I paid a brief visit to the library at the National Military Museum this morning. They didn't have any printed resources in reference to the 1917 Anglo-Russian Military Convention and the librarian didn't know very much of this obscure piece of military history. She was able to suggest where records listing the deported immigrants would be kept, however. Since it was likely the British government, not the Scottish government, that would have signed the Convention, she recommended checking at the National Archives in Kew, England (outside of London). I plan to investigate a little. If they have records that look promising, I'll eventually make a trip down there.
In the meantime, I found another forum with some interesting information. It appears I'm not the only one seeking out a list of immigrants that were conscripted into the Russian military. Others have also suggested that the documents may be held at Kew. I made a post under the username "silvestris" asking if anybody has had luck there.
What is also interesting is that somebody in that forum mentioned records held in the Lithuanian Archives in Vilnius. I have been assuming records in Lithuania would be almost non-existent given their tumultuous history, but maybe I should be more optimistic. One person was apparently able to find a KGB file on his great-uncle, who was executed in 1941 when the Russians re-invaded! This is something that would be just incredible to find about my great-uncle, Chute's brother, Kazimiras Jr. He too was abducted by the Russians for being part of the Lithuanian military and, most likely, was also executed. Chute told me that her mother (Zose) believed, until the day she died, that her son was just lost and would one day turn up. Maybe finding records of his execution could give Chute some closure. Then again, maybe the truth would be worse than hope.
On another note, I had a second look at the History Today article. There's a section explaining that most of the conscripts sent to "Russia" were refused permission to return to Scotland after the downfall of the Empire, particularly if they weren't able to prove Allied allegiance. This meant that those left behind in Scotland (eg. my great-grandmother and great-uncle, Zose and Kazimiras Jr) would become a "permanent financial liability" to Great Britain. Instead of supporting those left without a "breadwinner", the government took action "to discontinue the Treasury allowances ... The consequence was that a total of about 600 Lithuanian women and children returned to Russian soil by the end of March 1920". Unbelievable! The government deported legal immigrants, leaving dependent family members without income, and then withdrew financial assistance, so that they too were unable to remain. There are few policies (except perhaps the recent ones in Arizona and Alabama) more hostile to immigrants than this!
This all fits with the family history though: Kazimiras Jr was born on 26 May 1918, approximately 10 months after the Convention was signed and my great-grandfather would have found out he would have to go back to "Russia", and Chute was born in Lithuania in January 1921, just 10 months after financial support for dependents was terminated in Britain. I'm starting to be convinced that my second theory is correct: Kazimiras Sr was conscripted into the Russian military and Zose followed with Kazimiras Jr after Kazimiras Sr was refused re-entry.
06 March 2012
04 March 2012
Filling in Some History
In preparation to returning home to Edinburgh (I've been away since the last post), I started thinking again about my Scottish-Lithuanian background. Short of being able to get back into the archive, I started searching for various secondary sources that might be able to tell me more about the general history of Lithuanians in Scotland. I found a handful of online and journal articles, some online forums (here and here), a BBC radio show, and even a book.
An article in History Today explained a little bit about what life was like for the tiny community of Lithuanians living in Scotland, particularly concerning their work in the mines (Rodgers, vol 35.7). It gave context to why Lithuanian immigrants were initially viewed quite negatively by the Scots; when they first arrived they were not well informed about labor issues and undermined a nascent labor movement by working for low wages and breaking strikes. Many Lithuanians were probably unaware of the movement due to language barriers and an unfamiliarity with local labor organizations. Others viewed Scotland as a temporary stop-over simply to earn enough for the voyage to their final destination in the United States (the article notes that a few were even so poorly informed that they thought they'd already arrived in the US!). Considering the harsh conditions and minuscule wages that most miners (Scottish and Lithuanian) earned, it's no surprise that Scottish laborers looked at these new immigrants unfavorably.
It seems that this didn't last, however. As the Lithuanians learned more of the conditions and of the movement to demand change, they joined it and evidently became one of the more radical elements. They held strong socialist values and probably sympathized with the Bolsheviks that were agitating against Tsarist rule back home in Lithuania (many were, after all, refugees from Tsarist oppression). This improved relations between the Lithuanian immigrants and their Scottish counterparts, but simultaneously drew concern from British authorities that feared not only the rise of communism in Russia but a popular movement towards the same within their own borders. As quoted in the History Today article, a Scottish labor organizer rained praise on the Lithuanian awaking to movement:
Anyhow, the quote above was the first reference I came across for the 1917, "Anglo-Russian Military Convention". It's a fairly obscure bit of military history (as it probably wouldn't have affected more than 10000 people), and I'm still not that well informed about it. My rough understanding of the Convention, thus far, is that it was an agreement between Tsarist Russia and Great Britain that would conscribe "Russian" immigrants into either the British or Russian militaries (that would be the Tsarist "White Army"). I suspect (this is informed speculation) that Britain's motivation would have been twofold: i- to support the Russian Empire against the Bolshevik uprising; and ii- disrupt the radical organization of labor within the immigrant community. The agreement was signed on 16 July 1917.
Up to this point, I had believed that my great-grandparents, Kazimiras and Zose Kisielius, had returned from Scotland to Lithuania together with their newborn son shortly after Lithuanian independence from Russia in 1918. I suspected that Kazimiras had longed to return home and saw independence as an opportunity to do so, leaving behind a discriminatory land where his only prospect was hard labor in the mines. Now, however, I have an alternative theory.
Apparently, hundreds of Lithuanian men between 18 and 40 were shipped off to fight for Russia. When hostilities ended, however, many were unable to return to their adopted home and their families. The only recourse, then, might have been to move the family back to Lithuania. One forum states: "Many of those who had left for Russia were not allowed to return to Britain after the war and their families were forced to leave for Lithuania after the British government suspended dependents' allowances."
This is where I plan to focus my efforts now. I want to understand the 1917 Convention better (What were the politics between Russian and Britain that led to the Convention? What politics were underlying Britain's desire to deport the Lithuanian immigrants? How did the immigrants respond to the Convention? And what effect did it have on the Lithuanian immigrant community internally?). Hopefully I'll be able to track down records of Kazimiras' conscription. If I can confirm that he was conscribed into the Russian army, traveling back on his own, I may be able to confirm my second theory of how my family ended up back in Lithuania. I've already approached representatives at the National Military Museum (based at Edinburgh Castle) and I'm going back on Tuesday to meet with the librarian (that is, if I can justify doing this "recreational" research instead of my own PhD research!).
An add-on to this new information is that something I was told by my "Uncle Jimmy" (actually my great-uncle-in law) suddenly makes a little more sense. Uncle Jimmy is married to Chute's sister, Kitty. He relayed a story about from her about how several of the Kisielius brothers ended up in the US around the time that Kazimiras and Zose returned to Lithuania. (Actually, I wasn't even aware that Kazimiras had brothers. Though I did initially locate several Kisielius's in the Scottish records, I wasn't yet able to connect them to Kazimiras. Now I know they probably can be!). Jimmy told me that several of the Kisielius brothers fled to the United States from Scotland because, as Kitty told him, they "didn't want to fight against their 'brothers'" (I understood "brothers" to mean countrymen, not siblings). Before learning of the 1917 Convention, this didn't make any sense to me. It would have been the tail-end of WWI and Britain and the Russian Empire were aligned. Why would they have to join an army and why would they have to fight their "brothers"? Now, however, in light of the knowledge that many of the immigrants were involved in the radical labor movement and that they might have been conscripted into the White Army, it possible that the word "brother" that Kitty remembers, is actually "comrade"! Perhaps they fled to the US from Scotland so that they didn't have to fight against a revolution with which they sympathized!
What's even more intriguing is the the question of why Kazimiras did return to Lithuania while his brothers fled (assuming my speculation is all correct). Did they hold opposing positions on the question of communism in the East? Or was it merely a matter of circumstance? The History Today article does mention internal divisions to the immigrant community over these politics because of the Catholic Church's opposition to socialism: efforts by one priest "marked the final stage in the breakdown of the Lithuanian community into two rival factions: those who adhered to some form of socialist doctrine and those who remained committed to the Catholic faith." It's really fascinating to be uncovering what may be a century-old family schism! And to potentially be contributing filling in some historical gaps: the History Today article states that "little is known of the fate of most of the Lithuanian Conventionists" (i.e. those sent back under the Convention). If Kazimiras is one those "Conventionists", I am descended from that lost group and my family history fills in some of that unknown history (i.e. the family lived for about 20 years in independent Lithuania before being displaced by WWII and eventually settling in the US).
The other matter is that, according to this new information from Uncle Jimmy, there is another branch of the family, from the Kisielius line, living in the United States who I've never met either! I haven't even had the chance to contact the Raulinitis line here in Scotland (I've only been back for a couple days and I'm jet-lagged!), and now I might be uncovering so much more. Lots of really exciting work to be done!
An article in History Today explained a little bit about what life was like for the tiny community of Lithuanians living in Scotland, particularly concerning their work in the mines (Rodgers, vol 35.7). It gave context to why Lithuanian immigrants were initially viewed quite negatively by the Scots; when they first arrived they were not well informed about labor issues and undermined a nascent labor movement by working for low wages and breaking strikes. Many Lithuanians were probably unaware of the movement due to language barriers and an unfamiliarity with local labor organizations. Others viewed Scotland as a temporary stop-over simply to earn enough for the voyage to their final destination in the United States (the article notes that a few were even so poorly informed that they thought they'd already arrived in the US!). Considering the harsh conditions and minuscule wages that most miners (Scottish and Lithuanian) earned, it's no surprise that Scottish laborers looked at these new immigrants unfavorably.
It seems that this didn't last, however. As the Lithuanians learned more of the conditions and of the movement to demand change, they joined it and evidently became one of the more radical elements. They held strong socialist values and probably sympathized with the Bolsheviks that were agitating against Tsarist rule back home in Lithuania (many were, after all, refugees from Tsarist oppression). This improved relations between the Lithuanian immigrants and their Scottish counterparts, but simultaneously drew concern from British authorities that feared not only the rise of communism in Russia but a popular movement towards the same within their own borders. As quoted in the History Today article, a Scottish labor organizer rained praise on the Lithuanian awaking to movement:
"Comrade Turgeloonis has been a great force among his countrymen since he came here [February 1907], he is holding meetings up and down the country wherever the Lithuanians are employed, preaching to them the class struggle, pointing out to them the benefits of trade unionism ... Social Democrats in the various districts should give this young Lithuanian champion all the assistance they can in his noble work."However, Lithuanian participation in these aspects of the labor movement brought suspicion upon them by the authorities, particularly due to their association with revolutionary elements. A man by the name of John Maclean was one such figure:
"Maclean was a committed revolutionary and a highly successful teacher of Marxism to Clydeside workers. Not surprisingly, he was regarded by the authorities with considerable suspicion as were most of his associates. When he came to the aid of the Lithuanian community after the implementation of the Anglo-Russian Military Convention in July 1917 it was to have serious repercussions for the immigrant community."As a result, the Lithuanian immigrants found they had a new adversary, a government that suspected them of associating with and promoting the rise of revolutionary thinking. In many ways, it was probably easier for the government to blame the immigrants from "Russia" for bringing radical ideas to Britain than it was to accept that it was, very likely, homegrown from unjust labor conditions. And it certainly would have been easier for them to take targeted action against them since understanding and awareness of their rights would have been far less secure. It's a perfect example of immigrant scapegoating that can be identified anywhere minorities communities settle.
Anyhow, the quote above was the first reference I came across for the 1917, "Anglo-Russian Military Convention". It's a fairly obscure bit of military history (as it probably wouldn't have affected more than 10000 people), and I'm still not that well informed about it. My rough understanding of the Convention, thus far, is that it was an agreement between Tsarist Russia and Great Britain that would conscribe "Russian" immigrants into either the British or Russian militaries (that would be the Tsarist "White Army"). I suspect (this is informed speculation) that Britain's motivation would have been twofold: i- to support the Russian Empire against the Bolshevik uprising; and ii- disrupt the radical organization of labor within the immigrant community. The agreement was signed on 16 July 1917.
Up to this point, I had believed that my great-grandparents, Kazimiras and Zose Kisielius, had returned from Scotland to Lithuania together with their newborn son shortly after Lithuanian independence from Russia in 1918. I suspected that Kazimiras had longed to return home and saw independence as an opportunity to do so, leaving behind a discriminatory land where his only prospect was hard labor in the mines. Now, however, I have an alternative theory.
Apparently, hundreds of Lithuanian men between 18 and 40 were shipped off to fight for Russia. When hostilities ended, however, many were unable to return to their adopted home and their families. The only recourse, then, might have been to move the family back to Lithuania. One forum states: "Many of those who had left for Russia were not allowed to return to Britain after the war and their families were forced to leave for Lithuania after the British government suspended dependents' allowances."
This is where I plan to focus my efforts now. I want to understand the 1917 Convention better (What were the politics between Russian and Britain that led to the Convention? What politics were underlying Britain's desire to deport the Lithuanian immigrants? How did the immigrants respond to the Convention? And what effect did it have on the Lithuanian immigrant community internally?). Hopefully I'll be able to track down records of Kazimiras' conscription. If I can confirm that he was conscribed into the Russian army, traveling back on his own, I may be able to confirm my second theory of how my family ended up back in Lithuania. I've already approached representatives at the National Military Museum (based at Edinburgh Castle) and I'm going back on Tuesday to meet with the librarian (that is, if I can justify doing this "recreational" research instead of my own PhD research!).
An add-on to this new information is that something I was told by my "Uncle Jimmy" (actually my great-uncle-in law) suddenly makes a little more sense. Uncle Jimmy is married to Chute's sister, Kitty. He relayed a story about from her about how several of the Kisielius brothers ended up in the US around the time that Kazimiras and Zose returned to Lithuania. (Actually, I wasn't even aware that Kazimiras had brothers. Though I did initially locate several Kisielius's in the Scottish records, I wasn't yet able to connect them to Kazimiras. Now I know they probably can be!). Jimmy told me that several of the Kisielius brothers fled to the United States from Scotland because, as Kitty told him, they "didn't want to fight against their 'brothers'" (I understood "brothers" to mean countrymen, not siblings). Before learning of the 1917 Convention, this didn't make any sense to me. It would have been the tail-end of WWI and Britain and the Russian Empire were aligned. Why would they have to join an army and why would they have to fight their "brothers"? Now, however, in light of the knowledge that many of the immigrants were involved in the radical labor movement and that they might have been conscripted into the White Army, it possible that the word "brother" that Kitty remembers, is actually "comrade"! Perhaps they fled to the US from Scotland so that they didn't have to fight against a revolution with which they sympathized!
What's even more intriguing is the the question of why Kazimiras did return to Lithuania while his brothers fled (assuming my speculation is all correct). Did they hold opposing positions on the question of communism in the East? Or was it merely a matter of circumstance? The History Today article does mention internal divisions to the immigrant community over these politics because of the Catholic Church's opposition to socialism: efforts by one priest "marked the final stage in the breakdown of the Lithuanian community into two rival factions: those who adhered to some form of socialist doctrine and those who remained committed to the Catholic faith." It's really fascinating to be uncovering what may be a century-old family schism! And to potentially be contributing filling in some historical gaps: the History Today article states that "little is known of the fate of most of the Lithuanian Conventionists" (i.e. those sent back under the Convention). If Kazimiras is one those "Conventionists", I am descended from that lost group and my family history fills in some of that unknown history (i.e. the family lived for about 20 years in independent Lithuania before being displaced by WWII and eventually settling in the US).
The other matter is that, according to this new information from Uncle Jimmy, there is another branch of the family, from the Kisielius line, living in the United States who I've never met either! I haven't even had the chance to contact the Raulinitis line here in Scotland (I've only been back for a couple days and I'm jet-lagged!), and now I might be uncovering so much more. Lots of really exciting work to be done!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)