I'd have to check the names mentioned above, but what I know for sure is that for a republic with 75-80% Ukrainian majority, Ukrainians were under-represented in the party. The first Communist Congresses of the Comm. Party of Ukraine had ethnic Ukrainians at single digits percentage of the Party's composition. At the best of times Ukrainians were 50-60% of the republic's party.==
Of cause someone doesn't count eastern ukranians as trully ukranians. You too?
Check who was Vladimir Myekovsky and Nikolai Ostrovskii. It is 2 the "singer of revolution". Both are ukranians.
Check who was "bat'ka Mahno" (the father Mahno) the ally of Red army? Ukranian anarkhist revolutioneer.
DO you know that October revolt wouldn't happen if not Dibenko and his camrades seamen from Baltic fleet who base in Peterburg.
Most minority of seamen of Baltic Fleet was ukranians as far as same Dibenko who becomes later one of minister of fisrt bolshevick goverment of Lenin.
Those seamen of Dibenko was first fighters of revolt who sieged and took the Winter Palace in Peterburg the residence of conventional goverment. Peterburg was administrative capital of Russia at that time.
Moscow was religious capital of Russia. And became the capital of USSR after was occupied by bolshevicks in 1918.
So ukranians was in first rows of bolshevick fighters and represented Ukraine very well in bolshevick hyerarchy.
SU was not a state with republics who were equal, so they might as well call it "Russia".==
Did you read USSR constitution? Why on earth they needed whole bunch of republics ever if you right? Why not call them all "Russia" as you say? If that then it would be so easy.
But they called it "Soviet Union". It was done with deep sense.
Exactly they wanted to emphasize for everyone especially for ethnic russians that new state is NOT russian state as was Russian Empire before it.
Russian Empire was called "RUSSIAN Empire" not ukranian empire not uzbek empire not kazhakh empire not georgian empire. The word "russian" in her name just emphasize whose empire it is.
Likewise British Empire was BRITISH Empire not Indian not Arabian and so on. Not australian empire. Not iraqian empire.
You know well that all those lands were included in British Empire at some times but state itself was always called BRITISH anyway. WHy? Because britons are founded this British Empire and britons are ruled her.
Same way with Russian Empire.
Ukraine and part of Poland and parts of Central Asia and Sibiria and Far East parts were included in Russian Empire but state was always called RUSSIAN Empire anyway. Because likewise Britons russians are founded Russian Empire and russiasn are ruled Russian Empire.
Remember that British Empire and Russian Empire has buch of minorities in them.
Recall when red power came to Poland or China their new states was name Polish People Republic and Chinese People Republic. Again "polish" and "chinese" in names of new states.
BUT there no such things for russians! There was RUSSIAN Empire but became 'Soviet Union' not russian union for example.
Why that? I will answer.
Just because the fathers founders of USSR was NOT russians but bunch of mostly non-russian minorities citizens of former Russian Empire.
SO they wanted to emphasize to everyone that thier new state is NOT russian state. They wanted to show to everyone especialy ethnic russians that Russian Empire is dead and bolshevicks not ethnic russians will rule now in thier new state.
Because the bolshevicks being the bunch of minorities won Civil War 1917-22 under banner of national ethnic independences. Including ukranian and including baltic and so on. That is why!
"Russian Empire was called "RUSSIAN Empire" not ukranian empire not uzbek empire not kazhakh empire not georgian empire. The word "russian" in her name just emphasize whose empire it is. "
You better change your name to RussianIvan then.
Quite a convenient answer.
Don't have the exact numbers but at the first session of the KPU there were something like 20 Jews, 15 Russians, 2-3 Ukrainians- and that's the body representing Ukraine.
Out of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (Vol 1, pg 551): 1918- 7% Ukrainians, 1920- 19%, 1924- 33%, 1927- 52%, 1934- 60%, 1940- 63%, 1959- 60%, 1968- 65.1%, 1978- 65.8%. Maybe you could answer, why was it that the first Secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine who was an ethnic Ukrainian was Kyrychenko in 1950s, some 30 years after the Revolution. And that's in the republic which had close to 80% of Ukrainians for most of the time.
Check who was Vladimir Myekovsky and Nikolai Ostrovskii. It is 2 the "singer of revolution". Both are ukranians.
Couldn't find the first guy. Heard of the second. These two and those previous names, (which I'll take you're word for to be Ukrainian) barely represented the Ukrainian peasant, 90% of the Ukrainian nation, and its intelligentsia. With all honesty, we know that black Republicans are a rarity, and an overwhelming majority of blacks vote for the "other" party. Same with Ukrainains in the early Communist party.
The scum you mentioned are sellouts- they're like Jews who turned in Jews to the Nazis, or Africans who would catch other Africans later to be sold into slavery. The communists who you should have mentioned and who actually did something for the Ukrainian nation in that regime, are Skrypnyk (responsible for the Ukrainization in the 20s, later murdered by Stalin in 1933), and Shelest (Ukrainian revival in the 60s, purged in the early 70s). The rest of those "Ukrainians" you can keep.
Check who was "bat'ka Mahno" (the father Mahno) the ally of Red army?
The same one who said "Whip Reds until they turn white, and Whites until they turn red" ? :)
Did you read USSR constitution? Why on earth they needed whole bunch of republics ever if you right?
USSR constitution- you mean the most humane code in existance? The one that allowed republics to secede, yet people who even proposed a discussion on the topic would be charged with treason and shipped to Siberia. No, haven't read that one- I'll just stick to Koschei Bessmertny, Pinocchio and other fairy tales.
Why not call them all "Russia" as you say? If that then it would be so easy.
I've said precisely before- because USSR painted itself to be a democratic state and said to allocate autonomy for the minorities and to be an improvement from the imperial model. They didn't want to isolate the minorities so they've made a compromise. But what would the republic's government decide- budget and industrial development is at the Union level, foreign relations also at the Union level, same with military (if Russia wanted war in Afghanistan, Ukrainian boys from 2000 miles away had to follow). Culture and education was left to the republics, but even these were censored by Moscow.
BUT there no such things for russians! There was RUSSIAN Empire but became 'Soviet Union' not russian union for example
You had RSFSR which was directly governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the same guys who ran the whole Union. It precisely shows which republic is in control. They didn't even go to trouble of establishing a separate Russian government which would be a subject to All-Union government--> Government of the RSFSR was the government of the Union.
They wanted to show to everyone especialy ethnic russians that Russian Empire is dead and bolshevicks not ethnic russians will rule now in thier new state.
But then why was Russian culture and language formed the basis for the USSR. Thanks to Soviet education there are millions of ethnic Ukrainians who are more familiar with Pushkin than Shevchenko, Suvorov than Sahaidachnyy, etc. Soviets claiming not to be Russian is a cynical joke.