Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania

migration

As far as I am concerned, the issue was migration of Belorussians to Lithuanian villages, Roman Catholics. In the process, those areas became Roman Catholic

Belarussians were poor migrators AFAIK, unless they were administratively resettled, of which into Lithuanian lands I didn't hear (I am not an authority here, of course). Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and Slavic speaking and in this circumstances, this means Polish. Whatever origins were, there is still oficially recognised Polish majority in countryside around Vilnius. Cautious 14:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lithuania, Zmudz, Lithuania propria

The real position is this: Term 'Lithuanian language' was never related to language of Orthodoxes in G.D.L. Never. But 'Lithuanian state' or Lithuania always meant the whole G.D.L. Don't look at the problem as it all takes place today. Nobles may use Ruthenian language or Polish one and name the state Lithuania. But it caused the problem , how to distinguish the usage of both terms. So, sometimes “Lithuania propria” was used, especially on maps, which means 'Lithuania itself', 'Lithuania in the direct sense of the word'. But Lithuania Propria never had a sense of any administrative unit.

Lithuania and Zemaitija, or Zmudz in official form of times of G.D.L. Zemaitija was a part of G.D.L., moreover it was the administrative part. But it never coincided with Lithuanian-speaking Lithuania. Arguments:

1) The pagan shrine was in Vilnius before 1387. Who does not know it? So Vilnius was in pagan territory.

2) Lithuanian-language books in XVI-XVIII centuries are written in two dialects of Lithuanian language, which were called Lithuanian (the third meaning of Lithuanian!) and Zemaitian. Besides to it, there are certain references in these books , where both dialects were used.

3) The fact of existence of the term 'Lithuania Propria' does not allow to coincide it with 'Zemaitija'. Zmudz was a duchy, had an autonomy (since XV century), thus it was an administrative unit. So it did not need any supplementary name or definition.

4) Kaunas, the capital in 1919-44, wasn't in territory of Zemaitija (in times and borders of G.D.L.). (It was a center of Zemaitian diocese since the middle XIX century, after an administrative reform, made by Russian officials. Zemaitija as administrative unit had not existed since 1840).

5) Look at maps of G.D.L. more closely. Where the name 'Lithuania propria' is positioned?

Conclusions:

1) Lithuania propria means Lithuanian-speaking Lithuania, in order to distinguish it from orthodox Lithuania.

2) This name doesn't concerns problem of polonization among Lithuanian nobles (both catholics and orthodoxes). Nobles spoke Polish in all G.D.L.

3) The process of distinguishing these territories could not be precise in these times. I suppose, it was made, basing upon subjective view of map compilers and upon traditional line distinguishing traditionally orthodox and traditionally catholic territories.

4) And, according to the 3 point, it did not show the real distribution of Lithuanians and Ruthenians. And, if it was really based on the catholic-orthodox line, even then it referred situation of 1387 only and not the position of XVI – XVII or XIX centuries).

some reflections

Thus, using of 'Lithuania propria' for this problem is waste. Also the discussion about censuses hasn't decisive importance in this problem. It may show only, who was less an who was more right in contention for Vilnius. But it doesn't shows the causes and development of the problem.

I think all must agree, that it was contention between two nations (belarusians or former Ruthenians took part in it minimally over situation in Belarus), and the forming of Litwa Srodkowa was only a consequence of the contention. It was an answer to 1) cathegorical attempts of lithuanian-speaking Lithuanians to form independent state (It existed de facto in 1920) . 2) Tendency of Warsaw government to recognize Lithuania “with Kaunas” in order not to deepen the conflict. - I think you will agree, that Lithuanian Poles did not want to form an independent state. If they wanted, they declared it in 1918 year and Litwa Srodkowa weren't included in Poland. They had all possibilities for it. - So if Lithuanians did not fight for independence, we had only two states now instead of former G.D.L. (after Lublin), Poland and Belarus. But you must agree, that there were three nations in the middle of XVI century: Lithuanians, Poles and Ruthenians (Lithuanians separated by language, Ruthenians by religion).

But there didn't exist any fourth nation in 1918-1922, to form an plus one independent state. Poles of G.D.L. had not become different nation from Poles in the Korona. If it was, then the contention hadn't been for Vilnius, but it had been for Suwalki and Bielystok between Poles of Lithuania and Poles of Poland. And, who knows, Pilsudski had been a president of Lithuania? - Without explaining of these obstacles, the problem gets some mystical touch. For example, it can be understood, that borders of central Lithuania coincided with some traditional borders. It isn't said this way, but it can be understood this way. And so on. I suppose all references to the past, traditional borders, territories and so on must be revised in the article.

As I think, the main reason of formation of Polish speaking territories in Vilnius region was the fact, that Vilnius was the capital of the state, official language of which was Polish, and plus to it, it was in a centre of G.D.L., near the catholics (primary Lithuanians)- orthodoxes line. The mixture of both nations also raised Polish usage (The same thing, as we use English). There were Lithuanian territories, there were Ruthenian territories, and there were some zone of amalgamation. And this zone naturally became Polish. Mostly in XIX century, I think, but we don't need to speak about dates. And we can speak about all it without any references to facts, often misused by propoganda, declaring, that Lithuania propria coincided with Zemaitija, or, on other hand, that Vilnius region was purely Lithuanian before 1918.

Linas 12:44, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

To add even more confusion here one should notice that the terms Żmudź, Zemaitija and Lithuania Propria in English are called Samogitia... Anyway, I must say that I'm astonished that there are no edit wars here and that we can work out some acceptable version - together. That's how the things should look like.Halibutt 22:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Samogitia... I think we should use this name of Latinized origin (as we use not Lietuva or Litwa but Lithuania – also of Latinized origin). This is clear.

But why do you insistently identify Lithuania Propria as Samogitia? Lithuania Propria is the term of XVI century, when catholics in Lithuania concerned themselves as one nation. Its better to say, Lithuania Propria was all G.D.L., excluding Belarus / Ruthenia.

Where I find a problem in it? The conflict for Vilnius was described in old terms then, as “Samogitia” and so on. And if we repeat this, readers will be able to make some unreal conclusions. For example. Kaunas is situated about 15 kilometers out from the historical Samogitia. If one take the definition in the article, he will have to conclude, that Kaunas was in the Central Lithuania. The same with Panevėžys, Utena cities.

And this simple lack of precision may be regarded by some Lithuanians as “political incorrectness”, by the way.

The next point on borders. If we define Central Lithuania only as a land with certain borders, it will mean, for example, exclusion of Czeslaw Milosz and Jozef Pilsudski from culture of C.L. Isn't it? Central Lithuania was more symbolic, cultural unit, than political. Politically it existed during very short time. So we must include some cultural aspect into its definition. Or, maybe, to write two parallel definitions?

By the way, Lithuanians name this region not Central Lithuania, but Eastern Lithuania. All these names have been motivated upon political position after 1918. Lithuanians were creating new Lithuania, Poles tended to traditional explanation of Lithuania as G.D.L. - And we must find exit from all these ambiguities now. Linas 15:02, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

I think that the easiest way would be to refer to Central Lithuania only in its' 1920 borders, without too much insight into the differences between different historical regions. The same should go for history - I believe we should stick to the 1918-1940 history and mention the earlier or latter history only if it's really region-specific. The rest should be mentioned in History of Poland, History of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

As to the culture and sociology - this should definitely go in. Pilsudski was Lithuanian just like Bohdan Chmielnicki was Ukrainian... That should be explained, although that would be the most difficult part. However, both Jozef Pilsudski and Czeslaw Milosz belong more to the Culture of Lithuania, Culture of Poland and History of Lithuania than to Central Lithuania, don't you think?Halibutt 18:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can accept this point. But, if we not look more wide, i think then the C.L. can be seen only as sporadic thing?

Linas 09:48, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

Then, if we forbear from widening the meaning of Central Lithuania, I propose the main definition for “Central Lithuania”:

“Central Lithuania was a political unit (1920 – 22 semi-independent state, 1922 -39 part of Poland), formed by Polish side during ethnic conflict between Poles and Lithuanians of the former Great Duchy of Lithuania”. How do you think about it?

Plus to it, I'd like to add some details, which haven't been mentioned in the article, but which had direct relations to position of Lithuanians in the conflict. Three points, I think:

1)The fact of founding C.L. had another reason, than to show will of Poles of former G.D.L. to form an independent state. This reason should be explained.
2) The position of other national groups in the conflict (Jews, Tatars) may be explained.
3) The main points in events of 1939 – 1940 years also may be mentioned (Such as: the occupation of C.L. by Soviets. “Donating” a part of region to Republic of Lithuania (1939). Soviet occupation in Lithuania (1940 and 1944). Proclaiming Vilnius the (local) capital of Soviet Lithuania (1944)).

I don't speak about including long and detailed explanation here, for somebody may argue, that all these facts better suit in the History of Lithuania. But some references in one or two sentences on every point may be added. If you will not be categorically against these points, I'll give more precise phrasings.

Linas 16:32, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

!!! And the fact about persecutions of Poles should be revised. For, looking intentions of Russian officials of that time, it's true. But the legal situation (I think) was a bit different. Not Poles, but Catholics were persecuted. Not only Polish language, but three languages, used by Catholics in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were restricted, Latgalian or Eastern Latvian (in the Catholic part of Latvia), Lithuanian and Polish (in alphabetic order). And the sentence about the real estates should be revised. Russian law gave priority to Orthodoxes to buy real estates. So it wasn't prohibited to buy real estates for Catholics or Poles, but presence of the legal confines often gave the same effect, as if it was prohibited. - But in all this explaining I lean on my memory. So something significant can be missed, and I can't simply take and edit the article (I did only the fact, which was not doubted). If anybody knows some facts on it , let me know! Better to do in short form, for it's discussion about one or two sentences.

Linas 08:36, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

---

Post stamps

A interesting finding some days before. Look at: http://www.filatelija.lt/zem_vl.htm Even if the material there is known for you, I think, you will have some nice minutes.

Linas 15:02, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

No, I did not know this site (I have one CL stamp in my collection, but most of them were new to me). ThanksHalibutt

Suwalki/Suvalkai

What was the Polish an Lithuanian population in Suvalkai region in 1920 ? Was there indeed a significant Lithuanian majority ? How big compared to other nations ? Lysy 20:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not says that whole region had Lithuanian majority, but rather that "parts of Suwalki region had clear Lithuanian majorities". Actually, it is so even now, e.g. Punsk district now has 80% of Lithuanians (source: http://www.punskas.pl/pkv3-en.htm ). Other sources (e.g. http://www.lietuva.lt/index.php?Lang=5&ItemId=29641) cites 84%. In Sejny district, according to this source, there is currently 34% of Lithuanians. It is a minority in this case, but also it can be naturally assumed that during recent history, I mean, communist rule of Poland, percentage of Lithuanians have decreased in the area, due to the moving of people to major cities from there and then loosing national routs, as well as moving people from elsewhere into the region. Also, not immidietly after the WW2 Lithuanian language was given rights as they are today, that might have lowered percentage of Lithuanian speakers too. Of course, many of these things are assumptions, they can be hard to proove unless you'd have access to some censuses or such of that time but even that might be faked because of need for Poland at the time to proove legitimacy of keeping the mentioned regions. However if there is significant majority in some areas now, it for sure was so that there was this majority in same areas back then too; just without larger research it is hard to say in how many other territories there also was Lithuanian majority. But if you think of current article as not-NPOV, you might drop the word "significant" or change word "parts of Suvalkai region" to "some parts of Suvalkai region". DeirYassin 20:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elections

the Central Lithuanian election -- date posted seems to be wrong (says 1923, seems that should be 1922?) to fit other dates in the article. I don't know the facts, just asking. Thanks!

Indeed, my bad. Thanks, I'll correct that. Halibutt 22:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why did Lithuanians reject Miedzymorze?

I would like to know - anybody can recommend sources I could read up? What were the exact details of suggested confederation and federation, when were they discussed, what were the leading personalities during the negotiations? Was Pilsudski involved and if so, what course of action did he recommend - did he even had a final say in the negotiations? The text states only one reason (threat of polonisation), where there others reasons for Lithuanian refusal? Btw, I rewrote the relevant paragraph to be more gramatically correct in English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would think myself that Lithuanians at the time didn't seen enough reasons to make it viable; same as e.g. Poland of the time would probably have refused a similar union with Russia in case it would have been offered instead of attacking Poland. Past attributed here too, and the fact that Poland was a larger country with larger population, therefore Polish would have been most likely the "prime language" of state, while Lithuanian at best would have been used only in territory of Lithuania; while the mutual institutions would have to be addressed in Polish, parliament sessions would be held in Polish and such. At least that was the way common Lithuanians seen the idea, because that is how it was in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Therefore it did not gained popularity.DeirYassin 19:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please provide valid references per Wp:V

Since this strange multiple references as a single note, without providing exact citations isn't acceptable because it's creating a dangerous precedent. Reason:

1. no citations given,
2. instead of doing many ref's it's some salad, where no consistency can be found.

Hence they land here for further evaluation to the talk page, i.e. here:

References

Obsolete name of Vilnius

Why is the obsolete English name of Vilnius used in this article? --Doopdoop (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't we using the name as used by the inhabitants and government of the Republic, i.e. Wilno? Seems to me it is the one to be used, per WP:NCGN.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Vilno was founded by Roman settlers as all Litva and languige was latin till they assimilate into Belarussia ethnic Group. Pilsudski surname come fro name of the city Pilsud real surname of that Litvin-Belarus Ginetovich Александр Макович (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

""Applicable rules in WP:NCGN are "If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.". These rules support using simply Vilnius. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Position from point of Belarus

Litva founded by Italians during Nero . Duke Palemone and 4 most noble Roman dynasties with 500 other families that include Balkan Slavic come on ships and settle near river Dubisa then spread and founded new country with time they start merry Rus woman and from this we got White RUS COUNTRY modern Belarus. They start speak Rus language. This Romans founded Zhmont on Samogitian land ,modern Lithuanians language relative to Indian not Italian My short version of the story is based on the sources that are available at the moment:

Prince Palemon city of Aquileia. Exactly this form of columns is common in Belarus.

Chronicle of Lithuania and Samogitia: where it is indicated 5508 Prince Palemon and 500 families of Romans left from the oppression of Nero and settled up the Neman River to the Dubissa River from where they began to multiply, the Willi crossed over and those who crossed over to the Willi to the east played the Italian trumpet on the pipes and Rus called them Lithuania. The rest before the Willi were called Zhmont.(2) Dynasty of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Zhmont was in subordinate status to Palemon from the dynasty of the Roman emperors.(3)

"Among them on the island were four (highest) (2) families of Roman nobles: from the coat of arms of Kitovras Dovsprunk, from the coat of arms of Kolumnov Prešpor Caesarin, and from the coat of arms of Urseins Julian, and from the coat of arms of Rosa Torogo (Hector). (4)

Family of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania1 Palemon (Column Coat of Arms)-2 Kunos-3 Gimbrut-4 Montvil-5 Radyvil(Erdvil)-6 Mikhayla-7 Skirmont-8 Troinut-9 Algimont-10 Ringholt-11 Mendog-12 Voiselk-(transition to Dovspung Coat of Arms of Kitovras)1 Zhyvybud -2 Kunowojt-3 Utenes-4 Svintorig 5 Zhermont-6 Altimin-7 Ranut-8 Narimont-9 Transition to the coat of arms Pogonya)( Troiden-10 Ginville- went to the monastery change of dynasty to the Coat of Arms Columns ) 1 Witten- 2 Gedemin -3 Evnut-Keistut+Olgierd o-5 Skirgailo-6 Jagiello -7 Vytautas(Vytautas)-8 Svydrigailo (deposed and transferred to rule the Russian lands in Kiev)-9 Sigismund-10 Casimir removed as king of Poland))-12 Sigismund-August (offered to become king of Poland)-13 Sigismund (the Old) Poland united the principalities of Lithuania, Rus and Zhmont, but the principality had a separate army, money and a constitution of the confederation.

Princes of Polotsk: 1Veche-Ginvil son of Vel Kn Lit Mikhaylo)(2)-Boris-Rogvalod-Glib Euphrosyne of Polotsk (Prakseda) daughter of Rogvolod and not wife(3) The dynasty was buried in the St. Sophia Cathedral of Polotsk. "God help Boris son of Ginvil" was written on the stones Soviet historians removed "son of Ginvil".

The emergence of the state: Lithuania paid tribute to Russia before the arrival of the Mongols.

"the great Erdyvil (Radyvil) the capital and called himself the great prince of Novogrudok

And he left Novogrudok, and cut down the city of Goroden, and then went to Brest, and found Berestets and Dorohychin and Melnyk devastated and ravaged by Batu; and he cut down those cities and began to reign in them(4) other princely settlements in other cities, including Bryansk.

The Transvolga Tsar of the Horde (Ulus Moscow part of the Horde) demanded tribute as was the Battle of Bod Koydanov(4) where Skyrnut defeated the Horde Balaklai was killed.

Battle of Mogilno Tamara of the Horde and 3 Kiev, Vladimir, Drutsky princes plus 2000 Tatars were defeated in the battle of Mogilno. This created a stable state.

The transformation of the Litvins of the Italians into Belarusians.

Here is the simplest example of how the historical Litvins become Belarusians: "After this, Grand Duke Vytautas, having deliberated with Prince Semyon, summoned Prince Ivan Vladimirovich Belsky, his nephew, and arranged for him to marry that older sister Vasilisa Belukha," (4) Vytautas' brother was called Narimunt and he began to reign in the city of Belsk, receiving the surname Belsky and being baptized with the name Ivan from his patronymic Volodymyrovych, it follows that his father Narimunt was baptized with the name Volodymyr. Just as Vytautas was baptized with Alexander. The colors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania's flag "Pochonia" changed. (7)

The Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania issued in Latin and Italian has the inscription "Lithuania comes from Italy" (ZDES' FOTO)

The chronicles themselves know how to speak. Until the 20th century, historians did not doubt the authenticity of the Bykhivets Chronicle

Now on earth 8,450,000,000 in 1200 there were 360,000,000, divide we get 247, multiply by 1500 (500 families of 3 people per family) 370,500 would have to come now to have the same impact on the surrounding country.(6)

0Colonna coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania up to and including Vojszelk.

Coat of arms of Kitovras from the Dovspung dynasty on the throne of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania starting from Żywibud to Sigismund.

Starting from Witeny, the coat of arms changes to the Kolyumny dynasty of the Prosper (Prosper Cesar) Caesar's banner could remain a chase and the coat of arms of the ruling house of Kolyumny was the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Александр Макович (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann: This may amuse you. :) Mellk (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've seen this over a year ago already :-). It fact, he copied this from Belarusian university textbooks, but there it was clearly explained to be a legend (heck, this legend is even in wikipedia: "Palemonids"; BTW it may be expanded from ruwiki). This poor guy does not see difference between fact and fiction. --Altenmann >talk 20:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That not a legend that most reliable Chronicle from all. Александр Макович (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS on what we consider to be reliable. Mellk (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

HISTORY KNOWLEDGE not moving forward by herd , what brilliant mind thinking important only Александр Макович (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this is called policy. You are welcome to think however you want, but here we must follow the policies. Mellk (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

policies result of corruption Александр Макович (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)