User talk:Kuban kazak/1954 transfer of Crimea

From Talk:Crimea

1954 Transfer
Dear Irpen, I don't really find the question you dispute an obvious one. As you evidently know, Ukrainian historians believe that the Crimea was transferred mainly to populate it with Ukrainians (after Tatars mass deportation) and to support its collapsing post-war economy. This sufficiently referenced version should be presented in the article. Stating merely the gesture is pretty much the same that explain Nazi's invasion of Poland with reaction on the Glivice frontier provokation. Otherwise, the "gesture/gift" version should be extinguished (to achieve neutrality). So I'm going to desribe both. I'll find my quotes, you find yours (I DO insist :) ). Best wishes, Ukrained 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Irpen. I'm still looking forward to civil cooperation with you over this article. Going for it, why don't you please notify me which exact historians are "solid", and who are "crackpot" theoreticians so I can obey your directions strictly, sir? Otherwise I could waste my time searching for references already unacceptable for you :). Best wishes, Ukrained 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think as far as articles go, we mostly cooperated civilly. Now to the issue, the reason you provide (to populate it with Ukrainians) seem strange and new to me. Besides, Crimea was NOT populated by Ukrainians at that or at a later time. It seems to me that the transfer was an unimportant event because administrative borders of the Soviet Union didn't mean much at the time. As for telling which historians are solid, use common sense. Obviously those, who publish in respectable western journals are solid. Those who wrote books that are favorably reviewed and referred to in other literature are also solid. Those who write the historic essay for the respectable newspapers, like Mirror Weekly or Kommersant are usually also solid. Just use some common sense. --Irpen 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you mean Kommersant-Ukrayina, this is a dirty PR-bulletin of "Privat" business group. I know some guys from there personally. So I doubt that their society section can be neutral and respectable. Ukrained 12:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is an excellent article on the topic: --Kuban kazak 13:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not paste pages from other sites for no reason. A link is enough and cite a few quotes. Kilobytes from elsewhere make talk pages unreadable.

Ukrained, I am not sure what you mean about Kommersant-Ukrayina. The one I know of is owned by Berezovsky and not by Privat AFAIK. But in any case it does not publish historic essays. What I meant is this story archive at Kommersant-Money. --Irpen 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak: On February 5 1954 The Government of RSFSR adopted a Decree "On the transfer of Crimea Oblast from RSFSR to Ukrainian SSR" in which it stated that "враховуючи територiальне тяжiння Кримської областi до Української РСР, спiльнiсть економiки та тiснi господарськi i культурнi зв’язки мiж Кримською областю та Українською РСР, Рада Мiнiстрiв РРФСР ухвалює: вважати доцiльним передачу Кримської областi зi складу РРФСР до складу УРСР". Thus, 3 reasons has been officially stated: (1) geographic, (2) economic, and (3) cultural closure with Ukrainian SSR. Source: Uapatriot 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A Ukrainian state POV, not that it really maters but do take care to read the material I provided. Personally however I would give this more work, especially with events like these-Kuban kazak 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The link you provided is useful for understanding the Russian view on the current situation in Cimea, but it does not bring additional info on 1954 transfer. Uapatriot 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It does show that the situation is controversial and should be treated like so, hence I added a tag. Actually, IMO, I think a separate article on the transfer belongs here altogether. Care to start it off --Kuban kazak 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't agree more but it would be an extremely difficult article. I would be able to start it. --Irpen 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To the ref provided by K.K.: We have to check but if the transfer was indeed made in circumvention of even Soviet laws, it should be noted too. However, in no way it affected the legality of transfer. Speaking in strict legal terms of intra-Soviet affairs is meaningless. To summrize, it may have been unlawful but it was certainly valid and there is no issue at all in trying ro speak about decisions of party leadership as "invalid". Unlawful? Tha may be, but we need to make sure. --Irpen 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if we keep its publicity low (like not publishing it on the portals just yet) and giving a full array of facts in a brainstorm fashion. Then prematurely alerting mediators before letting everyone know of its existance to give the nationalists (both sides) a premature kick in the face.-Kuban kazak 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can start it in your userspace and no trolls with disrupt it. OTOH, if you want reasonable users from another side of the isle to help you with it, you can leave them an individual message. Basically, you are free to do anything you want in your user space. Start a new page there and proceed. But I think it would be a gigantic work. --Irpen 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, from what I read, I don't see why the transfer by itself is controversial. It was done by the Supreme Soviet, it was initiated by the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR, and it was accepted by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR.


 * The other question, was it a right or a wrong decision. User:Ukrained stated that after native crimea tatars were sent away, economically Crimea was suffering. And the thansfer was a economically-bassed decision to support the region. Also, the transfer was an element of political propoganda against Ukrainian nationalistic views, which were especially popular at that time in the Western Ukraine. Soviet authorites wanted to indicate that they are "nice" with respect to Ukraine. So, the decision was politically-based too. As far as I know, these two points are the main part of the pro-Ukrainian interpretation of the transfer.


 * A separate question is the current situation in Crimea. It should probably go into a separate article though.


 * I agree that a separate article on the 1954 transfer would be a valuable addition. Uapatriot 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that is what I am proposing to list the facts (let it be here) including


 * 1) Background history
 * 2) Tatars
 * 3) Political process of the transfer
 * 4) Official reasons
 * 5) Violations of internal laws of the USSR (like the lack of referendum)
 * 6) Separate fate of Sevastopol
 * 7) Modern developments, political; extremism
 * 8) Demographics
 * 9) Black Sea Fleet
 * 10) Wider form in the Russo-Ukrainian relations
 * And it should be began via brainstorming on these points (feel free to add aditional ones). --Kuban kazak 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of those points are highly controvercial and we should not "brainstorm" them here. When anyone starts an article, we can get back to that. --Irpen 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why wait 1954 transfer of Crimea, would you like to do the honours?--Kuban kazak 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you want to follow my advise above, start at user:Kuban kazak/1954 transfer of Crimea. I might join at some later point. --Irpen 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * EASIER DONE THAN SAID!!! Open to any edits to people of non-trolling nature, especially Irpen; and UApatriot. --Kuban kazak 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys: I would outline the proposed article as: Uapatriot 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Situation before the transfer
 * (a) tatars and demographic situation as of 1954
 * (b) (if any) economic stagnation of the region prior to 1954
 * (c) pro-nationalistic situation in Ukraine (especially in western Ukraine)
 * (d) (if important) situation in Russia before the transfer
 * 2. Transfer
 * (a) Transfer procedure
 * (b) official reasoning (as it's stated in the Decree)
 * (c) Relation to 300-year celebration of Pereyaslav Rada (why was it celebrated so much? see 1(c))
 * (d) Khruschev and his desire for ruling and domination
 * 3. Why was Sevastopol transferred?
 * 4. Situation after the transfer
 * (a) (if any) what has been changed in Crimea after the transfer?

One has to remember that so far this is the BRIEFEST OF THE BRIEFEST drafts, at this point I just want to lay the facts down, feel free to participate. I fully give everyone authority to add any comments to any entires, but I do think that Uapatriot began very correctly by not modifying but carefully commenting on separate headings. --Kuban kazak 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)