Military Review

The transfer of the Cossack army hetman to the Moscow service

65
At the end of the previous article “Formation of the Dnieper and Zaporizhia troops and their service to the Polish-Lithuanian state”It was shown how, since the end of the 16th century, the repressive policy of the Commonwealth against the Orthodox population of the Dnieper Cossacks and the whole of Ukraine began to grow. The Polish order caused opposition among the Orthodox, reaching popular uprisings and the main forces in this struggle were the Dnieper Cossacks. The continuous violence of Poland against the Cossack population was also reinforced by its division, some went to the left bank and to Zaporizhzhya Bottom, others continued to serve Poland in the regiment regiments. But because of the violence of the Poles, tension continued to grow in the register army, and more and more insurgents against the power of the Poles emerged from this seemingly loyal Poland environment. The most prominent of the rebels of that period was Zinoviy-Bogdan Khmelnitsky. An educated and successful careerist, a loyal servant of the king because of the arbitrariness and rudeness of the Chigirinsky sub-elders, the Polish nobleman Chaplinsky, he turned into a stubborn and merciless enemy of Poland. Independence supporters began to cluster around Khmelnitsky and the ferment against the Poles began to spread. Having entered into an alliance with Perekop Murza, Tugai-Bey Khmelnitsky came to the Sich, was elected a hetman and with 9 thousands of Cossacks of the Ground Army he started the fight with Poland in 1647.


The transfer of the Cossack army hetman to the Moscow service
Fig. 1 Rebellious Cossacks


2 May 1648, the advanced Polish troops met with the troops of Khmelnitsky at the Yellow Waters. After a three-day battle, the Poles suffered a terrible defeat, and the hetmans Potocki and Kalinowski were captured. After this victory, Khmelnitsky sent out wagons calling for a revolt against the gentry, the Jews and Catholicism, after which the entire Russian population and Cossacks rose. Several “Haidamak pens” were formed, which went for a walk in all directions. During this unrest, King Vladislav died. Since the Crimean Tatars fought against Poland on the side of Khmelnitsky, Moscow was compelled, under an agreement on mutual aid, to render Poland military assistance against the Tatars in 40 thousand troops. From that moment on, the civil war in Polish Ukraine became increasingly tangled in political hypocrisy, hypocrisy, intrigue and controversy. The Tatars were forced to retreat to the Crimea, and Khmelnitsky, having lost an ally, ceased hostilities and sent ambassadors to Warsaw demanding to soften the plight of the Russian population and increase the Cossack roster to 12 000 people. Prince Vishnevetsky spoke out against the Cossack demands, and after a break the war resumed. At first, the Polish troops managed to stop the Cossack attack on Western Ukraine, but the Tatars again came to the aid of Khmelnitsky. A panic spread among the Poles that the Tatars bypassed them from the rear. The Polish commanders, succumbing to panic, left the troops and fled, followed by the troops. The prey of the Cossacks became a huge Polish wagon train and rears, and after this victory they moved to Zamost. By this time, Jan Casimir was elected king of Poland, who ordered Khmelnitsky, as a vassal of the king, to retreat from Zamost. Khmelnitsky, personally acquainted with Casimir, retreated from Zamoć and solemnly entered Kiev. Polish ambassadors arrived there for negotiations, but they ended in nothing. The war continued again and the Polish troops entered the Podolia. Khmelnitsky was at the height of glory. Khan Giray and the Don Cossacks themselves came to his aid. With these troops, the Allies laid siege to the Poles in Zbrage. To help the besieged Poles, the king approached with troops and discharged Khmelnytsky from the hetman. But Khmelnitsky courageous maneuver, without removing the siege, surrounded the king and forced to negotiate. 2 agreements were concluded, separately with the Cossacks and Tatars. Cossacks were given the same rights, the registry increased to 40000 people. Amnesty was promised to all the rebellious Cossacks, and Chigirin, the ancient capital of Cherkas and black hoods, was handed over to Khmelnitsky. Polish troops were withdrawn from all Cossack places, and women were forbidden to live there. A peace treaty was concluded with Khan, under which the king pledged to pay PLN 200 000. The Tatars, having received money and robbed the Kiev region, went to their place. In 1650, the Sejm approved the Zborovsky Treaty and the pans began to return to their Ukrainian estates and began to avenge their slaves who had robbed their estates. This caused dissatisfaction with the slaves. The number of Cossacks who wanted to serve in the register exceeded 40 thousand people and there were also dissatisfied among the Cossacks. But the main discontent caused Khmelnitsky himself, they saw in him a supporter and conductor of the Polish order. Under the pressure of these sentiments, Khmelnitsky again entered into relations with the Crimean Khan and the Turkish Sultan, promising to give support to Turkey for the support. He demanded that the lords stop repressions and fulfill the conditions of the Zborovsky Treaty. This demand aroused the indignation of the prudential lord, and it unanimously opposed it. Khmelnitsky turned to Moscow for help, which also demanded that Poland improve the situation of the Orthodox population. But Moscow was also aware of Khmelnytsky’s double-dealing and his relations with the Crimea and Turkey, and secret surveillance was established on him. In April, 1651, the fighting began. The legate of Pope Innocent brought to Poland his blessing and absolution for all the fighters against the unfaithful schismatics. On the other hand, the Metropolitan of Corinth, Josaph, surrounded Khmelnitsky with a sword consecrated at the Holy Sepulcher, and blessed the troops for the war with Poland. In conjunction with Khmelnitsky, the Crimean Khan Islam-Giray spoke, but he was unreliable, because Don Cossacks threatened him with a raid on the Crimea. The troops came together under Berestechko. In the course of a fierce battle, the Tatars suddenly abandoned their front and went to the Crimea. Khmelnitsky rushed after him and began to accuse Khan of treason, but was taken hostage at the rate of Khan and released only at the border. Returning Khmelnitsky learned that because of the treachery of the Tatars in the battle with the Poles were destroyed before the 30000 Cossacks. The Poles moved into the Cossack lands 50 thousands of troops and began to ravage the country. Khmelnitsky saw that he could not cope with the Poles, the Tatars betrayed him and he found it necessary to surrender under the patronage of the Moscow tsar. But cautious Moscow, knowing from the past about the boundless treachery of the Dnieper and their hetmans, did not rush to help Khmelnytsky and he was forced to conclude a humiliating treaty with Poland in the White Church. However, Moscow saw that the world of the Cossacks with Poland was not strong, the enmity between them had gone too far and that sooner or later it would have to make a choice, namely:
- either to accept the Cossacks into citizenship and, as a result, to start a war with Poland because of this
- or to see them as subjects of the Turkish Sultan, with all the resulting geopolitical consequences.

The domination of the Poles, which followed the Belotserkovsky Treaty, and the terror they unleashed, forced the Cossacks and the people to move en masse to the left bank. Khmelnitsky again equipped ambassadors to Moscow with a request for help. But at the same time, the ambassadors of the Crimea and Turkey were constantly with him, and he had no faith. Moscow found the best for the Cossacks to be in the citizenship of the Polish king and by diplomatic methods was bothering about the rights of the Western Russian Orthodox population. The Poles responded that Khmelnitsky was sold to the Turkish sultan and accepted the Busurmanian faith. The tangled tangle of insurmountable contradictions and mutual hatred no longer allowed us to have peace in Polish Ukraine. In the summer of 1653, the Turkish embassy arrived at Khmelnitsky to take the oath from the Cossacks. But the military clerk Vyhovsky wrote: "... we no longer believe the Tatars, because they are only looking for their womb." Moscow had to make a difficult decision, because it meant a war with Poland, and the lessons of failure of the Livonian war were still fresh in the memory. To resolve the 1 issue of October, the Zemsky Sobor "of all the bureaucrats of the people" gathered in Moscow. After long debates, the council sentenced: “for the honor of the kings Michael and Alexei to stand and wage war against the Polish king. And so that hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky and the All Zaporizhia Army, with cities and lands, the sovereign deigned to take under his arm. ” Ambassadors and troops were sent to Chigirin, and the population was to be sworn. In Pereyaslavl, the Rada was gathered and Khmelnitsky announced that he had accepted the citizenship of the Moscow Tsar.

Fig. 2 Pereyaslavskaya Rada


Khmelnitsky with the Cossacks took the oath, they were promised their liberties and the registry in 60 000 people. However, a strong party came up against reunification with Great Russia and was led by its prominent Ataman of the Zaporizhia Army, Ivan Sirko. He left for Zaporozhye with his comrades and did not take the oath. After the adoption of the Cossacks and the population in the citizenship of the king, Moscow inevitably was drawn into the war with Poland.

Fig. 3 Ataman Sirko


By this time, significant changes took place in the armed forces of the Moscow kingdom. Along with the formation of the army of archers, children of the boyars, nobles and Cossacks, the government began to form the troops of the "new system". Foreigners were invited to form and train them.

So already in 1631 there were: 4 colonel, 3 lieutenant colonel, 3 major, 13 captain, 24 captain, 28 ensigns, 87 sergeants, corporals and other ranks. Total 190 people are foreigners. The regiments of the new system consisted of soldiers, Reitars and dragoons. To increase the number of these troops, the government issued a decree on the compulsory recruitment of a single soldier from 3 people of the male population of the right age. By 1634, 10 regiments were formed with a total of 17 000 men, 6 soldiers and 4 reiter and dragoon regiments. In the new regiments, the number of Russian “foremen” quickly grew and already in 1639, from 744, foremen of 316 commanders were foreigners and 428 Russians, mostly from boyar children.

Figure.4 Cossack, Archer and Soldier


In March, 1654, on the Maiden Field in Moscow, a review of the troops took place and they went west along the Smolensk road, and Trubetskoy was ordered from Bryansk to unite with the troops of Khmelnitsky and strike at the Polish possessions. Khmelnitsky 20 sent thousands of Cossacks under the command of hetman Zolotarenko. The guard of the southern borders from the Crimean Khan was entrusted to the Don Cossacks. The war began successfully, was taken Smolensk and other cities. But with the beginning of the war, the true character of the leaders of the newly attached land was determined. Under the pretext of a threat from the Crimea, Khmelnitsky remained in Chigirin and did not come to the front. Zolotarenko at the front kept himself arrogantly and independently, did not obey the Moscow governor, but did not fail to seize the reserves prepared for the Moscow troops, finally threw the front and went to New Bykhov. The king wrote to Khmelnitsky that he was dissatisfied with his sluggishness, after which he spoke, but, having reached the Belaya Tserkov, he returned to Chigirin. From the side of Khmelnitsky and his foremen there was a complete unwillingness to reckon with the authority of the Moscow authorities. He was supported by the clergy, dissatisfied with the acceptance of the citizenship of the Moscow Patriarchate. Despite this, in 1655, Russian troops had decisive success. The international situation for Russia is clearly favorable. Sweden opposed Poland. The Swedish king Karl X Gustav was an outstanding commander and statesman and had great military forces. He utterly defeated the Polish army, occupied all of Poland, including Warsaw and Krakow. King Jan Casimir fled to Silesia. But Moscow quite rightly feared over-gaining Sweden and over-weakening Poland, and in Vilnius 1656 concluded an armistice with Poland, under which Poland returned a large part of the occupied lands. Khmelnitsky and Cossack elders were extremely dissatisfied with this decision, and most of all with the fact that they were not allowed to negotiate and did not consider their opinion. And their behavior was not surprising. The transition of the Dnieper Cossacks under the authority of the Moscow Tsar took place, on the one hand, and on the other hand, under the influence of a combination of circumstances and external causes. The Cossacks, fleeing from their final defeat by Poland, sought protection under the authority of the Moscow tsar or the Turkish sultan. And Moscow took them to keep from going under the rule of Turkey. From the side of the Moscow Tsar, the Cossacks were given their liberties, but demands were made as to a serving army. And the Cossack officers did not want to give up their privileges in the management of the army. This duality of the gentry consciousness of the Ukrainian elite was characteristic from the very beginning of the annexation of Little Russia to Great Russia, and it was not eliminated even later, and it has not yet been eradicated. It is the basis of the Russian-Ukrainian mistrust and misunderstanding that has characterized for many centuries and became the basis for numerous betrayals and excesses of the Ukrainian gentry, revolts and manifestations of separatism and collaborationism. These bad habits spread over time from the Ukrainian gentry to the wider masses. Subsequent история three centuries of living together the two, and not becoming fraternal peoples, as the history of the twentieth century gave a number of examples of this situation. In the 1918 and 1941 years, Ukraine almost meekly accepted the German occupation. Only after some time, the “charm” of the German occupation led some Ukrainians to start a struggle against the occupiers, but the number of collaborators was also always large. So from 2 million Soviet people who collaborated with the Nazis during the war, more than half were citizens of Ukraine. Ideas of independence, separatism, hostility towards Muscovites (read the Russian people) constantly agitated the national consciousness of many Ukrainians under any authority. As soon as Gorbachev shook the USSR, as Ukrainian separatists and collaborators immediately and ardently picked up his destructive ideas and reinforced them with massive popular sympathy and support. It is no coincidence that it was President Kravchuk, who arrived in Belovezhye in 1991, said at the Minsk airport that Ukraine would not sign the new union treaty. And he had for this a strong legitimate basis, the decision of the All-Ukrainian referendum on the independence of Ukraine.

But back to that old story. Already with the beginning of the Polish war, Khmelnitsky and his chieftains acted completely independently of the Moscow governor and did not want to obey them. Khmelnitsky himself assured the king of loyalty, and he was looking for new allies. He set himself the broad goal of forming a federal union of the Dnieper Cossacks, the Ukrainian suburban population, Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania under the protectorate of the Polish king, and at the same time concluded an agreement with the Swedish king on the division of Poland. During these separate negotiations, Khmelnitsky died without finishing the matter. Death saved him from treason, so in Russian history he, the only Ukrainian hetman, is rightly revered as a national hero-unifier of two Slavic peoples. After Khmelnitsky’s death in 1657, his son Yuri, who was completely unsuitable for this role, became hetman. Among the Cossack elders began feuds, they lagged behind Poland, but did not stick to Moscow. They were divided on the left bank where Samko, Bryukhovetsky and Samoilovich dominated, holding on to the Moscow side and right bank, where the leaders were Vyhovsky, Yury Khmelnitsky, Teteria and Doroshenko, to Poland. Soon, Vyhovsky removed Yuri Khmelnitsky, gathered Rada in Chigirin and was elected hetman, but the Cossacks and some colonels did not recognize him. Thus began the thirty-year, brutal, bloody and merciless civil war in Ukraine, which received the name Ruin (devastation) in Ukrainian history. Vyhovsky began to play a double game. On the one hand, he conducted secret negotiations with Poland and the Crimea and initiated Cossacks against the presence of Moscow troops. On the other hand, he swore allegiance to Moscow and asked for permission to punish the recalcitrant Cossacks of Poltava and Zaporozhye, and he succeeded. Moscow believed him, and not Poltava Colonel Pushkar, who denounced that Vyhovsky was demolishing with Poland, the Crimea and Turkey and embarrassed the Cossacks against the Tsar, asserting that the Tsar wanted to take liberties from the Cossacks and write Cossacks as soldiers. Vyhovsky, on the other hand, declared the Poltava and Zaporozhian Cossacks to be rebels and broke them, and burned Poltava. But the betrayal came to light when, in 1658, Vyhovsky tried to dislodge Russian troops from Kiev, but was beaten off by them. Given this situation, Poland interrupted the truce and again came out against Russia in a war, but the Polish troops under the command of Gonevsky were defeated, and he himself was taken prisoner. However, in June 1659 of the year Vyhovsky, in alliance with the Tatars and Poles, arranged for the Russian troops under the command of Prince Pozharsky a tailgate at Konotop and severely beat him. But the Cossacks and their allies still did not have unity. Yuri Khmelnitsky with the Cossacks attacked the Crimea and the Tatars hastily left Vyhovsky.

Cossacks were in conflict with each other and with the Poles. Polish commander Potocki informed the king: “... do not please your royal favor to expect anything good from the local region for yourself. All residents of the western side of the Dnieper will soon be Moscow, because they will overpower their eastern side. ” And it is true that soon the Cossack colonels left Vyhovsky one by one and swore allegiance to the Tsar of Moscow. October 17 1659 was convened in Pereyaslavl, a new Parliament. Yuri Khmelnitsky was again elected hetman by both sides of the Dnieper, he and the foremen took the oath of office in Moscow. Part of the Cossacks expressed dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Rada and Colonels Odinets and Doroshenko went to Moscow with a petition, namely:
- To Moscow troops were withdrawn from everywhere except Pereyaslavl and Kiev
- That the court was decided only by local Cossack authorities
- For the Kiev Metropolitan to submit not to the Moscow, but to the Byzantine Patriarch

Some of these requirements were met. However, the new accession of the Cossacks to Moscow prompted the Crimea and Poland to an alliance, after the conclusion of which they began military operations. Small Russian troops stationed in Ukraine under Sheremetyev’s command were besieged in Chudov. The Cossacks, immediately upon the approach of the Poles and the Crimeans, entered into negotiations with them and swore allegiance to the Polish king. Seeing all kinds of treason, Sheremetyev was forced to surrender and went to the Crimea as a prisoner. Miraculous defeat was even more severe than Konotop. Young and capable voevody died, and most of the army destroyed. The Dnieper Cossacks again went to the service of the Polish king, but he no longer had any faith, and he immediately took them to the “fry”, making it clear that the freemen was finished. Right-bank Ukraine was subjected to terrible devastation by the Poles and Tatars, and the population was turned into a serf of Polish landlords. After the defeat in Chudov, Russia did not have enough troops to continue the struggle in Ukraine and she was ready to let her go. Poland did not have the money to continue the war. Left Bank and Zaporozhye were left to themselves, with varying success fought off the Tatars, but because of the strife could not elect a hetman. The reconciliation in Ukraine did not occur, the Cossack officers fiercely intrigued among themselves and rushed between Moscow, Poland, the Crimea and Turkey. But they had no faith anywhere. Under these conditions, in the 1667, the Andrusovo peace was concluded between Moscow and Poland, according to which Ukraine was divided by the Dnieper, its eastern part came into the possession of Moscow, and the western part - to Poland.

Fig. 5 Ukrainian Cossacks of the XVII century


In Muscovy at that time, there was also restlessness, there was a Razin revolt. Simultaneously with the rebellion of Razin in Ukraine no less important events took place. The division of the Dnieper in the Andrusovo world caused strong discontent of all layers of the Dnieper population. Confusion and vacillation reigned in the country. On the right bank of Chigirin, hetman Doroshenko declared himself a subject of the Turkish Sultan. In the left bank, Bryukhovetsky, having received boyars and estates from the tsar, began to reign uncontrollably, but continued to play a double game with respect to Moscow. In the western side was the third hetman Honenchko, a supporter and protege of Poland. Zaporozhye rushed and did not know where to stick. The Kiev Metropolitan Methodius became the enemy of Moscow. All the opponents of Moscow finally gathered the secret Rada in Gadyach, but the whole matter was hampered by the strife inside the Ukrainian gentry. Nevertheless, the Rada decided to unite by all parties, to enter into the citizenship of the Turkish Sultan and to go to the lands of Moscow together with the Crimeans and the Turks, and Doroshenko also demanded to go to the Poles. Bryukhovetsky ultimatum demanded the withdrawal of Moscow troops from the left bank. From Gadyach to Don, a letter was written in which it was written: “Moscow with the Poles decided to destroy the glorious Army of Zaporozhskoye and Don and completely destroy it. I ask and I warn you, do not be enticed by their treasury, but be in fraternal union with Mr. Stenka (Razin), as we are with our Zaporozhye brethren. ” Another Cossack insurrection rose up against Moscow, and together with it all the surrounding demons gathered. Tatars came to the aid of the Dnieper and the Moscow troops left not only the left-bank Ukraine (Hetmanate), but also some of their cities. As a result of Bryukhovetsky's treason, 48 cities and townships were lost. But Doroshenko, who said “Bryukhovetsky is thin and Cossack, he is not natural,” rose against Bryukhovetsky. The Cossacks did not want to defend Bryukhovetsky and he was executed. But Doroshenko was called the hetman of His Majesty Khan and the authority of the Cossacks for his citizenship to the Sultan.

The ferment and troubles with the participation of many hetmans, various atamans, Tatars, Turks, Poles, Muscovites continued until the 1680-ies, until the Cossack colonel Mazepa made a proposal to Moscow to streamline the defense of the Hetmanate. He advised to increase the number of troops, but to reduce the number of governors, who by their troubles with each other spoil the general order. The young talent was noticed by Moscow, and after hetman Samoilovich was arrested on charges of treason, Mazepa was elected to his place in 1685 year. Soon the eternal peace was concluded with Turkey and Poland. It was in such the hardest internal and external conditions of the Ukrainian turmoil that the Cossack troops of the Hetmanate took over the Moscow service.

Mazepa successfully hetman nearly a quarter of a century and his hetmanship was very productive for Moscow and the Cossacks. He managed to stop the civil war (ruin), to preserve the great Cossack autonomy, to pacify the Cossack sergeant and put it in the service of the Moscow kingdom. He also managed to instill in the Moscow authorities great confidence in himself and his work was highly valued. But Mazepa, like his predecessors, was addicted to dependence on the Moscow tsar and concealed the hope of escaping and establishing military independence. Mazepa, having the confidence of the Cossacks and the Moscow government, outwardly expressed submissiveness and waited for an opportunity. The tremendous treason of Mazepa and the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks on the eve of the Poltava battle encouraged Tsar Peter to defeat the Dnieper Cossacks coolly and mercilessly. Later, during the “Indian rule” it was partially reanimated. However, Petrovsky lesson did not go in store. In the second half of the 18th century, a fierce and uncompromising struggle of Russia unfolded for Lithuania and Black Sea coast. In this struggle, the Dnipro people showed themselves again unreliably, rebelled, many treacherously changed and ran to the enemy camp. The cup of patience overflowed and in 1775, by the decree of Empress Catherine II, the Zaporizhian Sich was destroyed, as expressed in the decree, “as a godless and unnatural community, not suitable for the extension of the human race”, Izyumok, Akhtyrsky and Kharkov. But this is a completely different and rather tragic story for the Dnieper Cossacks.

Gordeev A.A. History of the Cossacks
Istorija.o.kazakakh.zaporozhskikh.kak.onye.izdrevle.zachalisja.1851.
Letopisnoe.povestvovanie.o.Malojj.Rossii.i.ejo.narode.i.kazakakh.voobshhe.1847. A. Rigelman
Author:
Articles from this series:
Siberian Cossack Epic
Old Cossack ancestors
Cossacks and the annexation of Turkestan
Education Volga and Yaitsky Cossack Troops
Cossacks in Time of Troubles
Seniority (education) and the formation of the Don Cossack troops in the Moscow service
Azov seat and the transition of the Don troops in the Moscow service
Formation of the Dnieper and Zaporizhia troops and their service to the Polish-Lithuanian state
The transfer of the Cossack army hetman to the Moscow service
Treason of Mazepa and the pogrom of Cossack liberties by Tsar Peter
The uprising of Pugachev and the elimination of the Dnieper Cossacks by Empress Catherine
Cossacks in World War 1812 of the year. Part I, pre-war
Cossacks in World War 1812 of the year. Part II, the invasion and expulsion of Napoleon
Cossacks in World War 1812 of the year. Part III, foreign campaign
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. slacker
    slacker 26 September 2013 08: 51 New
    -11
    Dneprovtsy proved themselves again insecure, rebelled, many treacherously cheated and ran into the camp of the enemy


    Well, they have such genetics. Nature imperiously requires them to be sold to anyone, even contrary to reason.
    By the way, here in Berlin, probably half of the prostitutes from Ukraine. Probably they are also from the Cossack family :)
    1. mazepa
      mazepa 26 September 2013 09: 47 New
      0
      Something you are very knowledgeable. What genetics do you have?
      1. fokino1980
        fokino1980 26 September 2013 22: 12 New
        +2
        Nazi genetics!
    2. apostol88
      apostol88 26 September 2013 10: 22 New
      15
      And you are a “True” patriot, why do you live in Germany, and not at home ?!
    3. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 14: 35 New
      +9
      slacker
      What genetics? So you can’t say, you can agree to inferior nations ... I hope you do not want to offend the Ukrainians or quarrel us with them? The fact that you have a lot of Ukrainians there is only a consequence of the efforts of their independent leadership ... judging by the current course, the Ukrainian leadership is satisfied with this and it wants to strengthen the trend ... but what does genetics have to do with it?

      And the article is good ... but I did not evaluate it because of the lyrical digression of the author. who for some reason forgot that there was no Ukrainian nation then ... there weren’t another couple of centuries. What do you mean, did not become fraternal people? We were one people. These were the same Russian people. It was their elite that was really largely polonized.
      Further, the author for some reason forgets the efforts of Austria-Hungary and Germany, whose special services can rightly record in their achievements the appearance of independent men in the 20th century ... damn, even officers of the General Staff of Austria-Hungary were involved in the creation of the movement. And after WWII, all Nazi agents went under the wing of the Anglo-Saxons ... Even with the Germans (it seems in 2), the Ukrainian Nazis fed up the Block of Subjugated Nations - a Russophobic organization that took on the function of liberating all non-Russian nations supposedly enslaved by the Russians .. aha, under the banner with a swastika ...
      What do you think, what happened after we destroyed the 3rd Reich?
      Correct organization with the same cannibals. under the same naschivanu passed under the wing of the Americans ... it was expanded and ugLubIb. The cannibals from the Hitlerite Einsatzgruppes and SS formations worked in it.
      This bloc was the focal point for inflating separatism in the USSR. Almost all independent activists in the republics, all Russophobic movements were supervised and patronized by figures from this bloc. There were about 2 dozen "enslaved" in the bloc. in the 70s, Vietnamese and Koreans were accepted there. But the special efforts have ALWAYS been directed to Ukrainian independents. By the way, the wife of Yushch is from the family of one of the founders of the bloc.
      So that in that. that under Gorbaty, self-proprietors flourished in Ukraine, a direct merit of the titanic efforts of the Nazis and their American successors ... and there’s nothing to reel in on Ukrainians, it’s unpleasant to read. I repeat, the article is excellent. balanced and informative, but such passages nullify all the advantages of the article.
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 15: 01 New
        +4
        smile
        And I’ll supplement it. To one degree or another, less than a million of our citizens collaborated with the Germans. A less well-founded number is about 700 thousand. This included national units. and Hee Wee, and policemen, and elders, and typists, translators, and cooks ... Why increase the number of people who voluntarily or involuntarily collaborated with the Germans, for effect? Million Ukrainians in the service of Hitler? This is the blue dream of Bandera and Goebbels, but, fortunately, is not true. If we discard the non-combatant HVI and the administration, it will turn out, with arms in hand, about 300 thousand fought for Hitler. Of these, about a hundred thousand Ukrainians are about the same as the Baltic states, in general it is not good to talk about a million traitors to the Ukrainian people ...
      2. igorelo
        igorelo 26 September 2013 20: 55 New
        +2
        The Ukrainian language is hundreds of years old, it was formed as Russian and Belarusian after the collapse of Kievan Rus. And there were no projects to create the Ukrainian language. This is nonsense. And the polonization of Ukraine was felt only in Galicia, and even then not for long.
        1. Uhe
          Uhe 26 September 2013 22: 12 New
          0
          Kievan Rus did not exist at all, this is a conditional term adopted by modern scholars;) However, the Ukrainian language, officially adopted in Ukraine today, is precisely the Austro-Hungarian project, and the language that was formed during the capture of this part of Russia by Poland, in in fact, practically did not differ from the Russian, except for small-town words and pronunciation.
          1. garik73
            garik73 5 October 2013 22: 47 New
            0
            What about the calendar? Why is the Russian (RUSSIAN) calendar identical to English?
        2. smile
          smile 27 September 2013 03: 15 New
          0
          igorelo
          Yes :))) the Russian language is hundreds of years old ... and then, towards the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Ukrainian and Belarussian languages ​​budded from him. And after the collapse of Rumi, the capital of which at that time was Kiev, nothing could have been formed, more than half a millennium before the conquest of the Ukrainian nation .... but polonization is not nonsense, look at the map which lands the Poles took for themselves at 15- 16th century ...
        3. OPTR
          OPTR 28 September 2013 11: 12 New
          +1
          It is more appropriate, as one of the forum participants noted in another topic, to talk about imposing a Western dialect as the only correct Ukrainian language, which is characteristic of the influence of polonization, etc.
          But this is not a language creation. Ideas about the artificial creation of language are pulled by the Nobel from philology.
          Nobody says that the Belarusian language was created artificially. And the one who studied Ukrainian, Belarusian is very understandable.

          Polonization (albeit little) was felt everywhere. Even a dress in Moscow was once influenced by the Polish invasion. And in Kiev there is still a place with the name Biskupschina (from the word bishop).

          But in general it is interesting, these steps about the adoption of citizenships indicated in the article, do they have old documents in support of? Has it been published somewhere?
          We must try to search.
    4. MG42
      MG42 26 September 2013 15: 21 New
      +6
      Quote: Loafer
      Well, they have such genetics. Nature imperiously requires them to be sold to anyone, even contrary to reason.
      By the way, here in Berlin, probably half of the prostitutes from Ukraine

      Said a native of Ukraine in Germany .. that really worry compatriots competitors lol there, so Ukraine doesn’t have EU membership yet, don’t worry much about it ..
    5. Centaurus
      Centaurus 26 September 2013 21: 20 New
      0
      Probably 90 percent of them are the same Ukrainian as you German, uncle)))
    6. fokino1980
      fokino1980 26 September 2013 22: 11 New
      +1
      loafer! Have you ever read the article? And then from history, most of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks left for the Kuban at the behest of Catherine 2 and there they proved their loyalty. By the way, only the Kuban Cossacks (former Cossacks) guarded the Romanov family! Are you probably a dope ???
    7. Harakternik
      Harakternik 26 September 2013 23: 50 New
      +1
      they probably make you a lot of competition? Clementure beat off from your holey asshole wassat
  2. slacker
    slacker 26 September 2013 08: 52 New
    +4
    ... in 1775, by decree of Empress Catherine II, the Zaporizhzhya Sich was destroyed, as expressed in the decree, "as a godly and unnatural community, not suitable for the extension of the human race"


    Well, this phrase of the Empress is called that it beats not in the eyebrow, but in the eye.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 26 September 2013 15: 30 New
      +5
      She described the Poles in about the same way.
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 26 September 2013 15: 54 New
        0
        Rcnfnb jxtym dthyj j [fhfrnthbpjdfkf!
        I'm serious...
    2. revnagan
      revnagan 26 September 2013 19: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: Loafer
      ..in 1775, by decree of Empress Catherine II, the Zaporizhzhya Sich was destroyed, as expressed in the decree, “as a godly and unnatural community, not suitable for the extension of the human race”

      Yeah, when you need to shoot a dog, they say that she has scabies ...
    3. igorelo
      igorelo 26 September 2013 20: 59 New
      +1
      That's exactly what it was not for her free slaughter that suited but disenfranchised slaves. She introduced serfdom in Ukraine
      1. Uhe
        Uhe 26 September 2013 22: 14 New
        0
        Does “B” mean the state? Was it then? ;)

        She introduced the final slavery for the entire Russian people throughout the Russian Empire, and not only in Little Russia, or in Ukraine, as you say.
      2. xan
        xan 26 September 2013 23: 11 New
        0
        Quote: igorelo
        That's exactly what it was not for her free slaughter that suited but disenfranchised slaves. She introduced serfdom in Ukraine

        What nonsense! where are the firewood from?
        And what happened before the Russians in Ukraine? The tycoons were even executed with a vengeance at their whim, not to mention commoners.
  3. ddmm09
    ddmm09 26 September 2013 09: 25 New
    -7
    Quote: Loafer
    By the way, here in Berlin, probably half of the prostitutes from Ukraine. Probably they are also from the Cossack family :)

    Modern Ukraine has nothing to do with Cossacks at all. Cossacks are a part of Russian culture, and not Ukrainian. If for that matter, the relationship with the Zaporozhye Cossacks (Cherkasy) was sometimes hostile, this does not mean that they are not worthy of respect. We look at maps of that period and study history so that we don’t write nonsense. For your comment - 1.
    1. mazepa
      mazepa 26 September 2013 10: 03 New
      -4
      What are you saying ... part of Russian culture ... I do not understand you. You have Peter 1, Catherine, Alexander, and you all climb into Ukrainian culture. In order to understand that Cossacks, at least Zaporizhzhya, part of Ukrainian culture need to be read at least by Ukrainian writers, you must at least understand that mainly people from nearby towns and villages went to Cossacks, you should at least look at what language they spoke. call it part of Russian culture, although what to call culture, in my opinion, their culture is more like the culture of Zaporizhzhya Cossacks. Can Cossacks be called cultural dependence on the Russian Empire - absurdity.
      In general, it may not be known to you, but the Cossacks had nicknames and they reached us in the form of surnames, for example, I have friends with the surnames Skur, Seda, hetmanenko, falcon, etc. Therefore, even judging by my friends, who are Ukrainians, they are 100% related to Ukrainian culture. Therefore, dear, be proud of your culture and do not meddle in ours.
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 14: 47 New
        +2
        mazepa
        Ah well done! You’re right, you need to look at what language the Cossacks spoke ... in Russian they spoke interspersed with polonisms ... well, then there were no Ukrainians as a nation, and even more so, the Ukrainian language. You can still "see." what they called themselves ... here, after all, byad-Russian ... :)))
        Ukrainians isolated themselves as a nation only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ... Just do not need fairy tales about how dinosaurs came from ancient ukrov ... :)))
        And the rest, oddly enough, you are right — the Ukrainian culture is the successor of the Russian, and, of course, the traditions of the Russian people living in Sich are an integral part of Ukrainian culture.
        If you don’t know, then All the names came from nicknames — this is not the prerogative of Ukrainians ... :))) but we don’t get into your culture — it’s just our common culture. we are all her heirs and we don’t like it. when someone is eager to separate us and separate us.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 17 New
          +3
          “But there were no such comrades like in Russian soil. There were no such comrades anywhere else.” I can not vouch for the accuracy of quoting, but Svidomo obviously will never forgive this arrow from the mid-19th century.
          1. Uhe
            Uhe 26 September 2013 22: 17 New
            +2
            And they, during his lifetime, also riled him, especially for his unwillingness to write in the Little Russian dialect of the Russian language.

            By the way, for some reason, few people know, but most of his widely known poems by someone Taras Shevchenko also wrote in Russian, and only then they were translated into a Little Russian dialect of the Russian language;)
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 26 September 2013 15: 29 New
        +3
        Cossacks in the Kuban were resettled during the liquidation of the Sich, in Ukraine now some are mummers. And do not talk about the surname, maybe a person at the time of the liquidation of the battlefield already had no living ancestors from the Cossacks. And the Cossacks themselves before the transition of Little Russia to Russia did not have any relation to the management of this territory, and for the peasants they were the same scum as Crimean Tatars and Turks. What is Ukrainian culture? Gogol, for example, whose? There is no separate Ukrainian culture separate from Russian, not to consider the culture of Kobzar’s handicraft of the regional poshib.

        you need to at least look at what language they spoke


        Look, the shock is guaranteed, there was no Ukrainian at all, read at least the same Khmelnitsky. On the contrary, modern Russian was formed in the 18th century precisely under the influence of Western dialects.
        1. mazepa
          mazepa 26 September 2013 17: 50 New
          -1
          Have you been to the Kuban?
    2. igorelo
      igorelo 26 September 2013 21: 03 New
      0
      How was it irrelevant? After all, it was from Ukraine from the oppression of Poland that the Ukrainians moved to the Wild Pole. And the Ukrainians created the Zaporizhzhya Sich. And they defended Ukraine both from the Tatars and from the Poles and from the Russians at the time.
      1. Uhe
        Uhe 26 September 2013 22: 19 New
        0
        From the Russians? Is it from ourselves, or what? ;)

        I see that modern Ukrainians have completely lost their human ability to learn and think. I think they will benefit from life in the EU. As the first speaker said, not all Little Russian has become European whores. Humanly and Russian they feel sorry for them, but prefers to learn from their mistakes, so let them learn;)
    3. Uhe
      Uhe 26 September 2013 22: 15 New
      +1
      You are absolutely right. Plus.
  4. alebor
    alebor 26 September 2013 10: 41 New
    +8
    So out of 2 million Soviet people who collaborated with the Nazis during the war, more than half were Ukrainian citizens.


    Here, one must probably take into account that, first of all the peoples of the USSR who were under German occupation, the number of Ukrainians was the largest (and this is not their fault, the geography and the total population of the republic are to blame). And secondly, probably, it is necessary to distinguish between eastern Ukrainians and Ukrainians from the Western Ukraine, annexed to the USSR, just a few years before the war, where the standing was very different from Eastern Ukraine.
    1. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 15: 04 New
      +1
      alebor
      Yeah. and more importantly, do not exaggerate the number of people who voluntarily or involuntarily collaborated, the actual number of which was 700-750 thousand, and no more ...
  5. 020205
    020205 26 September 2013 11: 42 New
    +7
    Quote: mazepa
    What are you saying ... part of Russian culture ... I do not understand you. You have Peter 1, Catherine, Alexander, and you all climb into Ukrainian culture. In order to understand that Cossacks, at least Zaporizhzhya, part of Ukrainian culture need to be read at least by Ukrainian writers, you must at least understand that mainly people from nearby towns and villages went to Cossacks, you should at least look at what language they spoke. call it part of Russian culture, although what to call culture, in my opinion, their culture is more like the culture of Zaporizhzhya Cossacks. Can Cossacks be called cultural dependence on the Russian Empire - absurdity.
    In general, it may not be known to you, but the Cossacks had nicknames and they reached us in the form of surnames, for example, I have friends with the surnames Skur, Seda, hetmanenko, falcon, etc. Therefore, even judging by my friends, who are Ukrainians, they are 100% related to Ukrainian culture. Therefore, dear, be proud of your culture and do not meddle in ours.

    you have a good culture, according to your words, if the Cossacks came from the nearest towns, then the whole population was skaters and traitors?
  6. predator.3
    predator.3 26 September 2013 11: 45 New
    +3
    The cup of patience was overflowed and in 1775, by decree of Empress Catherine II, the Zaporizhzhya Sich was destroyed, in the words of the decree, “as a godless and unnatural community unsuitable for the extension of the human race,” and the upper Dnieper Cossacks turned into hussar regiments of the regular army, namely Ostrog, Izyumoksky, Akhtyrsky and Kharkov.


    Я believed that the Dnieper Cossacks were resettled to the Kuban and subsequently they formed the Kuban army.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 18 New
      -1
      But Svidomo do not know this.
  7. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 September 2013 12: 23 New
    +9
    Some were relocated, and some went to serve the Turks, so to speak, out of habit, they gave into the wrong hands)
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 22 New
      +1
      And they soon returned with confession.
    2. shkil2010
      shkil2010 26 September 2013 17: 35 New
      +2
      Ukraine has always been surrounded by strong states that didn’t want to create a Ukrainian state, but only takeover, and from Poland and Crimea (Turkey) it was not friendly, but devastating, enslaving, so the throwing of hetmans is understandable. A man so ingenious that in such conditions he could not have been able to create a state. Accession to Russia in those conditions turned out to be the most expedient, which made it possible to preserve Ukraine as such.
      And they went to serve not only to the Turks, well, this is where they paid more - they went there
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 17: 56 New
        +1
        shkil2010
        Ukraine of that time was a torn away Russian land with a Russian population and a polonized elite. What was the environment of Ukraine ... why create two Russian states? the accession of Ukraine to Russia is an ordinary reunion of one people. The rest I agree with you.
        1. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 26 September 2013 20: 50 New
          +3
          smile "Ukraine of that time is a torn away Russian land with a Russian population and a polonized elite."
          Bravo!!! Especially Svidomo not like when you ask a question.
          "Have you read the letters of Khmelnitsky calling on the population to revolt against the Poles?"
          And Khmelnitsky wrote in these letters: "Russian people get up, beat Poles !!!"
          Oh t-identity! But, they do not care. The Russians invented say Svidomo and delve into reading the story that the Poles wrote for them !!!
        2. GastaClaus69
          GastaClaus69 26 September 2013 21: 28 New
          +3
          But do not want the other way around, the original Russian land is Kiev with its environs, it’s you that the province began to separate from us. And they became Russians only at the beginning of the 18th century with the light hand of Peter the Great, and before that you were Muscovites and we are Rusyns !!
          1. xan
            xan 26 September 2013 23: 23 New
            +1
            Quote: GastaClaus69
            But do not want the other way around, the original Russian land is Kiev with its environs, it’s you that the province began to separate from us. And they became Russians only at the beginning of the 18th century with the light hand of Peter the Great, and before that you were Muscovites and we are Rusyns !!

            Yes you at least call us.
            Those whom you call Muscovites are one of the most successful peoples in history. They created an empire. They have all the power of Slavism. Without them, the Slavic world would be the world of slaves of foreign masters, like the Baltic states.
            And what did you Russians do around Kiev? Where are the achievements, where is your glory?
            1. GastaClaus69
              GastaClaus69 27 September 2013 01: 21 New
              +2
              Well, there were many such empires as well as peoples, though empires tend to crumble (I am not Russophobe and do not wish you to collapse).
              Quote: xan
              They have all the power of Slavism. Without them, the Slavic world would be the world of slaves of foreign masters, like the Baltic states.

              Has Russia ever defended Slavic Catholics? In fact, the only Slavic country which Russia really helped was Bulgaria.
              Quote: xan
              And what did you Russians do around Kiev? Where are the achievements, where is your glory?

              Well, despite the centuries spent in oppression, we were able to maintain our faith and culture! I think you will not deny the fact that the Ukrainians made a significant contribution to strengthening the power of both the Russian Empire and the USSR.
              1. xan
                xan 27 September 2013 21: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: GastaClaus69
                Well, despite the centuries spent in oppression, we were able to maintain our faith and culture!

                not you saved, but the Russians saved you and cut the territory. You are generally very lucky that the Russians considered you relatives. I remind you that many Slavic peoples in Europe have left the historical scene.
                Quote: GastaClaus69
                I think you will not deny the fact that the Ukrainians made a significant contribution to strengthening the power of both the Russian Empire and the USSR.

                Under the leadership of the Russian idea, and having such a guiding force. And without this, you have already shown what you are capable of.
                1. GastaClaus69
                  GastaClaus69 27 September 2013 22: 10 New
                  +1
                  There was more hetmanism before the Pereyaslav Rada, but with the help of the Muscovites, the right bank was successfully drained, and Poland didn’t get crushed, it wasn’t what it was, oh yes there is Sweden too, it’s necessary to counterbalance while its strengths are not enough.

                  .
                  Quote: xan
                  You are generally very lucky that the Russians considered you relatives.

                  Why didn’t you relatives of the Gaydamak rebellions on the right bank help or are Orthodox Rusyns a trap of the Dnieper?

                  The Russian idea is the king-priest whom they themselves killed, and with it the Russian idea! Not that Russia is already
                  1. xan
                    xan 30 September 2013 12: 25 New
                    +1
                    Quote: GastaClaus69
                    Why didn’t you relatives of the Gaydamak rebellions on the right bank help or are Orthodox Rusyns a trap of the Dnieper?

                    Yeah, they’re obliged to help every bandit gang.
  8. Sashko07
    Sashko07 26 September 2013 12: 59 New
    -15
    Quote: predator.3
    I believed that the Dnieper Cossacks were relocated to the Kuban and in the future they formed the Kuban army.

    Kozaki are not small children to move them.

    Moscow was forced, under an agreement on mutual assistance, to provide Poland with military assistance against the Tatars in 40 thousand troops laughing knowments ... then another nonsense about the history of my country written in Russia did not read laughing
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 22 New
      0
      The Russian army is also not small children, like Catherine II, who perfectly saw that an openly parasitic uncontrolled armed society had formed in the south of Russia, which, in the conditions of the liquidation of the Crimean Khanate, lost its role of covering borders and was rapidly decomposing.
      However, the Cossacks were not particularly offended then.
    2. xan
      xan 26 September 2013 23: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Sashko07
      Quote: predator.3
      I believed that the Dnieper Cossacks were relocated to the Kuban and in the future they formed the Kuban army.

      Kozaki are not small children to move them.

      Moscow was forced, under an agreement on mutual assistance, to render military assistance to Poland against Tatars of 40 thousand troops laughing know-koment ... then another nonsense about the history of my country written in Russia did not read laughing

      What nonsense! Where did it come from, I picked it out of my nose? What war, what kind of contract, what years? Show links? Can’t show, balabol. And it would be interesting to know where this "knowledge" came from.
      During the time of resettlement to the Kuban, Russia drove the Turks, Tatars, and Poles, and sometimes all of them together. "On the age of military disputes, a witness of the glory of Russians" Then Catherine generals, Rumyantsev, Suvorov, a bunch of others shone. On this drive Napoleon was marked with his European army. What they have to deal with the Poles and the Turks.
      And to disperse Sich, two Russian infantry regiments were enough. What kind of great power is this, Zaporizhzhya? The elimination of Pugachev required much more effort from the empire.
  9. zub46
    zub46 26 September 2013 13: 04 New
    +3
    Many thanks to Sergey Volgin for his articles. In the latter, clearly and intelligibly outlining very complex historical events, which will help us navigate the problems of our time.
    1. xan
      xan 26 September 2013 14: 40 New
      +2
      Quote: zub46
      Many thanks to Sergey Volgin for his articles. In the latter, clearly and intelligibly outlining very complex historical events, which will help us navigate the problems of our time.

      The article greatly simplified what happened during the Ruin. And the author’s ratings are for some reason placed. Everything was more complicated and interesting. In Ruin in the Cossack foreman there was a whole range of interests, though for Moscow the most insignificant. But among the poor, Moscow’s position was strong. Khmelnitsky’s assessment is generally nonsense, Moscow is largely to blame, did not consider it necessary to put Khmelnitsky on the course of his international affairs — Khmelnitsky thought they would sell him. The Russians stayed on the Left Bank thanks to the valor of their troops and the support of the Ukrainian poor. The last serious act of the struggle - the defense of Uman - the besieging Poles, together with the Crimeans and with Ukrainian supporters, not only did not take Uman, but at the approach of the Russians they dragged so that they left the entire cavalry and almost lost the king. Mazepa is a careerist who straddled pro-Russian sentiment.
      Under Khmelnitsky, the Cossacks fought well; in alliance with the Russians, they did not hack, as indicated in the article.
      In this article, the events described are greatly simplified, in my opinion a lot of things are misinterpreted. It would be better if the author abandoned the characterization of phenomena. The article is very approximate, to put it mildly.
      One thing is indisputable in my opinion - Moscow was the most serious player in this game. Moscow did not shy away from its interests, so its allies were not personalities, but persons who agreed with its interests - some changed, but others were right there. Her soldiers skillfully fought, rarely surrendered and never betrayed. Russians rarely used punitive measures, they did not oppress religion. Towards the end of the Ruins, the poor were fed up with the feeble, but loud and pompous local elite, unable to restore order, and this poor man was almost entirely on the side of Moscow.
      Well, then, as in the end of the film "Fire and Sword" - who was given the lyule (Turks), who was castrated (Poland), and who disappeared altogether (Crimean Khanate and Zaporizhzhya Sich)
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 40 New
        +1
        It makes no sense to analyze the interests of each hetman, which then obviously was more than there are now parties in Ukraine. In short, then in Poland then there were so many liberties at the gentry that all of Europe envied, and all these Cossack uprisings pursued the same goal, the hetman got noble rights, a larger register, i.e., a salary for Cossacks. No salary - we will rob you. Ordinary Orthodox Little Russians, whom the gentry considered cattle, need freedom of religion and easier living conditions. It is not surprising that the peasants fled en masse to the Moscow Tsar with his built vertical of power and responsibility, and the hetmans do not need such a thing. It is enough to recall that under the hetman's administration, Little Russia was a deeply subsidized region, which did not give anything to the country; all were plundered by hetmans, from whom they tried to achieve fidelity at least.

        Khmelnitsky’s assessment is generally nonsense, Moscow is largely to blame, did not consider it necessary to put Khmelnitsky in the course of his international affairs


        And who is he at all to be informed of, and will he betray tomorrow, as well as 100500 before him?

        Mazepa is a careerist who straddled pro-Russian sentiment.


        Yanukovych. bully
        1. xan
          xan 26 September 2013 23: 48 New
          -1
          Quote: Avenger711
          And who is he to notify him at all, and he will betray tomorrow

          Khmelnitsky was afraid of Moscow’s betrayal - he judged from his bell tower. How could I have been looking for a backup airfield for this case. Just then, Moscow still had no reinforced concrete reputation. And Moscow was not going to leave Ukraine under any circumstances. As far as I know, even with the copper riot and the actual bankruptcy of the state, under Stepan Razin, money was always found for sending troops to Ukraine.
  10. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 26 September 2013 13: 05 New
    +7
    Well ... Well ... Best of all about the Ukrainian hetmans of the Ruins period, their contemporary Ukrainians said:
    For a long time, a record of one of the XNUMXth century archimandrites was kept in a monastery near Baturin. Its name speaks for itself: “Ruin”, and it contains a description of “the acts and atrocities of the hetmans and other leaders of the Little Russian people”, giving their following list:

    Vygovsky Ivan - an oath, fratricide, the drive of the Tatars to destroy the Little Russian people, the sale of Russia to Catholics and Poles, a silver lover Veliy.

    Khmelnitsky Yuri - the oath-breaker three times, Christ seller of faith and people to the Lyakhs and Busurmans; Tatar drive.

    Doroshenko Petr is a bribe taker, a rascal, an oath-breaker, the culprit of fratricide and torment of the people from the Tatars who have undergone, a Busurman servant.

    Teteria Pavel is a money-lover, oath-criminal and servant voluntary lyashsky. The instigator of Yu. Khmelnitsky for treason.

    The many-sinful Damian is a crafty, double-minded slave, prone to betrayal, well-exposed and punished with retribution.


    Here the whole criminal code nervously smokes on the sidelines.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 26 September 2013 15: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: smiths xnumx
      Well ... Well ... Best of all about the Ukrainian hetmans of the Ruins period, their contemporary Ukrainians said:

      We study modernity “through the prism of history”, denying the current “ruin” (the last part of the sentence refers to Ukrainians)
  11. vostok1982
    vostok1982 26 September 2013 13: 24 New
    +6
    “They never became fraternal,” “meekly accepted the German occupation” - what nonsense? Author, write fiction, drop journalism. You can do it.
    1. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 15: 07 New
      +2
      vostok1982
      Yes, this lyrical digression kills the whole article .... here is something personal ... maybe the Ukrainians took the woman away from the author? :)))
    2. revnagan
      revnagan 26 September 2013 20: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: vostok1982
      “They never became fraternal,” “meekly accepted the German occupation” - what nonsense? Author, write fiction, drop journalism. You can do it.

      Everything, as I read up to this point, I did not read further. Brad.
    3. yastr
      yastr 27 September 2013 11: 08 New
      0
      Yes, you are right, this is a clear excess.
  12. Atlantus
    Atlantus 26 September 2013 13: 27 New
    +3
    The article is one-sided. The political background is clearly felt. Historical facts taken out of context.
  13. biglow
    biglow 26 September 2013 14: 16 New
    +1
    history repeats itself .. history repeats itself always ...
  14. LINX
    LINX 26 September 2013 14: 27 New
    +2
    "As soon as Gorbachev shook the USSR, the Ukrainian separatists and collaborators immediately and ardently picked up his destructive ideas and reinforced them with mass popular sympathy and support."

    The author probably forgot that Ukraine left the USSR exactly after the Russian Federation. The declaration of independence in the Ukrainian parliament was adopted thanks to the Communists (80% of the parliament) who had been sitting for a year and waiting for instructions from Moscow, but in Moscow they simply beat them, the authorities themselves were in a hurry to trickle them. And then the Ukrainians are guilty of all the troubles and the Soviet Union collapsed, but Carthage .. Rome ... aren't we by chance)))?

    Here I admit Berlin, took)
  15. Bandera
    Bandera 26 September 2013 14: 34 New
    -2
    You read such scribblers and it turns out that Zaporizhzhya Cossacks are very often rebels, traitors and robbers. And Moscow tsars are the only opportunity for prosperity.
    1. seller trucks
      seller trucks 26 September 2013 14: 59 New
      -1
      According to serious historians (S. Shchegolev, N. Ulyanov), the Cossacks were a multinational bunch of garbage (Tatars, Turks, Poles, Russians, etc.) who traded on the roads by robbery, murder and robbery. Bogdan Khmelnitsky simultaneously swore allegiance to the Polish king, the Crimean Khan and the Russian Tsar, a kind of political prostitute, like the current Yanukovych. And even they (Kozaki) were not Orthodox
    2. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 15: 16 New
      +1
      Bandera
      But indeed it is — the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks did not differ much from the Novgorod Ushkuikins and the Vikings — and their way of life was exactly as you described. And the power under the protection of the Russian tsars for the Russian Orthodox people who lived in Ukraine is the only opportunity for self-preservation and development. as a people-alternative-Polish oppression. violent and total polonization, a bloody ban on Orthodoxy ... or living under Turkish vassals, guides of the Turkish will-Crimeans, whose main source of livelihood is predatory campaigns and the slave trade ... or would you be better off under Crimeans? Well, ask for Turkey, correct the historical misunderstanding ... :)))
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 26 September 2013 15: 40 New
        +4
        Quote: smile
        But indeed it is — Zaporizhzhya Cossacks did not differ much from Novgorod Ushkuniki and Vikings — and their way of life was exactly as you described

        Various Sichs were an example of a robber freedoms (gangs), containing a "contingent" of different nations and religions, united by the goal of the FIGHT. The struggle for their own security and prosperity, the struggle without principles and special ideals.
        Various political forces represented by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Turkey (jointly and through the Crimean Khanate), Muscovy at different times and with various successes used the Kozaks for their own purposes.

        Yes, there was a period when Sich opposed Poland, but there was no need to talk about the "self-organization of the people's army for liberation from oppression" because the military foreman almost always "was", for the sake of whose interests the actions were directed.
        Bright perimer B.Z. Khmelnitsky, nobleman, who suffered oppression from his kindred Polish gentry, harboring resentment and declaring "jihad".
        After an exhausting struggle, realizing the prospects of defeat, I was FORCED to seek protection from Moscow, which in turn was cautious, not trying to get drawn into a fight ...
        1. smile
          smile 26 September 2013 17: 50 New
          +2
          Corsair
          Short and comprehensive. Thanks for the addition.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 42 New
      +2
      Given the specifics of this society, which lived mostly robbery, it is.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 September 2013 15: 18 New
    -5
    Therefore, Ukrainians should simply be eliminated, as a phenomenon, and the traditions of the Hetmanism from which Little Russians massively fled to Muscovy, burn with a hot iron.
    1. GastaClaus69
      GastaClaus69 26 September 2013 21: 24 New
      +3
      More or less free people of the hetmanschina fled to Moscow, popped up, and how will you liquidate 40 million Ukrainians, but will there be enough rounds?
  18. knn54
    knn54 26 September 2013 15: 22 New
    +4
    -The most outstanding of the rebels of that period was Zinovy-Bogdan Khmelnitsky. An educated and successful careerist, a loyal servant of the king, he turned into a stubborn and merciless enemy of Poland due to the arbitrariness and rudeness of the Chigirinsky subequality, the Polish gentry Chaplinsky.
    The Sejm, the Senate and part of the highest gentry were categorically against the preparation of the war with Porta.
    The uprising of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, to some extent, was inspired by the king of the Republic of Poland, Vladislav lV.
    The powers that be were forced to give the army to the king to pacify the Cossacks.
    At the next stage, the rebels (the king was not opposed to “pinching” several arrogant Polish princes) and the king’s army united, would inflict a crushing blow on the Turks and Tatars, setting up a “Grunwald” near Cilicia or Ishmael. It is possible that the Bulgarians would rise, Hungarians, Wallachians, Don ...
    THIS plan was prevented by the death of the king of Poland.
    Sources:
    "The Chronicle of the Samovid"; reports to his courts of the Ambassador of Venice Tiepolo and the messenger of the Russian Tsar Kunakov; the study of Pierre Chevalier and the speech of Bohdan Khmelnitsky on May 28, 1648. in the headquarters near the White Church ("Universal") ... And in some Polish sources it is indicated that the king financed the purchase of weapons and equipment for the Cossacks through the dowry of his French wife.
    1. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 26 September 2013 16: 25 New
      +1
      How much betrayal! To the Turks, then to the Poles, then back! And these are Russian people? How power and money kill a person’s soul!
  19. Watson J.
    Watson J. 26 September 2013 16: 17 New
    +8
    I met one black here. Well, no different from the local blacks, neither in color nor in culture. Well, except that beer openly respects, on this foundation "got closer." It turned out - a Jew! Antonio Kwabenga. Namibian Jew with an Israeli passport. No more and no less. And this Namibian Jew Antonio Kwabeng has a clear conviction that he is an integral part of the Jewish people and the bearer of Jewish culture. It was not possible to hesitate even in terrible drinking. Protected Israel from Muslims with weapons in their hands. (Black Muslims, however, also turned out to be “brothers”, but oh well, that's not what I mean).

    I’m talking about this. Not that suspiciously, but simply striking. One ethnic group consolidates all who can. Bukhara Jews, Namibian Jews, Mountain Jews. All are one nation with a single national entity. Both propaganda and politics convince them of this. (I heard assertions about the differences from themselves, but only at the level of the household). Those. Slavs as an ethnos someone diligently imposes the idea of ​​differences, and Jews - about identity. While the ideas of consolidation are better than the ideas of mystical self-determination. For me, it becomes clear who pays. I personally conclude for myself that both the papacy and the ideologists of Zionism rub their hands in joy while reading the opuses of Bandera or Russian fascists. Money spent not in vain.

    It is a pity, of course, to observe that the centuries-old crusade of Catholics and Zionists against pagan and then Orthodox Slavs successfully continues in the 21st century. Does history teach anything? Where are the Slavic Slavs with their territories starting from the Elbe? Where are our blood relatives who were so concerned about the self-determination of small specific principalities and sunk into the summer? “Assimilated.” If very soft. In Kosovo, in our time, they are simply expelled from their lands or sold by parts of donor organs to the same crusaders. In the history of Russia, in the history of Slavic peoples, this has always been so. A strong centralized state is a bulwark of stability. Small fragmented principalities - the loss of territories, and often - and national identity. The Crusaders tidy up their hands, stroke the pan on their heads and give out gingerbread cookies and Aman ears. But where to get away from the general blood? Is it time to throw matzo from your ears?
  20. crest 57
    crest 57 26 September 2013 18: 58 New
    +8
    Quote: "In 1918 and 1941, Ukraine almost meekly accepted the German occupation. Only after some time, the" charms "of the German occupation prompted some Ukrainians to start the struggle with the occupiers, but the number of collaborators was also always great. So out of 2 million Soviet people who collaborated with the Nazis during the war more than half were citizens of Ukraine. "

    Well, for starters.
    "In 1918 and 1941, Ukraine almost meekly accepted the German occupation."
    The occupation occurs when the native army withdraws from the territory and the enemy army takes its place. In 1918 and 1941. was the Red Army, and not some sort of Ukrainian army.

    At the expense of "meekly accepted the German occupation."
    But is it known to the author that at the headquarters of the Supreme Command of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War there was a headquarters of the partisan movement and at the same time the Ukrainian headquarters of the partisan movement (separately from the first). Three partisan formations operated under the leadership of Kovpak, Saburov and Fedorov (not counting the smaller detachments) operated on German-occupied Ukrainian territory. Is this that "part of the Ukrainians ..." (hereinafter referred to as citation) ?.

    Next.
    Why is it ... "out of 2 million Soviet people who collaborated with the Nazis during the war, more than half were citizens of Ukraine." When did the "citizens of Ukraine" exist in the Soviet Union?

    Yes, the Cossack elite was two-armed and cared mainly for its own power and interests. In principle, as the top of any state on the globe (perhaps only with the exception of Stalin). Only for people living on Ukrainian lands do not need to sign.
  21. crest 57
    crest 57 26 September 2013 19: 41 New
    +6
    Let me continue.

    Quote: “As soon as Gorbachev shook the USSR, the Ukrainian separatists and collaborators immediately and ardently seized his destructive ideas and reinforced them with mass popular sympathy and support. It was no coincidence that it was President Kravchuk who arrived in Bialowieza in 1991 who stated at the Minsk airport that Ukraine will not sign a new union treaty. And he had a solid legitimate basis for this, the decision of an all-Ukrainian referendum on the independence of Ukraine. "

    June 12, 1990 President of the RSFSR Yeltsin declared Russia's independence, from which the collapse of the USSR began. More than 80% of Soviet citizens residing within the Ukrainian SSR at the March 1991 referendum. on the preservation of the Soviet Union spoke in favor. So there is no need to stutter about "mass popular sympathy and support."

    On account of the "legitimate basis, the decision of the All-Ukrainian referendum on the independence of Ukraine.", I advise you to carefully read the Constitution of the USSR.
    Chapter 8. The USSR - Union State
    Article 70. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -
    a single union multinational state formed on
    basis of the principle of socialist federalism, as a result
    free self-determination of nations and voluntary association
    equal Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Chapter 9. Union Soviet Socialist Republic
    Article 76. Union Republic - Sovereign Soviet
    socialist state that merged with others
    Soviet republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist
    Republics.
    Outside the limits specified in Article 73 of the Constitution of the USSR,
    the federal republic independently carries out state
    power in its territory.
    The Union Republic has its own Constitution, corresponding
    Constitution of the USSR and taking into account the features of the republic.

    There was no talk of leaving the USSR in a referendum, but only of "independence", so in essence it was only a confirmation of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Output.
    The author is a provocateur who sows discord between two, and where there are two, sows discord within one nation.
  22. bya965
    bya965 26 September 2013 20: 11 New
    +4
    A story set out in words is a lie. So you all quarreled. The article outlines the view, it may be wrong, but it forces us to analyze it, and then not make mistakes as much as possible.

    And so from the "bad" Zaporozhye, we got great Kuban. They are respected in Russia and history has measured their glories to them unmeasured.
    1. crest 57
      crest 57 26 September 2013 21: 10 New
      +3
      Do you understand what kind of thing?
      Here we take the time of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. What was considered Ukrainian lands then? In fact, the territory of the current Zaporizhzhya, Dnipropetrovsk and Kiev regions of Ukraine. And the rest - Wild Field (Kherson region, Poltava region), Crimea (Turkish-Tatar), Polish Lviv. Who settled (except Lviv) these lands? Yes, people from Russia! Further. Revolution, civil war. Where did people come from to restore the economy and industrialize (remember Lviv, Uzhgorod, Rivne, Ternopol abroad)? Yes, again from Russia. Further. War and again recovery. Where did people come from? From the whole Union, mainly from Russia.
      So who, in fact, are the inhabitants of Ukraine? Russians!
      1. GastaClaus69
        GastaClaus69 26 September 2013 21: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: crest 57
        So who, in fact, are the inhabitants of Ukraine? Russians!

        Citizens of Ukraine they are called.
        37 out of 45 million consider themselves Ukrainians and there is nothing to be done about it, but the fact that more numerically absorb smaller nations is a fact, other nations on the territory of Ukraine are slowly assimilating (Crimean Tatars, first of all, I personally know 2 half of the Tatars who consider themselves to be Ukrainians )
        1. crest 57
          crest 57 26 September 2013 23: 23 New
          -1
          The Ukrainian is a resident of the outlying lands! Anyway, that Muscovite, Kiev, Ryazan. And nationality - Russian, Pole, German, Tatar.
          1. GastaClaus69
            GastaClaus69 27 September 2013 01: 28 New
            +4
            Opinion opinion but no arguing against science,
            Ukrainians are already a nation, the split of the Eastern Slavs has ended completely, and with each passing minute the distance between peoples is increasing.
  23. Centaurus
    Centaurus 26 September 2013 21: 25 New
    +1
    "Khmelnitsky sent out generalists calling for an uprising against the gentry, the Jews and Catholicism,"

    So who was the first to propagate anti-Semitism! laughing

    Gady4-opponents of Russia in Ukraine, could not choose the city for their traitorous Rada, with a more eloquent name laughing
    1. Very old
      Very old 26 September 2013 21: 56 New
      +1
      There was a time. There was a situation. And only
      1. Centaurus
        Centaurus 27 September 2013 22: 10 New
        0
        Well, of course, yes ... Only for this throwing between different yards obviously doomed their idea of ​​an independent Ukraine to failure. For such behavior grazed them in the eyes of any then ruler. Although the attempts were certainly desperate.

        I do not know if I am right, but it seems to me that Khmelnytsky or another leader of the Cossacks should have acted differently. Between their joyless throwings, an idea died that could lead to the desired result. At some point, the Hetman of the Cossacks managed to whip together Moscow and Krakow (then I think the capital of Poland), so there was also water to invite Turkey and the Crimean children.
        Only at first Polyakov should be doused, and the Tsar should be forced to continue military operations (essentially by hysteria and possibly false facts, it would be nice if they came from some left-wing people who were not connected externally with the Cossacks). If everything had succeeded, Poland would have been squeezed to the end. And then (Russians calmly !;) with the help of the Tatars and Turks expel the Muscovites.
        Then, of course, I’ll have to tinker with the Tatars and scattered Turks.
        But from the first after a joint company of Cossacks and the Tsar’s army, there will not be enough 4 left;) and the Turks without an outpost in the Crimea, Ukraine is not painful. 4th time more than once penetrated to them and ports robbed.
        It would be if the set of “if” would burn out profitably, then it would be Lord Cossacks and we would have the opportunity to create our own statehood. Although of course, in 4 it would have resulted, too, is not known ... (
        Look, in 91 we had everything in order to become, if not the first, then the 4nd or 2rd country in Europe in all respects, but ...
        As always, God forgive me, they shit!
    2. GastaClaus69
      GastaClaus69 27 September 2013 22: 12 New
      +1
      In medieval Spain, burning a Jew at the stake was generally the norm!
  24. Watson J.
    Watson J. 27 September 2013 16: 20 New
    +1
    Let's use the analogy method. Imagine the externally inspired collapse of Great Britain. At the first stage, an agent of influence introduced into the royal family scrambles up to the throne and changes the constitution, self-liquidating the monarchy. Power in the country in the wake of the anti-monarchist movement warmed up by the purchased media is seized by a drunkard, who immediately declares the independence of England from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and proclaims the UK's relinquishment of control over the dominions because of the termination of the existence of Great Britain as such. The Scots and Welsh, and the more so the Irish screechingly pick up the idea of ​​"independence". England represents the territory of the Moscow region with a comparable population and a comparable spectrum of color holders of “English” citizenship. The triumph of "historical justice", the centuries-old struggle of the Scots, Welsh, and even more so - the Irish for independence from the British crowned with victory. Moreover, the historical claims of the Scots, Welsh, and even more so of the Irish, to the rule of the British are several orders of magnitude higher than any conceivable and unimaginable claims of the “kh.khlov” to the “M. skal”. Now let's think about why in a country where an ordinary Scot, different from the Briton as a Georgian from the Mongol, hates the Briton in everyday life (drink the Scot, achieve sincerity, and he will tell you that he hates the Britons in these words. Not the British government, namely the British), in public - a loyal crown citizen? At the household level, support for septratism is guaranteed. Ideas are pushed through the parliaments of Wales and Scotland. Why is it still, in spite of the excellent possibilities of solving the question of getting rid of British rule desired by the layman, this issue has not been resolved? Maybe those on whom the adoption of such a decision depends, nevertheless understand the consequences? Of course, yes! Who will reckon with England the size of the Moscow region? Никто. The difference between the Russian Empire and the British Empire today is that centrifugal processes in the Russian Empire are paid for by the British, and not vice versa. Here are the Ukrainian authorities, and the media controlled by the Americans, the British and the Zionists, are powdering the brains of the townsfolk, proving what some commentators write to us about. That my uncles, my cousins, second cousins, grand-nephews turn out to be - another nation. Those. a section on a national basis can easily be carried out among blood relatives within one to two generations. No comment. You can congratulate overseas customers, the money was well spent. Matza fell on the right ears, the free "aman ears" were eaten with greed and "let's get it again." And “let's do it again” will no longer be. The Moor will do his job, the Moor will have to leave. Insight will surely come, but come THEN. Later. Uninhabited beggars with land value close to zero. The able-bodied will plow not on Ukraine, but on puppeteers. Then it’s logical - well, let’s we settle your empty lands with migrants, but we must proportionally distribute quotas for black Islamists ... And there will be no one to resist at all. Those who are the loudest now shout about national identity, about some historical-genetic or other insurmountable farm understanding of the differences between “kh.khlamy” and “m.skaly”, they will be in the forefront of economic migrants. All these processes have already been completed in the post-Soviet space. One to one, carbon paper. Really not smart enough to understand what is happening?
    1. Watson J.
      Watson J. 27 September 2013 16: 21 New
      +1
      Only a large, strong, centralized state is able to protect both the economic, ethnic and religious interests of its citizens. This is an axiom. And not the nonsense invented by "m. Skaly." Read the previous post. Think about why the United States is only growing in size, and not breaking up into the northern states, where the Germans are, and the southern, where the Mexicans. Germans and Mexicans - brothers forever? Or is the reason still different? My advice to those who are trying to prove that soft is better than hard. Well, do not humiliate yourself, do not ridicule. If you are already divorced on the matzah, go firmly and quietly to your goal. No need to sow blood relatives. We will cry and sympathize. And then we'll take it back. As always.
    2. Watson J.
      Watson J. 29 September 2013 01: 21 New
      0
      I just read it. In restitution, the Jewish community claims 43 percent of the arable land. Rat, friends! There will be no imamate, there will be a kaganate. Easier from this? Undoubtedly. You will not work hard on imams, but on kagans.
  25. Marek Rozny
    Marek Rozny 28 September 2013 15: 56 New
    +1
    The Crimean Murza Tugai Bey, who helped Bohdan Khmelnitsky in the war against the Poles, is my relative) We are of the same kind - Argyn.

    In general, well, the porridge was there. Everyone has their grievances, ambitions, passions, preferences, beliefs, prejudices, claims. Figs will figure out who is right, who is to blame. The mess is a mess.
  26. ddmm09
    ddmm09 28 September 2013 19: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Marek Rozny
    In general, well, the porridge was there. Everyone has their grievances, ambitions, passions, preferences, beliefs, prejudices, claims. Figs will figure out who is right, who is to blame. The mess is a mess.

    The Cossacks did not have a mess! They successfully waged wars, sometimes with superior forces and not only. If they had a mess, then the Cossack class would simply not exist.
    I want to say that now we do not fully understand the psychology of people from different classes of that time and are constantly trying to talk about them from the perspective of today. It is important. For the Cossacks, the preservation of independence and freedom was one of the important components of their culture, and its preservation was apparently an integral part of their life, which, in my opinion, was the reason for the ambiguous relationship with the Moscow state and then with Russia. At the end of the 19th century, a collection of surviving documents was published in the Russian Empire (I don’t remember the exact name right away, but I’ll look for it myself, as I kept it), which passed through the Boyarsky Duma of the Moscow state, starting, it seems, from the 16th century. The collection is multi-volume. So, the Cossacks didn’t attack the southern regions of Muscovy / Russia very often; according to the reports in the book, I counted only 4-5 for more than 200 years, where Cherkasy was mentioned. The most massive of them is the period of the Great Troubles, and then they changed their attitude towards the Poles. The remaining messages about the Cherkas raids have always sounded the same - they say the local forces gave a rebuff to the Cherkasy and the Tatars, they repulsed it completely. And this is without the involvement of regular troops from the Moscow state, I emphasize, only by local forces. This suggests that a small number of Zaporizhzhya Cossacks (Cherkasy) were involved in raids into Russia for the sake of profit, you see. I think that the rarity of these raids and the irregularity indicates the low relevance of this problem. You can argue for a long time what and how, but these raids for the Cherkas and Tatars did not have significant success. I think that the relationship between the Cossacks was more complicated than they are trying to imagine. I think that one of the significant reasons for the conflicts of the Cossacks with the Tatars and Russia is the desire to preserve freedom and independence.
    I read historical documents in the original, I emphasize, it is historical documents that I recommend. The language is beautiful, I do not find significant differences in the Russian language itself of that period, almost everything is immediately clear. Reading such documents in the original gives a different understanding of the essence of the events that have occurred, I emphasize this. Personally, I had a feeling of deep respect for the Russian people of that time, sometimes their words were so significant.
  27. Goblin 28
    Goblin 28 1 October 2013 08: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Sashko07
    Quote: predator.3
    I believed that the Dnieper Cossacks were relocated to the Kuban and in the future they formed the Kuban army.

    Kozaki are not small children to move them.

    Moscow was forced, under an agreement on mutual assistance, to provide Poland with military assistance against the Tatars in 40 thousand troops laughing knowments ... then another nonsense about the history of my country written in Russia did not read laughing

    My ancestors-Cossacks were relocated from near Poltava, there was their "chicken" in the time of Catherine. Moreover, far from forced resettlement, family traditions speak of this. Elected Cossacks pulled lots and then settled according to him. Look at the map of the Krasnodar Territory - the villages of Kiev, Chernihiv, Kanevskaya, Bryukhovetskaya. Uman
    Dnieper, Poltava, Hryvnia and so on. It seems that in Little Russia there was no one left. And they still say in the villages and farms on the "little balochka" - the Russian-Ukrainian mixture. My grandfather, who once served in the convoy of hundreds of His Imperial Majesties, always considered himself a Russian Cossack and was proud of it, and all the grandfathers-Cossacks on our street, too.