Talk:Eastern and Western Vilnius regions

Stalinist polonisation

I find it strange that Soviets were supposed to "polonize" western Vilnius region. I know they successfuly attempted to win the support of Polish minority there in the 1980/90-ies, but I've not heard of any support of the Poles by Soviets. On the contrary - they were being deported to various remote areas of the Soviet Union, which hardly can be called "polonization". What period are you specifically reffering to here ? Lysy 20:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here I am reffering to this page: http://www.lithuanian.net/language/occupied.htm . An excerpt about the polonization is presented bellow

The occupation had a particularly great impact on eastern Lithuania. The Bolsheviks changed the borders of Byelorussia and Lithuania. The Smolensk, Novel, Starodub, etc. districts which had been part of Byelorussia since early times were given to Russia, and the Byelorussian border was moved to the west, into ethnic Lithuanian territory. The Ašmena (Osmyany) and Svyriai (Svir) districts were taken away from Lithuania, however, the Druskininkai-Marcinkonys section which had been annexed by the Germans, as well as the Klaipeda territory, were returned to Lithuania. According to the terms of the 1944 treaty between the USSR and Poland, approximately 200,000 people were repatriated from Lithuania, mostly from the former Vilnius territory. Among them there were many Lithuanians who identified themselves as Poles in order to escape Stalin's terror. They were quickly replaced with newcomers. Russians moved mainly into the cities and the countryside was filled with immigrants from the neighbouring Byelorussian districts, who inundated the Vilnius territory and became "Poles". Around 1950 Stalin decided that the Lithuanianisation of the Vilnius Region ran counter to Soviet interests. Lithuanian (and even Russian) schools were extensively changed into Polish schools.

The Stalinist Polonisation of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal than that of the Poles during their occupation. Under Bolshevik rule, a great, even fatal blow was struck to the Lithuanian spirit in this area. In many of the settlements where after the war almost everyone spoke or at least understood some Lithuanian, now only the elderly still remember it. For instance, according to official 1933 data, approx 90% of the people in the neighbourhood of Paskonys spoke Lithuanian, in 1979 barely 30% registered themselves as Lithuanians, and in the even more Lithuanian neighbourhood of Dieveniškes barely 19%. The ethnic map was being repainted in new colours. However, Lithuanian traditions were maintained in all of these places: Lithuanian roadside crosses (torn down by the Bolsheviks in many places), home woven cloth, towels, blankets with Lithuanian patterns, Lithuanian flower gardens,unaltered methods of farming, as well as Lithuanian customs, legends, superstitions and fragments of ancient mythology prevailed.

DeirYassin 21:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think he's making up various things, like "It was forbidden to speak Lithuanian ... (in Poland]) by phone as late as 1990". There are more similar examples in his text. I'm sure there's some truth in what he writes, but it's difficult to differentiate between the facts and his imagination. Anyway, the topic is quite interesting and would benefit from a broader research base. Lysy 06:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm maybe there was some long forgotten and unused law, which in theory not allowed to talk Lithuanian on phone? As for the territory mentioned however, there can be another possible proove that the mentioned territories were Lithuanian, is that they were attached in 1940 to Lithuanian SSR, although as you can see in map (this is that small "tail" of Lithuania in the southeast), it wasn't really well for that geographically, as well I seen it ethnical maps it being shown as a Lithuanian speaking area deep into Vilnius region.DeirYassin 12:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not doubt this. What surprised me were these "false" Poles from Belarus. How does he know if they were "true" or "false" Poles ? You know, for Polish all this region also in Belarus is "Litwa", so maybe they just moved from one part of Litwa to another one ? Lysy 15:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess the basic support for the idea that someone forcibly polonised some area in Lithuania after WWII comes from a doubtful source: the comparison of 1933 census data with any other census. That census is openly disputed by most historians I've heard of (including Lithuanian ones) for downgrading the number of national minorities in Lithuania. As far as I can tell, the fact that people in 1933 were registered as Lithuanians does not mean that they were Lithuanians indeed. Just compare the alleged number of Poles in Lithuania in 1930's with the number of Poles allowed to leave Samogitia after the WWII (I mean the pre-WWII Lithuania, not the areas annexed by the USSR from Poland). Halibutt 21:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, but in 1933 the mentioned territories (Poškonys, Dieveniškės, etc.) were a part of Poland, not Lithuania. These two villages were attached to Lithuania only in 1940. DeirYassin 21:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remove the paragraphs about "western Vilnius region" and "Suvalkai region", they are not relevant to the article, but, what's worse, they don't seem to be based on facts. In 1945 about 379.5 thousand Poles wanted to leave Lithuania for Poland.

Altogether 190 thousand (190,000 - Polish data, 171,158 - Lithuanian data) were deported from Lithuania, many others were arrested, murdered or sent to Russia, so it's not even funny to write about "Soviet polonization". According to Polish sources around 200 thousand Poles were deported to Poland in 1944-1947 and further 50 thousand were deported in 1956-1959. Number of Polish schools in Lithuania systematically decreased and in 1970 was already below 100 (for over 250 thousand Polish population). Poles were denied opening a Polish cultural society in Lithuania, which was allowed only in 1988. I'm mentioning these things only to explain why this polonization under Soviet Union seems dubious. Lysy 16:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the claim of Belorussians cheatiing that they are Poles is probably wrong, probably author imagined that in Belorussian SSR there were only Belorussians living. However any major settlement under Soviet times was not free but ruled by goevernemnt, and it was common practice to colonise empty territories with people from nearby territories (e.g. abandoned by locals Ruhnu island of Estonia was collonised by people from Kihnu and Saaremaa islands not far away, Memelland territory which lots great part of people was colonised by Samogitians mostly. So it would be natural to assume that after Poles were deported, and after Stalin decided that it wouldnt be good to Lituanize the Western Vilnius region, it might have been decided to settle it with Belorussian Poles. Now I dont know how it is in Belars, but in Lithuania Polish-dominated area did not decreased, and the areas of modern day Lithuania which used to be Polish dominated parts of Vilnius region remains dominated by Poles, e.g. in Šalčininkai district there are 31'223 Poles and 4'086 Lithuanians, in Vilnius district - 54'322 Poles and 19'885 Lithuanians, the districts which are partitioned between former Lithuanian and Polish dominated areas alos has somewhat equal distribution of both nationalities. The only place where former Polish majority is no longer is Vilnius city itself, but even there Poles makes 104'446 people (over 20%), so the number of them not decreased, just that influc of Lithuanians and Russians lowered their portion. Well anyways, my point here is that with known deportations of Poles to Poland, the only way it was possible that such Polish majority was kept everywhere, and also some former Lithuanian-speaking enclaves as one of Dieveniškės-Pošklonys became Polish-dominated, was if there was an influx of Poles from Belorussia or such; and during Soviet times this could have been done only planned. While as for deportations to Siberia, Kazakhstan and such, every nation lost many people in them, including Lithuanians, so they probably didn't alter the ethnic makeup much except for increase of Russian share DeirYassin 17:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, moving people and whole nations around was one of the Stalin's techniques to create and control local conflicts, which made it easier to control the Soviet empire. Also people thrown out of their houses and forced to live in another environment were easier to control. So, I agree that this seems very much like Stalin to move Poles from Belarus to Lithuania only to be able to later conflict them with Lithuanians. As you probably know, even later in 1980s and 90s there were KGB directives to not allow for Poles and Lithuanians to act friendly together. Unfortunately, the conflicts were only too easy to achieve, even with simple provocations. But back to moving Poles from Belarus to Lithuania - this seems probable, but I think we would need some evidence to support it. I've never heard of it. It would be helpful to observe the growth of Polish population in Lithuania during after-war period, but it's difficult, because there was no census in Lithuania until later 1950s. Polish estimate of Poles in Lithuania in 1945 would be over 400.000. After deprtations in 1944-47 and in 1956-59 there should be then some 150.000 left. Today, 50 years later I believe there are about 200.000 ? It's hard to judge what happened because they woud be now grandchildren of the Poles that decided to stay in Lithuania after the war. So, for not I think the theory about then moving from Belarus is just a theory, nothing more ... Also, remember that Poles from Belarus were also deported to Poland and that still many of them live there. Lysy 18:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Stalinist Polonisation of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal than that of the Poles during their occupation" (sic!) no comments--Witkacy 20:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is completely truth. Zivinbudas 13:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I would welcome that this article gets some more neutral POV. There are at least four if not more different point of view here (Belarusian, Lithuanian, Polish and Soviet). I'm not sure if each has to be respresented in this article. Better it would be NPOVised instead by avoiding disputable wording or theories that are not based on proven facts. Lysy 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

How to make this thingie better

I believe we could improve this article by simply adding facts and figures to it. So far it gives plenty of data, but for instance fails to inform an uninformed reader like me where the hell is Eastern Vilnius region. The name would suggest that it's the eastern boroughs of the city of Vilnius, but perhaps I'm wrong. So, here's a list of info we need before I remove the neutrality tag:

1. Where is it (names of towns)?
2. Whose was the area in 1919, 1921, 1923 and 1939?
3. How is it related to the Central Lithuania?
4. Was it an unit of administrative division, a historical region, a range of claims or what?
5. Whether Vilnius Region includes more or less than the Polish Wilno Voivodship?
6. Or are these terms equal?
7. How was the greatest part of historical Vilnius region that was attached to Belorussian SSR related to the areas controlled by Belarus in 1919?
8. Examples of Russification (not Russianization, for G*d's sake!)
9. How is the falsification of censae related to it
10. What exactly is the number of some old people who speak Lithuanian in the region?
11. How is it related to previous Lithuanian population there?
12. If the area was not under Lithuanian sovereignity in 20th century, then how come it was effectively ceded to Belarus?
13. Examples and more facts on Soviet-led Polonisation of the Vilnius area
14. Also, how exactly is the perestroyka concept of finally recognizing the minority rights in the USSR related to Polonisation?
15. If the Lithuanians were unloyal - to whom?
16. If the sithuation in Suwałki (why not to use the proper name for it?) was better, then which period are we referring to?
17. What are the towns with Lithuanian majority there? (actually there is one: Puńsk (Punskas), with some 2000 inhabitants, of whom a large majority are Lithuanians)
18. Also, a general NPOVisation of language and cleanup would be in place. If we write that when all Lithuania was annexed by Russians, then we should post the names of those Russians as well. And so on.

Could anyone reply to those questions and add as much data as possible? This would really be helpful. Halibutt 10:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'll reply:

• Eastern Vilnius region is the part of Vilnius region (territory I delimited in your map previously which is now part of Belarus, not Lithuania. Main towns are Ašmena, Svyriai, Gardinas, Lyda, Smurgainys, Breslauja and others. The part of Vilnius region which was reattached to Lithuanian SSR after WW2 and now is part of Lithuania (includes Vilnius, Švenčionys, Druskininkai), is Western Vilnius region.
• The area's history is similar to Vilnius region.
• Vilnius region is the territory of Lithuania occupied by Poland in the interwar. It was recognised to be a part of Lithuania by Soviet Union-Lithuanian peace treaty, and then occupied by Poland. Central Lithuania was a puppet state established in this region. It included a bit of what is now Western Vilnius region (part of Lithuania), a bit what is now Eastern Vilnius region (part of Belarus), but far from whole these regions. Wilno voivodship included soem eastern territories which are not part of Vilnius region, but excluded some southern territories which were part of Vilnius region (you can check the update on your map I did and compare it to map of Polish interwar voivodships and you'll see).
• Suvalkai region is not the same as Suwalki. It is also a territory which was claimed by Lithuanians, included cities of Suvalkai, Seinai, Punskas. Suvalkai region is the correct term rather than Suwalki region (but redirect exists from there), because the region was not anyhow defined by Poles, it was only envisioned by Lithuanians. However, unlike Vilnius region, which was occupied part of Lithuania, Suvalkai region was rather a Lithuanian claim, because Suvallkai region was not recognised by anyone as part of Lithuania.
• Area was Lithuanian territory, and was controlled briefly by Lithuania too, and Soviet Union, which ceded it to Belarussian SSR, always used to recognise it all as part of Lithuania.
• In USSR Lithuanians were seen as unloyal to USSR, therefore they weren't e.g. hired to do soem jobs, such as commercial pilots for example (in fear that they would go to somewhere to seek assylum) and such. After WW2 there were even plans to exile Lithaunians en masse same as it was don e with certain Caucassian nations.
• There is Punskas and some nearby villages, as well as villages around Seinai, with Lithuanian majority (in the Suvalkai region)
• There was Russian politics of getting Poles in Western Vilnius region agaisnt Lithuanian cause of independence, by promising them a special autonomous republic, and doing propaganda that Lithuanians would opress them and such (but I am not an expert here so I dont know too much).
• About situation in Suvalkai being better, we reffer to all the times basically, after like 50s. Like there are Lthuanian schools in Suvalkai region, but never were in Eastern Vilnius region, etc.

Hope that helps DeirYassin 12:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And now about the ethnic compositions in Vilnius region (Eastern Lithuania). At the time of occupation of it by poles in 1920 there was an absolute majority of Lithuanians - Lithuanian-speakers and Simple Language-speakers (Tuteishians) and absolute minority of poles in Vilnius region (Eastern Lithuania). There were only big ambitions of polonised Lithuanian (Samogitian) Joseph Pilsudski. Zivinbudas 08:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, few points to your text. 1) The Peace Treaty was signed on July 12, 1920 between the Republic of Lithuania and Soviet Russia and confirmed with USSR in 1926, 1931 and 1934; 2) Western Vilnius region returned to Lithuania in 1939 - 1940, not after WWII; 3) The Peace Treaty of 1920 described Lithuanian - Soviet border until Štabinas - former border between Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland (correctly occupied by poles in 1569 former Lithuanian Vojvodship of Palenkė (Polexia). Further in treaty is pointed that Lithuania should agree with Poland on border in Sudovia. As you know, Lithuanian Army in 1920 liberated all Sudovia and Lithuanian government proposed concrete border (to the South of Augustavas) to Poland. So it wasn't only theoretical claim. Zivinbudas 08:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, both the term "liberated" and "all" are highly disputable. As for liberation - the area with mixed population, with a huge majority of Poles living there, was simply handed over to Lithuania by the German Ober Ost army. The Lithuanian forces simply seized the area after most of the Red Army and German units withdrew from there in late May of 1919. And the Lithuanians were forced by the Entente to abandon it less than a month afterwards, in July of 1919. Moreover, the Lithuanians were not given control over all of the disputed area in Suvalkija either - they controlled the city of Suwałki and Sejny, but not the third most important town of Augustów. Also, if we mention the two-months-long Lithuanian rule over the city of Suwałki, then we should also mention that the town, although governed by the Germans, took part in the Polish parliamentary elections of 1919.

Also, the second Lithuanian occupation of the region in 1920 was far from complete. Following the Lithuanian-Soviet Alliance of July 12, the demarcation line between Soviet and Lithuanian troops ran north of Augustów (Orany-Merecz river-Augustów line). The latter city was never seized, and the Lithuanians controlled the other two cities for a few days only. Read more on the Polish-Lithuanian War... Halibutt 02:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in 1920 Lithuanian Army stopped on Augustavas channel - it was few steps from Augustavas town and about 20 kilometres from proposed to Poland border. Until the Peace Treaty of July 12, 1920 Lithuania claimed much larger territory in Polexia - Balstogė including. Lithuanian-Soviet "alliance" never existed. Zivinbudas 05:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's call it military and political agreement to divide the territory of common neighbour and cooperate militarily. And indeed, the army reached the Augustów channel and stayed there between July 5th and July 6th, that is before it was defeated. But the town itself was never taken. Halibutt 07:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

One point of view

This article contains only one point of view, the Lithuanian one, there is nothing about proccess of "lithuanization" of Poles living in this and other parts if Lithuania, still not allowed to use polish signs in their names.

This article is about Eastern Vilnius sregion, which is now in Belarus, not Lithuania (in Lithuania there is Western Vilnius region). Besides, as far as I recon, there was a deal signed which allows Poles to use Polish letters in their names in Lithuania and Lithuanian minority to use Lithuanian letters in their names in Poland. DeirYassin 11:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You see? From the present version of the article it's not clear where exactly the region is. The name suggests that it's close to Vilnius, therefore in Lithuania, while it's not.

As to the agreement - indeed such an agreement was signed and since 2000 the Lithuanian minority in Poland is allowed to have their name rendered properly in all documents (the problem was with the diacritics). However, the Lithuanians did not introduce the agreed standards in their offices so far. AFAIR the reason was that Lithuanian offices lack Polish fonts and lack enough computers to be modernised. Halibutt 11:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, I agree to use the term Vilnius region in Lithuania article. So we can say that there was a problem with occupation by poles of Vilnius region (Southern Sudovia including). About the closure of all Lithuanian schools and opening polish shools in their place in 1950 - 1951 by the order of Stalin. This happened in territory united to Lithuania in 1939 - 1940 (Western Vilnius region). This was Stalin's "gift" to Lithuania for Partisan War (1944 - 1953). The same happened in Eastern Vilnius region - unliberated part of Lithuania - but there in place of closed Lithuanian schools were opened bielorussian shools. Zivinbudas 07:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: Zivinbudas means Lithuanian nationality as I understand, while censae of those times used to show only native language. Poles from Vilnius region according to this view were Polonized Lithuanians (and it is supported by the historical fact that not many Poles actually emmigrated to Lithuania under PLC, it was more like people were learning Polish langauge and starting to use it in day-to-day lives as it was more "prestigious" at the time; similar thing happened in Ireland as Zivinbudas mentioned somewhere else.DeirYassin 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

So, if these people were using Polish language, regardless of their nationality, then what's the point in forcing them to go to Lithuanian schools? I don't really get it... Halibutt 09:08, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand nobody forced them to Lithuanian schools, it was rather that there were too few Lithuanian schools even for those who spoke Lithuanian. DeirYassin 10:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, if Lithuanians would have the same rights in present Poland like Tuteishians have in Lithuania, it would be paradise to them. Zivinbudas 09:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, don't muddle Simple Language which was used by Tuteishians and Polish language. This is a big mistake. Only part of Tuteishians started to use Polish language language after the polonisation policy of occupiers in 1920 - 1939. Zivinbudas 09:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources? Halibutt 21:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Liberation of Augustavas and all Southern Suvalkija (Sudovia) in 1920

My first statement was absolutely right. I checked the factes of history of this war. Lithuanian Army liberated Augustavas town and all Southern Suvalkija (Sudovia) in July, 1920. Army reached the confluence of Augustavas channel and Bebra river. Lithuania holded this territory and Augustavas town until late August, 1920 until poles occupied them. So, Halibutt, your statements are completely false. There weren't any military agreements between Lithuania and Soviets. There was only agreement of transfer of recognized territories to Lithuania. Zivinbudas 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely what the article I pointed you to says. It's great you read it. As to the city of Augustów (called Augustavas by the Lithuanians): it was captured by the Red Army on July 29, 1920. It was under Soviet control initially, but was later transferred to Lithuania. It was held in Lithuanian hands until August 28, when the Lithuanians started their withdrawal to the other side of the Foch Line - without a single shot fired. During their counter-offensive of September they did not reach the city and were repelled to the north of it. So, altogether, the Lithuanian military held the city for roughly a month. That is one month, as compared to roughly 365 years of the city's existence.

Also, how do you thing a huge army hands over quite a big chunk of land to other army without a military agreement? Also, all my sources say that the Lithuanian-Russian agreement of July 12th granted the Red Army the right of passage through Lithuanian territory in exchange for the Polish areas conquered by the Red Army. If that's not a military agreement, then what is it?

Finally, what was wrong in my description of the situation? How come it was false? And finally, what does it have to do with the accuracy and NPOV of the article on "Eastern Vilnius region"?

As a sidenote: in where I live we usually put down the names of nationalities with capital letter. This is usually explained as a sign of respect for others. Is the situation different in Lithuanian culture? Halibutt 21:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Note to sidenote - actually, yes, in Lithuanian language less things are capitalised than in English, and nationality names (Poles, Lithuanians, etc.) are not capitalised (same as e.g. month names or weekdays, which are also capitalised in English)., therefore some people might incidently apply this when writting in English too maybe. DeirYassin 22:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Note to note to sidenote :) - ok, now I get it, thanks. But why do they keep using the lower case only in relation to "poland", "polish", "poles", "pole", and so on? Never mind, I think I get the idea. Halibutt

Augustavas always was a Lithuanian town, in 1569 illegaly occupied with all Lithuanian Vojvodship of Palenkė (Polexia) by Kingdom of Poland. Zivinbudas 10:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

So, it was Lithuanian for 12 years and one month: between its foundation in 1557 and 1569 and then back in 20th century. Quite a short persiod to call it "always"... Halibutt 11:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote illegaly occupied. As you know, breaking of law doesn't create a law. Zivinbudas 12:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And what made the occupation illegal? Certainly not the concient of the Lithuanian monarch... Halibutt 10:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The article is again violent and highly subjective

The region of northwest Belarus was never part of Lithuania except for in some ambitions of militarist nationalists of the 1920ies. The lands were not inhabited by Baltic population since for centuries, moreover Belarusian speakers were the dominating majority of the whole Vilnia (Vilnius) region by the beginning of he 20th century. When Lithuanian armies got into the /presented to Lithuania by Joseph Stalin/ Vilnia the soldiers were surprised, as there was not a single Lithanian word heard on the streets of Vilnia - only Belarusian, Polish and Yiddish. Even today the elder population of the rural areas of southwest Republic of Lithuania speak pure Belarusian! Just go there and hear it!--Czalex 19:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Not true actually. Polish maybe, not Byelarussian (there are some Belorussians, that is true, but much less than Lithuanians, Poles and such; and in the part of Vilnius region which is now part of Lithuania tehre weren't more of them). Belorussians made majority in parts of Vilnius region, in part of it majority was Lithuanian, in some town Jews made majority, in some places Polish-speakers made majority. It was multiethnic. Some of Lithuanian-speaking islands remained in Eastern Vilnius region, e.g. Rodūnia, Gervėčiai, etc.; these were Russianized/Byelorussianized during Soviet times; once in USSR there were 50,000 Lithuanians in Belarussian SSR, now there are just a few thousands and mostly elderly. And, another truth is that way more territories of the region were Lithuanian once (XVII age and such), but people starte dusing other langauges instead of Lithuanian with time because Lithuanian langauge was unprestisious, the slavinisation happened. I am not saying that whole Eastern Vilnius region was Lithuanan speaking as even if it was, there is no information from those times as that would have been long ago so it is hard to find prooves. Balts however (not Lithuanians, but Balts in general), once lived from Wistula to Moscow river as hydronims and toponyms in area proves (that was very long ago hwoever). Then again, Lithuania is not a continuation of whole Balts or such so of course there can be no claims or such to all these areas. Eastern Vilnius region is not claimed either; here it is an article with information about what this region is and it's history, etc. DeirYassin 20:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It is true. Of course, jewish population was very numerous in urban area, also no one denies that there were Poles and Lithuanians. But ethnographical maps of the begin of 20th century show the Vilnia region with perfectly the same "Belarusian" colour as they show Mahilou or Homiel. So why don't we speak of tens of thousands of Lithuanised Belarusians in west Vilenscyna that were much more than the population of Russified and Belarusianised Baltic lslands of West Belarus? People massively were forced to even change their name from Zubr to Zubrus, from Kavalevic to Kavalevicius, from Sakalouski to Sakalauskas and so on! This had a much larger scale than the demonised Belarusisation described in this article. By the way, Soviet officials would hardly ever support Belarusian language here - Russification was their means and that's what they did in Belarus, Latvia, Ukraine.

Doubtless, the whole territory of Belarus used to be inhabited by Baltic (speaking) tribes, but

1. this refers only to the period till early Middle age
2. of course, Baltic does not mean Lithuanian. Belarusians have very much Baltic elements in their culture, language and mentality. In some aspects these elements are even stronger than than Slavic, so, taking into consideration that there were never massive migrations from Belarus and genetically the population of Belarus stayed the same during centuries, some people claim Belarusians to be sth like "the 4th Baltic nation". It means that Baltic does not mean "not Belarusian".

An interesting aspect is also why Stalin presented the city of Vilnia to the Lithuanian Republic in 1939, after his invasion in Poland. Would be nice to cover this in the article too --Czalex 20:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for ethnic maps, it is a matter of opinion/propaganda really, in the same way I seen ethnic maps which shows area as almost fully Polish, and in the same way I seen maps which shows that Lithuanians made majority south to Brest even; back then everybody issued maps which respected more their own views rather than real thing (and in fact, due to what I'll explain bellow, real thing is hard to determinate). While cnsuses doesnt confirms any large availability of spoken Byelorussian in general, not in what is now part of Lithuania I mean (of course, there were and are Belorussians in Gardinas/Hrodna an dsuch). Also, the arguement of Lithuanians was that because there weren't any immigration to the area (only nobles migrated, peasants (majority) used to stay where they born), and the area was once Lithuanian-speaking, that means the Belorussians and Poles were actually Lithuanians speaking Belorussian and Polish respectively (nationality doesnt change, same as e.g. Irish and Scots are of those nationalities even though most of them speaks English as native language now); also, there was large number of people speaking in pidgins (mixed Belorussian-Polish-Lithuanian) so in many cases even determinating language might have been hard (in fact, these pidgin speakers probably made majority, and they were considered by Poles, Lithuanians and Byelorussians to be members of their nationality). All this confusion have been used by the carthographers and such of these nations to draw their own versions of ethnic maps. Stalin gave Vilnius to Lithuania in relation to deal of stationing troops in Lithuania, as well the part of Vilnius region which was given back actually had few Belorussians; the part of Vilnius region which had more of them was attached to Byelorussian SSR. You can start an article about Western Vilnius region if you want (the part of region which was given to Lithuania) and wrie there the reasons of giving it to Lithuania, also Belorussian opinion and such. As for Lituanization of Western Vilnius region, as far as I know there was more polonization because Stalin understood that it will fit Russian interests better if there will be concentrated Polish minority in Lithuania. And you are right I think about the fact that in Eastern Vilnius region Lithuanians were more russianised than belorussianised. Anyways, as a conclusion, I am not saying that current article on Eastern Vilnius region is completely neutral, but still I think it is an useful article as Wikipedia is lare and someone might want to for example to search info about Lithuanians in Belarus during Soviet times, or about the situation of this area and such. I think with time and more edits the article should become more neutral probably. DeirYassin 21:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Maps I am talking of are of Russian and German scientists.

Hrodna is and was inhabited by mainly Belarusian population, opinions like "there were and are Belorussians in Gardinas/Hrodna an dsuch" are the same as "there were and are Germans in Bremen as such" *lol*

Censuses do confirm large availability of spoken Belarusian in Vilnia region, I will give you numbers if you want

About migration: that is really an interesting point. A person's self-identification with either Belarusians or Lithuanians bases mainly on the language spoken, so we have 2 different tendencies with the ethnical border here:

1. Slavisation came up almost to Kouna, there were Belarusian-speaking islands just like Lithuanian-speaking islands in West Belarus.

2. In the 20th century Lithuanisation rolled and rolls back to the newly established state border as the new generation of Vilenscyna people speaks mainly Lithuanian (I already wrote about the old generation above).

I already wrote about it: on both borders there are Balts, but some of them spoke and speak Lithuanian, and the others - Belarusian. So, basically, the people of Vilenscyna didn't have to be Belarusianised - they were originally Belarusian-speaking.

About Stalin: in 1939 Vilnia was actually firstly attached to the Belarusian SSR, but it just stayed part of Belarus then just for a month or so. There was evidence of almost celebrations in the city because of this (I might be imprecise). Under Polish control Vilnia was the inofficial capital of West Belarus, the center of Belarusian national scholarship, culture, intelligentsiya etc. I already wrote about the nearly absence of Lithuanian speakers among Vilnia inhabitants. So, the minimum we can say is that the Belarusian presence in Vilnia was enormous if not dominant.

good idea, I will write an article on this topic to make the issue seen from different viewpoints.--Czalex 22:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting visions which don't have nothing with reality. Simple language-speakers weren't Byelorussians. Tsarist russian government wrote them as Byelorussians in Census of 1897, but this only shows trying to show that Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) was close to russian ethnos (the same did polish nationalistes, when wrote Simple language-speaking Lithuanians as poles). Zivinbudas 06:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You have an inferiority complex towards the Poles (side note)--Witkacy 07:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Polakozerca? Tak, lubię sloninkę. Zivinbudas 09:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(Note: this is answer to Czalex, not Witkacy) What Zivinbudas said is the truth actually; maps I mentioned weren't some things created fro propaganda also, but French maps released before WW1 in Switzerland which shows that Lithuanians were living south even to Brest; and the misconcepton here arises from the fact of usage of various pidgings (or simple langauges, as Zivinbudas said); and everybody used to attribute these people speaking pidgins to their own nationality. Also, languages in fact were never pure at that time, there were always various dialects, on the borders languages were intermixed, etc. especially here because there was actually never a border between Belorussian and Lithuanian nations up till recently. As for islands, the closest to Kaunas point slavinisation were actually influenced by Polish rather than Belorussian - slavinisation does not means belorussianisation, because, as I said, these people spoke pidgins, influenced by Lithuanian, Byelorussian, Polish, Russian languages, etc. Poles, as Zivinbudas said, considers them all to be Poles; Belorussians considers them all to be Belorussians, Lithuanians considers them all to be Lithuanians. Only some of new maps/researches tends to show everything more neutral. In the days before TV, radio and mass travelling such things as pure languages were spoken very rarely; every small region had it's subdialect. The people of Vilnius region (large parts of it) were formerly Lithuanian speaking and slavinised, I have a map of decreasing of spoken Lithuanian there; the reason why I mentioned Gardinas/Hrodna is because it is one of territories of Vilnius region where there is no information that they would previously have been Lithuanian-speaking; however many other areas (including Vilnius and surroundings) were once Lithuanian speaking, but later due to slavinisation it gave way to pidgins. As for celebrations in 1939, I think it is way more related to attaching to USSR rather than to Belarussian SSR; there were of course many communists and such. Celebrations happened in Western Vilnius region when Lithuanians took it also; then Lithuanian community and those who opposed communism were celebrating. As for inofficial capitakl of West Belarus - well, it was largest city, and also historically a cultural center, and historically the capital of state which comprised of Belarus as well (LGD); that is larger reason I think, in city itself there were mostly Jews (Russian and/or Yiddish speaking), Poles and polonized people, only some Lithuanians and Belorussians. DeirYassin 07:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Only one point: the Gardinas' surroundings (and territories to the South until Naura (Narew) river) were Lithuanian-Ruthenian mixed, but local population until polish occupation (1920 - 1939) had strong Lithuanian consciousness. In XIXth century the majority of this population spoke Simple language as well. Zivinbudas 12:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I only wonder on what are you basing your assumptions. Also, Was the situation any different during the previous "Polish occupation" between 16th and 19th centuries? Halibutt 12:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Was Gardinas occupied by Poland in 16th - 19th centuries? Study better Lithuanian History and drop away "Historia Polski. Klasa 10. Warszawa, 1935". Zivinbudas 13:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote something about the areas north of Narew river, which were in Poland back then. So, I repeat my questions. Care to reply? Or perhaps you prefer continue your mindless accusations? Halibutt 23:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

(nationality doesnt change, same as e.g. Irish and Scots are of those nationalities even though most of them speaks English as native language now)

British Isles make a rather bad example here - Ireland is an island and Scotland has well established border which didn't change for more then a millenium. Nationality in anglo-saxon world is traditionally defined by territory one lives in, not by language spoken or family origin. People from these areas whose families are of known norman or english descent are still considered to be Scotsmen or Irishmen (and so consider themselves). There is also no clear idea of national minority.

In contrast, national movements of Central and Eastern Europe (including Lithuanian) refer to language and culture rather than area as the basis of nationality. Lithuanian National Movement of late 19th century firmly rejected the historical tradition of large, multi-ethnic GDL and limited is interest to supposed "ethnographic borders" of Lithuania, which (borders) had no historical precedence. This is as if Scottish national movement limited it's interest to Scottish Highlands only and tried to impose Gaelic as only language in the area, calling all english speakers "anglicised Scotsmen".

To put things simply: you can't both have a cake and eat a cake.

• Either you define Lihuania as an ethnoligustic area - in which case you get a rather small territory and have to accept the fact that some people of provable Lithuanian origin but not using Lithuanian for many generations will see your national movement as something alien and will not join it.

• Or you refer to historical identity of GDL (as the Irish and Scottish refer to historical and not lingustic borders), in which case you have to accept the fact that ethnic Lithuanians make a minority in the whole historical area, and that for most of the country's history Lithuanian was a language of minor importance and low social status.

• Needles to say, that nationality is a social construct developed to modern shape by "national movements" of late 19th (or even early 20th) century and spread by means of education system. The idea that nation is some kind of an eternal and permanent being is an invention of romantic nationalism and is not worth serious discussion.

And sorry, but claim that one's nationality is or should be defined excusively by his forefathers origin is plain racism.

You did not understood the idea of Lithuanian national revival well. Lithuanian nation could not have been based on GDL same as e.g. English nation could not have been based on whole former British Empire: GDL controlled territories of many nations, same as British Empire did for example (of course, GDL had less territories than British Empire). Lithuanian nation, however, same as Irish or Scottish nations, by the view of XIX age-first part of XX age people, was based also on territory rather than language or culture. The territory, where people once spoke Lithuanian, and therefore they were considered Lithuanians. In the same way in Irish and Scottish territories once Gaelic languages also were widespread, and this is how these territories formed. As for GDL, it started in this ethnic Lithuania, however over the time many territories of other nationalities joined. "Polonized Lithuanians" is just a term I used to refer to them, because it seems to be used in some of the wikipedia's articles; it can be Polish-speaking Lithuanians as well, maybe this would be better. DeirYassin 13:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In the same way in Irish and Scottish territories once Gaelic languages also were widespread, and this is how these territories formed

I can't agree here - Ireland was formed first of all by geological processes, as it is an island ;), so its borders are much more obvious than those of any Central European state. Irish independence movement for most of its history demanded only territorial autonomy and had little interest in language. Scotland was never fully Gaelic speaking (see History of Scotland) and it's territory neither is nor was defined mainly by language criterion.

GDL controlled territories of many nations

The only idea of nation which existed in GDL before mid 19th century was that of political nation of nobles of the whole Grand Duchy - including Minsk, Pinsk and Gomel. By the late 18th century this noble class was almost exclusively Polish speaking and usually not much interested in what language their peasants speak. Most of them would not consider differences between Lithuanian speaking peasant, Polish speaking peasant and Ruthenian speaking peasant (there was no separate term for "Belorusian" back then) to be of any major importance. Peasant was supposed to work hard and obey the orders. In fact a "progressive" nobleman who cared about his peasants would start from teaching them Polish ("the civilised language"). When the GDL-born Polish speaking writer needed to call the language we currently call Lithuanian he would usually use terms like narzecze żmudzkie ("samogitian idiom").

There was obviously also a wider Idea of political nation of the whole Commonwealth (often simply called Poland). Therefore one has to understand that both polish and lithuanian had completly different meanings then.

Modern Lithuanian national movement, led by a small group of intellectuals of mostly peasant origin, created completely new idea of Lithuania and Lithuanian identity, including the idea of polonized lithuanians. As the majority of upper classes felt no connection to that movement and in turn came to support modern Polish nationalism, the movement had also strong socioeconomic or "class" traits (peasants vs landowners). This movement was quite typical for its time - a nice comparative study of 19th century "national revivals" can be found in works of Czech sociologist Miroslav Hroch. (see also Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm - in particular The invention of tradition)

To put it clearly: most sociologists and quite a lot of hisotrians would agree, that nations are a fairly modern phenomenon and that "national revival" is in most cases "creation of a nation". Therefore Lithuanian or Belorusian nation simply didn't exist before 19th century (although obviously there were such ethnic groups). The case of Polish nation is a bit more complicated - it's idea may have been not created from scratch, but it definetely was heavily transformed thoughout 19th century. Just like modern Lithuania is not a simple continuation of GDL, modern Poland is not a simple continuation of neither the Crown, not the whole PLC.

Lithuanian nation existed when your slavic mutant bands still jumped on the trees as monkeys. 85.206.192.188 13:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And now we come to the problem with this article (and a number of other): it shows the ideas (and Estern Vilnius Region is nothing more than an idea) created by Lithuanian intellectuals and spread by Lithuanian schools as more important than political reality. The topic obviously deserves an article, but the one written from neutral perspective, that is describing political claims from the inter-war period as political claims from the inter-war period and not as the only true designation of the area.

I'd say that the fact that people does not consider themselves to be part of some nation at any given time does not mean that nations does not exist. Due to isolated place for example people might not even know existance of any other nations (that was the case with rapanui people from Easter Island), due to vast territories controlled by nation and inability to travel they might be unable to see these other nations for themselves; therefore this considering was lacking in past. In fact, I do not see a great difference between ethnicity and nation; proably because in Lithuanian language both words could be translated as "tauta". Lithuanians differend from Eastern Slavs (later Byelorussians, Ukraineans) by language and religion (Lithuanians were first pagan, then adopted catholicism, and Eastern Slavs were eastern orthodox; at the time immidietly after adopting catholicism by the Lithuanian nation there were even some discrimination against orthodoxes: they were not allowed to write their lands in testament to their children). In fact, only now, after Soviet rule (for Poles maybe after interwar), it is so that people of Vilnius region fully consider themselves as Polish (those who speaks Polish) or Byelorussians or Russians (those who speaks respective languages). In the interwar and before, quite many slavic or pidgin speaking people considered themselves Lithuanians, and I mean Lithuanians as what the term means now, not just someone from LGD; me being from Vilnius, I know older people among my relatives and among friends' old relatives who speaks Polish, learned Lithuanian only at school for example but always considered themselves to be Lithuanians. Many of nobles actually considered themselves Lithuanian, many grandchildren and such of them are now speaking Lithuanian as native language, only a part of nobles started thinking of themselves as Polish. As for Eastern Vilnius region being an idea: I guess then many things would be just ideas, all territorial claims and such. I tend to consider real territorial claims, werether present or past, something more than just an idea (e.g. idea of reconnection of eastern Lithuania Minor to Lithuania, which was also considered in the interwar Lithuania, but never had major political backing). If you want to do some NPOV, you can, just don't bring it to another POV. DeirYassin 18:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Western Vilenščyna

Why not making the 2nd part of this article separate? --Czalex 2 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong here, but this whole article is strange anyway. I don't see why it was separated from Vilnius region and why it requires a separate article. Maybe merge it instead ? There seem too many all these Vilnius county, Vilnius apskyrtis, Vilnius region etc. around. In fact I don't know why Vilnius region article was created in the first place as it generally described the same area as Central Lithuania already did. Lysy 2 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Yes it can be made a separate article (Western Vilnius region). As for Vilnius County/Vilniaus Apskritis it is an administrational division, same for Vilnius disrtict municipality and Vilnius city municipality (smaller administrational divisions). Vilnius region is the historical area claimed by Lithuanians, Poles and Belorussians. As for Eastern Vilnius region and Western Vilnius region, maybe they could be merged into Vilnius region, however I think it is easier to use this way. E.g. you could say "Polish minority in Lithuania is mostly in Western Vilnius region" and link instead of saying "Polish minority in Lithuania is mostly concentrated in areas which were controlled by Poland in the interwar, (western part of Vilnius region"; this way it'd also give a wrong implication that the minority only appeared in the interwar or such. Because these areas are a sensitive place and Lithuanian, Belarusian and Polish versions of history and such kinda differs here, I think it is easier to just link from the places of mentioning so people could read all viewpoints and opinions. DeirYassin 8 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

O my God! What a shauvinist nonsenses... I am really shocked to find something like that on Wikipedia.82.163.39.236

Agreed - this should be split or merged with Vilnus region, assuming this can be referenced. Currently Western Vilnius region redirects to Vilnius region, which is confusing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)