Are modern Poles/Lithuanians legitimate successors of the Polish-Lithuanian

>>2323571
Yeah senpai why not.

>>2323571
Poland is a prime example of russian communism ruining a beautiful and modern culture/state. Poland currently is viewed by most of the 'western' part of europa as cheap labor land with a backwards culture, and it once was perhaps the only western and modernized nation in the region.

Looking at that map is a reminder that it's a complicated issue.

The thing is only Poland and Lithuania had a "proper" cultural identity and their own elites within the scope of the Commonwealth. Ukrainians and those who were to be called Belarusians were mostly just peasants, subjects so they don't really have that much of a stake in that period of history.

Thus Ukrainians consider breaking away from the Commonwealth (only to immediately be conquered by Russia...) as a fouding moment in their history central to their identity - or at least 19th century Nationalists cast the narrative in those terms.

The Belarusians are the closest to "proper" WE WUZing as they tend to recall the Commonwealth somewhat fondly and like to consider themselves in part successors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which irks modern Lithuanians).

With Lithuania the problem is that while they've had their own identity and elites, those elites ended up Polonised. If you look for the descendants of great Commonwealth-era Lithuanian families (e.g. the Radziwills) today you will find them in Poland and considering themselves Polish. In this way you could say the Lithuanians were robbed of that identity and the remaining modern Lithuanians are not much better off than the people in Belarus and Ukraine. This is part of the reason why the 19th century nationalist sentiment in Lithuania rejected the Commonwealth past. Modern Lithuanians look at the era as being under Polish domination so they are not prone to WE WUZING (except to pre-Union times).

Poles have had a very continuous cultural succession from the Commonwealth times (e.g. with many of the same major families remaining prominent - some still are), even though the commie era really chewed their old order up.

tl;dr: Poles are sort of legitimate, Belarusians are WE WUZing a bit, Ukrainians are WE WUZing but about something else, and Lithuanians are actively rejecting that identity.

>>2323571
The Poles, absolutely, given how their cultural continuation from that period was never put to an end. Besides, they've never adopted another identity, they were always Poles, regardless on the era they've lived in.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania itself formed as an successor and pretender for Kievian Rus. Even the title was GD of Lithuania, Ruthetia and Samagotia. Contemporary chronicles used Lithuanian Rus to differentiate it from Moscovian Rus. So, in this case it was certainly a project of the elites. Hence the chancelry slavic and polonisation, polish claims in Russia etc.

The Lithuanian State, however, and by extention the Lithuanian nation form on another foundation - that of peasantry and catholicsism. The Lithuanian nation formed in the late 19th/early 20th century in opposition of the former polonised elites and russification policies of Imperial Russia.

To answer the original question - lithuanian roots more so in Samagotia than than the GD. This is both due to the blood (the noble elite were always under prestigeus foreign influence) and political situation during the formative yeas during the birth of the Nation and the State of Lithuania (they knowingly opposed the elites and slavicism and focused on ths peasantry and catholocism).

>>2323571

Poles seem to have historically always identified as Polish