Was it possible to strongly Russify Ukrainians and Belarusians in the 20th century?

CaliGuy

Banned
In one of his old posts, blogger Anatoly Karlin (you can go look him up) said that had Russia avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, it would have been able to strongly Russify Ukrainians and Belarusians--similar to what France did with its own various ethnic minorities in the 19th century. Specifically, the mechanism through which this would have been done--just like in France--would be to implement universal, uniform, and standardized education throughout Russia.

Anyway, my question here is this--do you agree with Anatoly Karlin that it was possible to strongly Russify Ukrainians and Belarusians in the 20th century to the extent that the vast majority of them began considering themselves to be Russians?

As for my own thoughts on this, I would say this: I think that it was possible, but only through massive oppression and repression on the part of the state over a (relatively) long period of time. Basically, the (essentially) forced Russification of the Ukrainians of the Kuban is a good example of this. Specifically, if Russia used fear, terror, and the like to impose Russification on its entire Ukrainian and Belarusian population for a sufficiently long time period starting from the early 20th century, then it might have very well been able to Russify the vast majority of them.

However, I don't think that Russia would have been able to Russify the vast majority of its Ukrainian and Belarusian populations in the 20th century had it become a democracy like France was after 1871. Basically, I think that what allowed France to Francify (sp?) its various ethnic groups in the 19th and 20th centuries is the fact that France completely eliminated the concept of ethnicity throughout its territory; basically, in France, there was no official discussion of ethnicity for anyone. In contrast, due to its larger and more "extreme"/varied ethnic diversity, I don't think that Russia would have been able to completely eliminate the concept of ethnicity throughout its territory like France did. After all, can you honestly imagine, say, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, or Azeris beginning to consider themselves to be Russians? (Indeed, this might help explain why attempts to create a nationwide Sovok identity throughout the Soviet Union in our TL were mostly unsuccessful.) In turn, without a complete elimination of the concept of ethnicity throughout its territory, I don't think that a democratic Russia would have been able to Russify the vast majority of its ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Belarusian populations.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, one more point: Even before the Bolshevik Revolution, there was a widespread belief in a triune Russian nation--thus already indicating a notable degree of separateness between ethnic Russians, ethnic Ukrainians, and ethnic Belarusians. After all, how many peoples/ethnic groups refer to themselves with the use/help of an adjective such as "triune"?

For instance, I have never heard of ethnic Germans referring to the German nation as a "triune German nation"! :

Continental_West_Germanic_languages.png
 
I think it is a mistake to group together Ukrainians with Belarusians here. National consciousness was much weaker with the Belarusians. (One advantage the Ukrainians had: Even when the Ukrainian language was repressed in Russia, there was always Austria-Hungary, where it could develop much more freely, have books published that could then be smuggled into Russian Ukraine, etc.)

In any event, "no Bolshevik Revolution" is too late a POD to prevent development of Ukrainian distinctiveness. There had been a flourishing of specifically Ukrainian political parties, etc. after the February Revolution, the formation of the Rada, etc. You would even have to prevent not just the February but the 1905 Revolution, and even that might not be enough... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Ukaz
 
Anyway, my question here is this--do you agree with Anatoly Karlin that it was possible to strongly Russify Ukrainians and Belarusians in the 20th century to the extent that the vast majority of them began considering themselves to be Russians?

As for my own thoughts on this, I would say this: I think that it was possible, but only through massive oppression and repression on the part of the state over a (relatively) long period of time. Basically, the (essentially) forced Russification of the Ukrainians of the Kuban is a good example of this. Specifically, if Russia used fear, terror, and the like to impose Russification on its entire Ukrainian and Belarusian population for a sufficiently long time period starting from the early 20th century, then it might have very well been able to Russify the vast majority of them.

The Kuban is a small region, and one in which ethnic Ukrainians were only around 50-55% of the population to begin with. Projecting that situation onto the whole of Ukraine (to say nothing of Belarus) would be improbable.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Kuban is a small region, and one in which ethnic Ukrainians were only around 50-55% of the population to begin with. Projecting that situation onto the whole of Ukraine (to say nothing of Belarus) would be improbable.
Perhaps; however, how exactly did France manage to create a uniform French identity during the 19th and 20th centuries in our TL?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think it is a mistake to group together Ukrainians with Belarusians here. National consciousness was much weaker with the Belarusians. (One advantage the Ukrainians had: Even when the Ukrainian language was repressed in Russia, there was always Austria-Hungary, where it could develop much more freely, have books published that could then be smuggled into Russian Ukraine, etc.)

Very good point! :)

However, what about if--going back even further--Russia would have annexed Galicia back in 1815? Would that have been enough to nip the Ukrainian nationalist movement in the bud (not something that I myself would have actually wanted, for the record)?

In any event, "no Bolshevik Revolution" is too late a POD to prevent development of Ukrainian distinctiveness. There had been a flourishing of specifically Ukrainian political parties, etc. after the February Revolution, the formation of the Rada, etc. You would even have to prevent not just the February but the 1905 Revolution, and even that might not be enough... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Ukaz

If you want an earlier PoD, in addition to the 1815 PoD above, what about having Russia support Hungary's independence in 1848-1849 and grab Galicia for itself in the process? Would 1848-1849 have still been sufficiently early for this?

Also, one more question--even with a separate Ukrainian identity developing, could most Ukrainians have still wanted to live in Russia today with a sufficiently early PoD (as in, somewhere in the early 20th century)? For instance, think of the sentiments in the separatist-controlled Donbass, but throughout most or all of Ukraine!

Finally, do you think that it would have been plausible/realistic for the vast majority of the Belarusian people to successfully become Russified with a PoD of 1917 or even later? Yes, correct?
 
Perhaps; however, how exactly did France manage to create a uniform French identity during the 19th and 20th centuries in our TL?

No idea. Perhaps a French member can describe the process in some detail. But what I strongly suspect is that France had a very important head start. They were operating before the rise of modern nationalism - in other words, before ethnic or linguistic groupings such as Breton/Occitan/whatever became a solid, widespread identity acting as a vehicle for political action. In other other words - before they transformed from ethnic groups in the abstract sense, into very real and self-aware communities AKA nations.

This, of course, was not the case for most ethnic groups in 1900s Russia. We'd need to go further back - possibly much further back.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
No idea. Perhaps a French member can describe the process in some detail. But what I strongly suspect is that France had a very important head start. They were operating before the rise of modern nationalism - in other words, before ethnic or linguistic groupings such as Breton/Occitan/whatever became a solid, widespread identity acting as a vehicle for political action. In other other words - before they transformed from ethnic groups in the abstract sense, into very real and self-aware communities AKA nations.

OK.

This, of course, was not the case for most ethnic groups in 1900s Russia. We'd need to go further back - possibly much further back.

To clarify--by "1900s," you mean "1900 to 1909," correct?

Also, what about going back to 1850?
 
They kind of were Russified OTL - virtually all Belarussians and Ukrainians are bilingual in Russian - and a big chunk of Ukrainians (and most Belarussians) speak it as their first language. And until the last couple decades, Russian was the primary language in Ukraine's major cities, except for the far west. Their independence was based on a number of contingencies around the Soviet collapse - there's no automatic need to assume that would happen with a radically different 20th Century Russian history.

And what's the expectation here? It's not at all implausible to imagine Ukraine as a kind of distinctive nation-within-a-nation, like a Russian version of the Basque Country or Catalonia, or Scotland within Britain; nationalism doesn't have to be zero sum. Many cultures identify both with an ethnicity/subnationality and a broader nationality. No reason to assume there wouldn't be people who saw themselves as Ukrainian and Russian.
 
In one of his old posts, blogger Anatoly Karlin (you can go look him up) said that had Russia avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, it would have been able to strongly Russify Ukrainians and Belarusians--similar to what France did with its own various ethnic minorities in the 19th century. Specifically, the mechanism through which this would have been done--just like in France--would be to implement universal, uniform, and standardized education throughout Russia.

Anyway, my question here is this--do you agree with Anatoly Karlin that it was possible to strongly Russify Ukrainians and Belarusians in the 20th century to the extent that the vast majority of them began considering themselves to be Russians?

As for my own thoughts on this, I would say this: I think that it was possible, but only through massive oppression and repression on the part of the state over a (relatively) long period of time. Basically, the (essentially) forced Russification of the Ukrainians of the Kuban is a good example of this. Specifically, if Russia used fear, terror, and the like to impose Russification on its entire Ukrainian and Belarusian population for a sufficiently long time period starting from the early 20th century, then it might have very well been able to Russify the vast majority of them.

However, I don't think that Russia would have been able to Russify the vast majority of its Ukrainian and Belarusian populations in the 20th century had it become a democracy like France was after 1871. Basically, I think that what allowed France to Francify (sp?) its various ethnic groups in the 19th and 20th centuries is the fact that France completely eliminated the concept of ethnicity throughout its territory; basically, in France, there was no official discussion of ethnicity for anyone. In contrast, due to its larger and more "extreme"/varied ethnic diversity, I don't think that Russia would have been able to completely eliminate the concept of ethnicity throughout its territory like France did. After all, can you honestly imagine, say, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, or Azeris beginning to consider themselves to be Russians? (Indeed, this might help explain why attempts to create a nationwide Sovok identity throughout the Soviet Union in our TL were mostly unsuccessful.) In turn, without a complete elimination of the concept of ethnicity throughout its territory, I don't think that a democratic Russia would have been able to Russify the vast majority of its ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Belarusian populations.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Ukrainians are too diverse too create an uniform Nationalist ideology based on ethnic criteria (which applies to a majority of Ukrainians). Ukraine always had been a mixing pot. Tartars, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Russians, Germans etc. which intermarried all along the lines and many different faiths ( Greek-Orthodox, Russian-Orthodox,Sunni Islam etc.) . There are many sub categories of lingual and ethnic identety among Ukrainians. A hardcore Russian-Nationalist movement would abolish all non-Orthodox faiths, to install leadership under the Orthodox Church. In Easter-Ukraine, Seperatist for example abolished the Greek-Orthodox Church, although there are a sizeable Greek population.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They kind of were Russified OTL - virtually all Belarussians and Ukrainians are bilingual in Russian - and a big chunk of Ukrainians (and most Belarussians) speak it as their first language. And until the last couple decades, Russian was the primary language in Ukraine's major cities, except for the far west.

Actually, I am unsure that the extent of Russification in Ukraine was as widespread in our TL as you think; indeed, here is a language map of Ukraine for 2001:

https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ukraine-census.png

ukraine-census.png


Their independence was based on a number of contingencies around the Soviet collapse - there's no automatic need to assume that would happen with a radically different 20th Century Russian history.

Agreed.

And what's the expectation here? It's not at all implausible to imagine Ukraine as a kind of distinctive nation-within-a-nation, like a Russian version of the Basque Country or Catalonia, or Scotland within Britain; nationalism doesn't have to be zero sum. Many cultures identify both with an ethnicity/subnationality and a broader nationality. No reason to assume there wouldn't be people who saw themselves as Ukrainian and Russian.

Agreed; however, Catalonia and Scotland might not be the best examples for this considering that a whopping 40+%--or almost half--of their population appears to support independence!
 
Actually, I am unsure that the extent of Russification in Ukraine was as widespread in our TL as you think; indeed, here is a language map of Ukraine for 2001:

https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ukraine-census.png

ukraine-census.png




Agreed.



Agreed; however, Catalonia and Scotland might not be the best examples for this considering that a whopping 40+%--or almost half--of their population appears to support independence!

From what I understand, language surveys in Ukraine are tricky; what people cite as their "native language" is linked to nationalism and different from daily usage. One 2004 poll (yes, according to Wikipedia) said that roughly half the population - and more in cities - used Russian as their primary day-to-day language. A Ukrainian couple I know based in the states said that while they identified as Ukrainian, growing up in Kiev, they largely spoke Russian. (Something which is kind of changing.)

This isn't uncommon in multilingual societies. (As the OTL USSR or a surviving Russian Empire or non-Soviet Russia were or would have been.) In India, many people (esp in the middle class) identify their primary language with their familial region but otherwise use English or Hindi as their daily language.

And yes, Scotland and Catalunya have significant independence movements. But neither has succeeded yet and may never. Separatism usually doesn't succeed - even if there remain a faction in this OTL non-Soviet Russia who want independence for Ukraine, it doesn't mean it would happen.
 
In Ukraine, something that is often over looked is that while many people speak Russian, schools always taught Ukrainian even if, like during the Soviet Period and 90s and even in some places early 2000s the language of instruction was Russian, the Ukrainian language was taught. Basically everyone in Ukraine was taught Ukrainian in school, and can understand it, some people can't really speak it too well to be sure, but they can mostly understand it. Another reason why Russian was so prevalent was that in television literature etc. it is easier to find Russian translations of non Russian/Ukrainian films/tv shows. Also, many Ukrainian websites are in Russian to attract people browsing from Russia. Russian and Ukrainian are not mutually intelligible. Since the majority of Ukrainians either speak or understand Russian to some degree while very few Russians understand Ukrainian it stands to reason that when crafting a website one would want it in the language that more people whom one is looking to attract to said website would be able to understand.


On the discussion of the French situation, in France Occitan still has over a million speakers, perhaps closer to 1,5 million, IIRC. Occitania had not been independent of France (excluding English rule) for basically a millennia. The French government only educated people in the French language and the French language was spoken in all facets of the government.

In the Russian Empire, the use of the Ukrainian language was literally banned. While there is much talk of a weak national consciousness of the Ukrainian people, they never stopped speaking Ukrainian in the face of such repression. However, during the Soviet period a large part of the Russification occurred simultaneously to the deaths 7 million Ukrainians from WWII, 12 million from de-Kulakization, and the Holodomer, both inside and outside the Ukrainian SSR. As well as around half a million from operation Vistula. While Ukraine itself did not disappear, much like what is happening to the Occitan language, in 'modern' Ukraine, in Ukraine's historical ethnic borders areas like the Kuban went from a majority Ukrainian speaking (The Kuban dialect is a Ukrainian dialect brought over by Cossacks) to a percentage similar to Occitan. Other areas like Green Ukraine have almost totally lost their Ukrainian language, though culturally they are almost shockingly similar.
 
Perhaps; however, how exactly did France manage to create a uniform French identity during the 19th and 20th centuries in our TL?

There are a lot of myths, preconceptions and half-truths floating about French national identity on this forum, so let me summarise the why a uniform French identity was successfully created:
1. Most oil and francoprovencal dialects are mutually intelligible. Standard French evolved as a common language that straddled across all of them.
2. The current territory of France was under the control of the French monarchy for centuries before the revolution in some cases. Loyalty to the monarch consequently became an important glue.
3. Brittany and Occitania may have had different dialects, but both regions were Catholic. Catholicism was once a very important societal glue in France and played a part in defining French identity.
4. Centralisation and education played their parts from the 19th century onward. But as late as the 1950s dialects were well spoken in some parts of France
5. French national identity wasn't exclusively tied to language. Ernest Renan described as a "daily plebiscite" and compared it to the German view that a nation was defined by language or race.

Could the Russian Empire have created a similar "Greater Russian" identity that Ukrainians and Belarussians would have embraced? Yes it could have by using the following elements:
1. Common loyalty to the Tsar
2. Orthodoxy and the "Third Rome"
3. The Kievan Rus as earliest ancestor to the Russian nation
4. Kiev on par with Moscow & Petrograd as "mother of all Russian cities" (note this is a true expression! It even figures in my Russian language teaching book!)

Agreed; however, Catalonia and Scotland might not be the best examples for this considering that a whopping 40+%--or almost half--of their population appears to support independence!

The reasons for which are extremely varied and complex, especially in Scotland. Economics are playing a huge part in both cases. In Catalonia it is the perception that rich Catalonia is subsidising the rest of Spain. In Scotland it is the perception that London is ignoring and abandoning the region.

Both perceptions could occur in a Russian Ukraine, but my gut feeling is that a Ukraine fully integrated with Russian would hold a very central position in the country. A bit like Scotland once was in the British Empire.
 
They had a pretty good go of it in our TL

Post 1900 they had: 91 years of Russification policy placing Russian language over Ukrainian + two separate wars suppressing Ukrainian nationalists extremely brutally + 1 genocidal forced famine killing millions of Ukrainians.

Without nazi style extermination campaigns I doubt you could make the Ukrainian nationality any smaller or the Russian nation any larger in that area.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They had a pretty good go of it in our TL

Post 1900 they had: 91 years of Russification policy placing Russian language over Ukrainian + two separate wars suppressing Ukrainian nationalists extremely brutally + 1 genocidal forced famine killing millions of Ukrainians.

Without nazi style extermination campaigns I doubt you could make the Ukrainian nationality any smaller or the Russian nation any larger in that area.
Actually, with the exception of the Stalin era, Soviet nationality policy in Ukraine was actually anti-Russification.
 
@CaliGuy Source?
Because from a quick look it seems like Russification was promoted throughout the soviet period in Ukraine apart from the very beginning
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    142.6 KB · Views: 143
@CaliGuy Source?
Because from a quick look it seems like Russification was promoted throughout the soviet period in Ukraine apart from the very beginning

Russification as overarching policy was mostly a Stalin era creature. Post-Stalin the promulgation of the Ukrainian language in education and daily life was largely tolerated, though it was certainly not as consistently encouraged as it was under the nationalities policy in the 1920s (indeed the active promotion of Ukrainian under Shelest eventually made parts of the government antsy). from the same wiki article:
 
Last edited:
Both perceptions could occur in a Russian Ukraine, but my gut feeling is that a Ukraine fully integrated with Russian would hold a very central position in the country. A bit like Scotland once was in the British Empire.

Even OTL - in Putin's Russia - a big chunk of Kremlin aides / powerbrokers are Ukrainian-born. Much of the Soviet leadership was Ukrainian.

And of course one of the ironies here is that - even as it's mostly right-wing Russian nationalists that pine for a Russian-Ukrainian union - were Ukraine fully integrated into Russia, it would likely tilt Russian politics in a more Western (and arguably more liberal) direction.
 
Top