[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1677258556687-0.jpg (111.41 KB, 927x780, the_retarded_map.jpg)

 No.12478

1) The so-called Cossack hetmanate was far bigger in 1654 (In 1654 they became a protectorate of russian tsar, that's why it is brought up here). See the pic no. 2

2) Russian empire did not recognize the concept of Ukraine, ukrainian nation or ukrainian language. For them it was Malorossiya. And every new territory gained was annexed to Russian empire, not gifted to someone, lmao. There wasn't even autonomous Malorossiya inside the empire the new territories could have joined. It's complete nonsense.

3) Lenin wasn't giving any territories as a gift. Initially, there were Odessa Soviet Republic and Donetsk - Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, and they were later occupied by Germany and Austria-Hungary. In order to create a united front against germans the II All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets decided that all soviet republics on the territory of Ukraine will create one Ukrainian republic and after the liberation this was confirmed by the III All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets. It wasn't a decision of heckin dictator Lenin but a decision that was carried out by local deputies.

4) Western Ukraine joining the USSR in 1939 would be a gift only of the ukrainians were completely passive. Which isn't true. The anti- polish resistance existed and of course ukrainians fought in the Red Army.

In case of Transcarpathian Ukraine we can't talk about a gift at all. There literally was a referendum in 1945, whether to stay in Czechoslovakia or to join the USSR.

5) Crimea wasn't a "gift from Khruschev", because Khruschev wasn't in position to decide about that at the time. It was decided by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The reason was simple: the territory is closer both economically and territorially to Ukraine and it would be easier for Ukraine to help Crimea with post war recovery. The decision was supported by Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich, the future "Anti-Party Group", so no, evil revisionist Cornman isn't at fault here.

Tl,dr: This map is based on russian nationalist myths about how evil communist dictators were drawing borders as they wanted.

 No.12479

Who said anything about gifts?

 No.12481

File: 1677261132341.png (393.41 KB, 1280x720, Bez-imeni-1.png)

>>12479
the original picture

 No.12482

>>12478
1. They are talking about the zaporozhian sich. As we all know, that was an ukrainian area inside Cossack hetmanate. Cossack ≠ ukrainian.
2. If the territory is majority ukrainian, historically ukrainian, governed locally by ukrainians, speaks and acts ukrainian, is recognized as the ukrainian heartland and exist in the same place as zaporozhia, you could easily call it a predecessor to modern ukraine as they do in ukrainian schoolbooks.
3. They were talking about lenin-era goverment, not some great man.
4. It's not annexed if they have internal dissent and/or they fought in the war?
5. They were talking about goverments again. Wikipedia says administration was handed because of "the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR". Who has denied this?
>tl;dr
This doesn't even take a minute to read uygga why add this
>>12481
Pic says so in the way that one would exclaim "this welfare is a gift from the goverment". Meant ironically and to annoy mildly since everyone knows they have much better reasons to do so than goodwill.

 No.12486

>>12482
>1. They are talking about the zaporozhian sich.
Then that doesn't make sense, lol. Why only the Zaporizhya was the supposed original Ukraine?

>If the territory is majority ukrainian, historically ukrainian, governed locally by ukrainians, speaks and acts ukrainian, is recognized as the ukrainian heartland

You apparently don't know anything about the time, lol. For the Russian Empire there were no Ukrainians, only Russians. The "Malorussian dialect" wasn't an official language. Only the "Great Russian" was allowed in the official spheres. No autonomous Malorossiya existed inside the Russian empire. These territories were supossed to be completely russified.

>. They were talking about Lenin-era goverment, not some great man.

<by Vladimir Lenin in 1922
Where do you see some government mentioned, lol? Also the decision about joining Ukrainian SSR wasn't done by some "Lenin government" but by the local bolsheviks themselves

>4. It's not annexed if they have internal dissent and/or they fought in the war?

It kinda changes the context, doesn't it? "Annexed by Stalin" can mean that Stalin was stealing territories from Poland and Czechoslovakia for those ungrateful Ukrainians.

>5. They were talking about goverments again

no, they weren't, lol

>Who has denied this?

It's not about someone denying it. It's again about context. It wasn't a decision carried out by Khruschev, it was decided by people democratically elected by both Russians and Ukrainians. And yes, there literally are people that "Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine". Even in the mainstream media. https://www.kp.ru/daily/23219/26731/

>This doesn't even take a minute to read uygga why add this

>it's just irony
Many people, not only here, take this shit seriously. That's why. I don't think there is any irony involved. Just like I don't think Putin was hyperbolic or ironic when calling for "decommunization" of Ukraine (considering he's the biggest fan of Solzheitsyn in Russia and that Solzhenitsyn actually claimed that bolsheviks gifted Russian territories to Ukraine).

And also, it's simply historically wrong. Be it irony or not.

 No.12487

>>12486
1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainian
2. Doesn't matter what the official line was, ukrainians existed and where they lived and died didn't change because of it. There, during the feudal times these local rulers had much say in local affairs so it is stupid to compare them to modern autonomous areas. Ukrainians did rise to official positions in some positions in these local goverments. And of course malorossiyan isn't a dialect because it isn't even a language to begin with.
3. When I say that "Trump banned xiaomi" I don't mean he personally went ahead and banned them for no reason.
4. 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?
5. Look how I used stalin in the above sentence, it's more convenient to say. What are you saying this for? You said "The reason was simple: the territory is closer both economically and territorially to Ukraine and it would be easier for Ukraine to help Crimea with post war recovery", meaning that people were denying this alongside the decision being made by a state organ.
>And yes, there literally are people that "Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine".
Has nothing to do with the reason for administrative change.
>It's irony
One that speaks so much about context should have figured this out. Do you think they meant lenin personally gave out some of *his* territory because nobody mentioned anything existing outside of him? Or did they mean it like an article reading "official mike johnson fails to get bill passed" where they personify the entire party and it's agenda to one face?

 No.12494

>>12487
>1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainian
Then 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 themselves
It 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 say

It 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 time
If 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)


Unique IPs: 3

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]