The Soviet government, in one form or another, continued the Russian imperial policy. In 20-s, large-scale educational work was carried out throughout the country, many times exceeding the similar actions that took place during the monarchical period. They built a huge family of nations, were quite generous and active in Russian: not only schools and universities appeared in national areas, but writing was often created from scratch, followed by secular literature, the national intelligentsia rapidly declared itself; and so on and so forth. Fantasy: but the huge, time-honored processes fit in decades.
It is clear that some of the current Russian nationalists consider all this work superfluous and even harmful, and the liberals are silent about this activity. But neither radical nationalists, nor radical liberals of empires do not build; they live and multiply in them, from time to time to show their bills to the past: “... ah, screwed up! And what do you have here? It would give in the mouth, bastards! "
The empire is built by the complex Russian state machine, where heterogeneous ideologies are in uneasy interaction. Work with Ukraine and Ukrainians in this construction was only one of the components. In the case of Ukraine, we have now got some problems, and in the case of, say, Yakutia, we have a super-power industrial and intellectual region, which is loyal to Russia and Russia. Who is entitled and able to count the pros and cons of the work done? Counting where it goes more often where something did not work out, and where it happened, it is believed that “it was like that”. No, it was not. In Yakutia, by the way, there was a fierce anti-imperial struggle both in pre-revolutionary times and in post-revolutionary times.
In any case, if we begin to deny imperial work as such, speaking in condemnation of the administrative division of various territories, including on a national basis, the participation of the Russian administration in studying the diverse local cultural heritage, the incorporation of national personnel, from the Bolsheviks.
However, among the vulgar nationalists the consciousness is structured in such a way that they see only the near future. One had to hear the absurd point of view that the Bolsheviks introduced this into the composition of the Soviet national elite of people from the Ukraine — Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, and so on. But do we know that in the XVII – XVIII centuries the share of Ukrainians in the diocesan and monastic hierarchy was greater than the share of Russians? For example, in the XVIII century, the episcopal departments of the Russian Church occupied the order of 90 Little Russian hierarchs, they also owned most of the places in the Holy Synod.
Here, the nationalists will tell us that at that time there was no Ukraine, and there was Little Russia. Ukraine, we recall, created the Bolsheviks. Meanwhile, the name Ukraine was invented, naturally, not by the Bolsheviks, but got acclimatized from 1648, when the French cartographer de Boplan gave the name to the southeastern voivodeships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The word "Ukraine" is used in European cartography since 1660. The term “state Ukraine” is already found in documents from the time of Alexei Mikhailovich; although, indeed, officially this part of the kingdom was called "Little Russia".
Having heard the familiar word “Rus”, the nationalists will say: this was the way to hold on to this name. But here lies one little thing, which today is extremely rarely remembered. The fact is that the self-name “Little Russia” initially carried a potentially separatist connotation. When Archbishop Kopinsky first used the phrase “Little Russia” in a letter to the patriarch of Moscow Philaret, he meant the following: Philaret is called the patriarch of “all Russia”, but Little Russia remains a separate entity, it is not worth making it into the concept of “all”.
Behind the archbishop of Kopinsky, Bogdan Khmelnitsky gradually achieved that in correspondence with Alexei Mikhailovich Malaya Rus was marked separately. Bogdan was a cunning politician! And in this case, he outwitted.
It is still worth telling that the value of present-day Ukraine was raised - its naming as Little Russia or its naming itself Ukraine. Little Russia, perhaps, weighed a lot more - for she had the right to claim the whole of Russia. The word "small" in a certain period could not mean "smallness" at all. In this case, “small” also means: “the main, original” —that is, the one from where the source of Great Russia went, all. Compare with “Little Greece” or “Little Poland” - here “small” means exactly the same thing: the skeleton of an ethnos. And the fact that Little Russia was gradually renamed Ukraine was certainly not a mistake of the Russian administration.
Already by the XIX century the word "Ukraine" had a full-fledged ethnic meaning. In the 50-s of the XIX century, the magazine "Ukrainian" began to appear. This is where the ground for a new dispute arises: who has done more for the emergence of Ukrainians as an ideology — Soviet leaders or monarchs. The answer is simple: they both invested. The basis of the future of Ukrainians - secular Ukrainian literature - flourished in the XIX century: this is an indisputable fact.
We refer just to the ideologists of "Ukrainians". Andrei Tsarinny in his book “The Ukrainian Movement: A Brief Historical Essay” (Berlin, 1925) wrote: “In the first quarter of the 19th century, a special“ Ukrainian ”school of Polish scholars and poets appeared that gave extremely talented representatives: K. Svidzinsky, S. Goszczychy, M Grobovsky, E. Gulikovsky, B. Zalessky and many others. others ... prepared the ideological foundation on which the building of the modern Ukrainian people was created. With all its roots, Ukrainian ideology has grown into Polish soil. ”
But Poland was a part of Russia! And all this grew and "grew into" before the eyes of the royal government. Nationalists should remember such things.
Some Russian nationalists say with conviction that officially “Ukraine” did not figure in the administrative state documents until the arrival of the Bolsheviks. And then what to do with the Sloboda-Ukrainian province, which existed before 1835, and which became Kharkov afterwards? It turns out that for the first time the Kharkiv lands for the Ukraine were not the Bolsheviks, that's bad luck.
As a result, all these questions have no single and simple solution: they say that they did well, and these - badly. Being engaged in Ukrainization in the 20-s, the Bolsheviks carried out a large-scale population transfer, settling the Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa from Central Russia and Siberia: it must be admitted that the vast number of Russian people on these lands are only in the second or third generation.
Now Ukrainians will be delighted and will scream: they have come! But we will immediately reply to them that the equally massive settlement by Ukrainians of the Belgorod land, to which the current Ukrainian nationalists naively claim, began under Alexey Mikhailovich: there are many documentary proofs of this.
Moreover, under Alexei Mikhailovich, Zaporizhia Cossacks began settling many of the original Russian lands, and they were also paid a salary. A funny moment: in 1652, a Cossack regiment headed by Colonel Ivan Dzikowski moved to Ukraine in the Ostrogozhsky district of Ukraine. “Those who came to the surface” from sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich were given a loan for construction in the amount of 5243 rubles. And already in 1670, the same Zaporozhye Cossacks supported the rebellion of the Don Cossack Stepan Razin against all the same Alexey Mikhailovich!
How should we respond to the above? We will accuse Alexei Mikhailovich: they say that his actions led to the fact that today some unhealthy people claim to the former Ostrogozhsky district and so on? Or let the Ukrainian brothers vilify the Bolsheviks for the mass import of the Russian population into the territory of the Donbass and the Black Sea?
“The Bolsheviks made Ukraine so huge!” - rushing tirelessly from a different tinned nationalist throat. Yes, Lenin and Stalin invested in the current administrative borders of Ukraine. But, my dear colleagues, the Bolsheviks could do anything - but they gave their right hand from their left hand. They were not giving to their neighbors - they were just taking them away from their neighbors, and then inside the empire they invented the Ukrainian SSR. Just as before them created the Sloboda-Ukrainian province.
But now a false feeling is created that the czar-father had something, he kept the shore, and then the Bolshevik appeared and gave it to someone else. Under Stalin, Galicia was annexed - before that, it was part of our country only in the times of Ancient Russia. Under the Romanovs, we had no Galicia. Naturally, Stalin sewed Galicia to Ukraine, and not to Georgia or Yakutia, because Galicia bordered on Soviet Ukraine. And the nationalists are smart enough to blame Stalin for this? You involuntarily ask yourself a question: what did the current nationalists add to this to give a vote?
It is interesting that not only the Bolsheviks did this in our history. In 1809, as the current liberal would say, Finland was “annexed”, which, as you know, did not have its own statehood, but was part of Sweden. The swift raid of the Russian army, and the long-standing Russian enemy - the Swedes - lost a huge piece of land. Alexander I endowed the Grand Duchy of Finland with Swedish lands in the north and Karelian in the south. In 1812, the sovereign also handed over to the Finns the Vyborg province - 43 000 square kilometers. What did the Finns get in the end? Very large land, which included territories that had almost nothing to do with the Finns. What is the difference between this monarch and Khrushchev, who gave Ukraine Crimea, or Stalin, who gave Galicia to the Ukrainians? Yes, nothing.
Plus or minus similar cases in the history of the empire happen inevitably - under princes, under emperors, under general secretaries, and under presidents. They conquer lands further, on the basis of those or other motives — in order to simplify administrative management, to appease the affiliated people, or to level the consequences of the war — they draw internal boundaries. Because there are always internal boundaries! States, districts, republics, autonomy - something inevitably has to be drawn. Then centuries pass, the wildly Russian nationalist is and starts shouting that because of the Bolsheviks Galicia fell into the structure of Ukraine. No, my friend. Because of the Bolsheviks, Galicia fell into Russia. Point.
By the way, the Vyborg gubernia, which once, using its own reasons, Alexander I handed over to the Finns (well, that is, transferred it from his left hand to the right), also had to be conquered under Stalin. And they conquered. Again, the “bad Bolsheviks”? No, we must stop with this.
For the sake of ideologies that are now being confessed by one or other circles, we unconsciously simplify the picture of the world, shredding our own history and ultimately giving our enemies a reason to disdain us.
Any nationalist who is looking for mistakes in the Soviet era must be aware of at least two simple things. First: similar errors (if it is at all appropriate to be considered “mistakes”) abound in the times of the Russian Empire, and in the era of the Moscow kingdom. Will we repent for everything at once? Or not even worth starting? The second: throwing out their not boiled down convictions, the nationalist works on the hand of the next Russophobic Maidan, wherever it happens. These arguments pick up and throw at us.
Where today they bring down a monument to Lenin, tomorrow Russian people will be bombed. It was easy to track this two-way in the past couple of years, right? But many did not notice. Wonderful people. With an emphasis on "s".