This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)