Talk:Lithuania Minor

Lithuanian claims

The name of Prussian Lithuania or Lithuania Minor (Kleinlitauen) was given by German (or - Prussian in later sense of this word) administration, not by Lithuanians. This name would have been absurd if Lithuanian majority not lived there (not few or some ethnic - what should it mean here? -Lithuanians). And the definition goes out of sense if we does not admit this fact. For the primary definition was: Lithuanian Minor was the part of Eastern Prussia with Lithuanian majority. Nationalists of all kinds and nations! can't you leave the past of this not such big and unsignificant territory to those, who realy lived there, even where it is naturally required? Now, it sounds like "Poland is a country where Scyths, Sarmats and Goths lived.". I suppose, You understood, what is up to You now? Try to revise it in more suitable form , please. Linas 11:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Even Prussia itself was named after an old Baltic tribe, yet it eventually stretched as far west as Belgium. It is absurd that a name used by Germans for a part of Prussia/Germany (for 5 centuries) gives another country the right to claim it, or even to derive from this name that it must have been inhabited by a majority of Lithuanians.--Matthead 09:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here I agree with Matthead. When Germans call a place Klein-Berlin, they mean that, although it is not Berlin, at some moments, in some places, under some circumstances, with some degree of imagination, it may look like Berlin. Typically, Klein-Berlin, will not be in the same administrative unit as Berlin. Klein-Litauen may have the same meaning. "So many people who speak Lithuanian here, you may think you are in Lithuania". But you are not. The German word does NOT imply "a (small) part of Lithuania".--Pan Gerwazy 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, see also Little Germany or Little Italy for similar use. --Matthead 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the message above two years before, concerning not the problem in general, but how Lithuania Minor shoud be defined in the header of the article only. I suggested a definition, that included real (not speculated) ethymology of words Lithuania Minor. But it was considered by some users 'nationalistic', i don't know why, and subsequently revised to an useless variant. For the idea, that Lithuania Minor was a part of Eastern Prussia, where Lithuanians, Germans, Jews etc. lived doesn't have any information that distinguishes the region from the Eastern Prussia.

Well any such case as you give here like Little Germany etc. have its reason why it was named this way. And the reason for Lithuania Minor is, that Lithuania Minor got its name because Lithuanian majority lived there at the time, when it was firstly used. By the way, this name didn't came from Lithuanians (at least directly), but was introduced by then Prussian administration. ( I see that then officials were less sensitive than modern politicants and they didn't fear, that using the name Lithuania could became a handle for claims from a great and powerfull (still then) neighbour :) ). And Prussian Lithuanians themselves never claimed to have a separate state or autonomy, remaining loyal subjects of Prussia even in critical moments. By the way, Lithuania Minor was only a group of counties, that sometimes had some shared officials, but it never was a real administrative unit, remaining this way mostly etnographic region, using modern terms. So it wasn't a real state, it wasn't a claimed state, it wasn't a complete administrative unit, but it was an etnographic region. Thus it's wery natural, that we write about a certain nation in a description of an etnographic region. Surely, I'm not against including information about Germans or Jews or other groups in Lithuania Minor if anybody knows something about it, that is specific for the region. But i'm against a repeating an information from Eastern Prussia, that leaves Lithuania Minor without a target and makes it an useless clone of Eastern Prussia.

The current article contains almost all what i suppose above, so my earlier message is no more valid. But problems still exist. For example I doubt, if Lithuania Minor was ever considered to take such big territory as it's said in the article. I also doubt about the current definition of Lithuania Minor. It's true. Lithuanians call Klaipėda Region Lithuania Minor now, when they speak about ethnographic regions of Lithuania, but it's a bit different sense of the name, and the article is about historical Lithuania Minor. Also the Memelland census is cited out of context. Perhaps demographic dynamics is required, not being restricted to Memelland or to the period after WWII (what period, by the way, isn't the main target of the article). Linas Lituanus 13:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article is not correct: Lithuania Minor is one of five ethnographic regions of Lithuania - it's misleading call this way, because state of Lithuania never controlled all this land. State of Lithuania has only small part of former Lithuania Minor - Klaipėda region. But even there are nearly nothing is left from so called Lithuania Minor: majority of population were killed or expelled during WW2. In USSR times region was populated from other parts of Lithuania and Russia. Now Klaipėda region has nothing particular from other parts of Lithuania. This region could be called only historical region, not ethnographical. And even name Prussian Lithuania was more popular neither Lithuania Minor. I think main article should be Prussian Lithuania, with redirects from Lithuania Minor. At least, this should be discussed. More correct explanation would be: Lithuania Minor or Prussian Lithuania, (German: [Kleinlitauen or Preußisch-Litauen] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), [Mažoji Lietuva or Prūsų Lietuva] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) was a part of Prussia, East Prussia (Germany) where lithuanian speaking minority lived. Part of Lithuania Minor - Klaipėda region belonged to state of Lithuania in 1923-1939. Region dissapeared after WW2.--Tarakonas 09:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

== There is no "Lithuania Minor" == As I know the shown territory had 4 historical landscapes Schallauen, Samland ( Samija now sometimes used for the Russian Oblast) Natangen und Nadrauen. This landscapes where the names of Pruzzian countys in the middle age only one Schalauen around Tilsit, was seen as Lituanian and is even in the German maps shown as such. That means this borders shown in the map are two times as big as the historical influence of the Lituania in the middle age. Of cause the Pruzzian where a Baltik tribe and on the whole of Pruzzia till the Wistula ( Weichsel) the Lituanians have more histrorical rights for claims than the Polish ever had.

In the map down you see the old Landscapes witch show thatonly part of the Kaliningrad Oblast ist historical linked with Lithuania. http://www.ostdeutsches-forum.net/preussen/ostpreussen/Geschichte/Landschaften.htm

Johann

The expression "Lithuania Minor" is an ideological invention of Lithuanian nationalists trying to provide a pseudo-historical basis for their claims to the territory of East Prussia. Making use of the Baltic elements of East Prussian culture, the so-called "Council of Lithuania Minor" distorts historical facts and gives a deliberately biased account of the region's history.

Further details: www.Tolkemita.de.vu http://www.memelland-adm.de/ http://www.ostdeutsches-forum.net/preussen/ostpreussen/

• If you think the article shouldn't exist, I'd recommend WP:VfD. Otherwise, since this seems to be a sensitive topic, I'd recommend working out consensus here. I will also tag the article for review. Wikibofh 6 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

My family is from this area, and depending on which town you talk about it had significant (in alphabetical order!) German, Jewish and Lithuanian populations. The Holocaust destroyed the Jewish population. The Russians killed or expelled the Germans and most of the Lithuanians. The people who live there now are primarily "imported" Russians, descended from those brought in by Stalin after his ethnic cleansing. The over-sensitivity needs to take a back seat to history: all three native populatioons were significant, and all three were destroyed by World War II. ~~Coll7

The Russians were "imported" to Kaliningrad Oblast by Stalin exactly the way Germans were imported over there by Teutonic Order and even old prussians imported themselves there by way of migration in pre-historic time.The conclusion is that as comes to "import",there can be no claims on sovereignty over Kaliningrad from part of Lithuania and Germany.The issue remains status quo and it will so for ever unless anybody plans to open way for a large-scale bloodshed.

Frank Russian (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said by Linas and Coll7. Lithuanian population definitely existed, there are evidence from other side too such as the fact that in many villages there were Lithuanian-language churches, the term Kleinlitauen was use dby Germans and such. There were Germans too however of course, and by saying Lithuania Minor it is not denying that Germans lived there and German-speaking share increased over the time. DeirYassin 8 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Lithuania minor never was a political unit. This should be mentioned. Simply it was a land where prussian lithuanians lived.

Is this article talks about existing region or region that existed? Is this region exists now? Are there cultural, ethnic diferencies from the rest of Lithuania? Are there remains autochtonous population? If the answer is no, then there is no so called Lithuania Minor. --82.135.217.97 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

coat of arms

• Lithuania Minor has a flag which is a horizontal tricolor of green, white and red . . . . Lithuania Minor is the only ethnographic region of Lithuania which has flag separate from coat of arms, rather than having it based on coat of arms.
• The coat of arms of Lithuania Minor is divided into two parts, left and right. The right part has an image of horse on diagonally striped surface. The left side is further dubdivided in two parts, upper and lower. The lower part is all white. The upper part is vertically striped.

The page cited for the arms (at Flags of the World) does not say in the text that the fields are striped. For reasons of heraldic style I think it more likely that the thin white stripes are there either to relieve the plainness of big black blocks, or to signify colors in this monochrome representation; and in fact vertical and diagonal stripes are widely used for red and green respectively. So I'm betting that the dexter half is red over white, and the sinister half has a white horse on green. The flag, you'll note, is of these colors. —Tamfang 04:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this logic and have updated the article accordingly. The only discrepancy I have found is that the direction of the sinister striping indicates purpure,[1] not vert, although green makes sense with the flag in mind. Olessi 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The flag and coat of arms is an lithuanian invention! In East-Prussia on had german flags and coat of arms. -- Kaubri (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a region of "Lithuania"

The area where the Lietuvininkai settled cannot be called "an ethnographic region of Lithuania" since it never belonged to a "Lithuanian" state, it was part of Prussia and Germany from 1422 up to 1945. Nor was there an ethnographic border, the bigger cities of the area had always been inhabited by Germans,while the countryfolk was mainly Lithuanian. Memel/Klaipeda was a German city right from its foundation. Immanuel Kant's ancestors came from the Silute area, you would not call him an ethnic Lithuanian, would you? Also, the Lietuvininkai were a different Lithuanian ethnicity (different religion, history, state loyalty, Lithuanian-German bilingualism.....) who sometimes looked very condescendingly on the Lithuanians beyond the border. Election results of the Memelland between 1923 and 1938 very clearly demonstrate their choice. LS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.248.139.110 (talk • contribs).

It is treated as an ethnographic region in all kinds of literature: encyclopedias, history books, atlasses, etc etc. I can provide a ton of sources for that. So just because you don't like it does not mean it's not true. It's a very weird etno region, I have to admit, but still it is an etno region. Renata 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to call it "an ethnographic region", call it "an ethnographic region of Prussia" but not "of Lithuania". The tons of sources you quote probably come from Lietuviai . They are often wrong or at best distorted, like this one: http://www.kleinlitauen.de.vu There is also a mistake in your map of Lithuania Minor: the area north of Königsberg/Karaliaucius, the Sambian peninsula, never had a Lithuanian majority, this was Old Prussian territory.

LS

Kaliningrad area was NEVER part of Lithuania... It was either tribal, part of Teutonic Order, Prussia, or Duchy of Prussia. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the map is accurate in depicting what Lithuanian scholars have classified as "Lithuania Minor", I am surprised to see parts of Warmia, Natangia, Sambia, and Bartia included. Olessi 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how this region could be region of Lithuania, when never belonged to Lithuania? --82.135.217.97 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Poland also claims this region for itself"

When I saw this text in regard to Kaliningrad, I knew that this article needed some work. I added more information on the Memel dispute between Germany and Lithuania as well as information regarding the post-World War II history of East Prussia. I also noted that Khrushchev offered Kaliningrad to Lithuania during the 1950s (only to be refused by Secretary Antanas Sniečkus) and that of course, Poland (as well as Lithuania and Germany) do not claim Kaliningrad today. -- Aivazovsky 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No flag and no anthem

Lithuania Minor never was a distinct political or administrative unit. Therefore there can't be a "flag" of Lithuania Minor. Who would have hoisted this flag and where would it have flown? Nor is Sauerwein's poem ( which contains the line "we are faithful subjects of the Kaiser") the "anthem" of Prussian-Lithuanians. Sauerwein, a German who took up the cause of ethnic minorities all across Europe whose languages were threatened, wrote it on the pattern of a German song. It might have been popular with some activists but the overwhelming majority of the region could not relate to it. LSzemkus

Yep. How could ethnolinguistic entity could have a flag and coat of arms? Vulpes vulpes 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A multi-ethnic region in Prussia

This Lithuanian! map shows where Lithuanians lived in the 13th century, still far away from Lithuania Minor territory.

http://forum.istorija.net/photos/show-album.asp?albumid=13&photoid=216

Lithuanians settled from 1475 to 1615 in what came to be later called Prussian-Lithuania .They settled as immigrants on a substratum of Old Prussians and Germans (see this list of taxpayers of Insterburg round 1550, almost all were Germans! http://forum.istorija.net/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1480&mid=17363#M17363 ). In 1422 when the border that lasted until 1945 was established, Lithuanians - except refugees and captives - were not yet present on Prussian soil. What is called "ethnographic border" - the Pregel line - merely reflects the southernmost extension of the area where church services were conducted in Lithuanian. Alongside Lithuanians lived Old Prussians, Curonians, Germans, Salzburgers, French-speaking Swiss, Scots .. (Only one third of Donelaitis' parishioners were Lithuanians). The upper layer of Lithuania Minor society had always been German. The Lithuanian culture that developed was sponsored by the Prussian church and state. So why the heck call it "an ethnographic region o f L i t h u a n i a "? LS

Suisse romande

The Suisse romande is a historic ethnographic region of France ..ähmm.. the French people. It has never been part of the French state.

LS

Prussian-Lithuanian basis of modern Lithuanian

Zigmas Zinkevicius in "History of the Lithuanian language":

"The activists used as a model that language of Lithuania Minor which was described in the grammars of the great Lithuanian specialists Schleicher and Kursaitis and was universally adopted by comparative linguistics. This was the language taught at Moscow University by Prof. Filip Fortunatov, whose lectures were attended by many of the activists of the national revival movement. That famous Lithuanian model, in the words of Kazimieras Büga, "the skeleton of the written language", was, for all intents and purposes, used in the periodical and other press in Lithuania Major, but it was somewhat modified and adapted to new requirements. This language is the origin of current Standard Lithuanian. Hence, it developed from the former written Standard language used in Lithuania Minor."

"Essentially this was not a new written language, but a further stage in the development of the written Standard language of Lithuania Minor, which was meant to satisfy the needs of Czarist Lithuania. This is evident from the many correspondences between current Standard Lithuanian and the written language of Lithuania Minor. The latter differed significantly from the Suvalkish dialect of that period, which dialectologists now call the West Aukstaitish Kaunas dialect."

Lutz Szemkus

Codification history of Southwestern (Lietuwininkai) Aukstaitian which provided the basis of Modern Lithuanian: http://www.forost.lmu.de/sprachdatenbank/sprachdatenbank.php?display=Litauisch:kodifikation:kodifikationsgeschichte

Skalvs, Nadruvians and Sudovians were Prussian tribes

according to Maria Gimbutas: http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-01.html

Lutz Szemkus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.240.121 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

lithuanian claims over Kaliningrad Oblast are absurd

1.because in 1997,a treaty recognizing the current borders has been signed between Russia and Lithuania

2.lithuanians,as they are,have never constituted part of Prussia in historical and ethnic sense.True,this area was populated by related baltic tribes but still they were no lithuanians.For example,on the same absurd grounds Russia could claim lands of other slavs(say,poles and czech) because both Poles and Russians are of common slavic origin and surely, small ethnically russian communities have co-existed with polish(czech) majority during many centuries.

Frank Russian (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is not a place for general discussion of the subject. Zazaban (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary. Minor Lithuania was not a part of Mindaugas Lithuania, just because Catholic Teutonic Knights conquered the land and Mindaugas was a bit too late to unite some more Baltic tribes. From a year 100(at least) to 1260 AD this land was populated only by Balts tribes, which were very alike and have not fight against each over. A Russian source also shows that Balts tribes region was a separate region at X century. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Kiev_Rus_IX-X_%28with_military_campaigns%29.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.128.117 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

About Lithuanian Point of View

Found here: D. Willoweit. Memel-Klaipėda im historischen Bewußtsein der Deutschen und Litauer in Annaberger Annalen 1998, p.S. 193: "... daß Litauen seit seiner Union mit Polen, genau genommen also seit der Union von Lublin 1569, keinen eigenen Staat mehr bildete. Das litauische historische Denken kann daher für den Zeitraum zwischen 1569 und 1918 litauische Geschichte nur als Geschichte des litauischen Volkes verstehen. Dann aber ist Litauen dort, wo Litauer siedeln. Daher ist auch die fünfhundertjährige Grenze zwischen Preußen und Litauen, danach Preußen und Litauen-Polen und schließlich Preußen-Deutschland und Rußland, deren Bedeutung von den Deutschen so sehr betont wird, für Litauer in Wahrheit keine echte Grenze"

And p. 194: "Deutsche denken, wie Engländer oder Franzosen, wenn sie ihre Geschichte betrachten, in erster Linie an die Geschichte ihres Staates … .Die Geschichte der Deutschen in Kleinpolen oder an der Wolga wird kaum ein Deutscher als Teil der deutschen Geschichte begreifen, weil diese Gebiete stets außerhalb der deutschen Grenzen lagen. Diese Fixierung auf die Grenze als Ort, an welchem die Geschichte eines Staates und zugleich Volkes beginnt und endet, ist den Litauern - so mein Eindruck - weitgehend fremd."

(Short translation: Because Lithuania had no own state, their thinking is so that they understand Lithuanian history only as history of Lithuanian people. In this case is Lithuania everywhere, where Lithuanians live. That´s why the 500 year old border between Prussia and Lithuania is no real border in Lithuanian understanding." ... Germans think like Englishmen and Frenchmen when they look at their history at first at history of state. .... A German would hardly see places in Poland or at river Wolga as a part of German history because these places are outside of the borders of the state. The specification on a border as a place where history of state and inhabitants begins and ends seems to be strange for Lithuanians") -- Kaubri (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary

I meant to say "the nobility or nonnobility?"174.3.123.13 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lithuania Minor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927224535/http://www.mazoji-lietuva.lt/article.php?article=237 to http://www.mazoji-lietuva.lt/article.php?article=237
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ku.lt/sociologija/files/2001_nr.1-2.54-65.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070315023042/http://www.musicalia.lt/meli/index.php?id=77 to http://www.musicalia.lt/meli/index.php?id=77
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719112258/http://www.mlrt.lt/eng/mlis.html to http://www.mlrt.lt/eng/mlis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Mazoki Lietuva" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mazoki Lietuva and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 29#Mazoki Lietuva until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Map

@Sbaio: The map in the infobox is not of Lithuania Minor but only a slice of it. It is inappropriate and misleading there. Srnec (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The caption quite clearly says "Location of Lithuania Minor within modern Lithuania". Infobox maps at Aukštaitija, Dzūkija, Samogitia and Suvalkija are also different from File:Etnoregionai.png and they all have a caption, which says "Location of [region] within Lithuania". So I do not see anything misleading. – sbaio 14:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The caption is ambiguous. Is it the location of Lithuania Minor, which happens to be within modern Lithuania? Or is it only that part of Lithuania Minor which happens to be within modern Lithuania? The answer is the latter, but the casual reader will only realize it when they see the second map. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sbaio: Do have any response to my reasoning? Srnec (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how it is confusing to anyone except for you. But to make it easier for you, I altered the caption a bit, which should satisfy your confusion problem. – sbaio 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But that just makes it a clearly inferior map to the one right below that shows the whole damned thing. I don't understand the issue here. Why show a partial map when a complete one is right there? Srnec (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing inferior with current map in the infobox. Lithuania Minor is directly tied to Lithuania and the part that currently belongs to Lithuania is more important at this point. The other map quite clearly indicates that it shows historical regions, which is not the same as nowadays borders of those regions. – sbaio 18:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the term "Lithuania Minor" is a term currently in use that only refers to a part of modern Lithuania? The first sentence of the article defines its topic as a historical region, so the map that shows historical regions is superior. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Lithuania Minor is one of the ethnographic regions of Lithuania so it is reasonable to show in the infobox just the part that is in Lithuania. The region historically was also in current Kaliningrad Oblast and in a bit of Poland. I notified editors of WP:LITHUANIA, because I see that this is going nowhere so I hope other will give their opinion. – sbaio 19:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The capital being Tilsit

I have to ask what is even the basis of having a capital for this split region that also has only the Lithuanian part shown on the map but then having the capital in kaliningrad. I'd suggest the removal of the capital entry Steepfire (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)