June uprising significance transcends national history, says presidential advisor

As Lithuania approaches the 85th anniversary of the June Uprising, presidential advisor Jolanta Karpavičienė has stated that despite its darker aspects, the uprising holds profound significance that extends beyond national history.

“It was one of the first organized armed anti-occupation uprisings in Europe during the turmoil of World War II, so its importance transcends the boundaries of Lithuania’s national history,” Karpavičienė said at a conference dedicated to the 1941 June Uprising, held at the Seimas on Friday.

She emphasized that the uprising is a crucial and defining phenomenon in studying the reactions of small nations to occupation, totalitarian violence, and the loss of independence in 20th-century Europe.

According to Karpavičienė, a mature civil society must not ignore the dark chapters of the June Uprising’s history, but these facts should not overshadow the uprising itself as an act of resistance against Soviet occupation and an effort to preserve state sovereignty.

“The military units of the insurgents disrupted Soviet forces from carrying out executions or deporting a significant number of arrested political prisoners deep into the USSR, thereby saving many lives,” she stated.

Although the uprising did not achieve its primary goal of restoring stable Lithuanian independence, Karpavičienė noted that it laid important groundwork for later partisan resistance and the dissident movement.

“This was an inspiring step of an unbroken nation seeking to free itself from the shackles of occupation imposed by force. The struggle begun by the insurgents continued through the heroic partisan war, the February 16, 1949 Act of the Union of Lithuanian Freedom Fighters, the activities of dissidents, the Chronicle of the Catholic Church of Lithuania, and the Sąjūdis movement, ultimately leading us to the Lithuania of March 11,” she said.

Karpavičienė stressed the importance of historical memory as one of the most crucial elements of civic identity, societal resilience, and national security.

“This significance is particularly evident in today’s tense geopolitical context. Without shying away from the dark pages of history, let us remember the June Uprising as a testament to the astonishing power of the desire for freedom, resistance to injustice, and the determination to act,” she added.

Former Supreme Council-Reconstituent Seimas Chairman Vytautas Landsbergis, in a greeting sent to the conference from the hospital, stated that a shift is finally occurring in public discourse about the 1941 uprising.

“The Lithuanian uprising against the USSR was an honorable historical event. It is worthy of study and commemoration. It is likely that Lithuania, with this campaign, which could have served as an example to other small nations, will earn a significant place in 20th-century European history,” Landsbergis wrote.

Laurynas Kasčiūnas, chairman of the opposition Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats, recalled that historian Edvardas Gudavičius had described the June Uprising as one of the most glorious moments in Lithuanian history, a heroic deed of the nation. He placed June 23, 1941, alongside February 16, 1918, and March 11, 1990.

“The June Uprising showed that the fire of Lithuanian statehood and independence had not been extinguished. It existed, it burned in people’s decisions to act even when the circumstances were tragically difficult and the geopolitical situation seemed almost hopeless,” Kasčiūnas said.

“These are strong words, but they are not about a romanticized image of history. They are about the fact that at a critical moment, there were people who took responsibility to act. Not because they could foresee success, not because history promised them favorable conditions, but because the reality of occupation was unacceptable to them,” he stated.

Kasčiūnas noted that when discussing this period, history cannot be simplified. At that time, two totalitarian regimes clashed, raising many painful questions that must be addressed openly and responsibly.

“But historical honesty cannot