Re: Water Under the Bridge [Was: Re: "P eteris Cedri n (Peteris Cedrins)"...]

On Feb 9, 4:21 pm, "Barnim" <barnim.pomor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
U¿ytkownik <lorad...@xxxxxx> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:1171050651.336127.306280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and there _was_ a brief period during which
independent Lithuania retook Vilnius. That period is of interest to
me.

Vilnius has always been part of Lithuania.
Just go read your history books.

Mindless crap.

To be honest, after reading what you posted Barnim - I'm not seeing
where you posit that Hui's statement that "Vilnius has always been
part of Lithuania" is wrong. Call Lithuania one thing or another if
you want I guess... But where is the error ?


In short, there is no direct link between Great Dutchy of Lithuania
and today Lithuanian republic. There is no historical nor ethnical
inheritance from one to the other, regardless of whether you may
like it or not.

- bp -

I dont see where anyone suggested that todays Lithuanian Republic has
any relationship with the Grand Dutchy.

As for historical or ethnic inheritance - there I think you're
stretching things. Your definition seems to be largely linguistic.
Historical and ethnic ? Unless you have some sort of fantabulous
crystal ball that can cut through the complicated thing that ethnicity
is - your argument regarding history and ethnicity is pure
speculation. You have no way of knowing what the ethnic makeup was.

Vidas


.