The fourth outline presents an analysis of the processes that took place after the Nazis and their allies were expelled. This part of the research focuses on reconfiguring relations between the Soviet state and communities. Such a reconfiguration was, on the one hand, a result of war and occupation, but, on the other hand, it was a dangerous challenge to Bolshevik power. My basic position is that restoration of the pre-war status quo for the Soviet regime meant not only or not so much rebuilding the economy, as the repression and suppression of various tendencies in people’s thinking. With people’s different experiences of surviving war, they developed a different understanding of their personal fate, their strength and their capabilities. They gained this understanding in various ways, on different levels and based on different—pragmatic and symbolic—foundations. The outline investigates how the Kremlin, regaining control over the territories of Ukraine, scattered in two world wars, rediscovered the formula of its existence: not as a potentially classless society, but as a renewed version of the Russian Empire. The mechanisms and means of suppression of all the tiny bits of civic interaction and the disabling of any kind of social and national solidarity are the focus of attention in this study. An attempt was made to find out how the new “social contract” emerged and what kind of people and communities became the social basis for the renewed empire model, and who developed into consistent fighters against it. The outline presents arguments substantiating the concept of the “Great Patriotic War” as the ground zero not only for the emergence of the USSR and a Soviet empire, but also as the start of the countdown to its fall, a fall caused by the unexpected consequences of World War II.
Attentive readers will notice some repetitions that survived the editing. There are not many and consist mostly of methodological remarks transferred from the first outline to all the others. This is a conscious move, as a claim to change methodological framework, when not implemented in your own research, is worthless. One repetition—at the end of both the methodological outline and the whole book—is intentional and principled. It is an important remark made by Kersti Kaljulaid, Estonia's president, in August 2019. For Estonia, as the President noted, World War II ended only 25 years ago, in 1994, “when the last wagons left our soil, with the equipment of the occupation forces.”1 This is its third repetition. No matter how compulsive and politically loaded it may appear in a historical study, the cited words are crucial, as they define the chronology of the “heated time,” the symbolic and pragmatic duration of World War II, which is very different for some states. This statement allows us to raise the question: has World War II ended for Ukraine?
Without the company of like-minded people, their institutional and personal support, this book would not exist. Thus, I express my gratitude to the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, an institution that made me feel at home again and granted me the possibility of professional realization; to the Central State Archives of Supreme Bodies of Power and Government of Ukraine and to all its staff who have made every effort to ensure that historians “meet” the sources they need for their studies; to the Dukh i Litera publishing house that tirelessly continues to shape the space of the humanities in Ukraine.
Also, I express deep gratitude to my dear colleagues. First of all, to Tamara Vronska who helped me along the way with documents, advice, who provided honest criticism, editing, and who truly cared for the manuscript; to Larysa Yakubova whose reading and questions on the margins prompted me to clarify and specify some important arguments and conclusions; to Iryna Gridina whose support was always so timely and her advice essential.
I express my gratitude yet again to Leonid Finberg, without whose determination and ardor for working with books (including mine) many of my writings would languish in the zone of doubts and would remain unpublished. I admire and am thankful to the Dukh i Litera editors Anastasia Nehrutska and Oksana Zhmyr, to layout designer Svitlana Nevdaschenko, and to designer Galina Lichtenshteyn. I admire and am deeply thankful to the artist Olena Turyanska whose work from the Abandoned Windows series became the semantic focal point of the book’s cover.
Friends provided me moral support, invisible approval and gave me useful feedback. The company and help of Inna Hiurenina and Yevhenia Kovaliova (the latter being not only my friend but also my daughter) were a great comfort and joy in the moments when I tried to “escape” finishing work or sank into despair because of the seemingly overwhelming nature of the subject.
In addition, I express my greatest gratitude to all fellow historians working on the subject, whose works inspired me and became pieces of my internal historiography, who provided the opportunity for discussion, and introduced new facts into scientific circulation.
There may be some mistakes and typos in the book, even after proofreading by me and a few other people—the responsibility for this nuisance is mine. Some statements may be questionable and certain subjects consciously or unconsciously omitted—yet again, responsibility for that lies with me. My only excuse is that I have not intended to create a thorough and comprehensive picture of World War II in its Ukrainian dimension. I am sure that historians already working in the field and those who will come afterwards will deal with this ambitious challenge better.
Olena Stiazhkina,Kyiv, April 2020
1 President of the Republic of Estonia. “President Kaljulaid will attend the World War II commemorative event in Poland,” August 31, 2019, https://www.president.ee/en/meedia/press-releases/15400-president-kaljulaid-will-attend-the-world-war-ii-commemorative-event-in-poland/index.html.
Essay I
World War II in the Life and Death of Ukrainians: an Attempt to Adjust the Methodological Framework1
What were Ukrainians like when they entered World War II and how did they become so? What were they like when they came out of it and how did they become so? Did that war truly end for Ukrainians (especially with regard to the attack on Ukraine by the Russian Federation in 2014)? The aim of this work is to search for and reflect on the explanatory concepts that would allow the description and analysis of catastrophe and betrayal, of the modes of survival and the search for joy, the growth of national self-awareness and the abandonment of national roots, the heroic deeds and cowardice, the righteousness and involvement in killing, the violence and escape, the guilt and sacrifice of the people who lived in Ukraine and who were dragged into the maelstrom of World War II. It is an attempt to approach the analysis of the life of ordinary citizens, while avoiding the logic of binary oppositions, artificial categorizations, and divisions into relatively “good” and relatively “bad” Ukrainians.
The scope of the problem raised seems overwhelming, but every journey begins with a single step. As we take such a “step,” it is too early to expect some definitive conclusions and decisions.
The objective of the research is to think on the obstacles that prevent adequate description of the personal experiences of World War II in Ukrainian lands. Among such obstacles are: their non-uniqueness; the “unfinished past” with its political and ethical challenges; the specifics of the visibility and invisibility of Ukrainians that marked both historical and political global discourse; the notions about the geographical and political borders of Ukraine; features of Ukrainians’ existence as a community