Looking at public debate in the early 2020s, especially in Europe and North America, it can be said that the status and rights of minorities are among the most prominent topics of discussion. Relations between minorities and majorities are constantly dealt with and taken up in all walks of life. However, this is not a new phenomenon. Minorities and majorities have existed in all societies throughout history, and relationships between different groups of people have always been in a state of change and a matter of reflection. One era in which this theme was discussed particularly intensely was the period between the World Wars; it was given a strong impetus by the First World War, which resulted in the establishment of several new states. As a result of the war, life also changed in many ways in states that had existed before.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the debate and measures focused mainly on ethnic or national minorities. The theme was particularly relevant in the new states, where society had to be completely reconstructed after the pre-war period. This group included Lithuania and Finland. Both had previously belonged to the Russian Empire and fought a war of independence in 1918â1920. The transition to a ânormalâ peacetime life was gradual, and the building of independent states was a long process anyway. Lithuania and Finland were also united by the fact that both were small countries, and they reminded each other that ethnic Lithuanians and Finns were in a fairly strong majority position compared to the size of other ethnic groups living in the new statesâ territories. Lithuania and Finland were also democratic republics at the time and in the early years of their independence.
On the other hand, there were differences between Lithuania and Finland. Finland had been an autonomous Grand Duchy as part of Russia, and its borders did not change significantly when it achieved independence. Finland had been a single administrative unit and was able to practice a kind of semi-independence even before 1917. From the perspective of minority issues, it was significant that there was only one large minority group in Finland: the Swedes. All other minority groups were very small, although the Sámi were the local majority in Finlandâs sparsely populated northern border region, Lapland. Lithuania, on the other hand, had to build an independent state by merging several different administrative units. There were also several large minorities in Lithuania â Jews, Poles and Russians as well as Germans â after the annexation of the KlaipÄda Region. Lithuania also moved to an authoritarian system in the mid-1920s, but Finland remained a multi-party democracy.
This study analyses ethnic/national minorities in Lithuania and Finland. The topic has been studied from different perspectives, but this research focuses specifically on creating a summative and comparative analysis, which has been lacking up to this point. First, a brief overview of the history and situation of minorities before the independence of Lithuania and Finland will be provided as previous developments have, of course, had an impact on the situation between the World Wars. Second, the minoritiesâ legal status will be clarified. The third theme is political activities. The study focuses on both the minoritiesâ own political activity and the policies pursued by the majority population insofar as it impacted the status of minorities. The fourth theme concerns the educational conditions of minorities. Fifth, the economic and social status of minorities is examined, and the sixth theme addresses the religious rights and activities of minorities. The aim is to highlight the key elements of the minoritiesâ history and the development of their situation during the 1920s and 1930s.
The comparative method is utilised in three ways. The situation of each minority is compared to other minorities within the same state. The status and activities of minorities are also compared to those of the majority population. Finally, Lithuania and Finland are compared. The aim is, thus, to produce a synthesis of the situation of minorities in Lithuania and Finland: why it was exactly the way it was, how it changed, and what influenced the changes. At the same time, the extent to which Lithuania and Finland resembled each other, and why, is also analysed.
The main source materials are legal documents (laws and various regulations issued by the authorities), parliamentary materials, statistics, as well as newspapers and magazines and other printed material published in the interwar period. Of course, previous research analysing a wide range of specific issues or examining the history of a particular minority group is also extensively used.
With regard to Finnish research, special mention should be made of Henrik Meinanderâs work Nation-State. Swedishness in Finland 1922â2015,1 which, according to its title (here translated into English, as are the following), is a recent general work on the history of Swedes in Finland. In the case of the Sámi minority, the most important general work is Veli-Pekka Lehtolaâs Sámi Finns â Encounters 1896â1953.2 On the status of the Roma minority, there is an extensive collection of articles entitled History of the Finnish Roma, edited by Panu Pulma.3 Two general works have been written about small religious minorities and their history: History of Finnish Jews by Taimi Torvinen4 and Finnish Tatars. The Success Story of the Muslim Community Formed between 1866 and 1944, published by Antero Leitzinger.5 Pekka Nevalainen has written a general study of the lives of Russian, Karelian and Ingrian-Finnish refugees, entitled Thrown About as the Maker Does to a Beggar. Russian Refugees in Finland 1917â1939.6 In addition, a collection of articles edited by Juha Pentikäinen and Marja Hiltunen, Cultural Minorities in Finland,7 can be mentioned, which briefly summarises the main features of the history of all minorities in Finland.
The historical development of the national minorities in the interwar period in Lithuania has not been showered with attention in Lithuanian historiography. Individual articles that appeared during 1918â1940 in periodicals did not seek to provide an overall picture of such development, but rather to respond to the issues of the day concerning national minorities (e.g. the establishment of schools, proportionality of school funding, the activities of public organisations, participation in elections, etc.). It cannot be ruled out that due to the relatively short time span there might have been no need for a more coherent overview of the development of national minorities. The Soviet period in Lithuania (1940â1941 and 1944â1990) was not conducive to a more consistent exploration of the development of national minorities in the interwar period, which remained on the sidelines. The restoration of the independence of Lithuania in 1990 opened up new research opportunities and the emerging needs to investigate the period expanded the field of interest of researchers to the development of national communities.
The analysis of the body of work of Lithuanian historiography that filled the gap in the study of history of national minorities, shows two trends of research. First, there are the research efforts to analyze the stories of the development of individual national communities. The story of the Jewish community in Lithuania (its social, cultural, and organisational maturity, the Holocaust): Alfonsas Eidintas (Žydai, lietuviai ir Holokaustas. Vilnius, 2002), Liudas Truska (Lietuviai ir žydai nuo XIX a. pabaigos iki 1941m. birželio. Antisemitizmo Lietuvoje raida. Vilnius, 2005), Å arÅ«nas Liekis (A State within a State? Jewish autonomy in Lithuania 1918â1925. Vilnius, 2003), EglÄ BendikaitÄ (Sionistinis sÄ jÅ«dis Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 2006), Vygantas Vareikis, Hektoras Vitkus, Linas Venclauskas and others, and histories of individual Jewish communities have been the most broadly examined. The development of other national (ethnic-religious) groups has also been analysed â Russians (Natalija Kasatkina, Andrius MarcinkeviÄius, Rusai Lietuvos Respublikos visuomenÄje 1918â1940m. IstorinÄs retrospektyvos konstravimas), Orthodox (Andrius MarcinkeviÄius, Saulius Kaubrys, Lietuvos StaÄiatikių bažnyÄia 1918â1939m. Vilnius, 2003; Regina LaukaitytÄ, StaÄiatikių bažnyÄia lietuvoje XXamžiuje. Vilnius, 2003), Old believers (Grigorijus PotaÅ¡enko), Germans (Mindaugas TamoÅ¡aitis and Inga PuidokienÄ), Poles (Vladas SirutaviÄius, Severinas Vaitiekus, and Benediktas Å etkus), Latvians (Vilma AkmenytÄ), Tatars (Tamara BairaÅ¡auskaitÄ), and Karaites (Halina KobeckaitÄ and DovilÄ TroskovaitÄ). The second, less prominent trend is to provide an overview of all national groups in Lithuania (Grigorijus PotaÅ¡enko, DaugiatautÄ Lietuva. Lietuvos etninių mažumų istorija. Vilnius,2008). Both trends are united by the desire to reveal individual details of the development and general characteristics of the processes based on the analysis of previously unpublished documentary evidence and the assessment of the established historiographic input. In the context of such research, insufficient attention has been paid to the relationship between the titular nation and national minorities, internal relationships between ethnic groups (e.g. Polish-Jewish, German-Latvian, etc.), exchanges of experiences between ethnic groups and their influence on each other.
Meinander H. Kansallisvaltio. Ruotsalaisuus Suomessa 1922â2015, Helsinki, 2017.
Lehtola V. Saamelaiset suomalaiset â kohtaamisia 1896â1953, Helsinki, 2012.
Pulma P. Suomen Romanien historia, Helsinki, 2012.
Torvinen T. Kadimah. Suomen juutalaisten historia, Helsinki, 1989.
Leitzinger A. Suomen tataarit. Vuosina 1868â1944 muodostuneen muslimiyhteisön menestystarina, Helsinki, 2006.
Nevalainen P. Viskoi kuin Luoja kerjäläistä. Venäjän pakolaiset Suomessa 1917â1939, Helsinki, 1999.
Pentikäinen J., Hiltunen M. Suomen kulttuurivähemmistöt, Helsinki, 1997.