Talk:History of Vilnius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Vilnius is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

archive1

Contents

[edit] Taryba

You're right about "Taryba". "Council of Lithuania" is probably the best. However I'm not sure if this relates to History of Vilnius at all, rather to History of Lithuania, so I would delete this sentence there. What do you think ? Lysy 21:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it could remain, as the fact that such a thing happened in Vilnius is part of city's history, same as probably you would mention Union of Lublin in case you'd be writting article on History of Lublin and such.DeirYassin 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. Take a look at the beginning of the section and see if I have not made a mess in the paragraph about the Council in 1918 there. It might need some correction after my last edit. Lysy 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is ok DeirYassin 20:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that the monarchy restauration story took place before declaration of Feb. 16

[edit] General notes

Hi. The idea to write History of Vilnius was excellent. Now, this page is better-balanced than earlier section of Vilnius article.

But let me list some faults of the contents.

[edit] National communities

“Rapidly developing, the city was open to migrants from both East and West. Communities of Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Jews, Russians, Germans, Karaims, Ruthenians and others established themselves in the city.” Let's look at possible association here of the word migrants and the later list of communities. Lithuanians and Poles can't be call migrants here, and Belarussians, when our state had been common for long time should rather be called local people than “migrants”. Very interesting fact, that historical Vilnius had streets, named after national communities. There was Jewish street, Russian street, Tatar street (Tatars still aren't mentioned in the list), but there wasn't Lithuanian or Polish street. And distribution of national communities was also different than it's put here. What concerns Lithuanian community, i think, any local Lithuanian community didn't exist separately from Polish one till the middle 19th century. But there are clear data about Samogitian community in then Vilnius, and there was respective street under the name of Samogitians. So, Samogitian community was seen as extraneous, “migrant”.─ The same with Russian communities: There weren't three different ones (Belarusian, Russian and Ruthenian), but one orthodox community, or two during certain periods with division into Russian orthodoxes and Uniats. So, this sentence needs to be specified. But i doubt how to do it. The one way is simply to add the note “which subsequently were known as Poles, Lithuanians etc”, meaning, that then names can differ from the listed ones. Or perhaps we should use names of communities real for 16 – 18 centuries? (Local Lithuanians and Poles, Samogitian Lithuanians, Russians (Ruthenians) Orthodoxes and Uniats, Jews, Tatars, Karaims etc.) so we should discuss it here.

I've made some changes, but I'm not happy with them. I think this paragraph should be rewritten. Or maybe add aditional subparagraph about religious groups ? Certainly these are important pieces of information for understanding the city's history. Lysy 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Belarus ?

The second thing is this: “The city was initially planned as the capital of Belarussian SSR, but then it was decided that Vilnius might be used as a way to get significant influence on Lithuania.” It isn't true. Or, perhaps it may be understood as true , for the passive voice with no agent used to describe the situation. It's true that leaders of Communists in Vilnius and leaders of Belarusian SSR tended to incorporate the Vilnius region into Belarus without dividing the region. It's very doubtful, if they planned to make Vilnius capital of the Belarus, but it's impossible to deny or confirm it. All these discussions were informal and you could understand, what did it mean in the then Soviet Union. But the official position of the USSR (with understanding that no declared position was untouchable for bolsheviks) was, that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania.
This position was also expressed in the initial secret protocols of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The protocols contained a sentence, that said, that the both sides (i. e. Germany and the USSR) will respect interests of Lithuania in Vilnius question (the translation is approximate). In the later treatments Lithuania was “re-given” to the USSR's sphere, but this thing wasn't changed. It's appropriate to add here, that Nazis' government also tried to “foster” Lithuania and proposed Lithuanian government to take part in “Vilnius company” with support of German military forces (differently from the USSR, Germany didn't have borders with Vilnius region). Lithuanian government categorically refused to participate in aggression against Poland. After this Soviets seized the city and Lithuania was donated to Soviets. Logic of events is clear here. And – Soviets never negotiated Vilnius in exchange of military presence. Their requirement to allow presence of Soviet military bases in Lithuania wasn't connected with any compensation. Lithuanian government wasn't allowed to refuse Vilnius in exchange of not interfering by Soviets in Lithuanian life (despite, that Lithuanian delegation had such instructions). Linas lituanus 09:56, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Again, I've introduced some minor changes here, but this is difficult and I believe that further suggestions/discussion would be helpful. Lysy 06:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, this section, I think, it's all OK. All facts are said now, and concerning hypotheses I still could add some things, but these are little things left. For example, Lithuanian officials during 1939 – 1940 declared obviously dependence of Vilnius region to Lithuania, but Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania was declared very fuzzily (I mean declarations after the 10th of the October, naturally). Perhaps it was connected with very unstable political situation, international treatments signed by Lithuania and position of the foreign diplomatic corpus in Kaunas. Smetona's opinion was very significant, but I think, it's too vulgar to reduce all this to his personal fears. If it added something to Lithuania in the question of Vilnius, Lithuanian government with no doubt would have transferred the capital with formal founding of the president's residence in the city at least. I think, the government doubted, if recognition of Vilnius for Lithuania, by Molotov – Ribbentrop pact signers will not turn against Lithuania after the war. This way the capital remained not transfered till the events of 1940. But new puppet government of Lithuania didn't transferred it too. German Nazi administration also ruled from Kaunas. I should add that all these administrations recognized dependence of Vilnius to Lithuania, but the status of Kaunas wasn't changed. Some sources say, that even after the war few communist leaders in Lithuania doubted, if it was useful to transfer the capital. Some add, that it was solved in Moscow, what is quite credible. Linas lituanus 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Also, election area wasn't fully corresponding to the area of Vilnius region, whch was overtaken by Poland. Some areas where the election was done actually were outside Vilnius region, and other, much larger, areas, including e.g. major city of Gardinas/Hrodna, were a part of Vilnius region, but despite of that elections weren't done there. It didn't fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either

- That's one of many possible examples of this article stylistic clumsiness. It seems rather obvious, that elections to the parliament of "Central Lithuania" are supposed to be conducted on the territory of "Central Lithuania", not somewhere else. Territtorial divisions invented and applied by Lithuanian governement to territories it never actually controlled (like Hrodna) are mostly irrelevant here, or at least should be clearly labelled as "official point of view of Lithuanian governement".

It didn't fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either; the election area was larger than Central Lithuania, but smaller than Vilnius region. And well, to say that Vilnius region voted to be a part of Poland we would have to get all Vilnius region to vote, not excluding the Lthuanian-majority zones such as Druskininkai as it was done. Therefore there is information, that it wasnt done in the whole occupied Vilnius region (and it is not Lithuanian invention, but the territory whcih was given to Lithuania by Russia in the respective peace treaty).DeirYassin 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit of the chapter on PL-LT conflict

I took the liberty to make a copyedit of the part on Polish-Lithuanian conflict for Vilna. Also, I explained some things that were not clear, hope I improved the article a tad. Above all I wanted to separate what is clear to both sides from what is stated by Poles or Lithuanians only. Hence the explanation of Brussels talks (read more in the article on Central Lithuania) or the elections.

At the same time, I decided to cut the following part and move it to talk for further discussion. First of all, I'm not sure such a detailed analisis belongs here. But if it does, feel free to expand the part I replaced it with.

'The Poles were the major ethnic group of the territory and the only significant group of which clear majority of voters participated in the elections. The area itself was multi-ethnic, and out of Belarusians less than 50% voted, less than 20% Jews and less than 10% of Lithuanians; this was due to the fact that some viewed Polish-administered elections as not legal, because Vilnius and the region de jure were a part of Lithuania. However, in face of clear Polish majority, the boycott had little effect on the result of the elections. Since Jews were usually considered as more pro-Lithuanian, most of the potential pro-Lithuanian voters boycotted the elections. The election area wasn't fully corresponding to the area of Vilnius region, as Lithuanian government define it. Some areas where the election was done actually were outside Vilnius region, and other, much larger, areas, including e.g. major city of Gardinas/Hrodna, were a part of Vilnius region, but despite of that elections were not conducted there. It did not fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either leaving both many Lithuanians and Poles outside the election area.

As to specific concerns I have with this part (the reason I replaced it with a para directly copy-pasted from the article on Central Lithuania):

  1. some viewed Polish-administered elections as not legal, because Vilnius and the region de jure were a part of Lithuania - well, the problem is that others view the situation as if the area was de iure a part of Poland, Russia, Germany, Belarus... it all depends on the point of view and I guess that all positions could be easily defended here.
  2. out of Belarusians less than 50% voted, less than 20% Jews and less than 10% of Lithuanians - I replaced that with exact percentage. The guys at the Central Lithuanian authorities did a good job by joining the elections with a micro-census :)
  3. Since Jews were usually considered as more pro-Lithuanian, most of the potential pro-Lithuanian voters boycotted the elections - this would need a source; As to my own views and books I've read, the local Jews were mostly seen as either indifferent or pro-Russian. After all, apart from the local Jews of Polish-Lithuanian ancestry (I mean the ones Central European descent), the majority of Jews of the area were so-called Litvaks, that is the Russian-speaking Jews forcibly resettled to the Pale of Settlement. Their support for either side in this conflict was very problematic.
  4. It did not fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either leaving both many Lithuanians and Poles outside the election area. - again, this would need a source. I'm really curious which areas were left out?

Anyway, I hope that the constructive copyedit was a move in good direction. Was it? Halibutt 19:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the Jews boycotted the elections. Yes, they were pro-Lithuanian. Xx236 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of Jewish boycott of the elections. In fact only a slight minority of local Jews did vote, but the Jewish parties did take part in the elections (most notably the Jewish socialists in the ranks of the Socialist Party. In fact even the head of the provisional government was a Jew (and one of the strongest proponents of authonomy of Central Lithuania, BTW). Halibutt 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post-war deportation of Poles

As far as I know the Lithuanian policy was to expell educated Poles and lithuanize the other Slavs, not to expell all. It didn't work, the Slavs accepted rather Russian language or kept the Polish one. Later Polish schools, "Czerwony Sztandar" newspaper, Polish language chair were created. What happened to Polish inscriptions in Vilnius? I have a big book with pictures, where no Polish word can be seen. As far as I know (some?) Polish citizens of Vilnius are discriminated, they cannot regain their homes and farms. Polish newspapers are printed in Vilnius, there is a Polish radio there. Xx236 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krivis

Whad does "krivis" mean here ? (krivis Lizdeika) --Lysytalk 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... Sort of Pagan priest. Supposedly Krivis Krivaitis was the main priest. If you can read German: de:kirwis - it says it's Prussian. Renata 13:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From WERS

From Davies WERS, p.53 and 54, Vilnians reaction to Polish Army, April 1919: "The Polish citizens of Wilno on the whole were delighted. Their politicians envisaged a separate Lithuanian state closely allied with Poland, on the lines of the medieval Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[...] Even the Jewish population, which was the only other sizable community in Wilno, welcomed the Polish occupation." Also, from WERS, p.48, about Lit-Byel: "The Lithuanian SSR and Lit-Byel had been a particularly throughout and painful political experiment. They turned Wilno into a laboratory of social pharmacology where the fill range of communist panaceas were tested out on the luckless inhabitants." Anyway, my question is what happened to the idea of Lithuanian state with Wilno allied with Poland? I.e. what went wrong before the PLW started, and Zeligowski buried the chances for alliences in late 1920? On p.57 Davies writes that "[the Polish capture of Wilno] thwarted the ambitions of the Lithuanian nationalists governement in Kaunas. Although very few Lithuanians lived in the city at that time, Wilno, or Vilnius as they called it, was the historic capital of Lithuania; the nationalists could not resign themselves to its loss. Fighting broke out which defied all efforts of mediation. The 'Foch Line' of 27 July left Wilno on the Polish side. In August a Polish uprising in Sejny and an attempt by Pilsudski to organize a putsch in Kaunas destryed any inclinations the Lithuanians might have had to negotiate." That explains how the things went downhill later, but earlier Davies wrote that Poles living in Vilnius wanted an 'independent Lithuanian state' (likely with capital in Vilnius) - which is the same thing Lithuanian nationalists wanted. So who prevented those two sides from reaching a compromise? Was it some Poles who wanted Wilno in Poland, or some Lithuanians who saw no need for any alliance with Poland?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem was a differing understanding of what "independent, closely allied Lithuanian state" means. Poles dreamt something on the lines of the Commowealth, where all power was in the hands of ethnic Poles, the state language and the language of the Church was Polish, and ethnic Lithuanians were tolerated as long as they minded their agricultural chores and didn't try to speak Lithuanian in the Sejm. Basically Poles wanted "kresy" - nominally independent, but really part of Poland in everything but the name, kind of puppet state. This was completely unacceptable to Lithuanians. When Poles didn't get what they wanted, the war started, as the attempt was made to conquer Lithuania by force if stealth didn't work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.206.209.197 (talk • contribs).
A fascinating speculation, albeit I find it rather counterfactual - the Polish-Lithuanian War was not started by the Poles (and who forbade speaking of Lithuanian in the Sejm??). Anybody else?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Without a doubt, referring to an obsolete state of July 27 is good, but I'd rather refer to the October 27 Suwalki cease fire agreement (and , and at the time it was broken by Poles. And as I've last time seen line drawn by the last legal agreement (Suwalki), Vilnius was on Lithuanian side.Lokyz 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lizdeika named Radziwill ref

Lysy, I know the legend, and the interpretation of the intial reason it was created (by H. Łowmiański, if I'm not mistaken), just somehow I managed to miss a part, where Lizdeika was named Radziwill, especially the linguistic research part of the legend. Are you sure those references do state exactly what it is said in this part, especially about Belarus and Polish language? (that part I was asking to reference, not the part about legend of iron wolf) I cannot check them right now, so just curiuos, whether Tomas Venclova did know something about that "radzicz" part.

Ah one more thing - why do not create an article about Henryk Łowmiański. I think he's not so loved by Polish editors, because he was amongst the first Poles to research history of Grand Duchy and even managed to find Lithuanians there. By this I do suggest an opportunity to work together. Lokyz 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I've checked the references before posting them. They do not mention about Polish or Belarusian language, this I thing is an extra explanation for an English reader, as for the Poles it would be too obvious. Here is the exact citation (please forgive me for citing in Polish): "Lizdejce za wytłumaczenie snu wieszczego wielki książę rozkazał zwać się Radziwiłłem". I think I'll have to go offline for now. --Lysytalk 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For sure you've cited Venclova:) Another simple question - do they state source of that legend? And last one whether amove of citations before linguistic interpretation would be a deadly sin by me?--Lokyz 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

For the sentence: One of the unfortunate decisions made by Lithuanian authorities in this period was the closure and liquidation of Vilnius University on December 15th, 1939. The Vilnius University article states On December 13, 1939 [2], the new University Charter specified that Vilnius University was to be governed according to the statute of the Vytautas Magnus University of Kaunas, and that Lithuanian language programs and faculties would be established. . This needs to be clarified (references, anyone?). The conducting a policy of repressions against the inhabitants of the town part should also be expanded into more then this stub-sentence (althogh perhaps the Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II article would be a more appopriate place?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vilnius University was closed and replaced by a branch unit of the Kaunas University. --Lysytalk 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Name Kaunas University emerged only after WWII, when remains of Vytautas Magnus University was reopened by Soviets. it did not last long. Vytautas Magnus University of Kaunas was never an official name, I know you'd like to refer to it as Litwa Kowienska, but please, do not invent names tha did not exist.--Lokyz 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to use "Kaunas University" as the official name. I only wanted to say "the University that was in Kaunas", regardless of what was its name. --Lysytalk 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of pleasant discussion, may I suggest you try not to guess what other editors would like to say but didn't? Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of pleasant discussion, may I suggest you try t use official names of institutions?--Lokyz 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it is a good place to mention Polish sanctions against Lithuanian cultural organizations and schools: to my knowledge, almost all the higher schools during occupation were closed, only Vytauto Didžiojo gymnasium did exist (and it's rector prof. Mykolas Biržiška got almost shot, for "treason" - only Antante officers did save him. It didn't have an easy life all the time. And I still did not mention the number of closed or even burned private Lithuanian libraries, even of the religious of St. Casimir society (other cultural organisations didn't had a slightest chance to exist). It was official policy that Lithuanians "do not exist" here, and it was practiced at full scale. I think it was a simple eye for an eye situation, and no KZ'ts were needed to ignite the hate - there was enough atrocities before that (and after that).--Lokyz 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably very much so. It would be good to have the facts about the Polish sanctions against Lithuanians mentioned in the article. If possible, avoiding the emotional details, but including the meaningful facts instead like how many schools were closed, libraries destroyed, etc. Were the schools closed because there were not enough Lithuanian students ? Or maybe just as a form of repression against the Lithuanian community ? I've heard that most Lithuanians left Vilnius during its troublesome times shortly following the WW1. It would be very useful, if we could try to reproduce what was the situation in Vilnius and how it changed under individual administrations. Of course we need to be careful not to get involved into too much original research. But on the other hand I expect that most of the secondary sources on the subject would be either Polish or Lithuanian (or Soviet ?) and probably most of both Polish and Lithuanian sources remain silent about the facts inconvenient for the writing side. I wonder if we could try to compile something reasonable out of this together. --Lysytalk 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I saw some English publications on Google Print that touched on the related issues. So let's see what English sources have to say before we have to go into the POVed local sources. And don't scare us with Soviet ones... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus you are entering an shaky ground here - what makes you decide, what of the sources ar POV'ed, are you qualified enough to judge that? Do you a priori decide that Lithuanian research is POV'ed?
IMHO English language publication found in Google books, i.e. citation taken out of context is not any proof, neither NPOV'ed . You probably better than me know that there are lots of Polish POV'ed authors publications in English, much more than Lithuanian. So without a doubt you'll find a "NPOV'ed" facts by some researcher,that suit you better. I did at least even read the whole book of some claimed historian "who saw it all with his eyes", as it is written on the back cover (and it is one of most cited book in nowadays Wikipedia for LT-PL WWII time relations, PL-Jews and PL-Ukrainians relations !). For anyone who does understand at least a bit on methods how historians work - it is a deadly sin to state this, and it is an exact definition of POV'ed. And once again, this book belongs not any further, than to the memoirs or fiction section, not as a NPOV'ed resource. And it is a proof how a NPOV'ed research cannot be conducted.
Once again I do want to talk about possibility to easy prove anything using Google books, It's just a simple question, how would you formulate request. Most of professors in the three universities I have friends, have banned usage of Google books for anything else, than bibliographical research - e.g. to find books not for citing, but for reading, to understand context or understand POV of a researcher. The books are to be read, to understand context. And history is a scientifically discipline that does not only research facts, but also contexts. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not looking for truth, it is looking for verifiability. So who does not allow you to go to library and read cited paper book?
As for the subject - it is utterly painful for both sides, and easy solutions like using out of context citations is only making it a boiling pot and even more painful. And more of this – it is not researched enough to make any further going evaluation and even speculations - i.e. WP:OR. Lokyz 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We can worry about methodology after we get some data, Lokyz. And facts will be facts, no matter what the context.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, exactly this kind of approach is that does give me most worries, and a tingling de javu sense that I'm mumbling to myself. Anyway, any facts you could provide would be most welcome. Lokyz 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population of Wilno/Vilnius throghout its history

Please note that that info (referenced) is available at Historical demographics of Poland.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In the article I can't find the demographics of Vilnus between 1920 and 1939. If you have the data of the census about Vilnus or any source of the same, please present here. Thank you.--125.2.75.196 (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repatriation

I do have sources, stating that repatriation (or evvacuations, as it is called sometimes) was organized by Polish side, and that person responsible for this was arrested and eventually executed. It was quite different than what was happening in Ukraine. --Lokyz 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to share those sources with us. If they are not online, please include citations (in English) so we may all benefit from them. Oh, and would you have any sources about deportations and repressions of Polish population of the city that begun in 1939?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Snyder

Another interesting quote, this time from Timothy Snyder, Yale University Press, 2003, ISBN 030010586X, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Google Print, p.82: "Demographic realities were harder to deny. When Lithuanian troops marched into Vilnius on 28 October 1939, they were shocked to find instead of the princess of their fairy tales, the streets of alien Wilno, unknown, speaking foreign language." -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback needed: "Yes to Wilno but no Krakau"

We could use some feedback on "Wilno"-related issues at Talk:Kraków#Wilno but not Krakau. --Irpen 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323.

Which name was used?Xx236 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)