Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T09:10:51.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ukraine, Russia, and the Question of Crimea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

David R. Marples  and
David F. Duke
David R. Marples
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
David F. Duke
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Crimean question developed as one of the major crises of the post-Soviet period among the two largest Slavic states of the former Soviet Union. It is an issue with several dimensions: the historical background; the case of the Crimean Tatars as an ipso facto aboriginal population deported en masse toward the end of the Second World War; the military-strategic question, with Crimea as the base for the Black Sea Fleet; economic and social developments; and the legality of the 1954 transfer of the peninsula from the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to Ukraine in 1954.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 261 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe and ex-USSR, Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. The Black Sea Fleet issue, for example, represents a related but complex problem that merits a separate treatment.Google Scholar

2. Tamara Tershakovec, “An interview with Crimean Tatars: We deserve our homeland back,” Ukrainian Weekly, LX (21), p. 4 (24 May 1992).Google Scholar

3. Alan W. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1978), p. 2.Google Scholar

4. Ibid. Google Scholar

5. Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar

6. The Crimea appears to have been absorbed into the Empire, but the evidence for this conclusion is by no means definitive. The status of the Khanate and the independence of its leaders under the Ottomans is a hotly debated historiographical issue. Ibid., pp. 8–16.Google Scholar

7. Ibid., p. 27.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., pp. 28–30; see also John Parkinson, A Tour of Russia, Siberia, and the Crimea, 1792–1794, William Collier, ed. (London, 1971), pp. 193–195, for a description of the architecture of the Khanate.Google Scholar

9. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

10. Alan W. Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772–1783 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 82–84.Google Scholar

11. Ibid., pp. 49–51.Google Scholar

12. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, pp. 61–69.Google Scholar

13. Peter J. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, 17 (2–3), p. 302 (1975). Potichnyj bases his estimate on information contained in Bol'shaia Sovietskaia Entsiklopediia, first edition, XXXV (1937), pp. 279–234. Significantly, however, Alan Fisher's estimates of Tatar emigration in this period are only one-tenth of Potichnyj's, namely, some 20,000–30,000 individuals. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, p. 78.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., p. 303.Google Scholar

15. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, p. 88.Google Scholar

16. Robert Conquest, The Nation Killers (London: Macmillan, 1970), p. 57.Google Scholar

17. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, p. 89.Google Scholar

18. V. Stanley Vardas, “The Case of The Crimean Tatars,” Russian Review, 30(2), p. 101 (April 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 303Google Scholar

20. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, p. 104.Google Scholar

21. Ibid. Google Scholar

22. A. Bennigsen and Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, La presse et le mouvement national chez les musulmans de Russie avant 1920, (Paris, 1964), p. 141.Google Scholar

23. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, p. 110.Google Scholar

24. Ibid. Google Scholar

25. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 304.Google Scholar

26. Ibid., pp. 304–305.Google Scholar

27. Edige Kirimal, Der nationale Kampf der Krimtürken (Emsdetten: Lechte, 1952), p. 282.Google Scholar

28. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, p. 137.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar

30. Edige Kirimal, “Mass deportations and Massacres in the Crimea,” Cultura Turcica 1(2), p. 256 (1964).Google Scholar

31. Ibid. Google Scholar

32. M. F. Buhay, “Deportatsiya Kryms'kykh Tatar v 1944g,” Ukrainsk'yi istorychnyi zhurnal, No. 1, p. 29 (1992).Google Scholar

33. Ibid, p. 30.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., p. 34.Google Scholar

36. Vardys, “The Case of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 102.Google Scholar

37. Robitnycha hazeta, p. 3, (14 February 1992).Google Scholar

38. Buhay, p. 35. The Tatars were transferred to a number of remote areas of the former USSR, including Kazakhstan, Kemerovo Oblast, Gorkov Oblast; Ivanovo Oblast, and others. Within Uzbekistan, the largest numbers were transported to Tashkent and Samarkand regions (about 87,000 persons in total). See Buhay, p. 38.Google Scholar

39. Ibid. Google Scholar

40. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 307. A detailed discussion of this transfer follows in the second section of this paper.Google Scholar

41. Conquest, The Nation Killers, p. 162.Google Scholar

42. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 308.Google Scholar

43. Conquest, The Nation Killers, p. 161–62.Google Scholar

44. Peter Reddaway, ed., Uncensored Russia: Protest and Dissent in the Soviet Union (New York: American Heritage Press, 1972), p. 262.Google Scholar

45. Edict of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: Edict on Citizens of Tatar Nationality Who Lived in Crimea, 5 September 1967. Reprinted in Edward All worth, ed., Tatars of the Crimea: Their Struggle for Survival (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988), p. 145.Google Scholar

46. Ibid. Google Scholar

47. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 310.Google Scholar

48. Ludmilla Alexeyeva, “Mustafa Jemilev, His Character and Convictions,” in Edward Allworth, ed., op. cit., pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

49. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 311.Google Scholar

50. Ibid., p. 312.Google Scholar

51. Ibid. Google Scholar

52. Vardas, “The Case of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 105.Google Scholar

53. Ibid. Google Scholar

54. In his memoirs Sakharov writes: “In 1971, I became interested in the tragedy of the Crimean Tatar people. On May 18, 1944, Stalin had ordered the deportation of all Tatars living in the Crimea, and since most of the younger men were in the Soviet army, it was mainly women and children, and old people who were jammed into freight cars by special KGB troops under the command of Bogdan Kobulov. Many died on their way into exile in Central Asia (they could not even be buried according to Islamic custom), and tens of thousands died of hunger and disease in the first year of exile. Nearly half the Crimean Tatar population was lost as a result of the deportation—an act of genocide.” Andrei Sakharov, Memoirs, trans. Richard Lourie (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), p. 331.Google Scholar

55. Potichnyj, “The Struggle of The Crimean Tatars,” p. 315.Google Scholar

56. Ibid. Google Scholar

57. Radio Liberty Research Bulletin (RLSB), RL 476/86, p. 11 (19 December 1986).Google Scholar

58. Ann Sheehy, “Crimean Tatars Demonstrate for Restoration of Autonomous Republic in Crimea,” RLSB, RL 305/87, p. 4 (27 July 1987).Google Scholar

59. RLSB, RL 294/87, p. 11 (24 July 1987). Other members of the committee included Gromyko's deputy, Petr Demichev, CC CPSU secretary Aleksandr Yakovlev, Ukrainian SSR Party first secretary Vladimir Shcherbitsky, and KGB chairman Viktor Chebrikov. Ann Sheehy, “Crimean Tatar Commission Works Against Background of Continuing Protests,” RLSB, RL 405/87, p. 3 (13 October 1987).Google Scholar

60. Ibid. Google Scholar

61. Ann Sheehy, “Crimean Tatars Demonstrate …,” pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar

63. RLSB, RL 320/87, p. 2 (7 August 1987); Ann Sheehy, “Crimean Tatar Commission …,” p. 6.Google Scholar

64. See, for example, RLSB, RL 320/87, p. 7 (7 August 1987); RLSB, RL 366/87, p. 11 (11 September 1987).Google Scholar

65. The Guardian, 13 October 1987.Google Scholar

66. Ann Sheehy, “Crimean Tatar Commission …,” p. 4.Google Scholar

67. RLSB, RL 414/87, p. 11 (15 October 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. RLSB, RL 108/88, p. 10 (10 March 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. RLSB, RL 247/88, pp. 12–13 (9 June 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. Report on the USSR, RL 190/89, v. 1:16 (9 April 1989).Google Scholar

71. Report on the USSR, RL 570/89, v. 1:51 (13 December 1989).Google Scholar

72. Report on the USSR, RL 396/90, v. 2:38 (8 September 1990); Report on the USSR, RL 486/90, v. 2:47 (12 November 1990).Google Scholar

73. Kathleen Mihalisko, “The Other Side of Separatism: Crimea Votes for Autonomy,” Report on the USSR, v. 3:5, p. 36 (1 February 1991).Google Scholar

74. Ibid., p. 37.Google Scholar

75. Report on the USSR, RL 236/91, v. 3:26 (19 June 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Report on the USSR, RL 242/91, v. 3:27 (28 June 1991).Google Scholar

77. See, for example, Robitnycha hazeta, p. 3, (14 February 1992).Google Scholar

78. For a discussion of the events of 1654, see John Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654: A Historiographical Study (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1982).Google Scholar

79. These issues are discussed in ibid. Google Scholar

80. Roman Solchanyk, “The Politics of State Building: Center-Periphery Relations in Post-Soviet Ukraine,” Europe-Asia Studies, 46(1), p. 50 (1994).Google Scholar

81. Ibid., and USSR State Committee of Statistics, Natsional'nyy sostav naseleniya SSSR: po dannym vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1989g (Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1991), p. 82.Google Scholar

82. Solchanyk, p. 51.Google Scholar

83. The Ukrainian parliamentary deputy and lawyer, Serhiy Holovaty, has pointed out the judicial discrepancies of this decree. He indicates that the first article of the February 1991 law decided to restore the Crimean ASSR within Ukraine. However, he notes one can only restore that which existed previously, and for the entire period of Ukraine's existence, it never contained within itself a Crimean autonomous republic. In 1921, the Crimean ASSR was part of Russia, which in 1945, transformed it into an oblast of Russia. The entire process, therefore, never pertained in any legal sense to Ukraine. Literaturna Ukraina, No. 19, p. 2 (5 May 1992).Google Scholar

84. Peter J. Potichnyj, “The Referendum and Presidential Elections in Ukraine,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, XXXIII(2), pp. 124–25 (June 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85. Demokratychna Ukraina, p. 1 (21 April 1992).Google Scholar

86. See David Marples, “New Calls to halt work on Crimean Nuclear Power Plant,” Report on the USSR, v. 1:6 (10 February 1989).Google Scholar

87. Molod’ Ukrainy, p. 1 (12 December 1991).Google Scholar

88. Solchanyk, p. 54.Google Scholar

89. Reported, for example, on Mayak, 1900 (20 April 1992).Google Scholar

90. This and the following comments are based on the account published in Literaturna Ukraina, No. 19 (14 May, 1993).Google Scholar

91. The two cities are about the same size—between 330,000 and 350,000 in population—and together comprise about 29% of the total population in Crimea. The third largest city, Kerch, has approximately half the population of Simferopol, i.e., 168,000. See USSR Central Statistical Administration, Narodnoe khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984g (Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1985), pp. 22, 24.Google Scholar

92. By April 1992, some 250,000 signatures had been collected, which supported a plebiscite on the question: “Are you for an independent Republic of Crimea in union with other states?” Radio Ukraina, 2210 (22 April, 1992).Google Scholar

93. Literaturna Ukraina, (14 May, 1993), & ff.Google Scholar

94. This is an unfortunate phrase, coined by Erich Koch, the former Reichskommissar of Ukraine during the Nazi occupation of 1941–44. Koch had claimed that Ukrainians needed to be controlled by a combination of “vodka and the whip” and proceeded to develop a brutal occupation regime in Ukraine.Google Scholar

95. Solchanyk, p. 53.Google Scholar

96. Cited in Robitnycha hazeta, p. 2, (14 February 1992).Google Scholar

97. Ibid. Google Scholar

98. Radio Ukraina, 2150 (23 April 1992).Google Scholar

99. Radio Rossiya, 2100 (17 April 1992).Google Scholar

100. Pravda Ukrainy, p. 1 (27 May 1992). This same article also pointed out the substantial support on the peninsula for the Democratic Crimea movement, which boasted 23 parliamentary deputies in the republic, and substantial support in the cities of Yalta, Feodosiya, Kerch and the northern regions of the Crimea. The party supported the presence of Crimea within Ukraine on a federative basis, something akin to the role of Bavaria in Germany.Google Scholar

101. Radio Ukraina, 2215 (20 April 1992).Google Scholar

102. Demokratychna Ukraina, p. 1, (21 April 1992).Google Scholar

103. See Solchanyk, pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

104. Ukrinform, (22 April 1992); and Radio Ukraina, (29 April 1992).Google Scholar

105. Radio Ukraina, (29 April 1992).Google Scholar

106. Literaturna Ukraina, May 28, 1992, p. 2.Google Scholar

107. Ibid. Google Scholar

108. Pravda Ukrainy, p. 1 (27 May 1992).Google Scholar

109. Literaturna Ukraina, p. 2 (28 May 1992).Google Scholar

110. Ibid. Google Scholar

111. Izvestiya, p. 1, (13 May, 1992).Google Scholar

112. Roman Solchanyk, “The Crimean Imbroglio,” RFE/RL Research Report, 1(33), pp. 15–16 (21 August 1992). The author comments that the crisis was “defused” rather than “resolved.”Google Scholar

113. Holos Ukrainy, p. 2 (21 October 1993).Google Scholar

114. Robitnycha hazeta, p. 1 (21 October 1993).Google Scholar

115. Holos Ukrainy, (19 October 1993).Google Scholar

116. Holos Ukrainy, pp. 1,4 (16 October 1993).Google Scholar

117. For example, the Tatars picketed the parliament buildings in July 1992; Radio Ukraina, 1800 and 2200, (14 July 1992). For an account of the return of Tatars to their homeland in the recent period, see Ukraina, No. 26, p. 16 (1991).Google Scholar

118. Natsiona'nyy sostav naseleniya SSSR, p. 82.Google Scholar

119. Robitnycha hazeta, p. 1 (26 October 1993).Google Scholar

120. Holos Ukrainy, p. 1(22 January 1994).Google Scholar

121. Holos Ukrainy, p. 4 (18 January 1994).Google Scholar

122. Uryadovyi kur'yer, No. 19–20, p. 1 (3 February, 1994); and The Ukrainian Weekly, p. 2 (6 February 1994). For a detailed account of these events, see Roman Solchanyk, “Presidential elections and continuing tensions in Crimea,” The Ukrainian Weekly, p. 2 (27 March 1994).Google Scholar

123. Visti z Ukrainy, No. 5, p. 1 (27 January-2 February 1994).Google Scholar

124. Respublika (1 February 1994).Google Scholar

125. For a detailed breakdown of the various factions in the Ukrainian parliament, see Holos Ukrainy, pp. 3–4 (12 July, 1994); and the thoughtful analysis by Dominique Arel and Andrew Wilson, “The Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections,” RFE/RL Research Report, 3(26), pp. 6–17 (1 July 1994).Google Scholar