Crimea, Tatars, and Other Issues

[msmob]

Without getting into specifics--there was no resistance to initial landings.Russian special forces landed by helicopter and and occupied the Belbek base-- while Ukrainian government was in a state of confusion.As it happens-- I actually watched these very first landings on the internet.

Getting into specifics - shots WERE fired - tanks drove through secure perimeters, flash bangs were used by weapons carrying service personnel  and UA military were offered to give up their weapons and either join the Russian forces or await transfer to the UA mainland..  thanks - but I don't need your constant incorrect info that you manage to source then distance yourself from - when it is nonsense..

Regardless of your comment --it is bs and ignorant as usual--

'As usual'....     

Crimea is and was part of Ukraine-- and Ukrainians WERE NOT in a huge minority. Repeating BS like that is typical of your ignorance

1/ I apologise for not being specific - in Sevastopol - I felt Ukrainians were in the HUGE minority - which in fact - they were ..

2/ Yes, Crimea is dejure part of Ukraine - but defacto it most certainly isn't ... 

3/ eth Ukrainians all over the peninsula were in the minority - as even if they and the Tatars who had been allowed back - having been THE indigenous people -  voted against 'rejoining Russia' - they could never have won - based on the population make up

Whilst I am - in no way - supportive of the actions of the Kremlin - in physically interfering - whilst violently putting down republics asking to LEAVE the Federation they never really wanted to be a member of - e.g. Chechniya - the fact is these folks imported by  Imperial and Soviet Russia - while turfing out the Tatars ARE the present over-whelming majority

The existing UA documentation - as to property ownership - was supposed to be respected and I hope those with properties there can eventually realise their assets at a fair price.


 

[JayH]

Moby --you are just confirming yourself to be the idiot you are--cant you read?

None of what you just wrote is on point

The events happened over  a period of time -- the troops arrived from Sochi as I said .

YOU REALLY ARE A DILL --FINIS.

For the record--  I wrote

PS -- after writing the above -- I started looking at dates etc-- there is a high degree of conflicting reports on dates -- so perhaps that explains Moby to a degree . e
[/b][/size]

Why did I write that --because the events Moby described were Apr 4 as per the video linked  and not in conjunction with a different event on a different day conducted by different people !!
I then did a quick search-- and found  BBC reports (& numerous others with same story)  dated Mar 22  & 23  detailing story similar to Moby's. Sochi finished about Feb 23 -- AND MY RECOLLECTION was that was when Putin moved--   and the Crimean situation got really serious. Prior to that --there was not the degree of organisation & local civil groups had mostly  contained it  at that time -- so -- what the actual events that took place is not so clear .I can detail sequence at Belbek ad nauseum --but my posts already have.

fwiw --I do dispute that tanks were used -- there was a confrontation using armoured personal carriers being used to knock a gate open  -- nothing like a tank charge took place

[Boethius]

Ethnic Ukrainians have never been more than around 25% of the population of Crimea.


Tatars have lived there, but so did Greeks (continuous colonies since around 50 BC, perhaps earlier).  Crimea was part of the Kievan Rus' empire, before Tatars were there.  Therefore, Slavs are indigenous to the region.  Tatars settled after the Mongol invasions, and within a century, Cossacks had built forts there.  So, I don't think one can state they are the only "indigenous" population, and certainly they settled there after the first Slavs did.

[msmob]

Firstly, I apologise to Wayne for this 'offshoot' to your thread - happy for this school boy spat to be moved..

Moby --you are just confirming yourself to be the idiot you are--cant you read?

'Sure' .. I'm not the guy who told us I was an 'idiot' - but can't admit you got the dates, wrong ...

For the record--  I wrote
Why did I write that --because the events Moby described were Apr 4

March 4th - the 'March on Belbek airport by unarmed UA personel was the morning of March 4th ..
     http://www.channel4.com/news/by/lindsey-hilsum/blogs/live-belbek-russian-shots-fired-crimea

fwiw --I do dispute that tanks were used -- there was a confrontation using armoured personal carriers being used to knock a gate open  -- nothing like a tank charge took place

JayH .... I'll HAPPILY concede an APC over a tank - but I suggest you read the article below:

"An armoured personnel carrier rammed through the gate of the base, and at least two more broke through the wall as armed men went inside and pointed guns at Ukrainian soldiers."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/armoured-vehicles-break-into-ukraine-base-in-crimea-shots-fired-554793

I've seen the vids - haven't you ?


Now, bearing in mind I pointed out other instances of shots fired e.g unarmed military observers and your stunningly ridiculous posts re dates, I can only assume you HAVE gone over to RT, Life News, etc.,

Hardly, a 'peaceful take-over' - with 'no shots fired' ... 

Following the military take-over, an unarmed naval officer from Berdyansk was shot by one of his captors - hardly Geneva Convention stuff

When you have finished throwing your toys out of the pram and wish to discuss the GRU planned operations in Crimea - or Donetsk .... let us know 

[msmob]

Ethnic Ukrainians have never been more than around 25% of the population of Crimea.


Tatars have lived there, but so did Greeks (continuous colonies since around 50 BC, perhaps earlier).  Crimea was part of the Kievan Rus' empire, before Tatars were there.  Therefore, Slavs are indigenous to the region.  Tatars settled after the Mongol invasions, and within a century, Cossacks had built forts there.  So, I don't think one can state they are the only "indigenous" population, and certainly they settled there after the first Slavs did.

1/ Are (were) the Black Sea [ Pontian] Greeks 'Slavs ' ?

2/ When I look at Maps of the Kiev Rus Empire, I see some that show the Princes had control of the peninsula and others not ..I don't doubt you, Boethius - but could you guide me to a an informed history of Crimea 'ownership'?

3/ The Tatars had certainly been the indigenous population for more than half a century, prior to the 'russification' - post Imperial Russia's first breaking of a treaty concerning Crimea   ( Küçük Kaynarca Treaty -1774)  broken in 1783 - when Crimea was Annexed

[Boethius]

1/ Are (were) the Black Sea [ Pontian] Greeks 'Slavs ' ?

No.  But my point was that there are indigenous populations there of much longer standing than the Tatars, Greeks (many of whom still identified as Greek in Soviet times, uncertain about now) being the first example that comes to mind. 

Slavs first started settling in Crimea in the 4th century, with particular colonization in the 6th century (all before Kiev Rus').  Christianity was established in Crimea in the 3rd to 4th centuries, and it was from Greco-Byzantine culture, particularly around Chersonese, that Christianity spread to the Slavs.

2/ When I look at Maps of the Kiev Rus Empire, I see some that show the Princes had control of the peninsula and others not ..I don't doubt you, Boethius - but could you guide me to a an informed history of Crimea 'ownership'?

Not any that are online.  Some you may wish to look at are:

Istoriko-arkehologicicheskii ocherk Kyrma Bashkirove, A.  Simferopol, 1914
Studii z Kyrmy Krysmk'kyi, A (editor), Kyiv 1930
Ukraina i Krym v istorychnyk uzaimynakh Dubrovsk'kyi, V., Geneva 1946

3/ The Tatars had certainly been the indigenous population for more than half a century, prior to the 'russification' - post Imperial Russia's first breaking of a treaty concerning Crimea   ( Küçük Kaynarca Treaty -1774)  broken in 1783 - when Crimea was Annexed

I didn't post they were not.  Just that Slavs predated Tatars arriving in Crimea, and, therefore, a common narrative of the Crimea being "Tatar" is inaccurate.

[msmob]

Boethius

Many 'Pontian Greeks' from the Soviet Union were offered Greek Citizenship ..some settled in Greece and some in Cyprus.

They were mostly from Southern Russia - They speak Russian and Greek, fluently. I make a point of employing them in Cyprus - as they have a reputation for being thieves - when the reality is many Cypriots treated them like dirt and they worked hard - labouring for me.

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed visiting the Byzantine ruins in Crimea.

As to what was Crimea...   Over five hundred years of being the majority surely counted for something - even if it was after conquering.

'My' People were planted in Ireland around 500 years ago in Ireland and claim to be British...  That 'we'  are still the majority in the top right hand corner of the island has caused endless rifts.

The Tatars have endured real cr*p after the war and the Supreme Soviet apologised..... not that actually resulted in much ..

[Boethius]

Boethius

Many 'Pontian Greeks' from the Soviet Union were offered Greek Citizenship ..some settled in Greece and some in Cyprus.

They were mostly from Southern Russia - They speak Russian and Greek, fluently. I make a point of employing them in Cyprus - as they have a reputation for being thieves - when the reality is many Cypriots treated them like dirt and they worked hard - labouring for me.

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed visiting the Byzantine ruins in Crimea.

As to what was Crimea...   Over five hundred years of being the majority surely counted for something - even if it was after conquering.

'My' People were planted in Ireland around 500 years ago in Ireland and claim to be British...  That 'we'  are still the majority in the top right hand corner of the island has caused endless rifts.

The Tatars have endured real cr*p after the war and the Supreme Soviet apologised..... not that actually resulted in much ..

Were they the majority?  In the only all Russian Empire census in 1897, Tatars were not the majority population of Crimea.


Pretty much everyone endured real cr@p in the USSR.  Tatars were not unique in this respect.

[msmob]

Were they the majority?  In the only all Russian Empire census in 1897, Tatars were not the majority population of Crimea.

They were CLEARLY the majority - before Imperial Russia took over

Pretty much everyone endured real cr@p in the USSR.  Tatars were not unique in this respect.

Why did the supreme Soviet single them out for an apology ??...

[Boethius]

They were CLEARLY the majority - before Imperial Russia took over

They were the majority from approximately 1500 to about 1860.  By 1864, they were a minority in Crimea. 

Why did the supreme Soviet single them out for an apology ??...

Ethnic tensions.  The Tatars were always more "politically active" than other nationalities.


The Bashkirs suffered more than did the Tatars, as did ethnic Germans. 


Do you really believe that the deportation of Tatars was any worse than the ethnic cleansing attempted via the Holodomor?

[msmob]

They were the majority from approximately 1500 to about 1860.  By 1864, they were a minority in Crimea. 


Ethnic tensions.  The Tatars were always more "politically active" than other nationalities.


The Bashkirs suffered more than did the Tatars, as did ethnic Germans. 


Do you really believe that the deportation of Tatars was any worse than the ethnic cleansing attempted via the Holodomor?

1/ Holodomor

I have a question for Ukrainians - why do they think they were singled out - I have Russian friends from Sochi who's Grandparents mixed sawdust with their food during Stalin's 'experiment' and attempt to control.

2/ I know the Tatars were forced to march to the centre of Russia - to be re-settled - along with eth.Greeks and Bulgarians - c. 250k people and 100k didn't make it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars

[Boethius]

Because scholars of the Holodomor have documentation that proves they were singled out.


There was a famine in Russia in 1921-22 due to poor crops. 


I'm not saying what happened to the Tatars wasn't horrendous.  Just that it wasn't unique.

[msmob]

Because scholars of the Holodomor have documentation that proves they were singled out.


There was a famine in Russia in 1921-22 due to poor crops.

The famine of 21-22 was down to a drought - the famine of 32-33 was 'created' ...   I'm interested in this documentation as the map showing the extend of the famine and deaths extends WAY beyond the borders of present day Ukraine and areas with eth Ukrainians



Re the Tatars - agreed they weren't uniquely badly treated - but theirs is a tale of constant repression / mistreatment and forced evacuation. They HAVE been singled out for two 'apologies'..

1/ Supreme Soviet

2/ Russian Federation

...for all the good it does../ did


 

[Boethius]

I asked the better half about this. He said the apology was never only to the Crimean Tatars.

pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&link_id=15&nd=102011245

[msmob]

I asked the better half about this. He said the apology was never only to the Crimean Tatars.

pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&link_id=15&nd=102011245

.and he is - of course correct.

Both the Soviet and RF one's mention  the Crimean Tatars - they were (wrongly) attributed as aiding the Nazi's

[Boethius]

No, the point is that the Crimeans were not singled out in those apologies.  He remembered it well, as many of his ancestors were rehabilitated in the same laws, so he'd read them all.


There were, in fact, collaborators among Crimeans, in fact, many joined the German side before the Germans even took Crimea, although the majority like most Soviet citizens, were not. The most infamous "collaborator" was a Soviet spy.  He was discovered, and was slowly frozen to death by the Germans.  The expulsion was because of those German collaborators, just as hundreds of thousands of Western Ukrainians were sent to Siberia after WWII.



As for other regions which had holodomors, Robert Conquest covered this in The Harvest of Sorrow.  According to Conquest, the majority of those regions were predominately ethnically Ukrainian.  He had no reason to fabricate this, he was not a Ukrainian nationalist, nor even ethnically Ukrainian.


James Mace traces it back as a counter reaction to NEP, and that this was the way to break national consciousness.  He stated it was used first in Ukraine, then replicated in other republics.

[msmob]

No, the point is that the Crimeans were not singled out in those apologies.  He remembered it well, as many of his ancestors were rehabilitated in the same laws, so he'd read them all.

But they WERE : Both the Soviet and RF apologies - specifically mention the Tatars of Crimea...

There were, in fact, collaborators among Crimeans,

Sure,  but blaming ethnic groupings and punishing them en mass was the basis of the Supreme Soviet apology

As for other regions which had holodomors, Robert Conquest covered this in The Harvest of Sorrow.  According to Conquest, the majority of those regions were predominately ethnically Ukrainian.  He had no reason to fabricate this, he was not a Ukrainian nationalist, nor even ethnically Ukrainian.


James Mace traces it back as a counter reaction to NEP, and that this was the way to break national consciousness.  He stated it was used first in Ukraine, then replicated in other republics.

Then you have Mark B. Tauger of West Virginia University, Stephen G. Wheatcroft of Melbourne University and the Map  - which clearly shows Ukraine was not the only region affected.

I would have agreed with you - but for the angry response of a Russian friend whose family endured the hardship of the famine - in RUSSIA

My map of the areas effected... Can you see it ?

Trying - again ..

[Boethius]

80% of the deaths were in Ukraine and the predominantly ethnically Ukrainian North Caucasus and Siberia.


Were there Russians there?  Of course.  But in all those regions, the majority populations were ethnically Ukrainian, and they were being cleansed because of their ethnicity.


You really have to understand what was happening, in terms of Ukrainian national consciousness, in the 1920's, partly as a result of NEP.  For a Bolshevik, nationalism had to be destroyed.  No matter what the cost.


http://faminegenocide.com/mace_ch3.html

[JayH]

You really have to understand what was happening, in terms of Ukrainian national consciousness,
 For a Bolshevik, nationalism had to be destroyed.
 No matter what the cost.

l

Moby really has to understand what was happening, in terms of Ukrainian national consciousness,
 For Russia,  Ukrainian nationalism had to be destroyed.
 No matter what the cost.

The variation of your words is as appropriate today as the period you refer to .Amazing how history repeats itself.
Moby personifies the Russophiles who simply do not get what has happened in Ukraine -- and is happening . He  THINKS he knows -- but in fact is ignorant of how much has and is changing in Ukraine since the revolution of dignity !

And -- cannot stand being told !!

[msmob]

Boethius,

I am well aware of the then policy to purge nationalism and remove the intelligentsia from the equation but the fact remains that  etn Russians in strongly ethic Russian areas suffered.

Whilst I am certain of your reasoning, that fact that so many parts of modern day Russia were effected..as the map suggests has me wondering how much this was down to the stubborn experiment with collective farming and corruption

[Boethius]

You are conflating collectivization in general with a deliberate policy to starve people to death.

Robert Conquest looked at all of this.  80% of deaths during collectivization occurred in predominantly Ukrainian regions. 

[msmob]

Hi Boethius,

I'm very glad that you have taken the time to make this topic interesting

Last night I hoped to meet the Russian chap who tried to suggest that the Holodomor was NOT targeted at Ukraine and our plans changed  - I will meet him on Thursday / Friday.

He is working with me on a project - a programmer - and I want him to focus on the project and will show him this thread and may be he will even contribute.

The 80 percent deaths statistic doesn't prove that what is most day Ukraine was targeted. I have always erred on the same side as you - but knowing so many other regions were affected - and that so many non FSU scholars - also doubt the "let's target eth Ukrainians"  - I'm simply questioning my own beliefs... 

[Boethius]

In 2006, the Ukrainian government released over 50,000 NKVD documents on the Holodomor.  Last November, many of those documents became available online to the general public, though it's only a partial list, as many have not yet been put online.  However, that release over a decade ago had a profound impact on research in the West. Before their release, those archives were available to some researchers, such as James Mace.  He was an American scholar who moved to Ukraine in 1993, eventually working at the Mohyla Academy and Den newspaper.  He was probably, at the time he moved to Ukraine, the world's foremost expert on the Holodomor, and perhaps the only one who was not an ethnic Ukrainian. He was instrumental in advancing scholarship in Ukraine on the Holodomor.

In Bloodlands:  Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, Timothy Snyder states the policies of confiscation and starvation were limited to Ukraine in 1932 and 1933, and that the Soviets "made sure that the term genocide, contrary to Lemkin's intentions, excluded political and economic groups, so that the Ukrainian famine could be presented as somehow less genocidal bcase it targeted a class, kulaks as well as a nation, Ukraine.  He then lists seven policies that applied only in Ukraine:

1. From November 18, 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets. State police and party brigades were sent into these regions to root out any food they could find.

2. Two days later, a law was passed forcing peasants who couldn't meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had.

3. Eight days later, collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on "blacklists" in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota. These farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists. Blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind, and became death zones.

4. On December 5, 1932, Stalin's security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain. It was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state.

5. In November 1932 Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union. As Lazar Kaganovich put it, the Soviet state would fight "ferociously" to fulfill the plan.

6. In January 1933 Ukraine's borders were sealed in order to prevent Ukrainian peasant from fleeing to other republics. By the end of February 1933 approximately 190,000 Ukrainian peasants had been caught trying to flee Ukraine and were forced to return to their villages to starve.

7. The collection of grain continued even after the annual requisition target for 1932 was met in late January 1933.

I think scholarship is turning more toward a finding that the Holodomor was an intention to destroy the Ukrainian nation.  I know Russians don't like to hear that, but it's true.

Russians suffered under the communists as well, but not for the sin of being ethnic Russians.

[msmob]

I think scholarship is turning more toward a finding that the Holodomor was an intention to destroy the Ukrainian nation.  I know Russians don't like to hear that, but it's true.

Russians suffered under the communists as well, but not for the sin of being ethnic Russians.

Boethius, I try not to associate with people who base their  opinions solely based on their birth-place or ethnicity they were born into ... 

Remember his experience is that his Grandparent suffered, too - IN what is a part of modern day Russia - no -where near Ukraine.

I'm not even sure your claim that scholars are mostly supporting your stance is valid - whilst it may be - it's a very subjective point.... 

We should wait for the Russian guy.

[Boethius]

The difference, moby, is in intent. 


In other parts of the USSR, confiscation of grain was to force peasants into collective farms.  But every piece of grain, every seed was not removed from a village, with the population not allowed to move anywhere else. 


The better half worked with an old man who survived the Holodomor.  The only reason he, his mother, and sibling survived was because the mother had a bottle of glue (made of horse) and the cadres never figured out they were making a broth with it every night.  Each day, the head of the kolhosp would come into their home and say, more to himself than them, "Why aren't you dead yet?"


The scholarship has been fairly consistent.  What is still open to debate is whether the Holodomor was genocide.  From the stories I know, I also know where I fall on this.  Also, unlike what many scholars have reported, that year was a banner harvest year in Ukraine.