SUMMARY:

In this article the author attempts to survey various implications of the Soviet past in modern Ukraine. The author points out that in Ukraine no radical break with the Soviet past occurred. In Ukraine, a national identity with its particular interpretation of the past, was formulated by the end of the 19th century. However, it soon gave place to a more complex Soviet identity, which combined Russian imperial elements with some national Ukrainian ones. Nevertheless, many Ukrainians preserved historical memories related to a specifically Ukrainian national identity. The survival and persistence of many identities in today’s Ukraine led many observers to question the model of nationalizing state as applied to the former Soviet republic. According to the author, the majority of Ukrainian population today remains essentially, Soviet, while a minority is divided into a pro-Western and consciously nationalist group and a “Soviet Creole group” opportunistically hanging on to power and ready to assume any identity for that purpose.
As the country became independent, the nationalist vision of the past prevailed and implied a break not only with Russia, but also with the immediate Soviet past. Perception and internalization of that break by the broad masses of the population proved to be problematic. As a result, Ukrainian symbols and toponyms combined Soviet and Ukrainian national references, while Ukrainian history textbooks offered perspectives meant to satisfy those who cherish the Soviet past and those who desire to institute a radical break with it. According to the author, it proved ultimately impossible to present the Soviet past as nationally and culturally alien to the Ukrainian population, as it happened in the Baltic States. The last years even witnessed a marked return of the Soviet past to Ukraine’s symbolic space. This situation was replicated in the post-Soviet Ukrainian historiography, which tended to focus on state history and to universalize the Communist and totalitarian experience. A minority of nationalist minded historians, nevertheless, see totalitarianism through the national prism, stressing particular Ukrainian grievances. Most historians focus on “filling the gaps” of historical knowledge about the 20th century, publishing archival evidence. Given the presence of a broad array of alternative sources, the author believes that varying interpretations of Ukraine’s Soviet past will remain.