The Russian SFSR Annexes the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs

CaliGuy

Banned
This scenario is somewhat similar to one of my previous questions here. Anyway, though, here goes:

What if the Bolsheviks--either under Lenin or in the early Stalin years--would have had the Russian SFSR annex both the Ukrainian and the Byelorussian SSR? Basically, the reason for this is that the Bolsheviks would have come to the conclusion that the East Slavic proletariat need to be put into one country and become one people so that they can devote their exclusive focus and attention to fighting predatory bourgeois imperialism.

Also, if the Soviet Union still eventually annexes Galicia in this TL, Galicia also gets annexed to the Russian SFSR right afterwards.

Anyway, what about the consequences of this be? Would the Bolsheviks have succeeded in Russifying Belarus and most of Ukraine like they did with the Kuban? Or would the Bolsheviks' move here only result in the weakening of the Russian SFSR due to its annexation of many non-Russians and its inability to assimilate them?

Also, how exactly would this affect the breakup of the Soviet Union several decades later?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 
Wouldn't happen, it's worth reading Stalin on the national question to understand this. It'd have to be someone else, and a good chunk of the party leadership would have to be different, in essence, not the Bolsheviks.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Wouldn't happen, it's worth reading Stalin on the national question to understand this. It'd have to be someone else, and a good chunk of the party leadership would have to be different, in essence, not the Bolsheviks.
Did Stalin view more ethnic delimitation as strengthening his own power, or what?
 
Did Stalin view more ethnic delimitation as strengthening his own power, or what?

Not really, you have to remember Stalin's path to becoming a revolutionary was via the Georgian liberation struggles against the Russian Empire.

To quote Stalin from The Foundations of Leninism, Chapter 6 The National Question:

"For communism, on the contrary, these tendencies are but two sides of a single cause-the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed people from the yoke of imperialism; because communism knows that the union of peoples in a single world economic system is possible only in the basis of mutual confidence and voluntary agreement, and that road to the formation of a voluntary union of peoples lies through the separation of the colonies from the "integral" imperialist "whole," through the transformation of the colonies into independent states.

Hence the necessity for a stubborn, continuous and determined struggle against the dominant-nation chauvinism of the "Socialist" of the ruling nations (Britain, France, America, Italy, Japan, etc.), who do not want to fight their imperialist governments, who do not want to support the struggle of the oppressed peoples in "their" colonies for emancipation from oppression, for secession.

Without such a struggle the education of the working class of the ruling nations in the spirit of true internationalism, in the spirit of closer relations with the toiling masses of the dependent countries and colonies, in the spirit of real preparation for the proletarian revolution, is inconceivable. The revolution would not have been victorious in Russia and Kolchak and Denikin would not have been crushed, had not the Russian proletariat enjoyed the sympathy and support of the oppressed peoples of the former Russian Empire. But to win the sympathy and support of these peoples it had first of all to break the fetters of Russian imperialism and free these people from the yoke of national oppression.

Without this it would have been impossible to consolidate Soviet power, to implant real internationalism and to create that remarkable organisation for the collaboration of peoples which is called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and which is the living prototype of the future union of peoples in a single world economic system.

Hence the necessity of fighting against the national isolationism, narrowness and aloofness of the Socialist in the oppressed countries, who do not want to rise above their national parochialism and who do not understand the connection between the liberation movement in their own countries and the proletarian movement in the ruling countries.

Without such a struggle it is inconceivable that the proletariat of the oppressed nations can maintain an independent policy and its class solidarity with the proletariat of the ruling countries in the fight for the overthrow of the common enemy, in the fight for the overthrow of imperialism.

Without such a struggle, internationalism would be impossible.

Such is the way in which the toiling masses of the dominant and of the oppressed nations must be educated in the spirit of revolutionary internationalism.

Here is what Lenin says about this twofold task of communism in educating the workers in the spirit of internationalism:

"Can such education…be concretely identical in great, oppressing nations and in small, oppressed nations, in annexing nations and in annexed nations?

"Obviously not. The way to the one goal-to complete equality, to the closest relations and the subsequent amalgamation of all nations-obviously proceeds here by different routes in each concrete case; in the same way, let us say, as the route to a point in the middle of a given page lies towards the left from one edge and towards the right from the opposite edge. If a Social-Democrat belonging to a great, oppressing, annexing nation, while advocating the amalgamation of nations in general, were to forget even for one moment that 'his' Nicholas II, 'his' Wilhelm, George, Poincare, etc., also stands for amalgamation with small nations (by means of annexations)-Nicholas II being for 'amalgamation' with Galicia, Wilhelm II for 'amalgamation' with Belgium, etc.-such a Social-Democrat would be a ridiculous doctrinaire in theory and an abettor of imperialism in practice.

"The weight of emphasis in the internationalist education of the workers in the oppressing countries must necessarily consist in their advocating and upholding freedom of secession for oppressed countries. Without this there can be no internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every Social-Democrat of an oppressing nation who fails to conduct such propaganda as an imperialist and a scoundrel. This is an absolute demand, even if the chance of secession being possible and 'feasible' before the introduction of socialism be one in a thousand….

"On the other hand, a Social-Democrat belonging to a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second word of our general formula: 'voluntary union' of nations. He may, without violating his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of either the political independence of his nation or its inclusion in a neighboring state X,Y,Z, etc. But in all cases he must fight against small-nation narrow-mindedness, isolationism and aloofness, he must fight for the recognition of the whole and the general, for the subordination of the interests of the particular to the interests of the general.

"People who have not gone thoroughly into the question think there is a 'contradiction' in Social-Democrats of oppressing nations insisting on 'freedom of secession,' while Social-Democrats of oppressed nations insist on 'freedom of union.' However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be, any other road leading from the given situation to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other road to this goal" (see Vol. XIX, pp. 261-62)."

So as Some Bloke said, it would undermine the whole premise of the USSR.
 
Wouldn't it have been easier to never have those two SSRs in the first place?

Agreed that the Byelorussian SSR could have been annexed to the RSFSR, probably as an ASSR. Otherwise, it could just have been established as an ASSR right from the start.

Ukraine is more difficult. I could see a smaller Ukrainian SSR, perhaps just the western half or three-fifths of the OTL SSR, with the rest (including Crimea) being part of the RSFSR.
 
Wouldn't it have been easier to never have those two SSRs in the first place?

It would need changes long prior to the establishment of the USSR, namely that they aren't oppressed colonies of the Russian Empire. And on the nigh ASB chance they are absorbed by the Russian SSR they'd be autonomous republics within it.
 
It would need changes long prior to the establishment of the USSR, namely that they aren't oppressed colonies of the Russian Empire. And on the nigh ASB chance they are absorbed by the Russian SSR they'd be autonomous republics within it.

With Belarus, wouldn't it depend on whether they are considered to be a distinct people, or just Russians with a peculiar dialect?
 
As people already said, this would be highly out of character for the OTL Bolshevik/Communist leadership. A fairly big part of their ideology and platform was focused on opposition to Russian nationalism and imperialism (or "Great Russian chauvinism" as the phrase goes). In fact, the Bolsheviks did not only denounce Russian nationalism and imperialism; they sometimes carried this sentiment well beyond reasonable limits. IIRC, the first act of ethnic cleansing committed by the Soviets was committed against an ethnic Russian community.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As people already said, this would be highly out of character for the OTL Bolshevik/Communist leadership. A fairly big part of their ideology and platform was focused on opposition to Russian nationalism and imperialism (or "Great Russian chauvinism" as the phrase goes). In fact, the Bolsheviks did not only denounce Russian nationalism and imperialism; they sometimes carried this sentiment well beyond reasonable limits. IIRC, the first act of ethnic cleansing committed by the Soviets was committed against an ethnic Russian community.
What exactly was this ethnic cleansing?

Also, is treating Ukrainians and Belarusians as Russians a case of Great Russian chauvinism?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Wouldn't it have been easier to never have those two SSRs in the first place?

Agreed that the Byelorussian SSR could have been annexed to the RSFSR, probably as an ASSR. Otherwise, it could just have been established as an ASSR right from the start.

Ukraine is more difficult. I could see a smaller Ukrainian SSR, perhaps just the western half or three-fifths of the OTL SSR, with the rest (including Crimea) being part of the RSFSR.
OK; let's go with your suggestion here. Specifically, let's create an autonomous Belarusian ASSR inside of Russia and a Novorossiyan ASSR inside of Russia (stretching from Kharkiv to Odessa) as well.

Anyway, what happens afterwards in such a scenario?
 
What exactly was this ethnic cleansing?

The Bolshevik government's ethnic cleansing of Russians from Chechnya and Ingushetia, which started in the spring of 1918.
Also, is treating Ukrainians and Belarusians as Russians a case of Great Russian chauvinism?

Isn't it? Especially if they are - as it's implied - not just administratively unified with Russia, but also being pressured to assimilate to Russian culture and identity.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They had a national consciousness pal, even a glib read of Belarusian history will tell you that.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s.../soc.history.what-if/cVLy054UpwM/PbSz_XukAp0J

"In 1917 there were few peoples in the Russian Empire with so little
national consciousness as the Belorussians. In the Constituent Assembly
elections, the only Belorussian nationalist party--the Belorussian
Socialist Hromada--got 0.3 percent of the vote in the Minsk district,
compared to 63.1% for the Bolsheviks, 19.8% for the SRs and 1.7% for the
Mensheviks and Bundists. (In the city of Minsk the Hromada polled only
161 votes out of 35,651 cast. All these figures are from Richard Pipes,
*The Creation of the Soviet Union*.) Contrast this with Ukraine, where
the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary and Ukrainian Social Democratic
parties got the great majority of Ukrainian, especially rural Ukrainian,
votes in the election. To be sure, the Ukrainian SRs and SDs did not at
this point advocate outright independence (neither did the Hromada) but
they were unmistakably nationalist as well as socialist parties. No such
party could attract mass support in Belorussia at that time."

Now, you were saying?

The Bolshevik government's ethnic cleansing of Russians from Chechnya and Ingushetia, which started in the spring of 1918.

Very interesting; indeed, what exactly were the causes of this?

Isn't it? Especially if they are - as it's implied - not just administratively unified with Russia, but also being pressured to assimilate to Russian culture and identity.

So, is having France pressure the Occitans and Bretons to assimilate to French culture and identity a case of French chauvinism?
 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.history.what-if/litbel|sort:relevance/soc.history.what-if/cVLy054UpwM/PbSz_XukAp0J

"In 1917 there were few peoples in the Russian Empire with so little
national consciousness as the Belorussians. In the Constituent Assembly
elections, the only Belorussian nationalist party--the Belorussian
Socialist Hromada--got 0.3 percent of the vote in the Minsk district,
compared to 63.1% for the Bolsheviks, 19.8% for the SRs and 1.7% for the
Mensheviks and Bundists. (In the city of Minsk the Hromada polled only
161 votes out of 35,651 cast. All these figures are from Richard Pipes,
*The Creation of the Soviet Union*.) Contrast this with Ukraine, where
the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary and Ukrainian Social Democratic
parties got the great majority of Ukrainian, especially rural Ukrainian,
votes in the election. To be sure, the Ukrainian SRs and SDs did not at
this point advocate outright independence (neither did the Hromada) but
they were unmistakably nationalist as well as socialist parties. No such
party could attract mass support in Belorussia at that time."

Now, you were saying?

So I spend an entire thread explaining how the Bolsheviks in places like Belarus are explaining to the population how they are an oppressed people who should fight a national liberation struggle, now you show me proof that this in the very least resonated with the Belarusians, now you're telling me only countries that vote for nationalist parties have a national consciousness?
 
Last edited:
Top