IV

THE CENTERS OF OPPOSITION

The Catholics

THE MOST EXTENSIVE OPPOSITION to the Nationalist regime emanated from Catholic quarters. However, the dissolution of the Christian Democratic Party and the abrogation of its right to take part in the country’s political life restricted the Catholics from acting as a cohesive political group.¹ There continued to exist until the very end of independence a nucleus of Catholic leaders, both senior clergymen and their younger secular collaborators, whose general position was thought to be representative of the Catholic bloc. In 1939-1940 the Catholics resembled a pressure group contending for special interests more than a regular political party. Nevertheless, Catholic influence in political, economic, and cultural areas could not be doubted.

To say that Catholics were in opposition to the Nationalists is not a full appraisal of the Catholic position. However, it is more difficult to tell what they were endeavoring to do, than it is to understand what they were fighting against. A Nationalist writer had good reason to assert that “so far . . . the young Christian Democrats lack an intelligible political ideology. It is not clear whether they tend toward an authoritarian or a democratic regime.”² Some of them were publicly committed to an “organic” and hierarchic composition of society; others preferred a simple authoritarianism. Some, like Professor Šalkauskis, would have preferred the superimposition of the hierarchical Catholic hegemony upon the organic state the Nationalists were constructing.³ Others denounced the one-party regime and sided with individuals and institutions battling for political rights.⁴ And still others hoped for an administration in which the best men of all convictions would work together.⁵ However, the emergent Catholic consensus, overshadowing the profound but less immediate differences concerning the nation’s future political organization, pleaded for more representative government and the restoration of civil rights. In one editorial after another the Catholic press vigorously assailed the Nationalists’ pretensions of serving as sole intermediaries between the government and the people ; they condemned their exorbitant claims as unconstitutional, absolutely groundless, and abnormal. In sum, politics under dictatorial conditions made the Catholics ambivalent; they both supported and opposed the Nationalists. In theory, a segment of the Catholic elite placed a good deal of emphasis on various strands of authoritarianism, thereby reinforcing many of the Nationalist ideas. But in practice, this affinity with the Nationalists did not prevent many other Catholics from advocating more permissive government and from seeking political influence, goals which made them the rivals of the Nationalists.

In addition to the influence which the Catholics acquired through their extensive press, they drew considerable strength from the varied social and cultural activities which they carried on among old and young. Their campaign among workers was highly successful. The Union of Christian Workers, a professional association with 52 chapters throughout the land, emulated the Communists in striving to attract the loyalty of the workers. It supported labor’s economic demands, provided for numerous recreational opportunities, organized courses on home economics, and formed separate sections to meet the needs of young workers.⁶ In some instances its accomplishments were so marked that the workers themselves would rid their meetings of Communist speakers.⁷

Associations formed for the purpose of teaching students and children to serve God and country were organized as affiliates of Catholic groups for adults. Meetings, Communion services, Christmas parties, and a variety of devout exercises were arranged. Fragmentary statistics and a possible overlap in membership render it impracticable to suggest an accurate picture of Catholic numerical strength. However, a survey of the Lithuanian press furnishes adequate grounds for the following estimates of membership in some of the major Catholic organizations:⁸

The Populists

ALTHOUGH ITS FULL POTENTIAL cannot be estimated with complete accuracy, a second source of resistance to the Nationalist supremacy was the veteran Lithuanian Peasant-Populist Union, commonly referred to as the Populists. A democratic party in pre-Nationalist years, the Populists tallied approximately one-fourth of the total vote. In 1939-1940 they persistently criticized the Smetona dictatorship for the suppression of individual rights, favored radical agrarian reforms,⁹ tended to support a planned economy, and deplored public indifference to the affairs of state. Not unlike the Catholics, the Populists worked out their attitudes at private meetings in Kaunas, which were frequented by such esteemed party figures as the former Prime Minister Mykolas Sleževičius and the onetime President Kazys Grinius.

Even before the formation of the Černius administration on March 27, 1939, the two principal sources of opposition to the government had agreed to coordinate their anti-Nationalist campaign. The initial stage of the joint operation, which in late 1938 and early 1939 brought about an abortive anti-Nationalist manifesto in Klaipėda, goes back to the top level Catholic and Populist conversations initiated in the spring of 1938. Frequent consultations between the two parties were prompted by their resolve to impress upon the citizens their belief that the Nationalist government had neither popular confidence nor popular mandate to administer the country. Joint action necessitated a joint declaration of principles. This, however, was no easy accomplishment as the allies, despite their animosity toward the Nationalists, were themselves far apart ideologically. They often clashed over questions such as Church and State prerogatives.¹⁰ The compromise which was finally achieved owed much to the growing influence in Catholic quarters of younger secular leaders. Essentially, the common platform published late in 1938 was a demand for the restoration of democratic government. However, it envisaged a restriction on the activities of splinter parties and expected the future President and the ministers to sever their party affiliations upon assumption of office.¹¹

The ensuing association of the Catholics and the Populists with the political following of the dictatorial ex-Premier Augustinas Voldemaras¹² made the return to democracy a somewhat attenuated objective. The triple alliance, ratified by opposition centers in Kaunas, set up a new political front calling for a form of government based on national unity and discipline,¹³ an appeal totally devoid of originality. The nature of its political propositions, its modus operandi, and such incidentals as the Fascist salute it had adopted cast a shadow of doubt on the group’s democratic authenticity.

The Nationalist regime quickly suspended the journal published in Klaipėda by the opposition triple alliance. The new political front itself discontinued its operations when it threw its support behind the Patriotic Front that gained momentary popularity in the wake of German occupation of Klaipėda.¹⁴ Yet the existence of a united Catholic and Populist opposition was evidenced by the parallel editorial opinions of their dailies in the capital.

The Social Democrats

IT IS NOT SURPRISING that the most pertinaciously democratic political movement was also the most shattered one. The Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, a third core of opposition which earlier claimed a considerable labor following and a membership of 3,000, for years was not conceded the privilege of publishing even a single newspaper. Only in 1939 did it secure authorization to “toy” with a modest monthly.¹⁵ Sensitive to the Catholic-Populist opposition’s dubious adherence to democratic principles, the Social Democrats remained aloof from the Catholic-Populist axis, choosing instead the desolate and ineffective path of unaffiliated opposition.

The Army

HABITUALLY CONTRAVENING President Smetona’s advice to display a nonpartisan interest in politics broadly defined, the Lithuanian army frequently intervened in the course of domestic events in a manner unintended by the chief executive. Because of these extracurricular activities, the military profession is briefly considered here as a political factor. The precarious privilege of intervening in interparty quarrels seems to have been reserved for the army’s upper echelons. The ordinary soldier was instructed by his superiors to keep aloof from any active participation in party politics either on the side of the Nationalists or of the opposition.¹⁶ Instead, he was offered a required three-stage civics course, intended to familiarize him with the soldierly virtues, the military and political history of his country, and the nation’s aspirations. Additional lectures on Lithuania’s geography, economy, political institutions, and underlying policies were foreseen for the future.¹⁷ Military journals published for the army’s rank and file normally abstained from party politics, too.

In 1926 army officers had brought Smetona to power. However, by 1939, especially under the leadership of Stasys Raštikis, they could not be, and were not, relied upon to back the President unequivocally. It is difficult to ascertain the political views of the officers. It is sufficient to point out that the majority of the senior officers favored conservative policies and usually stood by the chief executive. On the other hand, the dynamic personality of Professor Voldemaras continued to attract admirers among the younger officers who were displeased with Smetona’s moderate course.¹⁸ Besides determining the enemies abroad, the military could be counted on to do some plotting against their adversaries at home. The expensive military establishment, which annually absorbed more than a quarter of the total government revenue, had grown into an imposing force rivaled only by the political dexterity of the President.