The Unveiling of Historical Mysteries: Why Did Lenin Give Eastern and Southern Ukraine to Ukraine in 1922?

Historical events often shroud themselves in layers of complexity and ambiguity, especially when it comes to the tumultuous period of the Russian Revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union. A fascinating and often debated question among historians pertains to the reasons behind Lenin’s decision to allocate the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine to the new Ukrainian Soviet Republic under the 1922 Treaty on the Creation of the Ukrainian SSR.

Context of the Revolution and the Autonomous Regions

During the revolution of 1918–1919 in Ukraine, a unique autonomous government emerged in the region east of the Dnieper-Dnipro River, extending from Kharkiv to Berdyansk and Zaporizhzhia. This government was an amalgamation of various elements, including soviets, unions, and peasant communities that sent delegates to People’s Congresses held in different cities, including Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro. The elected revolutionary council, which represented this government, aimed to achieve autonomy within the broader Soviet framework.

These regions were not just distinct geographic entities; they were characterized by a multi-ethnic population, shaped by numerous migrations. Over centuries, various groups, including Greeks, Tatars, Armenians, German immigrants, Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians, contributed to the region's unique character. This multi-ethnic fabric is a critical factor in understanding the complexities of the area during this period.

Lenin’s Rationale: A Question of Nationalism and Ideology

Lenin’s decision to give these regions to Ukraine is often attributed to his belief in anti-Great Russian chauvinism. His famous quote, “scratch a Bolshevik and you’ll find a Great Russian chauvinist,” reflects his strong disdain for nationalist tendencies within the Bolshevik Party. Although this chauvinism was exhibited by leaders like Stalin, who was from the Caucasus but not an ethnic Russian, Lenin’s personal ideology was significantly different. His internationalist mindset often conflicted with the nationalist sentiments of many Bolsheviks, particularly those from major Slavic regions.

Lenin’s vision for the Soviet Union was based on a classless society, transcending national boundaries. He believed that it was essential to integrate various regions, including industrial Donbas, into a broader socialist framework. This approach was notably different from the simplistic nationalism that many individuals, even within the Soviet system, adhered to.

The Complexities of Post-Lenin Period

Following Lenin’s death in 1924, the situation in the Soviet Union became increasingly complex. The rise of Stalin and other Great Russian chauvinists led to a shift in policies that favored the Russian majority over regional autonomy. This period marked a significant shift away from Lenin’s ideal of a united, class-based socialist state.

Under Nikita Khrushchev, there was a brief respite for some regions. As an ethnic Ukrainian, Khrushchev’s background made him more accommodating to the needs of the Ukrainian population. However, his actions during the Holodomor in Ukraine remain a contentious topic, reducing the authenticity of his support for Ukrainian autonomy.

The Strategic Importance of Donbas and Agricultural Regions

The allocation of the eastern and southern regions to Ukraine had tactical and strategic significance. Donbas, an industrial region with a large workforce of factory proletariat, was the backbone of Bolshevik power. In contrast, the agrarian regions of the newly formed Ukrainian Soviet Republic were more susceptible to alternative ideologies such as small bourgeois or anarchist ideas, exemplified by leaders like Makhno, Grigorjev, and "Marusya," who hailed from the modern Ukrainian lands.

Lenin’s rationale was rooted in the belief that the industrial proletariat could better control and develop the agrarian economy, ensuring a more uniform and industrially integrated Soviet Republic. The idea was that without the industrial base provided by Donbas, the agricultural regions would struggle to maintain their economic independence and would be more vulnerable to outside influences that could destabilize the nascent Soviet state.

Conclusion: The Debate Persists

The question of why Lenin gave eastern and southern Ukraine to Ukraine remains a subject of debate among historians, even those who support the Soviet narrative. Lenin’s vision for a socialist, class-based state often conflicted with the nationalist impulses of his contemporaries. Donbas’s industrial importance and the agrarian regions’ susceptibility to alternative ideologies played key roles in this decision. As we delve deeper into the historical record, the full picture continues to emerge, offering valuable insights into the complexities of the early Soviet era.