9 May 2010 Victory Parade

[RoyBatty]

bxPAdmlZCHI

qoLKsB1z5Ak

[Saruman]

This parade was better than last years's. With ol' T-34's and SU-100's leading the way:D, also both Ka-50's, ad Mi-28's took part. 4 Tu-160's, and good to hear powerful propelled engine growl of Tu-95's, along with the rest of usual equipment and some foreign troops parading, a great parade overall. :thumbs up :)

[Loki]

Medvedev's speech:

Dear veterans,

Dear citizens of Russia,

Dear foreign guests,

Comrade soldiers, sailors and sergeants,

Comrade officers, generals and admirals,

I congratulate you on the jubilee of the Great Victory!

Sixty-five years ago Nazism was vanquished. The machine that was wiping off whole nations was stopped. Peace returned to our country and to Europe as a whole. An end was put to the ideology that was destroying the fundamentals of civilization.

The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the Fascist attack as they threw in three quarters of their troops to the Eastern Front. They wanted to scorch our land, but instead they met with resistance unparalleled in courage and strength.

The defence of Moscow and Leningrad, the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk also known as the Kursk Bulge - these are not just the stages of that war. These are blood and tears, the anguish of defeat and the triumph of victory, wounds and the death of comrades-in-arms. And there was only one choice - either conquer the enemy or become slaves.

This war has made us a strong nation. Every day, every hour, every minute people made decisions, both in battlefields and in the rear. And this particular feeling – being personally responsible for the fate of the country - our veterans have carried through their whole lives.

They have taught us the main lesson. They have attained freedom.

Time is very powerful, but not as powerful as human memory, our memory. We shall never forget soldiers who fought on fronts. Women, who replaced men in factories. Children, who suffered from ordeals inconceivable for their age. All of them are heroes of the war.

The victory in 1945 was not only a military but also a great moral victory. A common victory. All of the Soviet Union’s peoples fought for it, and our allies helped to bring it closer. And today troops from Russia, the CIS countries and our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition will march together triumphantly. March in a single formation as a proof ofour common desire to defend peace and never to allow any revision of the outcomes of war, never to let any new tragedies happen.

The war has taken tens of millions of lives. Lives of people from many countries, people of different ages, nationalities and confessions. In Russia almost every family has suffered from the atrocities of war with family members or relatives either killed or missing, starving from hunger during the siege of Leningrad or killed in concentration camps. That cannot be tolerated. That cannot be forgotten. Memory is eternal.

Dear friends,

The lessons of World War II call us to solidarity. The world is still fragile, and we should remember that wars do not start in a flash. The evil gains its strength if we shrink back or try to ignore it.

Only together can we counteract modern threats. Only based on the principles of good-neighbourliness can we resolve issues of global security so that ideals of justice and of the good can triumph in the whole world and life of future generations can be free and happy.

Dear veterans,

Sixty-five years ago you won peace for our country and for the whole world. You have given us the most precious gift - an opportunity to live. We bow our heads in respect for you.

I congratulate you on the holiday!

I congratulate you on the Victory Day!

All Honour to the winners!

Hurrah!

http://eng.kremlin.ru/speeches/2010/05/09/1032_type127286_225909.shtml

[Treffie]

If my father was alive today, he would have been proud to have seen his regiment marching through Red Square :thumb001:

cnNi4vtFaSM

[Cato]

Awesome. The world needs to see more of this, unity of the western peoples.

[Arrow Cross]

Awesome. The world needs to see more of this, unity of the western peoples.
"Unity of western peoples"? I'll give you "unity of western peoples".

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x112/Sinnadrin/TeeVabadusele.jpg

[Cato]

^
That act left the stadium about 60 years ago and an encore doesn't seem to be forthcoming anytime soon. One might as well wish for SPQR again.

[vp01]

fuck parades, as someone already said :)

[Kanasyuvigi]

Beautiful parade. But what do they celebrate? The day in which the biggest European country surrendered to the Judeo-Bolshevik coallition. And this is the day of Europe? Thanks, but no thanks ;)

[Tabiti]

It is reasonable why Russia celebrate, however I don't know why we started to celebrate it in the last years...

[Arrow Cross]

^
That act left the stadium about 60 years ago and an encore doesn't seem to be forthcoming anytime soon. One might as well wish for SPQR again.
Well, then go ahead and celebrate the Judeo-Bolshevik mass-rape of Europe. With that kind of a "unity", I'd rather be in Asia.

[Tabiti]

09.05 actually marks the new beginning of divided Europe.

[Cato]

Well, then go ahead and celebrate the Judeo-Bolshevik mass-rape of Europe. With that kind of a "unity", I'd rather be in Asia.

Europe was raping itself in nationalistic squabbles and theistic feuds for centuries after the fall of Rome, well, well before the war.

http://rlv.zcache.com/chairman_mao_poster-p228212778266265285trma_400.jpg
Ni hao mao comrade!

[vp01]

But what do they celebrate? The day in which the biggest European country surrendered to the Judeo-Bolshevik coallition.
maybe cause it was the day when blood stoped spilling... ? thats why we celebrate

[The Lawspeaker]

maybe cause it was the day when blood stoped spilling...
The killing went on until way after the end of the war. 12 million Germans were expelled, a lot of them were raped, slaughtered and god knows what more. Over 1 million German pow's were murdered by the Western Allies alone. Starved to death.
And the orgy of violence wasn't over yet in Asia either.
If there is one day that should be celebrated it is November 9, (1989).

[hajduk]

The killing went on until way after the end of the war. 12 million Germans were expelled, a lot of them were raped, slaughtered and god knows what more. Over 1 million German pow's were murdered by the Western Allies alone. Starved to death.
And the orgy of violence wasn't over yet in Asia either.
If there is one day that should be celebrated it is November 9, (1989).

The Red Army of WWII was made up of a lot of subhuman savages mongols, tatars, , so they acted accordingly
And 20 million Russians dead in the war

[Svanhild]

Truth be told, Medwedew's speech isn't amusing to read as a German. As if Sovjet soldiers were saints, as if entire peace was restored in the countries of the Warschau pact after WW2. As if we were devils.
What followed was oppression. Red oppression and millions of killed, expelled and abused Germans and millions of unfortune and dependent people in a lot of the various Sovjet republics.

He's a hypocrite.

[Jarl]

The Red Army of WWII was made up of a lot of subhuman savages mongols, tatars, , so they acted accordingly
And 20 million Russians dead in the war


...of ordinary simple men. Forced to defend their homeland against the German invaders.



They fought for long years and they won. They saved my country from extermination by the Nazi murderers. Irrespective of the Bolsheviks and their crimes, I pay my respect to the ordinary soldiers of the Red Army.

[Jarl]

http://muse.widener.edu/SBA/FacultyWebpages/Marshall/pics/IM000421a.jpg

http://www.academic.marist.edu/nork/army.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/Yuon_RedSquare_Parade_1941.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0OkQpYYCDs




I like those too:

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster109.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster035.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster234.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster103.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster017.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster163.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster137.jpg

http://allworldwars.com/image/011/Poster098.jpg

http://eng.plakaty.ru/i/plakats/medium/8.jpg

[RoyBatty]

Beautiful parade. But what do they celebrate? The day in which the biggest European country surrendered to the Judeo-Bolshevik coallition. And this is the day of Europe? Thanks, but no thanks ;)

Judeo-Bolshevik Coalition was from the post WW1 era. Before WW2 even started Comrade Stalin had most of them taken care of.

The Judeo-Bolsheviks then set up shop in the West and started campaigning against Communism. :D

Today they also go by the name "Neo-Conservatives". Americans, particularly fans of Fox News believe that this means "right-wing" Conservatives, LOL!!!!!!! :D

[RoyBatty]

As if we were devils.

In war everybody are devils.


What followed was oppression. Red oppression and millions of killed, expelled and abused Germans and millions of unfortune and dependent people in a lot of the various Sovjet republics.

He's a hypocrite.

Germans were expelled from parts of Eastern Europe but imo that wasn't down to the Soviets. (Except of course in the case of ex-Soviet Union Germans). Thank the various Eastern European countries for expulsions from their respective territories.

Also, afaik "millions weren't killed" by the Soviet Union after WW2. Most of the Soviet Communist excesses took place before WW2 and were directed against Soviet citizens, not other countries.

I'm not suggesting the Soviets / Russians (nor any other Allies for that matter) have clear consciences with regards to WW2 but they'll always be able claim that they didn't start the war and the fact is that they didn't. In this respect Hitler / Nazi Germany are stuck with the baggage.

Given more time and different circumstances any one of these countries could have started the war.

[Jarl]

Germans were expelled from parts of Eastern Europe but imo that wasn't down to the Soviets. (Except of course in the case of ex-Soviet Union Germans). Thank the various Eastern European countries for expulsions from their respective territories.




This is joke. The decisions about expulsions of Germans and border shifts were all made, or acknowledged, by Stalin personally. In some instances, Stalin sketched the borders by hand himself. Where his borders were unfeasible because he did not know the local specificiteis, minor corrections were implemented.

What you call the "Eastern European countries" were hand-picked cliques of communists and NKVD agents devoted to the Stalinist regime, and whose only aim was to obey the orders Moscow. They were trained and chosen by Moscow, and they by and large recruited from the pre-WW II Soviet cadres. They did not take the key geopolitical decisions.


Here is a WW II map of Poland sketched by Stalin:

http://www.ahistoria.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/mapa-stalina2.jpg

Still in 1944 Stalin said to a Polish dignitary that Germany must cede Poland and all the lands up to the Oder. Including Stettin, and possibly Breslau.

Stalin was adamant to set the borders along the Oder-Nisse line. However, still in Tehran, the Allies were against since they did not want to strengthen the Soviets too much.

In 1945 after Soviet victories, Stalin could dictate his version and decided to shif the borders, leaving whole historical Silesia, and even bits of Lusatia, in Poland.


At Jalta it was Winston Churchill who first advocated expulsions of Germans on the grounds that West Germany will need more workforce. Stalin agreed to this. On the 6th of Feb 1945 he said to Churchill that the Polish-German border will be set to the Oder-Nisse line and ask for his support.



The victories of the Red Army allowed Stalin to pursue a politics of fait accompli. On the 25th of Feb, Stalin as the of the head of the National Defence Commitee issued order no 7558, shifting Polish borders to the Oder-Nisse. Allies protested at Potsdam, yet Stalin was adamant. On the same conference mass-expulsions of Germans from Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovaka were agreed on.

[Cato]

Propaganda works on both sides y'know.

Germany lost millions, soldiers and non-combatants alike, and many Germans think Russia = teh monstar.

Russia lost millions, soldiers and non-combatants alike, and many Russians think that Germany = teh monstar.

To the Russians it's still called the Great Patriotic War. Germans on TA, do you think that every Soviet trooper that fought under Russian arms gave a shit about Red propaganda or was even aware of the nuances of Nazism and Bolshevism? Those Russian boys (and girls, there were more than a few like the Night Witches [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches]) fought because their Motherland, Rodina, called- just as millions of Germans fought because their Fatherland called.

Don't be turds about it.

[Jarl]

Its useless competing for the longest list of crimes. Atrocities were committed on both sides. It is important to remember that the war was inflicted upon the ordinary people. Russians, Poles, Germans, East Prussians and many other communities that were swept away in the aftermath.

One thing's for certain - the Soviets did not come up with a gross ethnic cleansing or mass-extermination plan. Neither did they plan to russify or de-germanise the Germans. Erasing their neighbours was not their aim, unlike in case of the Nazis.

[Guapo]

If there is one day that should be celebrated it is November 9, (1989).

That's when things really started to go downhill :rolleyes:

[The Lawspeaker]

That's when things really started to go downhill :rolleyes:
Only because that wall collapsed and Germany could reunite? Because that's why it should be a national holiday in Germany.

[Jarl]

Only because that wall collapsed and Germany could reunite? Because that's why it should be a national holiday in Germany.

No. Not at all. I think you would have to be a person from the East to understand what happened and what El is referring to. So take no offence. El did not try to glorify Soviet Union ;)

[Guapo]

No. Not at all. I think you would have to be a person from the East to understand what happened and what El is referring to. So take no offence. El did not try to glorify Soviet Union ;)

Germany was united but the Eastern European countries were disassembled. What was up with that? ;)

[RoyBatty]

This is joke.

You are a joke.



The decisions about expulsions of Germans and border shifts were all made, or acknowledged, by Stalin personally. In some instances, Stalin sketched the borders by hand himself. Where his borders were unfeasible because he did not know the local specificiteis, minor corrections were implemented.

What you call the "Eastern European countries" were hand-picked cliques of communists and NKVD agents devoted to the Stalinist regime, and whose only aim was to obey the orders Moscow. They were trained and chosen by Moscow, and they by and large recruited from the pre-WW II Soviet cadres. They did not take the key geopolitical decisions.


Of course they didn't take "key geopolitical decisions" you moron but they sure did make decisions and in cases where those decisions didn't bother the Soviets they were implemented, such as expulsions. It's dishonest of you to suggest that it was SOLELY THE SOVIET UNION which was responsible for the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe whilst absolving the EE countries and administrations from all responsibilities under the excuse that "they were puppet regimes." The "occupied countries" rulers and elites jumped at the chance to ethnically cleanse their territories. Under a Fascist Occupation they would have acted in exactly the same way.



Expulsions and resettlements of other ethnicities took place contemporaneously with the expulsion of the Germans. Both ethnic Germans and most of the Italians were expelled from Tito's Yugoslavia.[42] As well as the ethnic Germans, Poland also expelled 482,000 of the 622,000 ethnic Ukrainians living in Poland, resettling the remaining 140,000 during Operation Vistula.[41] In Czechoslovakia, not only were Sudeten Germans expelled, but also the Hungarian minority in Slovakia[41] during the ocysta. Post-war Lithuania and Ukraine expelled both the German minority and the Poles.[41] The same happened to the remaining Polish population in Belarus.


So Tito expelled Germans because "Stalin made him do it"? I mean wtf :D :dielaughing:

Stalin made the Slovakians expel the Hungarians? lol :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II


Then there's Operation Vistula, the Ukrainian expulsions from Poland. As usual, Polaks conveniently absolve themselves from all responsibility and blamed the "Communists" for everything. What a nation of jokers. :thumb001:



On April 18, 2002 in Krasiczyn, Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski expressed regret over Operation Vistula. The President described the operation as the symbol of harm against Ukrainians committed by the communist authorities. "Speaking on behalf of the Republic of Poland I want to express regret to all those wronged by the operation" - Kwaśniewski wrote in a letter to the National Remembrance Institute (IPN) and participants in the conference on the 1947 Operation Vistula and openly rejecteded the notion that it should in any way be linked to earlier events in Volhynia. "It was believed for years that the Vistula operation was the revenge for slaughter of Poles by the UPA forces in the east in the years 1943-1944. Such attitude is wrong and cannot be accepted. The Vistula operation should be condemned."[10]
In 2007 the presidents of Poland (Lech Kaczyński) and Ukraine (Viktor Yushchenko) condemned the operation as a violation of human rights.[11] President Yushchenko also noted that the operation was executed and was the responsibility of a "totalitarian communist regimes".[12]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula

[Jarl]

You are a joke.

You are a complete historical ignorant, Roy. What you said in the last post and what you just said here:



Of course they didn't take "key geopolitical decisions" you moron but they sure did make decisions and in cases where those decisions didn't bother the Soviets they were implemented, such as expulsions.


...only sadly confirms that... Any mediocre historian reading those "revelations" would have a lot of fun. You know litte or or next to nothing about the politics behind expulsions or border shifts.



It's dishonest of you to suggest that it was SOLELY THE SOVIET UNION which was responsible for the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe whilst absolving the EE countries and administrations from all responsibilities under the excuse that "they were puppet regimes." The "occupied countries" rulers and elites jumped at the chance to ethnically cleanse their territories. Under a Fascist Occupation they would have acted in exactly the same way.


Look, I really do not care about your Sovietophilia and what standards of honesty it dictates you. I can see they are poor. You may blurt out anything about "Eastern countries" and their "elites", but historical facts are what they are. Germans were expelled by the decsions of the big three. By Stalin in person and the Politburo.


Read about Jalta and Potsdam and stop selling bullshit like that:


Germans were expelled from parts of Eastern Europe but imo that wasn't down to the Soviets. (Except of course in the case of ex-Soviet Union Germans). Thank the various Eastern European countries for expulsions from their respective territories


Enough of the bullshit, ok? :D






P.S.


So Tito expelled Germans because "Stalin made him do it"? I mean wtf :D :dielaughing:

Stalin made the Slovakians expel the Hungarians? lol :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II


Then there's Operation Vistula, the Ukrainian expulsions from Poland. As usual, Polaks conveniently absolve themselves from all responsibility and blamed the "Communists" for everything. What a nation of jokers. :thumb001:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula



Why did you change the subject? Smiley faces will not mask your lack of knowledge... unfortunately. So let me remind you that we were talking about WW II and the Soviet policy of expulsions of Germans. We were NOT talking about WW II aftermath, about Tito and Yugoslavia, nor about the Hungarians and the Ukrainians. So stop making an idiot out of yourself, pretending you are still on the subject.


And anyway, what do you know about KC PZPR and Action Vistula??? To me it seems that little. Just like you don't know a crap about how the Eastern Block states were governed and who made the geopolitical/military decisions at that time. So why not just stop pretending to be an expert on the East? It's getting kinda hilarious to read your "expert" nonsense.

[Jarl]

Front Leaders:



Marshal Georgy Zhukov (1st Ukrainian, 2nd Belarusian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Georgi_Zhukov_in_1940.jpg

Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky (1st, 2nd Belarussian, 2nd Baltic)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/RokossovskyKK.jpg

Marshal Aleksandr Vasilevsky (3rd Belarusian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/MarshalVasilevsky.jpg

Marshal Ivan Konev (1st Ukrainian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Konev_ivan.jpg

Marhsal Boris Shaposhnikov

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/B_Shaposhnikov.png

Marhsal Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Semyon_Konstantinovich_Timoshenko_%281895-1970%29%2C_Soviet_military_commander.jpg

Marshal Grigory Kulik

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/GI_Kulik_02.jpg

Army General Nikolai Fyodorovich Vatutin (1st Ukrainian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Vatutin.jpg

Army General Rodion Malinovsky (2nd, 3rd Ukrainian)

http://www.tonnel.ru/gzl/806648353_tonnel.gif

Army General Vasily Sokolovsky (1st Ukrainian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/VD_Sokolovsky.jpg

Army General Hovhannes Bagramyan (3rd Belarussian, 1st Baltic)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Bagramyan.jpg

Col General Pavel Kurochkin (2nd Belarussian)

http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/images/1hero/KurochkinPavelAlex.jpg

Col General Ivan Chernyakhovsky (3rd Belarussian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Chernyahovsky_ID.jpg

Lt General Fyodor Tolbukhin (4th Ukrainian)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Tolbuhin_fi.jpg

Lt General Filipp Golikov

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Golikov.jpg

[W. R.]

Here is a WW II map of Poland sketched by Stalin:

http://www.ahistoria.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/mapa-stalina2.jpghttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4724&stc=1&d=1273768555

This "lol" makes the BSSR the unique case of a "winner" which after having won a war lost a part of its territory.

I grin when I hear from Belarusians "we won that war". Nope. We did not. It was the USSR that won. At that time the BSSR was just a territory with some resources, not a fighting side.

[Jarl]

This "lol" makes the BSSR the unique case of a "winner" which after having won a war lost a part of its territory.

I grin when I hear from Belarusians "we won that war". Nope. We did not. It was the USSR that won. At that time the BSSR was just a territory with some resources, not a fighting side.


This is the Białystok region (in Podlasie) and it was decided to become a part of Poland (because of the Polish majority in that region) by the Entente (Lord Curzon):

http://www.great-victory1945.ru/curzon_line.jpg

Belarusians formed a minority round the Eastern fringes of the area. However, the division followed mostly ethnic majority boundaries and thus was relatively fair. Apart from Podlasie, which was for the most part historically Yotvingian, Lithuanian and Polish, there were bits of proper Masovia in there (like Łomża, Wizna or Rajgród), which never had anything to do with Belarus.

Any anyway, BSSR was not a side in the conflict. Niether in 1939, nor in 1945. The Soviet Union was, and it dictated the terms. Which were rather in BSSR's favour as there were big areas with Polish majority left out in BSSR - like Grodno, Wołkowysk, Brześć:


http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic15.jpg


There extensive regions of Polish majority East of that line, left out in Lithuania and Belarus, as you can see.



Looking at the map of the Nazi-Soviet occupation border:

http://www.gutenberg-e.org/osc01/images/osc07n.jpg

... you can see that particular area had 70% Poles.

[W. R.]

This is the Białystok region (in Podlasie) and it was decided to become a part of Poland (because of the Polish majority in that region) by the Entente (Lord Curzon)Because of the Polish majority? I am not sure.

Wikipedia says that, "While there is a widespread perception by historians that the line was based on the ethnic composition of the area, this viewpoint has been disputed by other historians who describe its origins as diplomatic and historical. However, the undoubted fact is that the Polish population living to the east of the Curzon line at the time was a minority ranging between 5 and about 20 percent, according to the statistics available from different accounts".

This last sentence underlined by me obviously contradicts your maps and your statement about some big areas with Polish majority (?). I tend not to trust maps based on the Polish data.

There are plenty of maps which contradict yours (drawn by people who almost undoubtedly weren't politically motivated), but I'd have to scan them, while it's about time to go to bed. If you are interested I can scan them tomorrow.

I agree with you that there has never been anything Belarusian about Lomzha but don't say this about Bialystok.

But I didn't say that the borders were 100% just. I just pointed out the funny fact that "the winner" after the war loses its territories, and some of the territories are not ethnographically alien at all.
Any anyway, BSSR was not a side in the conflict. Niether in 1939, nor in 1945. The Soviet Union was, and it dictated the terms. Which were rather in BSSR's favour as there were big areas with Polish majority left out in BSSR - like Grodno, Wołkowysk, Brześć:

http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic15.jpg

There extensive regions of Polish majority East of that line, left out in Lithuania and Belarus, as you can see.

[Jarl]

Because of the Polish majority? I am not sure.

Wikipedia says that, "While there is a widespread perception by historians that the line was based on the ethnic composition of the area, this viewpoint has been disputed by other historians who describe its origins as diplomatic and historical. However, the undoubted fact is that the Polish population living to the east of the Curzon line at the time was a minority ranging between 5 and about 20 percent, according to the statistics available from different accounts".

This last sentence underlined by me obviously contradicts your maps and your statement about some big areas with Polish majority (?). I tend not to trust maps based on the Polish data.




Wikipedia says that? You do not trust the sources, but you trust wikipedia? :) Then how come there are still areas with large Polish majority in both Belarusia in Lithuania? In spite of a mass-exodus and expulsions after WW II?




There are plenty of maps which contradict yours (drawn by people who almost undoubtedly weren't politically motivated), but I'd have to scan them, while it's about time to go to bed. If you are interested I can scan them tomorrow.

I agree with you that there has never been anything Belarusian about Lomzha but don't say this about Bialystok.




What was Bialystok? It was pretty much along the ethnic majority border. Podlasia was always a borderland.




Scan them. I will give you this:

http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011

this:

http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010


and this (some pointed out it lowers the % of Poles in Lithuania):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Polska1912.jpg


and here (German version):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bb/20071103190729!Sprachenkarte_Deutschland1880.png



About 35% in Bialystok area by WW I, and Bialystok close to the ethnic majority border. By WW II, the whole Podlasie area became predominantly Polish speaking. It seems like in the interbellum period there was a substantial shift. Perhaps due to polonisation of Belarusians.


Im not certain how old are some of the enclaves of Polish majority protruding far into Lithuania and Western Belarus - particularly more urban areas near the Niemen river, like Grodno, Wolkowysk and Wilno. They might date back to pre-WW I period.


But I didn't say that the borders were 100% just. I just pointed out the funny fact that "the winner" after the war loses its territories, and some of the territories are not ethnographically alien at all.

That is the thing. Poland lost a lot as well. The main "winner", the Soviet Union, could afford the loss of bits of wooded Podlasie. They obviously did no care about Belarusians who would end up in Poland, just as they did not care much about Poles who would be left in Grodno. But a friendly communist Poland was central to Politburo's plans of establishing a strong Eastern Bloc. Much more than BSSR. And this was their priority in that case.

[Äike]

"Unity of western peoples"? I'll give you "unity of western peoples".

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x112/Sinnadrin/TeeVabadusele.jpg

The poster is in Estonian and the translation would be, "Road to freedom". :)

[W. R.]

Then how come there are still areas with large Polish majority in both Belarusia in Lithuania? In spite of a mass-exodus and expulsions after WW II?You are forgetting whom are you talking to. :icon_cool: As any decent Belarusian chauvinist would answer I am answering you that there are no Poles in Belarus. There are some Catholic Belarusians who believe they are Poles. But they are mistaken: they are not.
http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Polska1912.jpgYou can see yourself that some your maps contradict one another. The second map (Poland in 1912) shows that Poles were obviously a minority in the Belarusian ethnic territory, but lo and behold: in year 1919 all of a sudden the percentage of Poles increases and they become an overwhelming majority.

There are three kinds of lies: a lie, a great lie and statistics, right? :p

There are three German maps attached, which show no significant Polish ethnic presence in Western Belarus (aka Kresy Wschodnie).

Map 1. Фрагмент карты народов Европы "Länder- und Völkerkarte Europas" профессора Дитриха Шефера. 1918.

Map 2. Фрагмент лингвистической карты Средней Европы "Sprachenkarte von Mitteleuropa". Вена, 1921.

Map 3. Фрагмент карты "Karte der Verbreitung der Deutsche in Europa". Составлена профессором Г.Нобертом. Глогау, 1888.
By WW II, the whole Podlasie area became predominantly Polish speaking. It seems like in the interbellum period there was a substantial shift. Perhaps due to polonisation of Belarusians.I'm not sure about that. Too short period for such a thorough polonisation. As far as I know there was a Belarusian newspaper during the German occupation in Bialystok ("Novaja Daroha", so not all Belarusians forgot the Belarusian language by that time. I see it so: the territory which was handed Poland by Stalin, was populated by Poles in the West (thus I don't mind Poland taking Lomzha), but it was populated by Belarusians in the east.
That is the thing. Poland lost a lot as well.Well, Poland lost not that much. It remained of the same size as it had been before and became almost completely ethnically homogeneous. Isn't the last thing a wet dream of any decent chauvinist, be he Polish, Belarusian or whoever else? :)
But a friendly communist Poland was central to Politburo's plans of establishing a strong Eastern Bloc. Much more than BSSR. And this was their priority in that case.I'll agree with you on this.

[Jarl]

You are forgetting whom are you talking to. :icon_cool: As any decent Belarusian chauvinist would answer I am answering you that there are no Poles in Belarus. There are some Catholic Belarusians who believe they are Poles. But they are mistaken: they are not.


Ok. Bullshit aside. It's like me saying Polabians, Masurians and Pomeranians were all Poles... "only they did not discover it" ;)
You are operating with terms that had no relevance in those times. There was no Belarusian nation as such in XIX, early XXth century. It only just started forming.

One might argue that a substantial part of Belarusian Poles recruited from ethnic Belarusians. And ruthenized Yotvingians. That might be true. Saying they all are descended from ethnic Belarusians seems biased to me. I do not see the grounds for such a strong statement.


You can see yourself that some your maps contradict one another. The second map (Poland in 1912) shows that Poles were obviously a minority in the Belarusian ethnic territory, but lo and behold: in year 1919 all of a sudden the percentage of Poles increases and they become an overwhelming majority.

Actually they all agree! Indeed my maps show that Belarussians were in majority, more less around and East of Bialystok until WW I. It seems that there was some shift of the Polish majority boundary prior to WW II.


The map od 1912 shows Poles to be at about 35% in the immediate vicinity of Bialystok as well as areas to the North, South, and East of it. The 1921 Romer's Atlas shows these arease within the "25%-50% Polish" category.


Immediately to the North of Narew, in Northern Podalsie (round Augustów and Suwałki) Poles formed a clear majority. They were also in majority to the West of Bialystok - in the historic Masovia (Wizna, Łomża, Maków etc.).



There are three kinds of lies: a lie, a great lie and statistics, right? :p

There are three German maps attached, which show no significant Polish ethnic presence in Western Belarus (aka Kresy Wschodnie).

Map 1. Фрагмент карты народов Европы "Länder- und Völkerkarte Europas" профессора Дитриха Шефера. 1918.

Map 2. Фрагмент лингвистической карты Средней Европы "Sprachenkarte von Mitteleuropa". Вена, 1921.

Map 3. Фрагмент карты "Karte der Verbreitung der Deutsche in Europa". Составлена профессором Г.Нобертом. Глогау, 1888.


First map seems accurate as far as Bialystok is concerned, but totally absurd as for Lithuania and Wilno. Second map is pure nonsense. Belarusians never reached as far as Wilno. And on the second one they not only are a mjority round Wilno, but also almost reach Kowno and Wilkomyr. This is a total absurd.



I wonder what is the source of those maps... This is the most crucial question. They give no percentages. Where did they source the information from then??? There were never any Belarussians in Wilno and its vicinity. So the Belarusian majority in that area seems totally out of place! I got no idea how it got there. Perhaps its just copying the mistakes from the earlier maps. The German map which I posted before repeats the same mistake:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bb/20071103190729!Sprachenkarte_Deutschland1880.png


Same thing on the third map. I just totally do not understand what Belarusians are doing in the heart of Catholic, ethnic Lithuania, round Wilno? Areas which had, for the past century, a Polish majority.




To sum it up. All those maps in fact agree. Belarusians formed majority round Bialystok and areas immediately to the North up to Narew and Biebrza rivers where a Polish majority lived round Augustów, then immediately to the South (Białowieża, Hajnówka) and East.


However your maps are totally odd when it comes to Lithuania. I believe Romer's Atlas:

http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010

Is the most credible when it comes to Lithuania.


I'm not sure about that. Too short period for such a thorough polonisation. As far as I know there was a Belarusian newspaper during the German occupation in Bialystok ("Novaja Daroha", so not all Belarusians forgot the Belarusian language by that time. I see it so: the territory which was handed Poland by Stalin, was populated by Poles in the West (thus I don't mind Poland taking Lomzha), but it was populated by Belarusians in the east.Well, Poland lost not that much. It remained of the same size as it had been before and became almost completely ethnically homogeneous. Isn't the last thing a wet dream of any decent chauvinist, be he Polish, Belarusian or whoever else? :)I'll agree with you on this.

You are correct. Romer's Atlas confirms the 1912 map. It just does not give exact percentages but a broad 25-50% interval, which confused me. Polonisation of these territories leading to Polish majority must have occured mostly later, after WW II.

Belarusian minority in Poland now:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Belarusians_in_Poland,_2002.png/300px-Belarusians_in_Poland,_2002.png

That bit probably represents the original ethnic Belarusian territory in Podlasie. It is pretty much the same as the one shown on the maps (only percentages changed). So it is pretty much Central and Southern Podlasie - South of Biebrza and Augustów with Bialystok and nearest vicinity up to Białowieża, Hajnówka and Siematycze in the South.

[W. R.]

You are operating with terms that had no relevance in those times. There was no Belarusian nation as such in XIX, early XXth century. It only just started forming.

One might argue that a substantial part of Belarusian Poles recruited from ethnic Belarusians. And ruthenized Yotvingians. That might be true. Saying they all are descended from ethnic Belarusians seems biased to me. I do not see the grounds for such a strong statement.I can agree with you, that there was no Belarusian nation in the middle of the XIX century. But there was an ethnic group with its distinct features, with its peculiar speech, with its own customs which was identified as "Belarusians".

You won't be surprised if I tell you that I believe, that "just as it is not left unto us to choose our ancestors, so we may not choose our nation". If Belarusian Poles say and even believe that they are "real" Poles, for me it is not enough to identify them as Poles.

Probably you remember this immortal phrase: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck". Let me quote a fragment from text "Our Belarusians' great mistake", which was published in a small book "Stories in the Belarusian dialect" (1863).
If you go through a village, where there live Orthodox and Catholic peasants and ask, "Who lives in this or that house?", you are told: Catholics or Palaki. "And who lives in that house?". You are answered: "Rusaki live, Russkije or Orthodox people". Here exactly is our great mistake [...] that some of us who are of the Catholic faith, are called Palaki. What kind of Poles are they? Their language is common, Belarusian, their customs are common, Belarusian; both the customs and the language of Catholic peasants are the same as the Orthodox peasants have [...]. He, who knows the Polish people, their language and customs, would never say, that a Catholic peasant is similar to a Pole. Why our Catholic peasants are called Poles? [...] What a poor people we are! We do not know how to call ourselves, and becoming Catholic we renege our kin, we call ourselves Poles, although is suits us as much as a saddle would suit a cow. <= :tongue_002:
First map seems accurate as far as Bialystok is concerned, but totally absurd as for Lithuania and Wilno. Second map is pure nonsense. Belarusians never reached as far as Wilno. And on the second one they not only are a mjority round Wilno, but also almost reach Kowno and Wilkomyr. This is a total absurd.

I wonder what is the source of those maps... This is the most crucial question. They give no percentages. Where did they source the information from then??? There were never any Belarussians in Wilno and its vicinity. So the Belarusian majority in that area seems totally out of place!
I just totally do not understand what Belarusians are doing in the heart of Catholic, ethnic Lithuania, round Wilno? Areas which had, for the past century, a Polish majority.I'm wondering why you are so surprised. There are plenty of maps which have routinely included Wilno and Bialystok in the lebensraum of the Belarusian ethnos. I just selected German ones, as supposedly most unbiased.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4739&stc=1&d=1273958008

As for "there were never any Belarussians in Wilno and its vicinity", you are simply mistaken. Here I have some statistics based on the census which took place in the Russian Empire in 1897. During the census it was language which determined ethnicity.

The three largest ethnic groups in Wilno district (without Wilno itself) in 1897 (I have no statistic data on Jews, though):

Poles: 12,606 males; 12,611 females
Lithuanians: 36,530 males; 36,364 females
Belarusians: 43,813 males; 43,536 females

Belarusian minority in Poland now:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Belarusians_in_Poland,_2002.png/300px-Belarusians_in_Poland,_2002.png

That bit probably represents the original ethnic Belarusian territory in Podlasie. It is pretty much the same as the one shown on the maps (only percentages changed). So it is pretty much Central and Southern Podlasie - South of Biebrza and Augustów with Bialystok and nearest vicinity up to Białowieża, Hajnówka and Siematycze in the South.This map shows that only some Orthodox Belarusians still preserve their identity. Their faith helps them to preserve it. The territories to the North-East of Bialystok, formerly populated by Catholic Belarusians now are thoroughly polonized. :cry2

[Jarl]

I can agree with you, that there was no Belarusian nation in the middle of the XIX century. But there was an ethnic group with its distinct features, with its peculiar speech, with its own customs which was identified as "Belarusians".

You won't be surprised if I tell you that I believe, that "just as it is not left unto us to choose our ancestors, so we may not choose our nation". If Belarusian Poles say and even believe that they are "real" Poles, for me it is not enough to identify them as Poles.


I think you seriously confuse the notion of ethnicity with the notion of nationality. It is not at all that simple. It would be very convenient for Poles to regard all Masurians, or the so called "German minority" in Poland as merely "germanised Poles". They descend from ethnic Poles, and vast majority of them speaks Polish. But that is just not the case. These people lived for long within a German state and many feel they became part of the German nation. It is their free will and choice. And attempts to force them into the Polish identity during communism failed to an extent.


So it is with the Belarusian Poles. They evidently aspire to the traditions of the Polish state (whether Ist or IInd RP). Of course they might not descend from ethnic Poles, yet nonetheless there was no nation-forming process in Belarus until XXth century. Belarusian elites became polonised and Belarusian nobility regarded themselves as Poles since as early as XVI-XVIIth centuries. Just like the Lithuanian.


The formation of a Polish nation started much earlier than the Belarusian. Some time through this process, some Belarusians and Lithuanians chose to join Polish nation. Perhaps because there was little alternative. Religion definitely played a factor. Don't forget Lithuanians got ruthenised as well. Ruthenian and not Lithuanian was the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. While Polonisation was strong in cities and among nobles, ruthenisation affected mainly Lithuanian peasantry.


And again - you stubbornly persist in the view that they are all polonised Belarusians. I wonder if your claim is based on some reasonable source, or on your emotional POV? Are you really so certain about it?



This map shows that only some Orthodox Belarusians still preserve their identity. Their faith helps them to preserve it. The territories to the North-East of Bialystok, formerly populated by Catholic Belarusians now are thoroughly polonized. :cry2

By no means all Belarusians in Poland speak Belarusian or are Orthodox. But in essence yes. These that remain Orthodox form the core of the minority.

Augustów and territories North of Biebrza were inhabited by the Yotvingians, and later ceded to Poland and Lithuania. These areas never had any "Catholic Belarusians". There were Poles from Masovia living there (Rajgród, Augustów), and Lithuanians (Suwałki). In fact, Lithuanians still inhabit the fringes of Suwałki region.



As for "Catholic Belarusians" North-East of Bialystok up to the Niemen river... these territories were ethnically Yotvingian and Lithuanian. And the people living there got polonised and ruthenised over time. Their faith is still the best indicator of their true origins. There was no such thing as a "Catholic Belarusian" in history. What you are saying is some gross absurd. Orthodox religon was the suremost sign of Ruthenian ethnicity. Up to XX century, everywhere in Ruś Orthdox = Ruthenian/Ukrainian, whilce Catholic = Pole/Lithuanian. Just like Protestant = German, and Catholic = Pole almost everywhere in XIX cen Poland. The issue of "Catholc Ruthenians" is complex. Particularly that there was a strong process of ruthenization of Lithuanians. And I would be very careful with extending the term of ethnic Belarusian base onto Catholics. Their religion tells a different story. That is why on the maps of Poland 1920-1939, you get Polish majority in some areas, yet if you look at the picture religion-wise, you quickly see that in many such cases the Ruthenians in fact formed majority, but only many regarded themselves as Polish.

[Jarl]

Probably you remember this immortal phrase: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck". Let me quote a fragment from text "Our Belarusians' great mistake", which was published in a small book "Stories in the Belarusian dialect" (1863).I'm wondering why you are so surprised. There are plenty of maps which have routinely included Wilno and Bialystok in the lebensraum of the Belarusian ethnos. I just selected German ones, as supposedly most unbiased.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4739&stc=1&d=1273958008

As for "there were never any Belarussians in Wilno and its vicinity", you are simply mistaken. Here I have some statistics based on the census which took place in the Russian Empire in 1897. During the census it was language which determined ethnicity.

The three largest ethnic groups in Wilno district (without Wilno itself) in 1897 (I have no statistic data on Jews, though):
[LIST]
Poles: 12,606 males; 12,611 females
Lithuanians: 36,530 males; 36,364 females
Belarusians: 43,813 males; 43,536 females

This is from Russian census of 1897? Stating Wilno was Belarusian-speaking by late XIX early XX century???



Wilno as a city had over 30% Poles in 1912. Stats from the 1897 census for Vilnius Governorate are

Wilno itself:

- Russians 23 000
- Belarusians 8 000
- Poles 23 000
- Lithuanian 2000


For Wilno district:

- 23 000 Russians
- 47 000 Belarusians
- 33 000 Poles
- 38 000 Lithuanians

[Jarl]

By the way, look at your last map. The German one. It is reasonable. Vilnius was at the very border of Ruthenian-speaking majority. However, the second map from the three you posted before, is totally absrud. Ruthenian-speaking majority never reached as far as Kowno and Wilkomyr. Into the hearlands of Auksztota.

Anyway, it would be good if you devoted more time to the process called RUTHENIZATION of Catholic Lithuanian peasantry:


Historical meaning of "Lithuanian":

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litwini_w_znaczeniu_historycznym

Polish Northern Kresy dialect:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialekt_p%C3%B3%C5%82nocnokresowy




Therefore it is vital to stress that Ruthenian-speaking BY NO MEANS equals ethnic Belarusian/Ruthenian. In this aspect, religion is a far better indicator of ethnic background of these borderlands.

[W. R.]

I think you seriously confuse the notion of ethnicity with the notion of nationality.:chin: I'm not sure I do. I intentionally avoid using the words "national, nationalinty" in order to avoid any conrfusion.
And again - you stubbornly persist in the view that they are all polonised Belarusians. I wonder if your claim is based on some reasonable source, or on your emotional POV? Are you really so certain about it?My point of view is the point of view of the whole Belarusian national movement since its very beginning:
The natives of the territories from Bialystok to Smolensk and from Wilno to Homel:

speak the same language;
share the same blood;
have the same customs.

Thus they constitute one ethnos, which bears the name "Belarusians". The division into Catholic and Orthodox believers is one of problems that is to be overcome by spreading one identity - the Belarusian national identity both among the Catholic part and the Orthodox part of Belarusians. It's very simple, really. :coffee:
There was no such thing as a "Catholic Belarusian" in history. What you are saying is some gross absurd. Orthodox religon was the suremost sign of Ruthenian ethnicity. Up to XX century, everywhere in Ruś Orthdox = Ruthenian/Ukrainian, whilce Catholic = Pole/Lithuanian. Just like Protestant = German, and Catholic = Pole almost everywhere in XIX cen Poland. The issue of "Catholc Ruthenians" is complex. Particularly that there was a strong process of ruthenization of Lithuanians. And I would be very careful with extending the term of ethnic Belarusian base onto Catholics. Their religion tells a different story. That is why on the maps of Poland 1920-1939, you get Polish majority in some areas, yet if you look at the picture religion-wise, you quickly see that in many such cases the Ruthenians in fact formed majority, but only many regarded themselves as Polish.You seems not to understand. Yes, even today, although very rarely, one can meet the words "Litva" and "Ruś" used as names of historic parts of Belarus, where respectively the Latin civilisation and the Orthodox civilisation used to dominate. For example, "My father is from Litva, while my mother hails from Ruś". But Litva and Ruś are in the past already. Most definitely "Ruthenian" has nearly identical meaning to "Orthodox" over 9000 years ago, I won't argue. But both Litva and Ruś have already gone and they will not be back. I hail from the center of Polesia, the Latin civilisation has never been too strong there. And most probably my ancestors were Ruthenians. But I am not Ruthenian, I am Belarusian. I am of the same ethnicity as Dr. Jan Stankievič, who was expelled from a Catholic seminary for his "aggresive Belarusianness". Neither he is Litvin, nor I am Ruthenian. We both are Belarusians.
This is from Russian census of 1897? Stating Wilno was Belarusian-speaking by late XIX early XX century???Not Wilno itself but Wilno district largely yes.
Wilno as a city had over 30% Poles in 1912.

[...]

Wilno itself:

- Russians 23 000
- Belarusians 8 000
- Poles 23 000
- Lithuanian 2000Count the Jews too. Multicultural city Wilno...
For Wilno district:

- 23 000 Russians
- 47 000 Belarusians
- 33 000 Poles
- 38 000 LithuaniansHow come? Oh, I see. It seems you counted only males and counted the population of Wilno together with the population of Wilno district. But still, even so (Wilno district + Wilno itself) Poles are outnumbered by Lithuanians and Belarusians.

[Jarl]

:chin: I'm not sure I do. I intentionally avoid using the words "national, nationalinty" in order to avoid any conrfusion.My point of view is the point of view of the whole Belarusian national movement since its very beginning:

The natives of the territories from Bialystok to Smolensk and from Wilno to Homel:

speak the same language;
share the same blood;
have the same customs.


Thus they constitute one ethnos, which bears the name "Belarusians". The division into Catholic and Orthodox believers is one of problems that is to be overcome by spreading one identity - the Belarusian national identity both among the Catholic part and the Orthodox part of Belarusians. It's very simple, really. :coffee:You seems not to understand. Yes, even today, although very rarely, one can meet the words "Litva" and "Ruś" used as names of historic parts of Belarus, where respectively the Latin civilisation and the Orthodox civilisation used to dominate. For example, "My father is from Litva, while my mother hails from Ruś". But Litva and Ruś are in the past already. Most definitely "Ruthenian" has nearly identical meaning to "Orthodox" over 9000 years ago, I won't argue. But both Litva and Ruś have already gone and they will not be back. I hail from the center of Polesia, the Latin civilisation has never been too strong there. And most probably my ancestors were Ruthenians. But I am not Ruthenian, I am Belarusian. I am of the same ethnicity as Dr. Jan Stankievič, who was expelled from a Catholic seminary for his "aggresive Belarusianness". Neither he is Litvin, nor I am Ruthenian. We both are Belarusians.Not Wilno itself but Wilno district largely yes.Count the Jews too. Multicultural city Wilno...How come? Oh, I see. It seems you counted only males and counted the population of Wilno together with the population of Wilno district. But still, even so (Wilno district + Wilno itself) Poles are outnumbered by Lithuanians and Belarusians.



I have to disagree. I do not think ruthenised Lithuanians from Vilna shared the same culture or customs as, say, Ruthenians from Polesie or Witebsk. This is simply not true. Religion was of utmost importance then. For centuries it was religion that determined your identity... and always Ruthenian = Orthodox. You even (subconsciously?) confirmet this crucial role of religion in perserving Ruthenian culture and identity yourself, here:


This map shows that only some Orthodox Belarusians still preserve their identity. Their faith helps them to preserve it.


Now, Ruthenian-speaking (ethnic) Lithuanians for centuries were patriotic Catholics. This paved the way for their polonisation.

One only needs to look at the tradition of the divisions, of Polish-Lithuanian participation in Moscow campaing 1812. Of November or January Uprising of 1863... Lets take 1863. Compare the situation in Lithuania where the peasant Catholics (Lithunian or Ruthenian - speaking) actively supported Polish cause and took part in hunderds of battles and skirmishes, to Orthodox Ruthenia... where the response from Orthodox Belarusians was virtually non-existent.

The truth is that those people, although Ruthenian-speaking were not of the same culutre/customs. And the best proof for that is that those rutenised Lithuanians always tended to Catholic, and by extension, Polish identity. While Belarusians or Poleszuks at that time, upon being asked about their identity would simly answer "Ja prawosławny" or "tutejszy". Two worlds. So no. I do not think that they constitute or in fact, ever constituted a single ethnos. You seem not be aware of the ruthenisation that occured Grand Duchy. I am not an expert on that subject, yet I know Wilno was never an ethnic Ruthenian territory. And although it became Ruthenian-speaking over time, it still retained its original Catholic character indicative of Baltic (Lithuanian) heritage.

Btw. I wonder why that Geman map includes Łomża in the Belarusian ethnic territories?


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4739&d=1273958008

But otherwise it looks credible with Wilno at the very border of Ruthenian-speaking majority. That other map showing Ruthenian majority well North of Wilno up to Wiłkomierz looks odd. Look at the ethnic Lithuania under Mindaugas:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Lithuanian_state_in_13-15th_centuries.png

This should give you some idea of the extent of ruthenisation. "Catholic Belarusians" perhaps did sporadically occur in XIXth and XXth century. However, I think majority of Catholic Belarusian-speaking Poles like the historical Ruthenian-speaking Catholics are ethnically Lithuanian and Yotvingian.

Wilno was an ethnic Lithuanian territory. In late XVI early XVII century the Northermost range of Ruthenian language passed through Grodno-Lida-Oszmiana-Świr-Brasław - so already by then the process of ruthenisation sucked up some border Catholic Lithuanian territories/peasantry:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Lithuanian_language_in_the_16th_century.png

However, as you know, in Rzeczpospolita there was serfdom and peasants were tied to the land and they could not move freely. And from XVII cen on, Rzeczpospolita was strongly Catholic. And as far as I know Ruthenian migration and conversion is out of question. The subsequent expansion od Ruthenian-speaking territories onto rural Catholic peasants from around Vilnius had to occur through acculturation and ruthenisation. Perhaps due to forced russification in the XIX century. Because by XXth century, the areas that were Lithuanian some 300 years before, like Lida, Oszmiana, Holszany and Wilno became ruthenised and polonised:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Russia_ethnic.JPG

Only to become mostly polonised in XXth century:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Russia_ethnic.JPG

[W. R.]

:icon_neutral:

Oh, comrade... All that you said is not new for me. The problem is that we interpret the facts differently.

Some argue that until the end of XVIII century there was no Belarusians, there existed Ruthenians, for whom indeed it was religion that determined their (not mine, I am not Ruthenian, because there are no Ruthenians anymore) identity. During the next XIX century Ruthenians ceased to exist. The southern part of Ruthenians is known today as “Ukrainians”. It seems to me, that you believe that Northern Ruthenians => Belarusians. But I say no. This formula is not complete. The correct formula is Northern Ruthenians + Slavic-speaking Litvins => Belarusians.

The new entity began to be recognized during the XIX century by linguists and ethnographers. The name “Belarusians” stuck to that new entity during the second half of XIX century. The new entity included both Catholic and Orthodox natives. Even before the beginning of the Belarusian national movement Catholic and Orthodox natives began to be seen as one kin, who shared the same blood and spoke the same language. You already read the fragment from a small book published in 1863. There was virtually nothing like the Belarusian national movement at that time. As you can see the idea that the Catholic and Orthodox natives are one kin is older that the Belarusian movement itself.

The Belarusian national movement accepted this idea, as I already wrote.

You’ll probably be surprised if I say that Catholic natives played a crucially important role in the Belarusian national movement. The role that was more important (or at least comparable) to the role of their Orthodox compatriots. And they still play. Zianon Paźniak is a devout Catholic and Belarusian nationalist #1. I’ll tell you more: the Belarusian national identity is more deeply rooted among Catholic natives than among Orthodox natives even now.

Here I see the problem: the Catholic natives aka “Belarusian Poles” are undistinguishable from the Catholic natives aka “Catholic Belarusians”. And I say, “What the hell?” A part of the Catholic natives accepted the Belarusian national identity, then why doesn’t the rest accept it and stubbornly insist that they are Poles? Doesn’t the name “Poles” “suit them as much as a saddle would suit a cow”? :eusa_hand:

Yes, you are right that Belarusian assimilated Lithuanians, but there is nothing new in that. Ask guys from http://kryuja.org/ (they aren't a bunch of loonies, some of them teach at universities) and they’ll explain you that Belarusians are in fact Balts, only arguably with some drops of the Slavic blood. xD I can’t do it because I have never especially interested in the ethnogenesis of the Belarusian people.

Btw. I wonder why that Geman map includes Łomża in the Belarusian ethnic territories?It doesn't. It shows the administrative border of the BSSR before the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

[Jarl]

:icon_neutral:

Oh, comrade... All that you said is not new for me. The problem is that we interpret the facts differently.

:) I have noticed... and I agree that it is a "problem" :P


Some argue that until the end of XVIII century there was no Belarusians, there existed Ruthenians, for whom indeed it was religion that determined their (not mine, I am not Ruthenian, because there are no Ruthenians anymore) identity. During the next XIX century Ruthenians ceased to exist. The southern part of Ruthenians is known today as “Ukrainians”. It seems to me, that you believe that Northern Ruthenians => Belarusians. But I say no.

I totally agree with that. Ruthenians ceased to exist because of surge of Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalisms that left out largely undeclared Poleszuki and Belarusians. Both of whom failed to develop their own elites.


This formula is not complete. The correct formula is Northern Ruthenians + Slavic-speaking Litvins => Belarusians.

The thing is. These people are Catholics and they never ever considered themselves as Belarusians (more so that they are mostly ethnic Lithuanians). And they still blatantly do not. Most of them are staunch Catholics known for their devotion to traditons and upon being asked about their nationality they will answer "Polish".

And this pretty much sets the seal on the subject. It's peoples' own free will that defines who they are and which nation they belong to. No chauvinism will ever change that.


The new entity began to be recognized during the XIX century by linguists and ethnographers. The name “Belarusians” stuck to that new entity during the second half of XIX century. The new entity included both Catholic and Orthodox natives. Even before the beginning of the Belarusian national movement Catholic and Orthodox natives began to be seen as one kin, who shared the same blood and spoke the same language. You already read the fragment from a small book published in 1863. There was virtually nothing like the Belarusian national movement at that time. As you can see the idea that the Catholic and Orthodox natives are one kin is older that the Belarusian movement itself.


I am not certain about what "forms of recognition" you are talking about. There was no Belarusian nation in XIX century. While all Belarusian-speaking people were never categorised as one nation, or even ethnicity. Ask any Lithuanian or Polish historian. I am getting an impression that you are trying to hijack the old "Lithuanian" sense of idenity and re-name it as "Belarusian", which is wrong as its ascribing a much more recent national term that was largely coined in XXth century, to people and phenomena that had never any connection to it.

Among Belarusian and Lithuanian Catholics alike there was some vauge sense of common identity dating to back to the times of Rzeczpospolita and Polish-Lithuanians Commonwealth. Polish (and polonised Lithuanian-Ruthenian) nobility and intelligentsia acted as a glue for that tradition. And that's it. That's why many of these people followed the way of their elites and become polonised. They actively fought in 1831, in 1863. They educated their children in the same schools as Poles. Pilgrimed to the same sanctuaries and had similar traditions. They never ever felt any connection to the Orthodox peasantry from Polesie, Mińsk, Mozyr or the rest of White Ruthenia. This is your invention I'm afraid.


The best proof for this is that when Poland gained independence, those people en masse adopted a Polish national identity (pulling along a part of Orthodox Belarusians too). Now, at the same time Belarusian national identity was just sprouting. In fact, it is still very unstable, and it has yet to pass the test of life. At the moment one can see a phenomenon of Russification, when Belarusians adopt Russian identity (regarding Belarusianism as somethnig provincional, shameful), just like ethnic Polish folk subgroups (Kashubians, Gorals, Silesians) gradually adopted Polish identity.


And now you try to prove that these people are Belarusians even though they themselves never felt that way. Don't you think this is quite ironic? ;)


The Belarusian national movement accepted this idea, as I already wrote.

You’ll probably be surprised if I say that Catholic natives played a crucially important role in the Belarusian national movement. The role that was more important (or at least comparable) to the role of their Orthodox compatriots. And they still play. Zianon Paźniak is a devout Catholic and Belarusian nationalist #1. I’ll tell you more: the Belarusian national identity is more deeply rooted among Catholic natives than among Orthodox natives even now.

No wonder. Those that failed to undergo Polonisation formed the core of Belarusian national movement. I am not amazed at all, given the innate proclivity of Orthodox Belarusians for Russification. After all, most Belarusians regard themselves as a "kind of Russians" and speak a Belarusian-Russian creole.


Here I see the problem: the Catholic natives aka “Belarusian Poles” are undistinguishable from the Catholic natives aka “Catholic Belarusians”. And I say, “What the hell?” A part of the Catholic natives accepted the Belarusian national identity, then why doesn’t the rest accept it and stubbornly insist that they are Poles? Doesn’t the name “Poles” “suit them as much as a saddle would suit a cow”?

I will tell you why. Because the history of Catholicism in the East is invariably and irreversibly connected with Poland, Polish cultural expansion, and the Polish elites that once ruled those domains. In this way the old Catholic=Polish equation is still vaild. Even today.

And issues of ethnicity and language are of secondary importance... which must seem unimaginable to one romantic ethnic nationalist like you ;)


Yes, you are right that Belarusian assimilated Lithuanians, but there is nothing new in that. Ask guys from http://kryuja.org/ (they aren't a bunch of loonies, some of them teach at universities) and they’ll explain you that Belarusians are in fact Balts, only arguably with some drops of the Slavic blood. I can’t do it because I have never especially interested in the ethnogenesis of the Belarusian people.

Yes. That is what Lithuanian nationalists say. They claim not only Catholic Belarusians are Yotvingians Bartians and Lithuanians, but actually the Drewlans and tribes North of Prypec are "slavicised Balts". This is another myth. Another romantic fallacy.


And what can come from even the most romantic and elaborate myth if it is simply fake? We also had our own ethnic nationalists, both before and after WW II. They also tried to depict the Protestant Pomeranian Slovincians or Protestant Prussian Masurians as "Poles who speak Polish but are unaware of their identity". But this was a failure. No. These people, although descended from ethnic Poles, did in majority not consider themselves as Poles. Their affinity to Poland was minimal. And in the end, many emmigrated to Germany, where currently they are becoming assimilated. So is the case of Catholic Belarusian Poles vs Orthodox Belarusians. Of course some of them might have discovered their Belarusian identity, but this dates to more recent times of the XXth century, time when majority of Roman Catholics in the East have long either adopted Lithuanian or Polish identity. I am afraid these are simple facts that speak for themselves and constitute the answer to your question - "Why they don't feel Belarusian if they are the same???"...... Well. I am not an expert, but apparently they are not all that the same ;)

[Jarl]

In general, it would be most tempting to say these Belarusian-speaking Catholics considered themselves as citizens of Rzeczpospolita. Thier religion being the main factor in their national identity. Further factor being the Catholic Polish nobility and Polish burghers, which constituted a substantian minority in many cities and towns propagating Polish culutre. Polish Catholic priests being probably the most important single group of them all.

Society and culture is they key. That is why the simple folk followed their leaders. Who constituted the elites in there? The teachers, the professors, doctors, lawyers? Who was the nobility? Who formed the backbone or file and rank of the Catholic Church in East? Poles... Poles everywhere.

There lies you answer. For that matter it is of little importance whether these ppl were originally Lithuanian and only gradually became ruthenised, or whether ruthenisation facillitated subsequent polonisation. The truh is - these were fairly urbanised territories with substantial numbers of Polish nobility, intelligentisa and clergy. Traditions of Rzeczpospolita, resistance towards russification and a common Catholic religion (so hated by the tsarist regime) bound the rural folk with the Polish elites, and pushed it into Polish national identity.

On the forested, rustic and Orthodox Polesie and East Belarus, this was not possible. Here russification took greater toll. But was stopped for 20 years by Polish independence in 1920-1939. Enough so that local Belarusian movement could start budding...


But even still by 1930s Poleszuki did not have any national identity... But by that time most Catholics have already had a clear Polish sense of identity. Belarusian nation as such begun to form only after those events. Throughout the XXth century. Saying those people are Belarusian is quite odd, as it's applying a fresh term to an older society.

[W. R.]

The thing is. These people are Catholics and they never ever considered themselves as Belarusians (more so that they are mostly ethnic Lithuanians). And they still blatantly do not. Most of them are staunch Catholics known for their devotion to traditons and upon being asked about their nationality they will answer "Polish".Don't be so sure. There are some 400.000 Poles and some 1.200.000 Catholics (http://www.catholic.by/port/en/stat.htm) in Belarus. It gives us at least 800.000 Catholics who cannot be Polish.
And this pretty much sets the seal on the subject. It's peoples' own free will that defines who they are and which nation they belong to. No chauvinism will ever change that.How dare you say this? :mad: Both Dr. Jan Stankievič (see my signature) and Dmytro Dontsov (see his "Nationalism") would disagree with you.
I am not certain about what "forms of recognition" you are talking about. There was no Belarusian nation in XIX century. While all Belarusian-speaking people were never categorised as one nation, or even ethnicity.I meant recognition by ethnographers, linguists, folklorists and... even by the Russian Empire. The authorities of the Russian Empire did make difference between "real" Poles and Belarusian Catholics (who was regarded as "Catholic Belarusians"). (Yes, I am trying to be careful with the terminology.)
I am getting an impression that you are trying to hijack the old "Lithuanian" sense of idenity and re-name it as "Belarusian", which is wrong as its ascribing a much more recent national term that was largely coined in XXth century, to people and phenomena that had never any connection to it.No, I am not. The name "Belarusians" has always been supposed to embrace both Orthodox and Catholic natives. One of the most important popularisers of the national name Franciszek Bohuszewicz was Catholic himself, and even his book with his well-known foreword was published in Latin alphabet (http://gdb.rferl.org/576F4EA4-09E9-4DD1-819B-375DFDFBB78D_mw800_s.jpg).
Among Belarusian and Lithuanian Catholics alike there was some vauge sense of common identity dating to back to the times of Rzeczpospolita and Polish-Lithuanians Commonwealth. Polish (and polonised Lithuanian-Ruthenian) nobility and intelligentsia acted as a glue for that tradition. And that's it. That's why many of these people followed the way of their elites and become polonised. They actively fought in 1831, in 1863. They educated their children in the same schools as Poles. Pilgrimed to the same sanctuaries and had similar traditions. They never ever felt any connection to the Orthodox peasantry from Polesie, Mińsk, Mozyr or the rest of White Ruthenia. This is your invention I'm afraid.Technically the peasantry of White Ruthenia started becoming en masse Orthodox only in 1830s. But anyway, if I accept your statements as facts, I can only say that it means that the Belarusian national identity is not just young, but very young. Again, the Belarusian national identity was coined by Catholic and Orthodox intelligentsia and has always been supposed to embrace both Catholic and Orthodox natives. And replace any other national identity. I am Belarusian, I am neithe Ruthenian nor Litvin (lolwut?) nor anybody else. I expect from my Catholic compatriots to make the same choice. And I am disappointed when I see that some of them refuse to do it.


http://i42.tinypic.com/flan8w.jpg
Now, at the same time Belarusian national identity was just sprouting. In fact, it is still very unstable, and it has yet to pass the test of life. At the moment one can see a phenomenon of Russification, when Belarusians adopt Russian identity (regarding Belarusianism as somethnig provincional, shameful), just like ethnic Polish folk subgroups (Kashubians, Gorals, Silesians) gradually adopted Polish identity.Yes, but Belarusians have their state now, it is a great device to preserve and develop a separate identity. Lukashism artificially slows down the natural process of the national emancipation (may Lukashenka be damned for this!), but I'd say even in such circumstances Belarusians learn to think about themselves as about a separate nation on their own.

One more thing: I have a strange impression that just as lukashism artifically slows down the national emancipation of the Orthodox Belarusians, so it slows down the national emancipation of the Catholic natives. God knows, if our president was Zianon Paźniak, then by this time only some thousands of 1.200.000 Belarusian Catholics would still regard themselves "Polish". If my impression is correct then Lukashenka is in fact your ally, Polacy. :mocking:

[Jarl]

Don't be so sure. There are some 400.000 Poles and some 1.200.000 Catholics (http://www.catholic.by/port/en/stat.htm) in Belarus. It gives us at least 800.000 Catholics who cannot be Polish.

However, I dare to question the credibility of the most recent Belarusian censuses. I know that Ukrainian census lowered the number of Poles considerably. Knowing Belarusian-Lukaszenkan attitude to Poles, I am sure they manipulated the data ;)


How dare you say this? :mad: Both Dr. Jan Stankievič (see my signature) and Dmytro Dontsov (see his "Nationalism") would disagree with you.

:D Ha ha ha! I am full of admiration for Dr Stankiewicz and Dymytro for what they are doing for the Belarusians. You need more people of that sort. I would only be glad if they relied more on historical facts instead of romanticism when it comes to evaluating the REAL meaning of the modern term "Belarusian" ;)


I meant recognition by ethnographers, linguists, folklorists and... even by the Russian Empire. The authorities of the Russian Empire did make difference between "real" Poles and Belarusian Catholics (who was regarded as "Catholic Belarusians"). (Yes, I am trying to be careful with the terminology.)

Sure. Russians had a vital interest in tagging everything in Ruthenia or even ethnic Lithuania (along with Poles and Lithuanians) as "Belarusian" (which in their eyes was pretty much "Russian"). After all this only served their imperial ambitions.


No, I am not. The name "Belarusians" has always been supposed to embrace both Orthodox and Catholic natives. One of the most important popularisers of the national name Franciszek Bohuszewicz was Catholic himself, and even his book with his well-known foreword was published in Latin alphabet (http://gdb.rferl.org/576F4EA4-09E9-4DD1-819B-375DFDFBB78D_mw800_s.jpg).Technically the peasantry of White Ruthenia started becoming en masse Orthodox only in 1830s. But anyway, if I accept your statements as facts, I can only say that it means that the Belarusian national identity is not just young, but very young. Again, the Belarusian national identity was coined by Catholic and Orthodox intelligentsia and has always been supposed to embrace both Catholic and Orthodox natives. And replace any other national identity. I am Belarusian, I am neithe Ruthenian nor Litvin (lolwut?) nor anybody else. I expect from my Catholic compatriots to make the same choice. And I am disappointed when I see that some of them refuse to do it.

:) Bracie... what XIX century intelligentisa you are talking about? Mickiewicz? There was no such thing as "Belarusian" in XIX century. There was Polish and Lithuanian. These were Catholics. And there was "Prawosławny" - these were Ruthenians, Belarusians.

Look at my previous post. The truth is that Belarusian identity is very young. Belarusian elites were young. Both date mostly to the XXth century. Besides, I do not think that there were any massive conversions of Catholic Belarusians to Orthodox religion. White Ruthenia was always mainly Orthodox. Lithuania was Catholic. Language borders shifted subsequently, however the religious boundaries not so much.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Jarl are you saying that Belarus is Poland's version of Austria or Moldova? :coffee:

[Jarl]

http://i42.tinypic.com/flan8w.jpg

But of course you are disappointed! :D Did you expect an old amateur of Polish Kresy history would buy into your romantic Dymytro-made fantasies? :P


Why I admire Belarusian folkists, I get a slight impression they are desperately trying to cling onto everything and label everything as Belarusian in order to sustain and justify their existence... OK. But don't wander into the realm of fantasy.


Yes, but Belarusians have their state now, it is a great device to preserve and develop a separate identity. Lukashism artificially slows down the natural process of the national emancipation (may Lukashenka be damned for this!), but I'd say even in such circumstances Belarusians learn to think about themselves as about a separate nation on their own.

One more thing: I have a strange impression that just as lukashism artifically slows down the national emancipation of the Orthodox Belarusians, so it slows down the national emancipation of the Catholic natives. God knows, if our president was Zianon Paźniak, then by this time only some thousands of 1.200.000 Belarusian Catholics would still regard themselves "Polish". If my impression is correct then Lukashenka is in fact your ally, Polacy. :mocking:



Keep up that reasoning. And in 50 years there will no Belarusians. Lukaszenko is a KGB agent and a fierce Pole-hater who actively eradicated Polish culture in Belarus. So no. He should be your ally. But I do not worry. Poles have a long history of defying Russification and Bolshevism. There is nothing better for our national spirit than a bit of hardship and antipolonism. Nothing makes more self-conscious.



As for the rest. This only stresses how fragile the Belarusian sense of identity is. It is still very fluid, giving way to Polish and Russian identity. The truth is, that Belarusian nation has not yet formed. It has to pass the biggest test yet.

Tiny minority of Belarusians speak pure Belarusian language. Most speak Russian. Many consider themselves as Russians. To many Russian identity is much more attractive than Belarusian. And with the current political situation further russification of Belarus is a real threat.


Read my post before my previous post. Catholic Belarusian-speaking inhabitants of Lithuania and Belarus choce Polish identity long time ago because of the socio-historical factors. Because their faith and religion bound them closely with the Polish elites - nobility clergy and burghers.

These Catholics had some initial Lithuanian-Rzeczpospolita identity, quickly replaced by Polish in XIXth early XXth century.


While the Orthodox peasantry from marshes of Polesie and woods of Belarus had always been quite a different kettle of fish. The bond between Catholic and Orthodox peasnts into modern "Belarusians" which you mention dates back to the last 50 years. It was non-existent in XIX, early XXth century when religion still defined who you were. These were isolated regions. They have not been exposed so much to Polish Catholicism, clergy, Polish Uprisings or polonising influence of city life and cultural centres.

Why in 1930s Poleszuks when asked about their identity said "tutejszy" or "prawosławny"??? Because they had no other! The truth is the Belarusian national movement formed in II Rzeczpospolita. Because these lands did not fell victim to the Soviets. Simultaneously, polonisation of Belarusian-speaking Lithuanians and Belarusians occured. It affected Catholics and city populations first, spreading Southwards from Lithuania into Belarus.



It's 2010 now... and we are still feeling the consequences of these processes. The Belarusian national identity has not yet fully crystallised. There is still confusion about who is Belarusian and about what Belarusian means. Lukaszenko is an old Soviet and the most immediate threat to Belarusian identity is russification. Belarusians easily adopt Russian identity and language. In that you can be certain that Belarusian-speaking Poles will for long remain a stronghold of Belarusian language and customs.

Polish national interest in the East is invariably in keeping up the Belarusian national identity. If there is anything to be feared it's your own political regime facilitating slow russification from the backyard... I hope that day will not come, but you might be still glad one day that Stalin left Białystok and Hajnówka with Poland... ;)

[W. R.]

Oh, God. I am again not being understood. :) What the hell? Okay, I'll try again later.

[Jarl]

Oh, God. I am again not being understood. :) What the hell? Okay, I'll try again later.

:) Maybe I misunderstood you? I get the impression that you are trying to persuade me that the Belarusian Catholics who regard themselves as Poles are ruthenised Lithuanians (you seem to have agreed on that one) and some Catholic ethnic Belarusians too.

I say OK. Some of them might be. Ethnically. But this means little since they themselves have a clear sense of identity because of their Catholic heritage and contacts with the Polish culture. They are no longer ethnic Lithuanians or "tutejsi". They are the sons of Rzeczpospolita (1st and 2nd). And their ancestors made their choice long before or at exactly the same time as "Belarusian" identity was forming (splitting from the out-dated "Lithuanian" and "Ruthenian").

What happens to them? We shall see. Situation is not good. Borders are closed. Polish schools are closed. But I am certain that the current regime will only make them stronger. Taking into account the fact that the current KBG regime is promoting russification, it does not take a genius to see that eradication of Polish-Catholic culture in Belarus will simply be another step to eradicate all forms of independent Belarusian current with an anti-Bolshevik tinge. This will pave the way for russification. Ukrainian nationalists saw it long time ago. Pity the Belarusians seem to take little notice. But my Ukrainian nationalist acquaintances sadly confirm this Belarusian inertion. You hate Lukaszenko, but you love his pseudo-national politics, right? "Let's make a common enemy - the evil West and the Poles"...

[Aramis]

Jarl are you saying that Belarus is Poland's version of Austria or Moldova? :coffee:

Or rather the Bosniak version of Croatia.

--------------------------------------------

Btw, I have one question. Those Catholics in Belarus you two are talking about, are they roman-catholics or catholics of the eastern, Byzantine rite?

[W. R.]

Besides, I do not think that there were any massive conversions of Catholic Belarusians to Orthodox religion. White Ruthenia was always mainly Orthodox.Well, I meant Uniates (aka Greek Catholics). The book “Kanfesiji na Biełarusi” (1998) says that according to some Lithuanian researchers in the end of XVIII century on the territory of the former Great Duchy of Lithuania there lived 39% Uniates, 38% Roman Catholics, 6,5% Orthodox, 4% Old Believers, 1,6% Protestants. No idea how credible the data are.
Btw, I have one question. Those Catholics in Belarus you two are talking about, are they roman-catholics or catholics of the eastern, Byzantine rite?They are Roman Catholics. There are few Catholics of the Byzantine rite in Belarus. The Uniate Church ceased to exist in the XIX century. Former Uniates become Orthodox, some of them managed to “hide” in Roman Catholicism.
However, I dare to question the credibility of the most recent Belarusian censuses. I know that Ukrainian census lowered the number of Poles considerably. Knowing Belarusian-Lukaszenkan attitude to Poles, I am sure they manipulated the data ;)Well, that’s why we misunderstand each other. You don’t find the census of year 1999 credible (and probably also the censuses of years 1989, 1979, 1970, 1959, because their results would satisfy you neither) while I don’t find the censuses that took place in II Rzeczpospolita credible (and you seems to do). The policies of II Rzeczpospolita were aimed at assimilation of ethnic minorities, thus the authorities of II Rzeczpospolita tried to find Poles whenever possible and as many as possible: that would have partially justified their claims for the Belarusian and Ukrainian ethnic territories they managed to occupy during the Polish-Bolshevik war.
The thing is. These people are Catholics and they never ever considered themselves as Belarusians (more so that they are mostly ethnic Lithuanians). And they still blatantly do not. Most of them are staunch Catholics known for their devotion to traditons and upon being asked about their nationality they will answer "Polish".Okay, you can believe this. But numbers 400.000 Poles vs 1.200.000 Catholics in Belarus tell me a different story.
I am not certain about what "forms of recognition" you are talking about. There was no Belarusian nation in XIX century. While all Belarusian-speaking people were never categorised as one nation, or even ethnicity. Ask any Lithuanian or Polish historian.No, they were categorized. Maybe they lacked the national self-consciousness, yes. You think that if they did, it means the entity did not exist. But the entity was “seen”, “recognized” from outside. By educated people, ethnographers, linguists etc. They were known as “Belarusians”. But at that time they were categorized as the western branch of the triune Russian nation (the last one included also Vielikorussy and Małorussy). In year 1897 during the census Belarusians were even counted. How is it possible to count something that does not exist? :biggrin: Belarusians did exist, and they were categorized as a single entity in the best traditions of good old ethnic nationalism.

In the XIX century the Belarusian nationalism did not exist, but the XIX century paved the way for it. In fact, the only step the Belarusian national movement had to do was to say, “no, the Belarusians (be they Catholic or Orthodox) are not a branch of any other nation, but they are a nation on their own”. And the Belarusian nationalism did that step.
The best proof for this is that when Poland gained independence, those people en masse adopted a Polish national identity (pulling along a part of Orthodox Belarusians too). Now, at the same time Belarusian national identity was just sprouting.You believe that the censuses which took place in II Rzeczpospolita were precise. I am not so sure and already explained why.
And now you try to prove that these people are Belarusians even though they themselves never felt that way. Don't you think this is quite ironic? ;)Never felt? 400.000 vs 1.200.000 is all I have to say.
I will tell you why. Because the history of Catholicism in the East is invariably and irreversibly connected with Poland, Polish cultural expansion, and the Polish elites that once ruled those domains. In this way the old Catholic=Polish equation is still vaild. Even today.

And issues of ethnicity and language are of secondary importance... which must seem unimaginable to one romantic ethnic nationalist like you ;)
So is the case of Catholic Belarusian Poles vs Orthodox Belarusians. Of course some of them might have discovered their Belarusian identity, but this dates to more recent times of the XXth century, time when majority of Roman Catholics in the East have long either adopted Lithuanian or Polish identity. I am afraid these are simple facts that speak for themselves and constitute the answer to your question - "Why they don't feel Belarusian if they are the same???"...... Well. I am not an expert, but apparently they are not all that the same ;)Again I see in your words the belief that all Catholics of Belarus regard themselves Poles.

Now some fact about the Belarusian nationalism. At the beginning of the XX century, when it was born, few people regarded themselves Belarusians. Academician Jaŭchim Karski wrote in his fundamental work “Belarusians” (first volume was published in 1903): “At present common people don’t know this name [Belarusians]. To the question “who are you?” a commoner will answer russkiy, and if he is Catholic he’ll call himself either Catholic or Pole; sometimes he’ll call his fatherland Litva, or even just say that he is «тутэйший» (tutejszy), zdeshniy, of course, contrasting himself to a person who speak in Great Russian (po-velikorusski) as to an incomer in the West Land”.

The Belarusian nationalism appears in a strange situation. The Belarusians exist, but they don’t have the national self-awareness, self-consciousness. Thus the main and greatest task of the Belarusian national movement becomes developing and propagating the Belarusian national identity. For the newly born Belarusian intelligentsia the Belarusians obviously exist. They were recognized and categorized as one single entity already in the XIX century. And if they don’t regard themselves Belarusian, it is because of their ignorance (the great masses of people remain illiterate at that time). So the main task of the Belarusian national movement is to enlighten people, to explain them who they are.

The new ideology of the Belarusian nationalism could not be coined for the Orthodox Belarusians only. I’ll tell you why. I looked for the information about the first Belarusian political party and found it here (http://knihi.com/pytanni/100.html). In year 1902 a group of Belarusian students began to create a secret organization named “Belarusian Revolutionary Party”. Look who constituted it: Vacłaŭ Ivanoŭski (Catholic), Ałaiza Paškievič (Catholic), Ivan Łuckievič (Catholic). On the base of that party later there was created Belarusian Socialist Hramada, and again look who was among founders of that party: Anton Łuckievič (Catholic), Aleś Burbis (not sure was he Catholic or not), Kazimir Kastravicki (Catholic), Alaksandar Ułasaŭ (Catholic), Vacłaŭ Łastoŭski (Catholic).

All of them are known today as great contributors to the Belarusian national rebirth. Overwhelming majority of them are Catholics. Actually these facts make me believe that the Belarusian nationalism was born among Catholic natives and only later was imparted to Orthodox natives. :)

The conversion of the natives into the Belarusian national identity was very much like conversion into a newly born religion. Any national identity of the natives different from the Belarusian identity was regarded as “heresy”, as “false teaching”.

Very many people came to conclusion that they weren’t Poles being already adult. One of the greatest Belarusian poets Janka Kupała as a beginner wrote some poems in Polish. Father Vincent Hadleŭski (link to the ideological charter of his Belarusian National Front you can find in my signature) even when being in a Catholic seminary still regarded himself Polish. But after their conversion they didn’t think: “Well, we will regard ourselves Belarusians, but our compatriots can remain Poles if they want to”. No, they thought rather so: “We were blind. We have regarded ourselves Polish, but we obviously are not. We must do everything to spread the Belarusian national identity among our kin who still remain blind”. And they got involved into the Belarusian national movement.

The idea, that the Belarusian identity must embrace both Catholic and Orthodox natives, lies in the very core of the Belarusian nationalism. Any national identity of the natives different from the Belarusian identity is heresy and false teaching.

Now about my personal attitude to the fact that 400.000 natives of Belarus believe that they are Poles.

In my opinion it is a fail of the Belarusian nationalism. But there are no reasons to think that it was more successful among the Orthodox natives. The successful Russification of them proves that the Belarusian nationalism failed there too. :( But the fail is not fatal. The Belarusian nationalism somehow survived the Soviet regime and the Polish “sanacja”. It will survive lukashism too, at least I hope so. And it has been noticed, that when it is not in conditions when it has to “survive”, it starts blooming. ;)
As for the rest. This only stresses how fragile the Belarusian sense of identity is. It is still very fluid, giving way to Polish and Russian identity. The truth is, that Belarusian nation has not yet formed. It has to pass the biggest test yet.Yes.
It's peoples' own free will that defines who they are and which nation they belong to.Eww… Depart, you nasty liberal! :icon_mad:
Society and culture is they key. That is why the simple folk followed their leaders. Who constituted the elites in there? The teachers, the professors, doctors, lawyers? Who was the nobility? Who formed the backbone or file and rank of the Catholic Church in East? Poles... Poles everywhere.

There lies you answer. For that matter it is of little importance whether these ppl were originally Lithuanian and only gradually became ruthenised, or whether ruthenisation facillitated subsequent polonisation. The truh is - these were fairly urbanised territories with substantial numbers of Polish nobility, intelligentisa and clergy. Traditions of Rzeczpospolita, resistance towards russification and a common Catholic religion (so hated by the tsarist regime) bound the rural folk with the Polish elites, and pushed it into Polish national identity.XIX century was prehistory of the Belarusian nation. XX century was its history. Everything that happened before that time happened simply too long ago to matter.
:) Bracie... what XIX century intelligentisa you are talking about? Mickiewicz?No, you misunderstood me. I meant XX century intelligentsia of course.
Why I admire Belarusian folkists, I get a slight impression they are desperately trying to cling onto everything and label everything as Belarusian in order to sustain and justify their existence... OK. But don't wander into the realm of fantasy.Have I wandered there? Where exactly? :biggrin:
Lukaszenko is a KGB agent and a fierce Pole-hater who actively eradicated Polish culture in Belarus.In my opinion what happened to the Związek Polaków na Białorusi was not caused by some hate for Poles, only by the wish of Łukašenka to take control of a great organization which was supported from abroad. We have a light form of totalitarianism here, you know. As for Łukašenka being a KGB agent I have no information on that.
I hope that day will not come, but you might be still glad one day that Stalin left Białystok and Hajnówka with Poland... ;)Belarusians are undergoing assimilation there as well. I think it is our national trait. :( I don’t remember the exact numbers but more than half of the Orthodox natives who live now in Eastern Poland already regard themselves Polish. I keep mum about Catholic Belarusians there.
You hate Lukaszenko, but you love his pseudo-national politics, right? "Let's make a common enemy - the evil West and the Poles"...:eek: No, comrade. How can you say that? I regard all his actions against the ZPB as idiotic. I have nothing against Belarusian Poles, and think that the best thing we can do is to leave them alone. And of course we all must love Belarusian Poles, because… in all of them there sits a small Belarusian who is waiting for his time to go out. :mocking:

[Jarl]

Well, I meant Uniates (aka Greek Catholics). The book “Kanfesiji na Biełarusi” (1998) says that according to some Lithuanian researchers in the end of XVIII century on the territory of the former Great Duchy of Lithuania there lived 39% Uniates, 38% Roman Catholics, 6,5% Orthodox, 4% Old Believers, 1,6% Protestants. No idea how credible the data are.They are Roman Catholics. There are few Catholics of the Byzantine rite in Belarus. The Uniate Church ceased to exist in the XIX century. Former Uniates become Orthodox, some of them managed to “hide” in Roman Catholicism. Well, that’s why we misunderstand each other. You don’t find the census of year 1999 credible (and probably also the censuses of years 1989, 1979, 1970, 1959, because their results would satisfy you neither) while I don’t find the censuses that took place in II Rzeczpospolita credible (and you seems to do). The policies of II Rzeczpospolita were aimed at assimilation of ethnic minorities, thus the authorities of II Rzeczpospolita tried to find Poles whenever possible and as many as possible: that would have partially justified their claims for the Belarusian and Ukrainian ethnic territories they managed to occupy during the Polish-Bolshevik war.Okay, you can believe this. But numbers 400.000 Poles vs 1.200.000 Catholics in Belarus tell me a different story.

I do know there were some conversions from the Uniate Church to Russian Orthodox during XIX century russification era. And this was among Ruthenians primarily from today's Ukraine. I am not certain if the scale was so large. I quite doubt it. Uniate Church was simply banned by the Russians. Anyway, Russians closed down many Catholic Churches in Ruthenia and openly persecuted Cathilics. I am more than certain there were no conversions of Orthodox Ruthenians to Catholicism anywhere in Russia.



The truth is that Lida, Holszany, Oszmiana, Wilno, Troki, Świr were ethnic Lithuanian and Catholic territories as late as XVI-XVII century. There were no Orthodox old parishes or bishopcies in there. It is true that they became ruthenised over time, however as I said - they retained both the religion and a Catholic "Lithuanian" sense of identity. You can read more here:

http://old.bialorus.pl/index.php?pokaz=polacy_bialorusini&&Rozdzial=polityka_mn


There you can find information on the history of Catholicism in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and ruthenisation of Lithuanian peasants. Paradoxically! This was because of the Catholic Church which adopted Ruthenian language in many parishes. Ruthenian, not Lithuanian was also official language of the Lithuanian state! More articles here:

http://old.bialorus.pl/index.php?secId=49&&Rozdzial=historia

Ruthenisation of ethnic Catholic Lithuanians and Prussians/Yotvingians is a documented historical fact, which no scholar questions, including Paźnik. You also should not forget about the settlings of Prussian and Yotvingian peasants on ethnic Belarusian lands organised by the grand dukes themselves. These were mostly settled around Grodno, Lida and Wołkowysk. There was a whole separate group of Lithuanians peasants named the Bartians (after the Prussian tribe they came from).




The fact that Belarusian Catholics descend mostly from ruthenised Lithuanians is, I think well evidenced, in all those areas that used to be ethnically Lithuanian in XVI-XVII centuries. That some of them consider themselves as Belarusians and some Poles, is nothing strange. I never claimed all Catholics are Poles by national identity. Nor ethnically. They are by majority a Balto-Slavic mix, or descend from ethnic Lithuanian peasants. They took Polish and Belarusian national identity fairly recently in history. The fact is that Poleszuki and Podlasie Ruthenians also took on their identity fairly recently. Ukrainian nationalists claim that these were orgininally ethnically Ukrainian populations, however backward and undeclared, and belarutenized only very recently. After WW II. To the number of Catholics you should also add the Ukrainian Uniates.


Besides, I would take all censuses with a pinch of salt. By no means I believe that the number 400,000 is correct.



No, they were categorized. Maybe they lacked the national self-consciousness, yes. You think that if they did, it means the entity did not exist. But the entity was “seen”, “recognized” from outside. By educated people, ethnographers, linguists etc. They were known as “Belarusians”. But at that time they were categorized as the western branch of the triune Russian nation (the last one included also Vielikorussy and Małorussy). In year 1897 during the census Belarusians were even counted. How is it possible to count something that does not exist? Belarusians did exist, and they were categorized as a single entity in the best traditions of good old ethnic nationalism.

In the XIX century the Belarusian nationalism did not exist, but the XIX century paved the way for it. In fact, the only step the Belarusian national movement had to do was to say, “no, the Belarusians (be they Catholic or Orthodox) are not a branch of any other nation, but they are a nation on their own”. And the Belarusian nationalism did that step.

Let me ask you few simple questions...


1. Do you think that the 1897 census counted language-speakers, or asked for their sense of ethnic/national identity?

2. Do you think that Imperial regime had an interest in elevatin the levels of Russian-speakers (including "Western Russians")?

3. Are you aware of historical ruthenisation of ethnic Lithuanians? Do you think/know/believe that Lithuanian Catholics on ethnically Lithuanian lands like Oszmiana or Lida, became ruthenised?

4. Isn't this an oxymoron: Belarusians did exist, and they were categorized as a single entity in the best traditions of good old ethnic nationalism. In the XIX century the Belarusian nationalism did not exist..."???



Look, I do not want to argue with you upon the basics. For some odd reason you seem to fail to acknowledge that Ruthenian language expanded to the immediately neighbouring ethnic Lithuanian Catholic lands, without the Ruthenian ethnos... as simple as that.

Those borderlands' Catholic peasants were ethnically Lithuanian, but spoke Ruthenian tongue. They did not have any national identity by XIX century. Apart from a vague sense of belonging to the Duchy of Lithuania. In late XIX-XXth century most of them adopted Polish identity which was facillitated by the same religion, Polish clergy and elites as well as proximity to cities inhabited by the Poles.

Some of those peasants could have simultaneously adopted a Belarusian identity. However, I believe that most Belarusian Catholics are products of assimilatin/rutenization procesess that took place after WW II - when most ethnic Poles left Belarus.


You believe that the censuses which took place in II Rzeczpospolita were precise. I am not so sure and already explained why. Never felt? 400.000 vs 1.200.000 is all I have to say.

As above. First of all - the number of 400 000 is highly doubtful. The estimates vary between 500 000 and 1 500 000, add to that up to 100 000 Ukrainian Uniate Catholics... and you get a much less impressive image.


Furthermore, in 1960 there were nearly 700 000 Poles (oficially!). That means at least a further 200 000 of these Belarusian Catholics are only very recently rutenized Poles.

There is certainly a number of Belarusians-Catholics, however they are a minority. I would assume they stem mostly from the aforementioned Ruthenised Lithuanians and some genuine Belarusian converts from the mixed areas.


As for Łukašenka being a KGB agent I have no information on that.

;)


Belarusians are undergoing assimilation there as well. I think it is our national trait. I don’t remember the exact numbers but more than half of the Orthodox natives who live now in Eastern Poland already regard themselves Polish. I keep mum about Catholic Belarusians there.

Maybe Belarusians are simply another Slavic-speaking group of former Rzeczpospolita and torn away from it? Highly related to Polish ethnic groups?

Perhaps they see the Polish national identity as a more legitimate continuation of those traditions than some Soviet-KGB-Lukaszenko-made russification smuggled under catchy phrase of "Belarusianism". Maybe this for of Belarusianism is not attracitve for Belarusian Catholics, but also even the Orthodoxes (as we can see in Podlasie).


Back on polonisation. It is true:

http://svoja.org/52.html

There were some 150 000 Belarusians in PRL. Now theres 50 000. Yet there are 500 000 Orthodox, mostly in Podlasie. So assimilation did occur. Just like some Catholics in Belarus adopted Belarusian identity or switched from Polish to Belarusian...

[W. R.]

XIX century was prehistory of the Belarusian nation. XX century was its history. Everything that happened before that time happened simply too long ago to matter.I didn't write this just to annoy you, I really think so. :) Yes, the history of Ruthenians and Slavic-speaking Litvins/Poles (as well as Kriviches or Radimiches for example) can be interesting... But it was too long ago to matter, wasn't it?

[Jarl]

I didn't write this just to annoy you, I really think so. :) Yes, the history of Ruthenians and Slavic-speaking Litvins/Poles (as well as Kriviches or Radimiches for example) can be interesting... But it was too long ago to matter, wasn't it?

Indeed! That is what I am advocating here :) Who these ppl were 200, 300 or 500 years ago ethnically does not matter that much. Or what languages they spoke. Now they mostly consider themselves Poles or Belarusians at a national level - and those are the facts. Polonisation of Ruthenian-speaking Catholics and Orthodox ppl alike was strong. Podlasie and Grodno are best examples. Communism and expulsions of Poles stopped it in Belarus. This opened a niche for Belarusian identity. And indeed many of those got rutenized after 1945. Others (at least 40-50%) retained their Polish identity, adopted largely in early XXth century and II RP period.



Again I see in your words the belief that all Catholics of Belarus regard themselves Poles.

Roman Catholics. And yes, at least they regarded themselves as Poles by 1945. After that a process of rutenization took place - as you can see yourself by the dwindling numbers of Poles and Polish-speakers every decade.

However, still majority of Belarusian Catholics are declared Poles and Ukrainians. At least 500 000. The rest? At least some 200 000 - 300 000 rutenized Poles and Ukrainians, and their descendants. Plus Belarusian converts. The number of real Belarusian Catholics who Belarusian identity since II RP period is a fraction of the whole number.


Now some fact about the Belarusian nationalism. At the beginning of the XX century, when it was born, few people regarded themselves Belarusians. Academician Jaŭchim Karski wrote in his fundamental work “Belarusians” (first volume was published in 1903): “At present common people don’t know this name . To the question “who are you?” a commoner will answer russkiy, and if he is Catholic he’ll call himself either Catholic or Pole; sometimes he’ll call his fatherland Litva, or even just say that he is «тутэйший» (tutejszy), zdeshniy, of course, contrasting himself to a person who speak in Great Russian (po-velikorusski) as to an incomer in the West Land”.

:) Indeed. That is why Ukrainians blame you for rutenization of Poleszuki, and even parts of Podlasie. While Lithuanians blame you for rutenization of ethnic Lithuanian Catholics.

In the period 1918-1939, Polish identity was well-established among most of the Ruhtenian elites and burghers. However those peasant Ruthenian-speaking Catholics only started to become a part of the Polish nation. I am not certain if the Belarusian national movement that developed simultaneously was initially more Catholic or Orthodox. Yet definitely it gained more popularity among Orthodox Ruthenians. With the notable exception of Poleszuki from Polesie backcountry.

Belarusian identity was born in II RP. Because Poles were more liberal than the Soviets. And because Orthodox Belarusians were always more susceptible to russification than to polonisation.


The Belarusian nationalism appears in a strange situation. The Belarusians exist, but they don’t have the national self-awareness, self-consciousness. [b]Thus the main and greatest task of the Belarusian national movement becomes developing and propagating the Belarusian national identity. For the newly born Belarusian intelligentsia the Belarusians obviously exist. They were recognized and categorized as one single entity already in the XIX century. And if they don’t regard themselves Belarusian, it is because of their ignorance (the great masses of people remain illiterate at that time). So the main task of the Belarusian national movement is to enlighten people, to explain them who they are.


Totally agreed. The Belarusian nation has to form yet. So far it has little tradition to rely on. And No. I do not think it is ignorance. I think you mix ethnic-awareness with nationality.

Polish górale and Kashubians are strongly patriotic and Catholic, even though they speak very distinct dialects and are ethnically distinct as well.

Same goes for Belarusians. I do not doubt that they are Belarusian ethnically/linguistically/historically... yet nationally... well the current state of affairs speak for itself. Like you said Belarusian national identity is not strong. It faces competiton from Polish and Russian.


Of course this ethnic-based national identity of which you are talking would be suitable for preserving Belarusian traditions and language. I fully agree. Yet the facts are that still many Belarusians prefer to opt for other nationalities. It is most definitely a formidable task for the Belarusian ethnic patriots. Particularly now under current political regime.


The new ideology of the Belarusian nationalism could not be coined for the Orthodox Belarusians only. I’ll tell you why. I looked for the information about the first Belarusian political party and found it here. In year 1902 a group of Belarusian students began to create a secret organization named “Belarusian Revolutionary Party”. Look who constituted it: Vacłaŭ Ivanoŭski (Catholic), Ałaiza Paškievič (Catholic), Ivan Łuckievič (Catholic). On the base of that party later there was created Belarusian Socialist Hramada, and again look who was among founders of that party: Anton Łuckievič (Catholic), Aleś Burbis (not sure was he Catholic or not), Kazimir Kastravicki (Catholic), Alaksandar Ułasaŭ (Catholic), Vacłaŭ Łastoŭski (Catholic).

All of them are known today as great contributors to the Belarusian national rebirth. Overwhelming majority of them are Catholics. Actually these facts make me believe that the Belarusian nationalism was born among Catholic natives and only later was imparted to Orthodox natives.

Interesting. That basically tells me that Belarusian national movement was born within orbit of the Polish Catholic culture in the East and traditions of I RP and II RP. Whether they were ethnic Litvins or converts does not matter.

Like I said, by XXth century the old "Lithuanian" identity dating back to I Rzeczpospolita and Grand Duchy ceased to exist. It split into separate Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian nationalisms.

Certainly some Catholics chose the last option. I would suspect they were mostly converts or came from mixed Litwin-Ruthenian regions. However maybe they were genuine Catholics who for some reason felt more inclined to the Belarusian identity. Local patriots ;) Majority of Ruthenian Catholics became polonised. Many emigrated to Poland or Lithuania after the war.


The conversion of the natives into the Belarusian national identity was very much like conversion into a newly born religion. Any national identity of the natives different from the Belarusian identity was regarded as “heresy”, as “false teaching”.

Very many people came to conclusion that they weren’t Poles being already adult. One of the greatest Belarusian poets Janka Kupała as a beginner wrote some poems in Polish. Father Vincent Hadleŭski (link to the ideological charter of his Belarusian National Front you can find in my signature) even when being in a Catholic seminary still regarded himself Polish. But after their conversion they didn’t think: “Well, we will regard ourselves Belarusians, but our compatriots can remain Poles if they want to”. No, they thought rather so: “We were blind. We have regarded ourselves Polish, but we obviously are not. We must do everything to spread the Belarusian national identity among our kin who still remain blind”. And they got involved into the Belarusian national movement.

The idea, that the Belarusian identity must embrace both Catholic and Orthodox natives, lies in the very core of the Belarusian nationalism. Any national identity of the natives different from the Belarusian identity is heresy and false teaching.

Well this confirms what I said. Belarusian identity was born mostly among polnised Catholic natives who felt they were still distinct in many ways to the Poles. Very interesting facts. Thanks for sharing them with me!


The only thing is that - this "awakening" of dorman Belarusians is a biased viewpoint. Belarusian nationalists should protect ethnic Belarusians, however not at the expense of historical truth. Ruthenian-speaking Catholics who descend from Balts and now largely regard themselves as Poles are not some "dormant" Belarusians. This is what we call in Polish "przekłamanie".


Plus, some of them have genuinly Polish ancestry. You seem to disregard the Polish colonisation of cities in Great Duchy.



Now about my personal attitude to the fact that 400.000 natives of Belarus believe that they are Poles.

In my opinion it is a fail of the Belarusian nationalism. But there are no reasons to think that it was more successful among the Orthodox natives. The successful Russification of them proves that the Belarusian nationalism failed there too. But the fail is not fatal. The Belarusian nationalism somehow survived the Soviet regime and the Polish “sanacja”. It will survive lukashism too, at least I hope so. And it has been noticed, that when it is not in conditions when it has to “survive”, it starts blooming.

No, comrade. How can you say that? I regard all his actions against the ZPB as idiotic. I have nothing against Belarusian Poles, and think that the best thing we can do is to leave them alone. And of course we all must love Belarusian Poles, because… in all of them there sits a small Belarusian who is waiting for his time to go out.

Just like there is a little bit of Pole in most of them and a big rutenised Litwin/Prus/Jaćwięg... Just as there is a little Ukrainian in every Poleszuk and a little Russian in every Belarusian... we can play that game endlessly... ;)





I think what you said there is best - let's love each other and leave each other alone. Hearts should decide :)

All I hope is that the Polish identity among Catholics in the East survives just like the Belarusian language which they speak and a separate Belarusian identity. Pity we do not have another Rzeczpospolita to defy russification. Something that could bind Polish and Belarusian identity on fairly equal terms.

[Jarl]

I didn't write this just to annoy you, I really think so. :) Yes, the history of Ruthenians and Slavic-speaking Litvins/Poles (as well as Kriviches or Radimiches for example) can be interesting... But it was too long ago to matter, wasn't it?

Yes. For this very reason I do not think that Belarusian nationalism is "losing" anything in Catholic Belarusian-speaking Poles. Since it never gained them in the first place. They are a mixed group of mostly Baltic origins, ruthenised linguistically and polonised culturally. Belarusian nationalists may only lose the opportunity to gain them ;)

However, I think that things as they are now are very convenient for Belarusians. After all Belarusian Poles are strongly traditional, Catholic, patriotic and.... Belarusian-speaking at the same time! They will certainly one of the last groups that could give way to russification, preserving Belarusian language at the same time.

It's good to have some back-up copy in case Belarusian national identity fails in the next 100 years and Russia takes over Europe ;)

Btw. Polish wiki gives an interesting map of Belarusian in II RP:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Bia%C5%82oruskiIIRP.PNG

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82orusini_w_Polsce

I wonder where Belarusians of predominantly Greek Catholic faith too in Greater Poland and Pomorze came from? There was this tiny Belarusian island of 0.1 to few percent in Northern Wielkopolskie and Pomorskie voivodships...

Peculiarly... they seem to be present in Poznan and Vistulan cities of Bydgoszcz, Toruń, Grudziadz and Swiecie! Former Prussian territories. Political Greek Orthodox emigrees? This seems plausible. But only in Bydgoszcz and Grudziadz they retained the language, it seems...

[W. R.]

Well, generally I have said everything I wanted to say. It makes no sense to repeat myself. However I still have some notes to add.
I am not certain if the scale was so large. I quite doubt it. Uniate Church was simply banned by the Russians. Anyway, Russians closed down many Catholic Churches in Ruthenia and openly persecuted Cathilics.I don’t think so. The Uniate Church wasn’t simply banned; the way of reconversion of the Uniates was quite sophisticated. It took tens of years. The high Uniate clergy accepted the reconversion with little hesitation: it automatically made them the high-ranked members of the state Church of the Russian Empire (while they weren’t treated equally well in the Rzecz Pospolita). But still the process took a lot of years. And what exactly do you mean by the open persecution of the Catholics? Any examples?
Ruthenisation of ethnic Catholic Lithuanians and Prussians/Yotvingians is a documented historical fact, which no scholar questions, including Paźnik. You also should not forget about the settlings of Prussian and Yotvingian peasants on ethnic Belarusian lands organised by the grand dukes themselves. These were mostly settled around Grodno, Lida and Wołkowysk. There was a whole separate group of Lithuanians peasants named the Bartians (after the Prussian tribe they came from).

The fact that Belarusian Catholics descend mostly from ruthenised Lithuanians is, I think well evidenced, in all those areas that used to be ethnically Lithuanian in XVI-XVII centuries.I am not trying to deny that. But they were Ruthenians and Lithuanians. They weren’t Belarusians. The Ruthenians were Orthodox. The Belarusians were categorized in XIX century as an entity which embraced Orthodox and Catholic natives. Ruthenians aren’t Belarusians, Belarusians aren’t Ruthenians.
Let me ask you few simple questions...

1. Do you think that the 1897 census counted language-speakers, or asked for their sense of ethnic/national identity?

2. Do you think that Imperial regime had an interest in elevatin the levels of Russian-speakers (including "Western Russians")?

3. Are you aware of historical ruthenisation of ethnic Lithuanians? Do you think/know/believe that Lithuanian Catholics on ethnically Lithuanian lands like Oszmiana or Lida, became ruthenised?

4. Isn't this an oxymoron: Belarusians did exist, and they were categorized as a single entity in the best traditions of good old ethnic nationalism. In the XIX century the Belarusian nationalism did not exist..."???1. It did not ask about the natives’ sense of ethnic/national identity only about their language. If it had done that, there would have been only some thousand Belarusians, not some millions. I quoted Karski already: at the beginning of XX century the name was not popular among the natives. Nevertheless the data of the census confirm that at that time the entity “Belarusians” was “seen” and categorized “from outside”. Not in year 1897 but already long before that.

2. Yes, it had. The results of the 1897 don’t satisfy you, do they? :) Again falsifications? And again your sincere belief that only the Polish censuses were 100% unbiased? Oh, come on…

It seems at the end of XIX century ethnonationalist view of the triune Russian nation replaced the “traditionalist” one (for the traditionalist view the Orthodox faith was very important in drawing borders between ethnicities, for the ethnonationalist view not so much). Theodore R. Weeks in his article “Us” or “Them”? Belarusians and Official Russia, 1863-1914 quotes a few Russian officials and it seems to me that they quite sincerely believed that the Catholic natives were Belarusians. Definitely it was a sad thing to realize: that there existed “West Russians” (not “inorodtsy”) who were Catholic (“inovertsy”). :biggrin: In the eyes of Russian officials the Catholic faith made “Western Russians” potential victims of the national Polish propaganda.

3. Yes, I know about it. But I have no problem with accepting the fact that over 9000 years ago some part of the Belarusian ancestors spoke some Baltic language. Why should I?

4. No. The Belarusian nationalism did not exist then. But nationalism did.
The estimates vary between 500 000 and 1 500 000, add to that up to 100 000 Ukrainian Uniate Catholics... and you get a much less impressive image.

Furthermore, in 1960 there were nearly 700 000 Poles (oficially!). That means at least a further 200 000 of these Belarusian Catholics are only very recently rutenized Poles.Let’s not discuss this anymore. Obviously it’s a matter of one’s beliefs. :rolleyes: I have two notes though: the Russian Wikipedia says that there were 538 881 Poles in Belarus in year 1959; the Belarusian Uniate Church hardly has so many followers now (“up to 100 000”). And there is hardly anything Ukrainian about this Church. It is probably the most Belarusian Church among all the Belarusian Churches.
Maybe Belarusians are simply another Slavic-speaking group of former Rzeczpospolita and torn away from it? Highly related to Polish ethnic groups?

Perhaps they see the Polish national identity as a more legitimate continuation of those traditions than some Soviet-KGB-Lukaszenko-made russification smuggled under catchy phrase of "Belarusianism".Well said. :) This is what I meant when I typed “If my impression is correct then Lukashenka is in fact your ally, Polacy” in one of my posts. :biggrin: As long as “Belarusianness” is associated with vodka “Bulbash”/Red Partisans/the BSSR/the Stalin Line and other such stuff, it will not be attractive for most of the people whom we know now as “Belarusian Poles”. But if the notion of Belarusiannes changes, then who knows… :biggrin:

Hey, I have a question for you too. :) We cannot measure how deeply the Belarusian identity is rooted among the Orthodox natives. I claim that it more deeply rooted among the Catholic natives. To substantiate this claim I say that Catholics has always played very significant role in the Belarusian national movement, their contribution is proportionally bigger than the percentage of them in the whole population of Belarus. Here goes the question: can’t this fact be seen as a proof that the Belarusian identity is more deeply rooted among the Catholic natives? :)

By the way, Dr. Jan Stankievič stated that before the First World War the Belarusian identity was more widespread exactly in what we know today as “Hrodna region”, to the East of Minsk successes of the Belarusian national movement were far more modest.
:) Indeed. That is why Ukrainians blame you for rutenization of Poleszuki, and even parts of Podlasie. While Lithuanians blame you for rutenization of ethnic Lithuanian Catholics.

In the period 1918-1939, Polish identity was well-established among most of the Ruhtenian elites and burghers. However those peasant Ruthenian-speaking Catholics only started to become a part of the Polish nation. I am not certain if the Belarusian national movement that developed simultaneously was initially more Catholic or Orthodox. Yet definitely it gained more popularity among Orthodox Ruthenians. With the notable exception of Poleszuki from Polesie backcountry.

Belarusian identity was born in II RP. Because Poles were more liberal than the Soviets. And because Orthodox Belarusians were always more susceptible to russification than to polonisation.I believe the Belarusian identity was born in the Russian Empire. In II RP and in the USSR it had to survive. By the beginning of the Second World War Belarusian nationalism was completely destroyed in the two countries, but between the two world wars paradoxically it was more successful in the BSSR. Ya, rly. There was created an educational system in the Belarusian language, there was a short period of Belarusization (as a part of the policy of korenizatsiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya)), etc. Many activists of the Belarusian national movement chose to work in the BSSR, because they saw there the Belarusian culture developing; that was what they had always dreamed about.
Plus, some of them have genuinly Polish ancestry. You seem to disregard the Polish colonisation of cities in Great Duchy.Those who had genuinely Polish ancestry left after the WWII, I tell ya.
Totally agreed. The Belarusian nation has to form yet. So far it has little tradition to rely on. And No. I do not think it is ignorance. I think you mix ethnic-awareness with nationality.

Polish górale and Kashubians are strongly patriotic and Catholic, even though they speak very distinct dialects and are ethnically distinct as well.

Same goes for Belarusians. I do not doubt that they are Belarusian ethnically/linguistically/historically... yet nationally... well the current state of affairs speak for itself. Like you said Belarusian national identity is not strong. It faces competiton from Polish and Russian.

Of course this ethnic-based national identity of which you are talking would be suitable for preserving Belarusian traditions and language. I fully agree. Yet the facts are that still many Belarusians prefer to opt for other nationalities. It is most definitely a formidable task for the Belarusian ethnic patriots. Particularly now under current political regime.You see, at the beginning of XX century only some percents of the natives had the Belarusian identity. At the elections in year 1917 in the Eastern Belarus only 0,3% of the natives voted for the coalition of Belarusian parties. In year 1994 at the presidential election “nationalist” Paźniak and “nationally-oriented” Šuškievič (OMG! They both are Catholic! What a strange coincidence!) :biggrin: got 22,7% of votes. The difference is quite significant, isn’t it?

I don’t know how big the percentage of “real” Belarusians in Belarus is. Let’s say 20%. The rest are “Western Russians” and “Belarusian Poles”. This means that the Belarusian nationalism hasn’t gone even the half of its way; because the goal has always been - 100%. What I want to say is “we must not give up”. :) You can see it as expansionist chauvinism, but… every nation has its own truth, right? (I am almost quoting Dontsov right now. :heh:)
I think what you said there is best - let's love each other and leave each other alone.Mmkay. :)
I wonder where Belarusians of predominantly Greek Catholic faith too in Greater Poland and Pomorze came from? There was this tiny Belarusian island of 0.1 to few percent in Northern Wielkopolskie and Pomorskie voivodships...

Peculiarly... they seem to be present in Poznan and Vistulan cities of Bydgoszcz, Toruń, Grudziadz and Swiecie! Former Prussian territories. Political Greek Orthodox emigrees? This seems plausible. But only in Bydgoszcz and Grudziadz they retained the language, it seems...An urban legend: during the World War II the Belarusian inhabitants of Warsaw were proposed to collect necessary documents and register as Belarusians. It would have granted them some privileges (Germans saw Poles as a hostile nation, while Belarusians were seen as more tolerable). But Belarusians were coming in such large numbers, that the Germans had to give up the idea. :)

[Jarl]

Well, generally I have said everything I wanted to say. It makes no sense to repeat myself.

So did I, but to clarify I got few more things to say.


I don’t think so. The Uniate Church wasn’t simply banned; the way of reconversion of the Uniates was quite sophisticated. It took tens of years. The high Uniate clergy accepted the reconversion with little hesitation: it automatically made them the high-ranked members of the state Church of the Russian Empire (while they weren’t treated equally well in the Rzecz Pospolita). But still the process took a lot of years. And what exactly do you mean by the open persecution of the Catholics? Any examples?


Examples? Are you joking? ;)

Let's start from what you said yourself. By persecution of Catholics I mean banning of the Catholic Uniate Church, forced conversions of peasantry, massacres like here:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%99czennicy_z_Pratulina

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%99czennicy_z_Drelowa


By this I mean closing down of Roman Catholic dioceses in the East. Banning Catholics from high positions in the army and state apparatus. By this I mean all the anti-Cathilic persecutions that took place after January Uprising in 1863-1864. Closing down of Catholic monasteries and orders after 1864, with clergy sent to Siberia and the property confiscated by the state. By persecutions I mean obstructions in erecting new churches, new schools, and even new Catholic cemetaries. By this I mean ban on religious and patriotic songs. There are numerous examples...



This is a river-subject. It should suffice to say that prior to WW I conversions to Catholicism were practically non-existent among Ruthenians. Consequently vast majority of Ruthenian-speaking Catholics were thus ethnic Lithuanians inhabiting ethnic Lihuanian domains (Wilno, Lida, Holszany, Oszmiana), or areas settled by Prussian/Bartian/Yotvingian settlers (Wołkowysk, Grodno) by Grand Dukes of Lithuania... but only rutenised throughout XVII-XIX centuries.



I am not trying to deny that. But they were Ruthenians and Lithuanians. They weren’t Belarusians. The Ruthenians were Orthodox. The Belarusians were categorized in XIX century as an entity which embraced Orthodox and Catholic natives. Ruthenians aren’t Belarusians, Belarusians aren’t Ruthenians.1.

Ok. I see you point. But you cannot deny that Orthodox Ruthenians form the core and bulk of the modern Belarusian nation. This is even implied by the "Ruthenian" root in the "Belorussian" name. Some Catholics of mostly Litwin and Prussian extraction indeed chose to form Belarusian nation too. This is mostly a result of the rutenisation. However, Rzeczpsopolita tradition equally lead others into the direction of the Polish national identity. Implication that they are some "unaware dormant Belarusians" is rather childish and no more true than that Belarusians are "dormant Poles" or "dormant Russians" ;)





1. It did not ask about the natives’ sense of ethnic/national identity only about their language. If it had done that, there would have been only some thousand Belarusians, not some millions. I quoted Karski already: at the beginning of XX century the name was not popular among the natives. Nevertheless the data of the census confirm that at that time the entity “Belarusians” was “seen” and categorized “from outside”. Not in year 1897 but already long before that.

2. Yes, it had. The results of the 1897 don’t satisfy you, do they? Again falsifications? And again your sincere belief that only the Polish censuses were 100% unbiased? Oh, come on…

It seems at the end of XIX century ethnonationalist view of the triune Russian nation replaced the “traditionalist” one (for the traditionalist view the Orthodox faith was very important in drawing borders between ethnicities, for the ethnonationalist view not so much). Theodore R. Weeks in his article “Us” or “Them”? Belarusians and Official Russia, 1863-1914 quotes a few Russian officials and it seems to me that they quite sincerely believed that the Catholic natives were Belarusians. Definitely it was a sad thing to realize: that there existed “West Russians” (not “inorodtsy”) who were Catholic (“inovertsy”). In the eyes of Russian officials the Catholic faith made “Western Russians” potential victims of the national Polish propaganda.

3. Yes, I know about it. But I have no problem with accepting the fact that over 9000 years ago some part of the Belarusian ancestors spoke some Baltic language. Why should I?

4. No. The Belarusian nationalism did not exist then. But nationalism did.


I agree on all points here. The census confirmed there was and ethnic group of Ruthenians called Belarusians who spoke a separate language. Plus many ethnic Lithuanian Catholics adopted Ruthenian language in the past. Census most likely did not present an overly subjective view. And therefore it is credible as far as language and faith is concerned. However, the issues of ethnicity and nationality are more complex due to A) rutenisation of ethnic Litwin peasantry on the borderlands; B) the strong Polish cultural influence causing these Catholic rutenised Litwins to convert to Polish identity.


I only cannot agree that Belarusians (or West Russians) were perceived by Orthodox Russians as predominantly "innowiercy". This blatantly conflicts with the range of the Belarusian ethnos/language according to the very Russian sources. The fact that some Russians (who exactly?) could have treated the Ruthenian-speaking Catholics of former Duchy of Lithuanis as "Belarusians" has little meaning here as historically those people were Catholic and of Baltic extraction and never felt any great affinity to the Orthodox Ruthenians (ethnic Belarusians).


So I do not understand what is meant in here by "Belarusians-innowiercy". They were clearly not ethnic Belarusians/Ruthenians since they inhabited old historical Catholic parishes, on historical Baltic lands. While Ruthenians, ethnic Belarusians were Orthodox. Their records and ancestry can be traced back to Medieval Ages and we know they were originally Baltic people. There were no mass conversions of Orthodox Ruthenians to Catholicism in Lithuania (apart from the Uniate Church). There was however a well documented rutenisation of Lithuanian borderlands. So conversion of some of them to Belarusian national identity is mostly a result of XXth century.



I just see no evidence for the existence of large communities of ethnic Ruthenian Catholics in Belarus. By the time Lithuania adopted Catholicism in XVth century, the strongly Orthodox character of Ruthenian peasantry was already well established. And I am unaware of any mass-conversions. Then the Catholic administraton was established in Lithuania and those people were Catholics ever after with their villages divided into parishes and names indexed in "księgi metrykalne". So to me (and here I am just following what I have read in historical publications and sources) Ruthenian-speaking Catholics are rutenised Balts.


Let’s not discuss this anymore. Obviously it’s a matter of one’s beliefs. I have two notes though: the Russian Wikipedia says that there were 538 881 Poles in Belarus in year 1959; the Belarusian Uniate Church hardly has so many followers now (“up to 100 000”). And there is hardly anything Ukrainian about this Church. It is probably the most Belarusian Church among all the Belarusian Churches.

Yup. I think the true estimate is probably closer to the 400 000 number, yet knowing Lukaszenka's regime and his openly hostile attitude to Poles, I simply canno't take the official figures at face value.




Returning back to Belarusian Catholics. I think many of them adopted Belarusian identity in XXth century. Over 200 000 converted from Polish to Belarusian identity during the 50 years of communism, according to Belarusian stats.

Since Catholics are generally more reluctant to russification and Russians, and more open to the Rzeczpospolita traditions, I guess it is no wonder they may form the core of Belarusian national movement.


By the way, Dr. Jan Stankievič stated that before the First World War the Belarusian identity was more widespread exactly in what we know today as “Hrodna region”, to the East of Minsk successes of the Belarusian national movement were far more modest.

I believe the Belarusian identity was born in the Russian Empire. In II RP and in the USSR it had to survive. By the beginning of the Second World War Belarusian nationalism was completely destroyed in the two countries, but between the two world wars paradoxically it was more successful in the BSSR. Ya, rly. There was created an educational system in the Belarusian language, there was a short period of Belarusization (as a part of the policy of korenizatsiya), etc. Many activists of the Belarusian national movement chose to work in the BSSR, because they saw there the Belarusian culture developing; that was what they had always dreamed about.

This is quite remarkable as it implies a positive role and influence of Polish culture and elites, or even Polish nationalism in sparking off Belarusian nationalism.

It is equally remarkable that Catholicism appears to be the uniting factor in here. I am quite amazed actually and this discussion taught me a lot. I think we share a lot. We are both of the stewards of the same Rzeczpospolita heritage.

I agree that BSSR and communism had a substantial role in belarutenization (just like polonisation and russification). I am not sure if I can agree that Belarusian nation was born in Imperial Russia. Perhaps Belarusian nationalism was, as a response to russification and polonisation. And definitely it was not "completely destroyed" by WW II, but indeed Belarusian nation formation is mostly the post WW II story, and happened a bit artificially as a result of BSSR formation. This was a bit like creating a nation and a state "from above", from Moscow. And it's best reflected by the fact that there is still a substantial Russians and Polish minority in Belarus.

[W. R.]

By persecution of Catholics I mean banning of the Catholic Uniate Church, forced conversions of peasantry, massacres like here:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%99czennicy_z_Pratulina

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%99czennicy_z_Drelowa

By this I mean closing down of Roman Catholic dioceses in the East. Banning Catholics from high positions in the army and state apparatus. By this I mean all the anti-Cathilic persecutions that took place after January Uprising in 1863-1864. Closing down of Catholic monasteries and orders after 1864, with clergy sent to Siberia and the property confiscated by the state. By persecutions I mean obstructions in erecting new churches, new schools, and even new Catholic cemetaries. By this I mean ban on religious and patriotic songs. There are numerous examples...

This is a river-subject. It should suffice to say that prior to WW I conversions to Catholicism were practically non-existent among Ruthenians.These are two extreme cases, but generally the reconversion of Uniates was accepted without such fierce resistance. There were many voluntarily reconversions and almost all the high clergy and most of the lower Uniate clergy accepted the reconversion comparatively easily.

(By the way, accidentaly when I read your post I had the book Алег Латышонак, Яўген Мірановіч "Гісторыя Беларусі ад сярэдзіны XVIII ст. да пачатку XXI ст. opened at the page "The liquidation of the Brest Union"!) :lightbul:

Yes, there were some restrictions and open persecutions of Roman Catholics (especially after uprisings) but it would be a big exaggeration to say that Catholics lived in terror all the time. The tsarist Russia never strived to convert Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy.

I also disagree with the statement that Ruthenians were never converted into Roman Catholicism in significant numbers. Such conversions happened at least twice: after the partitions of RP (in order to save Uniates from the possible conversion into Orthodoxy) and after the liberalisation in year 1905.

These are numbers I managed to find in the book "Kanfesiji na Biełarusi": in year 1803 in Polatsk Uniate diocese some 100.000 believers were converted into Roman Catholicism (page 8); in year 1814 in Minsk Roman Catholic diocese 197 690 Uniates became Roman Catholics (page 10) (It is not clear from the text whether they stayed in Roman Catholicism, though.); in years 1905-1908 in Wilno Roman Catholic diocese 62.000 Orthodox believers became Catholic (page 113), etc. So there were conversions.

[W. R.]

But you cannot deny that Orthodox Ruthenians form the core and bulk of the modern Belarusian nation. This is even implied by the "Ruthenian" root in the "Belorussian" name. Some Catholics of mostly Litwin and Prussian extraction indeed chose to form Belarusian nation too. This is mostly a result of the rutenisation. However, Rzeczpsopolita tradition equally lead others into the direction of the Polish national identity.Orthodox believers form the core and bulk only because they happen to be the largest confession in Belarus today (for different reasons). The Belarusian identity (as we know it today) was coined for them largely by Belarusian Catholics. Sad but true. :rolleyes:

[Jarl]

Right. Ok. There were some conversions but really as late as XXth century.

But these are well documented cases and this is not my point as we were mostly discussing Catholics from Grodna district. Whose parishes and church records speak of their origins. I do not think there is any reason to suspect that main bulk of Catholics from Grodno and Lithuanian borderlands were something else than rutenised Balts.


Sad but true. :rolleyes:

Why sad? ;)

[W. R.]

Why sad? ;)Sad for you. :biggrin: Because of this the Belarusians cannot be an Orthodox nation; they have no choice but to be Catholic and Orthodox.

[W. R.]

some Russians (who exactly?) could have treated the Ruthenian-speaking Catholics of former Duchy of Lithuanis as "Belarusians" Governor-general of Wilno prince Svyatopolk-Mirskiy, unnamed governor of Minsk, governor of Grodno province Boyarskiy etc.

[Jarl]

I got no problem with Catholic Belarusians, as I got no problem with Belarusians in general.


Governor-general of Wilno prince Svyatopolk-Mirskiy, unnamed governor of Minsk, governor of Grodno province Boyarskiy etc.

Again. We know whom those people were from the parish and historical records. So treating Ruthenian-speaking Litwins as "dormant Belarusians" is perversion of truth.

[W. R.]

I am not sure if I can agree that Belarusian nation was born in Imperial Russia. Perhaps Belarusian nationalism was, as a response to russification and polonisation. And definitely it was not "completely destroyed" by WW II, but indeed Belarusian nation formation is mostly the post WW II story, and happened a bit artificially as a result of BSSR formation. This was a bit like creating a nation and a state "from above", from Moscow.Okay, it was an exaggeration. "Notably weakened" would sound better. It still seems to me that the Imperial Russia after 1905 was a significantly more comfortable place for the Belarusian national movement to develop than the interwar Poland.

Also I would say that the Belarusian movement was at least partially successful. Its work led to the proclamation of the BNR and (surely indirectly) to establishing of the BSSR. And the BSSR can be seen as the "autonomous" phase on the way to the desired independence.

[Jarl]

Okay, it was an exaggeration. "Notably weakened" would sound better. It still seems to me that the Imperial Russia after 1905 was a significantly more comfortable place for the Belarusian national movement to develop than the interwar Poland.

Also I would say that the Belarusian movement was at least partially successful. Its work led to the proclamation of the BNR and (surely indirectly) to establishing of the BSSR. And the BSSR can be seen as the "autonomous" phase on the way to the desired independence.


As long as there is Russia, there will never be any Belarusian independence. That's "marzenie ściętej głowy". As for Imperial Russia after 1905, these were very specific conditions forced upon the regime by the urban revolutionary movements. This was by no means some "grace" of the tsar. And no. I do not believe that Imperial Russia was good for any nationalism. Including Belarusian. As for the intewar Poland - what was so terrible about it? Why exactly was it worse?

http://www.kresy.pl/historia,miedzywojnie?zobacz/polityka-ii-rzeczypospolitej-wobec-bialorusinow#top

Because Belarusian was for the first time taught in schools? Or Belarusians could choose their own members of the Parliment? There was a pressure for polonisation and there were negative changes implemented after 1935, I agree. However, I cannot see how you can compare it to Imperial Russia period?

[W. R.]

As for the intewar Poland - what was so terrible about it? Why exactly was it worse?

http://www.kresy.pl/historia,miedzywojnie?zobacz/polityka-ii-rzeczypospolitej-wobec-bialorusinow#top

Because Belarusian was for the first time taught in schools? Or Belarusians could choose their own members of the Parliment? There was a pressure for polonisation and there were negative changes implemented after 1935, I agree. However, I cannot see how you can compare it to Imperial Russia period?Well, successes of the education in Belarusian were modest: only 3,5 out of 1000 Belarusian children could learn the Belarusian language in year 1925 (compare it to the situation in the BSSR). The Polish authorities closed down and forbade nearly all Belarusian organisations one by one.

My grandfather said local people were glad to see the fall of Poland in 1939 - they didn't know at that time what Stalin's USSR was, but Poland was not their beloved fatherland.

[W. R.]

So treating Ruthenian-speaking Litwins as "dormant Belarusians" is perversion of truth.I already explained why it is not possible to use the religion to draw borders between the Belarusians and non-Belarusians. And if not religion then what? Then the language, this traditional criterion to define the ethnic borders. :shrug:

[Jarl]

Well, successes of the education in Belarusian were modest: only 3,5 out of 1000 Belarusian children could learn the Belarusian language in year 1925 (compare it to the situation in the BSSR). The Polish authorities closed down and forbade nearly all Belarusian organisations one by one.

My grandfather said local people were glad to see the fall of Poland in 1939 - they didn't know at that time what Stalin's USSR was, but Poland was not their beloved fatherland.

Understandably. II RP was far from being perfect. However, comparing it to classical tsarist Imperial Russia is a bit overstretched I reckon. And some of those Belarusian organisations, like Hromada, were openly pro-Soviet and por-Bolshevik. The government defended the integrity of the state, however there was no enforced polonisation, mass colonisation or legal discrimination.

http://www.kresy.pl/historia,miedzywojnie?zobacz/polityka-ii-rzeczypospolitej-wobec-bialorusinow#top

Od 1927r. język białoruski został wprowadzony do polskich gimnazjów na terenie ziem zamieszkanych przez Białorusinów i do wileńskiego Prawosławnego Seminarium Duchownego . Gimnazja białoruskie w Nowogródku i w Wilnie uzyskały uprawnienia szkół państwowych. Zezwolono też na otwarcie kilku nowych. Wydano również rozporządzenie zalecające, żeby pracownicy polskiej administracji znali język białoruski. Aresztowanych działaczy Hromady zwolniono z polskich więzień i przekazano ZSRR, wymieniając na polskich więźniów politycznych i księży aresztowanych w państwie sowieckim. Gesty te sprawiły, że w środowisku białoruskim pojawili się polonofile. W 1930r. z inicjatywy Antoniego Łuckiewicza powstał w Wilnie Centralny Związek Organizacji Kulturalnych i Gospodarczych. Widział on możliwość realizowania białoruskich interesów narodowych poprzez współpracę z rządem polskim. Związek zajmował się zakładaniem bibliotek, wiejskich czytelni, rozpowszechnianiem literatury rolniczej i białoruskiej w ramach serii "Sielskaja Biblioteka". Związek wydawał tez gazetę "Napierad". Łuckiewiczowi udało się przyciągnąć do związku cały szereg białoruskich organizacji m.in. Białoruski Komitet Cerkiewny, a później Towarzystwo Oświaty Białoruskiej. Zaczął on też wydawać rocznik "Rodny Kraj".

This was so bad? Really???


It changed in the 30s but mainly because of the actions of the Bolshevik-sponsored Belarusian Communist Party which demanded annexation of Western Belarus by the USSR.



I already explained why it is not possible to use the religion to draw borders between the Belarusians and non-Belarusians. And if not religion then what? Then the language, this traditional criterion to define the ethnic borders. :shrug:



No. With this I have to totally disagree. Look at Protestant Polish-speaking Mazurians or some Silesians. Many of them considered themselves Prussian or German. Not Polish. Even though THEY DID descend from ethnic Poles. Once again I say. There is no indication that:


A) the Ruthenian-speaking Catholics were primarily of Ruthenian and not Lithuanian/Prussian extraction. Historical sources tell the opposite.


B) had any sense of Belarusian/Ruthenian (still equated with Orthdox religion in XIXth) national identity prior to WW I, or perhaps more accurately - WW II. Or even ethnic identity. Those people being Catholics, felt much closer to other Catholics than Orthodox Ruthenian peasantry. In all II RP censuses most Catholics in the "Kresy", Ruthenian and Polish speaking alike, opted for Polish identity.

[W. R.]

This idyll ended simultaneously with the end of korenizatsiya in the BSSR. The eastern neighbour started Russification and Poland decided that it was the high time to launch Polonisation. In year 1938 there was no significant Belarusian organisation at all in Poland. They all had been closed down.

[Jarl]

This idyll ended simultaneously with the end of korenizatsiya in the BSSR. The eastern neighbour started Russification and Poland decided that it was the high time to launch Polonisation. In year 1938 there was no significant Belarusian organisation at all in Poland. They all had been closed down.

Yes. That is true. Between 1935 and 1938 significant changes took place. However, you also have to take into account the prominence of the Belarusian Communist Party in eliciting such response. It seems that even as late as 1930s it was not some Belarusian nationalism that posed a major threat to Poland's security, but rather Belarusian Bolshevism (quite unlike in the case of West Ukraine).

In conclusion Belarusian nationalism was not "destroyed" in 1920s or 30s, it was simply weak or non existent:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Ofensywa_na_Warszawe.png


Easily replaced by Bolshevik propaganda.


Białorusini - naród bez tożsamości.

To czy Białorusinów można nazwać w narodem o w pełni wykształconej świadomości narodowej jest kwestią problematyczną także dzisiaj. Przez cały okres istnienia II RP, nie odegrali oni właściwie znaczącej roli politycznej.

Powodów takiej sytuacji było kilka. Był to efekt wielu lat rusyfikacyjnej polityki władz rosyjskich, bardzo niskiego poziomu szkolnictwa, a niekiedy wręcz jego braku, a co za tym idzie wysokiego procenta analfabetów wśród ludności białoruskiej, czy nie istnienia nawet przez moment niepodległego państwa białoruskiego (tak jak to miało miejsce w przypadku Ukrainy), które mogło spowodować "przebudzenie" tej narodowości. Jednakże największe znaczenie miała słabość gospodarcza ludności białoruskiej, w większości małorolnych chłopów, obarczonych biednymi i zacofanymi gospodarstwami. Wiele wyjaśnia fakt, że obszary przez nich zamieszkiwane (Polesie, Wołyń) były najsłabiej rozwiniętymi i najbiedniejszymi rejonami II RP.

Sytuacja gospodarcza Białorusinów tłumaczy fakt dużej popularności wśród nich partii skrajnie lewicowych, o bardzo radykalnym programie społecznym, tj. Komunistyczna Partia Zachodniej Białorusi (także sekcja KPP, podobnie jak KPZU domagała się "powrotu Zachodniej Białorusi" do Białoruskiej Republiki Socjalistycznej) i Białoruska Włościańsko-Robotnicza "Hromada" (współpracowała z KPZB). Popularność "opcji radzieckie" spowodowała, że również wśród Białorusinów doszło do niepokojów społecznych i antypolskich ataków w 1924 r. (patrz rozdział poświęcony Ukraińcom). Jednak był to zryw jednorazowy, wieści o położeniu Białorusinów po radzieckiej stronie granicy spowodowały spadek popularności idei przyłączenia do ZSRR i znów pogrążyły ludność białoruską w politycznym marazmie praktycznie aż do 1939 r. Bardzo negatywnie na sytuację mniejszości białoruskiej wpłynął również Wielki Kryzys Gospodarczy.

Należy również zaznaczyć, że próby rozwijania białoruskiej świadomości narodowej napotykały na opór ze strony polskiej administracji na tych terenach. Nie zezwalano na tworzenie białoruskich instytucji kulturalnych czy społecznych, wprowadzono wiele ograniczeń dla Białorusinów (np.: nie rejestrowano jako kandydatów na posłów tych Białorusinów, którzy nie potrafili pisać i czytać po polsku). Ważną rolę odrywały tu również kwestie wyznaniowe, administracja polska lepiej traktowała Białorusinów wyznających katolicyzm (zwanych "Białopolakami"), gorzej zaś wyznawców prawosławia (zdecydowana większość Białorusinów).

Po klęsce w wojnie obronnej 1939 r. część Białorusinów wykorzystała tą sytuacje do "wyrównania rachunków", do czego zresztą podburzały ich władze radzieckie, większość jednak społeczeństwa białoruskiego zachowało się biernie. Po zakończeniu drugiej wojny światowej, w wyniku przesunięcia granic i przesiedleń, liczba ludności białoruskiej w Polsce spadła do 100 tys.
ciąg dalszy nastąpi...

Adam Pązik

[W. R.]

Between 1935 and 1938 significant changes took place. However, you also have to take into account the prominence of the Belarusian Communist Party in eliciting such response. It seems that even as late as 1930s it was not some Belarusian nationalism that posed a major threat to Poland's security, but rather Belarusian Bolshevism (quite unlike in the case of West Ukraine).

In conclusion Belarusian nationalism was not "destroyed" in 1920s or 30s, it was simply weak or non existentHistorically from its beginning the Belarusian national movement was leftist, and no wonder: its main target group was supposed to be the (more often than not) poor peasantry. The same one can say about the Belarusian peasants in the interwar Poland. No wonder that they were easily influenced by the leftist ideas, which not necessarily were induced "from outside" ("Hramada").
Sytuacja gospodarcza Białorusinów tłumaczy fakt dużej popularności wśród nich partii skrajnie lewicowych, o bardzo radykalnym programie społecznym, tj. Komunistyczna Partia Zachodniej Białorusi (także sekcja KPP, podobnie jak KPZU domagała się "powrotu Zachodniej Białorusi" do Białoruskiej Republiki Socjalistycznej) i Białoruska Włościańsko-Robotnicza "Hromada" (współpracowała z KPZB).Also, when I said that nationalism was destroyed I didn't mean nationalism within masses. I meant rather "the national elites", the people who were supposed to "wake up" the masses. In the BSSR many of those people were physically exterminated, in Poland their activities were paralyzed. Often "figting down communism" was just an excuse to ban this or that Belarusian organisation, only because it happened to be Belarusian.
Należy również zaznaczyć, że próby rozwijania białoruskiej świadomości narodowej napotykały na opór ze strony polskiej administracji na tych terenach. Nie zezwalano na tworzenie białoruskich instytucji kulturalnych czy społecznych, wprowadzono wiele ograniczeń dla Białorusinów (np.: nie rejestrowano jako kandydatów na posłów tych Białorusinów, którzy nie potrafili pisać i czytać po polsku).

[Jarl]

Historically from its beginning the Belarusian national movement was leftist, and no wonder: its main target group was supposed to be the (more often than not) poor peasantry. The same one can say about the Belarusian peasants in the interwar Poland. No wonder that they were easily influenced by the leftist ideas, which not necessarily were induced "from outside" ("Hramada").

Leftist is rather softly spoken. Some of them had a strong Bolshevik tinge and were even sponsored by the Bolsheviks.


Also, when I said that nationalism was destroyed I didn't mean nationalism within masses. I meant rather "the national elites", the people who were supposed to "wake up" the masses. In the BSSR many of those people were physically exterminated, in Poland their activities were paralyzed. Often "figting down communism" was just an excuse to ban this or that Belarusian organisation, only because it happened to be Belarusian.


That is true. However, how were those elites born? Who gave birth to them? Communist BSSR and the Bolsheviks?

Who were people like Jana Barszczewski, Władysława Syrokomla, Wincenty Dunin-Marcinkiewicz, Franciszek Bahuszewicz or Adam Hurynowicz? Those were people whose allegiance was with the old Rzeczpospolita. Who fought in January Uprising of 1863, read Mickewicz and resisted russification. They often wrote both in Polish and Belarusian, were close friends of Polish elites Rzewuscy, Radziwiłłowie etc. Many knew Eliza Orzeszkowa, Adam Mickewicz, Giedroyc and others. Bronisław Taraszkiewicz also belonged to Polish national organisations.


And indeed they were mostly those polonised Belarusian Catholics. Same goes for Janka Kupała. He also was a noble, a Catholic and wrote both in Polish and Belarusian. Until he "fell from the stairs" in Moscow... Of course BSSR and Bolsheviks provided another beacon for Belarusian intelligentisa. And they drew people of mostly ethnic Belarusian background. Orthodox peasants. However, the Bolsheviks did not create the movement.


From what I can see, there has never been any unified Belarussian national movement. At least no only the pro-Bolshevik one. Nonetheless the pro-Bolshevik option won. And that's why majority of Belarusians speak Russian nowadays. Perhaps if the other option won, majority would be speaking Polish now...

[W. R.]

Leftist is rather softly spoken. Some of them had a strong Bolshevik tinge and were even sponsored by the Bolsheviks.No wonder that for land-hungry Belarusian countrymen, who didn't regard Poland as "their" state the BSSR seemed to be "a better choice".
However, how were those elites born? Who gave birth to them? Communist BSSR and the Bolsheviks?

Who were people like Jana Barszczewski, Władysława Syrokomla, Wincenty Dunin-Marcinkiewicz, Franciszek Bahuszewicz or Adam Hurynowicz? Those were people whose allegiance was with the old Rzeczpospolita. Who fought in January Uprising of 1863, read Mickewicz and resisted russification. They often wrote both in Polish and Belarusian, were close friends of Polish elites Rzewuscy, Radziwiłłowie etc. Many knew Eliza Orzeszkowa, Adam Mickewicz, Giedroyc and others.I don't know what to reply. What is your point? These people prepared soil for the Belarusian nationalism in a way but I wouldn't say that the Belarusian national movement stems from their ideas.
Bronisław Taraszkiewicz also belonged to Polish national organisations.

And indeed they were mostly those polonised Belarusian Catholics. Same goes for Janka Kupała. He also was a noble, a Catholic and wrote both in Polish and Belarusian. Until he "fell from the stairs" in Moscow...These people can be hardly grouped with Barszczewski, Syrokomla etc. They consciously chose the Belarusian national identity and laid aside their Polish identity they possibly had before that. They came to the Dark Side, while Barszczewski and Syrokomla did not.
Of course BSSR and Bolsheviks provided another beacon for Belarusian intelligentisa. And they drew people of mostly ethnic Belarusian background. Orthodox peasants. However, the Bolsheviks did not create the movement.

From what I can see, there has never been any unified Belarussian national movement. At least no only the pro-Bolshevik one.Communist movement in Western Belarus, supported from the East, was often directed against the Belarusian national movement as well. Or may be it would be better to say that there existed two rival branches of the Belarusian national movement: a pro-communist branch and "national democratic" branch. The BSSR was a beacon only for the former.

I don't know if it were mostly Orthodox peasants who supported the two branches.
Nonetheless the pro-Bolshevik option won. And that's why majority of Belarusians speak Russian nowadays. Perhaps if the other option won, majority would be speaking Polish now...I disagree.

The Russian Empire had the whole XIX century to forge and inculcate "West Russian" identity here. The Belarusian nationalism could not resist this inculcation because it didn't exist. The Polish nationalism existed but it failed to resist the inculcation.

The natural language for West Russians is Russian. And that's why majority of Belarusians speak Russian nowadays. Perhaps if the other option won, majority would be speaking Polish now...
A) the Ruthenian-speaking Catholics were primarily of Ruthenian and not Lithuanian/Prussian extraction. Historical sources tell the opposite.Okay, let's say we know that a village Y spoke a Baltic/Lithuanian dialect in XV century. Now it speaks Belarusian. Who its inhabitants are? Are they Belarusian speaking Lithuanians or Belarusians of Baltic/Lithuanian origin?
gudas – a Belarusian
gudinimas – to implant the Belarusian way of life and Belarusian customs
gudinamasis – the person who implants the Belarusian way of life, the language and customs
gudeti – to become Belarusian
gudejimas – accepting of the Belarusian spirit and way of life
gudiskumas – a word or an expression from Belarusian
Logically the two answers are equally correct. But for a follower of the Only True Ideology of Belarusian Cannibalish Chauvinism only one of them is correct. And you know which one.
B) had any sense of Belarusian/Ruthenian (still equated with Orthdox religion in XIXth) national identity prior to WW I, or perhaps more accurately - WW II. Or even ethnic identity. Those people being Catholics, felt much closer to other Catholics than Orthodox Ruthenian peasantry.Sounds like plausible, but...

May I ask you a question? Would you regard the statement "There must be no place in Belarus for West Russian identity. It must be completely replaced by the Belarusian identity." as chauvinistic?

[Jarl]

No wonder that for land-hungry Belarusian countrymen, who didn't regard Poland as "their" state the BSSR seemed to be "a better choice". I don't know what to reply. What is your point? These people prepared soil for the Belarusian nationalism in a way but I wouldn't say that the Belarusian national movement stems from their ideas.These people can be hardly grouped with Barszczewski, Syrokomla etc. They consciously chose the Belarusian national identity and laid aside their Polish identity they possibly had before that. They came to the Dark Side, while Barszczewski and Syrokomla did not.

Why you don't know what to reply? Belarusian ethnic and national tradition is by extension and irreversibly joined to the history. You are a product of your history, and as such you are an off-shoot of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Rzeczpospolita. That is the main reason why today we can speak of any such entity as Belarusians. Where Rzeczpospolita ended, there ended the Belarusians. Some land-hungry Belarisuan peasanats opted for Bolshevism. Who blames them? However, they would have never had the privilege of choice in the first place if for 500 years they had been part of Muscovy/Russia.

I do not think that those antagonisms reflect reality adeqately enough. I do not think those people resolved the issue of Belarusian identity in a clear-cut "either or" manner.



Communist movement in Western Belarus, supported from the East, was often directed against the Belarusian national movement as well. Or may be it would be better to say that there existed two rival branches of the Belarusian national movement: a pro-communist branch and "national democratic" branch. The BSSR was a beacon only for the former.

I don't know if it were mostly Orthodox peasants who supported the two branches.

Of course. Catholic Belarusians supported mostly Polish or national option. I suspect Bolshevism was more popular among people of Orthodox peasant origin.


I disagree.

The Russian Empire had the whole XIX century to forge and inculcate "West Russian" identity here. The Belarusian nationalism could not resist this inculcation because it didn't exist. The Polish nationalism existed but it failed to resist the inculcation.

The natural language for West Russians is Russian. And that's why majority of Belarusians speak Russian nowadays. Perhaps if the other option won, majority would be speaking Polish now...

So you think communism did not have any negative impact on Belarusian identity?



Okay, let's say we know that a village Y spoke a Baltic/Lithuanian dialect in XV century. Now it speaks Belarusian. Who its inhabitants are? Are they Belarusian speaking Lithuanians or Belarusians of Baltic/Lithuanian origin?

gudas – a Belarusian
gudinimas – to implant the Belarusian way of life and Belarusian customs
gudinamasis – the person who implants the Belarusian way of life, the language and customs
gudeti – to become Belarusian
gudejimas – accepting of the Belarusian spirit and way of life
gudiskumas – a word or an expression from Belarusian

Logically the two answers are equally correct. But for a follower of the Only True Ideology of Belarusian Cannibalish Chauvinism only one of them is correct. And you know which one.


I would be very careful with such reasoning. By similar lines majority of Belarusians are.... simply Russians. Would you like the chauvinists on the other side to implement their policy accordingly to their POV? I can assure are doing it right now. Peacefully. And look at the results they achieved so far. People's will has to be respected. Violating it brings usually an opposite effect.


I think that Belarus should first focus on consolidating her own identity instead of driving away Russians. Unfortunately this is not possible with the current political regime.


Sounds like plausible, but...

May I ask you a question? Would you regard the statement "There must be no place in Belarus for West Russian identity. It must be completely replaced by the Belarusian identity." as chauvinistic?

Indeed you may. It depends on what you mean by chauvinism. I do think it is chauvinistic as it disrespects the will of the people. Of course for the Belarusian preservation this statement holds truth. Perhaps "no place" is not an adequate term. But definitely Belarusian is often being replaced by Russian facing strong competition. The statement is however silly and unrealistic as Belarus can never pose a threat to Russia and it will never be to elimiante the Russian influence and identity. Personally I do not think Belarus can ever stand alone against Russia. She simply lacks the depth of the truly own national tradition of countries like Poland or Ukraine. If she wants to survive she must resort to some other traditions.

If I am to be honest with you. I do not believe Belarus can stand alone against russification.

[W. R.]

Belarusian ethnic and national tradition is by extension and irreversibly joined to the history. You are a product of your history, and as such you are an off-shoot of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Rzeczpospolita. That is the main reason why today we can speak of any such entity as Belarusians. Where Rzeczpospolita ended, there ended the Belarusians.Any nation is a product of its history.

We still remember Jan Barszczewski, Władysław Syrokomla, Wincenty Dunin-Marcinkiewicz, but did their poems have real impact on the Belarusian masses? I doubt it. Their works were attempts to write in the local language, that’s all. Only probably Franciszek Bahuszewicz’s works (the end of XIX century) were the seed that gave some real fruits.
Some land-hungry Belarisuan peasanats opted for Bolshevism. Who blames them? However, they would have never had the privilege of choice in the first place if for 500 years they had been part of Muscovy/Russia.I don’t blame them. They lived in a foreign state; most of them were poor and ill-educated, the level of their national/ethnic consciousness was low. No wonder that socialist propaganda was so effective among them, it is understandable.
So you think communism did not have any negative impact on Belarusian identity?It did. But it managed to cause such great damage because the ground for that had already been prepared before.
By similar lines majority of Belarusians are.... simply Russians. Would you like the chauvinists on the other side to implement their policy accordingly to their POV? I can assure are doing it right now. Peacefully. And look at the results they achieved so far.I would like the chauvinists on the other side to die immediately.

So, is the village Y Lithuanian or Belarusian?
People's will has to be respected. Violating it brings usually an opposite effect.:nicetongue NOT SURE IF WANT
I do think it is chauvinistic as it disrespects the will of the people. Of course for the Belarusian preservation this statement holds truth. Perhaps "no place" is not an adequate term. But definitely Belarusian is often being replaced by Russian facing strong competition.Be that as it may, my point was different.

It is traditional for Eastern Europe that nationalisms here often are anti-something. Latvian nationalism used to be anti-German, Slovak nationalism used to be anti-Hungarian and for a certain period anti-Czech as well.

The Belarusian nationalism since its beginning has been anti-Russian and anti-Polish. Belarus was supposedly placed between two hostile powers Poland and Russia. “Grugan z Uschodu a kruk z Zachodu”, as a poet write (he was a Catholic priest, if I am not mistaken).

Belarusians were seen as one natural entity; their lebensraum was approximately the territory between Bialystok and Smolensk and between Vilnius and Homel. The Belarusian identity was seen as only natural identity for the natives of that territory. The natives who accepted the Belarusian identity were known as “conscious Belarusians” (сьвядомыя беларусы) (compare to “свідомі українці”). The natives who didn’t have any identity or had Polish or Russian identity, were known as „unconscious Belarusians”.

From the traditional Belarusian nationalist point of view the difference between “Belarusian Pole”, “Western Russian” and “tutejszy” is not that big. They all fit into the category “unconscious Belarusians”.
The statement is however silly and unrealistic as Belarus can never pose a threat to Russia and it will never be to elimiante the Russian influence and identity.Nobody says that Belarus must become a threat to Russia. The only thing necessary is gradual replacing of Western Russian identity by Belarusian identity.
Personally I do not think Belarus can ever stand alone against Russia. She simply lacks the depth of the truly own national tradition of countries like Poland or Ukraine. If she wants to survive she must resort to some other traditions.

If I am to be honest with you. I do not believe Belarus can stand alone against russification.Russification from outside is not already as big threat as self-Russification. West Russians are in power here. Łukašenka is a perfect specimen of them. Standing against Russification is not standing against Russia, it is standing against Łukašenka and his policies in the first place.

Besides who and how can help us? We have no choice but to be alone.

[Jarl]

Any nation is a product of its history.

We still remember Jan Barszczewski, Władysław Syrokomla, Wincenty Dunin-Marcinkiewicz, but did their poems have real impact on the Belarusian masses? I doubt it. Their works were attempts to write in the local language, that’s all. Only probably Franciszek Bahuszewicz’s works (the end of XIX century) were the seed that gave some real fruits.I don’t blame them. They lived in a foreign state; most of them were poor and ill-educated, the level of their national/ethnic consciousness was low. No wonder that socialist propaganda was so effective among them, it is understandable. It did. But it managed to cause such great damage because the ground for that had already been prepared before.


My point about the history was a broader one. I am not pointing to Syrokomla or any particular individual as a sort of putative "father of Belarusianism". No. What I mean is that Belarus with her whole distinct history and her separate identity (even if its still budding), owes it to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Nie wybieramy baćkou, Whiteruthenian ;)


I would like the chauvinists on the other side to die immediately.

Then chauvinism has no future. It's hard to imagine that any Russian (or Polish, or Lithuanian) patriot will give you a nod.


So, is the village Y Lithuanian or Belarusian?:nicetongue

Add another level of complexity. A Catholic Lithuanian parish got rutenized, speaks Belarusian, but people consider themselves Poles. What is the village?


Nobody says that Belarus must become a threat to Russia. The only thing necessary is gradual replacing of Western Russian identity by Belarusian identity.

And you think that Russian elites who's seen Belarus as a mere part of greater Russia for the past 500 years or so, will just give you a blessing? ;) This won't happen as Belarus is tightly under control. It does not have the sort of autonomy Ukraine has. How can Belarus realistically eliminate or compete with the West Russian identity? No use deluding yourself that she can do it alone. It can be done only with reference to some broader context - like Western Europe.


The Belarusian identity was seen as only natural identity for the natives of that territory. The natives who accepted the Belarusian identity were known as “conscious Belarusians” (сьвядомыя беларусы) (compare to “свідомі українці”). The natives who didn’t have any identity or had Polish or Russian identity, were known as „unconscious Belarusians”.

From the traditional Belarusian nationalist point of view the difference between “Belarusian Pole”, “Western Russian” and “tutejszy” is not that big. They all fit into the category “unconscious Belarusians”.

The difference is substantial as West Russians are mostly russified ethnic Belarusians, while Belarusian Poles are mostly rutenised ethnic Lithuanians. Anyway, if so then this POV is extreme and hostile to other sides. As such it is irreconcilable with any Polish or Russian POV (and here I am not speaking of the most extreme nationalist). As long as the competition is relatively fair and peaceful with no side enforcing the conditions on others and trying conversion through forceful methods, then things could be kept the way they are. Time would show what becomes of it. However, the conditions are unfavourable. Mostly for the Poles, but also for the Belarusians.


The Belarusian nationalism since its beginning has been anti-Russian and anti-Polish. Belarus was supposedly placed between two hostile powers Poland and Russia. “Grugan z Uschodu a kruk z Zachodu”, as a poet write (he was a Catholic priest, if I am not mistaken).

I do not think that historically you could put a "=" sign between the grugan and the kruk. But that's just my humble opinion. As for the anti-anti stance, this is something rather hypothethical than real. And it deeply puzzles me as there could be many in-between ways of co-operating with one side or the other. And in reality, this is what is hapenning right now since Belarus is too weak to do anything on her own. Now, the anti-Polish pro-Russian option is in charge and the state is run through close co-operation with Russia. I wonder what is the price the Belarusian nationalism will have to pay for that union. It can't be really called "cooperation" either as this implies a sort of partnership. While there is no real partnership between Belarusian nationalists and Bolsheviks. Real Belarusian nationalists are emigrees, replaced (with some notable exceptions) by a puppet pro-Lukaszenko clique.