“仿匪”:苏联立陶宛对犯罪集团的模仿(1945-1957)

IF 0.1 Q4 HISTORY
Darius Indrišionis
{"title":"“仿匪”:苏联立陶宛对犯罪集团的模仿(1945-1957)","authors":"Darius Indrišionis","doi":"10.15388/LIS.2019.43.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the 1940s–1950s, the Supreme Court of the Lithuanian SSR solved 44 criminal cases of “banditry” (Article 59 part 3 of RSFSR Criminal Code of 1926) with some noticeable facts of mimesis: these bandits, during their raids, were trying to create an illusion to their victims that these raids were performed by Lithuanian partisans (freedom fighters) or by some Soviet oficials (militia officers, the “defenders of the People,” or Soviet army personnel). This article focuses on the mimesis of various criminal groups in Soviet Lithuania of the 1940s–1950s. The first issue to solve in this research is the problematic terminology used by the Soviets: the term bandit was oftenly used in Soviet ideological discourse: an attempt to intertwine anti-Soviet partisan operations (“political banditry,” according to Soviet terminology) and the activities of “simple criminals” (burglars, raiders, rapists, murderers – any of such organized groups were referred to as “criminal bandits” by Soviet terms) under a single dubious term – the banditry. An analysis of criminal raids performed by fake partisan (or fake Soviet) bandit groups showed that criminals were more often inclinded to appear as if they were Soviets rather than partisans (21 bandit group used the mimesis of partisans, and 27 bandit groups used the mimesis of Soviets, while there were also 4 bandit groups that used both roles: fake partisans during one raid and fake Soviets during another). This can be explained by the bandits’ avoidance of becoming the targets of partisan revenge or by a large number of various criminals that migrated to Soviet Lithuania from the eastern republics of the Soviet Union. It may also be explained in terms of simpler imitation: for these criminals, it was more difficult to imitate Lithuanian partisans than Soviet militia.The real widespread effect of this phenomenon cannot be easily revealed. As there several few different types of courts (Soviet military courts, the “People’s” courts) that could solve the criminal cases of various criminal bandits, it is not even possible to give a real number of all mimetic bandits that were active in Soviet Lithuania. Also, not every raid case was documented by the Soviet side; not every raid case was even reported to the Soviets. Sometimes, Lithuanian partisans used to catch and punish these criminals themselves – all these circumstances makes the task of stating the real number of bandit groups who used various mimesis techniques an unsolvable one. ","PeriodicalId":33054,"journal":{"name":"Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Imitating Bandits”: The Mimesis of Criminal Groups in Soviet Lithuania (1945–1957)\",\"authors\":\"Darius Indrišionis\",\"doi\":\"10.15388/LIS.2019.43.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the 1940s–1950s, the Supreme Court of the Lithuanian SSR solved 44 criminal cases of “banditry” (Article 59 part 3 of RSFSR Criminal Code of 1926) with some noticeable facts of mimesis: these bandits, during their raids, were trying to create an illusion to their victims that these raids were performed by Lithuanian partisans (freedom fighters) or by some Soviet oficials (militia officers, the “defenders of the People,” or Soviet army personnel). This article focuses on the mimesis of various criminal groups in Soviet Lithuania of the 1940s–1950s. The first issue to solve in this research is the problematic terminology used by the Soviets: the term bandit was oftenly used in Soviet ideological discourse: an attempt to intertwine anti-Soviet partisan operations (“political banditry,” according to Soviet terminology) and the activities of “simple criminals” (burglars, raiders, rapists, murderers – any of such organized groups were referred to as “criminal bandits” by Soviet terms) under a single dubious term – the banditry. An analysis of criminal raids performed by fake partisan (or fake Soviet) bandit groups showed that criminals were more often inclinded to appear as if they were Soviets rather than partisans (21 bandit group used the mimesis of partisans, and 27 bandit groups used the mimesis of Soviets, while there were also 4 bandit groups that used both roles: fake partisans during one raid and fake Soviets during another). This can be explained by the bandits’ avoidance of becoming the targets of partisan revenge or by a large number of various criminals that migrated to Soviet Lithuania from the eastern republics of the Soviet Union. It may also be explained in terms of simpler imitation: for these criminals, it was more difficult to imitate Lithuanian partisans than Soviet militia.The real widespread effect of this phenomenon cannot be easily revealed. As there several few different types of courts (Soviet military courts, the “People’s” courts) that could solve the criminal cases of various criminal bandits, it is not even possible to give a real number of all mimetic bandits that were active in Soviet Lithuania. Also, not every raid case was documented by the Soviet side; not every raid case was even reported to the Soviets. Sometimes, Lithuanian partisans used to catch and punish these criminals themselves – all these circumstances makes the task of stating the real number of bandit groups who used various mimesis techniques an unsolvable one. \",\"PeriodicalId\":33054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15388/LIS.2019.43.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/LIS.2019.43.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在20世纪40年代至50年代,立陶宛苏维埃社会主义共和国最高法院解决了44起“土匪”刑事案件(1926年俄罗斯苏维埃社会主义共和国刑法第59条第3部分),其中有一些明显的模仿事实:这些土匪在袭击期间试图给受害者制造一种错觉,使他们认为这些袭击是由立陶宛游击队(自由战士)或一些苏联官员(民兵军官,“人民的捍卫者”或苏联军队人员)进行的。本文主要研究了20世纪40年代至50年代苏联立陶宛各种犯罪集团的模仿。本研究要解决的第一个问题是苏联人使用的有问题的术语:“土匪”一词经常用于苏联的意识形态话语中:试图将反苏党派行动(按照苏联的术语称为“政治土匪”)与“简单罪犯”(窃贼、抢劫者、强奸犯、杀人犯——任何这类有组织的团体在苏联术语中都被称为“犯罪土匪”)的活动交织在一个可疑的术语下——土匪。对冒牌游击队(或冒牌苏联)盗匪组织进行的犯罪袭击的分析显示,罪犯更倾向于以苏联人而不是游击队员的身份出现(21个盗匪组织模仿游击队员,27个盗匪组织模仿苏联人,还有4个盗匪组织同时扮演两种角色:在一次袭击中假装游击队员,在另一次袭击中假装苏联人)。这可以解释为土匪避免成为党派报复的目标,也可以解释为从苏联东部各共和国移居到苏维埃立陶宛的大量各种罪犯。这也可以用简单的模仿来解释:对这些罪犯来说,模仿立陶宛游击队比模仿苏联民兵更难。这种现象的真正广泛影响是不容易揭示的。由于有几种不同类型的法院(苏联军事法院,“人民”法院)可以解决各种犯罪匪徒的刑事案件,因此甚至不可能给出在苏维埃立陶宛活跃的所有模仿匪徒的真实数量。此外,并不是每一个突袭事件都有苏联方面的记录;并不是所有的突袭都报告给了苏联。有时,立陶宛游击队员会亲自抓住并惩罚这些罪犯,所有这些情况使得统计使用各种模仿技术的强盗团伙的真实数量成为一个无法解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Imitating Bandits”: The Mimesis of Criminal Groups in Soviet Lithuania (1945–1957)
During the 1940s–1950s, the Supreme Court of the Lithuanian SSR solved 44 criminal cases of “banditry” (Article 59 part 3 of RSFSR Criminal Code of 1926) with some noticeable facts of mimesis: these bandits, during their raids, were trying to create an illusion to their victims that these raids were performed by Lithuanian partisans (freedom fighters) or by some Soviet oficials (militia officers, the “defenders of the People,” or Soviet army personnel). This article focuses on the mimesis of various criminal groups in Soviet Lithuania of the 1940s–1950s. The first issue to solve in this research is the problematic terminology used by the Soviets: the term bandit was oftenly used in Soviet ideological discourse: an attempt to intertwine anti-Soviet partisan operations (“political banditry,” according to Soviet terminology) and the activities of “simple criminals” (burglars, raiders, rapists, murderers – any of such organized groups were referred to as “criminal bandits” by Soviet terms) under a single dubious term – the banditry. An analysis of criminal raids performed by fake partisan (or fake Soviet) bandit groups showed that criminals were more often inclinded to appear as if they were Soviets rather than partisans (21 bandit group used the mimesis of partisans, and 27 bandit groups used the mimesis of Soviets, while there were also 4 bandit groups that used both roles: fake partisans during one raid and fake Soviets during another). This can be explained by the bandits’ avoidance of becoming the targets of partisan revenge or by a large number of various criminals that migrated to Soviet Lithuania from the eastern republics of the Soviet Union. It may also be explained in terms of simpler imitation: for these criminals, it was more difficult to imitate Lithuanian partisans than Soviet militia.The real widespread effect of this phenomenon cannot be easily revealed. As there several few different types of courts (Soviet military courts, the “People’s” courts) that could solve the criminal cases of various criminal bandits, it is not even possible to give a real number of all mimetic bandits that were active in Soviet Lithuania. Also, not every raid case was documented by the Soviet side; not every raid case was even reported to the Soviets. Sometimes, Lithuanian partisans used to catch and punish these criminals themselves – all these circumstances makes the task of stating the real number of bandit groups who used various mimesis techniques an unsolvable one. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信