Ukrajina - naslage istorijskih kontroverzi

[Yoda]

S obzirom na krizu u Ukrajini, najlakse mi je da krenem od uticaja ukrajinske istoriografije u formatiranju ukrajinskog istorijskog secanja, gde se ukrajinstvo stavlja u epicentar vrlo slozenih procesa. U poslednjem pasusu  navedeno je  da je sredinom 90-tih tadasnji predsednik Kucma dao podsticaj revizionizmu u vezi sa posmatranjem Drugog svetskog rata, sto je naravno uslo i u skolski sistem.

 

Upravo na tom novom istorijskom secanju su i  ideoloske postavke danasnjih proevropskih i ekstremno nacionalistickih politickih stranaka u Ukrajini:

 

In an article published in 2000, Oleksandr Marushchenko provides an analysis of such new methods and highlights some of the thinking of the new historiographers, beginning with M. Koval’. It was Koval’, says Marushchenko, who maintained the necessity of reevaluating Soviet historiographic approaches to the events of the Second World War in a new and objective fashion. Koval’ felt it essential tore analyze the reasons why the Soviet armed forces were so poorly prepared for the German invasion. Further, he suggested a new interpretation of events

in Ukraine in 1943–44, such as the suggestion that Soviet forces “occupied”rather than“liberated” Ukrainian territories during the course of the war. Healso wanted a debate onterminology and definitions used to refer to some of the wartime events and some changes in phraseology. For example, should one refer to the period 1941–45 as the Great Patriotic War or the German–Soviet war? The “national liberation” movement in Ukraine should be considered,

in Marushchenko’s view, as a civil war led by the Ukrainian people against foreign occupants, and this would mean re-periodizing the war beyond the Soviet stereotype.

 

The article then introduces the views of V. Stetskevych, who authored a book on the Second World War published in Dnipropetrovs’k in 1992. Stetskevych contends that Second World War history should be regarded as part of the history of the Ukrainian people, rather than war history per se. The people, in turn, should be perceived in their entire context, with all political and social divisions rejected. This approach is described as “humanistic” or“anthropocentric.” The overall goal is to seek a national ideology orientation that would help to consolidate the nation. In short, Stetskevych proposes to use history for nation-building.

 

I. Pavlenko, on the other hand, carried out a critical analysis of how Soviet historians interpreted the history of the war, and he makes four conclusions. First, Soviet history characterized the Ukrainiannational liberation movement as “treacherous,” “criminal,” and “bourgeois-nationalist.” Second, historical writings were of a propagandistic rather than of a research character. Third, the use of archives and other sources wasstrictly limited. Fourth, the interpretation of available materials was superficial; and lastly the significance and scale of the armed clashes between membersof the “national liberation” forces and the Red Army was deliberately played down.

 

A. Podols’kyi’s focus is on the Holocaust, and he has suggested that a new, generalized research needs to be undertaken on the fate of Ukrainian Jews during the course of the war.

 

Marushchenko’s article also makes brief references to some writings published by members of the Ukrainian Diaspora and states that the efforts of Ukrainian historiographers, both at home and abroad, should be used for a revised version of the history of the Second World War. These ideas have already been fruitfully applied to some of the new textbooks for schools that are appearing in Ukraine, which for the first time are discussing in depth the issues of the Stalin period.

 

One can begin the survey of textbooks with a short monograph written for students in grade five by Viktor Mysan, the second edition of which was published in 1997, and which has been cited earlier in conjunction with the important article by Nancy Popson. The topics are neatly divided into subject areas and the explanation of events is clear and simple, but also in its own way quite ideological. Mysan devotes five pages to the Famine of 1932–33, writing that peasants joined collective farms “with pain and terror.” Those who did not wish to join were labelled kulaks and branded as enemies of the people.

 

Millions were sent to Siberia. He writes that the 1932 harvest was no worse than earlier years but special food detachments came to the villages and confiscated everything. There are then two short sections on the same topic. Under the heading “It is interesting to know,” Mysan writes that historians to date have been unable to determine the number of deaths from the famine, which is somewhere between 3.5 million and 8–9 million people. The “Holodomor” is one of the worst tragedies of Ukraine. Soviet power kept silence about the existence of the Famine and did not provide any help to the population. It also refused help from abroad. The second section is entitled “Genocide” and seems unrelated to the earlier narrative. It is also ambivalent, stating that the Famine was a black page on the history of Ukraine but that it also affected other former peoples of the USSR. Mysan also describes the Purges and maintains that Ukraine was the worst affected by these also. As in the years of the Holodomor, children suffered the most.

 

The author ends this section as follows: “Remember this! You—the young part of the Ukrainian people. Our people endured famine, were sent to Siberia, perished, and were shot. But they lived and will continue to live!”

 

Concerning the start of the Second World War, Mysan states that the population of Western Ukraine greeted the Soviet army happily, but the new Soviet order brought the creation of collective farms, a ban on religion, and punished those people who wished to see a free Ukraine. The Bolsheviks were occupiers rather than liberators. Yet “from the first days” of the war the Ukrainian people began to struggle against the plunderers [the Germans] and Partisan units, and underground organizations rose up.

 

F. H. Turchenko has written a new history of Ukraine for the tenth grade that provides a more detailed outline of the 1932–33 Famine. The Famine is described as one of the worst atrocities of Stalinism against the Ukrainian people, and the reason for it is cited as punishment for those villages that refused to accept the new kolkhoz system at the start of collectivization.

 

The lavishly illustrated history of Ukraine edited by Volodmyr Lytvyn and others leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that the 1932–33 Famine was an organized act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. It is described as a physical assault and an attack on people’s consciousness. After the Famine, the authors write, Ukraine in effect became a colony of Moscow. The “genocide” also embraced North Caucasus, the home of over 3 million Ukrainians, with the Kuban and Don regions suffering especially. The book covers the background to the formation of the OUN—though inexplicably it states that the organization arose from the ashes of the UVO and was led by A. Mel’nyk (rather than Konovalets’).

 

The OUN-B is assigned the key role of liberation movement during the war years and there is no mention of its earlier harmonious relations with the Germans. Though there is no reference to the SS Division  Halychyna, there is a photograph of its members marching down a street bearing a large swastika flag and carrying SS emblems that is more damning than any text.

 

In this way, the book offers a partial acknowledgement of the Soviet contribution to the war, but adheres firmly to the perspective that the OUN-B and UPA were national liberation movements, from which are excluded the activities of the SS Division Halychyna.

 

In 2002, a new history of Ukraine appeared in Kyiv, edited by H. D. Temka and L. S. Tupchienka. The book provides individual biographical information about the leading figures of the Ukrainian national movement, which is depicted as a response to Polish assimilation policies and the “repression” of 800 villages in Eastern Galicia from the spring of 1930 onward.

 

Dmytro Dontsov is not assigned biographical space but is described as the main ideologue

of the OUN. The biography of Bandera is detailed for the period from his membership of the Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO) in 1929 until he became leader of the Revolutionary Wing of the OUN at its Second Congress in 1941. The next statement pertains to 1947 and his election to the military wing of the OUN, leading the armed struggle of the Ukrainian national underground movement against Soviet power. Bandera’s writings, it is stated, supported the concept of Christian revolutionary-liberation, nationalism and the independence of Ukraine. Mel’nyk is listed as heading the moderate wing of the OUN after its split in 1940, with nothing of note cited for his activity between 1941 and 1959. The authors write that on the eve of the Second World War both wings oriented themselves in different ways toward political and military assistance from Germany. The leaders of the OUN were guided by Dontsov’s formula that Ukraine would liberate itself in the shadow of a German invasion of the Soviet Union.

 

The German people from 1918 to the end of the 1930s were respected in Ukrainian lands as representatives of enlightenment and sophisticated behavior—a statement that might reflect the relatively civilized military occupation of Ukraine in the later months of the First World War. What the authors presumably are trying to do is limit the damage of Ukrainian links with Hitler’s regime on the part of the nationalists.

 

Thus on 14 April 1941, Andrii Mel’nyk wrote a letter to Hitler in which he suggested that the German leader create a Ukrainian state under German protection extending from the Danube and Carpathians, to the Caspian Sea, the mountains of the Caucasus, and including Crimea, Bessarabia, half of the Voronezh and Kursk oblasts and part of Belgorod oblast!

 

Mel’nyk projected that Ukraine would border Kazakhstan on the Volga River, while the Russian Far East could be colonized by Japanese settlers. He promised to join his forces with those of Hitler and the wing of the OUN under Bandera.

 

Hitler’s response to the Ukrainian declaration of independence was rapid, the authors state, and

on 5 July, the same day that Stets’ko formed his government, Stepan Bandera was arrested in Krakow and four days later Stets’ko and 300 OUN activists were detained, many of whom were later executed. They describe another abortive attempt to set up a Ukrainian national government in Bukovyna on 1 July 1941 after the Romanian army had left this region at Stalin’s request.

 

The Germans subsequently turned down requests for cooperation from Mel’nyk and others in July. The role of the expeditionary groups in Kyiv and other cities is highlighted and the authors express regret that the members of the two wings of the OUN were unable to unify. This book devotes unusual attention to the UPA established by representatives of the exiled UNR government under Taras Bul’ba Borovets’. In the summer of 1941, the text reads, Borovets’ formed the UPA-Polis’ka Sich with some 6,000 men.

 

 

Reviewing the Issue of the OUN and the UPA

 

Even before the end of the Soviet period, the question of rehabilitation of the OUN and UPA had surfaced. The 28th Congress of the CC CPU in December 1990 condemned such attempts which, it claimed, were being promoted by the Rukh, the Ukrainian Republican Party, the Ukrainian National Party, and the Union of Ukrainian Youth. The Second Congress of Rukh had resolved to rehabilitate OUN-UPA.

 

The Communist Congress, on the other hand, expressed its anger at attempts to organize celebrations and liturgies, and to rename streets and squares, and erect monuments to Bandera, Shukhevych, and other nationalist leaders. The Congress resolution acknowledged that among the insurgents were a lot of duped and intimidated, as well as unjustly repressed people. Nevertheless, it added, this is no reason to present followers of Bandera as part of a national-liberation movement or as strugglers against Stalinism, which the Congress condemned “resolutely,” along with the violent anti-popular reprisals with which it was associated by this time.

 

The Communists refused to permit the rehabilitation of OUN-UPA combatants who shed innocent blood, served the Fascists, and committed war crimes. The issue soon became a talking point because of the rapid renaming of streets and buildings in Western Ukraine. Thus the Rivne city council decided to rename Lenin Square as Independence Square and Lenin Street as Cathedral Street in the summer of 1991. One author declared that this was not the first attempt to create anti-Communist hysteria to defame the cause of Lenin and that every action was geared to the revival of nationalism and the political rehabilitation of OUN-UPA.

 

Roman Serbyn, a Diaspora historian, continues this same line of thought, but feels that the creation of a commission to study the UPA actually casts suspicion on the organization. He says that no special investigation is needed because the role of the UPA is well-known, and that there is a double standard in operation since no commission has been established to study the activities of the Red Army and Soviet Partisans. Like most supporters of the UPA, he describes it as the only organization that fought both Nazi Germany and Soviet power. Ukraine today, he writes, is divided into three camps: adherents of the UPA; opponents of the UPA; and “pragmatists” who are willing to recognize only those insurgents who fought against the Germans.

 

Since the mid-1990s the Ukrainian government especially has been deeply involved with changing political interpretations of the Second World War and the formation of a new historical narrative applicable to Ukraine. 2002, five years after the creation of the State Commission (the task force was under the leadership of Kul’chyts’kyi) for the study of the OUN and UPA by President L. D. Kuchma, it approved a draft law “On the restoration of historical justice toward the fighters for Ukraine’s freedom and independence.”

 

The Commission’s statement was much criticized by members of left-wing political groups, but others defended its position. In general, the period since 2001 has seen the creation of a new narrative that rejects completely the former Soviet version of the war and accepts much, if not all, of the narrativethat perceives the OUN and UPA as heroes and freedom fighters.

 

David R. Marples, Heroes and Villains, (Creating national history in contemporary Ukraine), CEU, 2007

 

 

Edited March 3, 2014 by Yoda

[namenski]

Наша дума, наша пісня

Не вмре, не загине...

От, де люде, наша слава,

Слава України!

Без золота, без каменю,

Без хитрої мови,

А голосна та правдива,

Як Господа слово.

[namenski]

I tako je, aprila 1838. u Sankt-Peterbutgu, u Anickovom domu, organizovana lutrija u kojoj je glavni dobitak bila slika Brjulova ‘V. A. Zukovski’. Prihod od lutrije, 2,500 rubalja, upotrebljen je da se od spahije Engelharta otkupi kmet po imenu Тарас Григорович Шевченко.

Naime, sva dotadasnja nastojanja da se spahija privoli da da slobodu svom zakonitom vlasnistvu nisu uspela.

Spahija je smatrao da je dovoljno sto je svog kmeta, kada je primetio da se radi o talentovanom detetu, dao da uci na univerzi u Vilnu...

Nisu pomogla ni urgiranja na najvisem mestu...

 

 

 

Та не однаково мені,

Як Україну злії люде

Присплять, лукаві, і в огні

Її окраденую збудять...

Ох, неоднаково мені.

Edited March 4, 2014 by namenski_01

[namenski]

Pa ustanci:

Severin Nalivajko, 1590 i neka, pa Mark Žmajlo, istakao se, izmedju ostalog i upadima preko Crnog mora medju Turke, sve Gajdamaci, turskoga korena, mislim na poreklo izraza…

Verlan, negde od Vroclava, Zaporoska Seca, stranac kome se ni ime ne zna, vodja najveceg gajdamackog ustanka, 1734. godine, imperatorka Ana Ivanovna i njen befel da se trebe Poljaci i Jevreji….

Barabaš i Puškar...

 

 

uticaj ukrajinske istoriografije u formatiranju ukrajinskog istorijskog secanja,

 

[namenski]

Pa kaze dalje: Ukrajina je dugo, do pred Prvi svetski rat, bila pojam za bogato i plodno.

Dokaz tome je da se i danas, u doba energenata,  po raznim udzbenicima geografije tlo, soil, Ukrajine smatra verovatno najkvalitenijim i najplodnijim na svetu.

Neprekidne kolone parobroda su iz uglavnom iz Odese razvozile psenicu, inace - pored drveta koje je radjeno iz severnih luka Rusije - bilo glavni ruski izvozni artikal. Zito je, zahvaljujuci nerazvijenoj ruskoj zeleznickoj mrezi, dolazilo iskljucivo iz zaledja crnomorskih luka, dakle iz Ukrajine, iz koje su, BTW, Nemci tokom Drugog svetskog rata izneli visestruko manje nego, na primer iz Francuske.

Ja ne znam, a i kako bih znao kad ni sami ljudi koji tamo zive ne znaju ili u najmanju ruku nisu nacisto, ko su, sta su i sta hoce; ali poceti im istoriju od Bandere i odnosa prema njemu je malo unfair.

Ukrajinci jesu bili mozda najmasovniji saradnici nacisticke Nemacke tokom Drugog svetskog rata; bili su daleko najbrojniji i kao radnici na manje ili vise prinudnom radu u Nemackoj, a antisemitizam sigurno nije samo njihov izum: bice da je - kao sto to veliki obicno i uspesno rade - pelcovan od onih koji su se u njega razumeli i koji su ga koristili - pre svega od strane Poljske i Rusije. 

Mislim na drzave i njihovu politiku, u nekim drugim istoriografijama poznatu kao zavadi pa vladaj.

 

A rezultate vekovnog treniranja misica na Ukrajini vidimo i sada:

1. Poljska, Ljahi, Recz Pospolita

2. Ruska imperija

3. SSSR kao Ruska imperija na steroidima, bar sto se tice onog sto je za sobom ostavila

i

4. Saudijska Arabija sa Bombom, danasnja Rusija....

[porucnik vasic]

Интересатно би било да обратиш пажњу где су највеће звезде Украјинских студија у Америци добијали дипломе. Види под Ихор тзв. Шевченко. Са друге стране породица Грабар.

[расејан]

Је л' можете ви познаваоци да ископате однекуд како се чита украјински? Та њихова три-четири слова што личе на и и латинично и збуњују поприлично. А видим да на матичном топићу преовладава најгора варијанта транскрипције, читајући енглески препев по Вуку, дакле мати да га не позна.

[Antares]

Upravo na tom novom istorijskom secanju su i  ideoloske postavke danasnjih proevropskih i ekstremno nacionalistickih politickih stranaka u Ukrajini:

Sto nam nisi linkovao celu knjigu (dzaba za citanje!)?

Sad na brzinu otvorih drugo poglavlje, holodomor. Pa kaze:

 

 

Ironically, the historians and economic historians who have worked most extensively on this period and published their results are much closer to the former Soviet perspective that emerged from the earlier period of silence on the Famine, namely that it was a result of environmental or climatic conditions rather than part of an official state policy aimed at eliminating Ukrainians as a nation.

I dobro, jel se nasi dezurni istoricari slazu sa ovim?

[Dr Arslanagić]

evo par crtica iz skorije istorije

 

 

i iz najskorije istorije

 

[ManicMiner]

evo par crtica iz skorije istorije

 

 

 

Opa, na 3:26 zapaziti 3 podignuta prsta :)

[Cane Vukic Prebranac]

Је л' можете ви познаваоци да ископате однекуд како се чита украјински? Та њихова три-четири слова што личе на и и латинично и збуњују поприлично. А видим да на матичном топићу преовладава најгора варијанта транскрипције, читајући енглески препев по Вуку, дакле мати да га не позна.

 

Слова украјинске азбуке: є (је), і (и), ї (ји) и ґ (г), док се г чита као х. У украјинском нема сљедећих руских слова: ъ, ы , э и ё. Слово и се изговара као [ɪ], а не као у руском.

[расејан]

 

Слова украјинске азбуке: є (је), і (и), ї (ји) и ґ (г), док се г чита као х. У украјинском нема сљедећих руских слова: ъ, ы , э и ё. Слово и се изговара као [ɪ], а не као у руском.

 

Хм... може ли то са којим примером, како они у ствари изговарају имена својих градова?

 

Једино оно за г сам знао од раније... јер сам некад давно у Кијеву на радију чуо "в јухославском хороде Бухојно" (играо се некакав шах).

[Cane Vukic Prebranac]

Нпр:  Україна - Украјина са кратким узлазним нагласком на ји. 

Или Київ - Кијив исто тако. Али се из неког разлога мијења основа у падежима: нпр, Києва (Кијева).

Львiв - Љвив, дугоузлазно и.

[hazard]

Pa to njihovo и ne postoji u srpskom, kao sto rece Cane to je nesto izmedju naseg i i e.

A kako se izgovara ima na vikipediji

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv

 

kliknite na "listen"

[расејан]

Занимљиво... мораћу мало да се позабавим тим језиком, макар овако погрешним поводом.