To clarify, I mentioned the Red Army just because I thought it was a good illustration of the “inconvenience” of history - i.e. somebody you don’t like doing a favor for you, and the kind of cognitive dissonance this situation creates among nationalists and similar types.

Could you explain something? You talk about “Westerners,” and resentment toward them. Do you not see Lithuania as being “West,” despite its membership in the major Western organizations?

But I wouldn’t say I am in favor of Eastern Europe going AWOL as it comes to internal European integration and homogenization after Lisbon. And that presupposes mending bridges with former enemies and rivals and not making new ones further west.

I guess they forgot about it…”

What did they forget? To mention? Everybody know that, if someone needed to refresh the memory it was enough just to turn TV on. What the sense of “mentioning”? There are many things people know perfectly without any mentionings. But in this particular case “they” didn’t forget, if it’s “important” for someone, or something.

>>And my impression is that ethnic relations in Lithuania are better than in Estonia or Latvia - do you agree with that?

Indeed, nationalism is far less of a problem in Lithuania than in Latvia or Estonia. I guess it’s because, unlike in those states, Lithuanian government cleverly granted citizenship to all of Lithuania’s residents after the country had freed itself from USSR. Thus minorities felt kind of welcomed and not disfranchised by the newly reborn Lithuanian state. Yes, this state would become ethnocentric in nature but less nationalistic if compared to the northern neighbors.

Another appeasing factor might be that minorities in Lithuania were less numerous and less vocal than Russians in Latvia and Estonia. So maybe the government did not feel threat from Poles, Belarusians and Russians who hardly agreed between one another on many an issue.

>>Just an aside: did the people celebrating liberation of Vilnius from Poland mention that it was the Soviet Red Army that accomplished this?

I guess they forgot about it

1. You cite Internet commenters as leading the nationalistic battles. But how much can this be applied to real life? I always thought the internet was full of kooks and provocateurs; it’s not necessarily an expression of real people’s feelings. I would think the ordinary Lithuanian has more pressing concerns than re-fighting ancient battles (like keeping the country’s economy from going down the toilet) - especially when the country is in the EU and there is no threat its borders will be changed again. And my impression is that ethnic relations in Lithuania are better than in Estonia or Latvia - do you agree with that?

2. Just an aside: did the people celebrating liberation of Vilnius from Poland mention that it was the Soviet Red Army that accomplished this?

Since Grand Duchy days, the essense of Lithuania has been multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and polyglot. In the 16th century, “Lithuanians” were not just the currrent Baltic speakers, but also Orthodox Slavs (what we would now call Belarusians) and Polish-speaking nobles. The official language of the GDL was Ruthenian (sometimes known as “Old Belarusian”). There’s a useful analogy with Austria - another multi-ethnic state that collapsed, leaving its name to a single, “core” nationality.

So it seems to me that a confident Lithuanian identity must incorporate aspects of the country’s deep-rooted multicultural history. A mono-ethnic Lithuania is a contradiction in terms.