Future of Belarus - Poland and EU or Russia?

[Winner]

You realize this thread is about Belarus wishing to join Poland? Not the other way around?

Countries can have wishes now?

I strongly suspect that the entire basis for this thread is build on the desire of a few intellectuals in Belarus, who no doubt mean well, to get rid of Lukashenko and the autocratic political system and get to the EU "through the back door", fast and easy.

It's completely unrealistic.

As for my quips considering Polish megalomania, you only need to follow what's happening on the internet to understand where that comes from It's not meant as an insult, only as a friendly expression of my (extreme) scepticism concerning nationalist agenda's of various kinds

 

[red_elk]

Grand Duchy of Lithuania was an East Slavic Belorussian state.

From what I read about it (though admittedly I'm far from being expert here), it wasn't a Slavic state at all. Its "state religion" has never been Eastern Orthodox Christianity and "state languages" were Lithuanian, and German. Sure, it expanded on Belorussian territory following demise of Kievan Rus, and influenced Belorussian people culturally, but IMO it's far from being enough to call that Belorussia is its successor.

Was Muscovy Tsardom not founded by the remaining Ruriks following the destruction of Vladimir-Suzdal?

Yes, the dynasty was kept, until the Time of Troubles. Of course Rurik descendants had more legitimacy to rule the country.
Still, Moscow tsardom was rather a cultural successor of Rus, than political.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, the PLC and modern Poland would be able to claim continuity, had the PLC never been completely partitioned, even though the differences between early modern and modern PLC in this scenario would still be quite drastic and not dissimilar to the differences between PLC and modern Poland of today (just like the differences between any 16th and 20th century European state)?

Well, that depends on whether or not the PLC actually did possess some institutional continuity with the Republic. It's not simply a case of one existing until X and the other existing from X, because "X" could represent the breaking of political continuity between one and the other, as between, e.g. the British Crown and the United States in 1776.

Also, is there any continuity between modern Russia and the Russian Empire? If no, then how come you acknowledge continuity between interwar Poland and modern one?

From what I understand of Russian history, the October Revolution and Civil War pretty much levelled the old state apparatus. There's continuity between the Empire and Republic, but the RSFSR and the other soviet republics were basically sui generis, at least above a local level, because the Reds had to rig up their own state apparatus more or less from the scratch. Legal continuity seems too be a trickier issue, with the Axis recognising it and the Allies refusing it, and the Reds themselves treating the whole issue more or less pragmatically.

Is political continuity the only available one, though? A claim that Byzantium and modern Greece are politically continuous indeed sounds silly, but I'd say that there's a higher-then-average linguistic and cultural continuity between late Byzantium and modern Greece, even though I don't think it's as high as Christos implies. Nationalism implies both forgetting and remembering.

Language and culture are not properties of states, though, they are properties of people. Certainly there is linguistic and cultural continuity between Medieval Greek-speakers and modern Greek-speakers, but those people were not the states they lived under- not least because many of them lived and continue to live under states that the nationalist histories would recognise as "Greek".

As I said, even if we accept that these linguistic and cultural continuities can be understood in terms of "nation" (although I do not believe this to be credible; identities are simply too fractious and multi-layered to support the volkgeist), there is not apparent mechanism by which the "nation" can manifest itself as a state, so it's not possible to derive continuity in the former from continuity in the latter.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Language and culture are not properties of states, though, they are properties of people.

Well, states can certainly have an official, or de-facto official, language. And anyway, would we have this discussion if Greek nationalists insisted that they want to return all Thrace to the "Greek people"?

there is not apparent mechanism by which the "nation" can manifest itself as a state,

There are mechanisms by which states can manifest themselves to be "national", though. Using a language in official documents, having many nationalists of one particular nation in a government, sponsoring one form of national culture, openly proclaiming the primacy of one nation in their laws etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

I like Hermes the Thrace great.

 

[christos200]

I do not see how can Greece expand in Istanbul. Istanbul has more population than the entire Greek state. And most of that population is Turkish.

And, by the way, despite my reputation of being a nationalist, I am not. I believe more in the need for a Federal EU.

 

[Kyriakos]

 

[Lone Wolf]

I like how almost every Youtube video with that They Might Be Giants song degenerates into Greek vs Turkish nationalist slingfest in the comments.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, states can certainly have an official, or de-facto official, language.

They can, but if the Greek language depended on its use as an official language, it would have become extinct multiple times over, so evidently when we talk about continuities in language we're looking at continuities beyond (if not always entirely apart from) official institutions.

And anyway, would we have this discussion if Greek nationalists insisted that they want to return all Thrace to the "Greek people"?

I don't even mean "people" as in volk, I just mean "people" as in persons, meatbags going about their day to day lives. It's not even a question of "the Greek people" as some collective conciousness, it's just "Greek people", a category of person that overlaps with many other categories, such as "Scottish people", "bisexual people", "trade union members" or "people with roughly-drawn Black Flag tattoos" (I'm basically going by this Greek guy I know), without any of those identities being intrinsically or absolutely primary over the others.

There are mechanisms by which states can manifest themselves to be "national", though. Using a language in official documents, having many nationalists of one particular nation in a government, sponsoring one form of national culture, openly proclaiming the primacy of one nation in their laws etc.

Even within an ethnonationalist framework, though, that only tells us that a state can become as you say "national", that it can become infused with a certain national identity, but not that it can be identified with "the nation" itself. The existence of subsequent "national" states over time does not imply any continuity between the states themselves, any more than it implies that co-existent "national" states are somehow less distinct from each other than from non-"national" states, that e.g. we might somehow confuse the distinction between the PRC and RoC in a way which we would not the PRC and Vietnam or the RoC and Japan.

Equally, a given continuity of states, even the very same state, may come to adopt various different national identifies at different times. Between the 14th and 16th centuries, the Kingdom of Scotland transformed from being a Gaelic state a sizeable Anglic minority to being an Anglic state with a sizeable Gaelic minority, which in the ethnonationalist framework would indicate a dramatic change in its "nationality" of the state, but without any actual rupture in political continuity.

Equally, states may be multi-national, as for example the Soviet Union, institutionalising various different "nationalities" are different levels, or they may not be "national" at all, as for example the USA, eschewing all ethnolinguistic identities in favour of a common, civic identity. (I mean, sure they speak English, but the President is English-Luo, the VP and Secretary of State are Irish, the Secretary of the Treasury is Jewish, the Secretary of Defence of German-Irish and the Attorney General is Afro-Barbadian, so it's simply out of the question to imagine that we're looking at a state which is itself "English" in the sense imagined by ethnonationalists.)

So, even if we accept that a state may become "national", it still does not appear to be the case that the state is or can be the political expression of "the nation". It is merely a quality that a state might have, and this is equally true of an amateur football club or a company that makes humorous beach-towels. It's not tenable as an over-riding historical logic.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The existence of subsequent "national" states over time does not imply any continuity between the states themselves,

It certainly implies a similarity, though. If I'm Russian, and I acquire a precious gem that in 19th century was taken from a Russian by an Englishman, you can certainly say that the gem is "back in Russian hands", and this doesn't imply that me and 19th century Russian are continuous, although only rather loony nationalists would consider this return to be somehow significant.

 

[warpus]

I'm talking about the Polish state, yes.

It is possible for nations to re-unite, you know, it's not something that's just limited to states. And even so, symbolic successors to states are a thing as well, you make it sound like these don't exist at all.

 

[Domen]

So, the PLC and modern Poland would be able to claim continuity

Even the PLC and modern Belarus would be able to claim continuity:

Another Belarussian song identifying the Grand Duchy of Litva with history of Belarus:


Link to video.

"Pahonya" by Maxim Bahdanovič (Максіма Багдановіч&#1072 - a video from 1993, before Lukashenko brainwashed Belarussian minds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahonia


Link to video.

Another version of this song:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Bahdanovič


Link to video.

Text of "Pahonya" (гімн Беларусі-Літв&#1099 by Maxim Bahdanovič (Максіма Багдановіч&#1072:

Толькі ў сэрцы трывожным пачую
За краіну радзімую жах, -
Успомню Вострую Браму святую
І ваякаў на грозных канях.

У белай пене праносяцца коні, -
Рвуцца, мкнуцца і цяжка хрыпяць...
Старадаўняй Літоўскай Пагоні
Не разбіць, не спыніць, не стрымаць.

У бязмерную даль вы ляціце,
А за вамі, прад вамі - гады.
Вы за кім у пагоню спяшыце?
Дзе шляхі вашы йдуць і куды?

Мо яны, Беларусь, панясліся
За тваімі дзяцьмі ўздагон,
Што забылі цябе, адракліся,
Прадалі і аддалі ў палон?

Бійце ў сэрца іх - бійце мячамі,
Не давайце чужынцамі быць!
Хай пачуюць, як сэрца начамі
Аб радзімай старонцы баліць...

Маці родная, Маці-Краіна!
Не ўсцішыцца гэтакі боль...
Ты прабач. Ты прымі свайго сына,
За Цябе яму ўмерці дазволь!..

Усё лятуць і лятуць тыя коні,
Срэбнай збруяй далёка грымяць...
Старадаўняй Літоўскай Пагоні
Не разбіць, не спыніць, не стрымаць.

 

[Domen]

From what I read about it (though admittedly I'm far from being expert here), it wasn't a Slavic state at all. Its "state religion" has never been Eastern Orthodox Christianity and "state languages" were Lithuanian, and German.

Apparently you have not read anything reliable about the Grand Duchy of Litva (GDL) - yes you are far from being expert here.

State language (official language) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Old Belarussian (also called Ruthenian) until 1696.

Since 1696 official language of the Grand Duchy was Polish.

German was never official language in that state. Lithuanian - only in the Middle Ages (and already then together with Ruthenian / Old Belarussian).

Belarussians have a full right to identify their history with the GDL, because their ancestors were always more than 50% of population there.

I mean maybe not "always" - but at least since the 14th century.

Its "state religion" has never been Eastern Orthodox Christianity

Since when is Eastern Orthodox Christianity a "Slavic religion" and other religions are not Slavic?

Do you claim that Polish people are not Slavic, because majority of them have never been Orthodox Christians?

In the Grand Duchy of Litva majority were Catholics - Greek (Eastern) Catholics aka Uniates and Roman (Western / Latin) Catholics.

There were however plenty of other religions as well - from Orthodox Christianity, via Calvinism, Lutheranism, to Islam (see Lipka Tatars) and others.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity is no more Slavic than Catholicism. The only religion that was originally Slavic were Slavic Pagan Beliefs.

Sure, it expanded on Belorussian territory following demise of Kievan Rus, and influenced Belorussian people culturally,

Belorussian (Ruthenian) people influenced Lithuanian people culturally many times more than Lithuanians influenced Belarussians.

The only significant Lithuanian "cultural" influence on Belarussians could be their warrior ethos*. But in general Lithuanians were adopting Ruthenian (or more precisely - that of Eastern Christendom) and Polish (or more precisely - that of Latin / Western Christendom) cultures, not inversely.

*Pagan Lithuanians were very warlike tribes, due to circumstances - being under pressure of crusaders, Teutonic Order and Livonian Order.

but IMO it's far from being enough to call that Belorussia is its successor.

Modern Belarussia is more or at least equally its successor than / as modern Lithuania.

Please note that the first capital of the Grand Duchy (in the 13th century) was Navahrudak - a city nowadays located in Belarus.

As for Vilna (Wilno, Vilnius) - it was originally Belarussian (Ruthenian) or Lithuanian perhaps. It was for the first time mentioned in a letter of Giediminas written in 1323 (in that letter he called it: "civitate nostra Vilna" - "our city Vilna"). By that time - the reign of Giediminas - his state already encompassed both ethnic Lithuanian and ethnic Ruthenian (Belarussian) territories, so it is hard to say which ethnic group built Vilna and dominated among its inhabitants.

In 1387 the city of Vilna was granted Magdeburg Laws by King of Poland. Polish settlers were also invited to settle there by Lithuanian dukes.

In the same year - 1387 - Baptism of Lithuania by a Polish Bishop Andrzej of Cracow (CoA Jastrzębiec) took place in Vilna.

Please note that Lithuania had been Christianized already before by Mindaugas - but by the end of his reign, Mindaugas returned to Paganism.

Nevertheless, when in 1387 Poland Christianized Lithuania, most of inhabitants of the Grand Duchy were already Christian - mostly Orthodox ones.

Countries can have wishes now?

Countries wage wars now? Yes.

Governments of countries have wishes, populations / citizens of countries also have wishes (often contradictory ones).

=========================================

Here you also have info about Belarussian language being official language in the GDL:

http://zbsb.org/lib/index.php?option=com_alblib&view=article&id=274#14

There is a pretty similar conflict for the name "Lithuania" (or rather "Litva") between modern Lithuanian nationalists and modern Belarussian nationalists, as there is for the name "Macedonia" between modern Macedonian nationalists and modern Greek nationalists.

As a matter of fact both states - Belarus and Lithuania - have a right for heritage of the Grand Duchy of Litva.

But ethnic Lithuanians were always a minority of population of the Grand Duchy and many of them became either Ruthenized or Polonized.

According to Polish 1931 population census, Vilno Voivodeship had 5 times more ethnic Belarussians than ethnic Lithuanians (ethnic Belarussians in the Vilno region were the 2nd most numerous group after Poles, the 3rd most numerous group were Jews, ethnic Lithuanians were the 4th group).

Two Belarussian historians - Iwan Sawierczanka and Źmicier Sańko - in their book "150 pytanniau i adkazau z historyi Biełarusi", write:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/150-pytanniau-i-adkazau-z-historyi-belarusi/oclc/56194301

"(...) Our country was called Litva (and we were called Litvins) by all our neighbours until the beginning of the 20th century. This name was replaced by term "Belarus" only after the forced incorporation of our lands into the Russian Empire by the end of the 18th century (...). Until now our Homeland is called Litva by inhabitants of neighbouring with us regions of Western Ukraine and Eastern Poland (...). In order to avoid confusion with the word "Litva", it would be good to call the modern neighbour-state of Belarus with its own native name Letuwa (in Lithuanian: Lietuva), their inhabitants Letuwisas, and their language Letuwisan. (...)"

So according to them, modern Lithuania is almost like modern Macedonia aka FYROM.

===============================

Belarussian poet from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Jan Kazimierz Paszkiewicz - wrote in 1621:

"Полска квитнет лациною…"

Полска квитне лациною,
Литва квитне русчизною.
Без той в Полсце не пребудзеш,
Без сей в Литве блазнем будзеш.
Той лацина езык дает,
Та без Руси не вытрвает.
Ведзь же юж Русь, иж тва хвала
По всем свете юж дойзрала.
Весели ж се ты, Русине,
Тва слава никгды не згине.

My translation:

"Latin blooms in Poland..."

Latin blooms in Poland
Ruthenian blooms in Litva
Without the former you can't forgo in Poland
Without the latter you will be a clown in Litva
The former is given its language by Latin
The latter is not splitting up with Ruthenia
People of Ruthenia you should know
That your glory has grown in the whole world
Therefore be happy Ruthenian people
Because your glory is everlasting.

================================

About Litvinizm and historical meanings of term "Lithuanians":

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://litvania.org/litvinizm.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litwinizm

http://translate.google.com/transla...dia.org/wiki/Litwini_w_znaczeniu_historycznym

========================

Sure, it expanded on Belorussian territory following demise of Kievan Rus

Belarussians have also a different theory about that:

Articles about the origins of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from this Belarussian website ("This file is a part of the Virtual Guide to Belarus - a collaborative project of Belarusian scientists and professionals abroad. VG brings you the most extensive compilation of the information about Belarus on the Web"):

http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/vklintro.html

http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/jermal1.html

The Virtual Guide to Belarus:

http://www.belarusguide.com/main/index.html

http://www.belarusguide.com/main/Belarusians.html

I'd agree that the Rus is where all East Slavic peoples (minus Cossacks whose early history is ambiguous) rooted from. However, the three modern nations of Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia have their own origins in other points of history.

Exactly - Belarussian nation has its roots in the Grand Duchy of Litva, that was united with Poland during most of its history.

Russian nation has its roots in the Duchy of Moscow - that came into existence in year 1283.

Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian nationalism has its roots in Zaporozhian Cossacks - Bohdan Khmelnytsky is considered (by Ukrainian nationalists) the first national hero of Ukraine. History of Ukraine started in the late 16th century - and a user from Ukraine - Andrey - agreed with me on this here:

http://historum.com/european-history/22023-ukraine-57.html#post1537880?postcount=563

Ukraine came into existence in the 16th century.

That's right.

Andrey also agreed with me that the city of Lviv was never part of Ukraine before 1939.

He also noticed - correctly - the fact that WUPR* although wanted to be separate from Poland, also wanted to be separate from the rest of Ukraine:

*Western Ukrainian Republic.

Lviv was taken from Ukraine by war.

Not really.

The city became Polish in 1340 as the result of an inheritance agreement (signed in 1338) between King of Poland Kazimierz III the Great and Duke of Principality of Galicia Bolesław Jerzy II of Mazovia. Both guys - Kazimierz III the Great and Bolesław Jerzy II - were from Piast dynasty.

I am talking about the war in 1918.

Lviv was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Lviv had never been of Ukraine, before 1939 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ukrainian_People's_Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lemberg_(1918)

Yeah, I know, but it happened when the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. And WUPR proclaimed itself as separate from the rest of the Ukrainian state.

 

[red_elk]

Since when is Eastern Orthodox Christianity a "Slavic religion" and other religions are not Slavic?

Not Slavic. Just Belorussian, who incidentally were Slavs.
And GDL was founded by non-Slavic, non-Orthodox people, later than Kievan Rus, and didn't include Belorussian core land until dissolution of Kievan Rus. It simply expanded on Belorussian lands in Middle Ages.
It's the same as calling Kazakhstan successor of Russian Empire.

 

[Traitorfish]

It certainly implies a similarity, though. If I'm Russian, and I acquire a precious gem that in 19th century was taken from a Russian by an Englishman, you can certainly say that the gem is "back in Russian hands", and this doesn't imply that me and 19th century Russian are continuous, although only rather loony nationalists would consider this return to be somehow significant.

That's really just poetry, though, isn't it? It's a claim which appeals to our sentiments, but that's really it. A guy had a gem, then another guy had it, now another guy has it, and it so happens that the first and third of those guys both identified themselves as "Russian". Unless there's some real institutional dimension, that the first and third guys were both curators of some national museum, it's just nice-sounding words.

It is possible for nations to re-unite, you know, it's not something that's just limited to states.

Well, what does "unity" mean, here? It can't refer to political unification, because that would take us back into the questions of "national statehood", with all the problems I described, so what does it refer to?

And even so, symbolic successors to states are a thing as well, you make it sound like these don't exist at all.

I accept that they exist in people's imaginations. But, so do elves. We don't have to take it at face value.

Even the PLC and modern Belarus would be able to claim continuity:

No. The Belarussian state traces its origins to the Western Oblast of the Russian SFSR, which like the entirety of the Soviet state apparatus was built from the ground up.

Silly romantic songs prove nothing.

 

[Domen]

And GDL was founded by non-Slavic, non-Orthodox people

And Kievan Rus was also founded by non-Slavic people from Scandinavia (Rurik and such guys) - so what?

GDL - just like Kievan Rus - was founded by non-Slavic people, but later turned into a Slavic state.

Kievan Rus was founded by mostly non-Slavic Varangians, but quickly turned into a Slavic state and its ruling class was Slavicized.

Lithuanian boyars and dukes were also quickly Slavicized - either Ruthenized (at first) or Polonized (later).

later than Kievan Rus, and didn't include Belorussian core land until dissolution of Kievan Rus.

Dissolution of Kievan Rus took place BEFORE the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was even founded / established.

Lithuanian tribes were united by Mindaugas - the process of unification and fight against internal opposition lasted at least until 1245. At that time - 1245 - Kievan Rus was already destroyed by the Mongols (and it had been fragmented already since 1054). Before Mindaugas there was no such thing like Lithuanian state - there were many Lithuanian tribes and tribal states, similar to Prussian ones. Before Mindaugas Lithuanians had no statehood - they lived in primitive tribal organizations, some tribes formed tribal states (or rather chiefdoms).

I'm not sure what "culture" could Belarussians - people who already had a long history of statehood by 1200s - adopt from such primitive tribes.

Apart from - already mentioned in my post above - Lithuanian "warrior ethos", since their tribal society was very militarized. Before the reign of Mindaugas, Lithuanians were on the same - if not lower - level of development as Prussians (who were eventually conquered by 1283). Also Baltic tribes who lived in the area of Livonia (modern Latvia and Estonia) were on similar level of development (and were also conquered by crusaders).

Out of all Baltic tribes only Lithuanians survived the Baltic Crusades and were not conquered. Why? Because:

1) at first Lithuanian and Samogitian tribes were united by Mindaugas (while Prussian and Livonian tribes were never united)
2) later they united with some Belarussian Principalities (mostly via peaceful methods, rather than war), creating the Grand Duchy of Litva
3) finally they allied themselves (and 70 years later also united) with the Kingdom of Poland and adopted Christianity from Poland
4) as a matter of fact they had more time to prepare than Prussians and Livonians, because they were located between those two

These things allowed them to survive the expansion of Teutonic Order, Livonian Order, Denmark and crusaders from Western Europe.

Unlike all others of their Baltic neighbours - those to the west (Prussians) and those to the north (Livonian tribes), who lost independence.

It simply expanded on Belorussian lands in Middle Ages.

Mostly through marriages and personal unions (peaceful means). Moreover - some Belarussian historians claim that the economic and power centre of the Grand Duchy since the beginning was Belarussian territory around Navahrudak, rather than Lithuanian or Samogitian tribal territory more to the north.

No. The Belarussian state traces its origins to the Western Oblast of the Russian SFSR

Tell this to these of Belarussians who don't want to have anything in common with Communism. And then run away as quickly as you can.

 

[Phrossack]

Not Slavic. Just Belorussian, who incidentally were Slavs.
And GDL was founded by non-Slavic, non-Orthodox people, later than Kievan Rus, and didn't include Belorussian core land until dissolution of Kievan Rus. It simply expanded on Belorussian lands in Middle Ages.
It's the same as calling Kazakhstan successor of Russian Empire.

Exactly. The Lithuanians were a Baltic people who, under Mindaugas, Vytenis, and especially Gediminas, conquered or married into a lot of Slavic land. Yes, in the 14th century Slavs became the majority, and yes, a Slavic language was the grand duchy's official language. But before that the GDL was mainly inhabited by Balts.

 

[Traitorfish]

Tell this to these of Belarussians who don't want to have anything in common with Communism. And then run away as quickly as you can.

What does what Belarussians want have to do with anything? They're not children, they can't just demand things and expect reality to conform.

You lumpen-Europeans need to grow the hell up.

 

[Domen]

that would take us back into the questions of "national statehood"

Throughout major part (600 years) of its history - between ca. 1350 and ca. 1945 - Poland was never a "national state". Between ca. 1350 and ca. 1945 ethnic Poles were never more than 80% of inhabitants of the Polish state (and when Poland was not independent - of area of the former Polish state).

The mono-ethnicity of Poland after 1945 (more than 95% of society are ethnic Poles) is something artificial compared to major part of its history.

Before 1945 - despite over 180 border changes throughout 1000 years of Polish history - Poland never really was a mono-ethnic state.

In the early days of existence of Poland - the 900s, the 1000s and the 1100s - it is also hard to speak about mono-ethnicity of the early Polish statehood, considering that Poland emerged through unification of many tribes into one state by the Piast Dynasty (which was a ruling dynasty of one tribal state - that of the tribe of Polanie - but there were also some marriages between Piast family and ruling dynasty of another tribal state - that of the tribe of Vistulans, who lived in the area around their main stronghold - Cracow - and who had been temporarily conquered by Great Moravia and then by Czech Kingdom).

So in the 1000s and 1100s Poles were not one ethnic group, but rather a conglomerate of united "Polish" (Lechitic / West Slavic) tribes. In the 1200s we can perhaps already speak about one ethnic group. But at that time huge groups of ethnic German immigrants started to settle in Poland - as well as Jews.

Throughout the 1300s the Kingdom of Poland acquired (partially through marriages, inheritance agreements, etc. and partly through conquest) the regions that we call Eastern Galicia, Podolia and parts of Volhynia (which before that had been parts of the Principality of Halych-Volhynia).

As the result of this, Poland since around 1350 was a state with two dominant ethnic groups - ethnic Polish majority and very significant ethnic Ruthenian minority (add to this many ethnic Germans, Jews, Vlachs colonizing Polish mountains in the south, etc. - many smaller minorities).

To summ - Poland never really was a "nation state" with over 95% ethnic Poles before 1945.

Those were the two most evil personalities of the 20th century - Hitler and Stalin - who made Poland a "nation state" after WW2.

The first one (Hitler) did this through Holocaust and extermination of Poland's Jewish minority.

The second one (Stalin) through his ethnic cleansings, border changes and forced population movements.

Exactly. The Lithuanians were a Baltic people who, under Mindaugas, Vytenis, and especially Gediminas, conquered or married into a lot of Slavic land. Yes, in the 14th century Slavs became the majority, and yes, a Slavic language was the grand duchy's official language. But before that the GDL was mainly inhabited by Balts.

"Before that" = when exactly? Before that (before the 14th century), the Grand Duchy did not really exist as a state.

Kievan Rus was also founded by non-Slavs. Yet nobody calls it a Scandinavian state, but a Slavic state.

England was also founded by a French guy (with Scandinavian ancestry, but by 1066 Normans were already assimilated with French people).

Yet nobody calls Medieval England "a French state". Even though its ruling class and elites spoke French for a very long time after 1066.

It's the same as calling Kazakhstan successor of Russian Empire.

Russia is more developed than Kazakhstan and urban civilization as well as statehood organization has a longer history in Russia. In case of Belarus and Lithuania - urban civilization as well as statehood organization is ca. 300 years older in Belarus than in Lithuania (areas within modern borders).

Claiming that the GDL was primarily Lithuanian / Samogitian is thus like claiming that Russia and China were / are primarily Mongol.

Mongols conquered China and established a new dynasty there, founded a new state. But quickly got assimilated by older, higher culture.

Lithuanians conquered some duchies in Belarus and established their own dynasty there - but got assimilated by older, higher culture.

French Normans conquered Britain and established the Kingdom of England. French culture was older, higher - thus elites and royal dynasty continued to speak French for the next few hundred years before they finally assimilated with local English-speaking middle class and lower classes of the society.

Well, what does "unity" mean, here?

Read the first page. Some Belarussians want a confederation with Poland.

So "unity" means confederation in this case. We know what a confederation is - something connected with weaker ties than a federation.

Confederation is not a federal state. Confederation is a union of two independent states (not one state consisting of not fully independent parts - a federation). Guys who in this thread claimed "OMG Polish nationalists wants to annex Belarus" certainly did not read the first page. Because:

1) This is not a Polish idea but an originally Belarussian idea
2) Not annex but form a confederation of two independent states

 

[Domen]

Actually, the current Greek state has existed for less time than the US, and it is impossible to talk about the existence of a Greek 'nation' during the periods of Macedonian, Roman and Ottoman rule. Not one continuous culture, at any rate.

According to Lord Baal perhaps only the Jewish culture is one and continuous since Abraham and Moses ???

BTW - Lord Baal you claimed that you are Jewish. But recently you wrote this about your ancestry in another thread:

My ancestry is a combination of Palestinian, German and British, with who knows what else thrown in for good measure. My family on one side - the Anglo-German side - practiced Judaism in the nineteenth century but abandoned it for Christianity before WWII. The Palestinian side converted in the late-'40s, with my parents dropping the religion for good old agnosticism a few decades ago.

Sorry - but in such case I am about as German (from my maternal grandfather's ancestors side) as you are Jewish...

And you are about as Jewish, as you (and me as well) are Elfish...

"My German ancestor practiced Judaism in the nineteenth century but his family converted to Christianity 90 years ago, so I am Jewish."

You also have Christian parents (!!!), who eventually dropped even this religion.

Perhaps even the Nazis would not count you as a Jew (and they counted as Jews even people who called themselves otherwise).

Who knows maybe I'm even more Jewish than you - since I don't know all of my 19th century ancestors, only a few of them from my father's side...

Anyway I have a friend whose one grandfather was Jewish* and this friend never calls himself Jewish, but Polish. I also have a Polish friend whose German ancestor - general in the army of Prussian Empire - smashed the Spring of Nations in Greater Poland in 1848 - and he doesn't call himself German, but Polish.

*And he was "really Jewish" - which means that he practiced Judaism and he also spoke Yiddish / some Hebrew. He survived the Holocaust.

Both these guys speak Polish language as their mother tongue. Family of that German 19th century general was apparently Polonized after 1848.

So I find your habit of calling yourself Jewish, when you are clearly not Jewish, rather strange...

===================================

Of course this doesn't change the fact, that you have a right to call yourself Jewish if you want.

Just like Belarussians have a right to trace back their ancestry to the Grand Duchy of Litva if they want.