20世纪20年代党内论战中的苏联乌克兰化

E. Borisenok
{"title":"20世纪20年代党内论战中的苏联乌克兰化","authors":"E. Borisenok","doi":"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Soviet policy of Ukrainization is one of the most notable experiments in ethnic relations conducted in the twentieth century. The “nationalist deviations” condemned by the party (Alexander Ya. Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik, and other active supporters of Ukrainization) are described in modern literature in more detail than as manifestations of “Great Russian chauvinism”. This article analyses the ideas of Bolshevik leaders who criticized Soviet Ukrainization and opposed its convinced supporters. The article analyses the statements of Grigory Ye. Zinoviev, Dmtiry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, and Semen Yu. Semkovsky. Since some Ukrainian lands ended up as parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, it became profitable for the Bolsheviks to support the Ukrainian idea in its Soviet form. Thus, Lebed, Zinoviev, and Vaganian considered the national question as a means of transforming the world. They were convinced of the priority of the class principle over the national, and were confident in the inevitable erasure of national differences. At the same time, they took into account the objective characteristics of the Ukrainian nation, the overwhelming majority of which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was comprised of peasants. Discussions in the party environment were conducted not around the need for Ukrainization, but around its limits. The compulsion towards the broad masses of the population, excessive haste, and administrative pressure towards the Russian and Russian-speaking population, especially the proletariat, were critically assessed.","PeriodicalId":127790,"journal":{"name":"East Slavic Studies","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Soviet Ukrainization in the Internal Party Polemics of the 1920s\",\"authors\":\"E. Borisenok\",\"doi\":\"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Soviet policy of Ukrainization is one of the most notable experiments in ethnic relations conducted in the twentieth century. The “nationalist deviations” condemned by the party (Alexander Ya. Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik, and other active supporters of Ukrainization) are described in modern literature in more detail than as manifestations of “Great Russian chauvinism”. This article analyses the ideas of Bolshevik leaders who criticized Soviet Ukrainization and opposed its convinced supporters. The article analyses the statements of Grigory Ye. Zinoviev, Dmtiry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, and Semen Yu. Semkovsky. Since some Ukrainian lands ended up as parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, it became profitable for the Bolsheviks to support the Ukrainian idea in its Soviet form. Thus, Lebed, Zinoviev, and Vaganian considered the national question as a means of transforming the world. They were convinced of the priority of the class principle over the national, and were confident in the inevitable erasure of national differences. At the same time, they took into account the objective characteristics of the Ukrainian nation, the overwhelming majority of which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was comprised of peasants. Discussions in the party environment were conducted not around the need for Ukrainization, but around its limits. The compulsion towards the broad masses of the population, excessive haste, and administrative pressure towards the Russian and Russian-speaking population, especially the proletariat, were critically assessed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Slavic Studies\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Slavic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Slavic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

苏联的乌克兰化政策是20世纪在民族关系方面进行的最显著的实验之一。被党谴责的“民族主义偏差”(亚历山大·亚)。Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik和其他乌克兰化的积极支持者)在现代文学中被描述得比“大俄罗斯沙文主义”更详细。本文分析了布尔什维克领导人批评苏维埃乌克兰化并反对其坚定支持者的思想。本文对叶氏的言论进行了分析。Zinoviev, dmitry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, Semen Yu。Semkovsky。由于乌克兰的一些土地最终成为波兰、捷克斯洛伐克和罗马尼亚的一部分,布尔什维克支持乌克兰以苏维埃形式存在的想法变得有利可图。因此,列别德、季诺维也夫和瓦尼亚尼亚认为民族问题是改造世界的一种手段。他们深信阶级原则优先于民族原则,并相信民族差异必将消除。同时,他们考虑到乌克兰民族的客观特点,在二十世纪初,乌克兰民族的绝大多数是农民。党内的讨论不是围绕着乌克兰化的必要性,而是围绕着乌克兰化的局限性。对广大人民群众的强迫、过度仓促以及对俄语和俄语人口,特别是无产阶级的行政压力,都进行了严格的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Soviet Ukrainization in the Internal Party Polemics of the 1920s
The Soviet policy of Ukrainization is one of the most notable experiments in ethnic relations conducted in the twentieth century. The “nationalist deviations” condemned by the party (Alexander Ya. Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik, and other active supporters of Ukrainization) are described in modern literature in more detail than as manifestations of “Great Russian chauvinism”. This article analyses the ideas of Bolshevik leaders who criticized Soviet Ukrainization and opposed its convinced supporters. The article analyses the statements of Grigory Ye. Zinoviev, Dmtiry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, and Semen Yu. Semkovsky. Since some Ukrainian lands ended up as parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, it became profitable for the Bolsheviks to support the Ukrainian idea in its Soviet form. Thus, Lebed, Zinoviev, and Vaganian considered the national question as a means of transforming the world. They were convinced of the priority of the class principle over the national, and were confident in the inevitable erasure of national differences. At the same time, they took into account the objective characteristics of the Ukrainian nation, the overwhelming majority of which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was comprised of peasants. Discussions in the party environment were conducted not around the need for Ukrainization, but around its limits. The compulsion towards the broad masses of the population, excessive haste, and administrative pressure towards the Russian and Russian-speaking population, especially the proletariat, were critically assessed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信