Talk:Ethnic history of the Vilnius region

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Data

Sorry for intervention. I think, it's better to use 'districts' instead of 'rayons', despite that usage of 'rayon' is also possible in English and sounds more authentic. I do it because construction of Lithuanian administrative system looks obscure yet without these variations of names. Do link with still non existing article about Šalčininkai, despite whatever name you use.
Linas 18:14, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


Data from "Tarybu Lietuvos Enciklopedija" (TLE): In the begining of 30-ies (seems to be 1931 census) there were 25% lithuanians, 35% poles, 15% jews, 5% russians, 5% belorussians, 15% undetermined (local catolics) (tuteishi) in the Vilnius land. Vilnius land is the general term mostly used as meaning Vilnius voivod, but sometimes as meaning only the part of Vilnius voivod, later incorporated into Lithuania, and sometimes else - as meaning Vilnius guberny, etc.. It is not clear which specific teritory describes these numbers. Seems that data is related to Vilnius, Vilnius-Trakai and Svencionys district.

Data from "Mazoji Lietuviskoji Tarybine Enciklopedija" (MLTE): according to 1931 Polish census in Vilnius, Vilnius-Trakai district, and Svencionys district there were 546018 people at all, (such, but bit less accurate number is mentioned in TLE too) but there no data about national demographics.

2001 national census data is accessible via Statistics department site

Current Vilnius nationality list and numbers are available via Vilnius territorial statistical bureau

Also, I found some data from Lithuania in numbers 1919-1940 (not sure about accuracy, bot seems good, text translated):

According to this you can filter out at least russians and jews from actual numbers:

Vilnius voivode confessions1931 m. December 9 d. census
  Numbers Percents
Total Towns Villages Total Towns Willages
Vilnius voivode 1275939 261272 1014667 100 100 100
Catholics 797483 158950 638533 62,5 60,84 62,93
Orthodox 324738 19642 305096 25,45 7,52 30,07
Evangelic 2675 1707 968 0,21 0,65 0,1
Other christians 36566 3601 32965 2,87 1,38 3,25
Jewish 110796 76218 34578 8,68 29,17 3,41
Other 3681 1154 2527 0,29 0,44 0,25
Vilnius–Trakai district 214472 9542 204930 200 200,01 100
Catholics 201053 7862 193181 93,74 82,39 94,27
Orthodox 2865 369 2496 1,34 3,87 1,22
Evangelic 354 59 295 0,17 0,62 0,14
Other christians 2615 106 2509 1,22 1,11 1,22
Jewish 6613 871 5742 3,08 9,13 2,8
Other 972 275 697 0,45 2,88 0,34
Svencioniai district 136475 12296 124179 100 100 100
Catholics 117524 7757 109767 86,11 63,09 88,39
Orthodox 1933 329 1604 1,42 2,68 1,29
Evangelic 128 38 90 0,09 0,31 0,07
Other christians 8792 695 8097 6,44 5,65 6,52
Jewish 7678 3412 4266 5,63 27,75 3,44
Other 420 65 355 0,31 0,53 0,29
Source: Statistikos biuletenis. 1939. Nr. 10 (192). P. 3.


Territory of 1939 m. regained Vilnius land: confessions - 1931 data
Confession Thousands Percent
Total In towns In villages Total In towns In villages
Total In Vilnius Total In Vilnius
Total 425,71 212,32 195,1 213,4 100 100 100 100
Catholics 326,9 133,7 126 193,2 76,79 62,97 64,58 90,53
Orthodocs 16 10,8 9,3 5,2 3,76 5,09 4,77 2,44
Evangelics 2,53 2,34 1,8 0,2 0,59 1,1 0,92 0,09
Other christians 9,8 3 2,4 6,8 2,3 1,41 1,23 3,19
Jewish 69 61,7 55 7,3 16,21 29,06 28,19 3,42
Other 1,5 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,35 0,38 0,31 0,33
Source: Statistikos biuletenis. 1939. Nr. 10 (192). P. 3.


Sorry, but I was not able to find more data at the moment. Older (pre-wwii) numbers seems to me not accurate, and really, it is very sensitive subject at all. There were few periods of factual genocide in Lithuania, and Lithuanian-Polish questions was used to escalate that (last time - 1988-1991 by soviet communists as method to stop Lithuanian independency movement), I think you know those methods of manipulations, so it is difficult to get real data or to have neutral opinion.

Best regards - Ricardas, --213.197.137.20 21:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Data for Vilniaus Apskritis (County):

  • Lithuanians - 50.83%
  • Poles - 23.55%
  • Russians - 10.77%
  • Belorussians - 3.32%
  • Ukraineans - 0.99%

DeirYassin 14:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but what period do these numbers refer to? Halibutt 07:30, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It refers to 2001 censusDeirYassin 15:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible distortions in different periods

Hello. I have a book of results on this census (with data on nationalities, religions, ages, genders and living place). What I commented was tat the percentages you had were clearly obtained in the way when those people who refused to answer the census were for some reason added to "other nationality"; there is separate graph for "refused to answer" in such cases usually, but that is used only in polls like those about elections; when counting percentages of people in the state and such, usually those who refuses to answer are excluded from whole number and percentages are aquired of those who did answer. Therefore I recalculated percentages and hence every nationality (except "other") got a slightly larger portion (in original info released by Lithuanian statistical department there are no percentages at all, only numbers, and there is number for number of people in said region and then nationalities, while number of people who refused to answer only at the end, therefore the place where you got percentages from must have calculated them wrong, I used to calculate wrong at the start too). You meant, exact numbers for Vilnius region? When? As now there is no such administrative division, there is probably no information on how much of people in former Vilnius region are of what nationality I am afraid DeirYassin 19:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, that seems to be serious thing: Up to the post-www-ii time we can not actually say that numbers given by differrent censuses are right, because most of other censuses were made with intention to show one or another demographics situation. Especially this can be seen on censuses which are made by czar Russia regime: after 1863-64 revolt strong russification of Lithuania started, Lithuanian language, not only books, but even public usage was restricted (I had seen photo of XIX anouncement in Vilnius street in Russian, "Speak Lithuanian prohibited"), so in that period most of lithuanians were counted as belonging to different groups of nationalities, mostly - belorussians, "local catholics", sometimes - as russians or poles. Opinion that lithuanians are not a nation or that lithuanians should be eliminated as a nation was widespread in Russia, factually Lithuania were even named as "Northwest region (of Russia)", but not as Lithuania. --Gvorl 05:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It is closelly related to Tutejszy problem, which was bit incorrectly explained in Vilnius Talk: most of lithuanians were speaking Polish bit, some part - Russian too, so all them were counted as poles or russians. For example, typical situation: family of my great-grandfather was counted as poles, because of they simply was able to speak Polish language, but again, my great-grandfather himself was counted as russian, because he had served in the Russian army as officer, so was able to speak Russian really. Typical situation of those times: if you aren't pole, you can not go to catholic church, because worships only in Polish language. But if you want to work in state institutions, you should be Russian speaker and counted as russian or belorussian. So, actually there were no fast changes of national composition or mostly used language, but mostly there were incorrect censuses. --Gvorl 05:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the matter is quite tricky, especially with the Russian censae. As more or less all pre-1991 censae are disputed by someone, I simply decided to list all of them, with a short notice on what is disputed and by whom. This is the very purpose of this article... As to the russification - it was aimed not only at Lithuanians at the time. The tsarist regime was quite specialised in antagonising various nations against each other and persecuted all nations of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth equally. A note on that is indeed needed near the results of the 1897/98 census.

--Halibutt 07:30, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Shouldn't this be at Lithuanian census?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some name change would be in place, though the title you propose seems not too good. Firstly, it is not about all of Lithuania or Grand Duchy, but rather Central Lithuania. Also, it could equally be called "Russian census" or "Polish" or "German".. Halibutt 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus, the name is unapropriate. Don't blame me that I am prone to panic quicly, but this article sounds as a collection of documents that would allow to start ethnic cleansing, expatriation and other "historically approved" measures on the territory of two sovereign countries Lithuania and Belarus. This should be renamed to Censuses in the area aroud Vilnius. The correctness of the data presented in these censuses is another question. Juraune 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Censuses in the area of Vilnius does not seem the best option to me, but if the current title is problematic then it's at least a step in a good direction. I'd oppose (though not strongly) Vilnius for the same reasons I would oppose mentioning the Teutonic city of Kaliningrad: anachronisms. Alternatively, we could follow the example of the article on Central Lithuania and move this article to Ethnic composition of the Republic of Central Lithuania. A nightmare title, but at least it would be consistent - and quite neutral. //Halibutt 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, move to that title and also move the censuses performed after 1922 to another article, and the problems will be solved. Juraune 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly speaking I don't understand the problems you have with the very term of Central Lithuania. The article on Southern Lithuania explains pretty well that there was a "Southern" part as well. Also, why move all but two censuses elsewhere? WHy not keep this list as it was intended to be? //Halibutt 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Title is misleading because:
1. It is not talking about ethnic composition of Central Lithuania (as this term is used now);
2. It is not talking about ethnic composition of Republic of Central Lithuania either, but rather about censuses from XIX till XXI century.
3. Term Central Lithuania itself has very strong aftertaste of POV, when used in this context Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So what would be the title you propose? Censuses held in Wilno Voivodeship, Gubernia of Vilna, Central Lithuania and Wilno Voivodeship in 19th and 20th centuries? //Halibutt 06:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you might have an allergy for word Vilnius, or is this just your bargaining technique?Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I simply hate aachronysms, whatever their flavour. I don't call Stettin with its Polish name when referring to the times when it was German, I don't call Leningrad with its modern name when describing the siege, and I don't call Vilnius with its modern Lithuanian name when referring to the times when there were virtually no Lithuanians there and the town belonged to Poland or Russia.
Now, could you please try to be constructive and respond to my question? //Halibutt 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about something like Changes of ethnic composition of Vilnius and its administrative area --Lysytalk 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ?

Maybe Ethnic history of Vilnius region. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Maybe let's wait a while to see what others think and rename if there is a consensus for the move. --Lysytalk 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ethnic history of the region of Vilnius seems fine with me (we're not writing an article on the ethnic history of the Vilnius region, but rather the region of Vilnius, if you know what I mean). Ethnic composition of the area of Vilnius seems even better. //Halibutt 10:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree that these names would be even better. Particularly "region of Vilnius" seems good. --Lysytalk 11:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
"Region of Vilnius" sounds better than "area of Vilnius" for me. Because we are talking about wider region, rather than just Vilnius area (Vilnius and close suroundings of Vilnius) Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than worry exclusively about the title, the article and its purpose is skewed from the get go. Please read the Purpose of this article, below. Dr. Dan 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan, are you against the rename, or is it that you just don't care ? --Lysytalk 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to seriously object, I'm going to be bold and rename the article. --Lysytalk 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --Lysytalk 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kulakauskas ref

The statement referred by Aleksandravičius, Kulakauskas is laughable. Just look into the table: vilna gubernia: 4.9% of russians recorded. An astonishing russification, I must say. mikka (t) 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please present a scholary source rather then your POV. --Molobo 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Scolarly source of what? That 4.9% is a rather pitiful demonstration of Russifiation? mikka (t) 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Molobo: You are a Pole (I think). How are you imaginig a Pole writing himself as a Russian? mikka (t) 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please present the translation of the actual quotation of Kulakauskas (here, in the talk page would be enough). mikka (t) 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Addres that to the person bring the reference.I have no reason to doubt it based on knowledge of despotism in Russia and Russification. --Molobo 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also, Lithuanian authorities often argued that the large majority of Polish-speaking people were in fact Polonized Lithuanians. However, there are no proofs for such stance

It was relatively simple to Polonize Slavic Lithuanians (Bielorus), but not ethnic Lithuanians. Xx236 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And..? //Halibutt 11:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
And?... that's how you come up with examples like Gabriel Narutowicz, and probably Jozef Pilsudski too boot! Dr. Dan 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
...and Algirdas Brazauskas, and Dan Quayle and Arnold Schwarzenegger. So..? //Halibutt 11:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dan, I assume that you have proves of Lithuanian roots of both? Lithuanian, not Slavic. Xx236 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Both being who, Xx236? Dr. Dan 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dan, would you please read your texts? The answer is on your screen. Xx236 08:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K. - let's return to your phrase:

And?... that's how you come up with examples like Gabriel Narutowicz, and probably Jozef Pilsudski too boot! Dr. Dan 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your point?

Halibutt hasn't mentioned Gabriel Narutowicz in this text. Would you please consider, that I'm not a native speaker? Xx236 08:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish Issue

As an American, I am a little puzzled by the the inference that the Jewish component of the area, is some kind of "proof" that Lithuania was not entitled to claim Vilnius as Lithuanian. As an American, we were raised in the tradition, that being a Jew was a religious matter rather than an ethnic one. Today this oversimplification is not in vogue as it once was, for a lot of reasons, and I do understand most of them. Nonetheless, if we talk about French Jews, or German Jews, or Polish and Russian Jews, it seems less of an issue, than to talk about Lithuanian Jews. At least for some of us. Jews lived in Lithuania in the cities, towns, and shtetls for a long time, and were multi-lingual. And "amazingly", many could even speak Lithuanian. Why in the discussions of the ethnic composition of the Vilnius region, is this a factor dismissing the historicity of Vilnius being Lithuanian? Hmm? Dr. Dan 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"the historicity of Vilnius being Lithuanian" and New York being Lenape or Dutch.

Wilno was situated almost on Slavic/Baltic (old=Lithuanian/old-Byelorussian) ethnic border and had always mixed population. "Lithuanian" historically meant Zhemayte-Ruthenian. The word Lithuanian and the coat of arms changed their meaning (or were annexed) at some time. The name Vilnius wasn't quite popular before 1939. If you don't believe me, check in academic books. Norman Davies? Xx236 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zhemaite (samogitia) as you call it is an ethnographical region in Lithuania, one of two major dialects - Aukshtota(Highland) and Samogitia. Term Lithuanian ment someone from Lithuania, so Zhemayte-Ruthenian (where did you get this formula, it sounds like 19th century russian propaghanda) as you call it, emerged only in 15th or rather in 16th century, as initial Lithuania expanded, and Ruthenian noble families began to gain power in GDL (refering to themselvas as Lithuanians). Initialy Vilnius was situated about 50-80 kilometers from slavic teritories - if yo're interested you might check maps of Jotvingians and Sudovians, and it's surroundings were Lithuanin up until 19th century. Vilnius itself was multicultural and multilingal as you say, although Lithuanian language was predominant until 16th century (nevermind written texts, estimated about 2percent of poulation could read or write, so writing is not a proof of language domination). Should I give you a list of academic books I've read during my studies at university on any specific topic?--Lokyz 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilno and Monachium are Polish names of non-Polish cities, if you don't believe me check in a Polish Atlas. Let's talk about the Jewish argument that I presented instead. And drogi Xx236, you opened a piece on my talk page recently user: Dr. Dan, about Lublin and the Ruthenian language which needs to be clarified. Please explain what you were talking about on my talk page so I can understand you better. Thanks. Dr. Dan 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply the Poles used the ethnic composition argument, while the Lithuanians used the historic integrity arguments, both were incompatible. As for the Jewish population of Vilnius, I'd recommend reading "Reise in Polen" by Alfred Döblin where, being a Jew himself (ethnically, not religiously), he makes many interesting observations on Jewish community of Vilnius. --Lysytalk 05:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilno isn't Polish now, because:

  • Stalin gave Wilno to Lithuanians;
  • many Poles joined Polish Army in the West and never returned;
  • many Poles were deported to Siberia 1940-1941;
  • many Poles were murdered by Germans and Lithuanians 1941-1944 (eg. in Paneriai);
  • many Poles were expelled after the war to Poland or deported to Siberia.

Lithuanians became majority in the city only about 1970.

Wilno wasn't Lithuanian 1920-1939.

The result of expulsions is : 87.2/km² population density in Vilnius County and 34.7 in Alytus County. Xx236 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a nice piece of original research and twisted facts. The difference in density is because of Vilnius, a densly packed city, in Vilnius County. And Alytus County has Varena district - the largest district with one of the smallest populations and the largest percentage of forests. So it has little if nothing to do with expulsions. Renata 13:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do we repeat the same? We've already discuss it many many times.
  • Stalin gave Vilnius to Lithuania (1) Implementing the pact of Ribbentrop-Molotov (2) Already having a plan of annexation of Lithuania (do it really means "Gave it to Lithuanians?", think about it please)
  • Many Poles were deported to Siberia as well as many Lithuanians, the difference was, that some Poles were allowed to return from Siberia when Polish Armia Krajowa was being formed during WWII.
  • Lithuanians served as minor officials in local German structures in Lithuania, as well as Poles did in Western Belarus. All they often did what they were ordered and any insinuations here are not in place.
  • Poles were expelled after the war. I can agree with the term 'expelled', but it should be added that this action was "human" comparing it with many other actions taken by then Soviet government. It was done according with a treaty between Poland and USSR. So, if one can say, that Stalin gave Vilnius to Lithuanians, it could also be said in this case, that Poles were expelled with consent and help of the government of Poland.
The fact, that Lithuanians became the absolute majority of the city so late, shows many incorrect explainings in some more real light. The first question is, who were majority prior to 1970 (after 1945)? Russians and Poles made almost equal parts of the rest population, while other minorities were insignificant. The answer is wery clear: Lithuanians migrated to Vilnius in a natural process, when the city grew as all cities in Lithuania before WWII. Remember, that the city has population over 700.000 now vs less than 200.000 before WWII. Lithuanians never made the city forcedly Lithuanian. A comparing of the facts that almost all Poles left Vilnius after WWII and that number of Poles lives in Vilnius presently, is a quite good proof of that. Linas Lituanus 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet. As I know Jews in Vilnius region always considered themselves Lithuanian Jews (Litvaks). Now, our opponents often say, that Lithuanians didn't live there. Why do you think, that other people than Lithuanians couldn't defend integrity of Lithuania? Both Poles (although minority of them ) and majority of Jews did. --What concerns the idea of "Polonized Lithuanians", i think, anybody may select between Lithuanians and Belaruses, what's very natural. A number of Poles may have Polish forefathers, that could migrate from Poland (from Korona). Linguists find both Lithuanian and Belarusian background before today's Polish language in Vilnius region. So if it's offensive for somebody to be descendent of Lithuanians, he may think, that his forefathers all were Slaves, but many logical and consequent considerations show the region to be a part of the historical Lithuania propria (the Catholic not the Orthodox faith of people, for example). If modern Poles don't agree with this, they may read texts of Polish scholars of the 19th century. We cant't say anything more in defence of where Lithuania is than they did.

And, at least, there's no need to repeat always the same. Linas Lituanus 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Now we're discussing the real issue at hand. The question is very simple. Why would these Lithuanian Jews not be relevant as Lithuanians?. What would make them Polish or Russians? Was a Jew in Panevežys a Lithuanian Jew? Or in Šiauliai? Was Jew from Warsaw, or Cracow not Polish? The argument against a Lithuanian claim to Vilnius on this basis is bogus, nationalistic POV pushing, and garbage. So who is the author of this nonsense, and what were their motives behind it? Dr. Dan 02:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The majority of Jews died during the war, so their option wasn't important in 1945.
  • The Litvaks spoke Russian rather than Lithuanian. Yes, they opted for Lithuania in 1920, because they considered Lithuanians to be not antisemitic. We can only speculate what would have been their opinion in 1945, after Kaunas pogrom and Paneriai executions. Jedwabne (400 victims) is a subject of thousands of articles, the Lithuanian crimes aren't.
  • I have written myself that Vilnius is near the Lithuanian/Slavic ethnic border. The majority of local Poles have non-Polish roots. So what? The same all -icz names are Slavic, so -icz Lithuanians should return to their Byelarus roots, rather than Lithuanian ones (I'm against forced return to the roots.)
  • The Lithuanian state imposes to Lithuanian citizens Lithuanian last names, because allegedly Lithuanian computers cannot accept Polish letters. Polish citizens can use Lithuanian letters in their names. A Polish politician cannot be a deputy minister in Lithuania.
  • All my statements about expulsions are adopted from German texts about Poland. Lithuanians are responsible for the expulsion of Poles and Germans exactly the same like the Poles for expulsion of Germans and Ukrainians, which is the subject of thousands of articles. How many articles are there about the expulsion of Poles from Vilnius region? How many informations about the expulsion are there in the Berlin exhibitions?
  • Name Polish Sauguma and Polish Paneriai soldiers in Western Byelarus.
  • The Home Army fought against the Nazis in 1944 in Vilnius, did Lithuanians the same?
  • "Poles were allowed to return from Siberia when Polish Armia Krajowa was being formed during WWII"?????????????

The Poles were allowed to join the Communist army, not the Home Army which existed on the other side of the front. Xx236 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the same Armia Krajowa, who did get ammunition and guns from German army?--Lokyz 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To Renata.

I wanted to say, that 87.2/km² population density in Vilnius County is a desert comparing to most European regions. If we exclude 542 287 people and 401 km² we obtain the real image of the county. It's partially the result of nationalism, the same like in many areas in Poland - better a desert than foreign neighbours. Xx236 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to make such conlusions you'd have to show how population diminished in time and the density of population changed. Othervise these conclusions are based on somewhat shaky ground.--Lokyz 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So according to you the expulsion and extermination of Poles didn't contribute to low density of population in some areas of contemporary Lithuania. The policy of not returning land and houses to Polish citizens - the same? Xx236 12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say this. I'v just asked you, whether are you sure, that population did in fact diminish? Please cite facts, documents and research, not assumptions. As for returning land and houses, Lithuania does return them only to it's citizens. It's official policy also applied to not only to Poles, but also any other nationality.--Lokyz 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Summarising - why obvious facts aren't included into articles about Lithania? If you include them, I won't have subjects to write about. Xx236 10:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please state obvious facts, that you miss in the article. Thank you.--Lokyz 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The expulsion of (some) Poles as part of Lithuanian ideology, basic facts about the expulsion (numbers, years).
  • " Armia Krajowa, used to engage in criminal acts against the Lithuanian population" - an example of Lithuanian language in Lithuanian Security Police.

Xx236 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to cite any document, where this ideology was stated? And do you believe Stalin did ask Lithuanians, whether they did want to expell someone? For example did he ask Lithuanians, wheter they want to leave Lithuania and go to Siberia?
As for Armia Krajowa please read section "Relations with Lithuanians" and also Dubingiai article.--Lokyz 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The only Lithuanian source quoted there is an article written by a philologist.

The main problem of the Home Army śeems to be Dubingiai. With all due respect for those victims, the history of WWII is different than you believe. Xx236 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, tell me what I do believe? I didn't said a word about my opinion on these issues, I've just pointed you a further read. Now you say I'm wrong without even saying a thing?--Lokyz 14:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have pointed me a biased article. The only Lithuanian source quoted there is an article written by a philologist. So during 16 years of Lithuanian independence no Lithuanian historian cared to document the alleged massacres outside the village? Noone cared to list the victims? If the Lithuanians don't care, why should I? Xx236 13:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

By what logic did you determine that it is biased? I did not work on this article, the reference (AFAIK) was put there by Polish editor, most of these articles was edited by Polish editors. are Poles biased? Please explain me your logic, by what factors do you determine bias?
Btw, there are quite a lot publications on this issue - you might want to read references in AK article. More to come, as documents found in Bernardins Monastery will be published.--Lokyz 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we return to the topic in regards to the Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania? And by Central Lithuania, I mean the Republic of Central Lithuania. And more specifically, why the large Jewish population of the area would lend the Lithuania claim to the area, less importance? Btw, Xx236, where do you get the idea that these Jewish people spoke Russian, and not the other languages in this multi-national area? The AK and Lithuanian security forces are way off topic. They can be discussed on their own talk pages. Dr. Dan 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian Jews

  • Meïr Katz wrote: "because the majority of the Lithuanian Jews use the Russian language"

Xx236 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm - In what historical period? What document did he state that? Who is Meir Katz?--Lokyz 14:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Meir Katz said so. It makes me want to tear my shirt in two. How could I possibly have doubted that Xx236, was wrong. Meir Katz, forgive me Meïr Katz, said so. That should settle it. Now Xx236, why don't you be nice and go to my talk page and straighten out the garbage that you fabricated there. And when you are through, you can start a stub on Meir Katz, forgive me Meïr Katz. Dr. Dan 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There were Jewish volunteers that were risking their lifes and fought in Lithuanian army for the Independence of Lithuania after the WWI. Is this fact mentioned anywhere? Juraune 13:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are links - [1], and [2] sorry, they're in Lithuanian. And here is stub regarding Vilnius' Jews attitude towards Poland and Lithuania [3]. Let me cite just one line "even speaking with each other litvaks tended to insert one or more Lithuanian words". Article written by dr. Vygantas Vareikis, Klaipėda University , Faculty of Humanities, History department dean.--Lokyz 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Lokyz your second link has an English tranlation available with a simple click of the mouse. Very interesting material. Thanks. Dr. Dan 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to your sources the current year is 2006. Something happened from that time. Xx236 14:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And?--Lokyz 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And we have current knowledge when we describe Jewish-Lithuanian history. We don't close one eye to see rosa image.--Xx236 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh. What does it have to do with subject of this article?--Lokyz 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

People, what is all this dispute about ? No doubt there were many Jews in Lithuania and probably most of them supported the idea of Vilnius belonging to Lithuania rather than to Poland. The article however is not about who supported what but about the ethnicity of the people there. The ethnic composition was one of the arguments used by the Polish side that was supposed to justify their taking Vilnius and the region. Remember, this was 1st half of the 20th century and similar arguments were used elsewhere throughout Europe at the time. It is not for us to judge it here. What is the purpose of this discussion other than to antagonize Lithuanian and Polish editors ? --Lysytalk 20:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, you might ask the author of the article this same question. Dr. Dan 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We were discussing the Vilnius Jews. One of the links is also devoted to Vilnius' Jews. Although, yes, the tone of this discussion has gone overboard.--Lokyz 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is known that the majority of Vilnius Jews after WWI would either support the Lithuanian option, or remain indifferent. I've never heard of any significant Jewish support for the Polish option in Vilnius. Nevertheless, saying that the Jews felt that they were Lithuanian would be an overstatement, IMHO. --Lysytalk 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Litvaks lived in Poland too, but they were not Polish either :) Their most respected Rabbi was Vilna Gaon and his teachings spread wide. They spoke Jiddish, a Germanic language. They still live in Israel and maybe someplaces else and continue their nice traditions. Men still wear the 18 century city dweller costume (their hats are made of fur that is some kind of reminder of cold Lithuanian and Polish winters) Juraune 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of this Article?

So then, what exactly was the purpose of this article, when it was created by its author. Let me say, that reading encyclopedias and gaining knowledge from them, has been a passion for me since childhood (a while back now). I just bought a Collier's Encyclopedia, 1944 ed., this weekend at a flea market, (ten bucks, not bad after negotiating, the got whole thing). Have read snatches of nazi and communist encyclopedias, and know the difference between propaganda and information, when I see it. Am I making the wrong assumption that, the author of this article was attempting to justify the Polish annexation of Vilnius and its environs, by saying that the ethnic composition of the construct, or puppet state of the Republic of Central Lithuania, was essentially not Lithuanian? Dr. Dan 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Too hot of a potato to handle and respond to? Guess so. Dr. Dan 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No, too rhetorical a question to respond to. Outside of Lithuania pretty much everyone knows that there were little Poles in Stettin and little Lithuanians in Vilna prior to 1945. The purpose of this article was to collect all the censuses I could dig up in one place, something that is pretty unique as I don't believe anyone did it before. //Halibutt 06:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, I know you do not like when I respond to your questions, but maybe this edit will help you understand the usefulness of the article ? --Lysytalk 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I do not dislike you answering my questions. I enjoy interacting with you. I have occasionally been perturbed when you take it upon yourself to answer I question that I've posed to someone else. That's all. In my mind I've always considered Halibutt to be Polish, and that he considers himself to be so, as well. He's also stated that he's Jewish. If this is correct, the one does not negate the other. My point is that the so-called Jews of the area would be considered to be Lithuanian Jews, and not something else in a lame attempt to cover up the big mistake of the military action by Poland against Lithuania right after their mutual establishment of independence. Furthermore this litmus test of speaking Polish doesn't prove nationality, and just because you don't want to accept the bi or maybe tri-linguality of Lithuanians living in the area having extreme weight in this debate, is unfortunate. Dr. Dan 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I partly agree with you but not with all. I agree that Polish "liberation"/"invasion" of Wilno and the way Poles treated Lithuanians then, was a major mistake (OK, that's my personal view, not a fact). On the other hand I don't think Piłsudski had many alternatives given the situation. Either the Lithuanians would have considered him an invader (which they did) or the Poles would feel betrayed by him (again, my opinion, not facts). You are correct that someone who spoke Polish did not necessary have to be 100% Polish in the ethnic sense. However most of these Polish speakers in Wilno then actually felt Polish, they organised in self-defence, fought against the Bolsheviks when Lithuanians abandoned the town etc. Also, I do not agree with you about Litvaks, you can call them "Lithuanian Jews" but it's just a name and does not make them more ethnically Lithuanian. As for their citizenship, they could be Polish, Lithuanian depending on the country in which they lived. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that the fact that Wilno was ethnically Polish justified the military action, but this was the excuse that was used by Poles then. In the encyclopaedia we are supposed to note the facts, not evaluate them. --Lysytalk 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously OT here as Dan's questions do not have anything to do with the purpose of this article, but one should note that Litvaks were not Lithuanian or Polish Jews. Contrary to the latter categories, the Litvaks were resettled to the Pale of Settlement in 19th century from mainland Russia. That is why they had little roots there, little sympathy for either side and were generally influenced by Russian rather than Polish or Lithuanian cultures. At least that was the case in large Polish cities such as Lodz, Vilna or Warsaw, where the Litvaks (or rather litvaks, as Litvak is simply an old name of any Lithuanian in Polish, Ruthenian and many more languages) settled in later part of 19th century.
And to reply once more to the "question" Dan asked (sorry, but I doubt you really wanted to know the answer, especially that the question was asked in a when did you stop raping your daughter style), yes, you are making wrong assumptions - and quite unpleasant ones. Not that I didn't expect that of someone as cultured as yourself. //Halibutt 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, were you trying to outdo Dr. Dan's lack of "culture", with this "cultured" tidbit that you recently threw out at him? M.K. 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, thanks for your serious considerations regarding the matter. Dr. Dan 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, thanks for your imput, too. Oh, and thank you for reminding us that Vilna was still a large Polish city, while it was part of the Russian partition of the PLC. Dr. Dan 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's obviously only Polish POV. It is known that many Poles tend to (wrongly) think of Lithuania of PLC as a part of Poland. A Lithuanian would rather say that Vilna was a Lithuanian city instead. But Halibutt is Polish. Russians would probably think t was Russian. --Lysytalk 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And Hitler would think Gotenhafen was German. Dr. Dan 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dan for your nitpicking efforts. Just in case you did not understand it (which I bet you did), I called it a Polish city because it was primarily inhabited by Poles. At the same time it was a Russian city as it was part of Russia, obviously. However, I simply mentioned three out of five largest Polish cities in terms of Polish culture being dominant there at the time, as we were speaking about cultural differences and not political. The two remaining were Lvov and Cracow. //Halibutt 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

By what arrogant authority do you have, to tell me that this Lithuanian city and its historical capital, was Polish during the partitions. And you call challenging this non-reality, nitpicking? At one point you try to tell us that us that Vilnius was largely inhabitated by Jews. When I suggest that they were Lithuanian Jews, oh no!, Halibutt tells us they were actually Russian Jews (ha, not Polish Jews in this "large Polish city"). Then Halibutt tells us that Litvaks are not something that Wikipedia agrees they are, and what the diaspora of Jews, understands the meaning of Litvak to be, as well. You say Vilnius was primarily inhabited by Poles. I give credit to Lysy, he at least qualifies his opinions as such, and I truly can respect that. You, on the other hand pass off the most POV and biased nonsense, as if it were fact, very casually and lightly. If you are hoping to establish some type of rapport between Poles and Lithuanians, take a long vacation. Dr. Dan 02:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Your batting average with Poland's other neighbors isn't too good either.

Lysy, please look at this more carefully. What Halibutt is saying, these were not Lithuanian Jews nor Polish Jews, but he is certain that all Litvaks were Russian Jews. It is common knowledge, that Jews were invited to Lithuania by Gediminas and they migrated north-eastward mostly. Vytautas the Great granted them the first priviledge in the 14th century. They lived in Lithuania side by side with Lithuanians and other peoples of Lithuania. Vilnius was one of biggest centers of Yiddish language and culture in Europe in the 19-20 centuries, and Yiddish is not Russian. I do not say that Jews from Russia didn't came to Vilnius, their migration paths took many directions, but to say that all of Litvaks were from Russia is Halibutt's desire to disagree with obvious? Maybe this article should be called Ethnic composition of Western Russia? By the way, Halibutt, your discussion style is getting gross. Juraune 07:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My arguments were different than Halibutt's. I believe that Dr. Dan is confusing what in modern terms we would call nationality and ethnicity. Litvaks could be equally well the citizens of Poland or Lithuania, depending on which country they lived in. However they were clearly neither Polish nor Lithuanian from the point of view of their ethnic origin, religion, customs, language (although Jews in Vilnius would speak Polish, unlike Litvaks in Warsaw!). --Lysytalk 12:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, what do you mean? The Litvaks (Jews) in Vilnius spoke Polish? Unlike Litvaks in Warsaw who spoke Lithuanian maybe? What does Unlike the Litvaks in Warsaw mean in the context of your entry here? Dr. Dan 13:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In Warsaw they spoke Jiddish. I'm truly surprised you didn't know. --Lysytalk 18:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't act surprised Lysy, while Polish Jews in Warsaw, and Litvaks in Vilnius spoke Yiddish, and Polish, and believe it or not, Lithuanian, if you check out Yiddish in Wikipedia and elsewhwere, you'll see that there is a Lithuanian designated branch of Yiddish acknowledged by most scholars on the subject. I'm truly surprised you didn't know! Dr. Dan 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll not be surprised to hear that there were different Yiddish dialects, including Poylish, Litvish, and Ukrainish. --Lysytalk 19:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that what I just said, or did you want to hear my by now famous Earth to Lysy salutation. Dr. Dan 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of high culture by Dr. Dan, thank you very much.
  1. By what arrogant authority? By the authority of all censuses held there in the past. If you can't live with the facts you might want to ridicule them - or the ones to point them out. Or focus on non-important matters in order to avoid the main topic of the discussion, as you did in this case, it's your choice. Don't like Vilna - take any other large Polish city of the epoch, with the exception of Chicago obviously.
  2. And you call challenging this non-reality, nitpicking? You're challenging my side-note doing your best to avoid the main argument. What a heathen debate over but an example... when your neighbour told you about what happened on September 11, did you criticize his style and point to him what the proper pronunciation of the term outrageous was?
  3. As to the fuzz with Litvaks, at least in "Polish Jewish" view, Polish or Lithuanian Jews were "locals", as opposed to the predominantly Russian-speaking Jews who migrated to the Pale in 19th century. Perhaps in Vilna they got quickly Lithuanized yet decided to hide it from the census offices, I don't know. In any way, there is no equation between Lithuanian Jews and Litvaks. Don't believe me - read more on that yourself and you'll see. The truth shall make you free - you'd only have to look for it in the books.
  4. Juraune, you're completely right, the Jews had lived in both Poland and Lithuania ever since middle ages. However, Litvaks were not there in Vytautas' times, the term has got a clear ethymology and was coined much, much later. Contrary to what you say they were not Russian Jews, but a huge part of them (at least in Lodz, Warsaw or Vilna) sided with Russian culture and were immigrants from what is now Russia, eastern Belarus or eastern Ukraine. This does not mean that there were no Jews there before.
  5. BTW, I know you're going to hate me for that, but... the famous privilege of 1387 issued by Vytautas for the Jews of Trakai was in fact a copy of an earlier privilege by Casimir the Great, who in turn copied it after the one granted to Jews by Boleslaw the Pious...
  6. Let me put it straight again, it's you who said that Litvaks were Russians. Not me.
//Halibutt 14:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
So then, regarding the "fuss", according to you the definition of a Litvak is a Polish Jew. Or did I miss something here? And by calling it the fuss (fuzz*sic), this issue is not important regarding this article, right? Dr. Dan 15:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan and Halibutt, is it possible that you take your interesting personal discussion to your user space ? --Lysytalk 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This so called "personal" discussion should be resolved here, Lysy. He wrote the article and we are debating the how's and why's regarding it. By exposing our positions here for everyone to participate in, we might resolve the problem. That would be good, don't you think? Dr. Dan 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
"We are debating" ? Don't delude yourself. You're insulting each other. I'm quitting this one for now as it leads nowhere. --Lysytalk 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm at it, Halibutt stated that Vilnius (Vilna per Halibutt), was a Russian city during the partitions (and a large Polish city too). That's his edit a few paragraphs above. Hali, MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Will Halibutt tell us that Warsaw was a Russian city too, during the partitions? Is that his position, regarding his home town? Dr. Dan 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Vilna a Polish city. Bah. Care to read Tadeusz Czacki work, one of most prominent law historians of the time?
And a minor correction - Litvaks considered themselves Jews of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, even in 19th century. That heritage can be felt even in Mickiewicz's beliefs. --Lokyz 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
M.K. thanks for bringing that link up. However, somehow you failed to post this edit as well...
Dan, read my posts again. And check again whether I said so or not.
As to Vilna - I already explained that. It was a Polish city because people living there were mostly Polish. It was a Jewish city because there was a sizeable minority of Jews there. It was a Russian city because it belonged to Russia. It was also a Lithuanian city because it historically was a part of the GDL. I don't think there is any contradiction in that and I don't understand what is the purpose of you bringing it here.
Lokyz, as to Litvaks, here's an interesting story. My best friend's parents are both from what is now Lithuania and were forced out after the war. The family of his mother lived there since times immemorial. Now then, 60 years after they left those lands, when my friend's mother quarrels with her husband, the worse offensive term she uses is bringing up his Litvak ancestry. She was a Jew "from there", while his family were newcommers. But that's too difficult a story for this discussion I guess. //Halibutt 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hali, you often chide me for adding my anecdotal stories, on the talk pages, yet you just added your own. I've got no problemo with the concept of anecdotal stories, just try to make more sense when you do write one. I read yours, and could only sratch my head and say, Huh? Dr. Dan 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But the fact remains, as one contributor said "for eternity". It was quite clear statement made by you; are you reject it or this is new tactics do drive other contributors out of patience, something like Renata? M.K. 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to pause

I'm sure Dan will differ on this, but I find the above "discussion" disappointingly useless and in fact harmful. Its only result is further escalation of the antagonisms between individual editors. I suggest we all give it a break for some time, and engage in some more fruitful collaboration instead. --Lysytalk 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lysy, I have to differ on this, not because I have a hostile intent in continuing the matter, but because it is high time this nonsense comes to an end. A "pause" here is not the solution. Again putting it all into perspective, the author of this article, "created" it to justify aggression by Zeligowski against the nascent State of Lithuania. Central Lithuania was the construct that this article was trying to justify. It has very little to do with Lithuanian geography in regards to North, South, East or West, let alone "central" Lithuania. Let's not pause, but finish the matter and get on with more serious work, after it's resolved. A pause only defers it until a later time. Let's finish it here and now. Dr. Dan 21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a fresh start then ? Without all the digressions ? --Lysytalk 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What does a fresh start mean? Ignoring the matter now that it has come to a head? Going to someones talk page, to hide from the opportunity to resolve the matter in the open? The debate is not about digressions, it is about solving the problem right here, right now. It's about time! Dr. Dan 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above clearly shows it does not lead to any solution. It's even not clear what is the problem that you're trying to solve in the first place. If you're advocating against Piłsudski, fine, but this is wrong place. It's good to know how the ethnic composition of this troubled region changed, and the fact that Poles used it to justify their actions after WWI should not make us censor the article. Apparently for many people this information remained unknown (see recent edits by User:Hundred but there are more examples), so it is very useful for them to have the information. --Lysytalk 05:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The change of the title of the article already makes a significant difference. Although the article was started IMHO, to justify the creation of the Republic of Central Lithuania, it may now take another direction with more information that is less one-sided. Dr. Dan 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not able nor willing to judge why the article was stated. I'd certainly be happy to see it expanded beyond the limits imposed by its previous title. --Lysytalk 15:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where do those 1897 results for the city of Vilnius come from anyway?

Hello,

after asking for help here on the Language Reference Desk[4], I came to the conclusion that the table giving the demographics for the entire governate in 1897 correspond with the numbers given here : [5]. That is the site to which the article linked. So that is good and I even added the total number of people. However, not this page but another page gives us the results for the city itself: [6]. I wanted to link to this as a source instead but... the percentages given are really different! So what I did now is : no source for the city itself, until we can sort this out.Evilbu 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Vilnius region?

The article informs about Vilna Governorate, without Vilna region and later goes to Vilnius region. A serious article should start with a definition, what is Vilnius region. Xx236 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)