Talk:Prussian Lithuanians

message: While undoubtedly an impressive work, this article makes hasty assertations and claims, and misses  important  facts - like the fact, that the territory of Lithuania minor was colonized from Lithuania major, and most of Prussian Lithuanians despite the name were not  direct descendants of Old Prussians. Also some very bold statements about Lithuanian historiography as a whole,  about the fact that Lithuanians could not understand Lietuvininks language, alteration of  names is quite disturbing. It will take some time to reach compromise on these issues.--Lokyz 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is written in generally bad grammar and thoruogh copyedit and rewrite into acceptable English is necessary.Iulius 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Milestones

message: In my view article is an important one (no doubt!), but very amateurish and biased towards germanized Lithuanians of former East Prussia (Lithuania Minor). First of all, the article does not touch upon history of former Prussia, and does not relate that history to the history of all Balts, for instance (except a map depicting approximate living territories of different Baltic groups in 11-13 centuries). From reading the article one might form an understanding that Prussian Lithuanians there completely different national group (although related). But that was not the case and it should be clarified.
I doubt that anyone knows outside of Lithuania, Latvia, and perhaps Poland that Germans never lived on the Eastern Baltic Sea shore until 13th century, and en masse until centuries later. During that period (12-13 c.) Crusades to the Middle East were waning down, and militaristic orders of eager fighters "for God's cause" were looking for new horizon's. They found new purpose much closer to home - Eastern Baltic Sea shore, where only remaining pagans of Europe lived. They were Balts, Estonians and some other Fino-ugric tribes in the north. Since Germany is in Northern Europe, German orders, namely Teutonic and others, were the ones to advance. Does anyone know in the West and the wider world that Catholic Popes actually sanctioned and declared Crusades, targeting pagans of Eastern Baltic? I bet that would be news to anyone except those specializing in certain European history. 
German orders sanctioned by the Holy Seat started pouring into Prussia and Latvia "to turn infidels to Christianity". Another, more "earthly" objective was to establish a state or a permanent base for those military religious orders. So let's focus on Prussia. Teutonic Order found there very fierce and organized people with their own organized religion. In many ways Prussians were on the verge of statehood, having loose tribal alliances (if German Orders would have come 50 years later or so, we might have had very different history of Northern and Eastern Europe). Prussians by that period were separate Baltic ethnic group (they were Balts, of cause, close to Lithuanians, Latvians, Jotvingians, and others) and spoke Prussian language (the most archaic known Baltic language). They were against constant flow of new adventurous crusaders from Germany and Western Europe. Although Prussians resisted and rebelled (The Great Prussian Uprising of 13 c.) over several centuries, they were conquered in a brutal manner.  
Many were killed, some fled to Lithuanian state, but the most were systemically wiped out. Remaining Prussians assimilated with Germans or Lithuanians, who started moving into Prussia after 1422-1430. Last person who spoke Prussian died in early 17 or 18 c. 
Most certainly Prussians and Prussian language influenced those Lithuanians who moved into Prussia. But that influence was neither wide nor deep. At the end of the day, Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor (Prussia) spoke Lithuanian dialect, not Prussian one. Prussian influence perhaps was more on distinct identity of Prussian Lithuanians.
Here we come to another misconception of the article, which declares that Lithuanians of Prussia saw themselves as different, almost distinct ethnic group. That is misleading. They most certainly were a product of assimilation between Prussians, Curonians, and the dominating side, Lithuanians (both Aukstaiciai and Zemaiciai).  Most certainly they felt a little bit different, a newer tribe, if you will. In fact, in Eastern Prussia (Lithuania Minor) Zemaiciai and Aukstaiciai even preserved their distinct dialects, especially closer to Lithuanian border. Most certainly they identified with Lithuanians of Lithuania Major in a wider sense. There were quite deep familial, cultural, social and economic relations between both sides. 
: The last sentence is utterly wrong. There were no relations at all. Read this article by the Swiss balticist Niedermann in 1918:
http://forum.istorija.net/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3515&posts=1#M51305
Lithuanians from Lithuania Major always were welcomed and supported, especially in cultural matters (printing of books, magazines, newspapers, other support, etc.). And contrary to the article's claims, that support was much wider than solely from Lithuania Major's expatriates. 
: This book trade existed but was organized by Lietuviai alone. The book printers were all Germans to whom this was just business. Lietuvininkai didn't read these publications in Latin script.
I agree, however, that Lithuanians of Prussia thought about themselves as distinct Lithuanians. So what was it, making Prussian Lithuanians feel distinct? The answer is quite simple. First of all they lived in another state, frequently at odds with Lithuanian state or later with Russian Empire. That alone naturally made them think about themselves as separate from Lithuania Major. Another important factor of distinction - the socioeconomic structure of Lithuanian state v. Prussian state. Prussia was much more liberal and advanced economically, where peasants (majority of Prussian Lithuanians) could work and move for themselves and much easier than in feudal serf system of Lithuanian state, where peasants were property of their lords. In fact, that was one of the major reasons for Lithuanian migration to Prussia in 15-18 c. Again Prussian Lithuanians for those reasons were much better of than their counterparts in Lithuania Major. 
In fact, until the 18 c. plague, which wiped out 50% or more of Lithuanian population in Prussia, and to some degree until the late 19 c. Prussian Lithuanians were the ones, who carried and advanced Lithuanian culture freely. One could argue that Prussian Lithuanians were the ones who acted and thought of themselves as a nation before their counterparts in Lithuania Major could finally join them in 19 c. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that Prussian Lithuanians as richer, more culturally aware and expressive, and perhaps "more western" Lithuanian thought about their brothers and sisters in Lithuania Major as "lesser" Lithuanians. This claim could be supported by the fact that Lithuanians of Lithuanian state always thought about Prussian Lithuanians as more advanced, more resourceful, and envied their conditions. Things changed in late 19 and early 20 c. because during that time Lithuanians of Lithuania Major finally were awakened and became a center of national revival, where as Prussians Lithuanians started being systematically germanized and indoctrinated to reflect values of German state. That is what Kudirka meant than he stated in 1905 that Prussian Lithuanians were "Germans speaking in Lithuanian". Article provides some statistics, that when Lithuanian language schools were abolished in late 19 c. Prussian Lithuanians protested that for years, but in early 20 c. there were no more such protests in Prussia. In my view, it should be viewed not as a evidence of German identity of Prussian Lithuanians as the article suggests, but rather as successful assimilation through schools policy of the German state. 
: In the Kaiserreich this assimilation was necessary. This assimilation through education opened new opportunities to underclass peasants. This was how Vydunas'/Wilhelm Storost's family could produce university professors:
:http://juergen-storost.npage.de/ (curriculum vitae)
In fact, new Lithuanian Republic after 1918 was trying to reverse that germanization process in Klaipedos Krastas (Memel land). 
: With some unexpected results for Russian-Lithuanian occupants:
: German- oriented parties always got around 80 per cent  of the : vote.
That I think, is what the article is really describing, but from a wrong perspective. 
Now I would like to address the article's contention that Prussian Lithuanians considered themselves German. That was not the case. There is no question that Prussian Lithuanians in any aspect considered themselves Lithuanians (although distinct). During 18 c. Prussian state's rulers sent many orders and regulations (in Lithuanian, by the way) to their Lithuanian subjects. Some of them demanded abandonment of Lithuanian customs, clothing (vyzos), and others asked why Lithuanians were escaping recruitment into Prussian army. That shows two things: one, the deep cultural believes of Lithuanians (certainly distinct from Germans), and second, the attempt by the Prussian (German) state to assimilate Lithuanian population or perhaps at that time to make it less distinct and more loyal. It follows that during 18 c. Prussian Lithuanians considered themselves Lithuanian to the bone. After the plague it became much more difficult to resist, because many communities became isolated, gradually surrounded by influx of new German settlers. Still during majority of 19 c. Lithuanian culture was alive and well in Prussia. During that time Lithuanians considered themselves as citizens of Prussia and later German state. That was nothing different of how, let's say, Czechs of that time considered themselves citizens of Habsburg  Empire. Assimilation accelerated in late 19 - early 20 c. and many Prussian Lithuanians were assimilated during that time and later. However, many persevered and remained Lithuanian. 
In conclusion I want to say that the article has to be corrected and edited.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanopa (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not whole Lithuanian historiography, where did you find word "whole"? After long time of thinking, reading and comparing articles and books I've noticed trends. Will you deny that in soviet times events after WW2 were well known? Are these events were mentioned in Soviet historiography? Even in western countries such themes were omitted as uncomfortable. I don't believe situation was better in Lithuanian SSR. OK, say this in different words or throw away this sentence. Anyway, majority of events in this article are taken from modern Lithuanian sources. Otherwise then explain to me, why exists something like a movement among Lithuanians which requires attach Lithuania Minor to Lithuania, when Lietuwininkai were totally different people? Where is the origin of such claims? --Vulpes vulpes 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lithuanian language in East Prussia was different and used different letters and script. Is this hard to understand? Yes, this is Lithuanian language. Like American English and British English still are the English language. --Vulpes vulpes 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is talk page, so grammar is not as important. I'm missing a point here, what's your suggestion? An who are you, because I cannot see any previous suggestion from your current identification (an IP address).--Lokyz 22:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The first qotation says: "mažlietuviai or lietuwininkai were neither Germans nor Lithuanians". It lacks the first half of the sentence: "The aim of her work, said S. Pocytė, was to prove / show, that minor-Lithuanians, or Lietuvininkai / Lietuwininkai, were neither Germans, nor Lithuanians". She might has proven (I has not looked to that work; did not see referenced)?
While Lietuvininkai had different features, the better structure can be displayed by what they were (religion, other state - the main things), the situation of the different times shown.
Being different, they still can be called Lithuanians. Separate Lithuanian ethnic group?
The part "traditional Lithuanian point of view" should have a better structure. The interwar period, the soviet period, modern day; then: the prevailing opinion(?), the political rhetoric(?) and some deeds (as the monument "for the liberation of Samogitia", while the land has became Lithuania Minor during the centuries; and it is good question, whether such slips are common?), the researching persons and their opinion.
Dellijks 07:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What should be discussed

message: This article needs complete rewrite, not saying that it draws extensive OR, it also have misused sources, for example - source was used for supporting claim that Mažlietuviai or Lietuwininkai were neither Germans nor Lithuanians, while actually sources says this Jos darbo tikslas, sakė S. Pocytė, buvo įrodyti, kad mažlietuviai, arba lietuvininkai, nebuvo nei vokiečiai, nei lietuviai., which translates as Her work goal was, as S. Pocytė said, was to prove that Mažlietuviai or Lietuwininkai were neither Germans nor Lithuanians, which have completely different meaning. Not surprisingly such info was added by disruptive sockpuppet user:Vulpes vulpes currently blocked and controlled by user:Tarakonas. Needs additional checking remaining sources. M.K. (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs complete rewrite

message: This is about tag cleanup.  As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed.  This is not a judgement of content.  If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made.  This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any resolve of previous questioned statements, even beginning with the first one on the talk page. I do know, that wine does get better in time, especially if it is kept according to some rules. The articles tagged POV do not. Hence tagging again, and please provide some better arguments than  aging. Have a nice day.--Lokyz (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: A bad article if you'd ask me. Rather an example of WP:POINT - created by copy-pasting few other articles, and cherry-picked citations taken out of context. I'd never do such a thing (my article ... gosh) and I did not intend to go personal with my comment. And please don't take it personally, and I'm unarmed and do not intend to shoot even with my finger;)  Article is re-taged, I hope I'll have some time to begin fixing this mess (it's so WP:POVish, it gives me tremors). Cheers.--Lokyz (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: This is a sacred cow in present-day Lithuania. But Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevicius is quite frank about it: their language is an import from Prussia.
from Zinkevicius "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."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.203.140 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian-Lithuanian is the basis of modern Lithuanian 

message: Why do those people who claim that this a bad article (yes, language is bad) give a few examples?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.254.179 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong then? 

message: # -the first Lithuanian book (Mosvid, Samogitian))
# -the first translation of the Bible into Lithuanian (Bretke, a German)
# -the first Lithuanian grammar, and the second and the third (Daniel Klein, a German)
# -the first modern Lithuanian grammar, and the second (August Schleicher, a German)
# -the first Lithuanian dictionary in the variant that was to become standard Lithuanian, and the second and the third (Lexicon Lithuanicum , by an unknown German pastor)
# -the first Lithuanian poems (Lafontaine's fables translated by a German)
# the first piece of modern Lithuanian fiction, regarded as world heritage today (Donelatis, Prussian-Lithuanian))
# -the first Lithuanian newspaper, and the second (Kurschat, Prussian-Lithuanian, published "Keleiwis") and the third ...
# -the first collection of Lithuanian dainos (Rhesa, a Curonian)
# -the first Lithuanian university department (founded by the Prussian king)
# -the first Royal Lithuanian government
# -the most prolific writer of Lithuanian (Bretke, a German, about 50 per cent of the 16th century language corpus is his)
# - the first discussion about linguistic "correctness" (Möhrlin-Obermeyer, two Germans)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.254.179 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsence - how come hat Prussian -Lithuanian language gas more slavisms than mainland Lithuania? Care to cite where did you took such citations?--Lokyz (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Another non logic statement - at first you say that there are (allmost) no Lietuvininks left, later you try to convince that they still exist. It's rather strange. it would be also usefull if you'd familiarise yorself with WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS.--Lokyz (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note the WP:CIVIL and also note that insulting notable researchers is not the best way to prove you're right. Unless you will change your behavior and wording I do not see a reason to continue this discussion.--Lokyz (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian-Lithuanian firsts 

message: And I am disputing it. These tags want to assert there was no Lithuania Minor. Well, this is high-emotion topic. Russia has Lithuania Minor or at least part of it. It's the region just east of Kaliningrad, in the lakes and swamps. If you don't know the issues then read about it before you write anything here, it will save some time. However right or wrong the Russians were we aren't going to get anything like the truth at all from Russians, Germans or Lithuanians, and probably not from the Poles either. What's so great about that country anyway? It looks like it is full of mosquitos. More premature dying has been done in that neck of the woods than anywhere else in the world. And for what? Regardless of your answer, the problem is that this article is not yet properly sourced so that leaves it open to all this bedlam, and that is what it is, bedlam. There was in fact a region called Lithuania Minor, which got populated with Lithuanians expanding southward into lands vacated by the Old Prussians dying en masse of the plague in the 18th century. This article needs a mind determined to be objective. It is like the Schleswig-Holstein questions that used to come up under Bismark, only much worse. I can't do it right now. Later.Dave (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The neutrality of these tags is disputed

message: Quote:
"According to the secret report by Jonas Polovinskas-Budrys, a professional in counterintelligence, made in 1923, around 60 percent of local inhabitants supported the Revolt, 30 percent kept a passive stance and 10 percent were against, namely the supporters of freistadt status or Germany."
Jonas Polovinskas was a (Russian-)Lithuanian intelligence officer who commanded  the occupant forces (regular Russian-Lithuanian army dressed as civilians). He adopted the fake identity of a dead Memelländer named Budrys. The fake Klaipeda "revolt" was prepared in Kaunas, as Lithuanian historians today admit:
http://www.lrt.lt/english/news.php?strid=4271207&id=4283151  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.204.16 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polovinskas-Budrys 

message: This article leaves lots of questions and seems to be written in order to make the ignorant reader believe that Prussian Lithuanians were definitely not Lithuanians (reminding me about the Hungarian Slovenes, who were definitely not Slovenes in the eyes of the Hungarians, especially during the interbellum).
One such statement: Prussian Lithuanians regarded themselves as Lithuanians (Lietuwininkai) only for themselves - they did not realize and did not want to realize they were the same people with Russian  Lithuanians. At least one Prussian Lithuanian, Friedrich Kurschat, author of the Grammatik der littauischen Sprache (Halle, 1876), had a different opinion, since he uses the word Littauer for people speaking littauisch in Prussia as well as Russia (e.g. on page 3 of his grammar). 
A question of a different nature: what makes Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin, make a Prussian Lithuanian, except for his name? Fransvannes (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the election results at Klaipėda Region in the 1920/30s. Between 80 and 90 percent voted for German parties. People in Switzerland speak German, but they aren't German and Prussian Lithuanians spoke Lithunanian but "felt" German (BTW Religion was much more important at that time and they were protestants in contrast to "normal" Lithuanians). HerkusMonte (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What did the others vote for, then? What were they, if not Germans? It seems that not all Prussian Lithunian regarded themselves as Germans. That's not uncommon. Some Ruthenians regard themselves as Ukrainians, some as Ruthenians. Some Vlachs as Rumanians, some as Greeks, some as Vlachs. Etcetera. Fransvannes (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of questions...