Pirmoje darbo dalyje epizodiškai pristatoma lietuvių diplomatija 1918-1940 metais, kelios personalijos bei to meto paties S. Lozoraičio biografija, karjera dar iki tampant LDT šefu. Antroje dalyje chronologiškai nagrinėjami pagrindiniai LDT šefo S. Lozoraičio veiklos faktai Antrojo pasaulinio karo metais (pirmieji veiksmai po Lietuvos okupacijos, požiūriai, vertinimai, sprendimai). Taip pat atskleidžiami sukurto Lietuvos Tautinio komiteto tikslai bei pristatomi tuo pat metu sudarytų „Kybartų aktų“ įgaliojimai (traktavimas, vieša ir nevieša diskusija) bei paties LDT šefo požiūris. Trečiąją darbo dalį sudaro Lietuvos diplomatinės tarnybos padėtis po Lietuvos okupacijos: išskirtinumas ir veikimo galimybės. Paskutinio nepriklausomos Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministro J. Urbšio telegramos nr. 288 analizė, LDT šefo pareigybių rėmai bei diplomatinės tarnybos narių požiūriai į LDT šefo instituciją yra analizuojami ketvirtoje darbo dalyje. Sekančioje darbo dalyje pristatoma S. Lozoraičio veikla ir motyvacijos, sprendžiant Lietuvos diplomatinių postų Vašingtone ir Paryžiuje problemas. Šeštoje dalyje analizuojami LDT šefo ir VLIK santykiai (diskusija, konfliktai, susitarimai, priežastys), taip pat atskleidžiami S. Lozoraičio požiūriai ir sprendimai santykiuose su kitomis politinėmis lietuvių išeivijos organizacijomis. Taip pat tyrinėjamas LDT narių požiūris į S. Lozoraičio santykius su politine lietuvių išeivija. Paskutinėje darbo dalyje pateikiama LDT šefo viešų kalbų ir tekstų analizė bei intelektualinis indėlis siekiant Lietuvos laisvės ir nepriklausomybės. Prieduose pateikiama LDT šefo veiklos (I priedas) ir LDT atstovybių veikimo (II priedas) chronologija bei Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministro J. Urbšio siųstos telegramos nr. 288 pilnas tekstas (III priedas) ir S. Lozoraičio pro memoria apie pokalbį su sovietų

35 pareigūnais, šiems reikalaujant atiduoti Lietuvos pasiuntinybę prie Kvirinalo (IV priedas). Rašant darbą, naudotas aprašomasis, lyginamasis, teksto analizės ir interpretacijos bei interviu metodai. Išvados 1. 1939 metų pabaigoje S. Lozoraitis pamatuotai įvertino tarptautinės politikos realijas bei įžvelgė būsimus Lietuvos ir jos užsienio politikos lūžius. Nežiūrint draugiškos Lietuvos ir Sovietų Sąjungos pasirašytos sutarties (1939 m. spalio 10 d.), jis netikėjo sovietų oficialiąja politika. Tad S. Lozoraičio iniciatyva Paryžiuje buvo surengtas jo ir diplomatų B. K. Balučio bei P. Klimo susitikimas, kurio metu buvo parengtas taip vadinamas Trijų pasiuntinių memorandumas, kaip būsimos veiklos gairės valstybės okupacijos atveju. S. Lozoraitis pristatė memorandumą Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministerijoje. Tačiau nepaisant jo kreipimosi bei daromų priminimų ir tuomet, ir likus keliems mėnesiams iki Lietuvos okupacijos, į memorandumą bei jo rekomendacijas nebuvo atsižvelgta. 2. Likus kelioms savaitėms iki Lietuvos okupacijos LR užsienio reikalų ministras J. Urbšys išsiuntė Lietuvos pasiuntinybėms telegramą nr. 288, kurios pabaigoje nurodė valstybės katastrofos atveju S. Lozoraičiui eiti diplomatijos šefo pareigas. LDT šefo pavaduotojais buvo paskirti P. Klimas ir dr. J. Šaulys. Po Lietuvos okupacijos, kaip LDT šefas, S. Lozoraitis iš karto ėmėsi užsieny likusių diplomatų veiklos koordinavimo. Jis tiksliai ir pamatuotai apskaičiavo protesto notų (dėl surežisuotų „liaudies rinkimų“ ir Lietuvos įstojimo į Sovietų Sąjungos sudėtį) įteikimo svetimoms valstybėms bei LR užsienio reikalų ministerijai datas. Tuo pat metu jis pradėjo formuoti visos LDT elgseną (lojalumas valstybei, LR Konstitucijai, bet ne santvarkai, juridinis matmuo), jos išlikimo politiką (personalo mažinimas ir jų išsaugojimas, finansavimas, taip pat nekilnojamojo turto išsaugojimas, archyvų saugumas), pirmenybę teikdamas laisvojo pasaulio oficialiai pripažįstamoms pasiuntinybėms. Jo nurodymu, nei vienas LR pasiuntinybės pastatas neatiteko sovietams tiesiogiai. 3. LR užsienio reikalų ministro J. Urbšio telegramą S. Lozoraitis vertino kaip įsakymą ir juo vadovavosi. Tačiau LDT nariai jos galias bei veikimo ribas traktavo nevienodai. Tarp diplomatų tai iššaukė reformacines diskusijas. Likdamas „primus inter pares“ rėmuose, S. Lozoraitis iš esmės veikė tuo metu įmanomose užsienio reikalų ministro

36 institucijos ribose. O keliais atvejais jis buvo priverstas peržengti šias ribas (skiriant ar suteikiant LDT nariams diplomatinius rangus). Siekdamas išvengti vidaus konfliktų, S. Lozoraitis nuolat ir įvairiais klausimais tardavosi su LDT nariais, neskyrė naujų LDT šefo pavaduotojų. Tik paskutiniais savo veiklos metais (1978 m.) paskyrė LDT šefo pavaduotoją ir savo mirties atveju – įpėdinį. 4. Pirmaisiais po Lietuvos okupacijos mėnesiais S. Lozoraitis, tardamasis su kolegomis diplomatais, pradėjo formuoti Lietuvos Tautinį komitetą. Įvertindamas tarptautinę padėtį, S. Lozoraitis nepritarė egzilinės vyriausybės sudarymo idėjai, laikė ją nenaudinga ir kenksminga Lietuvos valstybingumui ir tebeveikiančiai diplomatinei tarnybai. Komiteto, kuriame S. Lozoraitis buvo paskirtas pirmininko pavaduotoju, sudarymas buvo mėginimas įsteigti moraliai tarptautinėje erdvėje pripažįstamą instituciją. Dėl karo stovio ir iš to sekusių aplinkybių Lietuvos Tautinis komitetas neišvystė platesnės ir pastebimesnės veiklos. 5. Sekant Lietuvos Tautinio komiteto idėja 1940 m. lapkričio 23 d. Berne buvo sudaryti „Kybartų aktai“, kurių įgaliojimai (ministro pirmininko ir LR prezidento pavaduotojo) Lietuvos prezidento įsakymu buvo paskirti S. Lozoraičiui. Tai buvo mėginimas paneigti po 1940 m. birželio 15 d. buvusius visus valdžios pasikeitimus, kaip neteisėtus, įvykusius ne laisva valia, tai yra sovietų nurodymu arba jų įtakoje. Fiktyvia vieta ir atgaline data (Kybartai, 1940 m. birželio 15 d.) pasirašyti „Kybartų aktai“ buvo skirti, pirmiausia, tarptautinei bendruomenei, kaip valstybingumo tęstinumą įrodantys dokumentai. S. Lozoraitis tiesiogiai šių dokumentų nepanaudojo, bet jų neatsisakė, neatšaukė. „Kybartų aktai“, S. Lozoraičio sprendimu, nebuvo nei oficialiai panaudoti, nei jų įgaliojimai kitam asmeniui ar asmenims perduoti dėl nepalankios tarptautinės politikos konjunktūros. 6. S. Lozoraitis palaikė ryšius su politine lietuvių išeivija. Jis nuolat susitikdavo su VLIK pirmaisiais asmenimis, palaikė artimus kontaktus su LRS ir jos pirmtakais bei įpėdiniais. Lemiančiais veiksniais S. Lozoraičio santykiuose tiek su organizuotu VLIK, tiek su transformavusiuoju liberaliuoju sparnu buvo požiūris į valstybingumą, jo tęstinumą, į 1938 metų LR Konstituciją, taip pat požiūris į ryšius su kraštu. S. Lozoraičio pasirinkta nuostata palaikyti dialogą su politine lietuvių išeivija, bet išlikti tarpininku ir tik intelektualinio bendravimo rėmuose, buvo vertinama nevienareikšmiškai ne tik tarp visuomeninių organizacijų, bet ir pačioje LDT.

37 Sudėtingus LDT šefo santykius su politine lietuvių išeivija iš esmės nulėmė jo ir visos LDT skirtingas požiūris į užsienio politikos realijas ir tarptautinę diplomatiją. 7. S. Lozoraičio požiūris į Lietuvos okupaciją, griežta atskirtis tarp nepriklausomos ir okupuotos valstybės, už valstybingumo praradimą kaltinami tik okupantai, teikiama pirmenybė tautai krašte ir jos konstitucinei teisei (tik tauta esanti krašte ir būdama nepriklausoma turi teisę atšaukti, skelbti konstituciją, rinktis valstybinę santvarką) bei pasyvaus pasipriešinimo palaikymas ir ryšiai su kraštu apibrėžia jo politinio mąstymo gaires. Jų pagrindu arba pagal dar 1949 metais S. Lozoraičio viešai išdėstą Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Atstatymo schemą, buvo parengtas 1990 m. kovo 11 d. Aktas: skelbiant nepriklausomybę ir išsaugojant valstybingumo tęstinumą buvo pasiremta 1938 metų Konstitucija, o jos punktai, kalbantys apie valstybės santvarką ir valdžios institucijas, iš karto buvo sustabdyti. 8. LDT šefas S. Lozoraitis, kaip ir visa diplomatinė tarnyba, veikė už tradicinės diplomatijos ribų, kai kelis dešimtmečius buvo atstovaujama iš politinio pasaulio žemėlapio išbrauktai valstybei. LDT likimas iš esmės priklausė nuo tarptautinės politikos realijų (ypač akcentuojant atskirų šalių dvišalius santykius su sovietais), ją pripažįstančių didžiųjų valstybių požiūrio ir laikysenos jų atžvilgių. Tad ir LDT šefas pagrindiniais arba lemiamais LDT veiklos momentais (kaip pasiuntinybių Vašingtone, Paryžiuje ir Bonoje klausimais) tardavosi su užsienio valstybių institucijomis, pirmiausia, su JAV, atsižvelgdavo į jų rekomendacijas. Tai reiškė netikrą, netiesioginę, didžiosios politikos ar atskirų užsienio šalių diktuojamą elgseną, šešėlinę subordinaciją. 9. Spręsdamas LDT vidaus problemas, taip pat jos išlikimo klausimus tarptautinės diplomatijos rėmuose, LDT šefas išsaugojo šią valstybinės institucijos dalį (atskirais atvejais de jure ir/ar de facto rėmuose).

38 PUBLICATIONS LIST Publications on the dissertation theme: Articles in the reviewed scientific periodicals approved by the Department of Science and Studies of Lithuania

• Petraitytė A. Latvijos diplomatinis korpusas tarpukario Kaune // Acta Baltica: straipsnių rinkinys [vyr. red. A. Butkus]. – Kaunas: Aesti, 2005, p. 145-161. ISBN 9986-884-18-7. • Petraitytė A. Pozicijos ir opozicijos. Lietuvos diplomatinė tarnyba Berno ir Paryžiaus konferencijose // Lietuvių diplomatija išeivijoje 1940–1991: straipsnių rinkinys [sudarytojos D. Dapkutė, A. Petraitytė]. – Vilnius: Versus Aureus. 2007, p. 156-184. ISBN 978-9955-34-031-7. • Petraitytė A. Lietuvos diplomatijos istorija (1925-1940 m.): [recenzija] – Rec. kn.: Žalys, Vytautas. Lietuvos diplomatijos istorija (1925-1940), t. 1. Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2007 // Darbai ir Dienos. – Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 2007, nr. 47, p. 254-294. ISSN 1392-1588. • Lietuvių diplomatija išeivijoje 1940-1991: straipsnių rinkinys. [sudarytojos – D. Dapkutė, A. Petraitytė] – Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2007, p 319. ISBN 978-9955- 34-031-7. • Petraitytė A., Senn A. Iš egzilinės diplomatijos palikimo: karo metų korespondencija // Darbai ir Dienos. – Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 2007, nr. 48, p. 261-263. ISSN 1392-1588. • Petraitytė A. S. Lozoraičio kalbos, pasakytos Vasario 16-osios proga // Oikos: lietuvių migracijos ir diasporos studijos. – Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2007, nr. 4, p. 81-102. ISSN 1822-5152. (EBSCO, SocINDEX). • Petraitytė A. Lietuvos Respublikos pasiuntinybė Didžiojoje Britanijoje 1919- 2006 metais // Didžiosios Britanijos lietuvių bendruomenė: praeitis, dabartis, ateitis: straipsnių rinkinys. [sudarytoja D. Dapkutė]. – Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2008, p. 141-166. ISBN 978-9955-34-169-7. • Petraitytė A. Dar vienas žodis apie diplomatą: [recenzija]. – Rec.kn.: Streikus, Arūnas. Diplomatas Stasys Antanas Bačkis. Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras, 2007, p. 292. // Darbai ir Dienos. – Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 2008, nr. 49, p. 260-263. ISSN 1392- 1588. • Petraitytė-Briedienė A. Lietuvos diplomatai Prancūzijoje (1918-1991) // Prancūzijos lietuvių bendruomenė: istorija ir dabartis: straipsnių rinkinys. [sudarytojas L. Saldukas]. – Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2009, p. 24-37. ISSN, ISBN, ISMN 978-9955-34-201-4 (įr.). • Petraitytė-Briedienė A. Diplomatijos šefas: Stasio Lozoraičio įgaliojimai // Oikos: lietuvių migracijos ir diasporos studijos. – Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2009, nr. 2 (8), p. 96-114. ISSN 1822-5152. (EBSCO, SocINDEX). • Petraitytė-Briedienė A. Iš egzilinės diplomatijos palikimo: trys laiškai // Darbai ir dienos. – Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 2009, nr. 51, p. 251-278. ISSN 1392-0588.

39 Other publications on the dissertation theme:

• Petraitytė A. Kazys Lozoraitis (1929-2007) // Akiračiai. 2007 m. rugsėjis, nr. 9 (395), p. 6. • Petraitytė A. Feljetoniškas požiūris į laikinąją sostinę // Akiračiai. 2008 m. vasario mėn., nr. 2 (399), p. 14, 16. • Petraitytė A. Stasys Lozoraitis // Verslo žinios. 2008 m. balandžio 4 d., nr. 63 (2715), p. 16-18. • Petraitytė A. Baltosios pirštinės. Ar tikrai? // Akiračiai. 2008 m. rugsėjo mėn., nr. 8 (405), p. 6-7. • Petraitytė A. Metai be Kazio Lozoraičio (1929-2007) // Akiračiai. 2008 m. rugsėjo mėn., nr. 8 (405), p. 7. • Petraitytė A. Svarbus dokumentų rinkinys apie žmogų ir valstybę, recenzija: A. Simutis – 60 metų Lietuvos diplomatinėje tarnyboje. Vilnius:, 2008, p. 463. // Kultūros barai. 2008 m., nr. 3, p. 92-93. • Petraitytė A. Stasys Lozoraitis (vyresnysis) / (1898-1983) Diplomatas, politikas ir visuomenės veikėjas // 100 iškiliausių Lietuvos žmonių. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2009, p. 200-201. ISBN 978-5-420-01655-8 (įr.).

Other publications:

• Petraitytė A. Visuomenės tradicijos. VDU profesūra įvairių draugijų veikloje (iki 1940 m.) // Akiračiai. 2008 m. kovo mėn., nr. 3 (400), p. 1, 12. • Petraitytė A. Valstybinės šventės // Lietuva: šeimos enciklopedija. Kaunas: Šviesa, 2005, p. 24-25. ISBN 5-430-04007-X.

Reports on the topic of dissertation at scientific conferences

• 2007 10 22 Tarptautinis simpoziumas Jokūbo Robinzono gyvenimas, darbai ir laikmetis (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Laisvasis Berlyno universitetas, Vokietijos federacinės respublikos ambasada Vilniuje); pranešimas Jacob Robinson and the Lithuanian Emigrants Organizations.

40 About the author: Name: Asta PETRAITYTĖ-BRIEDIENĖ Education: 1997-1999 – Master studies of History at the Vytautas Magnus University 1993-1997 – Bachelor studies of History at the Vytautas Magnus University

Phone: + 370 682 22492 E-mail: [email protected]

41 42 43

Asta PETRAITYTĖ-BRIEDIENĖ

THE ACTIVITY OF THE HEAD OF THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF LITHUANIA STASYS LOZORAITIS (1940-1983)

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation

Išleido ir spausdino – Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla (S. Daukanto g. 27, LT-44249 Kaunas) Užsakymo nr. K11-029 Tiražas 40 egz. 2011 04 11 Nemokamai.

44