The Holodomor in Ukraine

Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
"Stalin's war on Ukraine"? Meaning "на Украине"?
- it means - war against Ukraine. Война с Украиной or война против Украины
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,924
You know Russian?
Alas, I only know English and Chinese.
I wish I knew Chinese. But I am only Russian.
As to the "on Ukraine" question – in Russian we say “on Ukraine” but “in Latvia, in China, in Japan, in the USA, in Canada etc”. If Ukraine means “borderland”, “outskirts” the use of “on” is justified. In Russian of course. And it sounds very dubiously, very ambiguously. And it denigrates Ukraine to some extent. And it kills the theory that a word “Ukraine” was a toponym from the very beginning not a derivate from a Russian word “outskirts” (outskirts of Russia). That’s why in 1993 the Ukrainian government issued a resolution binding the obligatory use of “in Ukraine” phrase in the Media. In the Russian media we follow this new change in the language (no one wants here to offend the Ukrainians) but literary language rules still stay with the old “on” use. That’s why I was so bemused on the derogatory use of “on Ukraine” in the pro Ukrainian book title.
 
Dec 2017
433
Australia
I don't know what's here to discuss about Kievan Rus. All different names of Rus - Novgorodian Rus, Kievan Rus, north-eastern Rus are creations by historians for convenience. There was Rus state with capital being Kiev. Kiev was cultural, economic and political centre of Rus. People of Kiev were baptised first. From Kiev Christinianty spread to other regions of Rus. Christian church of Rus was originally a metropolitanate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Ecumenical patriarch along with the Emperor, appointed the metropolitan who governed the Church of Rus'. The Metropolitan's residence was originally located in Kiev. That says it all about the significance of the city. When Nestor was compiling his Tale of Bygone Years (1113), he described tribe Viatches as uncivilised and coarse group of people. Viatiches were ancestors of Muscovites. On the other hand Nestor described Drevlyans and Polians as cultured people - ancestors of Ukrainians. Nestor's description makes sense to these days.
 
Dec 2017
433
Australia
I wish I knew Chinese. But I am only Russian.
As to the "on Ukraine" question – in Russian we say “on Ukraine” but “in Latvia, in China, in Japan, in the USA, in Canada etc”. If Ukraine means “borderland”, “outskirts” the use of “on” is justified. In Russian of course. And it sounds very dubiously, very ambiguously. And it denigrates Ukraine to some extent. And it kills the theory that a word “Ukraine” was a toponym from the very beginning not a derivate from a Russian word “outskirts” (outskirts of Russia). That’s why in 1993 the Ukrainian government issued a resolution binding the obligatory use of “in Ukraine” phrase in the Media. In the Russian media we follow this new change in the language (no one wants here to offend the Ukrainians) but literary language rules still stay with the old “on” use. That’s why I was so bemused on the derogatory use of “on Ukraine” in the pro Ukrainian book title.
It'd be grammatically correct to say 'in country ...' in Russian . В Англии, в Германии. Only on certain occasions on is used in regards to the country such as на Кубе. That's when the country is an island. But it's not always the case such as в Японии, в Ирландии, в Новой Зеландии. So saying 'na Ukraine' is grammatically incorrect unless you can find me an example in which 'na' is used and the country is not an island.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,924
It'd be grammatically correct to say 'in country ...' in Russian . В Англии, в Германии. Only on certain occasions on is used in regards to the country such as на Кубе. That's when the country is an island. But it's not always the case such as в Японии, в Ирландии, в Новой Зеландии. So saying 'na Ukraine' is grammatically incorrect unless you can find me an example in which 'na' is used and the country is not an island.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. The only geographical entity where “on” is used in Russian is Ukraine (save some islands, like Cuba and Malta and maybe some others and some derivatives from main cities designating localities like – Ryazan, Ryazanschina, “on Ryazanschina” meaning a region where Ryazan is a dominating city). In all other instances we use “in” preposition: in Australia, in Canada, in Britain etc. The only exception is Ukraine. Here we say “on Ukraine”. But nowadays in TV we hear “in Ukraine” as a rule. But that’s PC in my opinion. The reason is that “ukraine” was always understood as “border”, “borderland”, “frontier”, “boundary”. How do you say about something situated there? I guess the correct preposition would be “on” or “at” – “on the border, at the border, on border, on the frontier, on the boundary, at the boundary”.
Dir was trying to present here a new theory popular in Ukraine which postulates that “Oukraina” was always a geographical entity which later Russians stared to use in the meaning “outskirts” only because Ukraine was at the outskirts of Russia.
But… Ukrainians themselves were using “on” preposition in their language. There are numerous examples of such use starting from the 13th century! (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96) - that’s a Ukrainian language Wiki article.
У Львівському літописі — одному з найраніших відомих історичній науці українських літописів — у 9 випадках згадування назви території України вживається тільки сполучення «на Україні» (6 разів під роками 1635, 1638, 1648), наприклад:
«<…> которий на тих міст писал до Хмельницького през посла своєго і уступити жадал їм на Україну, обіцуючи їм і то все пробачити, що поробили, і що просили, даровати на коронації своїй. І уступил Хмельницький зо всім войськом на Україну, упоминаючи шляхту універсалом своїм, аби русі, подданих своїх, не губили, що і король мандатом своїм подтвердил бул»[8].
“In the Lviv chronicle — one of the earliest Ukrainian Chronicle — the word Ukraine is mentioned 9 times and only with a preposition “on” (6 times under the years 1635, 1638, 1648), …"
So how can “Ukraine” be a geographical toponym if Ukrainians themselves understood it as a “border”, “boundary” and used it with an “on” preposition?
 
Dec 2017
433
Australia
In Polish it is also 'na Ukrainie'. The term comes from the days when Ukraine was not a recognised separate state. Many Ukrainians go to Poland. There ,they teach Poles to say 'w Ukrainie'. Just like Russians certain Poles are getting annoyed over it.

However, Rus' was a recognised state. Yet, it's 'na Rusi'.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
12,766
Europix
- were not targeted? Sure?

When Russia deportes Ukrainians from the Ukrainian stanitsas (&#1089;ossack villages) of the Kuban and instead delivers there Russian settlers from Central Russia - is this not a targeted anti-Ukrainian action?

December 20, 1932, the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR signed by the Deputy People's Commissar for Defense Tukhachevsky a secret directive &#8470; 97299 on the procedure for recruiting, selecting and sending (former - Dir) Red Army men to the stanitsa of Poltava . This directive was top secret - it has the inscription: "It is subject to return to the secretariat of the PU RKKA" (the Political Directorate of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army).

The Directive had 12 points. The main requirements for recruitment were voluntariness, careful individual selection, political commitment, discipline. Natives of the North Caucasus and Ukraine were not subject to recruitment.

Thousands of Ukrainian families of Kuban villages were evicted from their homes, in return Russian immigrants were brought - but there is nothing anti-Ukrainian in this?

Another directive of the Central Committee adopted during the Holodomor action


(RGASPI, F. 558. O. 11. D. 45. L. 109-109).

https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Директива_ЦК_ВКП(б)_и_СНК_СССР_от_22.01.1933_№_65/ш

You say hunger was everywhere at that time. Why does the Moscow authorities order the OGPU to block the exit of hungry Ukrainian peasants to neighboring Russian regions in search of bread?

After all, Ukraine has always been the most well-fed and most bread-bearing region of the Russian Empire

OK, I'm nitpicking, but:

The document You quoted forbids exiting and entering Ukraine. It also mentions North Caucasus (logically, as the famine touched that region too, a fact often overlooked), and it mentions forbidding access to North URSS for North Caucasians too.

It's difficult to use the document as such as a proof for intended genocide.
 
Dec 2017
433
Australia
There was such a state? And it was called Rus?
Rus was a state. A loose state in medieval times, but a state. In historeography &#1076;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1077; &#1075;&#1086;&#1089;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;. In old Ruthenian &#1056;&#1086;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;. In old Scandinavian - Gardariki
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
The document You quoted forbids exiting and entering Ukraine. It also mentions North Caucasus (logically, as the famine touched that region too, a fact often overlooked), and it mentions forbidding access to North URSS for North Caucasians too.

It's difficult to use the document as such as a proof for intended genocide.
- the document title includes Ukraine, North Caucasus and Western Oblast - that means Western region of RSFSR (Russia) including Smolensk and Bryansk gubernia etc.

And when you read the text of the document, you will find no Western Oblast in it. The document appeared at the height of the Holodomor campaign is only about Ukraine (USSR) and Kuban as part of the North Caucasus. In this text it is specified that:

- in the Kuban there are supporters of the former (Ukrainian) Kuban Rada, and in the Ukrainian SSR - Petliurists (supporters of the Ukrainian People's Republic of 1917-1919)

- that these supporters need to be ruthlessly punished - send them to the concentration camps or shoot them

- there is a hard point about "improper Ukrainization" - it is about Ukrainian culture and education

- there is a point about the immediate replacement of all office work in Ukrainianin Russian in the Kuban

- and there is a punt for the closure of all Ukrainian schools in the Kuban from the beginning of the 1933 academic year and the opening of Russian schools instead. Ukrainian schools in the Kuban at that time was more than 300.

So this is quite clear that the document is about Ukrainian part of Kuban, not the smaller part of Kuban that was Russian by ethnics - language, traditions and culture

But this, of course, did not in any way make the Holodomor and similar resolutions of CK VKP(b) anti-Ukrainian, is not it?
 

Similar History Discussions