Wich is wrong, Polotsk did not fight the crusaders with Lithuania, the Lithuanian dukes did not speak slavic and 100% not veryone spoke slavic so you basecly got tought wromg history by a lieing litvinist ( belarusian )🫠

@@Lietuva.Liks.Laisva I know that Lithuania was ally of Polotsk and that Polotsk fought with crussaders. Ok maybe dukes didn't spoke slavic but I am absolutely sure that many people spoke slavic bc almost all territory of GDL were slavic dutchies

@@Черепабло Almost all? Are you mad? 80% yes but not almost all. (Almost all is 90-99%)

@@Черепабло Lithuania was not allyed with polotsk we had our problems and you had your as Lithuania started to become stronger and more stable, the crusaders came, also Polotsk colapsed, Lithuania having to survive agenst the crusaders they took what reamande out of Polotsk and used those teritorys as help to fight the crusaders. Also there is no mabe about the dukes not talking slavic, becouse they DID NOT, some eaelyer dukes did know slavic but that was a minority, and a big one, Dukes mostly learned western languages, like Latin, Polish, German, yeah slavic was a choise but it was an old thing and as Lithuania got bigger, the less amount of dukes knew slavic, ofcourse, unless your talking about the dukes of the regions of GDL, so yeah big diffrence

@@Lietuva.Liks.Laisva almost all in subjective. For me it is more than 70%

- "Born for the Saber" (2019) - "The Deluge" (1974) - "Gniew husarii" by Zbigniew Borek on youtube - "Taras Bulba" (2009) - "With fire and sword" (1999) - "Viy" (2014)

@@Andrzejnik my distinguished thanks goes to you mate

@@catobyelo5521 Always happy to help, goodday to you!

As we told in schools Belarus and Ukraine had to do, but basically besides ostrogiski theres no other Ruthenians are mentioned. We been told that with war and peaceful annexation Ruthenian lands was taken and in the peak of gdl lithuanians was minority. Also due to the fact that majority was Ruthenians and Balts didn't had writing system we used old church slavonic. So it doesn't say those countries don't have anything with gdl, it basically says even some facts what litvinists say but interpretation is different. Hovewer Lithuania pov definitely claims that Belarus has less than what Belarus pov claims and that's there disagreement is. According to pov of Lithuanian gdl for Belarus is wanila version of Russia empire and it's strange that Belarus clinging to it.

@@einius4501 so it all boils down to interpretation? The crux of both Lithunian and Belarusian POVs differs only by which side their narratives favour more? As for Belarusian POV, I reckon that what Lithuanians are told is a far cry from what Belarusians basically believe in. In a nutshel the idea is simple, we had our history before being annexed by Russia and what we are trying to do is to unshackle ourselves from colonialism by highlighting our part in the Grand Duchy and P-L commonwealth, since Lukashenko's regime does everything under the sun to erase it. Yes, like everyone else we might exaggerate certain facts, the same way everyone else does(Lithunians, Poles, Russians aren't impervious to it either). But it doesn't mean when a person says that Vilnius used to be a "Belarusian" city that we can annex it or anything. What it means is that there were plenty of Belarusians who lived there back in the day. That's it. In the same way Poles say that Brest is historically "Polish". That's the underlying confusion that render Lithuanians so baffled and angry. There're some radicals here and there, of course, but then again, it's not as though anybody listens to them. Anyway, the chief point is that Belarusians are trying to find as much in common with Lithuanians as they can, and in my opinion, it's much more prudent and viable than antagonising each other in an endeavour to show that Lithunians were much more important than others or the other way around(which is not just futile but counterproductive)

@@maxramanovich "so it all boils down to interpretation?" - yes, I think. The main reason of this disagreement is different interpretation or different facts about the topic (form example the first capital of GDL). "The crux of both Lithunian and Belarusian POVs differs only by which side their narratives favour more?"- yes and I think there is much difference. I don't know what belarus POW is regarding GDL, because I encounter people which basically said that belarus = GDL, also people which claims that it was Lithuanian-belarus union. So I hear only opinions, not how Belarusians are thought in school, it difficult for me to determine. I was born in late 90s and the way I was thought in school is was like GDL is "Pagan Lithuanian empire" which was tolerant to everyone. Absolutely no mention of Belarus. Not even kalinauskas or skoryna is being mention as belarusian. However I don't know what kids are being thought these days, but majority has grown in this agenda. And this probably are so much different from belarus perspective (I believe) as fire and ice. So difference is not only in favoritism. "In a nutshel the idea is simple, we had our history before being annexed by Russia and what we are trying to do is to unshackle ourselves from colonialism by highlighting our part in the Grand Duchy and P-L commonwealth, since Lukashenko's regime does everything under the sun to erase it. " - Well what some our historians are claiming is that Belarusians are trying to find out their history and still developing nationality, trying to find themselves. "Yes, like everyone else we might exaggerate certain facts, the same way everyone else does(Lithunians, Poles, Russians aren't impervious to it either)." - yes, you are totally right. "But it doesn't mean when a person says that Vilnius used to be a "Belarusian" city that we can annex it or anything. What it means is that there were plenty of Belarusians who lived there back in the day. That's it. In the same way Poles say that Brest is historically "Polish". " - there's many belarusians saying exactly that and lives in Lithuania, vilnius need to be annexed or at least make it again belarusian lol. But As I said those are opinions, don't know how you being thought and if you being thought this way, it sad, but I believe you aren't. "That's the underlying confusion that render Lithuanians so baffled and angry. "- yes, some really do, but for people like me then in GDL nothing was ruthenian, it's absolutely nonsense to hear that, it's not the annexation is logical outcome of statement what triggers, is the fact itself, you definitely will get it if you understand how in schools are we thought. "There're some radicals here and there, of course, but then again, it's not as though anybody listens to them." - you could be considered for someone as radical if you claim that vilnius was belarusian or that first capital of GDL was Naugardukas. " Anyway, the chief point is that Belarusians are trying to find as much in common with Lithuanians as they can, and in my opinion, it's much more prudent and viable than antagonising each other in an endeavour to show that Lithunians were much more important than others or the other way around"- why with us? It's not question with any bad intent btw. You there in kievan rus, you had polotsk principality? Like we are not even slavs, we are really different people, which you can see it nowadays even. Don't know if that's prudent or viable if that's a lie or that would scrambles or crush identity of lithuanian. "(which is not just futile but counterproductive)" it is counterproductive I totally agree, but It's impossible to see belarus and LT historians dig into history together, at least right now. And it is futile yes, no one would change opinion if the both sides would think they are right and have certain attitude towards another. No one is trying to find truth or debate openminded just trying to justify their agenda. This goes for LT and Belarus.

@@einius4501 regarding the last one, as to why we try to find common things with you. Because we share history, in a similar vain, we do with Poles, Ukrainians and even Russians. It has nothing to do with eradicating anyone's identitity and all that jazz. As for the point about Vilnius being Belarusian city, the only thing that I meant was that there's was a huge contingent of population who were Belarusians(ethnically at least) at the time. But it doesn't give us any right to say that it IS a Belarusian city, which is just delusional. What Belarusian means is obviously subjective in this case. In the same way you might name dozens of Belarusian cities and say that they were Lithunian back in the day for precisely the same reason, hence the analogy with Poles.

@@maxramanovich what's very different then talking about poles, ukrainians and russians in my eyes. In fact I didn't notice it at all. It's seems like belarus history started in GDL. " It has nothing to do with eradicating anyone's identitity and all that jazz". If I try to think objectively it's hard to say that it doesn't do it, or at least affect it in negative way. Maybe not IDK. It's incredibly thin silver line there it doesn't affect identity negatively, what's why the claim Belarus are true lithuania comes, because if belarus has more legacy in GDL logically it's become closer to concept of Lithuania. And even claim that GDL is equally belarusian state is affecting it, thus moving it towards various claims. For example this video basically says that belarus is lithuania, by proving it and saying only "no it's not that simple" and says that the name cone from outside. Well maybe it's true IDK, not historian here. Saying that vilnius is belarusian city is not equal to say that there was huge contingent of belarusians. (in first russian empire consensus 2 %). Probably you could claim that for some time many belarusians lived in vilnius or contributed to culture in city. So that's just false statement. Yeah, have to agree with you that is delusional. "What Belarusian means is obviously subjective in this case." - no as in any case it isn't. If you pick on details, you could spin concept, but the intent of describing someone city is obvious. "In the same way you might name dozens of Belarusian cities and say that they were Lithunian back in the day for precisely the same reason, hence the analogy with Poles" - for us it's hardly provable and we even don't learn in schools about "Lithuanian Gardinas" city, you have to be hardcore historian to know that. Basically we don't indoctrinate ourselves with your city claims.

Liwinism conversely portrays Lithuania as a friend, not an enemy. If anything Russia is the enemy according to it. Litwinism just an attempt to reverse Russification by clinging to our role in the Grand Duchy of Luthiania. Besides, the fact that we were under occupation for longer and ramifications wound up being way more perilous for us doesn't give you leeway to equate us to Russia, cause we are not. As for the obliteration of the language, it is true, Russian is substantially more ubiquitous, but does it cancel out the fact that Belarusian still exists and people employ it? I don't think so

As for you summary of our culture, it's just beyond inane. 2020 protests proved that this view is a far cry from reality. No idea why your attitude to Belarusians is so poor and who hurt you. But then again, it doesn't matter. All love from Belarus!

@@maxramanovich How is Lithuania portrayed as a friend when you yell stuff like "those dirty Balts stole our GDL!!!"

@@Fankas2000 alright, pal😂😂😂maybe in a parallel world it is true, but not in this one.

@@Fankas2000 nobody tells you that you've stolen YOUR land. What we do say, though, is that Belarusians and Lithuanians share a lot of history together and that our ancestors played a huge role in it, the same way, yours did. We aren't pitting them against each other, instead we're highlighting the fact that we have plenty in common, at least historically. It's devoid of common sense to belittle or denigrate anyone's role, except for people who want to infuse hate into this conversation. What I have seen in the comments here are ideas like Belarusians were slaves, people spoke Ruthenian(old Belarusian) in GDL but it doesn't count and yada yada yada. Dogsh*it, hate-inducing conversation which is the polar opposite of constructive.

Kremlin propaganda would tell you that Belarusians are ethnic Russians, not Lithuanians. By and large, "Litwinism" is the idea of Belarusians having stronger historical ties with Lithuanias than with Russians. The idea is simple, in Lithuania our language wasn't being extinguished, culture and traditions weren't vaporised, whereas in Russia it's the polar opposite: repressions, mass murders and suchlike.

XDD WE WUZ KINGZ

Also Ukraine was called Russia Nigra (Black) and Russia Rubra (Red)

1) Lithuania was not a country in 1009. It was just a baltic tribe. Lithuania become a country only in the middle of 13 century as a union of lithuanian tribe and Novogrudok city (under the rule of Mindovg). It was a union of the most rich city and the best warrior in the region. 2) Initially lithuania was located at Vilnia (Vilnius) region (modern Lietuva) and Grodno region (modern Belarus). But later all western part of modern Belarus was called as Lithuania. Ruthenian part of Belarus is only eastern part (Polotsk, Vitebsk) (15-16 centuries). By the 18 century all territory of Belarus was called as Lithuania. Ruthenians are mostly ukrainians 3) Vilnia (Vilnius) was not founded by Gedimin. It's only a myth about creation of Vilnia by Gedimin. The city existed before Gedimin (archeology rules :-) ))

@@alanparker2918 I replay, though it is nothing to discuss, the only ones who can believe this nonsense are the ones who want to be that true. I mean, some Belarusians may want to be Lithuanians, but they still always will have only Ruthenian ancestry. This myth that Belarus is Lithuanian is not even so long created, in the 19-20th century, some Belarusian historian wrote that, and it became the only written source of how Belarusians try to prove this... It is enough ancient writings, and those are made not even by ancestors, Lithuanians, themselves, but by nations that interacted with it - the Holy Roman Empire, Teutonic Order, and Vikings saga, also even Lithuanians were Pagan nation - they still make in many of Europe's monarchy royal trees. Those ancient writings clearly describe Lithuania. And note again, - Lithuania was way before the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian appearance. Lithuanians were always - Baltic and Ruthenian were always - Slavic. And this will not change even if you really want this. As well, - no other European historians, except some Belarusians (who want to be this true), believe this nonsense because everyone believes in real prof and ancient writings and not that some 9-20th century Balussian historian made up.

@@Tautas1123 Nice try, but - no. 1) Part of lithuanian tribes were slavianized. I hope you know that official documents of GDL was not even translated to your language because people (including balts) knew ruthenian language. So actually they became ancestors of belarusians, poles (now they live in Vilnia region) and modern lithuanians. Even more: all territory of Belarus was populated by balts. Slavic tribes went to the territory of Belarus only at 5-7 centuries. Belarusian are mix of balts and slavs from the very beginning (even without influence of lithuanian tribes). That's why about 80% of hydronyms in Belarus have baltic roots. 2) Second myth is that lithuanians were pagans and slavs were only orthodox. Even in 14 century a big part of slavs were pagans. 3) Third myth is that other historians supports your version. In real life they just don't care about it. It's just a dispute between you and us. BTW ukrainian historians support belarusian version. Looks like you even don't understand the difference between lithuanian tribes (which are balts for 100%) and Lithuania as a country (GDL) which is mainly slavic country. GDL had slavic governmental institutions (laws for example), official language, even coat of arms was called with a slavic word "Pogonia" (name Vytys was invented only in 19 century). Even name of the country was slavic "Litva" and not "Lietuva" - just google photos of GDL coins - they contains name of country "LITVA". In general GDL had only 2 baltic features: name and dynasty. The rest is slavic. PS: stop liking your own comments - it looks like sucking your own balls ))

Which Ukrainian historians support this Belarusian version? As far as I am aware the Baltic origin of the Lithuanian state is the mainstream accepted version.

​1. Belarus was not a thing in 1009 and your just jelus

Ruthenia is how catholic/latin authors referred to slavic lands of former Kievan Rus' empire. Orthodox slavic authors used the term Rus'

Няхай жыве Беларусь!