Re: [Marxism] Bandera and Ukraine
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I know Chris Ford well and readily acknowledge his expertise on the history of Ukraine, but I'm surprised that he wrote that 'put simply without Stalinism there would have been no Bandera'. The hard-line Ukrainian nationalism -- 'integralism', as it was often called -- that Bandera espoused was around well before Stalin's taking over the reins in Moscow, and the integralist OUN, of which Bandera became a major leader, was formed in 1929, that is, just as Stalin took over and some years before the famine in Soviet Ukraine, and Bandera had become its chief propaganda officer in 1931. No doubt the famine in Soviet Ukraine reinforced Bandera in his views, but he was an integralist well before it happened. If we interpret Chris' statement in the way that without the Stalinist experience, Bandera's brand of integralism would not have taken off; again, I would dispute this. Integralism was a common factor right across Eastern Europe in the interwar period, and it occurred within nations that were established, such as Poland, and amongst nationalities who did not have a nation-state of their own, Ukrainians being a notable case (there was also a Jewish brand of integralism, articulated by Jabotinsky). Ukrainian integralism grew up largely in Poland, which incorporated much of Western Ukraine, and whose regime persecuted Ukrainians as bad as if not actually worse than it persecuted Jews within its borders. Again, news of the famine in Soviet Ukraine would have intensified Ukrainian integralism, but it grew up to quite some degree in response to Polish chauvinism and in parallel with such sentiments across the area. Integralism had movements amongst most if not all nationalities right across Europe in the interwar period, and, especially in Eastern Europe, it keyed in neatly with existing anti-Jewish sentiments, in places (such as Poland) informing government policies when integralists got into office, and creating a murderous brew which erupted when the Nazi invasion took place, with the Nazis both permitting and encouraging pogrom gangs to run amok. The very real crimes of Stalinism in Ukraine, whether or not or to what degree they were propelled by specific anti-Ukrainian sentiments on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy (it's a moot point, as Russification took place in all non-Russian areas and the 1932-33 famine also badly hit southern Russia and Kazakhstan), gave a big impetus to Ukrainian integralism, but I would suggest that even had the Soviet Union not evolved into Stalinism, the famine not occurred and the Soviet regime had not expanded into what was in 1939 Polish territory, a brand of extreme right-wing Ukrainian nationalism with definite fascist features would have come into being, and would have been no less murderous towards other nationalities, especially Jews, than the other integralists in the area at the time. Paul F Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Bandera and Ukraine
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 5/6/14 9:33 AM, Paul Flewers wrote: I know Chris Ford well and readily acknowledge his expertise on the history of Ukraine, but I'm surprised that he wrote that 'put simply without Stalinism there would have been no Bandera'. The hard-line Ukrainian nationalism -- 'integralism', as it was often called -- that Bandera espoused was around well before Stalin's taking over the reins in Moscow, and the integralist OUN, of which Bandera became a major leader, was formed in 1929, that is, just as Stalin took over and some years before the famine in Soviet Ukraine, and Bandera had become its chief propaganda officer in 1931. No doubt the famine in Soviet Ukraine reinforced Bandera in his views, but he was an integralist well before it happened. Yes, in fact it was during the heroic days of the Comintern that hostility to communism--or at least a distorted form--took root. Let me refer to that FI article that I scanned in to remind you of the circumstances: http://louisproyect.org/2014/04/20/lenins-party-great-russian-chauvinism-and-the-betrayal-of-ukrainian-national-aspirations/ Skrypnyk, a personal friend of Lenin, and a realist always studying the relationship of forces, was seeking a minimum of Ukrainian federation with Russia and a maximum of national independence. In his opinion, it was the international extension of the revolution which would make it possible to resist in the most effective fashion the centralising Greater Russian pressure. At the head of the first Bolshevik government in the Ukraine he had had some very bitter experiences: the chauvinist behaviour of Muraviev, the commander of the Red Army who took Kiev, the refusal to recognize his government and the sabotage of his work by another commander, Antonov-Ovseyenko, for whom the existence of such a government was the product of fantasies about an Ukrainian nationality. In addition, Skrypnyk was obliged to fight bitterly for Ukrainian unity against the Russian Bolsheviks who, in several regions, proclaimed Soviet republics, fragmenting the country. The integration of Galicia into the Ukraine did not interest them either. The national aspiration to sobornist’, the unity of the country, was thus openly flouted. It was with the “Katerynoslavian” right wing of the party that there was the most serious confrontation. It formed a Soviet republic in the mining and industrial region of Donetsk-Kryvyi Rih, including the Donbas, with the aim of incorporating it into Russia. This republic, its leaders proclaimed, was that of, a Russian proletariat “which does not want to hear anything about some so-called Ukraine and has nothing in common with it”. This attempted secession could count on some support in Moscow. The Skrypnyk government had to fight against these tendencies of its Russian comrades, for the sobornist’ of the Soviet Ukraine within the national borders set, through the Central Rada, by the national movement of the masses. The first congress of the CP(B) of the Ukraine took place in Moscow. For Lenin and the leadership of the Russian CP(B) the decision of Tahanrih had the flavour of a nationalist deviation. They were not ready to accept an independent Bolshevik party in the Ukraine or a Ukrainian section of the Komintern. The CP(B) of the Ukraine could only be a regional organization of the pan-Russian CP(B), according to the thesis “one country, one party”. Is the Ukraine not a country? Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Bandera and Ukraine
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 5/6/14 9:56 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: e it happened. Yes, in fact it was during the heroic days of the Comintern that hostility to communism--or at least a distorted form--took root. Let me refer to that FI article that I scanned in to remind you of the circumstances: Correction. Andrew Pollack scanned it, I did the OCR. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Bandera and Ukraine
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Lou wrote: Bandera was a very different phenomena and put simply without Stalinism there would have been no Bandera. I am not so sure about this. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army was active in Eastern Poland before WWII were they engaged in their share of violent ethnic cleansing that had nothing to do with Stalin or the famine within the Soviet Union. It is incorrect to state that radical Ukrainian nationalism of this period was identical to Nazism, but there were was some ideological overlap. Bandera's followers believed that Jews were not Ukrainians and were to blame for the suffering of the Ukrainian people and the lack of a Ukrainian state. This strain of virulent right wing nationalism predated Stalin and has certainly outlived him. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Bandera and Ukraine
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 5/5/14 9:25 PM, Stiofan OBuadhaigh wrote: Bandera's followers believed that Jews were not Ukrainians and were to blame for the suffering of the Ukrainian people and the lack of a Ukrainian state. It also has a lot to do with the tendency of Jews, who lived in urban areas, to back the Bolsheviks against the largely peasant supporters of the Ukrainian Rada in 1918. Subeltny covers this in some detail. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
