The problem of the “colonial status” of Ukraine under Russia and Austria

Ukrainian historians are divided over the issue of colonial status of Ukraine under Russian rule. One group of historians (mostly from Western Ukraine and Kyiv) believes that Ukraine was Russia’s colony under the tsarist regime. Statements that Ukraine was Russia’s colony justify in the eyes of these historians Ukraine’s right to be independent from Russia and not be involved in any kind of a union with present-day Russia. These historians write that Russia “soaked blood” from Ukraine. Other historians (mostly from Eastern Ukraine) criticize this point of view. They stress the fact that Ukraine’s economic development in the 19^th century was amazing. A lot of factories, plants, and railroads were built. Ukraine was turned into a major European industrial base. Investments from England, France, Germany, and other developed European countries poured into Ukraine. The Ukrainians did not have the humiliating status of “inorodtsy” (non-Russians in the empire). Russia considered the Ukrainians as not a separate nation from the Russians but as a branch of the common people which included Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians. Ukrainians could occupy and occupied the best positions (including that of prime minister) in Russia’s hierarchical system on the ground that they were not “inorodtsy”. Kyiv was considered the “mother of all Russian cities” and Moscow said that it naturally and rightfully inherited Kyiv’s power. The ruling dynasty Riurikovichi was also common to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

The second group of historians claims that we can speak of Ukraine as Russia’s colony only if Ukraine’s living conditions were worse then in Russia. These historians emphasize that Ukrainians in general lived better than Russians. Thus, Ukraine could not be a Russian colony; it was just an ordinary province. If the Russians had treated Ukraine as a colony the Ukrainians would have felt different from the Russians and demanded independence.

Some Ukrainian historians (A.Tolochko, D.Tabachnik) criticize our leadership for describing Ukraine as a victim and a colony of the Russian empire. They say that Ukrainians made up considerable part of the empire leaders (up to 50 percent). Ukrainians also gave their common empire a great number of scientists, scholars, musicians, writers, painters, officers for the army etc. Thus, according to these historians Ukrainians should be proud of their contribution to the common empire because it was our common state in which we were rulers along with Russians and Belarusians. The same can be said about Polish rule. Peasants in Ukraine normally had better living conditions than peasants in Poland.[16] Ukrainian nobles could enjoy wide political rights. For example, Prince Kostiantyn Ostrozhskyi was the most influential magnate of the Rzeczpospolita; another ethnic Ukrainian Mykhailo Vyshnevetskyi became king.

What about the position of Ukraine in the Austrian Empire? Historians’ opinions differ over the issue as well. One group of historians (who are mostly politically motivated and can be called ‘official’ historians) writes that western Ukraine was an Austrian colony. They say that Austrians mostly built in western Ukraine an industry related to oil and timber, and brought finished products into Ukraine from Austria. Other group of historians believes that western Ukraine was not Austria’s colony. They say that it was natural and rational to build such an industry in western Ukraine which had sufficient reserves of oil and forest. It was just a normal result of an ordinary regional specialization or division of labor (to produce different goods in appropriate parts of the country). For example the major industrial base of the Austrian Empire was Czechia, not Austria. Czechia also was the most developed part of the empire. According to the logic of Ukraine’s official historians Austria could have been Czechia’s colony, but that is absurd. Moreover, Ukraine received most of its finished products not from Austria (as our official historians say), but from Czechia, which was also a province of the empire. We cannot say that some small town in Kyiv region is Kyiv’s colony on the ground that finished goods are brought from Kyiv to this town and nobody build factories in this town to satisfy its local needs. For example the town of Kaharlyk in Kyiv region gives diary products to Kyiv and receives factory goods in return. This does not mean that Kaharlyk is Kyiv’s colony. This is just a result of the division of labor in present-day Ukraine. The same practice was applied in the Austrian Empire.

The Ukrainians in the Austrian Empire had the same political rights as the Austrians. Many Ukrainians were members of the Austrian parliament where they formed a powerful faction.[17] In fact western Ukraine was an ordinary province of the Austrian Empire, the same as eastern Ukraine was an ordinary province of the Russian Empire. To be someone’s province is also not good and it is a serious reason for struggling for independence.[18] Thus, there is no reason to exaggerate and claim that Ukraine was a colony of Austria and Russia.

[1] The tsar’s wife raised money to buy Shevchenko’s freedom when he was a serf in his young years. She considered him a talented young man who could be a famous artist. The Tsar regarded the poet as an ungrateful person. In spite of Tsar’s orders prohibiting writhing and painting Shevchenko could do it freely. He often lived in officers’ houses and painted their families. As to his military service, he practically did not serve. Though his living conditions were not bad the poet suffered severely from the absence of Ukrainian landscape which he needed for inspiration. He failed to write masterpieces there.

[2] Ukraine produced 20 percent of the world’s wheat.

[3] The word comes from Polish khlop, a derogatory name for peasant.

[4] Poland was part of the Russian empire at the time.

[5] The Austrian government allowed the Ukrainophiles to do it because their activity undermined Russia’s political concept of the Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian unity. Austria was interested in the weakening of Russia.

[6]After the Valuiev Decree the Ukrainian intelligentsia published Ukrainian books in Austrian Galicia and imported them to Russian-ruled Ukraine.

[7] Mikhail Lomonosov, one of the most outstanding Russian scientists, studied in Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.

[8] Holovna Ruska Rada was the first representative body created with Austrian political and financial help; Zoria Halytska – the first newspaper, financed by the Austrian government.

[9] Studium Ruthenium was part of Lviv University and it had two faculties: philosophical and theologian.

[10] “The Ruthenian Triad”

[11] “The Nymph of the Dnister”

[12] In time, however, the members of the group changed their views: Iakiv Holovatskyi became a Russophile, Ivan Vahylevych became a Polonophile. The leader of the group Markian Shashkevych died a young man.

[13] Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests condemned the almanac as dangerous to social stability.

[14] Not only Poles thought this way, Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Marxism, wrote that West Ukrainians (Ruthinians) were part of the Polish nation and that they first learned about their distinctive nationality from Franz Stadion, the Austrian Governor of Galicia. In contrast to Ukrainian historians, Polish historians believe that Ukrainians in Galicia did not have national consciousness in the first half of the nineteenth century.

[15] According to Russia’s official view, the Old Rus Nationality was the cradle of the three branches of the same nation: Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

[16] Ukraine was located near Tatar lands and thus was very vulnerable to Tatar attacks. To keep fertile Ukrainian lands settled the shlachta usually offered better living conditions (less taxes and obligations) to peasants in these dangerous areas.

[17] In 1907 their faction had over 40 deputies.

[18] A nation can achieve its full development only in an independent state.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-11