Talk:Galician Russophilia

Article name
I've started this new article and already wonder about the name. This movement occurred among people whose descendents today mostly consider themselves to be Ukrainian, from Ukraine. However they themselves did not consider themselves to be Ukrainian (or, considered Ukrainians to be Russians). But could there be a better name? Galician Russophiles wouldn't fit, because this ideology also existed outside Galicia, in Zakarpatia. I suppose the current term is best unless someone has a better idea.

Also, perhaps the title should be changed to Ukrainian Russophilia to better reflect the history of this movement, although I have no idea how to change the name of an article...Faustian 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rusyn Russophilia"? I see what you mean. I dispute the idea that the Austro-Hungarian Empire supported Russophilia. The Lemko russophiles who were imprisoned in Talerhof, who later formed the Rusyn-Lemko Republic, would not have thought that they were "supported" by the likes of Franz Joseph. These Lemkos did not support the Ukrainians either, and blamed them for betraying them to the Austrians. If you were Austria in the early 19th century, who would you fear more, Imperial Russia, or a group of poorly organized Ukrainians? As it turned out, the Ukrainians were more of a threat than the czars. Current Ukrainian history often has a neo-Marxist slant implying that history moves only in one inevitable direction. The actual history was quite a bit messier, and many Rusyns of the 20th and nineteenth century did not consider themselves to be Ukrainians. Even though they lost, their history should be respected. If the Lemko republic had managed to join Czechoslovakia as planned, we could have seen Czechoslovakia splitting into three, instead of two, with the collapse of communism. The hypothetical "Lemkovia" would them be yet another European mini-state clamoring to enter the EU today.Pustelnik 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by what historians say. Austria supported Russophiles in the beginning of the 19th century against the Poles, but shifted their support to the Ukrainophiles by the end of the century. I will write all of this when I have time....12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK. Talerhof was 20th century. I think Marie Theresa considered her "little Russians" as sort of a personal pet ethnic group, but his doesn't mean support for Russophilia. It might be support for "Rusynophilia", and it does make sense that the Austrians would encourage this group not to think of themselves as "Russian", but something else. I do think that you will have to agree that they did not consider themselves to be Polish, but there were Ruththenians who joined the Polish nobility. Ethnicity is slippery in this part of the world. I'm not sure what a "Ukrainian" would be in the nineteenth century.Pustelnik 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Initially, the two camps were Polonophiles ("We are Polish with our own peasant Polish dialect like Mazovians, who through historical accident happen to have an Eastern Christian religion, but will become real Poles once we become civilized") versus Rusynophiles ("We are not Poles, we are an Eastern Slavic people" but were not too sophisticated about it). The Rusynophiles were mostly concerned with relgiious matters and had rather limited horizons, not looking beyond Galicia. As the intelligentsia developed, most became Russophiles and later Ukrainophiles (aka Populists, because the latter group were inspired by the local peasants).

The Austrian and Russian monarchies were allies during the first half of the nineteenth century (the Russian army crushed the anti-Austrian revolt of Hungarian nobles, to the delight of the Rusyn/Ukrainian peaasants), and the Hapsburgs thought the Polish nobles were a worse threat than Russophiles. This changed once the two powers became rivals and Russian power grew, where the Austrians threw their support to the newly emerging Ukrainophiles who were seen as much les of a threat. This helped to marginalize the Russophile movement (I'll put all of this in the article, eventually).Faustian 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance
The article deals with the figures central to the formation of the Ukrainian national identity in Galicia, which obviously would have major consequences for Ukraine as a whole. So it should be at least mid importance, not low.Faustian 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read this ru:Галицийское генерал-губернаторство. The World War one section is very POVed and needs to be neutralised. --Kuban Cossack 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Russian article seems rather POVeD, as it neglects to mention the shutting down of Ukrainian schools and cooperatives, as well as the exile to Russia of the head of the Uniate Church, very important things. Why does the section in this article violate nuetrality, according to you (all facts were taken from legitimate history texts)? How can it be improved? best, Faustian 00:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is also important to those people doing their family genealogy, so that they can understand why their ancestors did not consider themselves to be Polish or Austrian, and maybe not Ukrainian either. It remains a topic of historical interest to many in the US and Canada, even though it may not be of great importance to the current Ukraine. Like most modern countries (France, for instance), the origins are a bit messier and diverse than nationalists would prefer.Pustelnik 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * whose "nationalists"? Moscovitian? Agreed. Their miserable attemts "to declare" russians in Haličina indeed are something maniacal. At least for those who aren't introduced with russian imperialism.

Ukrainophiles were for halichian "peasants", thus for their own people, their language, culture; moscvophiles were for russian tsars, their seminatural late adopted by ugrofinns oldchurch language from Macedonia Slavs in kyiv redaction, they just wanted to be a part of russia. They absolutely ignored who their people lived with them actually were. They don't speak to them in language which those understood. This artificial movement was due to heavily denationalization of ukraine. It was ugly and antinatural and imevitably and absolutely naturally failed. It have nothing to the geneologic investigations dont say the lye. But you with yours antiukrainian feelings and maybe ukrainian origin you of course free to call yours ancestors the russians. For this such an odd movement isn't needed even. But if your ancestor are from halichina, such the view doesn't make this something better than brainwashed idiotism, despite how much times you recall the "nationalists" with negative connotations. Ukrainians survived thank to the "nationalists". So you can now hate them. 77.52.154.198 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC) UkrainianNationalist

Just Galicia?
What about Trancarpathia and the Russophilia there? Should we also include the modern Eastern Ukrainian Russophilia? I am just wondering if the scope that the article covers matches the expectation of the title? --Kuban Cossack 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are dealing with western Ukraine. I never had time to write a lot about Zakarpatia.  Please contribute if you have time...Faustian 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in that case the article needs to me expanded greatly, Russophilia of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, of the Little Russians, of the mass reversions to Orthodoxy after the annexation of Podolia and Volhynia in the partitions, and of course modern Russophilia, the article will treble in length, or should we just rename it to Galician Russophilia? --Kuban Cossack 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Russophilic movement of Zaporozhian Cossacks is a whole different topic as well as a, much less researched in a non-politicized way, modern Russophilia among the significant part of Ukrainians, but this all is a totally different topic. This article is about the Russophilia of Western Ukrainians acquired in the context of the occupation (or control) of the authorities that were much more alien to the Ukrainians than Russia, non-Orthodox too (except for Romania, whose church traditions, while also Orthodox, are also much more foreign to Ukrainians that the ROC, which itself was largely shaped by the Ukrainian near-domination of the ROC hierarchy and doctrine between the 16th century and 18th century.) So, I suggest we rename the article to something like Historic Russophilia in Western Ukraine and keep the Zaporozhian and other Ukrainian Russophilias for the narrower articles. There is too little in common between the two. --Irpen 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I agree, what about Transcarpathia then? How do we treat that? It is even more complex there and Russophilia and Rusynophilia fully intermixed with each other there? --Kuban Cossack 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Actually, since Volyn's history was basically identical to that of the Right Bank prior to World War I, it might not belong in this article either.  Both Subtelny's and Magosci's work exclusively write about Ukrainian lands in Austria-Hungary when they discuss Ukrainian Russophilia.  As this article shows, it was a strong, despite influence and help from abroad Russophilia was largely a native movement in those lands which occurred in response to Polish/Hungarian occupation.  While Galicia and Zakarpatian history differed significantly, they had more in common with each other than either had with other regions of Ukraine and thus belong together (which is what most Ukrainian historians tend to do).  Western Ukrainian Russophilia sounds like a good name.  Faustian 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Volhynia is only somewhat different. The largest difference is it's being in the Russian partition of Poland and dominated by Orthodoxy, like Bukovina and Bessarabia, but unlike Galicia.

However, it was captured by Poland for the interbellum and it was there that the belated Russophilia flourished, partly due to Volhynians being the last ones to develop a national identity (most in 1930s self-identified as "just local" (tuteytsi), while Galicians felt themselves firmly Ukrainian by then. The DYK about the Volhynian Russophilia is the creation of the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church there as late as in 1942. So, Volhynian Russophilia, while belonging to a different period of time, has much more historical parallels with the Galician one than to the Russophilia "in general". --Irpen 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bukovina was part of Austria in 1775, and had a history similar to that of Galicia and Zakarpatia, except it was mostly Orthodox and the struggle was against the Romanian elite instead of Polish or Hungarian. Its history mirrored somewhat that of Galicia, although the Romanains were able to come down harder on the Ukrainians than the Poles did, after World War I.  Bukovina would belong in this article.Volhynia's history seems to have been identical to that of Right Bank Ukraine until 1919, when unlike the Right Bank it became part of Poland rather than the Soviet Union.  Russophilia wasn't a native movement as in Galicia or Zakarpatia, it was simply the government ideology which locals went along with.


 * With respect to Volhynia, despite Polish efforts to contain Ukrainophiles to Galicia, the Ukrainian nationalists enjoyed considerable success between the wars; Volhynia was a major theater of operations for UPA (I've met a couple of people from Rivne who were proud of their UPA veteran grandfathers). After 1990 this region very quickly came to resemble Galicia politically and culturally, suggesting that it had resembled it even before Soviet rule.  Andrew Wilson's book, "Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990's" Minority Faith" shows that in elections from 1994 Volynians were more like Galicians than anyone else was (I couldn't find these maps on-line).  Here are the election maps from December 2004, and social attitudes towards supporting the Russian language as official in Ukraine   If indeed Russophilia had been so strong there, one wouldn't expect UPA to have been so successful there during World War II, nor for that region to go Orange more strongly than any region in Ukraine outside Galicia, nor to have Volynians be more opposed to Russian as a state language than any region other than Galicia.


 * With respect to kuban kazak's comments below - do you mean eastern Volyn (Zhitomir oblast) which was part of the USSR after 1919? This is where my grandfather is from and where I have visited often - it is the only pro-Yanukovich region in central Ukraine.  It seems to be quite poor and the people are under the control of collective farm bosses.Faustian 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can go end and end about this, but in sum most people in western Volhynia do not care about politics, in Rivne I remember just how festive was 9th of May in 2003. UPA did operate in Volhynia, but it was eclipsed by the amount of people who joined the partisan movement. Unfortunately the reason for Volhynian nationalism is much like the reason for Kiev's recent betrayal (no offense, but from a russophilic POV it can be seen as that). A strong political influx from Galicia and very little to counterbalance it, unlike in the East and South of Ukraine. Also there was a massive move to attempt to nationalise Volhynia under Kravchuk: UNA-UNSO used armored vehicles in storming UOC (MP) monasteries and convents. The appointment of neo-fascist leaders such as Chervony as the governor of Rivne Oblast aided that. In both Lutsk and Rivne the main Cathedrals were stormed and taken over by the UNSO, and then transferred to the KP (who despite a court order for their return) continue to occupy them. Think about it, people are poor, desperate, its very easy to wind them and convince of anything they wish to believe. Sometimes I am shocked on how irrational my wife is (or was anyway), but it all comes down to that, her brother, when I first met him started bragging about how his grandfather was UPA and all, and then when I met the old man, he took three days to tell me his times as a partisan fighter, each time my brother in law would turn a very deep shade of crimson...anyway this is totally offtopic and I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion, but yes Faustian, Volhynia is a sorry state right now. --Kuban Cossack 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments.Faustian 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I just add, because of Volhynian Russophilia still persisting, I was able to find my second half there. True that, Irpen, basically the role of the Pochayiv Lavra as a forepost and in a way as a contrast to the western catholicism, was russophilia so strong in Volhynia... I would not as far to say it has declined or been eclipsed, its just that presently it is one of the most poorer regions of Ukraine and in a desperate case people are easily manipulated by politicians. The Soviet Partisan movement in Volhynia was no weaker than in neighbouring Belarus. --Kuban Cossack 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Austrian involvement in the eclipse of the Russophiles in Galicia
While the Austrian suppression was important and has been described in the body of the article, the Russophiles were largely defeated on the grass-roots level by Ukrainophile (Narodnik) activists, who fanned out into the villages teaching the peasants, organizing cooperatives and credit unions, reading rooms, etc without any foreign assistance (indeed, their self-reliance was a matter of pride). Many of the young rural parish priests working to establish Ukrainian literacy among their peasant flock were doing so semi-secretly, against the wishes of their Russophile hierarchs.

The suppression of the Russophiles certainly helped to finish them off, but did not seem to be the main factor in their eclipse, so it should not be emphasized in the article's introduction. regards Faustian 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accepted. --Russianname 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, Methodius Trochanowski organized coops and credit unions, and warned against "Ukrainization". Pustelnik (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article notes that by 1914 there were 900 Ukrainophile coops and 106 Russophile coops. regardsFaustian (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge
There is a part of Russophilia article that covers the same subject. I suggest the two should be merged, as this one looks like a fork of the other.--Hillock65 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Western UA Russophilia is a very distinct phenomenon. History of Ukraine includes History of Kiev, does not mean they should be merged. Please read the talk page above. --Irpen 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a political movement Moskvofilstvo is largely known as a western Ukrainian phenomenon. Parts of the other article discuss Russophile movements in Galicia and Bukovyna as well. --Hillock65 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Russophilia is a wider term than the Ukrainian political movement the same way as the Russophobia is a wider term than the Ukrainian movement. The scope of the other article, from this title, is very general. The political movement here is much more specific. History of UA and History of Kiev analogy applies. The latter topic, while being part of the former, concentrates on a particular aspect of it (goes in detail on what goes on in Kiev). Does not mean they should be merged but does not mean that every detail about Kiev belongs to the History of UA article. --Irpen 03:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. Volhynia and Bessarabia were the parts of the Russian empire, and the article is about the movement in the Habsburgh empire. --Russianname 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. Russophilia in Western Galicia may be a bit different from the same movement in what is now the Ukraine, but certainly uses similar ideas. You can consider Galicia, Zacarpatia, Volhinia, and Bukovinia as part of a Carpatho-Rusyn ethnic group, at least partially distinct from Ukrainians or Russians.Pustelnik 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also oppose merge, for the same reasons above. Faustian 13:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What the RE-union?
What is the RE-union? It implies parts were together at one time. Western Ukraine has NEVER been together with Russia. Rus and Russia are not the same, just as Ukraine and Rus are not the same. These imperialist insinuations do not belong here. Secondly, overall philia as opposed to Russophobia? This is not English, at least not intelligible English. If you have objections to my edit, please note them at the discussion page, let's not start another revert war. --Hillock65 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also note, that per WP:V references to Live Journal and blogs are unacceptable. --Hillock65 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Something is not right in this paragraph
''Immediately before the outbreak of World War I, the Austrian and Hungarian governments held numerous treason trials of those suspected of Russophile subversives. When the Austrians were driven from Galicia in August 1914, they avenged themselves upon suspected Russophiles and their families. Hundreds were shot, and thirty thousand were sent to the Talerhof concentration camp, where approximately three thousand died of exposure.''
 * So who avanged who?, according to the passage Russophiles avenged upon Russophiles, since no one else could and Austrians were driven out. Is this a puzzle? --Hillock65 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on the time, the Austrians did this to people whom they arrested during their retreat, to those on Galician territories that the Russian forces did not control, and then on territories retaken by the Austrians from the Russians.Faustian 03:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I added an internal link to Metodyj Trochanovskij, also sentenced to death by the Austrians.Pustelnik (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Moscophile
Hillock65, please don't revert the spelling without comment. The spelling "Moscowphile" looks and sounds quite wrong, a combination of the Anglo-Saxon name of the city with a Latin suffix. It should be analogous to the Ukrainian moskofil (not moskvafil), with a Latinate prefix. In the same way, we write Russophile/Rusofil, not Russiaphile/Rosiafil.

But don't listen to me, the spelling "Moscophile" is used in two articles in Kubijovyč's encyclopedia:


 * E. Vytanovych. "The Western Ukrainian Lands Under Austria and Hungary, 1772–1918", p 700.
 * S. Vyvytsky and S. Baran. "Western Ukraine under Poland", p 839.

Both articles are in Kubijovyč, Volodymyr ed. (1963). Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopædia, Vol. 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-3105-6.

Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-07-31 05:44 Z 


 * "-phile" is Greek. Many English words containing ph are.Pustelnik (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Patriotism versus Nationalism
I claim that you have to have a functioning government to be patriotic to (patria="fatherland") if you are going to call this patriotism. In the context of pre and post World War I, any reasonably uniform group of people could declare itself a "nation". The Ukrainian movement (or the Rusyn one) would therefore be nationalism, not patriotism. Pustelnik (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe that fatherland has to have a political border? Patriotism is love for one's fatherland.  Nationalism is somewhat synonymous, but is more extreme and often implies chauvinism.  The 19th century Ukrainophiles were not all extremists.  Indeed, most were moderates in the sense that they worked within the Austrian system and their attitudes were encouraged by the Austrians.  Magosci, I believe, wrote that within Austria one could be both an Austrian and a Ukrainian patriot.  The dictionary definitions of patriotism and nationalism overlap somewhat but there are differences.  Patriotism  is "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty", while one of the definitions of nationalism  is "excessive patriotism; chauvinism".Faustian (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both patriotism and nationalism have articles on Wikipedia. I agree that there is overlap, and I will not change it back, but I still think you are wrong. What country did the Ukrainians have to be  patriotic to?  The Autro-Hungarian Empire? They may have had a nation, but they did not have a country of their own. Pustelnik (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hat quotation
I don't mind the prominent quotation at the top, but really the leading line should start every encyclopedia article. Can this be placed below, or perhaps in a sidebar box like an image thumb? —Michael Z. 2008-10-30 16:14 z 


 * I don't mind either variant, I'm just not savvy enough with wikipedia to create a sidebar box. But I think that the quote, by one of Russophilia's most prominant figures in its most prominant manifesto,  perfectly summarizes and describes the Russophile ideology and deserves some sort of highlight rather than be buried in the test somewhere.Faustian (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I found template:Rquote, but I think it looks terrible. Gave a try to formatting it manually.  Let me know if it doesn't look right in your web browser. —Michael Z. 2008-10-30 17:47 z 


 * It looks okay, although some differentiation (a background color or box around it) would be better.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the font is 1px smaller in my browser, but that's hardly noticeable. I've added a very pale grey background box, but these very light colours can vary greatly from browser to browser.  Better in yours?  Hard to read?  Invisible box? —Michael Z. 2008-10-30 23:04 z 


 * The other option would be to give it the same tone and outline as a floating image thumbnail. —Michael Z. 2008-10-30 23:08 z 


 * Looks good, thanks!Faustian (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Russophiles, Moscowphiles
The terms are usually synonymous in the most important mainstream literature, such as in the [Encyclopedia of Ukraine] ("Russophiles (rusofily, or moskvofily)"). To avoid confusion it's probably best to use just one term, or at least have a paragraph describing the different nuances somewhere in the end of the article not in the lede.Faustian (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern Ukrainian Russophiles
This article includes no information about Ukrainian Russophiles after World War I, this article should information about modern Ukrainian Russophiles. Charles Essie (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They largely ceased to exist as a phenomenon in western Ukraine (the focus of this article is the specific movement that developed in Austrian-ruled western UKraine in the 19th-early 20th centuries - it should probably be renamed) after World War I.Faustian (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russophiles of Galicia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050928141658/http://orthodox.is.lviv.ua/lvivep/russia.htm to http://orthodox.is.lviv.ua/lvivep/russia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)