The origin of Ukrainian separatism. Nikolai Ulyanov

Origins of Ukrainian separatism

Publishing house "INDRIK" Moscow 1996

Editorial

The book by Nikolai Ivanovich Ulyanov, The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism, which is brought to the attention of the reader, is the only scientific work in the entire world historiography specifically devoted to this problem. Created almost 30 years ago, it is of interest to us, primarily because it is not connected with today's political events, or rather, not generated by them, and yet deafeningly modern. Such a fate rarely befalls academic research. It should hardly be surprising that he appeared in exile: in our country, such “untimely” thoughts simply could not have arisen. This, in turn, prompts us to reflect on the question of what the Russian emigration was, what it means for us today.

For a long time we were deprived of the powerful layer of culture created in exile after the October Revolution of 1917 and civil war. By the will of fate, more than 3 million people turned out to be abroad. The exact number is unknown, it is disputed. It is indisputable only that the majority of emigrants were educated people. Moreover, there turned out to be the elite of Russian culture, in terms of creative potential comparable to that part that remained in the country (let's not forget about the losses suffered during the years of the civil war from famine, epidemics, and more from purely physical destruction).

Another wave that followed the Second World War, not inferior to it in numbers, could not compete with the first in other respects. But among the emigrants of this wave there were also poets and writers, scientists and designers, just enterprising people and just losers ...

Now many names are returning to us. Basically, these are writers, philosophers-thinkers like N. A. Berdyaev or G. P. Fedotov. It must be admitted that the examples here cannot but be accidental. We still do not know very well the huge legacy that has been left to us. It has yet to be explored and mastered. It is only clear that to a certain extent it is capable of filling those gaping gaps that have formed in our culture, self-consciousness and self-knowledge over the past 70 years.

The fate of each person is unique. Behind such a worn out phrase, however, are not at all banal events and life destinies, which rarely ended more or less happily. Emigration is not a gift of fate, but a forced step associated with inevitable losses. N. I. Ulyanov, who, one might say, was pushed out of the country by the very course of history, also traveled such a path.

The beginning of life was relatively prosperous. Nikolai Ivanovich was born in 1904 in St. Petersburg. Upon completion of secondary education, he entered St. Petersburg University in 1922 at the Faculty of History and Philology. After graduating from the university in 1927, Academician S. F. Platonov, who became his teacher, offered the talented young man a postgraduate course. After he worked as a teacher at the Arkhangelsk Pedagogical Institute, and in 1933 he returned to Leningrad, becoming a senior researcher at the Academy of Sciences.

In a matter of years, his first books were published: “Razinshchina” (Kharkov, 1931), “Essays on the history of the Komi-Zyryan people” (Leningrad, 1932), “Peasant war in the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century.” (Leningrad, 1935), a number of articles. He was awarded the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Many scientific ideas were waiting for their implementation. But the layout of Ulyanov's next book was scattered: in the summer of 1936 he was arrested ... After the assassination of Kirov and on the eve of the show trials, Leningrad was purged of the intelligentsia.

The life of a 32-year-old scientist was trampled on, and scientific work was interrupted for long years. He was given a term of 5 years (informed people know that such a “soft” sentence with a stereotyped charge of counter-revolutionary propaganda was given “for nothing”) he served in camps on Solovki, and then in Norilsk.

He was released on the very eve of the war and was soon taken to trench work. Near Vyazma, along with others, he was taken prisoner. The prisoner's estimate came in handy: he fled from the German camp, walked several hundred kilometers along the German rear and found his wife in the distant suburbs of besieged Leningrad. For more than a year and a half they lived in remote villages in the occupied territory. The profession of his wife, Nadezhda Nikolaevna, saved her from hunger: a doctor is needed always and everywhere ...

In the autumn of 1943, the occupation authorities sent N. I. and N. N. Ulyanovs to Germany for forced labor. Here, near Munich, Ulyanov worked at an automobile plant as an oxy-fuel welder (didn't he continue the Gulag "specialty"?). After the defeat of Germany, this area was in the American zone. A new threat of forced repatriation dawned. The past years have deprived N. I. Ulyanov of illusions: the Stalinist regime in his homeland did not promise a return to scientific work, rather, camps again. The choice was not great. But no one in the West was waiting for him either. After long ordeals, in 1947 he moved to Casablanca (Morocco), where he continued to work as a welder at the metallurgical plant of the French concern Schwartz Omon. He remained here until the beginning of 1953, which gave him an excuse to sign the first articles that began to appear in the émigré press with the pseudonym "Schwartz-Omonsky," which gave off camp humor.

As soon as life began to more or less get back on track, N. I. Ulyanov decided to visit Paris: the French protectorate over Morocco made such a trip easier then. The trip was a turning point in my life. “... For the first time in my emigration I saw a real cultural Russia. It was a breath of fresh water. I literally rested my soul, ”he wrote to his wife. Among the new acquaintances who greeted him warmly were S. Melgunov, N. Berberova, B. Zaitsev and many others. The first was followed by other trips, it became possible to use large libraries, scientific work was resumed, and the prospect of publishing works opened up.

The end of the 1940s - the beginning of the 1950s went down in history as the dead era of the Cold War. Every war needs its fighters. At the beginning of 1953, attempts to draw N. I. Ulyanov into their phalanx (he was invited by the American Committee for the Fight against Bolshevism as the editor-in-chief of the Russian department of the Liberation radio station) were unsuccessful. The struggle against the Bolshevik regime was in those conditions inseparable from the struggle against the motherland, its unity, its peoples. Such political manipulations were incompatible with the convictions of Nikolai Ivanovich. Having looked behind the scenes of the political scene, having understood the strategic plans of its directors, he resolutely moved away from them. In the spring of 1953, he moved to Canada (here, in particular, he began to lecture at the University of Montreal), and since 1955 he became a teacher at Yale University (Connecticut, New Haven).

Actually, only since 1955, the scientific activity of N. I. Ulyanov was resumed in full. The best and most fruitful years in the life of any scientist (from 32 to 51) were irretrievably lost. One can only be surprised that a 19-year break has not dulled the taste for science. At the same time, hard breaks in fate developed critical assessments of reality in him, made him a sharp polemicist, which affected all subsequent work. In combination with an encyclopedic mindset, all this turned him into a consistent subverter of stereotyped schemes, conventional truths and scholastic concepts. It is here that the clue to his special place in historiography is rooted. He can rightly be called a historical thinker, the true scope of which is far from fully understood by us due to the almost complete obscurity of his works for Russian scientific circles.

The conversation about the work of N. I. Ulyanov is large and complex. Apart from scientific works he owns two historical novels - "Atossa", which tells about the wars of Darius with the Scythians, and "Sirius", which describes last years Russian Empire, the events of the First World War and the February Revolution. With a certain degree of conventionality, we can say that both of them, as it were, symbolize the upper and lower chronological levels of his scientific interests. His articles are scattered throughout the pages of the Vozrozhdenie (Paris) and Novy Zhurnal (New York) magazines, the New York newspapers Russian word"(New York) and "Russian Thought" (Paris), as well as many other foreign periodicals, collections of articles, the English "Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union", English-language scientific periodicals. At one time, his articles on the role of the Russian intelligentsia in the fate of Russia, the characteristics of individual historical figures (“Northern Talma” about Alexander I and “The Basmanny Philosopher” about the views of P. Ya. Chaadaev), about Marx’s Slavophobia (“Silenced Marx” ) and others. His report “The Historical Experience of Russia”, delivered in New York in 1961 at the celebration of the 1100th anniversary of Russian statehood, evoked a wide response. But, perhaps, the “Origin of Ukrainian separatism” occupies a central place in his historical research. This study took over 15 years to complete. Some of its parts were published in various editions long before the appearance of the monograph as a whole. They immediately attracted attention. As the scale of the idea and the skill of execution became clearer, not only attention grew, but also opposition. How else to explain the fact that this book, which has no equal in coverage of the chosen subject of research, could not be published in the USA? Don't be fooled by the designation "New York, 1966" on the title page. The book was typed and printed in Spain, in Madrid, where, in fact, there were no suitable conditions for this, as evidenced by the already archaic pre-revolutionary spelling and grammar by that time, which the author himself did not use. Apparently, both the typesetter and the printing house itself were archaic, which also led to the presence of numerous typos.

The subsequent fate of the book was very strange. She dispersed pretty quickly. Only later it turned out that most of the circulation did not reach the readers, but was bought up by interested parties and destroyed. The monograph soon became a bibliographic rarity. However, no second edition followed. Scientific work does not bring income, it was published at the personal expense of the author (who retired in 1973), and apparently there were no sponsors ...

We will not touch here on the content of the book or give it any final assessment. The reader will find in it both strengths and individual shortcomings. Something is likely to cause him objections and a desire to argue. Yes, and it is difficult to expect otherwise when it comes to such an acute problem. It is not excluded that there will be such readers on whom familiarization with the book will act as a touch to the exposed dental nerve. But such is the nature of the object of study. It is important, however, that the author nowhere offended anyone's national feelings. Arguments must be answered with counterarguments, not outbursts of passion.

Unfortunately, the author will no longer be able to object to his opponents or talk with people who have accepted his views (at least partially). N. I. Ulyanov died in 1985 and was buried in the cemetery of Yale University. It seems, however, that he himself would have listened with great interest to constructive remarks and objectively reasoned criticism. Any scientific research needs such an approach. The author himself professed these principles, as evidenced by all his work. We believe that the work of N. I. Ulyanov is such a monument of historical thought, acquaintance with which is necessary even for those who have a different point of view. And who can - let him write better.

The materials of the book were used in the preface: “Responses. Collection of articles in memory of N. I. Ulyanov (1904-1985). Ed. V. Sechkareva. New Haven, 1986.

Foreword (from the author)

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any “iron” laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language, were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of Russian State Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved nation".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Nowadays, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most honored and most ancient traditions and cultural values ​​of the Little Russian people: it subjected the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Russia since the adoption of Christianity, to persecution, and an even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which lay in for a thousand years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence. Independentists change cultural and historical terminology, change traditional assessments of the heroes and events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, allegedly, a “national feeling” awakens, then it grows and gets stronger until it leads to the idea of ​​secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in reverse direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

In the title of this work, it is no coincidence that the word “separatism” is used instead of “nationalism”. It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First, they were declared "two Russian peoples" (Kostomarov), then - two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, to the Turks, to the Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Middle Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth. An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis.

And this abundance of theories, and the feverish cultural isolation from Russia, and the development of a new literary language cannot but catch the eye and give rise to suspicions of the artificiality of the national doctrine.

There is a long-standing tendency in Russian literature, especially emigre literature, to explain Ukrainian nationalism solely by the influence of external forces. It became especially widespread after the First World War, when a picture of the wide activity of the Austro-Germans in financing organizations such as the “Union for the Liberation of Ukraine”, in organizing combat squads (“Sichevye Streltsy”) who fought on the side of the Germans, in setting up camps-schools for captured Ukrainians. D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism. Second World War revealed an even broader canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authoritative as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

The Poles, in fact, can rightfully be considered the fathers of the Ukrainian doctrine. It was laid down by them in the era of the hetmanate. But even in modern times, their creativity is very great. Thus, the very use of the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" for the first time in literature began to be implanted by them. It is found already in the writings of Count Jan Potocki. Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the old Polish annalists, like Samuil of Grondsky, in the 17th century derived this term from geographical location Little Rus', located on the edge of the Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukraina quasi provincial ad fines Regni posita"), then Chatsky produced him from some unknown horde of "ukrovs" known to no one except him, allegedly coming out from behind the Volga in the 7th century.

The Poles were not satisfied with either "Little Russia" or "Little Rus'". They could reconcile with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites". The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was instilled with the idea of ​​the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of ​​the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten.

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were students of Kharkov University in the 1930s, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of ​​an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous "Pan-Slavism", which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Book. Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

Polish interest in Ukrainian separatism is best summed up by the historian Valerian Kalinka, who understood the futility of dreaming of returning southern Russia to Polish rule. This region is lost for Poland, but it must be done in such a way that it is lost for Russia as well. There is no better means for this than to spread discord between southern and northern Russia and to propagate the idea of ​​their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mieroslavsky was drawn up in the same spirit on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863.

“All the agitation of Little Russianism - let it be transferred beyond the Dnieper; there is a vast Pugachev field for our belated Khmelnychyna. This is what our entire pan-Slavic and communist school consists of!... This is the whole of Polish Herzenism!”

An equally interesting document was published by V. L. Burtsev on September 27, 1917, in the newspaper "Obshee Delo" in Petrograd. He presents a note found among the papers of the secret archive of the primate of the Uniate Church A. Sheptytsky, after the occupation of Lvov by Russian troops.

The note was drawn up at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and church measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and “possibly complete separation Ukrainian Church from Russian.

The piquancy of the note lies in its authorship. Andrey Sheptytsky, whose name it is signed, was a Polish count, the younger brother of the future Minister of War in Pilsudski's government. Having started his career as an Austrian cavalry officer, he later became a monk, became a Jesuit, and from 1901 to 1944 served as Metropolitan of Lvov. Throughout his tenure in this post, he tirelessly served the cause of Ukraine's separation from Russia under the guise of its national autonomy. His activity, in this sense, is one of the examples of the implementation of the Polish program in the east.

This program began to take shape immediately after the sections. The Poles took on the role of a midwife in the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and a nanny in its upbringing. They succeeded in making the Little Russian nationalists, in spite of their long-standing antipathy towards Poland, become their zealous disciples. Polish nationalism became a model for the most petty imitation, to the point that the hymn “Ukraine has not yet died” composed by P. P. Chubynsky was an undisguised imitation of the Polish one: “Polska has not yet perished.”

The picture of these more than a century of efforts is full of such persistence in energy that one should not be surprised at the temptation of some historians and publicists to explain Ukrainian separatism by the influence of the Poles alone.

But this is unlikely to be correct. The Poles could nourish and nurture the embryo of separatism, the very same embryo existed in the depths of Ukrainian society. To discover and trace its transformation into a prominent political phenomenon is the task of this work.

Born in the Russian Empire and becoming a historian during the Soviet period, Nikolai Ulyanov during the Great Patriotic War ended up in the occupied territory and in 1943 was sent to forced labor in Germany. After the war, he moved to Casablanca (Morocco), and in the spring of 1953 he moved to Canada, where he lectured at the University of Montreal. Since 1955 he settled in the United States, where, with the assistance of the emigrant historian Georgy Vernadsky, he got a job as a teacher of Russian history and literature at Yale University.

Original taken from chrono61 in Origins of Ukrainian separatism

Nikolay Ulyanov. Origins of Ukrainian separatism
First published in Madrid in 1966.

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any “iron” laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language, were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian State, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved nation".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Nowadays, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most honored and most ancient traditions and cultural values ​​of the Little Russian people: it subjected the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Russia since the adoption of Christianity, to persecution, and an even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which lay in for a thousand years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence.

Independentists change cultural and historical terminology, change traditional assessments of the heroes and events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, allegedly, a “national feeling” awakens, then it grows and gets stronger until it leads to the idea of ​​secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

In the title of this work, it is no coincidence that the word “separatism” is used instead of “nationalism”. It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First, they were declared “two Russian peoples” (Kostomarov), then two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, Turks, and Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Near-Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth. An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis. And this abundance of theories, and feverish cultural isolation from Russia, and the development of a new literary language cannot but catch the eye and give rise to suspicions of the artificiality of the national doctrine.

There is a long-standing tendency in Russian literature, especially emigre literature, to explain Ukrainian nationalism solely by the influence of external forces. It became especially widespread after the First World War, when a picture of the wide activity of the Austro-Germans in financing organizations such as the “Union for the Liberation of Ukraine”, in organizing combat squads (“Sichevye Streltsy”) who fought on the side of the Germans, in setting up camps-schools for captured Ukrainians. D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism. The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authoritative as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

The Poles, in fact, can rightfully be considered the fathers of the Ukrainian doctrine. It was laid down by them in the era of the hetmanate. But even in modern times, their creativity is very great. So, the very use of the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" for the first time in literature began to be implanted by them. It is found already in the writings of Count Jan Potocki. Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the ancient Polish annalists, like Samuil of Grondsky, already in the 17th century derived this term from the geographical location of Little Russia, located on the edge of Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukraina quasi provincial ad fines Regni posita"), then Chatsky derived it from some horde of "ukrovs" unknown to anyone except him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century.

The Poles were not satisfied with either "Little Russia" or "Little Rus'". They could reconcile with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites". The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was instilled with the idea of ​​the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of ​​the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten.

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were students of Kharkov University in the 1930s, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of ​​an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous “Pan-Slavism”, which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Book. Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

Polish interest in Ukrainian separatism is best summed up by the historian Valerian Kalinka, who understood the futility of dreaming of returning southern Russia to Polish rule. This region is lost for Poland, but we must make sure that it is lost for Russia too. There is no better way to do this than settlement of discord between southern and northern Russia and propaganda of the idea of ​​their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mieroslavsky was drawn up in the same spirit on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863.

“All the agitation of Little Russianism - let it be transferred beyond the Dnieper; there is a vast Pugachev field for our belated Khmelnychyna. This is what our entire pan-Slavic and communist school consists of! ... This is the whole of Polish Herzenism!

An equally interesting document was published by V. L. Burtsev on September 27, 1917, in the newspaper "Obshee Delo" in Petrograd. He presents a note found among the papers of the secret archive of the primate of the Uniate Church A. Sheptytsky, after the occupation of Lvov by Russian troops. The note was compiled at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and ecclesiastical measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and “possibly the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian.”

The piquancy of the note lies in its authorship. Andrey Sheptytsky, whose name it is signed, was a Polish count, the younger brother of the future Minister of War in Pilsudski's government. Having started his career as an Austrian cavalry officer, he later became a monk, became a Jesuit, and from 1901 to 1944 served as Metropolitan of Lvov. Throughout his tenure in this post, he tirelessly served the cause of Ukraine's separation from Russia under the guise of its national autonomy. His activity, in this sense, is one of the examples of the implementation of the Polish program in the east.

This program began to take shape immediately after the sections. The Poles took on the role of a midwife in the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and a nanny in its upbringing. They succeeded in making the Little Russian nationalists, in spite of their long-standing antipathy towards Poland, become their zealous disciples. Polish nationalism became a model for the most petty imitation, to the point that the hymn “Ukraine has not yet died” composed by P. P. Chubynsky was an undisguised imitation of the Polish one: “Polska has not yet perished.”

The picture of these more than a century of efforts is full of such persistence in energy that one should not be surprised at the temptation of some historians and publicists to explain Ukrainian separatism by the influence of the Poles alone.

But this is unlikely to be correct. The Poles could nourish and nurture the embryo of separatism, the very same embryo existed in the depths of Ukrainian society. To discover and trace its transformation into a prominent political phenomenon is the task of this work...

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any “iron” laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language, were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian State, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved nation".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Nowadays, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most honored and most ancient traditions and cultural values ​​of the Little Russian people: it subjected the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Russia since the adoption of Christianity, to persecution, and an even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which lay in for a thousand years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence. Independentists change cultural and historical terminology, change traditional assessments of the heroes and events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, allegedly, a “national feeling” awakens, then it grows and gets stronger until it leads to the idea of ​​secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

In the title of this work, it is no coincidence that the word “separatism” is used instead of “nationalism”. It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First, they were declared “two Russian peoples” (Kostomarov), then two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, Turks, and Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Near-Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth. An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis. And this abundance of theories, and feverish cultural isolation from Russia, and the development of a new literary language cannot but catch the eye and give rise to suspicions of the artificiality of the national doctrine.

There is a long-standing tendency in Russian literature, especially emigre literature, to explain Ukrainian nationalism solely by the influence of external forces. It became especially widespread after the First World War, when a picture of the wide activity of the Austro-Germans in financing organizations such as the “Union for the Liberation of Ukraine”, in organizing combat squads (“Sichevye Streltsy”) who fought on the side of the Germans, in setting up camps-schools for captured Ukrainians. D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism. The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authoritative as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

The Poles, in fact, can rightfully be considered the fathers of the Ukrainian doctrine. It was laid down by them in the era of the hetmanate. But even in modern times, their creativity is very great. So, the very use of the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" for the first time in literature began to be implanted by them. It is found already in the writings of Count Jan Potocki. Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the ancient Polish annalists, like Samuil of Grondsky, already in the 17th century derived this term from the geographical location of Little Russia, located on the edge of Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukraina quasi provincial ad fines Regni posita"), then Chatsky derived it from some horde of "ukrovs" unknown to anyone except him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century.

The Poles were not satisfied with either "Little Russia" or "Little Rus'". They could reconcile with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites". The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was instilled with the idea of ​​the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of ​​the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten.

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were students of Kharkov University in the 1930s, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of ​​an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous “Pan-Slavism”, which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Book. Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

Polish interest in Ukrainian separatism is best summed up by the historian Valerian Kalinka, who understood the futility of dreaming of returning southern Russia to Polish rule. This region is lost for Poland, but we must make sure that it is lost for Russia too. There is no better way to do this than settlement of discord between southern and northern Russia and propaganda of the idea of ​​their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mieroslavsky was drawn up in the same spirit on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863.

“All the agitation of Little Russianism - let it be transferred beyond the Dnieper; there is a vast Pugachev field for our belated Khmelnychyna. This is what our entire pan-Slavic and communist school consists of! ... This is the whole of Polish Herzenism!

An equally interesting document was published by V. L. Burtsev on September 27, 1917, in the newspaper "Obshee Delo" in Petrograd. He presents a note found among the papers of the secret archive of the primate of the Uniate Church A. Sheptytsky, after the occupation of Lvov by Russian troops. The note was compiled at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and ecclesiastical measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and “possibly the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian.”

The piquancy of the note lies in its authorship. Andrey Sheptytsky, whose name it is signed, was a Polish count, the younger brother of the future Minister of War in Pilsudski's government. Having started his career as an Austrian cavalry officer, he later became a monk, became a Jesuit, and from 1901 to 1944 served as Metropolitan of Lvov. Throughout his tenure in this post, he tirelessly served the cause of Ukraine's separation from Russia under the guise of its national autonomy. His activity, in this sense, is one of the examples of the implementation of the Polish program in the east.

This program began to take shape immediately after the sections. The Poles took on the role of a midwife in the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and a nanny in its upbringing. They succeeded in making the Little Russian nationalists, in spite of their long-standing antipathy towards Poland, become their zealous disciples. Polish nationalism became a model for the most petty imitation, to the point that the hymn “Ukraine has not yet died” composed by P. P. Chubynsky was an undisguised imitation of the Polish one: “Polska has not yet perished.”

The picture of these more than a century of efforts is full of such persistence in energy that one should not be surprised at the temptation of some historians and publicists to explain Ukrainian separatism by the influence of the Poles alone.

But this is unlikely to be correct. The Poles could nourish and nurture the embryo of separatism, the very same embryo existed in the depths of Ukrainian society. To discover and trace its transformation into a prominent political phenomenon is the task of this work...

Ulyanov Nikolay

Nikolai Ulyanov

Origins of Ukrainian separatism

Introduction.

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any "iron" laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language - were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian State, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved people".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Today, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most revered and most ancient traditions and cultural values ​​of the Little Russian people: it persecuted the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Rus' since the adoption of Christianity, and even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which had been lying for a thousand years. years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence. The independentists are changing the cultural and historical terminology, changing the traditional assessments of the heroes of the events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, a "national feeling" allegedly awakens, then it grows and becomes stronger, until it leads to the idea of ​​secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

It is no coincidence that the word "separatism" instead of "nationalism" is used in the title of this work. It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First they were declared "two Russian peoples" (Kostomarov), then - two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, to the Turks, to the Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Middle Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth (1). An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis.

And this abundance of theories, and the feverish cultural isolation from Russia, and the development of a new literary language cannot but catch the eye and give rise to suspicions of the artificiality of the national doctrine.

There is a long-standing tendency in Russian literature, especially emigre literature, to explain Ukrainian nationalism solely by the influence of external forces. It became especially widespread after the First World War, when a picture of the wide activity of the Austro-Germans in financing organizations such as the "Union for the Liberation of Ukraine", in organizing combat squads ("Sichevye Streltsy") who fought on the side of the Germans, in setting up camps-schools for captured Ukrainians.

D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism (2). The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authority as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

The Poles, in fact, can rightfully be considered the fathers of the Ukrainian doctrine. It was laid down by them in the era of the hetmanate. But even in modern times, their creativity is very great. Thus, the very use of the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" for the first time in literature began to be implanted by them. It is found already in the writings of Count Jan Potocki (2a).

Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the ancient Polish annalists, like Samuel of Grondsky, already in the 17th century derived this term from the geographical location of Little Russia, located on the edge of Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukgaina quasi provincia ad fines Regni posita") (3), then Chatsky produced it from some horde of "ukrovs" unknown to anyone except him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century (4).

Neither "Little Russia" nor "Little Rus'" suited the Poles. They could come to terms with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites".

The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was instilled with the idea of ​​the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of ​​the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten (5).

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were students of Kharkov University in the 1930s, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of ​​an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous "Pan-Slavism", which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Prince Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

Polish interest in Ukrainian separatism is best summed up by the historian Valerian Kalinka, who understood the futility of dreaming of returning southern Russia to Polish rule. This region is lost for Poland, but it must be done so that it is lost for Russia as well (5a). There is no better means for this than to spread discord between southern and northern Russia and to propagate the idea of ​​their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mieroslavsky was drawn up in the same spirit on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863.

"All the agitation of Little Russianism - let it be transferred beyond the Dnieper; there is a vast Pugachev field for our Khmelnychyna, which is belated in number. This is what our entire pan-Slavic and communist school consists of! ... This is all Polish Herzenism!" (6).

An equally interesting document was published by V. L. Burtsev on September 27, 1917, in the newspaper "Obshee Delo" in Petrograd. He presents a note found among the papers of the secret archive of the primate of the Uniate Church A. Sheptytsky, after the occupation of Lvov by Russian troops. The note was drawn up at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and ecclesiastical measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and "possibly the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian one."

Ulyanov Nikolay

Nikolai Ulyanov

Origins of Ukrainian separatism

Introduction.

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any "iron" laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language - were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian State, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved people".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Today, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most revered and most ancient traditions and cultural values ​​of the Little Russian people: it persecuted the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Rus' since the adoption of Christianity, and even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which had been lying for a thousand years. years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence. The independentists are changing the cultural and historical terminology, changing the traditional assessments of the heroes of the events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, a "national feeling" allegedly awakens, then it grows and becomes stronger, until it leads to the idea of ​​secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

It is no coincidence that the word "separatism" instead of "nationalism" is used in the title of this work. It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First they were declared "two Russian peoples" (Kostomarov), then - two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, to the Turks, to the Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Middle Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth (1). An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis.

And this abundance of theories, and the feverish cultural isolation from Russia, and the development of a new literary language cannot but catch the eye and give rise to suspicions of the artificiality of the national doctrine.

There is a long-standing tendency in Russian literature, especially emigre literature, to explain Ukrainian nationalism solely by the influence of external forces. It became especially widespread after the First World War, when a picture of the wide activity of the Austro-Germans in financing organizations such as the "Union for the Liberation of Ukraine", in organizing combat squads ("Sichevye Streltsy") who fought on the side of the Germans, in setting up camps-schools for captured Ukrainians.

D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism (2). The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authority as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

The Poles, in fact, can rightfully be considered the fathers of the Ukrainian doctrine. It was laid down by them in the era of the hetmanate. But even in modern times, their creativity is very great. Thus, the very use of the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" for the first time in literature began to be implanted by them. It is found already in the writings of Count Jan Potocki (2a).

Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the ancient Polish annalists, like Samuel of Grondsky, already in the 17th century derived this term from the geographical location of Little Russia, located on the edge of Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukgaina quasi provincia ad fines Regni posita") (3), then Chatsky produced it from some horde of "ukrovs" unknown to anyone except him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century (4).

Neither "Little Russia" nor "Little Rus'" suited the Poles. They could come to terms with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites".

The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was instilled with the idea of ​​the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of ​​the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten (5).