In soviet Lithuania, as well as all Soviet Union, education was oriented towards “bright future”: towards communism building, creation of new soviet man. Both schooling practice and theory were directed towards this. History science was forced to serve the ideology (Švedas, 2009). Historians of Soviet pedagogy were also interested in the past of Lithuanian education only in the context of the class struggle or on purpose of showing the “backwardness of bourgeois Lithuania”. The situation changed in the end of the ninth decade, in the daybreak of independence. There emerged many articles analysing the history of education, republication of the pedagogues’ texts of the end of the 19th c. – the first part of the 20th c. was initiated. Interest in the past of education intensified more when Lithuania restored its independence in 1990. After the analysis of some publications in educational academic journals, it can be seen that the articles, intended for the history of education, make a significant part of all publications. It is especially bright during the first years of independence, but the tendency is kept almost for the whole last decade of the 20th c. (Stonkuvienė, 2016). The main object of interest of the scientists and the whole society partial to education of that time was the pedagogics of the inter-war Lithuania. After the revision of academic publications and the articles of education science popularisation, it can be seen that the education of the inter-war Lithuania was considered the prototype of “lost paradise”, interpreted as “the golden age” of Lithuanian pedagogics which was interrupted by Soviet occupation. Meanwhile, the education of Soviet times and its researches became an original “infected zone” - Chernobyl. This period was described in this way by one scientist of older generation when he was asked why there were no greater academic studies analysing Soviet Lithuanian education in almost thirty years of independence.
One of the main questions raised in this report: Whether the “zone”, consciously avoided by the scientists (in this case, education historians), is indeed dangerous, whether the danger is imaginary, related to poor research?