>>12487>1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainianThen it makes sense even less because Zaporizhiyan Sich wasn't anywhere near Ukrainian as well (also the modern understanding of Russians and Ukrainains didn't exist at the time). But for the sake of argument I can accept it.
> Doesn't matter what the official line was, ukrainians existed and where they lived and died didn't change because of it. I am not sure why are you telling me this. If you are trying to say that Ukrainians deserve these territories because they were important part of the society of the Russian Empire, that they fought in the army too, then, yeah, good, ok, I can take that. But if you are trying to say here that Russian Empire wasn't a chauvinistic shithole, then either get Lenin-pilled or piss off.
> it is stupid to compare them to modern autonomous areas.I can compare it to Finland or Bukhara which enjoyed far more autonomy inside the Empire than Ukraine every did. Not to mention that by the end of 19th century there wasn't anything resembling Ukrainian/ Malorossiyan autonomy at all, because the tsars were actively surpressing it. (I was kinda wrong by saying that there was never anything like Ukrainian/Maloross autonomy inside the empire, it's better to say initially there was one but was soon liquidated)
>And of course malorossiyan isn't a dialect because it isn't even a language to begin with.That's not my terminology, that's terminology of Lomonosov and V.V. Dal'. And yes, it's not a dialect, it's called Ukrainian language.
>3. When I say that "Trump banned xiaomi" I don't mean he personally went ahead and banned them for no reason.lmao, ok
you kinda missed this part
<Also the decision about joining Ukrainian SSR wasn't done by some "Lenin government" but by the local bolsheviks themselvesIt wasn't a decision of the government of the RSFSR, so it is wrong regardless of them meaning Lenin personally or a government.
>No, I was asking how it matters if the ukrainians fought in the war. Would a reward not be a gift? Was stalin punishing them by annexing it to their control?First of all, I didn't say anything about Stalin punishing them or something. I was only saying that the Ukrainians weren't passive actors of the whole process. But yeah, here I can agree that the soviet government sending in the Red Army troops was kind of an award for the Ukrainians fighting.
(Not in the case of Transcarpathia tho)
>5.Look how I used stalin in the above sentence, it's more convenient to sayIt might be convenient to say, but it's still wrong. You are kinda omitting what I said next
<It wasn't a decision carried out by Khruschev, it was decided by people democratically elected by both Russians and Ukrainians.and what I said in the OP post
<Khruschev wasn't in position to decide about that at the timeIf the authors of the picture actually meant state organ led by Khruschev, it's still wrong because Khruschev wasn't the head of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet at the time.
<And yes, there literally are people believing that "Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine".>Has nothing to do with the reason for administrative change.But everything with me explaining to you that some people often take these things seriously. Including "Evil kukuruznik was destroying Russia by giving Crimea to Ukraine"
>One that speaks so much about context should have figured this out.Ok, fine, whatever. So you should have figured out that I am not calling the map wrong simply because I think that it's about "great man theory" or something, but because it completely distorts historical facts. (and is based on anti-communist myths popularized by Solzhenitsyn)