Category talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Related category discussions

Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Category:Former countries in Lithuania See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are historical forms of statehood of Lithuania and not different (former) countries (see: History of Lithuania). Kingdom of Poland/France are not regarded as former countries in the territory of Poland/France and such categories do not exist, so there should not be double standards for Lithuania. Consequently, this category should be deleted. -- Pofka (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC) @Pofka: You mean that the said administrative entities were exactly matching the extention of the current Lithuania? If so, no opposition to delete the category. -- Blackcat 09:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC) @Blackcat: It is one and the same thing. According to the preamble of the Constitution of Lithuania (online English version): The Lithuanian Nation – having created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago, – having based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes and the Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania, – having for centuries staunchly defended its freedom and independence, – having preserved its spirit, native language, writing, and customs, – embodying the innate right of the human being and the Nation to live and create freely in the land of their fathers and forefathers—in the independent State of Lithuania, – fostering national concord in the land of Lithuania, – striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and State under the rule of law, by the will of the citizens of the reborn State of Lithuania, adopts and proclaims this Constitution. Various forms of statehood of Lithuania: Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania (sometimes described simply as Lithuanian Empire) existed previously and were created by the same Lithuanian nation. It is the same Lithuania, but with different forms of government (e.g. monarchies). -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Ok, @Pofka: , if nobody else has oppositions, for me it's fine to delete the category then. -- Blackcat 11:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC) @Pofka and Blackcat: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1462 within modern boundaries  Keep @Joshbaumgartner, Pofka, and Blackcat: Few have seen this discussion. And the category should not be deleted. User:Pofka is misleading. Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from the 13th century to 1795. The state language was Old Belarusian language (Ruthenian). Then the principality became part of the Russian Empire. In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, emerged Republic of Lithuania, Belarusian People's Republic and Ukrainian People's Republic. On the territory of Vilna Region arose Middle Lithuania, which later became part of Poland. Thus, it is wrong to assert that the Republic of Lithuania is a direct continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC) @Johnny Moor: You have already taken part in a similar discussion. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC) @Blackcat and Joshbaumgartner: User Pofka did not mention about the same discussions, where the strong objections were provided. I believe this fact is a bold evidence that the behavior of this user is disruptive. If anyone is interested, I have more evidence about tricky and disruptive behavior of this user. And I believe this user should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)  Comment @Kazimier Lachnovič and Pofka: If a user is engaging in problematic behavior, COM:ANU is the proper place to raise that and seek resolution, including blocking if warranted. CfD discussions should however stick to the specifics of the categories and proposals under discussion, not the users who may be involved. Thank you. Josh (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)  Comment It was explained many times that various statehood periods of Lithuania is the same Lithuania. Users from Russia/Belarus: Лобачев Владимир, Kazimier Lachnovič, Johnny Moor are aggressive followers of the pseudoscientific Litvinist propaganda which is not recognized internationally. Nationalistic propaganda has no place in Wiki projects and these users are spreading the same lies again and again. There finally should be an end to their disruptive actions. -- Pofka (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)  Comment Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič, if you want to continue the discussion fine. But the discssion can be reproposed as many times one wants without being in bad faith, and on these pages good faith must always been assumed. Opening several times a CfD on the same topic might seem senseless or frustrating but is legit, and for this reason I hope not to hear once more accusations of bad faith or agenda pushing, hope to have been clear. -- Blackcat 23:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Ok. I have had some experience with COM:ANU and found it to be just a waste of time, cause no one really cares about any evidence. Since opening several the same discussions (a very effective way to waste someone's time) in order to push their POV somehow is considered here as legit, all that I can do is to repeat that I'm strongly against such proposals. There are no reliable sources were provided that modern Lithuania (with own name Lietuva) is an obvious successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or a Kingdom of Lithuania (with own name Litva). On the other hand, Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). And such opinion is quite popular among modern scientists, e.g. Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism in his The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015, University of Pittsburgh Press) writes: Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. Given these definitely reliable SPECIALIZED sources the Category:Former countries in Lithuania can not be removed. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) All I can say for other users is read article Litvinism and you will understand what type of nationalistic attitude Kazimier Lachnovič and his friend Лобачев Владимир has. The current Republic of Lithuania is not an ethnic nation-state as 1/3 of its population in capital Vilnius is non-Lithuanian and more than 15% of the country's entire population is non-Lithuanian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the same Lithuania, created by the same Lithuanian nation, but on a larger scale – Lithuanians from Vilnius ruled large territories of the present-day Belarus and Ukraine (Cambridge scientist Stephen Christopher Rowell describe it simply as the Lithuanian Empire). There are no valid arguments why the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanian Empire) was "non-Lithuanian". Just because Lithuania lost its previously controlled territories it did not become a different state (Encyclopedia Britannica articles supporting claims that the Lithuanians in the past ruled Belarus and Ukraine: 1, 2). For example, Poland also lost control of the Ukrainian and Belarusian territories and nobody proposes ridiculous ideas that Poland is not Poland. By the way, do not forget that the majority of the population of the British Empire was Indian. I cannot see any other way to finally put an end to these ridiculous battlegrounds than to block Litvinist users who are spreading their pseudoscientific hatred and tries to falsely prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania again and again. Pay attention that categories: Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created by user Лобачев Владимир and category Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by Kazimier Lachnovič. This is not a universally accepted agenda, but a disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity mostly by two nationalistic users from Russia/Belarus (two authoritarian states full of propaganda). Seeing how aggressively these two users are spreading pseudoscientific propaganda about a long-standing European country (with history since at least 1009), it is likely that they work for governmental institutions of Belarus/Russia (e.g. Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades). @Blackcat: please strongly consider taking serious actions against these two users as there clearly are no chances that they will give up their nationalistic attitude and stop their disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity peacefully. Two years ago Kazimier Lachnovič was calling Lithuanians as rubbish (see: 1, 2, 3) and there clearly isn't any positive change in his attitude towards Lithuania and Lithuanians. I think that respect for other nations and countries is essential. -- Pofka (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Pofka: if there will be violations of the pillars and the policies of NPOV I'll take measure, meanwhile please, assume good faith you too, or this discussion is at risk of becoming a brawl. -- Blackcat 18:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)  Comment The point of view that the modern Belarusians are the rightful heirs of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (maybe equally with the modern Lithuanians, which is being discussed when the Belarus become a free country) has nothing to do with either Lukashenko (as the head of the Russian occupation administration of Belarus), or the Russian regime as a whole. What they both really do is en:Russification of Belarus (the more complete article in Belarusian be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі), and the Belarusian (so call "Litvinist") point of view is based on the dominance of the Belarusian language in the GDL. On the other hand, statements that Belarusians have nothing to do with the GDL (that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is not a historical form of modern statehood of Belarus) are very convenient for Putin's supporters (mentioned before Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades), as they justify the Russian occupation of Belarus, which is presented as a liberation of "White Russians" (other Russians, who never have their own state in the history according to such chauvinistic point of view) from the "Polish-Lithuanian yoke". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC) If I got the discussion right it is about if the current Lithuania is an direct replacement of the old ones? If this would be the case this category should be deleted because it is not an former county it is just an old name of the current one? I think this discussion about the history is not needed. Other "Former countries" categories containing countries on some parts of area of the current state and direct predecessor states of which some laws from are still in place. So this would have to be discussed for all "Former countries" categories. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) It must be understood that the Republic of Lithuania is not a continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They have a common name, but not the essence. The territory and language were different. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire for more than a hundred years. It was after the revolution of 1917 that the Republic of Lithuania arose on the territory of Samogitia. And only in 1939, Stalin gave Lithuania the Vilna region, which was mainly inhabited by Belarusians and Poles. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Category:Former countries in Germany also links to territories not on the area of the current Germany and with other languages. This why I say if we change this here we would need to change this for the other cats too. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Dear colleague @GPSLeo: , as you correctly noted, there is a serious confusion between state entities and their heirs. As you have already correctly noticed, there is a predecessor state, and there is a successor state. The predecessor state can be considered a state whose state institutions have been reformatted or transferred directly or indirectly to the successor state, while the successor state bases its power on those laws and institutions that were given by their predecessor directly, of course, there may be serious changes over time, this is normal. To which States can examples of successor States be given? For example, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, Byzantium was a direct successor of Roman power with continuity of power and the legacy of Roman laws and institutions. At the same time, when Byzantium was captured by the Crusaders during the crusade, when the state was restored, all institutions and laws were completely restored. The example was rather rude, but a newer example can be given: the Republic of Turkey, which is the heir of the Ottoman Empire, which directly transferred its powers to the authorities of the Republic of Turkey, during the reign of Mustafa Kemal, thus becoming a kind of legal successor of the state. These were examples of successor States. In the modern world, there are many examples when a state bears the name of an older country, but at the same time it may have little to do with it. For example, the Republic of Macedonia, now Northern Macedonia, which has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia, due to historical and cultural reasons. The same can be said with Ghana, the Ghana Empire was previously a state located in Africa, but with the passage of time absorbed by stronger players. Modern Ghana got its name based on an earlier predecessor, but it also cannot be called a predecessor, since it is simply not in the same place where ancient Ghana was. As my colleagues have already said, modern Lithuania cannot be the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, since 123 years have passed since the destruction of this state at the end of the 18th century and has no continuity of institutions, no continuity of laws and power or a legitimate heir of the bearer of power. Not to mention the fact that the form of government in one and the other state differed, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there was a monarchy, while the Republic of Lithuania was created on the basis of republican princelings. Therefore, all the claims on the part of the participant of the Profka, I can only call groundless, and the accusations on his part in terms of "Litvinism" can in turn be called an undisguised manifestation of Lithuanian nationalism and bad faith, which is trying to erase Belarusians and Ukrainians from the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who were and are the same cultural heirs of this state as Lithuania. But, none of these countries can be politically the heir of this state, since state institutions in none of the states have political and legal direct succession from their predecessor. Only culturally, the cultural successors are Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. --Johnny Moor (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC) I understand what you mean. But if we change this here we also would need to clean up the other "Former countries" categories. Many other "Former countries" have states added with the a status same as in this case. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)  Kept. The constitution of Lithuania is correct in sense that the Lithuanian nation has created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago, but during time the country was less and less Lithuanian (except name, of course). Lithuanian constitution says "reborn State of Lithuania", quite vague words, not necessarily meaning legal successor. en:Casimir IV Jagiellon (grand duke 1440–1492) was the last grand duke, who spoke Lithuaninan. For centuries Lithuania was governed by grand duke, who understood no Lithuanian at all. What kind of predecessor is such state? I do not know, who is the last grand duke, who spoke Belarussian language. Maybe it is even impossible to say, because Polish and Belarussian language are similar and were even more similar in the past. en:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has no legal successors, even Lithuanian SSR is not legal predecessor of Lithuania, but Lithuania has geographical predecessors and the disputed category is needed for collecting geographical predecessors. Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are totally different countries from each other and from current Lithuania. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also not a predecessor of Belarus. Probably Belarus has only one predecessor: Belarussian SSR. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Taivo: I guess you should find better arguments for your decision. Thinking in your arguments one may called Estonia is not a succesor of the Estonian state established in 1918, since it became less and less Estonian, had second language Russian and almost 25 percent of its population is Russian. I will not even talks about you weak understanding of the law calling the term in the Constitution of Lithuania "reborn State of Lithuania". The restitution of the Lithuanian state in 16 February 1918 was based on its historical continuity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Independence_of_Lithuania. --- Ke an (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC) From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania was created not on the basis of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but on the basis of a part of the Russian Empire. And political statements do not change this fact. The Belarusian People's Republic also claimed historical rights to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Only russofashists can claim that "From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.". Occupation doesn't give legal rights. Lithuania as a hegemon and founder nation of the Lithuanian Kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the only successor of all its historic forms of the Lithuanian state. Belarussians (that term never existed before 1918) never had a statehood up till 1918 nor was a nation and a subject of history. Its formation is still in the process. -- Ke an (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Only russofashists can claim. This is from a member blocked on the English Wikipedia: You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for nationalist POV-pushing and personal attacks. It looks like history is repeating itself here. I ask the administrators to intervene in connection with personal attacks. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Nothing personal. Please read about russofashism/rashism and its ideology here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashism -- Ke an (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC) This discussion is closed, if you are willing to discuss on the topic please open a CfD for Category:Former countries by current country or create a proposal. --GPSLeo (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism (chauvinistic POV pushing) by removing the category History of Belarus

According to several specialized reliable sources the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (own name "Litva") refers more to Belarus than to the Repuplic of Lithuania (own name "Lietuva"). Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). Moreover, there are a lot of works by Belarusian historians (like "The History of the Belarusan Nation and State", published in English outside Belarus in 2005), that directly connect Belarusian statehood with the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Such connection is recognized by modern Lithuanian historians like, e.g., en:Alfredas Bumblauskas, ″one of the best known Lithuanian historians″ (English Wikipedia): Norwegian linguist Christian Schweigaard Stang determined that at first Vytautas’ office was dominated by Ukrainian language (Volhynia), which later switched to Belarusian (Novogrudok, Polock, Grodno). In a way, we offended Belarus by forgetting that there is no single sentence in Lithuanian in the Lithuanian Metrica. We called the language Chancery Slavonic (of GDL Slavs) – a term panned by Professor Gudavičius, as the language was used not only in GDL, but in Poland, as well; and, as Poles are Slavic, the definition becomes incorrect. The language was not used only in office, but in poetry, as well. However, the attitude of Lithuanians is slowly changing. At first everyone was outraged that Belarusians are stealing our history. I say, however, that they have been part of our history for a long time. <...> The present-day events in Belarus seem to allow us a more peaceful look to our common history and show kindness in sharing it». Therefore, removing Category:History of Belarus with adding Category:History of Lithuania is clearly an act of vandalism, nationalistic (more precise chauvinistic) POV pushing, which will be reported if the attempts will not stop. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• More reliable sources against nationalistic (chauvinistic) vandalism with removing category "History of Belarus".
  • In the Historical dictionary of Belarus (a part of Historical Dictionaries series) an American historian of Belarusan descent Dr. Jan Zaprudnik (1998 edition) states: «In some cases the entire area of contemporary Belarus was referred to as Litva (Lithuania), because it had been part of the territorial core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Belarusians were known as lićviny, litovtsy, litvaki, litwaks». (p. 31) <...> «Belarusian historians stress the economic potential of Belarus within the GDL and the state's cultural aspects, that is, the fact that Belarusian was the official language of the duchy and that Belarusian culture flourished in it, especially during the 16th century <...> One should also keep in mind the terminological specifity: the meaning of such terms as “Rus”, “Belarus”, and “Litva” (Lithuania) were quite different in past centuries from today» (p. 139).
  • Welsh-Polish historian with special interest in Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Norman Davies, Professor at the Jagiellonian University, professor emeritus at University College London, a visiting professor at the Collège d'Europe, and an honorary fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford, writes in Litva: The Rise and Fall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (2013): «In its modern spelling, written as Lietuva, it is the modern Lithuanian name for Lithuania. According to scholars of the Belarusian persuasion, however, Litva was originally the homeland of a Slavic tribe, and had no connection with the Balts until the Balts moved south, absorbed the Slavic tribe and purloined its name» <...> «The Metryka Litevska or ‘Lithuanian Register’ is the commonest collective name for the original indexes/archival inventories of the grand duchy’s central chancery. <...> The principal languages employed are ruski (Old Belarusian), Latin and Polish».
  • Canadian historian Dr. Prof. David R. Marples, Distinguished University Professor at the Department of History & Classics at the University of Alberta, who specializes in history and contemporary politics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, writes in Belarus: A Denationalized Nation (2013, Routledge): «Belarusian territory became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the capital at Vilna (Vilnius), a state in which Slavs heavily outnumbered the Lithuanians, retaining privileges, and in which state business was conducted in the Belarusian language». (p. 1).
  • Quote from Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (2011, ABC-Clio) by American anthropologist Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole, who is an expert on race and ethnicity in Europe, and Dr. Prof. Stephan E. Nikolov, a Senior Fellow researcher at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology and Associated Professor at the Neofit Rilski Southwestern University Blagoevgrad: «During the Middle Ages Belarusians were identified as Rusyns or Ruthenians as well as “Litviny” (Litvins, or Lithuanians). This later term refers to the state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Litva, Great Litva), part of which was White Ruthenian lands after the 13th to 14th centuries. The Ruthenian language, which later evolved into modern Belarusian, was the official language there. For this reason many historians argue that the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the first Belarusian nation state». (p. 43).
  • --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Very distorted perspective formed using a cherry-picked view. The view that Kazimier Lachnovič is perpetuating is clearly a Belarusian nationalist POV, as is clear if one reads about this topic:

Two Belarusian historians, Vatslau Lastouski before World War I and Usevalad Ihnatouski, president of the Academy of Sciences of the Belarusian SSR, in the 1920s, have attempted to project current nationalism into the distant past. Belarusian nationalists looked for traces of Belarusian autonomy even in the Kievan Rus (10th to 11th centuries). They assumed that the Kievan Rus claimed by Ukrainian nationalists as the precursor of their modern state was not a centralized kingdom and that some of its northern-eastern parts, such as the city-states of Polotsk and Novgorod, were in fact pre-Belarusian states. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania that had enormously expanded eastward in the 13th and 14th centuries into the territory of present Belarus was regarded as a binational Lithuanian-Belarusian state. Belarusian nationalists even claimed that the Lithuanians who had lent the name to the principality were in fact Belarusians, only without naming themselves that way. Eventually everything that was ascribed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, due to a fascinating linguistic twist, became at once part of Belarusian national history.

According to such nationalistic interpretation, in 1795 after the third partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was not the Duchy but Belarus that was incorporated into the Russian Empire. The only real national statehood that could pass for being Belarusian in letter and in spirit was the Belarusian National Republic (BNR), declared in Minsk on March 25, 1918… – pages 44-45, Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Two-Volume Set, by Alexander J. Motyl, Professor of Political Science in Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey.

The problem for Belarusian nationalists, as for the would-be Padanians of northern Italy, is that there are no long-standing traditions of independent statehood that can be clearly identified as ancestral to the current Belarusian people and state. There was a short-lived period of quasi-independence in 1918-19, but that scarcely suffices. So to fill an awkward gap, the nationalists have adopted the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania, later part of the commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, as a glorious antecedent and precedent for their modern state. – page 169, ‘’Rebels Pretenders and Imposters’’ Clive Cheesman.

Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (...) As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy (...) – p. 135, National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective.

I am writing this in order to show those less acquainted as to what is actually happening beyond the façade.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

First, I didn't refer to Vatslau Lastouski or Usevalad Ihnatouski, so the critics of their work is irrelevant. Second, Clive Cheesman as well as the Abdelal, Rawi E. are even not historians and surely not specialized ones in the subject. So once again the user proves that just ignores the list of specialized historical sources they don't like and try to refer to stereotypic non-specialized sources they like. Taking into account pushing such POV by means of edit warring that is clearly disruptive behaviour, that should be stopped by the administrators. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter that Kazimier Lachnovič did not directly refer to Vatslau Lastouski or Usevalad Ihnatouski, because Kazimier Lachnovič still continues with a clearly Belarusian nationalistic interpretation of history. It is not disruptive behaviour to warn others of the real ideological background from which Kazimier Lachnovič is coming. Referencing sources showing that Kazimier Lachnovič's POV is nationalist is not something that should be stopped by administrators. Kazimier Lachnovič wanting it to be stopped by administrators only shows Kazimier Lachnovič's disingenuous intentions.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The user just admits the lack of reliable sources to support their nationalistic (chauvinistic) POV. I believe there is enough evidence for any reasonable administrator. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the one that provided the sources showing Kazimier Lachnovič's view is the nationalist one. The POV is the one that is clearly shown to be such by many sources. A reasonable administrator should understand that Kazimier Lachnovič is creating problems based on his ideological views, as is repeatedly evidenced through his actions. In a case of simple over-categorization, Kazimier Lachnovič talks about defending Belarusian history when no one is assaulting it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder, Dr. Andrew Wilson, Dr. Prof. Norman Davies, Dr. Prof. David R. Marples, Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole the “Belarusian nationalists” is another prove that the user in inadequate and should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. Kazimier Lachnovič wanting to block a user based on the fact that the reliable sources provided by the user do not align with Kazimier Lachnovič's highly distorted and cherry-picked view of history is a clear indication that the inadequate user is actually Kazimier Lachnovič.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The user just keep on claiming that the most prominent modern historians specialized in the subject show «highly distorted and cherry-picked view of history» without providing any reliable source really criticized to them. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• There is not a single source that claims that only the Republic of Lithuania has the right to the historical heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Formally, in 1792-1795, all rights passed to the Russian Empire. The Republic of Lithuania was created on a part of the Russian Empire and is not a direct heir to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Vilnius Region was received as a gift from Joseph Stalin in 1939. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment History of Lithuania is the same as History of Poland, History of Hungary, History of France, etc. We don't have separate categories for Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Hungary or Kingdom of France. Moreover, why then we do not add category History of Belarus to Category:Poland as well? Belarusian territories also were part of Poland, same as it was part of Lithuania (a state which was first mentioned in the written sources in 1009). On the contrary, Belarus is a modern state: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918." (article from Encyclopedia Britannica). -- Pofka (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No. The history of modern state Lithuania (with own name Lietuva) is not the same as History of Poland, History of Hungary, History of France. Many contemporary specialized reliable sources (quoted above Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder, Dr. Andrew Wilson, Dr. Jan Zaprudnik, Dr. Prof. Norman Davies) clearly state that the historical meaning of term Lithuania (Lithuanian) differs significantly from the modern one. Moreover, according to Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, ABC-Clio, 2011, p. 43, by American anthropologist Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole, who is an expert on race and ethnicity in Europe, and Dr. Prof. Stephan E. Nikolov, a Senior Fellow researcher at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology and Associated Professor at the Neofit Rilski Southwestern University Blagoevgrad, «For this reason many historians argue that the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the first Belarusian nation state». --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the provided quotes from several contemporary specialized reliable sources there are some very related quotes from The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015, University of Pittsburgh Press) by Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism: „Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. <...> In the early nineteenth century, “Belarusian” or “Lithuanian” did not yet denote any particular ethnic belonging. <...> As a state symbol, the BNR adopted the Pahonia, "the chase", a stylized image of an armed knight on a white stallion against a red background. This symbol had deep roots, going back to the fourteenth century. <...> ...the Pahonia was nearly identical to the coat of arms of the newly proclaimed Lithuanian state; <...> The Belarusian People's Republic had established a three-band white-red-white flag, and a modified version of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.“ So, according to many contemporary specialized reliable sources, the proclaimed in the 20th century modern Lithuanian state (with own name Lietuva) has no exclusive rights on the heritage of the GDL (with own name Litva). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The way that Kazimier Lachnovič uses sources is indicative of his tendency to twist history. He leaves out important elements from the sources and ignores the wider context. The article on Belarusians in Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia only explains the view and does not state it as fact. In it, it is written that “The Ruthenian language, which later evolved into modern Belarusian, was the official language there.” Language itself is not a sufficient basis to claim a country, because some languages were used as lingua franca, and so to claim that the 18th-century Kingdom of Prussia was somehow a French state because it used French in its official proceedings is nonsense. It should be clear to all that the use of a certain language does not immediately mean the country belongs to those that write that language. Later on, the article itself states “In the 14th century, while being incorporated to Lithuania, Belarusians never lost their national identity.” This is a major statement that CONTRADICTS Kazimier Lachnovič’s whole argument. How can a country be incorporated into something which it supposedly already is? It can’t, and ergo the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was NOT Belarus. How can a national identity be lost in a state that is supposedly your own? This source clearly implies that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not a Belarusian state, and the centre of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was always the ethnic Lithuanians, which still exist now, while the Belarusians were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but never were the Lithuanians. The sources that Kazimier Lachnovič uses contradict him. The name Litva is known to derive from Lietuva (see en:Name of Lithuania), and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called Lietuva, as is clear in documents from GDL : [this document from 1641 http://lietuvos.istorija.net/lituanistica/wladislaus1641.htm] states dideje Kunigaykßtysteje Lietuwos and [this manifesto from 1794 https://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/LMAVB/MAB01-000255435] calls the GDL - Letuwa, so Kazimier Lachnovič putting so much emphasis on separating the two is factually inaccurate.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And once again (the statements ignored by the user are highlighted): Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. <...> In the early nineteenth century, “Belarusian” or “Lithuanian” did not yet denote any particular ethnic belonging (Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Once more, Kazimier Lachnovič totally ignored what was previously said and pointed out irrelevant citations. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not exist in the 19th century, because it was occupied by the Russian Empire in 1795. Moreover, it is not a surprise that different languages had different names for a certain country, that is normal and to be expected.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And once again (the statements ignored by the user are highlighted): Lithuania or Litva was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Territory and ethnic composition

Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1462 within modern boundaries

Sergey Elizarov History of Belarus in the context of European civilization, 2014:

In the middle of the XIV century, Russian lands occupied two-thirds of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, amounting to more than 300 thousand km². At the same time, Lithuania itself with Samogitia (ethnic Lithuania) - less than 30%.

Under the Grand Duke Olgerd, the country's territory reached 630 thousand km², the share of ethnic Lithuanian lands decreased to 14%.

Was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania really Lithuanian?:

At its peak, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did control lands well beyond ethnic Lithuania and, at the time, just 30% of its people were ethnic Lithuanians.

According to the documents of the Russian Empire, Vilna and Grodno provinces were "Lithuanian" (see en:Lithuania Governorate). In the Grodno province, the overwhelming majority of residents were Belarusians. In Vilenskaya, Belarusians were also in the majority. In 1812, during the occupation by Napoleon's army, two Governorate-Generals: Lithuanian and Belarusian. Lithuanian Governorate-General: en:Vilna Governorate, en:Grodno Governorate, en:Minsk Governorate, en:Belostok Oblast. The overwhelming majority of the population in the Lithuanian governorate was made up of Belarusians.

Vilna Governorate, 1864. Statistical table of the Western Russian region of the Russian Empire, by confession:

Orthodox Belarusians - 147 504 persons
Orthodox Lithuanians - 0 persons
Catholics of Belarusians - 270 785 persons
Lithuanian Catholics - 182 288 persons

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

India was the largest part of the British Empire and Indians were the most numerous of its inhabitants. That does not make the British Empire into an Indian state. So, a Slavic majority in a country does not make that country Slavic. Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)