How would you redraw the European borders?

[Jarl]

First of all, I was talking about the lands stolen from Belarus and Ukraina, or the Poles are so stupid that cannot understand, what is robbery? And what concerns the union with Lithuania, that is alright. But where do you see the union with Lithuania in the map, shown by ‘angel‘? I cannot see any union with Poland in that map. I can see only enlarged Poland and robbed Lithuania, or maybe I need some glasses? I would better choose to stay away from Poland than what we have today. Latvia did not need any union and is still alive.

No.I do not understand your bullshit. What robbery? One may say that Lithuania robbed Kievan Rus of most of its land.

In the East the conflict has started in April 1919, when Polish forces attacked Lithuania and USSR.

To take and protect territory that was inhabited by Poles in majority. Or Belarussians.Who both got there as a result of steady peaceful acculturation. Ethnic Lithuanians were by then a small minority in Vilnius. You forget that not ALL Lithuanians spoke Lithuanian and not all wanted inndependent Lithuania. Many favoured the return to the "Rzeczpospolita" variant.


The only alternative was to cede those lands to the Soviets. If not for 1919-1921 there would not be even a tiny indepeneden Lithuania. But another Sovier SSR. And goodbye "Lithuanian national movement". You should be thankful for this "roberry".


Anywy. I heard that talk 1000s times. Its typical of Lithuanian nationalists who just cant come to terms with the fact that parts of Lithuania and Lithuanian elites became polonised or rutenised at the times of "Rzeczpospolita". But you also forget that this was a peaceful process and all that happened afterwards draws its root from there.

[tiger]

I also heard that talk many times about the Poles, who tried to protect people from the Soviets and position of the independent Lithuania was much stronger when Poland ruled eastern lands. But wait a minute. Why did you choose a military intrusion instead of a peaceful plebiscite, if you were so sure about your legacy in the east? It was exactly the same what Nazi Germany made with Czechoslovakia. Moreover, Lithuanian language was banned in Poland. Ethnic Lithuanians could not get social guarantees, treatment, etc. This was one another reason why ratio of ‘the Poles’ reached such high level in the annexed area. Do not forget how you ‘loved’ German minority in the west. In fact, Poland was just another aggressive country ruled by nationalists and its policy caused corresponding reaction from its neighbors.

[Jebivjetar]

I would restore the boundaries of August 1939: cut off Poland's access to the Baltic and unite Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in the USSR. There are too many little pissant countries in Europe that have no basis for a separate existence, as they have no capability of defending themselves by their own resources.

Oh you yanks always make my day

[kamane]

I also heard that talk many times about the Poles, who tried to protect people from the Soviets and position of the independent Lithuania was much stronger when Poland ruled eastern lands. But wait a minute. Why did you choose a military intrusion instead of a peaceful plebiscite, if you were so sure about your legacy in the east? It was exactly the same what Nazi Germany made with Czechoslovakia. Moreover, Lithuanian language was banned in Poland. Ethnic Lithuanians could not get social guarantees, treatment, etc. This was one another reason why ratio of ‘the Poles’ reached such high level in the annexed area. Do not forget how you ‘loved’ German minority in the west. In fact, Poland was just another aggressive country ruled by nationalists and its policy caused corresponding reaction from its neighbors.

AND Lithuanians made a tiny percent only the Vilnius city itself, not the whole territory that Poles later occupied.

1987 census of Russian empire's citizens (published in „Pervaja vseobščaja perepis naselenija Rossijskoj imperiji 1897 g.“ (Первая всеобщая перепись населения Российской империи 1897г. Под ред. М. А. Тройницкого, вып. 7.): Lithuanians make up majority of Kaunas and Suvalkai gubernias. There lived 304.548 Lithuanians and 134 006 Poles in Suvalkai. Citizens of Seinai area: 48 467 Lithuanians, 18 754 Poles, 9 684 Jews. Vilnius gubernia:279 720 Belarussians, 279 720 Lithuanians, 202 374 Jews. And where are Poles? Polish ethnos that today is trying to tell that they have made up the majority in that area already since Zigmantas Vaza times in reality consisted only of 130 054 individuals and they lived where late colonists usually live: in cities and landlords' places. About half of them (73 008) lived in Vilnius district but and there they made up the least populous minority (93.896 Belarussians, 77 224 Jews, 76 030 Lithuanians). Kaunas gubernia had 139 618 Poles, 1 019 774 Lithuanians.

Vilnius city: 138 600 total(without military), speakers of native languages: 61 000 (44,0 %) Jews, 46 600. (33,6 %) Poles, 20 100 (14,6 %) Russians, 5 400. (3,9 %) Belarussians, 2 900 (2,1 %) Lithuanians, 2000. (1,4 %) Germans, 600 (0,4 %) others.

And notice that Vilnius gubernia consisted also of ethnic Belarussian lands:
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaizdas...-1867-1914.svg

1909 census of Vilnius city: 205 200 total, 77 500 (37,7 %) Poles, 75 500. (36,8 %) Jews, 37 300 (18,3 %) Belarussians and Russians, 2 500 (1,2 %) Lithuanians.

[Jarl]

AND Lithuanians made a tiny percent only the Vilnius city itself, not the whole territory that Poles later occupied.

You show statistics for the Kaunas and Suwalki gubernia which were entirely and almost entirely left with Lithuania. Lithuanians indeed formed majority in certain parishes North of Suwalki and in the rural town of Sejny. But never a majority in the district as a whole. As for Vilnius - whats the point?

There were Catholic Ruthenians and Poles who rightfully considered themselves as Litwiny, but did not speak Lithuanian and DID NOT identify themselves with the Lithuanian nationalists who wanted a separate state.v



You got one valid point but before you mix it up with more myths, let me clarify a few points:


- Lithuania and Korona (Poland) ceased to exist as separate states on the 3rd of May 1791 - they became one "Rzeczpospolita".


- After the union Lithuanian nobility gradually assimilated into the Polish noble class and polonised itself, mostly in XVI-XVII century. At the same time, Lithuanian langauge in the countryside was gradually being replaced by Ruthenian. In fact, before its polonisation many Lithuanian nobles spoke Ruthenian (and they were of Ruthenian extraction, some belonged to the Rurikid dynasty).


In the end, in the XIXth century already, there were Ruthenian-speaking Catholics in Belarus and Lithuania. But for people at that time their main identity determinant was the Catholic faith not the language. They all were "Litwiny".

So from here in early XVIth century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li...th_century.png

We get to more less here:

http://c.foto.radikal.ru/0609/460743ab997f.jpg

or here:

http://kroraina.com/makedonija/Karti...dosteuropa.jpg

- In XIX century Lithuanian nobility, but not only them - also common people fought for united "Rzeczpospolita" again. Lithuanian national movement was simply non-existent at that time. In 1831 or 1863-64 Poles and Lithuanians fought alongside against Tsardom.


- With the birth of Lithuanian nationalism different concepts of future for Lithuania were formulated. And here it is necessary to stress that Lithuanian nobility DID NOT WANT a separate Lithuanian state. Neither did the Catholics in the Vlinius region who DID NOT SPEAK Lithuanian.

I also heard that talk many times about the Poles, who tried to protect people from the Soviets and position of the independent Lithuania was much stronger when Poland ruled eastern lands. But wait a minute.

And wasn't it??? Of course it was!

Objectively speaking if not for that war Lithuania, with Kaunas or Vilnius, would simply not even exist. It would share the fate of Eastern Ukraine or Eastern Belarus - it would be pacified, forced to accept communism, russified and no "national movement" would ever exist.

Why did you choose a military intrusion instead of a peaceful plebiscite, if you were so sure about your legacy in the east? It was exactly the same what Nazi Germany made with Czechoslovakia. Moreover, Lithuanian language was banned in Poland. Ethnic Lithuanians could not get social guarantees, treatment, etc. This was one another reason why ratio of ‘the Poles’ reached such high level in the annexed area.

Was military intrusion necessary? I do not know. Since Lithuanian nationalists would not cede Vilnius and other Polish or Ruthenian-speaking areas peacefully, probabaly yes. What else could have been done?

Lithuanian langauge was not "banned". Dont spread bullshit. It was simply not an official language - and no wonder since ethnic Lithunian-speakers formed no majority - not even in a single "wojewodztwo" or "powait". Besdes, Poles in Kaunas and Lauda were also subjected to lithuanisation.

The early elections and poll results in Vilnius area prove it. This is a sort of "Plebiscite".

Do not forget how you ‘loved’ German minority in the west.

Don be ignorant.


1. Just as Lithuania was not historically an ethnic Polish or Ruthenian soil, so was East Prussia, and particularly Royal Prussia/Pomorze and Upper Silesia not originally German.


2. Poland was occupied and treated like a colony by Prussia for 150 years. While Lithuania was in a union with Poland.These are completely two different realities.

In that time, Germans established 1000s of colonies in Poland. Whole villages settled in with Protestant Germans from Saxony, Westphalen, Pommern and other places all over Northern Germany. While Ruthenian-speaking and Polsih-speaking Lithuanians were predominantly the same people - not some colonial settlers. They simply assimilated into Polish or Ruthenian culture over time - just like Lithuanian nobility did long before them.



So no - German minority in Poland, and Polish minority in Lithuania ARE NOT COMPARABLE.

In fact, Poland was just another aggressive country ruled by nationalists and its policy caused corresponding reaction from its neighbors.

After 150 years of land grabbing, theft, expropriations, germanisation, russification, the nation had the right for independence. I see nothing "aggressive" in this.

[Supreme American]

I wouldn't.

[Jarl]

German Census for Vlinius region 1916:


City of Wilna

Poles (50.2%)
Jews (43.5%)
Lithuanians (2.6%)


Russian Census of 1897 in Vilna Governorate:

Belarusians (56.1%)
Lithuanians (17.6%)
Jews (12.7%)
Poles (8.2%)


German census 1916 for Occupied Lithuania

Poles (58.0%)
Lithuanians (18.5%)
Jews (14.7%)
Belarusians (6.4%)

This corresponds to:



And bear in mind, that the Vilna Governorate extended deeper into Lithuania than the Vilnius region occupied by Poland. Its borders stopped close of Kaunas.



Out of the disticts in Wilno only in powiat Swieciany Lithuanians formed a strong minorit.






The 1916 Census divided Wilno region into 8 districts. The result were as follows:



City of Wilno 139 247 total: 2662 Lithuanins (1,9%) and 74221 Polaków (53,3%)

Wilno Region 74 700 in total, and 2713 L (3,6%) and
68136 P (91,1%)

Święciany Region 91 689: 25 259 L (27,5%) and 55 971 Polaków (61,0%)


Regions below stayed with Lithuania after 1920

Szyrwinty 62262: 13 539 L (21,7%) and 45 338 P (72,8%)

Malaty 30159: 13 087 L (43,4%) and 14 587 P (48,4%)

Koszedary 61440: 29 033 L (47,3%) and 27 441 P (44,7%)

Syłgudyszki 51224: 40140 L (78,4%) oraz 7941 P (15,5%)

Olita 103765: 79 397 L (76,5%) and 15 495 P (14,9%)

Total of 614 486 ppl and 205 830 L (33,5%) and 309 130 P (50,3%)


General von Beckerath wrote in his report from Vilnius on the 3rd of Januray 1917 that the strength of the Polish element must have been underestimated by previous Russian statistics. But of course many of these Poles were Belarusian-speaking in fact. But they condiered themselves Polish because they were Catholics.


Of course we may squabble now over single villages and parishes, and I am not denying that in 1920 ethnic Lithuanians formed local majority in Northern bits of the Suwalki or Swieciany region (it would be nice to see a detailed map of the 1897 and 1916 censuses).

However the bottom line is: Vilnus region was inhabited mostly by Belarusian-speaking Catholics who considered themselves "Litwins" but favoured the "Rzeczpospolita" tradition and in elections voted for for Polish lists.

Newly born Lithuanian nationalism, propagated by Lithuanian-speaking elites was alien to these people. And it was not their fault - they were no colonial settlers, and no immigrants. They were born and bred on Lithuanian soil for long generations and had every right to their homeland - whose future they saw differently from the Lithunian-speaking nationalists.


Was Lithuania their home country? Yes.

Were they Lithuanian speaking? No.

Whom were they by self declaration? First and foremost Catholics, then Poles or Litwiny.

Did they favour the return to one Rzeczpospolita? Yes.


Lithuanian was the language mostly of peasantry in XIX century and do not get confused - by treating "Litwa" as their homeland or calling themselves "Litwiny" (like Mickiewicz), these people were nonetheless far from opting for Lithuanian language and Lithuanian-speakers' nationalism.


So this is not a simple issue of "bad Poland" taking what was Lithuanian, but of the consequence of the Rzeczpospolita legacy and the union. Sure that these were once ethnic Lithunian lands, but over centuries things have changed and there was no simple solution.

Ideally a plebiscite would be best, but at the time of Russian Civil War, Polish offensive and Soviet invasion it was hardly possible. I guess the good will on both sides was lacking too.

Judging however from the 1916 census and early 1921 election results, the border would not change a great deal except perhaps for a couple dozen or so villages - and only provided that all Lithuanians would vote for Lithuania. On the other hand, Lithuania, would have the problem of the Polish villages in Lauda , North of Kaunas, inhabited by Polish-speaking nobility.

[Rereg]

What has been stolen? The Union with Lithuania was a historical fact. And if not for that union, Lithuania would share the fate of Prussia. And sure - these were not ethnic Polish lands just like some eastern German provinces were not ethnic German. However speaking of "theft" is typical of certain Lithuanian idiots who dont know history.

Yep and you shouldn't forget that Grand Dutchy of Lithuania was country with east-slavic ruthenian character. Old belarussian and later polish were official languages of Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, the country's aristocracy had ruthenian origin. In those historical state Balts were only peasant minority from Samogitia.

[Jarl]

Yep and you shouldn't forget that Grand Dutchy of Lithuania was country with east-slavic ruthenian character. Old belarussian and later polish were official languages of Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, the country's aristocracy had ruthenian origin. In those historical state Balts were only peasant minority from Samogitia.

That is what I meant when I said that the nobles spoke Ruthenian - this was the official language of Lithuania, and the language spoken by most of its upper classes.

Balts did once inhabit an area larger than today, extendingt to Lida, Grodno and even Bialystok. However, Lithuania was a pagan and strongly rural feudal country which until XVth century had neither known nor seen much of the Western Europe and its culture.

As a matter of fact, this kind of socio-political archaism could only have existed in the East and it was precisely the reason for the downfall of Old Prussians, Yotvingians and the Teutonic colonisation of Balitc Livonia. Lithuania would be the next in the queue if not for the political consciousness of its elites (largely of Orthodox Ruthenian origin).

And Christianity and Catholicism came from Poland, so naturally it meant widespread propagation of the Polish culture. BUT THIS WAS ACCEPTED AT THOSE TIMES!


Did Lithuania have any cities?

Did Lituania have any press?

Did Lithuania have church schools?

Was Lithuania printing 1000s of books in Lithuanian, like Poles did in Gdansk, Krolewiec, Torun, Krakow and Wroclaw?


No.


Now, I am not trying to defend this or that. I am only pointing to the fact that everything has its reason. There is a chain of events in history.

Ruthenisation and Polonisation of Lithuanian nobility and in many cases peasants was not forced, and not against the Lithuanian elites of those times. It was a natural consequence of accepting a higher Christian culture from another country.

The very same factor contributed towards germanisation of Prussians in East Prussia or germanisation of Polabian Slavs and Pomeranians.


Was annexing Wilnius region right or could there be a better way?


Perhaps yes - but I am not sure whether it could have been implemented. I am not defending Polish nationalism nor pardoning Lithuanian nationalists claiming territory which was hardly "ethnic Lithuanian" by majority. Definitely it could have been resolved peacefully with respecting the rights of the citiznes to decide.




Now, I have detailed ethnic maps - village by village - for pre - WW I Western Poland and Ukraine. I do not have any for Lithuania and Belarus. Perhaps such maps exist? Is the 1897 census data accessible - parish by parish? On the interent I could only find very general maps and mostly done by Germans, Russiand or Poles. If the Lithuanians here can find some more stats or maps, then I invite them to do so. It would give everyone a better insight into the ethno-linguistic situation at the beginning of XXth century.

[Jarl]

In summary I think that strong Polish and Lithuanian nationalisms did much more harm than good to the people from ethnic borderlands.

These people were not hostile to Lithuanians by default. And they could live with each other. And perhaps even they could have been reclaimed for Lithuania - whether on national or ethno-linguistic terms or both, or other. There was no Belfast and no Volhynia in the Wilnius region. No uprising, no terrorism. Different variants were still possible. But in XXth c, for several reasons, people had to take sides there was no longer a single Rzeczpospolita.

If both

- the rights of Lithuania to its historical lands

- and the rights of Polish and Ruthenian-speaking Litwiny to their own tradition

were respected, then perhaps today they could form a bridge between the three nations. However in the early XXth century, after 150 years of occupation. At the time of WW I, Revolution and Polish-Bolshevik war this I guess was not possible. Neither Poles and Belarusians in Lithuania nor Lithuanians and Belarusians in Poland could have their own cultural and political autonomy respected.

Even though the division was not perfect on ethnic and historical grounds it did leave vast majority of the consciously Lithuanian and Lithuanian-speaking territory as an independent state.