“We Started Our Resistance Fight for Gaining Independence and Freedom Again”

A History of Lithuanian Independence

Interviewer: G. Gedo

Interviewee: Valdas Adamkus

February 17, 2015

Table of Contents

Interviewer Release Form…………………………………………………………………………2

Interviewee Release Form…………………………………………………………………………3

Statement of Purpose……………………………………………………………………...... 4

Biography………………………………………………………………………………………….5

“Lithuania is Coming Back as a Free Nation”: Historical Contextualization…………………….7

Interview Transcription…………………………………………………………………………..27

Interview Time Index……………………………………………………………………………46

Interview Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….47

Appendix 1……………………………………………………………………………………….52

Appendix 2……………………………………………………………………………………….53

Appendix 3……………………………………………………………………………………….54

Works Consulted…………………………………………………………………………………55

Statement of Purpose

Throughout history, countries have taken over other nations and oppressed the occupied nations’ peoples. Sometimes the abused states are lucky enough to become free after years of repression and tyranny. They then have to rebuild and cope with the deep impact and trauma years of injustice and suffering have created. Therefore, in order to understand a country’s declaration of independence and its aftermath, one must learn about the occupation of the country, the nation’s independence movement, and the country’s modern concerns. The purpose of this project is to provide the viewpoint of a Lithuanian who witnessed the occupation by the

Soviet Union, the movement for Lithuanian autonomy, and the rebuilding of Lithuania. This project also intends to illustrate the emotional impact of the events during this time period. The work of President Adamkus, a Lithuanian immigrant to the United States and later the president of Lithuania, helps to explain the country’s development as it works to join the rest of Europe as a modern nation.

Biography

Valdas Adamkus was born in Kaunas, Lithuania in 1926 and grew up in free Lithuania.

During World War II, he witnessed the occupation of Lithuania by both German and Soviet forces and eventually escaped to Germany with his parents. President Adamkus lived in a displaced persons camp in Germany until he and his parents were able to immigrate to the United

States. Several years later, he graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology with a

Bachelors of Science in engineering. After working briefly as an engineer, President Adamkus became a civil servant in the newly created Environmental Protection Agency and eventually became the administrator of the Great Lakes region. He remained involved in Lithuanian issues and was in direct contact with the leaders in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, on the night

Lithuania declared its independence from the Soviet Union. After working for the Environmental

Protection Agency for 27 years, President Adamkus left the United States to live in the newly free Lithuania and to run for office. In January 1999, President Adamkus was sworn in to office

and began the first of his two five-year terms as president of Lithuania. He has honorary doctorates from a number of universities, including Vilnius University. President Adamkus currently lives with his wife in Vilnius, Lithuania, and still has an office in the presidential palace.

“Lithuania is Coming Back as a Free Nation”: Historical

Contextualization

A famous New Yorker cartoon depicts Lithuanian leader Vytautas Landsbergis sitting in an office overlooking Vilnius, where oil is spurting out of the city’s television tower. He is on the phone with President George H.W. Bush, saying, “Mr. Bush, this is Vytautas Landsbergis, in

Vilnius. Guess what” (Cartoon of Landsbergis)1. This cartoon perfectly illustrates Lithuanians’ frustration in the early 1990s, when the United States refused to recognize their independence.

The Soviet Union had occupied Lithuania for 50 years, so when Lithuania finally declared its independence, it had high hopes of truly becoming free. Lithuania was the first Soviet republic to declare independence, and this marked an important step in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Lithuanian independence allowed a part of the Soviet Union to become a modern, democratic state that could share its opinions and participate in global organizations. It also gave people the opportunity to move, talk, and vote freely after 50 years of Soviet oppression. The events of the

1990s were integral to the creation of Lithuanian freedom, and they were heavily influenced by

Soviet-Lithuanian relations and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Therefore, in order to understand the perspective of someone who participated in the Lithuanian independence movement and its aftermath, it is important to first examine Lithuanian-Soviet relations, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the declaration of Lithuanian independence.

Imperialist Russia had occupied Lithuania until the end of World War I. After Lithuania became independent from Russia, it struggled to create a democratic system. For twenty years,

Lithuania remained independent and struggled to create a modern, viable government. Because

1 See Appendix 1

Lithuanians had not had much opportunity to be politically active prior to this time period, leaders focused on culture as a means of building an independent nation (Lieven xiv). According to historians John Hiden and Patrick Salmon, Lithuanians needed to “construct new political systems, reconstruct their economies and settle their frontiers” after World War I (Hiden and

Salmon 44). Building a new political system meant the formation of political parties. As the ideals of communism spread throughout the world, Lithuanians created their own socialist parties. These parties gained the support of the urban working class and the landless peasants

(Hiden and Salmon 49). Lithuania’s democratic system was precarious, and, in 1926, Antanas

Smetona, a former president of Lithuania, conducted a coup d’etat. He had military support and took advantage of the discontent created by a Soviet-Lithuanian pact signed earlier that year

(Hiden and Salmon 54). Smetona’s dictatorship seemed to justify Nazi ideologue Alfred

Rosenberg’s assertion that “the absolute sovereignty of small peoples wedged between two great states [is] unthinkable” (Hiden and Salmon 109). The weakness of the Lithuanian government made the subsequent Soviet takeover easier.

In 1939, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), signed a pact with Nazi

Germany that split the countries of Eastern Europe between the two powers. A secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet pact allowed Russia to occupy Lithuania once again (Hiden 110). As Hiden and

Salmon state, some believe that “probably the best course would have been for the Baltic nations to fight the Soviet troops independently from the outset” (Hiden and Salmon 111). Instead, the

USSR pressured Lithuania into signing a pact in order to allow the Soviets to exert their power over their new domain. The pact was a “mutual assistance” treaty that mostly favored the Soviets but did return much of Vilnius2 to Lithuania (Hiden and Salmon 110). According to Hiden and

Salmon, “The return of Vilnius meant that in Lithuania at least, the new relationship with the

2 Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania, which had been held by Poland after World War I (Hiden and Salmon 110).

Soviet Union met with a large measure of approval” (Hiden and Salmon 112). Soon afterwards, the USSR completely took over Lithuania. After World War II until the 1980s, the oppressive

Soviet regime came close to eradicating Lithuania’s sense of national identity (Hiden and

Salmon 126). The Soviet Union was ultimately unable to do so, however, and this subsequently became a factor in the Lithuanian independence movement (Hiden and Salmon 110).

From 1939-1941 and 1944-1990, the USSR did its best to suppress Lithuanian culture and spirit and to change the economy, while the Lithuanians resisted this oppression. Lithuanians were highly opposed to Soviet occupation, and some people reacted by becoming partisans and fighting in the countryside using guerrilla tactics. Although the partisans were extremely persistent, the Soviets eventually crushed the movement (Hiden and Salmon 128). In addition to the suppression of the partisans, Soviet Premier Josef Stalin began to deport Lithuanian “enemies of the state” to Siberia. This meant that opponents of agricultural collectivization, intellectuals, supporters of the partisans, the partisans themselves, and any others who might represent threats to the Soviet system were sent to Siberia or forced to escape the country. The Soviets compelled the Lithuanians to create and work on collective farms. Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin’s successor, ended the Siberian deportations in the 1950s and allowed deportees to return home, but many people had not survived the harsh conditions imposed upon them in Siberia (Hiden and Salmon

129). The Soviets also attacked religion in Lithuania, which created significant resentment

(Hiden and Salmon 135). This oppression created a strong sense of anger towards the Soviets, which helped fuel the independence movement later in the century.

The Soviets industrialized Lithuania, which had important long term effects.

Industrialization gave Lithuania a more Western outlook and modernized the country, which eventually assisted in its independence movement. The number of Russian immigrants increased,

the new economic organization drastically changed and fragmented family dynamics, and the rapid pace of industrialization created environmental problems. Despite this forced industrialization, farming and forestry retained their importance in the Lithuanian economy.

According to Hiden and Salmon, “Lithuanian society remained less developed [than other Soviet republics] and for this very reason was able by 1990 to mount a more direct challenge to the authority of the Kremlin” (Hiden and Salmon 127).

Throughout most of the Cold War, Lithuania was isolated from the rest of the world. It took until the 1960s for journalists to be allowed within Lithuania, and tourists only got to see specific parts of the country. The Soviets censored communication. They made sure that

Lithuania and the other Baltic states were closed off from the rest of the world because of the

Baltics’ military importance and their lack of loyalty to the USSR. There were critical surveillance and general military posts throughout Lithuania that the USSR wanted to hide from the West (Hiden and Salmon 134). The Soviets worked to keep Lithuanians away from the rest of the world because they knew Soviet rule was highly unpopular among the Lithuanians, as is evidenced by their eventual declaration of independence.

The communist system did not serve the USSR well financially, and economic problems greatly contributed to the fall of Soviet Union. The communist system did not enough produce food or commodities for all of its citizens (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 11). According to

Bruno Leone, Bonnie Szumski, and Paul A. Winters, “[A]fter many years of this kind of inefficiency and corruption, shortages of all types of goods began to appear” (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 14). The Soviet government dealt with these problems ineffectively; its leaders created five-year plans, which summarized objectives for the country’s development. Because of the problems and shortages, people turned to the black market, which ended up only helping

high-ranking officials because they were able to trade favors with the vendors. The Soviets had to import food from other countries, creating large international debts. As workers had lost hope of improving their lives, they became angry and did not work hard, compounding the USSR’s financial problems (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 14-15). The war in Afghanistan exacerbated the USSR’s economic difficulties. The country lost many soldiers and spent enormous sums on this 10-year conflict (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 15-16). When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he attempted to improve the economy by implementing economic reforms, such as perestroika3. These efforts ultimately failed, leading to the USSR’s downfall (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 17-19). Gorbachev’s attack on alcoholism also contributed to the country’s economic problems, as the government lost tax revenue that had come from alcohol sales. The financial issues led to enormous inflation, which prevented people from embracing perestroika, as there had been no economic improvement (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 24-25). These economic problems made the USSR unable to fight back effectively against the Lithuanians in the 1990s.

Besides implementing economic reform, Gorbachev put in place other changes in an effort to save the USSR; however, the reforms, ended up contributing to the USSR’s disintegration. For example, he introduced glasnost4, which promoted truthfulness and honesty within the USSR, in order to create more support for the USSR and to improve its standing on human rights issues (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 18-19). Glasnost allowed people to look into the past truthfully. This truthfulness created problems for the USSR, however. Revealing the secret protocols of the Nazi-Soviet pact made it clear that Soviet claims on the Baltic states were

3 Perestroika was the reorganization of the centralized financial planning system (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 19). 4 Glasnost, meaning openness, allowed people within the USSR to communicate with each other and people outside of the country (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 86).

illegitimate, and this contributed to the downfall of the USSR. According to journalist and policy analyst Anatol Lieven, “Soviet rule was based on lies, and when these were exposed, that rule collapsed. Similarly, when autocratic control was removed, Soviet ‘democratic’ institutions proved surprisingly capable of expressing the people’s will, and in the Baltic and elsewhere, this will was directed at the destruction of the Soviet Union” (Lieven 222). Citizens of the occupied countries began to elect officials whom they actually supported, and the officials’ goals were no longer the same as Moscow’s (Lieven 222). The younger generation did not fear or respect the

Soviet system the way their elders had been forced to. Younger people openly opposed the system, which helped create support for the independence movement. (Hiden and Salmon 143).

Tensions within the Soviet Union and with its satellite states led to a final disintegration.

In the late 1980s, some of the republics within the USSR began to make their dissatisfaction heard (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 22). In 1989, the satellites of the USSR, surprisingly and quickly, overthrew their communist governments. In Poland, the union Solidarity led the anti- communist movement. Poland’s success motivated Hungary to work to force the Communist

Party out of power. In November, the Berlin Wall fell, allowing East Germany to oust the

Communist Party. Soon afterwards, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria followed suit. A few years later, the republics within the Soviet Union began to move away from Moscow’s leadership. Lithuania declared its independence in 1991, and it, along with other Soviet republics, began to struggle with Moscow, mostly peacefully, for sovereignty. The events in the other republics inspired Russians to push for their own independence (Leone, Szumski, and

Winters 28-32). According to Leone, Szumski, and Winters, “Despite a flurry of presidential decrees ordering factories and farms throughout the various republics to deliver goods, though,

[Gorbachev] could not stave off the descending economic anarchy. Gorbachev’s far-reaching

accumulation of authority and power could do nothing in the face of the republican governments that supplanted him” (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 33). In August 1991, when tensions in

Moscow were high, a group of extreme communists initiated a coup against Gorbachev, put him under house arrest, and tried to establish martial law. Troops surrounded the parliament in

Moscow, and tanks rolled into the city to prevent protests. Some members of parliament created a declaration of independence of Russia, allowing the country to avoid martial law. Republics within the USSR followed with their own declarations of independence, and the coup fell apart.

Soon afterwards, the Russian government outlawed the Communist Party. Because the republics within the USSR had either seceded or were in the midst of upheaval, the USSR ceased to exist, freeing the occupied countries within it (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 35-36).

Lithuanian culture and history were extremely important to its people, and they had been successful in maintaining their culture and holding on to their identity. Lithuanians finally became able to voice their opinions and work for independence in 1987. According to Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera, Lithuania assumed “the psychology of an occupied country … vigorously and persistently reasserting [its] national culture and reclaiming [its] national identity” (Hiden and Salmon 149). By the time Mikhail Gorbachev became the Soviet leader, the relations between people within Lithuania and between Lithuania and Moscow were extremely tense. According to Hiden and Salmon, Gorbachev’s policy had an “emphasis on efficiency at the expense of ethnicity, [which] represented a challenge to all of the non-Russian republics”

(Hiden 144). Lithuanians were forced to work hard to maintain their culture under Gorbachev’s leadership. Their ability to do so assisted in their independence movement.

Lithuanians began to oppose Soviet rule, which led to the independence movement. They concentrated on human rights in their protests. For example, some Lithuanians created a group to

monitor whether the USSR was really following the 1975 Helsinki declaration on human rights.

The group created a gargantuan number of publications expressing dissent. Ethnic minorities in

Lithuania, such as the Jews, were dedicated dissenters as well (Hiden and Salmon 135).

According to Hiden and Salmon, “If they only had a limited impact on the outside world, dissident activities undoubtedly did much for the Baltic morale” (Hiden and Salmon 137). The dissenters began demonstrating openly, and they used music as a tool for expression and protest.

The demonstrations reminded the rest of the world of Lithuania’s suffering, but Western governments were wary of allying themselves directly with Lithuania, which became apparent when the United States would not acknowledge Lithuanian freedom (Hiden and Salmon 136-

138).

Freer elections in the USSR helped Lithuania work for its own interests instead of the

Soviets’. In 1989, the Communist Party still controlled politics and the media, but for the first time, voters in the USSR had options and could actually elect someone who had not simply been chosen by the Party. This helped Lithuania push for change, and, as Hiden and Salmon stated,

“the Baltic republics were seen as testing a ‘still mysterious limit’5 to what was possible under

Gorbachev’s rule” (Hiden and Salmon 148). Gorbachev was extremely worried about what would happen if the Baltic states left the USSR (Hiden and Salmon 148). As the local

Communist Parties became increasingly nationalistic, the party leaders in the Baltics developed connections to local Popular Front6s. The party leaders in the Baltic states, including Algirdas

Brazauskas, the Lithuanian Communist Party leader, began to push for autonomy, though not for a break with communism (Hiden and Salmon 153-155).

5 E. Steen in Independent 6 The Popular Front groups, according to Hiden and Salmon, were “coalitions of reformist and populist forces, including communists outside and within the governing republican establishments” (Hiden and Salmon 149).

In the 1980s, Lithuanians, led by Professor Vytautas Landsbergis, along with several other intellectuals, created the Popular Front group Sajudis7. One of the factors that contributed to its formation was Moscow’s intention to enlarge the industry that created environmentally dangerous chemicals and the incident at Chernobyl, both of which fostered environmental protest

(Lieven 220). Over the years, Sajudis became more radical, and the group became blatantly pro- independence (Lieven 225-227). According to Lieven, “The toleration, or even perhaps active encouragement, extended to the Popular Fronts and Sajudis by the reformist sections of the

Moscow leadership and the KGB in 1988 resulted from their being viewed as allies against the hardliners within the Communist Party” (Lieven 223). It is debated how much the KGB helped

Sajudis, while many strong Soviet supporters believed that the CIA was responsible for its creation (Lieven 223-4). In 1988, Brazauskas, in an attempt to gain popularity for those opposing

Sajudis, declared that Lithuania’s cathedral would be returned to the Catholic Church. This was an important measure, as the USSR had attempted to eradicate religion in Lithuania (Lieven

227). This was an important gesture because it signaled a less oppressive and more easily opposed Soviet rule.

In 1989, Lithuania issued a declaration that, as Hiden and Salmon stated, “affirmed its sovereignty” (Hiden and Salmon 151). In the declaration, Lithuania referred to its independent past and the USSR’s illegal occupation of the country (Hiden and Salmon 151-2). At first,

Brazauskas prevented passage of the declaration, which ruined his reputation amongst

Lithuanian nationalists and ensured that the Communist Party’s image would not be as opposing compromise. This played a part in Sajudis’s landslide victory in elections for the Congress of

7 Sajudis, translated roughly, means “unity movement.”

People’s Deputies8 in Moscow (Lieven 227). In 1989, Lithuania passed a law reinstating

Lithuanian as the state’s official language (Hiden and Salmon 151). In 1990, Gorbachev visited

Lithuania and promised to work out with Lithuania a way for the country to leave the USSR without abandoning what he called “certain mutual obligations” (Hiden and Salmon 158).

Landsbergis spoke strongly against Gorbachev’s promise, claiming that it was a “cheap lie”

(Hiden and Salmon 158). The two governments would prove unable to compromise on the matter.

Lithuania finally declared its independence, despite some misgivings, in 1990. In March

1990, Seimas9 permitted some deputies to make a declaration of independence, though it did not specify what kind of declaration. Many Seimas members were worried about declaring complete and immediate independence. Despite this, almost no one objected to the motion, which called for complete independence, and many felt they could not disagree without feeling guilty about standing in the way of freedom. An argument in favor of independence was that Seimas had to move before the Congress of People’s Deputies created new secession laws, which would force

Lithuania to wait ten years before it could leave the USSR. Some members of Seimas may have supported independence for their own personal, political gain. Whatever the reasons, on March

11, 1990, Lithuania declared its independence from the USSR (Lieven 236-8)10. According to

Lieven, “For the following week or so, the prevailing mood in Vilnius was one of doubt and uncertainty” (Lieven 238). People were anxious and did not entirely understand the significance of this particular declaration, as opposed to other ones that had been made. People were also worried about Landsbergis being chairman of Seimas as opposed to Brazauskas. Brazauskas had

8 Gorbachev created this as a replacement for the Supreme Soviet. This body was the most powerful of the USSR, and its officials were elected freely (Leone, Szumski, and Winters 25). 9 Seimas is the Lithuanian parliament. In the days before independence, it functioned as the parliament of Sajudis (Hiden and Salmon 158). 10 See Appendix 3

much better relations with Gorbachev and Moscow, as is evidenced by Landsbergis and

Gorbachev’s inability to work together on the issue of Lithuanian independence.

When the Lithuanians declared their independence, Gorbachev worked hard to counter this change. He, along with the Congress of People’s Deputies, called for Lithuania to retract its declaration. In response to the declaration, the Soviets worked to capture Lithuanians who had deserted from the Soviet army. The army only captured some of the deserters, and the military draft that spring was completely unsuccessful. The Soviets then tried capturing buildings in

Vilnius that had once been owned by the Communist Party, but this measure also accomplished nothing. Gorbachev’s reasoning was unclear. According to Lieven:

It is difficult to know whether Gorbach[e]v’s strategy was a further case of barking up the Communist tree, thinking the Party still identical with the State; or whether he was attempting to make the Soviet Communist Party the protector for “extra-territorial rights” for Soviet citizens in an independent Lithuania; or whether he was simply completely baffled about what course to take. (Lieven 239)

Whatever his reasoning, Gorbachev’s actions backfired, as they heightened Lithuanians’ determination, boosted their morale, and increased Western support of Lithuania (Lieven 237-9).

Lithuania and Moscow tried to negotiate Lithuanian independence but failed to make progress. The USSR put sanctions on Lithuania. An oil blockade created problems for the

Lithuanian harvest, which resulted in food shortages. This led to an attempt by Kazimiera

Prunskiene, a member of the Lithuanian Communist Party and of Sajudis, to create a moratorium with Moscow. The moratorium stated that, in return for lifting the embargo, the Lithuanians would agree to delay the formal talks with Moscow in which they would negotiate as equals.

Prunskiene’s actions began to divide the Lithuanian government, with Landsbergis and his parliamentary majority opposing Prunskiene’s position. Tensions also arose from unfamiliarity with self-government, which led to uncertainty about the government’s rights and power. These divisions were concealed from the public. Landsbergis did eventually agree with Prunskiene’s

approach, though he let her take responsibility for it. The compromise allowed Lithuania to get oil again and avoid major unemployment problems, but it was a controversial decision because many considered it a step back from the independence declaration. Moscow agreed to the moratorium but never ended up negotiating with Lithuania, as that would be a recognition of

Lithuania’s independence (Lieven 240-241). According to Lieven, “Prunskiene continues to insist that a great chance was lost by failing to open negotiations at a time when Moscow may have been conciliatory, but this is very questionable. The experience of Latvia and Estonia suggests that the Soviet government would have tried to stall serious negotiations indefinitely”

(Lieven 240). Lithuania and Moscow were ultimately unable to work together and negotiate, which would result in the events of January 13, 1991.

Tensions increased in Lithuania. Lithuania was very upset that Latvia and Estonia did not also declare independence (Lieven 241). According to Estonian Professor Endel Lippmaa, “What

Lithuania did was take a big step, as if Moscow didn’t exist” (Lieven 242). Lithuania became angry when Western countries did not recognize their independence or try to pressure Moscow into removing its troops from the Baltics. Moreover, Lithuania’s government at this time was shaky and full of internal conflict. People strongly disapproved of Prunskiene and other former

Communist ministers, who were seen as helping Moscow. This created problems, especially as

Moscow started paying more attention to Lithuania again. In addition, Sajudis was starting to break apart. The Lithuanian government was so divided that its members could not depend on any kind of parliamentary majority (Lieven 244-6).

Moscow eventually resorted to force in an attempt to keep the Lithuanians from gaining independence. In January 1991, Soviet soldiers set up roadblocks outside Vilnius and barbed wire barricades around the parliament building. Landsbergis called on Lithuanians to defend

Vilnius’s central television tower, the parliament building, and the radio and television station.

The night of January 12-13, 1991, Soviet tanks rolled into Vilnius to the television station and tower and the parliament building. The Soviet soldiers at the television tower opened fire on the crowd, which had tried to prevent the tanks from advancing. Thirteen Lithuanians were killed, and hundreds were wounded by gunfire, assaults with rifle butts, or being run over by tanks. One

KGB officer was killed and another wounded; they were probably killed by accidental friendly fire, though the Soviets blamed the Lithuanian crowd (Lieven 250-251). According to a

Lithuanian student who witnessed the event:

Then at about midnight on the 12th-13th, the radio announced that tanks were moving towards Karoliniskis11, and soon afterwards, we could hear shooting. … That was very frightening. We all thought that they would come next to the parliament. I was afraid, and so were others, but in general the mood was more angry. … Landsbergis broadcast over the loudspeakers, asking us to move aside, so as not to be caught in the crossfire when the parliament was attacked. He said something like, “we need live witnesses, not more 12 victims”; but we didn’t move… (Lieven 251)

Landsbergis executed effective leadership that night. He was determined, and, according to

Lieven, “called on the nation not to bow to tyranny” (Lieven 253). His main concern that night was to protect Lithuania and ensure the survival of its independence. People inside the parliament building armed themselves, knowing they could not win in a fight against the Soviets but needing to show the world that they would fight for their freedom. This ultimate showdown never occurred, however. The Soviets never tried to get inside, and, eventually, the troops left

(Lieven 250-4). The Lithuanians had overcome a major challenge to their independence.

Gorbachev’s inability to control the Lithuanians and the fall of the USSR led to

Lithuania’s freedom. Gorbachev did not understand or handle the Lithuanians very well. He seemed mistakenly to believe that Soviet military aggression would not meet much opposition.

11 Karoliniskis is a small district of Vilnius. 12 See Appendix 2

For this reason, Gorbachev did not have the Soviet army storm the parliament; he also knew that such an attack would have added to the Western and Russian objections to Soviet policy.

According to Lieven, “The failure to push the attack on the Baltic States through to a bloody conclusion may well have constituted the failure of Mikhail Gorbach[e]v to support the policy which he had initially approved” (Lieven 254). Additionally, as Lieven states, the night of

January 13 “has provided … Lithuanians with their own modern martyrs, a feeling that they have fought and suffered for their independence” (Lieven 254). Lithuania’s only advantages were the world’s sympathy for their cause and the USSR’s internal problems, tensions, deficiencies, and perhaps its officials’ guilty consciences. On August 21, 1991, the Soviets seemed on the verge of attack again when they suddenly retreated. It turned out that they had learned from Moscow that the coup against Gorbachev was failing. This meant that, after 50 years, Lithuania was an independent nation (Lieven 254-5).

After becoming independent, Lithuania transitioned into a democracy and worked to become a more modern country. A few years following Lithuanian independence, Brazauskas was elected president. The same year, the country introduced its own currency, the litas. Several years later, according to BBC News, “The [European Union] Commission turn[ed] down

Lithuania's application to join the euro zone on 1 January 2007, citing the country's inflation rate,” which forced the country to continue using the litas (“Timeline: Lithuania”). When

Brazauskas’s term ended in 1998, Lithuanian-American Valdas Adamkus was elected president13. He was succeeded by Rolandas Paksas, who was soon impeached for his connections to Russian organized crime. Adamkus was re-elected in 2004. During Adamkus’s second term,

Lithuania became the first country to ratify the European Union’s (EU) new constitution,

13 See Appendix 1

marking its transition from an oppressed part of the Soviet Union to a full member of a free body of nations (“Timeline: Lithuania”).

After Lithuania became free, the government worked hard to become part of international organizations, but the country still faced problems with Russia. In September 1991, Lithuania became a full member of the United Nations (Jankowski 452). The country joined the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the EU (“Timeline: Lithuania”) during Paksas’s presidency. In 2005, Lithuania became the first former Soviet state to host a NATO meeting.

Russia opposed Lithuanian NATO membership and, according to Wade Boese, an employee of the Arms Control Association, “[Russian defense minister Ivanov] said that a window of opportunity remained for a meaningful NATO-Russian partnership but warned that the West should not allow it to become a ‘small vent shaft’ or close altogether by forsaking Russian interests” (Boese 32). Lithuania and Russia continued to be at odds with one another after the fall of the Soviet Union.

From the time Lithuania joined the EU until today, the country has learned the benefits and drawbacks of being part of this body of free nations. Due to Lithuania’s EU membership,

Lithuanians are much freer to move around, and they can enjoy products from other countries, higher standards when being considered for work or school, more information, and the ability to discuss that information with a variety of people. According to Katka Krosnar:

For the new member states, such as Lithuania, being part of the European Union means the axing of borders and therefore free movement of people within the bloc, as well as automatic and unconditional recognition across the union for qualifications and training obtained in their own country. In short, that makes migration easier and, with average wages significantly lower in most of the 10 new member states [including Lithuania] than in the 15 existing ones, much more likely (Krosnar 310).

This issue is especially problematic because Lithuania has a very small population, so the loss of intelligent citizens has had a major impact. Lithuanians are working hard to find an answer to

this problem, though they know there is no way to stop the flow of emigration completely.

Health minister Juozas Olekas has proposed a solution for the Lithuanian medical community:

“We think it would be fair for western countries to recognise that countries like ours are footing the bill for for training medical staff that they then use. We are proposing that we reach an agreement where such countries would pay towards medical training for these staff” (Krosnar

310). Olekas and others are trying to give people incentives to stay in the country. Many people,

Olekas included, believe, however, that most of the emigrés will eventually return to Lithuania.

They feel that people will leave for educational opportunities but will come back to work

(Krosnar 310).

Historiography of the fall of the USSR has changed in the twenty-five years since it occurred. Many Americans view the end of the Cold War specifically as an American victory

(Plokhy xiv-xv). According to Ukrainian historian Serhii Plokhy, some historians argue that “the lost arms race, economic decline, democratic resurgence, and bankruptcy of communist ideals” made the USSR’s fall inevitable (Plokhy xvii). In contrast, Plokhy argues that problems that were present in the USSR from its creation were what guaranteed the country’s undoing: “[The fall of the USSR] was caused by the imperial foundations, multiethnic composition, and pseudofederal structure of the Soviet state” (Plokhy xvii). Plokhy also asserts that the fall of the

USSR was the disintegration of an empire similar to the collapses of the British and the Ottoman empires earlier in the 20th century (Plokhy xvii). Plokhy seems to agree with historians who, as he states, “argued that the Soviet Union, like the Romanov empire before it, collapsed from the top and that the disintegration of the Soviet state was initiated and carried out by the elites, both in the center and in the regions” (Plokhy xix). He believes that a combination of successes on the

independence movements’ and republics’ sides and failures on Gorbachev’s led to the fall.

Plokhy argues:

In the Baltics, Georgia, and Armenia, new democratic leaders pushed for independence. In the rest of the [Soviet] republics, the old elites hung to power, but with Gorbachev withdrawing the center’s support from its regional viceroys and making their political survival dependent on democratic election, they began making deals with rising democratic forces—a development that eventually led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. (Plokhy xviii)

Plokhy states that some historians equate the collapse of the Communist Party with that of the

USSR; however, Plokhy believes that the most important time period in the fall of the USSR was between the coup against Gorbachev and his resignation several months later. Thus, the fall of the USSR was really determined in the empire’s last four months (Plokhy xix-xx).

At the time of Lithuania’s declaration of independence, people, including writers of newspaper articles, varied greatly in their opinions on Lithuania’s declaration of independence.

A New York Times editorial from March 1990 entitled “Cheer Lithuania, but Don’t Meddle” argues that for practical reasons the Bush administration was right not to recognize Lithuanian independence immediately. The article asserts that nothing could be achieved by such recognition and that it actually could have exacerbated Soviet-American and Soviet-Lithuanian problems. The article claims that Lithuanians were dependent on Moscow to grant their freedom:

That’s a fact of geography and power that no posturing by others can change. Lithuania must ultimately satisfy Soviet interests if it hopes to win what it justly seeks. Lithuania’s independence is for Lithuanians to solicit and Moscow to yield. That’s why diplomatic recognition and economic aid from the United States would be premature. Until the bonds loosen, recognition would give little practical benefit to Lithuania—and would needlessly provoke Moscow. (“Cheer Lithuania, but Don’t Meddle” 26)

The article is also optimistic that Gorbachev would have been willing to bargain with Lithuania but states that true independence would have taken time. The anonymous editorial advocates for

“supportive noninterference” (“Cheer Lithuania, but Don’t Meddle” 26). This angered

Lithuanians and Lithuanian-Americans, especially since on other occasions, the United States

had interfered where it was not welcome, while Lithuania would have been happy to receive

American aid (“Cheer Lithuania, but Don’t Meddle” 26).

In contrast, a letter to The New York Times editor, “Lithuanian Independence Deserves

Recognition,” responded to the editorial, arguing that the United States should have immediately recognized Lithuania’s independence. The letter’s author, Arunas Apanavicius, argues that the

United States had never acknowledged the annexation of Lithuania into the USSR, so it was pointless not to recognize the nation’s independence. Apanavicius points out that the United

States has acted hypocritically and unjustly towards Lithuania: “Granted, Lithuania may not be so geopolitically or economically significant, but things such as gross national product, territory and borders should not be allowed to compromise the basic principle of self-determination widely espoused by the United States” (Apanavicius). The letter suggests that the United States government did not really care about Lithuanian independence and had refused to recognize the

1939 annexation simply as a political and later a Cold War tactic. Apanavicius discusses the role of Lithuanian-Americans in preserving their culture and traditions. The letter writer seems to believe that the government’s policy of non-recognition is a betrayal of Lithuanian-American voters (Apanavicius).

Kevin O’Donovan was an American working in Germany when the Berlin Wall fell. In a previous American Century Project interview, he gave a perspective on an important event in the disintegration of the USSR. O’Donovan praised Gorbachev and his role in the end of the Cold

War. In O’Donovan’s opinion, Gorbachev had been “speaking from his heart and really did genuinely want to make change” (Jannotta 26). O’Donovan also expressed admiration for

Gorbachev’s reforms; for example, Gorbachev stated that he would not intervene in protests in the Soviet satellites, allowing the countries to find their own solutions (Jannotta 21). O’Donovan

stressed, however, that Gorbachev did not want to eliminate the communist system but simply wanted to reform it. O’Donovan believed that “[Gorbachev’s] ideas of perestroika and glasnost were great in terms of helping Eastern Europe transition to democracies” but that Gorbachev was unable “to translate it into genuine change [or] reform for his own country” (Jannotta 34-35).

From O’Donovan’s perspective, Gorbachev’s policy of nonintervention had made the fall of the

Berlin Wall possible. The fact that he would not suppress protests allowed people to begin talking about and working for change (Jannotta 44). O’Donovan argued that Gorbachev had a much bigger part in ending the Cold War than did President Reagan (Jannotta 21). He contended that while the United States forced the USSR to spend more than it could afford on the arms race, Gorbachev’s foreign policy and efforts at reforming the USSR ironically led to its own downfall (Jannotta 34, 39). O’Donovan also discussed the fact that many people from East

Germany were afraid to change to a new system of government, as they really only knew the oppressive police state, which had at least guaranteed employment. The desire for democracy and freedom, however, outweighed any fears people had, according to O’Donovan (Jannotta 41).

The Lithuanian independence movement greatly influences Lithuanian politics today.

According to Lieven, in Lithuania today “some politicians behave as if they were only half present, the other half of their attention being permanently fixed in a timeless dream of

Lithuanian glory” (Lieven xv). Lithuania’s past and cultural pride strongly influenced the country and its politics. Lithuania is Westernizing, and many young people have adopted

Western viewpoints and ideals. This, too, affects Lithuanian politics (Lieven xv). Of course,

Lithuania will always have to take its larger and more powerful Russian neighbor into account.

Lithuania has, however, illustrated the ability of small countries to survive and, perhaps, thrive.

According to Hiden and Salmon, “The Baltic republics cannot afford to make too many

mistakes. It is in the interests of other European countries to ensure they do not” (Hiden and

Salmon 189). Lithuania’s ability to make any choices at all is due to its independence from the

USSR in 1990s. This provides context for all Lithuanian governments following its independence, including Valdas Adamkus’s 1998-2003 and 2004-2009 terms as president.

Interview Transcription

Interviewee/Narrator: Valdas Adamkus Interviewer: Gabrielle Gedo Location: conducted over Skype Dates: December 27, 2014 and December 30, 2014

Gabrielle Gedo: This is Gabi Gedo, and I am interviewing Valdas Adamkus as part of the

American Century Oral History Project. The interview took place on December 27, 2014 over

Skype. Can you briefly describe your childhood?

Valdas Adamkus: Galiu papasokti. Gerai. Aš pradėsiu apie vaikystę pasakoti nuo gimnazijos laikų, kadangi mano sąmaningumas, lietuviškumas ir supratimas, kas yra tauta ir valstybę ir

žmogaus vaidmuo atėjo okupacijos metais.14 My understanding of what it means to be a

Lithuanian came in later days when I understood what freedom is, what the respect of human beings, and what the meaning of freedom and free expression means. That came in the later days of high school, and I was in almost my last years during the Russian occupation. And I had seen the tragedy of all the arrests of the leading people of Lithuanian state, of the deportations of completely innocent people–women, children–into Siberia, and complete annexation of

Lithuania. And at that point I understood what freedom means. And we immediately organized the small, underground resistance groups, and that spread throughout the entire country. And, specifically for me, we have organized—three young men, the year before the graduation class because we could not graduate last year because the World War II started between the Russia and Germany. And, of course, the Germans immediately, because they’re in the direct

14 Translated into English, he is saying: Yes, I can tell you about it. I’ll start talking about my childhood starting from my high school years because my conscientiousness, Lithuanian-ness, and understanding of what a nation and a country and a person’s role are came to me in the years of occupation.

neighborhood with Lithuania, they occupied Lithuania and went into Russia. But right after that, we recognize the Germans are just as bad as Russians are. They were destroying, arresting people who are fighting for their freedom, for respect of people, for the respect of democratic system. So we started our resistance fight for gaining independence and freedom again. And I myself and two more guys–it so happens that I was in the class together with the son of the former president of Lithuania, Dr. Grinius, and another young man, which was in the same class with me, whose brother later, already half a century later, became the leader of the new Lithuania in 1990. So three of us were publishing the underground Lithuanian newspaper for the

Lithuanian youth, urging them to resist the German occupation, just as we were resisting the

Russians. So that was the beginning of my conscientious, full understanding what the freedom is and what the democracy means to the people. And I believe that, basically, that was the beginning of my involvement in the freedom fight for Lithuania. That’s it.

GG: How did you end up in the United States?

VA: I was one of the refugees. When Russians were actually winning the war, my parents and myself, we actually left the Lithuania before the advance of the Red Army, and we retreated in

Germany, where we were actually, by the advancing American troops, American army, were liberated there in Germany and placed in a displaced persons camp. From there, with the help of

American-Lithuanian community and congressional approval of the United States Congress, we were admitted as displaced persons into the United States. And, in 1949, on August the 22nd, myself and my family… We arrived in New York, and from there we transferred into the

Chicago, where there was the largest Lithuanian community. So we settled in Chicago, and I

started at night in one of the factories. And that was the first time when I recognized what the factory work is. And I decided, whatever it takes, I will get out of the factory, and I will try to go back into the school, and so it happened. I believe after six or seven months, I was already comprehensed enough and astute in English so that I could ?involve? in a night school in

Chicago. And to make it short, during the night courses, and then the last year, I graduated from

Illinois Institute of Technology and received my Bachelors of Science in engineering. So that was my basic education. And after that, I got involved in engineering work, but it was very short period of time. At that time, the environmental movement was just at the beginning in the United

States, and I was invited to join, as a young engineer, as a young man, and creating and building the environmental agencies ?such? in United States. And I was one of the selected, small groups who actually were invited to join what later became United States Environmental Protection

Agency. That was my beginning in United States as a professional. And I’m happy to say that I thought ?I would only? work there a couple years, but it took me 27 years. And I started from the beginning as a federal employee, as a civil servant. But, throughout the years, I was promoted, and I became the administrator of the largest region in United States, the Great Lakes region, who was responsible for six states, like Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio. And I was responsible for establishing the first environmental agreement with the former Soviet Union, representing the United States, and became the chairman of the International Joint Commission with Canada, which was concerned about the Great Lakes. So that’s my environmental career in

United States before I submitted my resignation to President Clinton. Because I served all six presidents, beginning with President Nixon, all the way with every presidential administration, and submitted my first resignation to President Clinton, who was really surprised hearing that from me. I remember over the phone he asked me from the White House, “What happened? Why

are you resigning?” So I said, “I’m being involved in Lithuanian freedom fight, and now

Lithuania has the opportunity to become a free country, independent country, and I am being invited from Lithuanians to run for the office.” And that’s how I became the candidate of the presidency of the Republic of Lithuania. On the first term, I was not running, but in the second term of the presidential elections I was already a candidate. And in 1999, on January the 5th, I was elected as the president of Lithuania, and I have served the country for 10 years, two five- year terms as the president of the country.

[call ends]

GG: How did you react to the March 11th declaration of independence?

VA: I was, at that time, in Chicago, but I was in direct contact with Vilnius. And I was following what was going on in Parliament, in Seimas. And we definitely were urging the leaders of

Seimas, with the ambassador from Washington, Mr. Lozoraitis, not to delay but to declare independence and hopefully that the world would support us immediately in that case. And we succeeded. We were overwhelmed with joy that finally we have declared to the world that

Lithuania is coming back as a free nation in the international community and definitely is ready to contribute to the rest of the world, fighting for free ?word?, free expression, and what all the democratic ideals are calling for. So it was a joyous day. We were very happy, and I would say that since 1990, we have been moving forward. We joined the international organizations like

European Union, NATO organizations, and others. And we feel that we even helped other

countries, like Ukraine right now, fighting for their rights to become the free people of the world community.

GG: How did you react to events of the night of January 12th to 13th in 1991?

VA: That was terrible. I believe that the Lithuanian people recognized that this is the last chance to protect independence, and they surrounded the parliament by thousands. They came out without call for it, running, dropping everything, and surrounding the parliament. And the

Russian army arrived and tried to disperse the entire crowd, which was probably 10 to 20 thousand people and surrounding the parliament and ready, absolutely without any weapons, to protect and defend what they have declared. We lost very few people—only 14 were killed—but the Russian soldiers did not know how to react. They reacted forcefully but trying to avoid bloodshed. But we succeeded, and I believe that this was the moment where we showed for the rest of the world that we are ready to die in protecting the principles instead of staying under the

Russian occupation and pressure.

GG: What was a typical day like as president of Lithuania?

VA: It was a great day for me personally, but it was historically too, that an American-

Lithuanian was elected and was sworn in in the Parliament. And, at that date, immediately, we started to form the new government, restoring the ministries, asking the young people, especially, to join the governmental structure. It was a joyous day because we saw that the new

Lithuania is coming back to life and that we immediately were recognized by other countries.

This is a continuation of recognition–that was the most important. And all of the countries, slowly, one by one, were recognizing the Lithuanian declaration of the free country of the free world. And we were building up our ?infrastructure? so that we could really communicate and work together with the rest of the world. So to me it was a remarkable day. I will never forget it.

And, from then on, for the next 10 years, I was visiting different countries throughout the world trying to establish the relationship, trying to establish that friendship among the countries, and I believe I succeeded. I definitely feel that my 10 years will be recognized as 10 years of reconstruction of the country. Now we are just building up on that foundation, building on our relationship with the rest of the world as far as culture is concerned—scientific exchange, professional exchanges, exchanges of students. And definitely the free movement, unrestricted travel, and we are standing and urging the young generation to be active and assume the responsibilities from the older people and lead the country in a free, democratic world.

GG: What challenges did you face as president?

VA: Challenge is redoing the infrastructure because we had to rebuild the government on a new basis, different from the 50 years of the Soviet system. And that probably was the most difficult part of it because we had to, not only establish relationship with other countries, but to adopt the general principles. And we had to build up our ministries, our different organizations, and everything else. I would say that was almost the beginning of rebuilding, from the plain field, from the agriculture, all the way up to the all the ministries and the army and other things. This was a difficult way, and we are still in progress, building all that stuff. This is not the end of our trying to really join and become the Western country with all the infrastructure of Lithuania.

GG: I also read that when Lithuania joined the EU, a lot of intelligent people left in order to pursue other opportunities in Europe.

VA: This is a big problem which we have. It’s a lot of people; that’s true. I believe they figure about 300,000 young people and not so young left the country, looking for the better economic conditions. We are still having very difficult times, especially during the economic, fiscal crisis throughout the world. Lithuania suffered as well. We are still the neighbors of Russia, which is using all kind of sanctions about Lithuania, interrupting our exports and imports and all that stuff. Many people, just because of the economic hardships, are leaving the country, looking around at other countries, which already have centuries of practice and were not affected as much and destroyed during the World War. They have better economic conditions over there. So that’s a lot of people, young and not so young, are leaving the country, looking for a better job, for better conditions. But I have to say at this point, that right now, we are feeling in the last couple years, little by little, people ?already? returning back with the experience they gained in the West and trying to apply and adjust themselves ?right? in Lithuania. And the money they

___, through the savings, bringing back to the country and trying to establish the new companies, trying to build the economic export conditions, and, especially our scientists in electronics and other skills of high-tech, are extremely innovative, developing the new systems. And I believe this is going to bring up, overall, our status of the people in the country, and it will definitely encourage more people who immigrated ?the? country so that they can come back to Lithuania.

And that’s encouraging.

GG: I know that Russia was extremely opposed to Lithuania joining NATO. How did you deal with Russia in this situation and others like it?

VA: This is a very delicate question. The outside people and people from Russia say, “You don’t want to have a good, friendly relationship with Russia.” And I will answer that question differently. Russia is 140 million people. Lithuania is only 3 million people. So who is actually in the position to establish and have a good relationship between the two countries? Definitely, the answer is Russia. And Lithuania is trying very hard to be friendly, offering good economic exchange. And, politically, we are probably suffering and not telling exactly the way it was happening in the past. We are trying to look ahead into the future. But Russia has its aggressional politics. And the best proof is the Ukraine and Crimea, which they actually intruded, creating turmoil in international relationships. And Lithuania… Even though we are close neighbors, we don’t have much to say about this. We are trying to keep quiet. Of course, in United Nations, we definitely said, “Truly, as far as we are concerned, Russia is acting aggressively, and we should not support that kind of aggression.” But the problem is that Russia is responsible for all the problems, and that reflects in American and Russian relations, which very clearly indicated who is a troublemaker. Lithuania in that big politics, in that role, doesn’t have much to say. And as a small country, we definitely need to have a good working relationship with the rest of the world community as such.

GG: How did you deal with Russia’s opposition to Lithuania joining NATO?

VA: I tried to tell you before. We want to live with all the neighbors in a friendly way. Russia definitely has imperial motives, to dominate and dictate the entire region in Europe, and

Lithuania is definitely part of that Russian foreign policy, which is definitely not that friendly to all the neighbors, not only Lithuania. But we are still keeping quiet. We are not trying to provoke them. We hope that Russia is not going to create an unbearable situation in the entire European area.

[stop interview because of technological problems]

[interview begins again on December 30]

GG: I read a lot about the financial and political problems the USSR faced in the 1980s and

1990s. What can you recall about the Soviet Union in that time period, especially as a Lithuanian exile living in America?

VA: You asked me a lot about the Soviet Union in the 80s and 90s. How could I, especially as a

Lithuanian exile living, recall that time? Let me say that we don’t have too much information from the Soviet Union. Whatever it was, it was the official information in the general press, and direct news came very seldom from Lithuania. But what helped us was the communication, which came through individuals very fragmentally. And I don’t believe that anybody mentioned to us in exile that USSR faced a crisis in 80s and 90s. So to respond to your question is very difficult for me. Maybe you know more about it than we do.

GG: I know that Lithuania was extremely isolated from the outside world for a long time. How did you work around that?

VA: Now you ask in number two that Lithuania was extremely isolated from the outside world and how did we actually worked about getting information? First of all, my answer is that

Lithuania definitely was part of the Soviet Union, and there is no separate, individual information about how life goes on in Lithuania. General information reached the West was how happy the Soviet citizens are, how happy they work ___, and not mentioning about any difficulties over there. Everything was told about the USSR, and that included definitely

Lithuania, how happy the people are, how they are busy, how high standards of living are, and so on. And, of course, we didn’t believe in that. Information exchange was so difficult that you should just sit down and try to evaluate yourself what is truth and what is pure propaganda.

GG: What was a typical day like as president of Lithuania?

VA: In number three, what was a typical day as president as Lithuania? I would say that probably it doesn’t change much from the overall practice throughout the world. In my case already, first of all, it was to coordinate political life internally among the political parties, start to bring up, discuss, and accept the general, accepted laws, principles so that it would be, as fast as possible, implemented in Lithuania and represent Lithuania in the world community with the members of the European Union and NATO. That was the basic issues for the president in every day life.

GG: What was your role in Lithuania joining the EU?

VA: Now what was my role as president in Lithuania’s joining the European Union? First of all, we had to direct and supervise all of the individual offices and ministry that they working to fulfill the criteria necessary to become a member of European Union. I coordinated and supervised that kind of activity. It definitely was very successful.

GG: I know that Russia was extremely opposed to Lithuania joining NATO. How did you deal with Russia in this situation and others like it?

VA: Now, Lithuania definitely was… Except for the Russians—they did not like even to hear about the NATO membership of Lithuania. This situation was definitely very necessary and important for Lithuania. But let me say this from very beginning: Russia has no say in it. And

Lithuania looked at it that way. We were dealing directly with the NATO command, with the

NATO countries, trying to very clearly indicate to them that this is our goal–to join NATO. We are working towards that goal. We need their assistance, and we consistently kept that line. And we were very happy that that kind of a determination, that whatever role Lithuania has to take never abandoned us, and successfully… With the help of some of the other countries, especially

I have to compliment Poland—their leadership… They were supportive of Lithuanian membership. They worked along us with us, with other countries over here. And, finally, after our government and our people have proven to NATO countries that we are definitely ?worked as partners? in that organization, it was accepted. And it was quite a relief for Lithuania itself because we become the member of the military structure, which was committed to protect every

member of NATO in case of any kind of aggression from other countries. And that means that it was some reassurance for our existence, for our declared independence.

GG: Another interviewee argued that Gorbachev’s policy of not intervening in movements and protests in the satellite countries allowed Soviet satellites and later Soviet states to become free.

How do you think Gorbachev’s foreign policy affected the Lithuanian independence movement?

VA: Now, another question came up from you that Khrushchev’s policy of not intervening in movements, protests in the satellite countries as they’re called, allowed the Soviet satellites and later Soviet states, like Baltic states, to become independent countries. So let me, from the very beginning, say that I cannot agree with that statement because definitely Gorbachev had not committed the Soviet Union to allow the Soviet satellites to change their status. Only the continuous resistance and the freedom fighters, for example, of Lithuania and internal determination that we get this opportunity that Gorbachev declared the internal glasnost— changes in some beliefs or easing up some of the conditions. This probably was not only… It gave the Lithuanian resistance some kind of a signal that we have to take this opportunity and try to come free and try to get rid of the Soviet occupation. And only through this internal loosening of ?policies? in Soviet Union gave us the successful breakaway from the Soviet Union. And I believe that this was the beginning. Lithuania was the very first country, which showed the way for other republics, other Soviet republics, as they’re called, to start fighting for their rights, for their freedom. And finally, as you can see, the Soviet Union actually broke into pieces, and that was the end of the Communist Party rule in SSSR. Then it went back to the name of Russia, the

Federal Russian Republic. So that’s the way I see it, and I believe that this is the real in which the Soviet Union was destroyed.

GG: Some historians argue that the financial problems, arms race, democratic renewal, and lack of true communism in the USSR made its fall inevitable. Others think that the problems present from the beginning, such as “imperial foundations, multiethnic composition, and pseudofederal structure of the Soviet state,” made the fall of the USSR inevitable. What factors do you think contributed most to the fall of the USSR?

VA: The argument you just gave to me that the problems, like some financial problems and the race, and democratic renewal, and lack of communism, make its fall inevitable. Now, I don’t believe… If there is some part… Some parts are definitely true, but actually, like I said before, to me, the Soviet Union actually fell or broke up, not only for those reasons. It was the determination of the individual nations, like the Baltic states and others, to become free and independent people with all their rights and beliefs in the democratic system that made the possibility for change in that part of Europe.

GG: Lithuanian culture and history are very important to Lithuanians. How did those elements affect the politics of the newly independent Lithuania?

VA: Now, definitely the culture and the history of Lithuania were very important for the

Lithuanians to reestablish the state. And this principle and issues… The history definitely made sure that we are continuing in that historical way which Lithuania has had for hundreds of years.

We were occupied by the tsaristic Russians, but since 1918 it was, again, the first time Lithuania came back as independent state after World War I ended. And very fast, in 22 years, we rebuilt our infrastructures. We actually opened up the educational system. For example, I can tell that, in

1918, in Lithuania, there did not exist, yet, a single Lithuanian high school–I’m not talking about university, conservatoriums, and other cultural institutions. And that happened in the last 22 years of free, independent life. And we are very proud that people were really determined. They worked very hard. And definitely they accomplished that which had been denied to them through the centuries.

GG: Lithuanians suffered deportations, censorship, the elimination of their religion, and forced collectivization at the hands of the Soviets. What were the challenges of leading a country that had been oppressed for over 50 years?

VA: The problem during my presidency: Lithuania had to overcome a lot of ?refugees?, I would call it, from the Soviet system. And we tried very hard because, first of all, we had to prove that democracy and respect for human rights, the expression of freedom in the newspapers, ability to travel—all those guarantees which democratic system provides—are available to us. And we have to make sure that we have ?applied? our new structures. And I believe in 25 years of that independent life, which we are celebrating right now, it’s really proved that we took the right route to freedom and joining the free society. In the meantime, when we go back, Lithuania suffered deportations, censorship, and elimination of the religion. Those were probably the most important and most damaging factors in Lithuanian lives. But, at the same time, they created the feeling of resistance and were actually the basis for our hard determination because 50 years of

Soviet educational system, of destruction of the society, destruction of the religion have made an impact on our society. In talking about that period… I would say we still have some deficiencies.

For example, the Catholic Church, which was very, very strong in the first period of our independence, still cannot recover. And there is still a shortage of priests. And even the middle- class, I mean, the new intelligentsia or leading elite of the country… it’s a little bit–Oh, how should I say it?–not as strongly supporting the religion in Lithuania, the way it did at the beginning. But for the other functional institutions… Our basic ___ activities were to restructure, rebuild the country on a legal basis. Our Parliament, our government, and our justices are acting according to the Constitution. And the Constitution is definitely built on the Western world’s basic legal principles. And this is definitely very important. And I hope that we are going to continue in that way.

GG: How did you feel about the EU rejecting Lithuania’s request to make the Euro its currency?

VA: We are talking at a very important time because there are only two days left before

Lithuanian currency, litas, will actually be taken out of the system, and the European Union will introduce the euro currency in Lithuania. It is important to mention that about 52% of

Lithuanians are a hundred percent committed to and congratulating that change. The rest of the country, which is not very much opposed but have their doubts, but, basically… It’s more sentimental than anything else because litas will be eliminated, and some of the Lithuanian people feel that this is, more or less, losing the national identity because the currency of

Lithuania was a very strong indicator of Lithuanian independence. And they feel that this is probably… we are giving up. But I personally believe that our reality requires Lithuania to fully

join European Union because… This is not the first time Lithuanian is changing its currency. We were occupied by the Russians, and they replaced Lithuanian currency in 1940 with the Soviet

Ruble. Then it was the German occupation; the German marks were introduced. But, finally, since 1990, when litas again was back brought back to life, so, for 25 years, we actually… That currency was strong, recognized throughout the world. And now, on January 1, in couple days since our day here, since we are talking today… So euro will be official currency of Lithuania.

And, interestingly enough, some of the coins which will be used in circulation have the

Lithuanian inscription and Lithuanian national insignia of Vytis15. You know what is Vytis, yes?

So, in that respect, I believe I welcome the change myself. I have some sentiments too. I feel that it’s too bad that we have to change it. But the reality is that if we want to actively participate in the industrial and international business community and… probably keep our imports and exports, easier accountability. This was the necessity—to join the European Union’s currency system. And this is what’s happening.

GG: How did having lived in a displaced persons camp affect your presidency?

VA: Something that you asked me… How did having lived in a displaced persons camp after your presidency? Now, I don’t know… ?This is problem?... It’s not very clear question to me, but I would say that before my presidency ___… Oh, no, this was “affect” my presidency… I don’t believe… First of all, you should not forget that 50 years of my life I have spent in United

15 The Vytis is the national symbol of Lithuania. It features a knight on his horse.

States. I am educated and graduating from high school in United States. I graduated from the universities in United States. So I would say that, basically, my educational system is based on

Western principles. And, like I always say, you cannot learn the democracy and principles from the textbooks. You have to live within the community, and you have to believe in it. And this is the case… I believe that that kind of effect… Living in a democratic state, like United States, made my philosophy, my thinking, my principles those of the free individual who believes in all those principles. And, definitely, later on, since I spent 27 years in United States as an EPA administrator, and in one of the most important regions in the United States, one of the largest ones, which had Great Lakes under my jurisdiction. And I had jurisdiction over six Midwest states, starting with Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio. So that was quite an experience, which you cannot gain, again, from the books. You have to gain that from the actual work. And I was one of the fortunate individuals in my life, which, starting as an individual who was born in Lithuania, came—was a displaced person—to the United States, and reached that kind of level of the United States government. I had direct access to the president of the United

States. And I probably have exceptional record in one thing, which is going probably to ?stand? as a record for a long time–I have served six presidents of the United States at the highest government position as administrator of the entire Midwest, which actually held 45 million people and had 25% of American industry. So I came to Lithuania after so many years as, not the man from the streets, but with 27 years of rights and responsibility. And I am grateful for that opportunity, for the people, for the administration of the United States government for providing me with that responsibility. So, what can I say? I believe that this more or less covers the period of time I lived in United States. And I came to Lithuania, not as a man from the streets, but with quite a strong and long experience in administration, in government. And I tried to implement

those basic principles in the Lithuanian way of life. It’s difficult–there are some remains of the

Soviet thinking, Soviet philosophy. Not that I would say that we are supporting that system. I want to make this very clear. We are actually rejecting that. But some of the bureaucracies, some of the corruption which has developed during that 50 years of occupation is still visible in…

People grew up… Because the moral system during the Soviet occupation was totally destroyed.

People were definitely not believing in the morality, in dignity–they were just simply taught that socialism and state are God. And if they are in a position… Whatever they think, they do. They grabbed whatever they could. Except some of the Soviet elite, who was well provided with all kinds of privileges, they still remained.., not only in Lithuania, but in other Baltic States, in

Georgia, in ?Azerbaijan?, in Ukraine especially. We have that experience in the Orange

Revolution when I participated, united with other countries, to help the Ukraine to defend itself.

But, as you can see, there are still remains of that previous bureaucracy and previous culture. But this, I believe—that time is going to take care of it. The younger generation is growing up absolutely under the principles which provide humanity, respect for human beings, and freedom of voice, freedom of expression. And this is what I believe is the future of our generation and generations to come. That’s basically what I could say about entire situation in Lithuania and in

Europe in general. Not everything is ideal. Not everything is fine. But it takes time. I believe in that, and I believe in young generation, which is growing up and which, in the very near future, will accept the responsibility—lead the country into the future. So that’s all what I can say.

GG: Ačiū. Ačiū labai už viską. Ar dar norite kažką pasakyti, ar viską pasakėte?

VA: No, ačiū labai. Aš manau, kad aš jau per daugiau pasakiau.

GG: Gerai, labai gerai. Ačiū. Buvo labai įdomu.

VA: Linksmų ir laimingų ir labai produktingų naujų metų.

GG: Ir Jums.

VA: Perduokit mano linkėjimus naujų metų ir tavo tėveliams.

GG: Gerai. Ačiū!

VA: Ačiū labai ir viso gero.

GG: Viso gero.16

16 Translated into English: GG: Thank you. Thank you very much for everything. Do you want to say anything else or have you said everything? VA: No, I think I’ve already said too much. GG: OK, very good. Thank you. It was very interesting. VA: A happy and very productive new year to you. GG: And to you too. VA: Give your parents my best wishes for the new year. GG: OK. Thank you! VA: Thank you very much and good day. GG: Good day.

Interview Time Index

0:05 — Understanding of freedom and democracy

0:10 — American career

0:15 — Events of January 13, 1991

0:20 — Challenges as president

0:25 — Relations with Russia

0:30 — Communicating with Lithuania during Soviet times

0:35 — Lithuania’s NATO membership

0:40 — Importance of Lithuanian culture and history

0:45 — Problems that remain from the Soviet system

0:50 — Effects of having lived in a displaced persons camp

0:55 — Problems in Lithuanian government and society that stem from Soviet system

Interview Analysis

When Valdas Adamkus resigned from his job as the administrator of the Great Lakes region of the Environmental Protection Agency, he explained to President Clinton, “I’m being involved in Lithuanian freedom fight, and now Lithuania has the opportunity to become a free country, independent country, and I am being human perspective from Lithuanians to run for the office” (Gedo 29-30). President Adamkus’s story illustrates the insight that can be found through oral history. Oral history allows one to learn about an event through the stories, experiences, and choices of a single person who witnessed or participated in the event. According to historian

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “Historians must always strive toward the unattainable ideal of objectivity” (Schlesinger 52). Because objectivity is impossible, it is beneficial to learn history through a specific viewpoint, making oral history a useful tool in understanding a certain time period. It is important, however, not to get caught up in one outlook. Schlesinger states that historians “remain creatures of [their] times, prisoners of [their] own experience, swayed… by partisanship, prejudice, dogma, by fear and by hope” (Schlesinger 52). This illustrates the potential pitfalls of oral history, as people’s prejudices blind them, making them unable to fully describe the past. Additionally, the interviewer asks questions based on his own interpretation of events, which influences what information the interviewee gives. Oral history, therefore, can be problematic in that it focuses too narrowly on one point of view. Thus, it is best to use conventional historical sources and writing and to compare them to oral history in order to balance a broad perspective with this individual point of view. President Adamkus reinforces what historians have said about Lithuanians leaving their country but contradicts what historians have said about how Lithuania got the opportunity to become free.

Throughout the interview, President Adamkus discussed his personal life, his presidency, and his views on Lithuania as a modern country. The interview began with a discussion of

President Adamkus’s childhood and teenage years, when he participated in the “resistance fight for gaining independence and freedom” from the Soviets and the Germans (Gedo 28). He then went on to describe his life in the United States, where he had moved after living in Lithuania and then Germany. He credited living in America with making “[his] principles those of the free individual who believes in” democracy, freedom of expression, and sovereignty (Gedo 43).

President Adamkus also explained his participation in and feelings about the Lithuanian independence movement. He stated that he, along with many other Lithuanians in the United

States, encouraged the Lithuanian parliament to “declare independence and [hope] that the world would support [them]” (Gedo 30). When asked how he reacted to the Soviet act of aggression in

Vilnius in early 1991, President Adamkus said that it was “terrible… [but] the last chance to protect independence” in Lithuania (Gedo 31). He conveyed both the horror of the day and the pride Lithuanians felt that their compatriots had made a selfless defense of their country. He then went on to discuss his presidency, which began several years after Lithuania had become independent. He stated that the biggest challenge was that “Lithuania had to overcome a lot of

?refugees? … from the Soviet system” (Gedo 40). He explained that 50 years of Soviet oppression had destroyed people’s morality and had created a poor, corrupt structure of government that has been improved but not entirely fixed. President Adamkus then went on to discuss Lithuania today, explaining how the country is becoming a full member of the European

Union (EU) and how it deals with Russia. He stated that Lithuania is doing its best to be friendly with Russia but that “Russia has its aggressional politics,” as is clearly evidenced by its recent

actions in Ukraine (Gedo 34). President Adamkus clearly outlined Lithuania’s current concerns as well as shedding light on its historical ones.

Although Lithuania has benefited greatly from joining the EU, its membership has also created some problems for the country. Since becoming part of this organization, Lithuania has experienced the loss of many people who have left the country in order to pursue opportunities in other EU nations. Many intelligent people have emigrated, and Lithuania is working to create incentives for them to stay. In an article in the British Medical Journal, Katka Krosnar argues:

[Lithuanian membership in the EU] means the axing of borders and therefore free movement of people within the bloc, as well as automatic and unconditional recognition across the union for qualifications and training obtained in their own country. In short, that makes migration easier and, with average wages significantly lower in most of the 10 new member states [such as Lithuania] than in the 15 existing ones, much more likely (Krosnar 310).

President Adamkus agrees that this is a major problem for Lithuania but expresses hope that people will return with valuable experience from the West. He acknowledges the loss but believes the situation will also bring positive outcomes to Lithuania. He argues:

We are still having very difficult times, especially during the economic, fiscal crisis throughout the world. … So that’s a lot of people, young and not so young, [who] are leaving the country, looking for a better job, for better conditions. But I have to say at this point, that right now, we are feeling in the last couple years, little by little, people ?already? returning back with the experience they gained in the West and trying to apply and adjust themselves ?right? in Lithuania. (Gedo 33).

President Adamkus’s agreement with Krosnar illustrates the scope of this problem. It clearly is widespread and has affected Lithuania greatly. As a former politician and head of state, President

Adamkus is likely to see and understand Lithuania’s interior problems, but the journalist’s interest highlights the fact that Lithuania joining the EU has affected the rest of Europe. Their agreement also reveals that facts and figures concerning this problem match the way people in

Lithuania view it, suggesting that both arguments are accurate.

Historiography offers many arguments as to why the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

(USSR) fell and how the countries within it were able to gain their independence. Some historians argue that economic problems, the arms race, democratic renewal, and the absence of real communism made the USSR’s fall inevitable. In contrast, Ukrainian historian Serhii Plokhy asserts that problems present in the USSR from the beginning were what guaranteed the country’s ruin: “[The fall of the USSR] was caused by the imperial foundations, multiethnic composition, and pseudofederal structure of the Soviet state” (Plokhy xvii). President Adamkus disagrees with both of these positions. He states that while these problems may have had some effect on the fall of the USSR, they are not the primary reason the country disintegrated. He believes that the people who created independence in the former Soviet republics also helped destroy the USSR as a whole. He argues: “To me, the Soviet Union actually fell or broke up, not only for those reasons [Plokhy mentions]. It was the determination of the individual nations, like the Baltic States and others, to become free and independent people with all their rights and beliefs in the democratic system that made the possibility for change in that part of Europe”

(Gedo 39). President Adamkus has different views from the historians because he was more involved, both actively and emotionally, in the Lithuanian independence movement than the historians who wrote about it. He has reason to be proud of his fellow Lithuanians and can finally feel that their actions impacted their fate after half a century of being unable to control it.

Lithuania did become free soon after Lithuanians began to work for independence, providing evidence for President Adamkus’s point of view. Conversely, historians take this emotion and pride in the movement out of their studies and instead look at documents and figures to come to conclusions, which explains the difference between their interpretation and President

Adamkus’s. The differences in these arguments suggest that Lithuanian independence came about due to a combination of these changes.

I learned both historical information and life skills from this project. At the beginning, I was extremely nervous to call and interview a president, but I learned how to talk to President

Adamkus respectfully and with relative ease. I also learned how to improvise when we experienced technical difficulties. I was very interested in President Adamkus’s thoughts about what problems remain from the Soviet regime in Lithuania. I learned that one difficulty is that people who grew up in the Soviet system were only concerned with survival, which left them somewhat morally bankrupt. I was impressed by President Adamkus’s hope and expectation that this situation would improve soon. I also learned about a previous failure that has now become a success in Lithuania. A few years ago, Lithuania tried to change its currency to the euro, but the request was denied. I learned that, starting in early 2015, Lithuania will be using the euro as its official currency. It was interesting to me because President Adamkus felt this change was necessary for Lithuania to participate more fully in the EU. He also stated that the litas,

Lithuania’s old currency, held a lot of sentimental value for people, some of whom, therefore, opposed the change to the euro. I learned about both Lithuania’s concerns and actions as a modern country and its historical affairs.

Appendix 1

New Yorker Cartoon of Landsbergis

President Adamkus at the end of his presidency

Appendix 2

Lithuanian declaration of independence from March 11, 1990

Appendix 3

Images from the night of January 13, 1991

Works Consulted

Apanavicius, Arunas. "Lithuanian Independence Deserves Recognition." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Apr. 1990. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. .

"Biography." President of the Republic of Lithuania. Office of the Republic of Lithuania, 2008. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. .

Boese, Wade. "NATO Expands, Russia Grumbles." JSTOR. Arms Control Association, 2004. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. .

Cartoon of Landsbergis. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2014. .

"Cheer Lithuania, but Don't Meddle." New York Times 17 Mar. 1990: n. pag. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .

Gedo, Gabrielle L. “OHP.” 27 December 2014. MS. American Century Oral History Project. St. Andrew's School, Potomac.

Hiden, John, and Patrick Salmon. The Baltic Nations and Europe: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century. London: Longman Singapore, 1991. Print.

Krosnar, Katka, and Juozas Olekas. "Could Joining EU Club Spell Disaster for the New Members?" British Medical Journal 328 (2004): n. pag. JSTOR. Web. 25 Jan. 2015. .

Leone, Bruno, Bonnie Szumski, and Paul A. Winters, eds. The Collapse of the Soviet Union. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. Print. Turning Points in World History.

Lieven, Anatol. The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Path to Independence. New Haven: Yale UP, 1993. Print.

O'Donovan, Kevin. "Fall of the Berlin Wall: American and Soviet Influence on the End of the Cold War." Interview by Katie Jannotta. Digital Maryland. American Century Project, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. .

Plokhy, Serhii. The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union. New York, NY: Basic, 2014. Print.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. "History the Weapon." The Disuniting of America. New York: Norton, 1992. N. pag. Print.

"Timeline: Lithuania." BBC News. BBC, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2014. .