How did Crimea become part of Ukraine?

In 2014, the Crimean peninsula again became part of Russia, joining it as two administrative-territorial units (regions) - the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. So when and how did Russia lose this territory, and why did Crimea become part of Ukraine, of which it had never been a part before?

The emergence of the Crimean autonomy and region

With the Bolsheviks coming to power in the country, the national outskirts began to receive their own territorial autonomies. In October 1921, such autonomy appeared in the Crimea, although about half of the inhabitants of the peninsula were already Russians. On October 18, 1921, the Crimean ASSR was formed as part of the RSFSR, in which there were two official languages ​​- Russian and Crimean Tatar.
As an autonomy, the Crimean Soviet Republic existed until 1945, when, after the forced deportation of the Crimean Tatars from the peninsula to Central Asia, the autonomy was abolished. As part of the RSFSR, instead of the Crimean ASSR, the Crimean region was formed.

Transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR

Carrying out all sorts of administrative and territorial changes in the vast expanse of the country, the Soviet leadership in 1954 reached the Crimea. In January 1954, a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU was held, which was headed by Malenkov G.M. At this meeting, a draft of the corresponding decree was developed for the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine. First Secretary Pavel Titov, who headed the Crimean region, had the courage to object to Khrushchev himself regarding the expediency of transferring Crimea to Ukraine. It didn't take long for an answer. Already in February 1954, Titov was removed from his post. True, he was not particularly offended by being sent to Moscow to the post of Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the USSR.
The transfer process went fairly smoothly. On February 5, 1954, the Council of Ministers submitted a corresponding proposal to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, which on the same day approved it and sent it to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR for approval. On February 12, the Presidium of the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet sent its request for the transfer of the Crimean region to the Ukrainian SSR to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
On February 19, as expected, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a Decree "On the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR." And on April 26, 1954, the law of the USSR Armed Forces on the issue of transfer was signed. Both documents were signed by K. E. Voroshilov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
In June 1954, corresponding changes were made to the constitutions of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR. Thus, the Crimean peninsula "migrated" from Russia to Ukraine.

Opinions on the reasons for the transfer of Crimea

There are various assumptions among experts regarding the reasons for the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine. According to the official version, recorded in the Decree of February 19.02.1954, XNUMX, the reason was "common economy, territorial proximity and close economic and cultural ties between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR."
As for unofficial opinions, the main ones are the following:
• It was a personal initiative of NS Khrushchev, who was closely associated with Ukraine, where he worked in leadership positions from 1938 to 1949. The Ukrainian historian Yuriy Shapoval does not agree with this opinion, who believes that the then more influential Malenkov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich played a much larger role in the transfer.
• This is a forced measure of the Soviet leadership to correct the difficult economic situation on the peninsula, associated with post-war devastation and a severe shortage of workers (especially after the deportation of the Crimean Tatars). Opponents of this point of view refute this argument, saying that the Crimean economy in 1954 had already overcome the devastation and reached the pre-war level.
• The American historian Mark Kramer cites Khrushchev's desire to increase the share of the Russian population in the Ukrainian SSR as the reason for the transfer of Crimea, as well as the search for support from the party apparatus of Ukraine in the struggle for power.
• According to the author of this article, at a time when the USSR was at the peak of its power, hardly anyone even allowed the idea of ​​a possible collapse of the country. The transfer of territories from one territorial-administrative unit to another was not perceived as something extraordinary. The authorities of that time believed that if today it is expedient to do so, then it must be done. I think they were sure that if in the future a new question arises, then it will always be possible to transfer something somewhere again. In addition, under the Soviet system, the transfer of certain territories had almost no effect on their reality. People continued to live as they live and did not even feel that they were in another republic.

Aftermath

The short-sighted policy of the Soviet leaders became the cause of numerous military conflicts in the post-Soviet space. In 1991, something happened that those who handed over Crimea and other territories clearly did not think about - the Soviet Union collapsed. As a result, Crimea was no longer part of a single country, but turned out to be abroad, being part of Ukraine. In this position, the peninsula was until 2014, when it again became part of Russia.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

The short-sighted policy of the Soviet leaders became the cause of numerous military conflicts in the post-Soviet space.

One might think that the current events are the result of the foresight of the leadership of modern Russia.

[Vend]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The short-sighted policy of the Soviet leaders became the cause of numerous military conflicts in the post-Soviet space.

One might think that the current events are the result of the foresight of the leadership of modern Russia.

That's exactly what it is. If this were not so, then Russia would now be crushed by sanctions so that we would already be on our knees. But we stand and will stand as long as there is Russian land!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Wend

That's right.

In Ukraine?

[Vend]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Wend

That's right.

In Ukraine?

On your earth!

[MauZerR]

On the knees?

[Vend]

Quote: MauZerR

On the knees?

Well, you will be on your knees, and we will be in full growth!

[MauZerR]

Take haloperidol.

[Grancer81]

And what, do the leaderships of other former republics of the USSR have very far-sighted politicians? Is it only necessary to kick Russia?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Grencer81

It is only necessary to kick Russia?

I mean, only the leadership of Russia scolds the Bolsheviks for the Crimea and the borders of Ukraine, the rest keep quiet in a rag.

[Grancer81]

And the rest of the Crimea is not interesting...Like the borders of Ukraine.

[north 2]

Crimea was handed over to Ukraine by Khrushchev on the eve of Khrushchev's attack on the personality and politics of the Great Stalin. It was the same if ordinary Cherezabornoguzadirischenko was immediately given the rank of foreman, with the position of head of the food warehouse. Gratitude and humility will be one hundred percent. We must not forget that at the same time, Khrushchev sent Ponomarenko, Stalin's most likely successor, into political exile just then.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: north 2

Crimea was handed over to Ukraine by Khrushchev on the eve of Khrushchev's attack on the personality and politics of Great Stalin.

Khrushchev had to put his people in all spheres of government, who were immigrants from Ukraine, where Khrushchev worked for a long time, especially many were transferred to Moscow (the same L.I. Brezhnev). Likewise, Crimea had to be removed from Moscow, especially since it was next to Ukraine. The entire Ukrainian nomenklatura was Khrushchev's support, but he did not take into account one thing, that this "support" was, as always, unreliable. And literally 10 years later, one of the pillars of his support, L.I. Brezhnev, made a party coup.

[kig]

It turns out that you can say as much as you like that Crimea has always been Russian and never Ukrainian, but ... When Ukraine decided to secede from the USSR, there was a very convenient moment to return everything as it was. But all the negotiators were very eager to become presidents, and did not pay attention to all sorts of little things. As a result, Ukraine became an independent state, and Crimea physically and legally became a part of it. And for some reason, Ukrainians call the return of Crimea to its traditional location an annexation. But of course they are wrong.

[MauZerR]

Then Kravchuk sank his teeth into Crimea, and Yeltsin got tired of pressing the former partner, especially as a result of the ever-memorable Belovezhskaya agreements, Crimea became part of Ukraine as Autonomy, with its president (Meshkov, a pro-Russian comrade) and Parliament, then the Ukrainians crushed Meshkov, who fled after the assassination attempt for his life, and the parliament became a purely declarative body, completely controlled by Kyiv. If at one time certain people (first Yeltsin, later Meshkov) showed their will, Crimea would have been Russian back in the 90s!

[Nafanya from the sofa]

The short-sighted policy of the Soviet leaders became the cause of numerous military conflicts in the post-Soviet space.

Direct association with the old joke:

Schaub I was so smart before
Like my Sara after

[Egoza]

Do not forget that when Crimea was annexed to Ukraine, Sevastopol was not part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It was a city of all-Union significance. How did Ukraine "grab" him? In addition, according to international laws, when the new state of Ukraine was formed, the inhabitants of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea had to be asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine. There should have been a referendum. None of this was done. So the return of Crimea to Russia through a referendum is absolutely legal, despite the cries from Kyiv.

[zenion]

The cries from Kyiv were because they had already agreed with the Merikans that they would hand over Crimea to the bases, it turned out like this - they took the money and dismantled it, but there is no Crimea here. The money will not be returned, plundered offshore, went to the palaces, in general - we must fight and an arms race has begun. Ukrainians do not feel sorry if a couple of million perish, but they will still someday die, so it's better sooner rather than later. Food economy.

[tatra]

The short-sighted policy of the Soviet leaders became the cause of numerous military conflicts in the post-Soviet space

The enemies of the communists always cowardly shift the blame and responsibility for what they themselves have done, including for the fact that they captured the USSR during their Perestroika, divided it among themselves, and began to unleash wars among themselves.
The complete lack of a sense of responsibility is one of the main qualities of the enemies of the communists who seized the USSR.

[Gardamir]

Until everything settles down, the topic of Crimea is favorable for creating hype, from scratch. Here, explain to me what is the difference how administrative borders are shuffled within the country. I have repeatedly written about my small Motherland. First, an independent town in the east of the Moscow kingdom, then as part of the Kazan province, then the Gorky Territory. And now in the Kirov region. And nobody writes scientific treatises.
Better tell how Boriska wanted power, that he was ready to divide the whole Union into pieces

[svp67]

Quote: Gardamir

Here, explain to me what is the difference how administrative borders are shuffled within the country.

Judging by the sad history of Yugoslavia and the USSR, there is still a difference ...

[Gardamir]

It's just that the current government is constantly engaged in nonsense. They always want to justify themselves to someone. Like Crimea was returned because Khrushchev unfairly handed it over to Ukraine. I say there was no Ukraine. Crimea in any format is Russian.

[Sotskiy]

Quote: Gardamir

Here, explain to me what is the difference how administrative borders are shuffled within the country.

I wonder what kind of "bomb" our "Garant" planted by transferring part of Ingushetia to Chechnya?
About this, too, something "scientific" treatises are not heard.

[MauZerR]

And he tore the Union to pieces. Together with partners in a dangerous business.

[Andrey VOV]

Regarding everything that happened then in relation to the Crimea, there is a wonderful lecture, let's call it that, the historian Yevgeny Spitsin, and this is also reflected in his book "Khrushchev's Slush"

[restless]

No one asked questions why, when they entered the USSR, they were tiny republics in the 20s, and when they left in 1991, these republics did not return the lands with which Russia provided them, and Russia paid all the debts for these republics. It is necessary to condemn the first and second presidents of the Russian Federation, who allowed this, but for some reason they were made "sacred cows", museums were opened at the expense of the population ripped off by privatization, all debts for the republics were closed, and they did not bother to return the land, and after all, our ancestors gave their lives and blood for them paid, again, as always done by our rulers through the fifth point. But is there a secret intention here paid for by our "partners" and why does the first president and his family live abroad?

[Vdi73]

To distribute imperial lands is not to collect no mind, no effort is needed.

[rocket757]

Questions, lessons of history ... they must be taught and not repeat previous mistakes.

[bandabas]

We need to think about Kazakhstan. Also a good piece was given with the Russian-speaking population. Now we are still reaping the fruits of the "small virgin lands".

[Alexey RA]

Already in February 1954, Titov was removed from his post. True, he was not particularly offended by being sent to Moscow to the post of Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the USSR.

About not really offended is another question. Because agriculture (and utilities) were areas whose leadership could be equated with driving to suicide - constant disruption of plans, disasters (including due to the intervention of an incompetent party vertical), etc.

[Sotskiy]

In 1991, something happened that those who handed over Crimea and other territories clearly did not think about - the Soviet Union collapsed.

Firstly, the Soviet Union did not collapse, it was purposefully destroyed.
Secondly. What happened in 1991, the author? The topic was not undeservedly reduced to one sentence. The younger generation could be told for the sake of lekbez, and not just listen to clichés about "Bolshevik atomic bombs"
Thirdly, why did they undeservedly ignore a remarkable personality in the transfer (more precisely, the surrender) of Crimea to Ukraine in 1992? Where is Boris Yeltsin in this story?
Nothing to do with it either?

[samarin1969]

The attempt to create administrative units on a national basis cost Russia dearly: disputes, wars, grievances.
France in the XVIII created 83 territorial departments - and silence ... except for Corsica.

[MauZerR]

The short-sighted policy of the Soviet leaders

Here it is not necessary to drive on the Soviets. Everything there was normal with politics. A single state with common economic ties between the Republics, in which no one could even imagine that IT could be destroyed. Crimea is territorially connected with the Ukrainian SSR (there was no Crimean bridge at that time, there was only a crossing) and it was easier to establish logistics, especially since there was a single network of railways and roads, and after the commissioning of the North Crimean Canal, Dnieper water went to Crimea, which allowed to develop agriculture, but it is impossible to organize water supply from the Kuban, the coast in Kerch is higher and the water will not flow by gravity, but pumping with pumps will be golden. Even in the economy of the USSR, without making a profit, they knew how to count money.
The article smacks of terry protection on the verge of stories about "time bombs planted by Lenin"

[bsk_una]

And how to understand Yeltsin, who did not even remember about the Crimea? the author, and where is the objectivity of your pussy. Nema, but it's a pity the vain work published above.

[Altmann]

In the former Czechoslovakia, we called such a policy Kocourkov "KOTSURKOV", this is a manifestation of stupidity. It's taken from a fairy tale, but fits perfectly here. Of course, this confused people around Crimea and abroad, so the term occupation is used in our country too>

[sla1372]

Yes, what is incomprehensible from just one logical conclusion of the transfer of the Russian Crimea Khokhlama is a crunch to appease their Bandera and the people did not even ask

[zenion]

The Soviet Union did not fall apart, it was destroyed, due to the fact that Tagged began to be called Gorby outside the cordon and this caressed his soul and carcass. In general, this act resembles a Jewish saying - A lousy Jew is worse than a fascist. A lousy Russian is even worse.

[pogis]

Sevastopol, as now, was not part of the Crimea, Ukraine occupied it in 91.