Jews in the Economic Structure of Lithuania

Jews in the Economic Structure of Lithuania Gediminas Vaskela 1 Statistical Data on the Social and Economic Status of the Lithuanians and the Jews When discussing the place of Jews in Lithuania’s interwar economy, references are usually made to the general census of 1923. The census material contains two pages on the distribution of the population according to branch of economy, social group and nationality.1 The data allows us to state that in 1923, Jews were responsible for 77 per cent of trade, and 22 per cent of industrial enterprises in Lithuania. During the interwar period, non-Lithuanians accounted for over 82 per cent of the country’s business. The breakdown according nationality was: Russians 0.85 per cent, Poles 1 per cent, Germans 1.46 per cent, Lithuanians 17.89 per cent, and Jews 78.89 per cent.2 With regard to the census data, J. Bolelis wrote in 1936: The first and the only general census in Lithuania was held in 1923. Another three years elapsed while the census data was processed and published in official publications of the Statistics Bureau. However, the material has been little exploited with regard to the economic activity of Lithuanian Jews, although it is of great value and interest even now, 13 years after the census. Of course, much has changed during this period, but when we speak of the social-economic structure of Lithuanian Jews, we still have to refer to the data of 1923.3 He then points out that, according to the census, 30 per cent of Jews were engaged in trade, 22 per cent worked in industry or crafts, 5 per cent were civil servants in state or public institutions or were engaged in the liberal professions, 3 per cent were employed in transport, and 34 per cent engaged in other activities. Bolelis maintained that, in general, Jews dominated the country’s 1 Lietuvos gyventojai: pirmojo 1923 m. rugsėjo 17 d. visuotinio gyventojų surašymo duomenys (Finansų ministerija: csb, 1923), 295–296. 2 Liudas Truska and Vygantas Vareikis, Holokausto prielaidos: antisemitizmas Lietuvoje (Vilnius: Margi raštai, 2004), 43, 144. 3 J. Bolelis “Socijališkai ekonominė Lietuvos žydų struktūra”, Apžvalga, 36(65), 1936, 4. © verlag ferdinand schöningh, ���� | doi:10.30965/9783657705757_019 Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig �93 Jews in the Republic of Lithuania Table �4 Social group Sphere of activity Total Agriculture Industry Transport and communications Trade State institutions and public organisations Other areas of activity Jews in the economically active population by sphere of activity and social group in 1923, in per cent* Total Owners and administrators Civil servants Workers Family members of owners and administrators 6.08 0.46 21.34 18.00 12.13 0.63 27.29 77.67 3.26 0.49 21.25 77.55 9.94 1.66 35.72 1.98 4.81 0.19 17.40 11.64 77.50 9.40 83.20 31.90 90.04 – 40.12 7.41 58.04 5.99 25.13 35.02 33.21 14.69 10.67 * Calculations are based on: Lietuvos gyventojai: pirmojo 1923 m. rugsėjo 17 d. visuotinio gyventojų surašymo duomenys, pp. 295–296. trade (they made up over three-quarters of all traders) and “occupied an honourable position” in industry, and especially in crafts and transport, and as representatives of liberal professions. However, they played a very insignificant role in agriculture.4 In 1936, Albertas Tarulis (1906–1964) voiced a similar opinion in the daily Verslas.5 Several years later, in the article “Lietuvos pramonė ir lietuvių įsigalėjimas joje” (Lithuanian Industry and the Establishment of Lithuanians in it), Domas Micuta (1895–1992) agreed with Tarulis.6 The general census of 1923 was no doubt an extremely informative source for defining the position of Jews in the economic structure of interwar Lithuania. (A concise summary of the data is given in Table 24.) 4 Ibid. 5 A. Tarulis, “Kokia vieta dabar tenka lietuviams prekyboje ir pramonėje?”, Verslas, 1936, no. 26(228), 4. 6 D. Micuta, “Lietuvos pramonė ir lietuvių įsigalėjimas joje”, Verslas, 1939, no. 35–36 (413–414), 6. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig �94 PART 3 Sphere of activity The statistics from the interwar period should not be regarded as exhaustive or exact. As for the census, the data indicates clearly how different the social structure of the Jews was compared to other residents of Lithuania (see Charts 1 and 2). The outcome of historical circumstances, it was very dangerous from a political point of view, because it made competition between Jews and other residents, primarily Lithuanians, inevitable. This was especially true of trade, which was associated in the public consciousness with profiteering, machinations and sharp practices. Sooner or later, tensions of this kind had to develop into a more serious conflict. The situation was similar in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. In December 1926, every fifth private trader in Bolshevik Russia was a Jew. In Moscow, Jews owned 75.4 per cent of the pharmacies, 54.6 per cent of perfumeries, 48.6 per cent of drapers, and 39.4 of haberdashery shops. Out of 2,469 large nepmen in Moscow, 810 were Jews (32.81 per cent). The number of Jewish businesspeople in private trade was even larger in the western regions: in Ukraine they amounted to 66 per cent, and in Belarus 90 per cent. In Lithuania, an economic and social structure characteristic of the beginning of independence came about in the early 20th century. Its main feature was that Lithuanians were still basically a peasant nation, with a small intelligentsia. The economy was agrarian by nature, and although the urban population was small, the number of Jews in it was disproportionally high, and came to about a third. Different calculations show that before the First World War, up to 53 per cent of industrialists and 74 per –1,87 Trade –2,04 Other spheres of activity –1,38 Industry –0,16 Transport and communications –0,11 State institutions and public organizations 27,64 26,27 15,46 Lithuanians Jews 1,85 1.77 5,56 –72,99 Agriculture –40 –20 0 20 40 –80 –60 Engaged in the sphere of activity in comparison with the country’s average, percentage points Chart 1 The distribution of Jews and Lithuanians according to area of activity in comparison with the structure of all economically active inhabitants, in per cent Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig �95 Jews in the Republic of Lithuania 1,66 Family members of owners and administrators –21,99 0,42 Social group Workers –5,04 Lithuanians Jews –0,17 Civil servants 2,03 –1,91 Owners and administrators 25,00 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 Share of the social group in comparison with the country’s average, percentage points Chart � The social distribution of Lithuanians and Jews compared with the distribution of all economically active inhabitants, in per cent cent of traders were Jews, who were traditionally engaged in trade and crafts.7 The situation began to change during the years of independence. While many Lithuanians were attracted to the cities, the number of Jews dropped during the First World War. The government made use of the country’s very modest resources in its efforts to speed up economic development. Consequently, the ranks of Lithuanian workers, civil servants, specialists and also businesspeople started growing. Nonetheless, the highly contrasting and potentially very dangerous difference between the social structure of the Jews on one hand, and other residents on the other, survived right up to the end of independence. 2 The Role of Jews in Industry and Trade during the Formative Years of the State Before the reestablishment of independence, neither Lithuania Major nor Lithuania Minor had large cities with much industrial potential. The metal, leather and beer industries in Lithuania Major, and cellulose and veneer factories and companies engaged in shipbuilding and refitting in Lithuania Minor, 7 Liudas Truska, “Lietuvių verslininkų sąjunga ir verslų ‘atlietuvinimo’ sąjūdis, 1930–1940”, Istorija lviii (2003): 39. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig �96 PART 3 had some importance in catering to remoter markets. Of course, there were sawmills, mills, brickyards, small tobacco and distillery businesses, but these were not big, and aimed exclusively at the local market, of which the size was rather limited, due to the low purchasing power of residents. Even these small manufacturers were under pressure from Russian industry; and goods that were usually cheaper and of better quality came from neighbouring Germany. The new Lithuania arose at a time when war directed the focus from a free and liberal economic model to a balance of private and public interests. A system which is often called state-regulated capitalism emerged, and established itself in Europe from the 1930s to the 1950s. The tasks that the Lithuanian state had to deal with during the interwar period were very similar to those that all states faced which had emerged after the First World War and started to develop from almost nowhere: the consolidation of independence, the development of their education system, nurturing their own specialists in politics, science, warfare and the economy, vocational training, and modernising their economy and speeding up its development. In the process of drafting parameters for economic development, Lithuania’s leaders took an objective look at the country’s possibilities. In their understanding, the key aim was to modernise agriculture, and, with this in mind, to accumulate resources to create an agricultural products processing industry. Financially and economically, the period before 1923 was favourable to the development of industry. However, in 1919 and 1920, military action took place, and later the situation in Lithuania was not stable enough to attract local and foreign investors. The main investors were the Jews of the towns and cities (they invested their own capital, or that of Jews living abroad) and American Lithuanians (the capital of prosperous Lithuanians in the usa was invested mostly by local Lithuanians), and a few foreigners. A fairly large number of various small trading, financial and industrial enterprises were founded during the first years of independence. The Lithuanians were not too keen on engaging in business, and especially in industry. A lot of well-off Lithuanians preferred to build houses for themselves or buy farms, for they found trade and industry too risky, unknown and off-putting. It is therefore understandable that many of those who were inclined towards business, including some who understood the basics of economics, simply did not have the money to start a business. Initially there was a lot of optimism. People expected trade and industry to gain momentum, that there would be more jobs, that the growing industry would use local resources to meet the country’s demand for goods, and that imports would decline. However, although both large and small companies sprang up rapidly during the first years of independence, they “collapsed” equally rapidly, thus incurring considerable losses for the state and private individuals. The Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig Jews in the Republic of Lithuania �97 reasons for the collapse of most of the newly founded companies were clear: (1) the lack of skills and experience; (2) the lack of resources; (3) over-ambitiousness; (4) corruption and dishonesty among managers; (5) competition from foreign manufacturers; and (6) inflation. Large amounts of money invested by local and American Lithuanians were lost when companies went bankrupt, which was a crippling moral blow that put many people off business.8 There were, of course, bankruptcies among companies that were established by Jews, but the business skills of their owners and administrators, and their experience, were greater. Even during the interwar period, Jewish writers claimed that, compared to the new Lithuanian businesspeople, Jews had invested much larger sums of their own money, which provided them with a strong incentive to conduct their business efficiently. That is why quite many Jewish companies managed to survive. The Jews believed that their activities “strengthened home production, organised the country’s industry, and saved the currency from collapse. The role of trading was equally important”.9 The problem was that, for many Lithuanians, even this relative success by Jewish entrepreneurs triggered associations with the Jewish sharpness that was so firmly entrenched in their consciousness. Differences between Jewish and Lithuanian approaches to business became evident during the first years of the independent state. In trade, most Lithuanians went into food and essential commodities, mainly because it did not require much capital, turnover was fairly high, the goods were familiar, and there was less risk involved. However, this area of trade was less profitable, and offered few opportunities for growth, because it provided services to a limited number of people in any one location. The trade in clothing, fuel, leather goods, footwear, paper goods, and several other commodities remained basically in the hands of the Jews. Although these areas required more start-up capital, which the Lithuanians lacked, they provided much better business opportunities. In general terms, it became evident just after the reestablishment of independence that Lithuania was short of capital, and of people capable of developing business on a large scale. The government and economics experts did not think it was right to expect the private sector to boost the economy. The government encouraged private initiatives, but hopes were pinned on state capital, especially in key branches of the economy. Along with agriculture, the restructuring of which attracted the most time and resources, the decision was made in the early 1920s to develop branches of industry that processed agricultural produce, and branches which manufactured commodities for local 8 See: “Dir. A. Vosyliaus paskaita, skaityta verslininkams 1937 12 03”, Verslas, 1937, no. 50 (304), 2. 9 Iksas, “Lietuviai ir žydai miesto versluose (Lietuvių verslininkų 5 metų sukaktuvių proga)”, Apžvalga, 1935, no. 20, 2. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig �98 PART 3 demand, primarily the textile industry. This last aspect of economic policy became evident in the 1930s, when, having recovered from the hardships, and showing healthy growth, the nation’s economy offered better financial opportunities for economic manoeuvre. It was also necessary due to the changed circumstances both of international trade and of agriculture, which had undergone considerable transformations. The state and its institutions were often the largest contracting authority, in contracts with the army, the transport system and other needs. Although in the global market the food trade was not as difficult as industry, the export of food was a difficult and complex business. A breakthrough could be brought about only by improving the quality of output and cutting prices. Had the government not founded central agricultural organisations, had it not organised cooperatives which operated as public limited companies, and had it not introduced strict export controls, the results of economic development would have been much poorer. The government began to invest in enterprises and banks during the first years of independence. Eventually, state capital was mostly put into branches of industry which processed and exported agricultural produce. It played a significant role in the activities of banks and credit institutions. When analysing Lithuanian-Jewish relations during the interwar period, it is impossible to overlook the fact that greater importance was attached to the economic sphere than was usual in relations between nationalities. This was pointed out by Rudolfas Valsonokas (1889–1945), who wrote that: “When there are no struggles and conflicts in the field of culture, the clashes of interests shift exclusively to the plane of economic and social relations”.10 When speaking of the role of Jews in the Lithuanian economy, it is worth stressing that, from a historical perspective, Jews played the role of the socalled third estate almost until the early 20th century. According to the Jews themselves: … politically, they protected Lithuanian cities from Polonisation until after the rebirth of independent Lithuania when the national Lithuanian bourgeoisie started taking shape. During the interwar years, it matured sufficiently to determine the appearance of Lithuanian cities, and the Jews do not deny this right and the justified interest in Lithuanianising the cities, just as they are positive towards the consolidation of the Lithuanian state. In no way do they express a wish to turn back the clock of history.11 10 11 R. Valsonokas, “Žydai Lietuvos ūky”, Apžvalga, 1935, no. 2, 2. S. Vinkleris, “Išsiaiškinant iš esmės: Priešžydiškiems vėjams pučiant”, Apžvalga, 1939, no. 4, 3–4. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig Jews in the Republic of Lithuania �99 According to Jacob Lestschinski (1876–1966), as the economy grew, the Jews may not have felt that state capitalism and cooperation threatened their situation, or that they were preparing the ground for private Lithuanian shopkeepers or merchants; but as soon as the crisis erupted, they immediately felt it: … in ten years, a poor small nation of farmers has created an intelligentsia, new social classes, new forms of economic life, and a state apparatus which does its job fairly well, and which has managed to concentrate in its hands such a hefty share of the nation’s assets and such a significant part of economic life that it controls its inhabitants more economically than politically; they have failed to realise that when a state with such broad economic functions becomes a nation-state, the state of a national majority, then the conditions change radically, and the minority has to fight for its existence.12 3 Changes in the Social-economic Structure in the 1930s From 1928, the Lithuanian statistical services began to provide more accurate and exhaustive data on the economy. In 1928, in terms of the number of business licenses issued in industry (including crafts, because at that time the law did not distinguish between them), Lithuanians owned 31 per cent of companies, Jews 64 per cent, and all others (including foreigners) 5 per cent. In 1933, Lithuanians had 37 per cent, Jews 54 per cent, foreigners and individuals of other nationalities 18 per cent, of the business licenses; while a year later, in 1934, Lithuanians held 40 per cent, Jews 52 per cent, and all others 8 per cent, of the business licenses.13 In 1935, out of 11,904 business licenses in industry, 6,457 (or 54.24 per cent) were held by Lithuanians. The total number of workers came to 34,306, of whom 15,774 (or 45.98 per cent) worked for Lithuanian companies. Jews owned 4,854 enterprises (40.78 per cent), which employed 16,441 workers (47.92 per cent). Individuals of other nationalities (including foreigners) owned 593 companies (4.98 per cent), which employed 2,091 workers (6.1 per cent).14 12 13 14 J. Lestschinski, “Apie ekonominę žydų būklę Lietuvoje”, Apžvalga, 1935, no. 21, 3. D. Micuta, “Apie lietuvius versluose”, Verslas, 1935, no. 7 (157), 2. K. Vytenis, “Lietuvos pramonės įmonės rūšimis”, Verslas, 1936, no. 21 (223), 4. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig 300 PART 3 K. Vytenis, who published this information in the interwar press, pointed out that the information about Jewish companies was quite accurate, while the data on other enterprises was not so accurate; and also that Lithuanian capital included “mixed” companies, of Lithuanian and foreign capital.15 A. Tarulis observed that these figures could not give a true picture of industry, because the cooperative, municipal and state enterprises run by Lithuanians did not purchase business licenses. In 1935, there were 250 dairies, and about 1,800 milk skimming stations, each of which employed at least one hired worker (there were also mobile skimming stations with several workers each). Each dairy employed three hired workers on average, and some had a staff of over ten. Thus, over 2,500 people worked in dairies and milk skimming stations alone. To this figure we should add the municipal electricity generating stations, peatbogs, brickyards and sawmills, and state metal, machinery and other workshops, the number of which was about 50, and which employed about 2,500 people. It turns out that in 1935 there were 12,200 enterprises in all (excluding milk skimming stations), which employed up to 39,000 people. Lithuanians ran 6,750 companies with 21,000 employees, Jews ran 4,850 companies with 16,000 employees, and other owners ran 600 companies with 2,000 workers (foreigners ran 15 companies with 550 workers).16 This means that in 1935, Lithuanians controlled not 54 per cent but over 55 per cent of industrial enterprises, which employed not 46 per cent but almost 54 per cent of the workers. Consequently, not close to 41 per cent of industrial enterprises and almost 48 per cent of employees, but just under 40 per cent of the enterprises and 41 per cent of the employees should be attributed to the Jews. According to the calculations of Domas Micuta, who was the director of the Central Bureau of Statistics from 1928 to 1941, in 1933 Lithuanians owned 46 per cent, Jews 48 per cent, and all others 6 per cent of industrial enterprises. In 1935, Lithuanians owned 52 per cent, Jews 43 per cent, and others 5 per cent of industrial and crafts companies. In 1938, the figures were 53 per cent, 42 per cent, and 5 per cent, respectively.17 Of the capital invested, in the mid-1930s more than a half fell to the Lithuanians (including state, municipal and half-public enterprises). Companies such as large brickyards, metal and machinery plants, mechanical and electrical workshops, flax and wool spinning and weaving mills, printing presses, mills, 15 16 17 Ibid. Tarulis, “Kokia vieta dabar tenka lietuviams prekyboje ir pramonėje?”, 4. Micuta, “Lietuvos pramonė ir lietuvių įsigalėjimas joje”, 6. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig Jews in the Republic of Lithuania 301 sugar factories, meat processing enterprises, dairies and electricity generating stations (branches of industry requiring expensive equipment) were more or less in the hands of the Lithuanians. On the other hand, even in the 1930s, there were branches of industry and crafts in which the share of Lithuanian capital remained insignificant. Of these, mention should be made of chemical, leather and haberdashery, and clothing and footwear industries, where larger Lithuanian-owned companies were very few. Nor did Lithuanians venture into branches of business which seemingly did not even require much capital. For example, Lithuanians owned 50 small registered tin enterprises, while Jews had 250. Among watchmakers, there were 70 Lithuanians, and 130 Jews. Only ten Lithuanian and as many as 120 Jewish companies were engaged in the manufacture of leather goods. In rope production, there were 15 Lithuanian companies and 110 Jewish ones. Of the bakeries registered at the time, Lithuanians owned 480, and Jews owned 1,000. Forty Lithuanian and 360 Jewish companies were registered in the manufacture of haberdashery goods. There were 30 Lithuanian and 300 Jewish companies manufacturing hats and caps.18 Complaints were even voiced that these branches did not require much capital or complex equipment or machinery, and still there was no influx of Lithuanians. According to Micuta, Lithuanians owned 33 per cent and Jews 63 per cent of trading companies, in terms of the number of business licenses issued in 1934; although in the narrow sense of the word, the position of the Lithuanians in trade was modest, with 28 or 29 per cent, while Jews owned 68 per cent of trading companies.19 Jewish capital was particularly prominent in the drapery trade. In 1934, Jews owned 800 out of the 900 drapery shops. Only seven shops belonging to the Drobė joint stock company, six agricultural cooperatives, five user companies and nine shops belonging to Lithuanian merchants were backed by Lithuanian capital.20 As has already been mentioned, approximate estimates were made (and still are) of the distribution of retail trading companies according to the nationality of the owners, on the basis of the trading business licenses purchased in one year. In 1935, 22,000 licenses were purchased, of which 8,700 (almost 40 per cent) went to Lithuanians, 12,500 (close to 57 per cent) to Jews, and 800 (3.6 per cent) to others. The weighting in favour of the Lithuanians was adjusted 18 19 20 Tarulis, “Kokia vieta dabar tenka lietuviams prekyboje ir pramonėje?”. Micuta, “Apie lietuvius versluose”. It is very likely that the number of employees, capital and turnover of goods were borne in mind. Ibid. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig 30� PART 3 by data on the cooperative trading companies (consumer, agricultural), of which there were about 225 in 1935. In the mid-1930s, Lithuanian trading companies made up 40 per cent, those of Jews 56 per cent, and all others four per cent. Meanwhile, in 1923, 2,160 (12 per cent) trading companies were owned by Lithuanians, 13,799 (84 per cent) by Jews, and 626 (4 per cent) by other nationalities, including foreigners. Thus, during a period of 12 years, the number of trading companies grew by a third, while by the mid-1930s Lithuanians were running not 12 per cent, but 40 per cent of companies. During the period, the number of Lithuanian traders grew by four times, and the number of Jewish traders dropped by about ten per cent (partly due to emigration to Palestine).21 In 1935, there were 1,800 Lithuanian and 1,600 Jewish food trading companies. Lithuanians owned 1,100 tea rooms, hotels, restaurants, and so on, and Jews 800. In the book and newspaper trade, the numbers were 200 and 50 respectively. In pharmaceuticals and toiletries, it was 210 and 140. In the retail trade in general, 3,930 companies were owned by Jews, and 2,325 by Lithuanians, making 56 and 40 per cent.22 The role of the state was much more important in foreign trade than in retail trade. Competitors of private traders, semi-public and public companies such as Maistas, Pienocentras and Lietūkis, grew with the support of the state. These corporations robbed private merchants, Jews in particular, of spheres from which they could expect considerable profits, provided they had the energy, stamina, acumen, experience and capital. Experience convinced the government and most Lithuanians that the concentration of foreign trade in single hands was expedient and necessary. In addition, these corporations trained the Lithuanian labour force in trading (from heads of departments at headquarters and representatives abroad to purchasers and sorters on site), which was very positive in the eyes of Lithuanian society. In 1935, the total value of Lithuanian exports was 152 million litas. Of this amount, 32 million litas was earned by Maistas, about 27 million by Pienocentras, and about 21 million by Lietūkis.23 Only minor categories of goods were not covered by these large corporations: wood and timber, flax and linseed, clover and other less important goods. The export of these goods was handled by various small companies in the 1930s, of which only a few were Lithuanian. In this way, Lithuanians handled 55 to 60 per cent, and Jews up to 40 per cent, of the country’s total exports. Bearing in mind the efforts of Lietūkis to take over the export of flax, and the expanding operations of Maistas and 21 22 23 Tarulis, “Kokia vieta dabar tenka lietuviams prekyboje ir pramonėje?”. Ibid. Ibid. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig Jews in the Republic of Lithuania 303 Pienocentras, we can claim that there were hopes of reducing the Jewish share of exports even more. In the import trade, which at that time was referred to simply as the wholesale trade, Jewish traders played a much more important role (although the almost 40 per cent of exports mentioned cannot be considered insignificant). At the time, Lietūkis was the only Lithuanian wholesaler. In 1935, its imports totalled 20 million litas, and consisted of all imports of fertilizers and salt, 35 per cent of cement, 30 per cent of oil products, and 10 per cent of coal. The quantities of other goods imported by Lietūkis were insignificant. Thus, by the mid-1930s, Lietūkis concentrated 15 per cent of the wholesale trade in its hands; although four-fifths of the trade was still in the hands of private owners, the absolute majority of whom were Jews.24 It seems that a revision of this figure is hardly possible. One thing is clear, though: with the exception of Lietūkis, there were practically no genuine wholesalers in the country’s import trade; there were just companies which had a monopoly on trade in one commodity or another. There is no data showing what share of the 129 million litas of imports went to Lithuanian businesspeople, state institutions, corporations, Jews and their companies, or other importers. 4 The Eve of the Loss of Statehood: 1938–1940 The last years of the existence of the Republic of Lithuania were marked by growing ethnic tensions, especially between Lithuanians and Jews. The deteriorating Lithuanian-Jewish relations cannot be explained either as a result of the changes in the ethnic structure of the economy, or, even less, solely as a consequence of changes in the ethnic structure of the economy. It goes without saying that an analysis of the quantitative indicators in the industrial and trade sectors shows that, along with the overall growth in industry and trade, the Lithuanian share was expanding in the 1930s, and the Jewish share was shrinking. However, we should not claim that the overall growth in industry or trade was exclusively related to the growth in Lithuanian capital (public and private). Let us take industry as an example. Estimates show that from 1933 to 1938, the number of Jewish-owned enterprises in Lithuania Major grew from 2,637 to 6,577, that is, by 2.49 times; while at the same time the number of Lithuanian-owned enterprises increased from 2,538 to 8,410, or 3.31 times. During the same period, the number of employees in Jewish companies rose from 24 Ibid. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig 304 PART 3 16,450 to 23,990 (1.46 times), and in Lithuanian companies from 11,400 to 25,500 (2.24 times).25 These figures show a more rapid rise in the Lithuanian share in industry, but it did not happen at the expense of the Jews, although some people hold this view. Obviously, the data given shows that in the late 1930s, Lithuanians were in charge of most industrial enterprises, although the ratio of employees was not the same as the ratio of enterprises. Calculations of the value of industrial output show that 50 per cent of Lithuanian industry was Lithuanian-owned, and about 40 per cent Jewish-owned.26 In fact, with the loss of Klaipėda region and the recovery of the Vilnius region, the number of Jews rose. There were about 100,000 Jews in the Vilnius region.27 These figures are approximate, of course. However, there is some information about the Vilnius region. According to the Jews who lived in Vilnius, they made up 35 per cent of all craftspeople, and owned as much as 47 per cent of the trade and industry. About a quarter of the smiths, a fifth of the carpenters, a third of the metalworkers, and half of all the dressmakers in the Vilnius region were Jews. Jews made up 80 per cent of whitesmiths, 90 per cent of hatters, and 30 per cent of shoemakers. In the clothing industry, Jews made up 90 per cent, and in underwear manufacturing around 62 per cent. In addition, Jews owned 73 per cent of private, and about 11 per cent of cooperative, stores. There were 35 per cent of Jews among porters, and 47 per cent among carters. Jews comprised about 55 per cent of all employers in Vilnius.28 Again, these figures are approximate. Following the annexation of the Klaipėda region by Germany, Lithuania lost 6 or 7 per cent of its agricultural production, 9 or 10 per cent of its national revenue, and about 27 per cent of its industry and trade.29 The Jewish population in the Klaipėda Region was not numerous: the number mentioned in 1935 was 6,000 to 8,000 people.30 It is assumed that about 5,000 of them had moved to Klaipėda from Lithuania Major.31 Bearing in mind the relatively higher economic capacity of the Klaipėda region, and the fact that the influence of Jews in its economy was lower, the importance of Jews both in Lithuania Major and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Micuta, “Lietuvos pramonė ir lietuvių įsigalėjimas joje”. Ibid. R. Rubinšteinas, “Su kuo mes einame pas Vilniaus žydus”, Apžvalga, 1939, no. 37 (202), 3. “Įdomios žinios apie Vilniaus žydus”, Verslas, 1940, no. 20 (450), 8. Lietuvos statistikos metraštis, vol. 11 (1938), 13; Statistikos biuletenis, vol. 3 (185) (Kaunas: Centrinis statistikos biuras, 1939), 91; Kazimieras Meškauskas et al., eds., Lietuvos pramonė ikisocialistiniu laikotarpiu (Vilnius: Mintis, 1976), 407–410. “Prof. Römeris apie žydų ir lietuvių santykius”, Apžvalga, 1935, no. 1, 1; “Iš Klaipėdos pajūrio”, Apžvalga, 1935, no. 1, 2. Vinkleris, “Išsiaiškinant iš esmės. Priešžydiškiems vėjams pučiant”, 4. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig Jews in the Republic of Lithuania 305 later in the territory including the Vilnius region but without Klaipėda was slightly higher if compared to the indicators for the mid-1930s. Although in the late 1930s the comparative influence of Jews in the Lithuanian economy was declining, their role in the economy and in the liberal professions remained substantial. They controlled about 40 per cent of the country’s industry (and a large share of the crafts: in 1938, out of 12,461 craftspeople, about 7,000, or 56 per cent, were Jews), more than half of the retail trade, about 20 per cent of exports, and over a third of imports. Many Jews practised the liberal professions. In 1937, out of 798 doctors practising in Lithuania, 341 (or 42.73 per cent) were Jews. There were many Jews in the legal profession.32 Between 27 and 29 September 1940, 1,138 trading companies were nationalised. Data exists on 1,057 companies, or 92.88 per cent of the total number of nationalised companies. The annual turnover of these enterprises was close to 395.6 million litas. Of them, 778 companies (or 74 per cent) with an annual turnover of almost 267.9 million litas (68 per cent) belonged to Jews.33 5 General Data on the Place and Significance of Jews in the Lithuanian Economy According to estimates by economists and historians, the national revenue of Lithuania in current prices was 1,266.9 million litas in 1924, 1,165.9 million litas in 1938, and 1,259.1 million litas in 1939. In 1924, agriculture yielded 785.5 million litas in national income, 539.3 million litas in 1938, and 577.9 million litas in 1939.34 Thus, the comparative weight of agricultural produce in the national income was 61.7 per cent in 1924, 46.3 per cent in 1938, and 45.9 per cent in 1939. In the mid-1930s, Lithuanians made up 60 to 65 per cent of the urban population, and 85 per cent of the rural population (including small towns). Jews comprised 20 to 25 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. In general, at that time, the urban population accounted for 15 per cent, and the rural population for 32 33 34 Truska, “Lietuvių verslininkų sąjunga”, 40; Meškauskas, et al., eds., Lietuvos pramonė ikisocialistiniu laikotarpiu, 436. Material from 1940–1941 from the Industry and Transport Department of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lithuanian Special Archives (Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas, further lya), f. 1771, ap. 47, b. 1, l. 1–13, 26–58. In fact, the comparative influence of the Jews was greater, because as many as 191 companies (18.07 per cent) with an annual trade turnover of almost 81.6 million litas had to be attributed to the category of “other unknown owners”, and there can be no doubt that some of them were Jews. Meškauskas, et al, eds., Lietuvos pramonė ikisocialistiniu laikotarpiu, 408. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig 306 PART 3 85 per cent.35 Around four-fifths of the economically active population worked in agriculture, the remaining fifth in other branches of the economy. It is possible to say that half the nation’s revenue came from the fifth of the population that was engaged in activities other than agriculture, and the other half from the four-fifths engaged in agriculture. Although this data is not very accurate, it is sufficient for an evaluation of the importance of the Jews in Lithuania’s economy in the interwar period. It is important, because usually references are made to non-agricultural branches of the economy, or only to industry and trade (and occasionally transport and finance). However, neither agricultural capital nor the value created by this branch of the economy or the revenue and profit can be ignored. It is mentioned above that, according to data from the 1923 general census, Jews amounted to only 0.46 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture. This figure did not change throughout the whole interwar period. We can make the assumption that during the interwar period, up to 0.5 per cent of the total revenue from agriculture came from Jews. This figure cannot have been higher, because there were only a few large land-owning Jews, and most Jews’ farms were very small. During the early years of independence, Jews could have run 70 to 75 per cent of the non-agricultural industry. By the late 1930s, this figure had dropped to 40 or 45 per cent. These figures are rather approximate (the former is based on expert opinions and on data from the 1923 general census, the latter on statistical data). But the assumption that companies belonging to Lithuanian Jews created a respective share of the non-agricultural national product seems to be well-founded. Speaking in very general terms, in 1924 Jews created 27 to 29 per cent of the total national revenue of Lithuania, and in 1938 and 1939 slightly less, at 22 to 25 per cent. Lithuanians, to whom traditionally, although not quite accurately, are attributed state, municipal and cooperative companies, created 65 to 70 per cent of the total national revenue in the late 1930s. If Jews and Lithuanians who were engaged in non-agricultural branches of the economy were economically equally able, then theoretically, Lithuanians would have accounted for 70 to 75 per cent of the overall economic structure, Jews would have accounted for around 15 per cent, and others for about 10 per cent. … 35 Lietuvos statistikos metraštis, vol. 3: 1929–1930, 6–7, 10–16; vol. 4: 1931, 7–9; vol. 5: 1932, 7–8; vol. 8: 1935, 1–14; vol. 9: 1939, 13–16; vol. 10: 1937, 13–14; vol. 11: 1938, 13–14; vol. 12: 1939, 13–14. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig Jews in the Republic of Lithuania 307 Due to historical circumstances, Lithuanian Jews lived mostly in towns and cities. They were not engaged in agriculture. No effort to level out the social differences (including differences in the economic structure) can be directly linked to the ratios of the ethnic structure of the inhabitants. It is obvious that even when Lithuanians had mastered various businesses, the number of Jews among residents of towns and cities had to be higher than the number among all residents. The same, only on a much larger scale, applies when speaking of the Jews’ share in capital, gross domestic product, and national revenue. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, und Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė - 978-3-657-70575-7 Heruntergeladen von Brill.com05/04/2021 08:59:36PM via Universitat Leipzig