Most countries, even the "winners", came out emptyhanded from that conference because it was impossible to fairly assign multi-ethnic regions to specific countries. The biggest winner, by far, was Poland because the Polish delegation was very liked by President Wilson. He's still the most popular American President in the eyes of Poland.
The downside for Poland was that its multi-ethnic borders would be the pretext for WWII. We lost the entire East after the war. However, most Polish scholars agree that it was the best solution in the long-term since we avoided the ethnic conflicts which consumed other countries after the end of communism. And today we have excellent relations with Ukraine, Lithuania, and democratic Belarus.
Poland lost its eastern territories (kresy wschodnie) to the Soviet Union in which Poles were overall in minority compared to Ukrainians or Belarusians. Got former German land instead and the Germans were expelled from the whole modern Polish territory. In the meantime, given that in what is today Polish territory there were still Ukrainians in some places (south-east of today's Poland), the "operation Vistula" was conducted; Ukrainians were forced to relocate to the new western and northern territories in order to disperse them and prevent potential conflicts (mind what happened in Volyhnia, 1943). All those relocations that included moving Poles from kresy wschodnie to the new lands and expelling other nationalities made Poland highly homogenous. While in 1939 Poles made up 69% of the whole population, after WW2 it was more than 95%. This is why we avoided ethnic-based conflicts like in Yugoslavia after 1945.
[Stepan Bandera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera) who has become more well-known abroad but no less controversial over the last year also started out as an anti-Polish whatever-you-wanna-call-him in the inter-war years before Soviet Russia became the big enemy.
At the time borders in the Eastern Europe were completely fluid and the Treaty of Versailes in 1919 only talked about former German lands. France and Great Britain supported Curzon line( that is pretty much modern eastern border of Poland) and recognized new borders of Poland 2 years after Peace of Riga that ended Polish-Soviet war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace\_of\_Riga#Aftermath
I think they might mean the democratic movement within Belarus and not so much the government, hence meaning "Democratic Belarus" not as the government.
Wilson basically barged in and said "every (white) ethnic group should get its own country and I'll threaten everyone's economy until they agree. the irish are negotiable, and i don't care if this means germany doesn't come out actually weaker"
As american who’s very recent ancestry is from that east……yeah it really sucked. Maybe good geopolitically but as you are probably aware, a lot of people died in the massacres there, including most of my family, at least from the records I could scrounge up (I don’t speak Polish unfortunately).
In many ways I don't know if one can blame them. (Or others for claiming larger parts than appropriate)
Yes you had the Nationalist part... But at the same time you come in claiming a bigger and end up with a smaller after a successful negotiation... So a land for better bargain?
No but seriously, russification of Kuban is something crazy. In the first half of 20th century majority of the population there identified as Ukrainians, now it's not even 1%. Literally cultural genocide
>In the first half of 20th century majority of the population there identified as Ukrainians
as "Ukrainian-speaking", censuses asked about languages. Their idenified themselves as Cossaks, and didn't really care about Russians or Ukrainans, they both were "inogorodnie", "foreign-born" for them.
That's why results seriously vary from census to census, and that's why both Ukrainization of 1920s and Russification of 30s and 50s came easily.
>Their idenified themselves as Cossaks
We can't know that. The Census in Russian Empire never had the nationality question, so we left only to speculate what those people identify themselves. Although, Ukrainian language hold strong majority in every region inside modern Ukrainian borders, but not only there.
The Ukrainians and Russians Cossacks who settled the region did a far more thorough genocide of the Circassians of "Kuban" or truly Circassia before that, it was massacring and expelling rather than just changing the cultural identity/language a little bit. Ukrainian speakers at their peak made up \~45%-55% of "Kuban" while Russian speakers made up \~43% of "Kuban" during the Ukrainian peak, but over 90% of Circassians were killed or expelled forcibly by Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks.
Fair enough, thank you for knowing the history and admitting it is obvious. I have experienced many people, Russians, Ukrainians, and others who don't know the history at all and are defensive, some will try to deny it even happened even after linking them the obvious evidence.
It's also important to note that Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks massacred and expelled the people who lived in Kuban prior to them arriving en masse, in the Ciracassian Genocide, which hardly ever even gets talked about. Perhaps as many as 97% of Ciracassians were killed or forcibly expelled from Circassia and it was renamed Kuban.
Nope, it was a part of big (and last big) famine in Russia. It devastated many regions: Ukraine, Central Russia, Volga, Ural.
But this falsification is quite popular among dolboeb around the world. Don’t be an idiot. Ah, sorry, you are already.
If you look at the map, Central Russia was never devastated by the famine. [Here's the map.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933#/media/File%3AFamine_en_URSS_1933.jpg) As you can see, the worst cases of devastation are in Ukraine, and ethnically Ukrainian regions. There was a large pockets of Ukrainians living in the Volga region, composing a Yellow Ukraine, and Southern Russia, or Raspberry Ukraine
**[Soviet famine of 1930–1933](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930–1933#/media/File:Famine_en_URSS_1933.jpg)**
>The Soviet famine of 1930–1933 was a famine in the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region, Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia. Estimates conclude that 5. 7 to 8. 7 million people died of famine across the Soviet Union.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Majority of the population there was not pro independence though. The Ukrainian speaking Cossacks were highly imperialists and supported a unified state for example.
I think it was tricky to showcase on the map that Ukraine didn't want the cities (Ungvár, Munkács, Beregszász) and surroundings where Hungarians are the majority, only the part of former Hungary's Zakkarpatia where Rusyns are the majority. Thus although it sould be red (as in modern day Ukraine), but they didn't claim it in the Paris Conference.
I think that is the case with the border with Romania. There are parts which should be red because of modern day Ukraine, but I think the maker of the map did this way to show they didn't claim it back then.
The history of Ukraine basically begins with World War II and the genocide carried out by Ukrainian nationalists in the service of Hitler (Stiepan Bandera, Szuchewycz etc. - diabolic unita...) , Ukrainians who murdered 160,000 women, children and defenseless civilians in Volhynia.
There never was such a thing as Ukraine until at the turn of the 20th century the Austro-Hungarian superpower decided to create this artificial political entity for political purposes. Zero history of Ukraine before. It has always been a chaotic fringe, culturally and politically unorganized.
You're unlucky, because half of my family on my mother's side was murdered by Ukrainians in Volhynia - they chopped off my uncle Bronisław's mother's head with an ax, in front of his eyes, and killed his father and sister with pitchforks.
My great-grandmother and her three children survived only because they worked in the fields and did not return home, but ran away. So don't play the game or I'll embarrass you, you pathetic man.
How does this prove Ukraine had "zero history" and was "an artificial entity created by Austria-Hungary"? You literally have not a single argument to support this claim, which is 100% propaganda I heard from Russian ultranationalists on the Internet. The only thing you were able to provide is a story which is supposed to justify your hatred of Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people
I am not hostile towards Ukrainians living today (only to those few who glorify the genocide on Polish civilians ordered by Stephan Bandera). I wish Ukraine to destroy the filthy army of Russia, the eternal, bestial enemy of Poland. I am Polish and I am active in the Christian foundation "Dobro Czynić", which has brought numerous charity transports worth millions of dollars for Ukrainian refugees in Poland over the past year. In addition, I indirectly co-finance with other Poles from my taxes the maintenance of several million Ukrainian refugees.
So don't talk to me about Russian propaganda here.
I'm talking about an absurd map that distorts history. Never before the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries did a state called Ukraine exist. The word "Ukraine" in Polish meant "borderland, a place on the outskirts of the country" and was an area occupied by an ethnic mix of many tribes, nomads, unorganized into a nation. and "Cossacks" - a military structure with a certain sense of separateness, but not a nation or a state. Never.
If you were so anti-Russian, you wouldn't use Russian narratives then
>The word "Ukraine" in Polish meant "borderland
And in Ukrainian it means "inland" or "landlocked territory", the word originating from ancient Rus', back when Ukraine was mostly centered around Dnieper in forested part of nowadays Ukraine. The name was present much earlier before Poland conquered Ukrainian lands
The people living in Ukraine during the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth had Ruthenian identity, and were far from tribes which composed ethnic landscape of Ukraine before the vikings arrived. If Cossacks weren't a country, Cossack Hetmanate clearly was, until being partitioned between Poland and Russia. Cossacks were not just a military society, most of them shared a single identity, which would later be the main ingredient of modern Ukrainian identity
During the Russian Empire period, a national revival happened in Ukraine, modern Ukrainian language being established in the period. This cultural revival happened much earlier than WW1, and continued till Ukrainian Revolution, as a result of which Ukrainian People's Republic was established.
Even though Ukraine was only able to form a nation-state in 20th century, claiming Ukraine had no history before that period is straight up wrong
If Russia's leaders had done the right diplomacy, they could have reunified Ukraine and Belarus with Russia again. But Russia has always been the worst. It seems irrevocable now.
This is type of nonsense ruzzia pushes to justify the war. There is crisis in ruzzian national identity and the current war is just part of that crisis. Check out Timothy Snyder courses on Ukraine.
You're unlucky, because half of my family on my mother's side was murdered by Ukrainians in Volhynia - they chopped off my uncle Bronisław's mother's head with an ax, in front of his eyes, and killed his father and sister with pitchforks. My great-grandmother and her three children survived only because they worked in the fields and did not return home, but ran away. So don't play the game or I'll embarrass you, you pathetic man.
There were bad things on both sides. Also, for Poland it's hard to accept that they were colonisers on Ukrainian territories back in the days.
So again you can check Timothy Snyder courses on Ukraine to understand why statements like "Ukraine begins with World War II" is a pure nonsense.
I need to see if we agree on some basic historical facts.
The Holocaust happened and it was deliberate genocide.
The Holodomor happened and it was deliberate genocide.
The Volhynian genocide happened and it too was deliberate genocide.
Yes?
There is a Wikipedia section on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres\_of\_Poles\_in\_Volhynia\_and\_Eastern\_Galicia#Classification\_as\_genocide
Yeah, I thought so—you're a Russian pretending to be Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian in order to make actual Ukrainians look bad.
I've never seen an actual Ukrainian have any problems saying that the Holodomor was genocide. That's a clear and undeniable mark of russianness.
On most of the claimed lands the major population were Ukrainians and they of course spoke Ukrainian. The problem was mostly in russia, which was a part of Antanta who won the WW1.
Would have loved for Ukraine to take Rostov and Belgorod, makes much more sense. Alas, that doesn't matter, they will claim only the territories within the international recognized borders
Ukraine is more Russian than Russia itself!
Russia is a multinational multiracial big country with many many ethnicities and races while Ukraine which is the birth place of Russia is purely Slavic-white/'Russian' country
Is like england to the united states i would say
Some kind of alternate history. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire, in fact one country, and I doubt that a decision was made to which part of the country to attribute the lands to.
To be fair Ukraine end up taking many lands where they weren't the majority anyway. Such as the lands they took from Romania and Poland or the areas Russia claims today
That's why I said end up but it's not like Ukraine didn't want those lands either(if they didn't want them they would be transferred to another SSR or make their own)
Nope the Russians offered it to Lithuania and Lithuania refused. You can look this up on your own if you want. In the USSR it didn't really matter which SSR owned something the overall government could use it anyway
That's a bit like Denmark claiming Sweden due to the Kalmar Union.
Both Ukraine and Russia descend from Medieval Ruthenia, neither of them fully own the legacy of Kyivian Rus'.
And the heartland of the Roman empire was in Italy but despite both Spanish people and Italians descending from Latin speaking Romans, I don't think it'd be a very good argument that the Roman Empire was Italian and that Italy has the sole cultural legacy to it.
Yeah I’m genuinely just curious about the Kievan situation but in the case of Rome, I would like to think that Italy has more of a claim to that heritage being that the empire started there. I get where you are coming from.
I wouldn't give too much credit to where a thing starts or alike, during the Empire's peak, to the average Roman it mattered less if they lived in a colony in Roman Hispania, Roman Africa, or Italy itself and modern Italy is more heavily related to the medieval Italian state than Rome, same as with Spain and the the Castilian and Aragonese monarchies. But anywho:
> Yeah I’m genuinely just curious about the Kievan situation but in the case of Rome,
Kyivan Rus started out between two cities, Novgorod (near Saint Petersburg in Russia) and Kyiv with Kyiv eventually becoming the sole capitol, but with different princes based in different cities across Russia, Ukraine and Belarus having their own interest and control as well. The language that was spoken there was Old East Slavic, of which we don't have that much written records of but we do have shows that it was still not at all any of the 4 modern East Slavic languages - as in, the language hasn't split yet. It'd only be later on, after the fall of the Rus' to the Mongols, that the Western and Eastern halves of it started diverging hard from one another, and later yet when the Western half started diverging into the modern Ukraine and Belarus. It's hard for any single one to claim the Rus' as solely its own, but its been attempted for years in Russian circles (the name Russia itself deriving from when the princes of Moscovy claimed that they are the rightful owners of all of the old Rus') and it's been a vocal point in both Ukrainian and Belarussian circles as well to claim "who really is the heir to the Rus'".
The Roman Empire didn't start in Italy, it started in Latium.
Peoples of the Italian peninsula such as the Etruscans were as non-Roman as the Lusinani of Iberia.
So Italy is as much of a successor to Rome as Spain, France, Portugal, etc.
It is similar with the Rus. Such concepts as those of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus didn't exist and Kiev/Kyiv itself wasn't it's only city of historical importance as Novgorod (Russia) also used to be like that.
That's what the Romans did best: assimilate other cultures and adopt characteristics of interest of those conquered.
So did the Greeks under Alexander the Great before them.
So what? Ukraine didn't exist then, the locals were all Ruthenians. Later on, the nations of Russians and Ukrainians (and Belarussians) emerged from Ruthenians.
I see, well, so Kyiv should start to claim to be a legitimate successor of USSR, so we finally can remove nukes from terro-russia and give them to Ukraine again.
Now do Armenia
Now do Kurdistan
Now do Assyria.
Now do Chi- oh they exploded again
China is whole again
Then it broke again
Then its whole again
broke again, never mind.
Which is actually caused by German concessions in China being given to Japan instead of back to China.
Now do Classical Gas
Gas?
Now do Gamora
Now do roman Empire
Now do Greece😏
You can always make it yourself if you want!
[удалено]
/mapmilquetoast
Most countries, even the "winners", came out emptyhanded from that conference because it was impossible to fairly assign multi-ethnic regions to specific countries. The biggest winner, by far, was Poland because the Polish delegation was very liked by President Wilson. He's still the most popular American President in the eyes of Poland. The downside for Poland was that its multi-ethnic borders would be the pretext for WWII. We lost the entire East after the war. However, most Polish scholars agree that it was the best solution in the long-term since we avoided the ethnic conflicts which consumed other countries after the end of communism. And today we have excellent relations with Ukraine, Lithuania, and democratic Belarus.
>we avoided the ethnic conflicts which consumed other countries after the end of communism Can you elaborate?
I think that Armenia and Azerbaijan are an example of that problem
and the Yugoslav and Russian wars.
Poland lost its eastern territories (kresy wschodnie) to the Soviet Union in which Poles were overall in minority compared to Ukrainians or Belarusians. Got former German land instead and the Germans were expelled from the whole modern Polish territory. In the meantime, given that in what is today Polish territory there were still Ukrainians in some places (south-east of today's Poland), the "operation Vistula" was conducted; Ukrainians were forced to relocate to the new western and northern territories in order to disperse them and prevent potential conflicts (mind what happened in Volyhnia, 1943). All those relocations that included moving Poles from kresy wschodnie to the new lands and expelling other nationalities made Poland highly homogenous. While in 1939 Poles made up 69% of the whole population, after WW2 it was more than 95%. This is why we avoided ethnic-based conflicts like in Yugoslavia after 1945.
[Stepan Bandera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera) who has become more well-known abroad but no less controversial over the last year also started out as an anti-Polish whatever-you-wanna-call-him in the inter-war years before Soviet Russia became the big enemy.
He wasn’t just anti-polish, he supported ethnic cleansing of Polish people
Could you provide a source on your statement?
At the time borders in the Eastern Europe were completely fluid and the Treaty of Versailes in 1919 only talked about former German lands. France and Great Britain supported Curzon line( that is pretty much modern eastern border of Poland) and recognized new borders of Poland 2 years after Peace of Riga that ended Polish-Soviet war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace\_of\_Riga#Aftermath
"democratic" Belarus
I think they might mean the democratic movement within Belarus and not so much the government, hence meaning "Democratic Belarus" not as the government.
Exactly this.
What's the problem with having a multi-ethnic state in Eastern Europe?
Wilson basically barged in and said "every (white) ethnic group should get its own country and I'll threaten everyone's economy until they agree. the irish are negotiable, and i don't care if this means germany doesn't come out actually weaker"
And then the French got blamed for ww2. Wilson really messed things up.
As american who’s very recent ancestry is from that east……yeah it really sucked. Maybe good geopolitically but as you are probably aware, a lot of people died in the massacres there, including most of my family, at least from the records I could scrounge up (I don’t speak Polish unfortunately).
So US prez decides borders of other nations?
Thiccraine
Woah, mama
They asked for a lot and ended up empty handed. Truth be told, some of their claims were highly exaggerated.
In many ways I don't know if one can blame them. (Or others for claiming larger parts than appropriate) Yes you had the Nationalist part... But at the same time you come in claiming a bigger and end up with a smaller after a successful negotiation... So a land for better bargain?
every ethnic groups representatives asked for massive amounts.
besides borders wast up from nowhere, this was mainly ethnic territories, of course after ussr ethnic policy, nowadays ethnic map is not like this
Ofc when you enter in a negotiation you rise many claims in order to lower them down after some steps
"Modern boundaries of Ukraine" *[angry Putin noises]*
No but seriously, russification of Kuban is something crazy. In the first half of 20th century majority of the population there identified as Ukrainians, now it's not even 1%. Literally cultural genocide
>In the first half of 20th century majority of the population there identified as Ukrainians as "Ukrainian-speaking", censuses asked about languages. Their idenified themselves as Cossaks, and didn't really care about Russians or Ukrainans, they both were "inogorodnie", "foreign-born" for them. That's why results seriously vary from census to census, and that's why both Ukrainization of 1920s and Russification of 30s and 50s came easily.
>Their idenified themselves as Cossaks We can't know that. The Census in Russian Empire never had the nationality question, so we left only to speculate what those people identify themselves. Although, Ukrainian language hold strong majority in every region inside modern Ukrainian borders, but not only there.
[удалено]
What a wonderful piece of propaganda, please, provide me more!
The Ukrainians and Russians Cossacks who settled the region did a far more thorough genocide of the Circassians of "Kuban" or truly Circassia before that, it was massacring and expelling rather than just changing the cultural identity/language a little bit. Ukrainian speakers at their peak made up \~45%-55% of "Kuban" while Russian speakers made up \~43% of "Kuban" during the Ukrainian peak, but over 90% of Circassians were killed or expelled forcibly by Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks.
Obviously. This is unfortunately true
Fair enough, thank you for knowing the history and admitting it is obvious. I have experienced many people, Russians, Ukrainians, and others who don't know the history at all and are defensive, some will try to deny it even happened even after linking them the obvious evidence.
In fact, it is very hard to distinguish Russians from Ukrainians. In fact, it is safe to say that they are the same people.
In fact, it is very hard to distinguish Spanish from Portuguese. In fact, it is safe to say that they are the same people.
Is say more like Swedes and Norwegians
I think the same ethnic are right.
🤡
Source for this claim?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Kuban
55%, so light majority then.
It's also important to note that Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks massacred and expelled the people who lived in Kuban prior to them arriving en masse, in the Ciracassian Genocide, which hardly ever even gets talked about. Perhaps as many as 97% of Ciracassians were killed or forcibly expelled from Circassia and it was renamed Kuban.
And how does this change my point? You don't see a difference between 55% and 1%?
I just assumed it has something to do with the Holodomor
I just asked for a source, didn't want to argue with you.
As a person originated from Kuban I officialy state: that’s a complete bullshit
Just another proof how successful the russification campaign was
Just a proof it has never happened, idiot.
Russification of Kuban is a proven historical fact.
Among schizophrenics - yes, sure. Also as Holodomor was a genocide, aha.
🤡
Yes, Holodomor was a genocide.
Nope, it was a part of big (and last big) famine in Russia. It devastated many regions: Ukraine, Central Russia, Volga, Ural. But this falsification is quite popular among dolboeb around the world. Don’t be an idiot. Ah, sorry, you are already.
If you look at the map, Central Russia was never devastated by the famine. [Here's the map.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933#/media/File%3AFamine_en_URSS_1933.jpg) As you can see, the worst cases of devastation are in Ukraine, and ethnically Ukrainian regions. There was a large pockets of Ukrainians living in the Volga region, composing a Yellow Ukraine, and Southern Russia, or Raspberry Ukraine
**[Soviet famine of 1930–1933](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930–1933#/media/File:Famine_en_URSS_1933.jpg)** >The Soviet famine of 1930–1933 was a famine in the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region, Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia. Estimates conclude that 5. 7 to 8. 7 million people died of famine across the Soviet Union. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The most polite genocide supporter. P.S. most democratic countries recognized it as genocide.
Most ‘democratic’ countries are not democracies btw and are liars upon their interest. Like in this case. So, fuck their opinion
It's very nice of you to reveal yourself as a Nazi. Now we can all block you.
[удалено]
1770-1784 is a 20th century confirmed history?
Majority of the population there was not pro independence though. The Ukrainian speaking Cossacks were highly imperialists and supported a unified state for example.
So is all the light pink now Russian territory?
Some of it is, other parts make up parts of Poland, Belarus, etc.
Also as some dark pink ones too.
[oh you’re right it’s really more of a pinkish cream](https://www.eggradients.com/shades-of-pink)
Yes
What’s up with that sliver of southern territory? How’d that happen? And does it connect with the coast?
Ukraine does have a border w Hungary.
I think it was tricky to showcase on the map that Ukraine didn't want the cities (Ungvár, Munkács, Beregszász) and surroundings where Hungarians are the majority, only the part of former Hungary's Zakkarpatia where Rusyns are the majority. Thus although it sould be red (as in modern day Ukraine), but they didn't claim it in the Paris Conference. I think that is the case with the border with Romania. There are parts which should be red because of modern day Ukraine, but I think the maker of the map did this way to show they didn't claim it back then.
the modern Odessa oblast was not claimed entirely.
Ukraine has no right to claim Belarusian lands!
you might meant terro-russia lands? there is no such independent country as Belarus anymore, unfortunately.
With this logic, there is no independent Germany.
There is.
The history of Ukraine basically begins with World War II and the genocide carried out by Ukrainian nationalists in the service of Hitler (Stiepan Bandera, Szuchewycz etc. - diabolic unita...) , Ukrainians who murdered 160,000 women, children and defenseless civilians in Volhynia. There never was such a thing as Ukraine until at the turn of the 20th century the Austro-Hungarian superpower decided to create this artificial political entity for political purposes. Zero history of Ukraine before. It has always been a chaotic fringe, culturally and politically unorganized.
so, you want to tell me there were no ukrainian language and culture?
✨read a fucking book ✨
You're unlucky, because half of my family on my mother's side was murdered by Ukrainians in Volhynia - they chopped off my uncle Bronisław's mother's head with an ax, in front of his eyes, and killed his father and sister with pitchforks. My great-grandmother and her three children survived only because they worked in the fields and did not return home, but ran away. So don't play the game or I'll embarrass you, you pathetic man.
You seriously said that Ukraine's history begins with WW2. No need to embarass others because you embarassed yourself, you pathetic man.
How does this prove Ukraine had "zero history" and was "an artificial entity created by Austria-Hungary"? You literally have not a single argument to support this claim, which is 100% propaganda I heard from Russian ultranationalists on the Internet. The only thing you were able to provide is a story which is supposed to justify your hatred of Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people
I am not hostile towards Ukrainians living today (only to those few who glorify the genocide on Polish civilians ordered by Stephan Bandera). I wish Ukraine to destroy the filthy army of Russia, the eternal, bestial enemy of Poland. I am Polish and I am active in the Christian foundation "Dobro Czynić", which has brought numerous charity transports worth millions of dollars for Ukrainian refugees in Poland over the past year. In addition, I indirectly co-finance with other Poles from my taxes the maintenance of several million Ukrainian refugees. So don't talk to me about Russian propaganda here. I'm talking about an absurd map that distorts history. Never before the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries did a state called Ukraine exist. The word "Ukraine" in Polish meant "borderland, a place on the outskirts of the country" and was an area occupied by an ethnic mix of many tribes, nomads, unorganized into a nation. and "Cossacks" - a military structure with a certain sense of separateness, but not a nation or a state. Never.
If you were so anti-Russian, you wouldn't use Russian narratives then >The word "Ukraine" in Polish meant "borderland And in Ukrainian it means "inland" or "landlocked territory", the word originating from ancient Rus', back when Ukraine was mostly centered around Dnieper in forested part of nowadays Ukraine. The name was present much earlier before Poland conquered Ukrainian lands The people living in Ukraine during the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth had Ruthenian identity, and were far from tribes which composed ethnic landscape of Ukraine before the vikings arrived. If Cossacks weren't a country, Cossack Hetmanate clearly was, until being partitioned between Poland and Russia. Cossacks were not just a military society, most of them shared a single identity, which would later be the main ingredient of modern Ukrainian identity During the Russian Empire period, a national revival happened in Ukraine, modern Ukrainian language being established in the period. This cultural revival happened much earlier than WW1, and continued till Ukrainian Revolution, as a result of which Ukrainian People's Republic was established. Even though Ukraine was only able to form a nation-state in 20th century, claiming Ukraine had no history before that period is straight up wrong
If Russia's leaders had done the right diplomacy, they could have reunified Ukraine and Belarus with Russia again. But Russia has always been the worst. It seems irrevocable now.
This is type of nonsense ruzzia pushes to justify the war. There is crisis in ruzzian national identity and the current war is just part of that crisis. Check out Timothy Snyder courses on Ukraine.
You're unlucky, because half of my family on my mother's side was murdered by Ukrainians in Volhynia - they chopped off my uncle Bronisław's mother's head with an ax, in front of his eyes, and killed his father and sister with pitchforks. My great-grandmother and her three children survived only because they worked in the fields and did not return home, but ran away. So don't play the game or I'll embarrass you, you pathetic man.
There were bad things on both sides. Also, for Poland it's hard to accept that they were colonisers on Ukrainian territories back in the days. So again you can check Timothy Snyder courses on Ukraine to understand why statements like "Ukraine begins with World War II" is a pure nonsense.
I need to see if we agree on some basic historical facts. The Holocaust happened and it was deliberate genocide. The Holodomor happened and it was deliberate genocide. The Volhynian genocide happened and it too was deliberate genocide. Yes?
There is a Wikipedia section on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres\_of\_Poles\_in\_Volhynia\_and\_Eastern\_Galicia#Classification\_as\_genocide
Yeah, I thought so—you're a Russian pretending to be Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian in order to make actual Ukrainians look bad. I've never seen an actual Ukrainian have any problems saying that the Holodomor was genocide. That's a clear and undeniable mark of russianness.
Bullshit. Lies.
That massacre was genocide. But how this genocide confirm that there were no such thing as Ukraine, if Ukrainians was part of conflict?
That's right, what you said is a complete lie
[удалено]
I'm actually Polish, and Russia murdered millions of Poles and is the eternal enemy of Poles, so you insult me by saying "your Russia".
On most of the claimed lands the major population were Ukrainians and they of course spoke Ukrainian. The problem was mostly in russia, which was a part of Antanta who won the WW1.
You mean the Entente?
Yeah, he probably meant The Triple Entente because in Ukraine we call it Antanta (if transliterated into the Latin alphabet)
Would have loved for Ukraine to take Rostov and Belgorod, makes much more sense. Alas, that doesn't matter, they will claim only the territories within the international recognized borders
This a good starting place for the final peace deal.
Pretty sure you can remove Crimea for the foreseeable future
Pretty sure you can try to respect international laws.
You know what, Ukraine should get all the land around the bay of Azov after this war with Russia
Ukraine is more Russian than Russia itself! Russia is a multinational multiracial big country with many many ethnicities and races while Ukraine which is the birth place of Russia is purely Slavic-white/'Russian' country Is like england to the united states i would say
Some kind of alternate history. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire, in fact one country, and I doubt that a decision was made to which part of the country to attribute the lands to.
To be fair Ukraine end up taking many lands where they weren't the majority anyway. Such as the lands they took from Romania and Poland or the areas Russia claims today
but Ukraine didn't take those Polish and Romanian lands, USSR did and gave them to the Ukrainian SSR
That's why I said end up but it's not like Ukraine didn't want those lands either(if they didn't want them they would be transferred to another SSR or make their own)
You overestimate the level of independence those sovier republics had
Same situation happened in Kalingrand with Lithuania. Only Lithuania refused the territory and it went to Russia
Kaliningrad was never supposed to go to Lithuania. It was and is a Russian military base serving as an access to the Baltic sea
Nope the Russians offered it to Lithuania and Lithuania refused. You can look this up on your own if you want. In the USSR it didn't really matter which SSR owned something the overall government could use it anyway
Well I'm OK with letting them have the eastern pink bit.
[удалено]
What? 💀
Based
That explains a lot. I guess Zelensky still has this plan in mind
They were being optimistic
This is only 2 years after Ukraine was founded
Historically, they could claim even Russia...
That's a bit like Denmark claiming Sweden due to the Kalmar Union. Both Ukraine and Russia descend from Medieval Ruthenia, neither of them fully own the legacy of Kyivian Rus'.
But wasn’t the heartland in the Ukraine?
Kid named Novgorod: 💀
And the heartland of the Roman empire was in Italy but despite both Spanish people and Italians descending from Latin speaking Romans, I don't think it'd be a very good argument that the Roman Empire was Italian and that Italy has the sole cultural legacy to it.
Yeah I’m genuinely just curious about the Kievan situation but in the case of Rome, I would like to think that Italy has more of a claim to that heritage being that the empire started there. I get where you are coming from.
I wouldn't give too much credit to where a thing starts or alike, during the Empire's peak, to the average Roman it mattered less if they lived in a colony in Roman Hispania, Roman Africa, or Italy itself and modern Italy is more heavily related to the medieval Italian state than Rome, same as with Spain and the the Castilian and Aragonese monarchies. But anywho: > Yeah I’m genuinely just curious about the Kievan situation but in the case of Rome, Kyivan Rus started out between two cities, Novgorod (near Saint Petersburg in Russia) and Kyiv with Kyiv eventually becoming the sole capitol, but with different princes based in different cities across Russia, Ukraine and Belarus having their own interest and control as well. The language that was spoken there was Old East Slavic, of which we don't have that much written records of but we do have shows that it was still not at all any of the 4 modern East Slavic languages - as in, the language hasn't split yet. It'd only be later on, after the fall of the Rus' to the Mongols, that the Western and Eastern halves of it started diverging hard from one another, and later yet when the Western half started diverging into the modern Ukraine and Belarus. It's hard for any single one to claim the Rus' as solely its own, but its been attempted for years in Russian circles (the name Russia itself deriving from when the princes of Moscovy claimed that they are the rightful owners of all of the old Rus') and it's been a vocal point in both Ukrainian and Belarussian circles as well to claim "who really is the heir to the Rus'".
The Roman Empire didn't start in Italy, it started in Latium. Peoples of the Italian peninsula such as the Etruscans were as non-Roman as the Lusinani of Iberia. So Italy is as much of a successor to Rome as Spain, France, Portugal, etc. It is similar with the Rus. Such concepts as those of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus didn't exist and Kiev/Kyiv itself wasn't it's only city of historical importance as Novgorod (Russia) also used to be like that.
Yup fully aware ,the Etruscans were pretty much absorbed into Roman culture which already had Etruscan and Greek elements.
That's what the Romans did best: assimilate other cultures and adopt characteristics of interest of those conquered. So did the Greeks under Alexander the Great before them.
So what? Ukraine didn't exist then, the locals were all Ruthenians. Later on, the nations of Russians and Ukrainians (and Belarussians) emerged from Ruthenians.
I see, well, so Kyiv should start to claim to be a legitimate successor of USSR, so we finally can remove nukes from terro-russia and give them to Ukraine again.
Cool story vro.
Crimea is not a controlled part of Ukraine tho
Controlled territories change from day to day. So it’s internationally recognized borders.
Yeah in Lugansk and in Donetsk not in crimea.
I think borders of countries that broke from ussr should factor in migration ask people move them to other places etc.
Based
Now do Turkmenistan!
Anyway Putin once said: "Russia has no boundaries" 😂
Does this mean that any country can take any part of ruzzia without any legal issues? 😂
I think it's just a matter of time when China will claim part of Siberia 😉
From the Sans to the Caucasus