Talk:Lithuania Minor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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, Lithuanian: Mažoji Lietuva or Prūsų Lietuva) 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

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)