Litauiske statsborgere i Norge 1940-45
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the presence of Lithuanian citizens in Norway during the Second World War, with the intent of distinguishing them from other displaced persons from Soviet controlled territories. It identifies 843 such individuals present in the country in 1945, based on information found in the archives left by the national repatriation authorities. This group consisted exclusively of men, and contained individuals with a variety of background stories. I counted among its ranks both volunteers, drafted personnel and victims of forced recruitment. All of them were organized in various German units. The majority of this national group was made up by ethnic Lithuanians, most of who were recruited for labor service against their will. A smaller minority consisted of Lithuanians of German decent, who had become subject to German draft laws after the annexation of Memel in 1939. They served as soldiers in various units within the German Wehrmacht. Upon the German capitulation, the group of Lithuanians found themselves in a situation where a large number of them were given the opportunity to resist repatriation and instead chose relocation in the west. This was due to the way the western allies interpreted the Jalta agreement, which in their mind did not extend forced repatriation to citizens from nations occupied by the Soviet Union after the outbreak of war. A large number of Lithuanians chose relocation, and this sparked considerable controversy in the early postwar years. The Soviet Union was fiercely opposed to the western interpretation of the Jalta agreement, and demanded the extradition of every individual whose home was located within their borders of 1945. Allied authorities in the west refused such repatriation, and the conflict reached considerable levels in Norway. The group of Lithuanians was at the center of this controversy, since they refused repatriation in large numbers. This widespread unwillingness to return home has been seen by some historians as an indication that a large number of these people feared reprisals upon their return, as a result of collaboration or even participation in war crimes. This perception can find support in claims made by some authors that Lithuanians were overrepresented among the Wehrmacht soldiers who volunteered as guards in POW-camps, and that Lithuanians were among the preferred nationalities when the Germans recruited such guards from the prisoner population. Such allegations were also forwarded by the Soviet authorities during the conflict over repatriation, but were all dismissed by the allied authorities. This study has tried to uncover any indications that the Lithuanians in Norway participated in war crimes or wide spread collaboration, but has not lead to any information that can support such claims. It seems that the determining factors when making the choice weather to return or not, rather were tied to the age and family situation of the individual. Older men with a wife and children in Lithuania tended to want to go back, while younger men without such commitments tended to choose relocation to the west. The vast majority of these wanted to be sent to the United States or Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".