Ukraine & Crimea

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-03 16:18:02

This is the kind of thing that I would like to see Obama making central to his foreign policy legacy.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-03 20:23:21

JoshNH4H wrote:

Tom- Yes, it would be nice if people everywhere would relinquish their silly insistence on telling other people what to do at any and all times. Putin is certainly not the only one who is guilty of this.
Terraformer- I've been thinking about this lately, and it's actually quite interesting how our politics have converged. In fact, I could not say at this point that I can think of anything about which we disagree.
But given that there are no good options in Ukraine that are likely to happen, and given that I am not Ukrainian (Nor do I speak Russian or Ukrainian) I don't expect to have any real influence on events in that country, it's all political theater.
I follow politics in much the same way as others follow basketball: It's fun to watch the billion-dollar games in the big buildings under the bright lights, but the only games that matter are the ones where I'm playing with my friends*. The Heat and the Spurs are meaningless to me compared to the local rec center leagues*.
*Actually I'm terrible at basketball and never play of my own volition, but I'm sure my meaning is clear.

Putin has backed down. I just think we need to build a brick wall, I believe the fair price for Russia getting the Crimea back is Ukraine joining NATO, and I don't think that isn't such a terrible price for Russia to pay. After all NATO is not Russia's enemy if Russia is not Europe' enemy, and Putin knows this, he is not a stupid man. The only thing we have to do is let him know that he is going to pay a price for what he just did, if he pushes harder the price will get steeper. This isn't anything that will start a nuclear war. Putin knows that a nuclear war gains him nothing, he may bluster if he thinks he can convince us that he is a suicidal fanatic that either wants an empire or a nuclear war and he doesn't care which, but I don't really believe that. giving him Ukraine on a silver platter would spell the effective end of NATO itself, we can't afford to do that.

We have to stand in principle and the principle is that of a wall. we will resist whatever aggressive moves Russia makes no matter what the cost and the cost goes both ways, so Putin will back down. Putin wants one thing, to expand Russia's Empire, but he'll only do that if he feels that he can get away without paying a great price. Obama has another problem, he has to avoid looking like Neville Chamberlain to Putin's Hitler, if he behaves as weak and feckless as Putin wants him to behave, then that spells the end of the Democratic Party, and would be really great for the Republicans. Obama has to show some backbone on foreign policy somewhere, even though it appears he prefers not to. I think he'd rather be weak and feckless toward Iran, as he has some sympathy towards radical Muslim regimes, as he has shown with Egypt, Iran, and terrorists in Guantanamo.

Putin however is not Muslim, he is an Atheist, so I think Obama is more inclined to show some backbone toward him, and Putin's propaganda is poorly played and really gives Obama little cover for him to back down without looking like a spineless wimp even to his own party. Many left-wingers have disowned him including Martienne. Martienne probably wants Obama to go on acting like a spineless wimp, because she's not an American and her party isn't running in the US Senate and isn't going to face the wrath of American voters, but Democrats have to be more careful, they can't run on "America is bad and so deserves to be defeated".

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-03 20:25:56)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-03 20:33:38

JoshNH4H wrote:

Seems like a reasonable goal to me, but how do you get there? And how do you ensure that the Russian-speaking people of Eastern Ukraine remain happy with the new settlement?

Maybe they won't be. Maybe they'll learn not to trust Putin if Putin has betrayed them, and maybe that will give them second thoughts about wanting to be part of Russia. The Historical analog for them is Austria, has Austria ever wanted to be part of Germany again after World War II? Their is nothing stopping a second German-Austria Ansluss, if Austria really decides to merge with Germany, there is no European power that is going to stop them, but that appears to have been more popular in the 1930s when Germany was ruled by a dictator than it is now Russian-Ukrainians live in a Democratic Country, something they won't have if they join Russia, same as happened to Austrians when they joined the Third Reich, instead of having peace, many were drafted into the war and ended up going to France or if they were not so lucky, Russia I think the ethnic Russians in Ukraine should be thinking about Austria and ask themselves if they really want to be part of Russia, considering what Russia is and isn't. Crimea is already paying the price economically.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-03 20:34:22)

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-04 06:55:58

It's not about making people pay prices. It's about the people of Ukraine, and giving them the chance to make their own choices and succeed individually and as a nation.

Or at least it ought to be. I realize we're all just playing imperialistic games, even though there are 45 million people whose lives will be directly affected by the outcome of our stupid decisions.

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-04 10:03:10

I think the United Kingdom might be a better model than Canada, though: give Russian speaking areas their own devolved parliament while still subject to the National Assembly in Kiev.

Terraformer · 2014-06-04 10:24:39

Look how that's working out for us - the Scots are voting on independence, and there's a lot of people in England who would vote yes if they could.

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-04 10:29:38

I care more about peace than unity. If Ukraine ultimately decides to split in two so be it, but I'd rather nobody be killed in the process.

Scottish independence would be a great boon to England and a huge loss to Scotland. If they choose independence they get what they deserve.

martienne · 2014-06-04 11:33:43

JoshNH4H wrote:

I think the United Kingdom might be a better model than Canada, though: give Russian speaking areas their own devolved parliament while still subject to the National Assembly in Kiev.

A UK model is exactly what the rebels want, and what Putin has suggested that Kiev discusses with them. But Kiev wants total control across the country.

The only way you can get a balanced view on this, in English, is by reading RT alongside with whatever other news sources you normally use.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-04 13:16:50

JoshNH4H wrote:

It's not about making people pay prices. It's about the people of Ukraine, and giving them the chance to make their own choices and succeed individually and as a nation.
Or at least it ought to be. I realize we're all just playing imperialistic games, even though there are 45 million people whose lives will be directly affected by the outcome of our stupid decisions.

Obama isn't, he considers American interests last, why else did he free five terrorists? Those five Terrorists will go on to kill more Americans after all, and for what, a lousy deserter? I think we just build a wall around Russia figuratively of course and say, no helping yourself to other people's land no matter what the ruse, and now he's going courting the leader of North Korea to show his true colors. Do ethnic Russians want to remain free, or do they want to live under a dictator, remember what happened to all those Austrians who decided that their country ought to cease to exist and that they all ought to be Germans? Nothings sadder than all those dead Austrians that died for Hitler, Hitler was solely a German phenomenon until the Austrians joined in, and they got to share in Germany's bloodshed and defeat. So what do the ethnic Russians want, do they want to follow the same path the Austrians trod? Mayne someone ought to produce a Ukrainian version of the Sound of Music.

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-04 13:37:29

martienne wrote:

JoshNH4H wrote:
I think the United Kingdom might be a better model than Canada, though: give Russian speaking areas their own devolved parliament while still subject to the National Assembly in Kiev.

A UK model is exactly what the rebels want, and what Putin has suggested that Kiev discusses with them. But Kiev wants total control across the country.
The only way you can get a balanced view on this, in English, is by reading RT alongside with whatever other news sources you normally use.

Actually, it's simply not that simple. My understanding is that the opposition is not unified; does not have goal; largely does not want to be like the UK but generally wants independence, or union with Russia.

Tom, that's ridiculous.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-04 14:09:50

I don't know, I say if Ukraine should be part of Russia, then maybe Austria should be part of Germany. Two go hand in hand.

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-04 19:52:25

Not really. Nobody really wants Austria to be part of Germany, while some people want part of Ukraine to be part of Russia.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-05 05:57:33

JoshNH4H wrote:

Not really. Nobody really wants Austria to be part of Germany, while some people want part of Ukraine to be part of Russia.

Some people did want Austria to be part of Germany, it was part of that Adolf Hitler infatuation, Austrians became less infatuated with Hitler after he started World War II and sent their sons into harms way. Putin is another dictator, I guess dictatorship was the main attraction for their joining either Germany or Russia, Angela Merkel just doesn't compete with Hitler, I guess most Austrians don't want her as their leader, no accounting for taste I guess. So in the case of the Austrians, it wasn't Germany they wanted to join, but Hitler's regime, which actually makes it look worse for them! Now what do those ethnic Russian Ukrainians want to join, are they simply Russian nationalists or are they Putinites that want to live under Putin's dictatorship? So it seems to me that this Putin infatuation maybe just a passing fad just like Hitlerism was, so should we take it seriously?

You see I notice how history tries to repeat itself, I just can't let history repeat itself without making a comment on it, and if History does repeat itself, I can at least say "I told you so," and say how smart I was for accurately forecasting history even though no one listened to me. So If I am going to be a Cassandra who no one listens to, then at least I'll be a smug Cassandra, but I'd rather this version of history not repeat itself cause I don't want a World War, otherwise I'll see if I can head for the hills.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-05 06:02:47)

clark · 2014-06-08 14:51:33

The only people that win are the map makers. They are obviously the root of all of this.

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-08 15:11:07

That's a theory as good as any other. Personally I like to look at globes and figure out when they were made based on international boundaries.

As a historical aside, Austria was not part of Germany until it was annexed by Hitler in 1938. Before that it was a part of the Austro-Hungarian (Hapsburg) empire, which was dissolved at the end of World War 1. Meanwhile, Austrians are as a whole ethnically and linguistically German. The situation with Austria was, on the whole, more comparable to Crimea than Ukraine.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-08 18:32:18

According to Wikipedia, Ukraine was created in 1648 as the "Cossack Hetmanate". It's borders were...

Notice Crimea was not part of it.

The Crimean Khanate was one of the strongest powers in Eastern Europe until the 18th century; at one point it even succeeded, under the Crimean khan Devlet I Giray, in capturing and devastating Moscow.[35] The population of the borderlands suffered annual Tatar invasions and tens of thousands of soldiers were required to protect the southern boundaries.
...
In 1657–1686 came "The Ruin", a devastating 30-year war amongst Russia, Poland, Turks and Cossacks for control of Ukraine, which occurred at about the same time as the Deluge of Poland. For three years, Khmelnytsky's armies controlled present-day western and central Ukraine, but, deserted by his Tatar allies, he suffered a crushing defeat at Berestechko, and turned to the Russian tsar for help.
In 1654, Khmelnytsky signed the Treaty of Pereyaslav, forming a military and political alliance with Russia that acknowledged loyalty to the tsar. The wars escalated in intensity with hundreds of thousands of deaths. Defeat came in 1686 as the "Eternal Peace" between Russia and Poland gave Kiev and the Cossack lands east of the Dnieper over to Russian rule and the Ukrainian lands west of the Dnieper to Poland.
...
After the Russians annexed the Crimean Khanate in 1783, the region called New Russia was settled by Ukrainian and Russian migrants.

So why is Ukraine so adamant about Crimea? I can see why Russia wants it. It's the only navy port that doesn't freeze in winter. And World War 1 was supposed to end the practice of using military force to annex land from other countries. There was a little of that in eastern Europe until World War 2, but that has stopped. We don't want wars between modern industrial countries, that's the way to another World War.

But let's look at this. From Russia's perspective, the US and NATO have been gobbling up Soviet territory. The Russians fought back with Georgia and now Ukraine. But Ukraine is adamant that it won't be annexed by Russia. But why did Ukraine get Crimea in the first place? Russia has their navy port back. Polls show most people in Crimea want to be Russian. Polls also show most people in east Ukraine want to be Ukrainian. Ok, so let Russia have Crimea, but not a single square centimetre more.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-06-08 20:11:35)

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-08 19:35:06

It actually seems like Poroshenko is more or less willing to let Crimea go, bowing to political and demographic reality.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-08 20:18:59

CBC has an article about Poroshenko's inauguration. He pledged to negotiate entry into the EU. He met Vladimir Putin in Normandy. He told him "Russian annexed Crimea was, is, and always will be Ukrainian."

Bold words. Expect more trouble from Russia.

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-08 20:45:10

That's interesting, seeing as he ran as a moderate who would open a dialogue with Putin and deal with the instability in Ukraine. I seem to recall from a Politico article that he was making no proposals regarding Crimea.

It's possible that he realizes the futility of getting Crimea back, and is simply politicking, saying what he has to to appease his base and as an opening dialogue with Putin; Though, to be fair, I don't quite see what leverage Ukraine has over Russia in this situation. Russia has the money and the gas. What does Ukraine have that Russia needs, or even wants?

RobertDyck · 2014-06-08 21:12:23

Ukraine claims Russia owes them 1 trillion gripen (about US$84.5 billion); money that was in banks in Crimea. But obviously that isn't something they "have".

Ukraine has massive industry. During the Soviet Union, they were a massive part of their military-industrial complex. The factory now called Yuzhmash is where the first ever Soviet ICBMs were made, and they continued to make ICBMs until the Soviet Union collapsed. Yuzhmash also made a mobile launcher for an ICBM, a giant truck that carried a missile and could launch it. Yuzhmash makes the Zenit launch vehicle, which is now sold to Boeing for SeaLaunch. Russia is still trying to replace Zenit. The first stage of Zenit was the strap-on boosters for Energia. The Malyshev factory manufactured tanks: T-24, T-34, T-35, T-44, T-54, T-55, T-64, T-80, T-80UD. And Ukraine manufactured various other military equipment. Antonov makes impressive cargo and reconnaissance aircraft; including the An-124 and An-225. Antonov is right in Kyiv (Kiev), but most of the rest is in east and south Ukraine. Malyshev is in Kharkiv, Yuzhmash is in Dnipropetrovsk. I think Putin wants all that military production capability.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-06-08 21:36:52)

martienne · 2014-06-09 03:54:45

I appreciate that a few people here have tried to really dig into this, looking for the truth, not for confirming their prejudice. I just want to warn you, that 90% of the English speaking material you'll find online, is misleading. Anti-Russian sentiments are so strong in the West. For me, I am gobsmacked that such blatant lying about historical facts and concrete realities is possible in Europe.

The picture posted above, is misleading. I am not surprised that for an English speaking map, they start the map 1922 which is exactly when Ukraine received a very large chunk of land from Russia, to change the administrative borders of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Lenin felt Ukraine was too rural and would not be influential enough as a Soviet republic. Also, the revolution required industrial workers, and Ukraine pre1922 had none, since it was completely agricultural. So he went about blowing it up to something it actually wasn't. He simply took a chunk of Russia and added to Ukraine. Now, we are seeing the price of such ideological overkill! He later developed the ideology so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.

Ukraine today, is a completely artifical construction, no based on ethnic, religious or geographical boundaries like normal European countries. Some problem as in Africa where this has caused civil wars as peoples were split in the middle by colonial powers, and others pushed together in a country, who had nothing in common.

Below is a map that is correct. The yellow parts are Novorossiya, an area that was part of traditional Russian land during the Imperial area.

The actual NAME of Ukraine itself (Ukraina) is simply a mix of the Russian words for "outer region". That's what it was... nothing else. Russia fought battles in present day Ukraine with countries like Sweden, for one. There was never any suggestion of a country called Ukraine there. It was simply a battle for the outer regions of Russia.
Before 1992 Ukraine had never been an independent country.

Ukrainian was long considered simply a dialect of Russian, but in USSR times it was considered politically correct to call it a separate language, so it was developed as such. It's essentially Russian with different pronunciation and some words that are more similar to the countries towards the west. A lot of people in Ukraine speak a mix of Russian and Ukrainian, and switch to Russian in more formal situations. On Ukrainian TV, the currently strongly promote Ukrainian, but a lot of people simply can't speak it, so it's a confusing mixture (for non-locals at least) where they are randomly switching backs and forth depending on who is speaking, or what the topic is. The historical view could perhaps be compared to pidgin English of various Carribbean islands, and English.

My view now, and the view of 70% of people in Russia at the moment (not Putin, however!) is that Russia should go in and take the Novorossiya area, or that Novorossiya goes independent. Despite what fancy foreign magazines claims, that whole area is Russian speaking. Odessa certainly is. I think some people below the age of 20 who had quite strong anti-Russia curriculum in school growing up, might be against it. People older than that, would be in favour.

If Putin allows people's relatives in Eastern Ukraine and the South Coast to be killed and victimised, it might actually cost him his presidency.

He is extremely popular for the enormous raise in living standards in Russia, for stability and resolving most of the problems in Caucasus against all odds. But Russians are getting really emotional about this. Most people in Russia today, see the West for what it really is, and like to have a president who doesn't bow to it. But people think "what's the point of having a large army, compulsive military service etc if we can't even protect our own family members and countrymen who happen to be on the wrong side of an artificial border...?

Nobody in Russia considered that part of Ukraine as "abroad". Their sports teams compete in the Russian league, they take part of "Russian idol" type programs, they are active part of Runet, Russian speaking internet.

Sure, there are MANY faults with the Russian state, but Ukraine is much, much worse in almost every respect. As a state, it's a joke. There is a revolution (backed from the West) on a regular basis; corruption is worse than Russia; a lot of people are very, very poor and forced to work as labour in Russia on worse conditions than Russian citizens, while in the past, in USSR times, they were equals to Russians. Language discrimination, regular fist fights in the parliament....

Eastern Ukraine is the economic engine of the Ukraine, and the West treats them like crap. Now they are being bombed, killed, burned alive and the West essentially applauds democracy in Ukraine. I have lost all respect for the EU and the USA because of this.
Its the biggest hypocrisy Europe has ever seen.

History is ignored, lies are spread and murders are ignored for the sake of cheap propaganda points. It makes me sick.

Again, the territorial development of Ukraine, in simple steps:
The date is the date when the area became part of what's considered Ukraine today.
The picture is of the person who annexed it to Ukraine (Russian or Soviet leaders) - for the yellow parts it just says "various tsars". Note; they never expected Ukraine to turn against Russia!

The reason for the transfer of regions?
—Lenin was ideologically motivated and felt all the USSR was one family and the rest was technicalities. He simply wanted Ukraine to be larger thus becoming more influential, and have more industry within its territories. In reality it was a big mistake.
—Khrustev, was born in the Donbass area and sympathised a lot with Ukraine. He moved Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, as a gesture, after the sufferings of Ukraine in WW2 and under Stalin. Probably rather misplaced gesture.
—Stalin negotiated and fought for parts of what's now Ukraine (Previously Poland or Lithuanian empire) in WW2. Stalin was ethnically Georgian and spoke Russian as a foreign language.

Moldovan and Polish are also minority languages in Ukraine. The biggest female pop artist in the USSR, for example, is a Moldovan speaking woman, born in the Ukrainian Soviet republic. She's still active to this day, and lives in Crimea.

The remaining parts of Ukraine (minus Novorossiya, i.e. East and South) should be left to Ukraine, Russia should forget about it and view it no differently than Poland or Romania. They should be encouraged to join the EU and use their beloved Ukrainian as their national language. That's my view and it's shared by most people in Russia. Belarus although not a big fan of much in Russia, shares the view, more or less.

Last edited by martienne (2014-06-09 04:44:14)

RobertDyck · 2014-06-09 08:16:41

@martienne: Thank you. I realize that's one interpretation, and suspected that is how Russia sees it. In fact, if you look at the first map in my post, it does show borders of the "Cossack Hetmanate". And if you read the Wikipedia article, it says Ukraine was not a country before that. But it wasn't part of Russia.

Human settlement in Ukraine and its vicinity dates back to 32,000 BC, with evidence of the Gravettian culture in the Crimean Mountains. By 4,500 BC, the Neolithic Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture flourished in a wide area that included parts of modern Ukraine including Trypillia and the entire Dnieper-Dniester region. During the Iron Age, the land was inhabited by Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians. Between 700 BC and 200 BC it was part of the Scythian Kingdom, or Scythia.
Later, colonies of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire, such as Tyras, Olbia and Hermonassa, were founded, beginning in the 6th century BC, on the northeastern shore of the Black Sea, and thrived well into the 6th century AD. The Goths stayed in the area but came under the sway of the Huns from the 370s AD. In the 7th century AD, the territory of eastern Ukraine was the centre of Old Great Bulgaria. At the end of the century, the majority of Bulgar tribes migrated in different directions, and the Khazars took over much of the land.

It goes on. Conquered by Poland and Lithuania. But battled for independence in the mid-1600s. Allied with Sweden against Russia during that battle. I included a small map of the "Cossack Hetmanate", but here is the larger one.

Notice the eastern extent is much larger than the Soviet era map. It has a red area labeled "Ukraine in Borders of 1654" which includes oblasts Dnipropetrovsk and Kirovohradska. Why would they even label that separate from the rest of Ukraine?

::Edit:: More translation. The Soviet map has a yellow area labeled "Поларки русских царей, 1654-1917 гг". Google and Bing can't translate the first word, but the Russian website translate.ru gives "Half-arches of the Russian tsars, 1654-1917".

Ukraine didn't join the Soviet Union until 1922. Before that was the usual European wars with control of territory back and forth between countries. The "Polish territory given to Ukraine in 1939" was in fact controlled by Ukraine before 1919. Poland had taken it by war. If anyone disputes whether Ukraine should have the southern most part of Odessa oblast, that came from Romania so would go back to Romania, not Russia. Remember, Romania is now a full member of NATO. If you want to go on about borders, notice Starodu in Russia's Bryansk oblast was Ukrainian. And parts of Rostov oblast were Ukrainian when they joined the Soviet Union. I don't think Russia wants to give back that territory, so stop trying to take Ukrainian territory.

When I was a young child in the 1960s, my next-door neighbour was a Canadian who's parents came from Ukraine. I heard about Holodomor. The Ukrainian people do not see themselves as ever having been Russian, they were conquered by the Soviets. And millions died in Holodomor. They never forgot, and will never forgive.

Rather than obsessing about what borders were this or that year in the past, you have to acknowledge that European borders were constantly changing. Constant wars changed the map since the beginning of recorded history to World War 2. You could argue that process resumed when Yugoslavia broke up. The modern industrialized world, not just the West, does not want that to start again. Europe was extremely worried when Yugoslavia broke up, worried that war would spread to the rest of Europe. Now we have it in Ukraine.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-06-09 09:11:48)

clark · 2014-06-09 08:22:45

martienne, thank you for the counter-balance of historical perspective. most people in the west haven't understood the historical context particular to Crimea.

Your analysis is good.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-09 09:54:54

All this has given some perspective to my own family history. My mother's family is British: Scottish, English, Irish, Welsh. But my father's family is Mennonite. For American's to understand, Mennonites are related to the Amish, but Mennonites use all modern technology. My great grandfather built a farm in Canada, my grand parents owned that while I was growing up. The barn was the latest technology at the time my great grandfather built it, and my grandfather built a much newer, modern house. He had a car, tractor, combine, etc. Farm buildings from my great grandfather's era had barn for horses, attached barn for cows, separate chicken coop, pig sty; but none were in operation when I was there. It was a modern wheat farm, 3 acre garden and a few peach trees for the farm house, but no animals. But my grandparents always dressed in traditional Mennonite clothing, which looks almost identical to Amish. My grandfather spoke English with a heavy accent, my grandmother never spoke English at all. They spoke "Platdeutsch". The English name for that language is "Low German", but it's more related to Dutch. It was the language spoken by rural farming communities in the 1700s in Holland, Germany, Prussia, Poland, etc. My father speaks English, his "Platdeutsch" vocabulary is that of a 6-year-old, and I don't speak the language at all.

My great grandfather came to Canada at age 10 from what was at that time southern Russia, land that is now part of east Ukraine. My sister has a copy of a book of family history.

Originally the Duecks came from Holland, settled in Poland, then settled in Russia.
Dietrich H. Dueck and his wife Helena Krahn were both born in 1872 in Schoenhorst, Russia during the time of Tzarina Catherine the Great. Dietrich H. Dueck arrived in Canada with his maternal grandmother Elizabeth Esau's family in 1881.

They changed spelling of their last name when they arrived in Canada; now spelled the Canadian way. They lived in what was then Southern Russia, only 1789-1881. I tried to compare the hand-drawn map from the book, with Google Maps. A similar map is in the Wikipedia webpage for the colony. I think what was the village of Schoenhorst is west of Zaporizhia, Zaporiz'ka Oblast. It looks like it's now a village called Ruchaivka.

Interesting that it's in East Ukraine. Won't find any relatives there, though. When Russia tried to "Russify" the ethnic groups, the entire Mennonite community moved to Canada. It's part of family history that Tzarina Catharine the Second (Catharine the Great) invited Mennonites to occupy the land. She wanted someone peaceful. After the Russian army kicked out the Tartars, she wanted to ensure they didn't come back. The deal with Catharine the Great was Mennonites would never have to serve in the military, would continue to speak their own language, religion, and teach their own children. But a century later the Tzar at the time reneged, tried to "Russify" the ethnic groups. They were pressured to speak the Russian language, all government services and schools had to be in Russian, and they tried to conscript Mennonites into the military. So Mennonites moved to Canada. The town of Altona was the most dramatic; everyone sold what they couldn't carry and moved together to Canada. They built homes in exactly the same relation to each other, and resumed exactly the same jobs. They even kept the same town name; it's now Altona, Manitoba. But my great grandparents moved to Blumenhof, Saskatchewan.

martienne · 2014-06-09 12:48:55

Interesting to read about your family Robert. Quite the mix!
I've read of the mennonites and I think they are incredibly sympathetic Christians. Seems so very genuine. I read about them refusing military service and I think they had to move around quite extensively and spread around because of it. It's a shame that their faith is almost gone in Europe. I think some pockets of anabaptists survived here and there in the ex USSR are and in the Alps but I really don't know much about it. Good that it lives on in North America.

Catherine the Great was German herself, by birth, but she married into the Russian imperial family. She offered refuge in Russia to lots of German speaking people who were in trouble because of poverty, religion and other reasons. Still today there are plenty of people with German surnames in Russia and other ex USSR. Some of them emigrated back to Germany by "law of return" in the 1990s, when life was tough in the ex USSR. Most of them are still around, in Russia and Kazakhstan, mainly. Unfortunately for the German speakers, some came under suspicion of being potential Nazi sympathisers during the war, and Stalin wasn't exactly delicate. If your grandparents hadn't emigrated, they might have found themselves in Central Asia in the 1940s, and might still be there. Fortunately there is finally legislation in Russia to prevent the repetition of that kind of situation again - lots of people became victims of it in connection with the war, and Stalin's harsh regime.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2014-06-03 16:18:02

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#427 2014-06-03 20:23:21

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#428 2014-06-03 20:33:38

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#429 2014-06-04 06:55:58

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#430 2014-06-04 10:03:10

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#431 2014-06-04 10:24:39

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#432 2014-06-04 10:29:38

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#433 2014-06-04 11:33:43

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#434 2014-06-04 13:16:50

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#435 2014-06-04 13:37:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#436 2014-06-04 14:09:50

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#437 2014-06-04 19:52:25

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#438 2014-06-05 05:57:33

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#439 2014-06-08 14:51:33

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#440 2014-06-08 15:11:07

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#441 2014-06-08 18:32:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#442 2014-06-08 19:35:06

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#443 2014-06-08 20:18:59

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#444 2014-06-08 20:45:10

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#445 2014-06-08 21:12:23

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#446 2014-06-09 03:54:45

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#447 2014-06-09 08:16:41

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#448 2014-06-09 08:22:45

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#449 2014-06-09 09:54:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#450 2014-06-09 12:48:55

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer