THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: CONCEPT AND TRENDS VOLUME1, 2021
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative... more This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY
SPECIALIZED AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES - Volume 5, 2020
The existence of Carpathian Ukraine as an independent state is certainly a significant period in ... more The existence of Carpathian Ukraine as an independent state is certainly a significant period in the history of the country. And given certain features in general, we can say that this country has become the prototype of modern Ukraine. So it is not surprising that in addition to honouring the memory of the then statesmen, historians are interested in many questions: to understand the idea immediately, what was the problem, was there a full chance for Ukrainians, and maybe from the beginning Carpathian Ukraine was a hopeless project. This problem will be considered in this paper. Let's start with a review of historiography. Here is a textbook on the history of Carpathian Ukraine by Mykola Vehesh, Marian Tokar and Mykhailo Basarab [1] and articles by Stepan Vidnyansky [2] and L.V. Tsubov [3] devoted to the analysis of the Voloshin government. According to the historian Mykola Vehesh, the idea of independence in Zakarpattia began in the early twentieth century in the form of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic, but then they were defeated and the territories became part of Czechoslovakia. Over the next decades, Ukrainian party activity evolved and gained strength. This made it possible in October 1938 to form an autonomous government-the Council of Ministers of Subcarpathian Ruswhich united both Ukrainophile and Russophile trends. Another Uzhhorod historian, Marian Tokar, says that this became possible as a result of the Munich conference and pressure on Czechoslovakia from Germany, Hungary and Poland. The first prime minister of Subcarpathian Rus was Andrii Brodii, who held several meetings and later turned out to be a Hungarian spy. After Brodii's arrest, Ukrainophile Avhustyn Voloshyn, who began his political career before the collapse of Austria-Hungary, became Prime Minister. As a result of the fact that the new government was formed from the pro-Ukrainian population in the territory of Subcarpathian Rus, an internal political crisis began. At the same time, in November 38, after the Vienna Arbitration, a large part of Ukrainian lands was ceded to Hungary, and this was already the basis for the economic crisis. According to Mykhailo Basarab, they both became quite significant for autonomy. The domestic political crisis was exacerbated by anti-Ukrainian Hungarian agitation and confrontation between generations of Ukrainophiles. Despite this, the autonomy continued to gain influence: the security service, the police, the judiciary, and the Carpathian Sich were established.
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: CONCEPT AND TRENDS VOLUME1, 2021
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative... more This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY
SPECIALIZED AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES - Volume 5, 2020
The existence of Carpathian Ukraine as an independent state is certainly a significant period in ... more The existence of Carpathian Ukraine as an independent state is certainly a significant period in the history of the country. And given certain features in general, we can say that this country has become the prototype of modern Ukraine. So it is not surprising that in addition to honouring the memory of the then statesmen, historians are interested in many questions: to understand the idea immediately, what was the problem, was there a full chance for Ukrainians, and maybe from the beginning Carpathian Ukraine was a hopeless project. This problem will be considered in this paper. Let's start with a review of historiography. Here is a textbook on the history of Carpathian Ukraine by Mykola Vehesh, Marian Tokar and Mykhailo Basarab [1] and articles by Stepan Vidnyansky [2] and L.V. Tsubov [3] devoted to the analysis of the Voloshin government. According to the historian Mykola Vehesh, the idea of independence in Zakarpattia began in the early twentieth century in the form of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic, but then they were defeated and the territories became part of Czechoslovakia. Over the next decades, Ukrainian party activity evolved and gained strength. This made it possible in October 1938 to form an autonomous government-the Council of Ministers of Subcarpathian Ruswhich united both Ukrainophile and Russophile trends. Another Uzhhorod historian, Marian Tokar, says that this became possible as a result of the Munich conference and pressure on Czechoslovakia from Germany, Hungary and Poland. The first prime minister of Subcarpathian Rus was Andrii Brodii, who held several meetings and later turned out to be a Hungarian spy. After Brodii's arrest, Ukrainophile Avhustyn Voloshyn, who began his political career before the collapse of Austria-Hungary, became Prime Minister. As a result of the fact that the new government was formed from the pro-Ukrainian population in the territory of Subcarpathian Rus, an internal political crisis began. At the same time, in November 38, after the Vienna Arbitration, a large part of Ukrainian lands was ceded to Hungary, and this was already the basis for the economic crisis. According to Mykhailo Basarab, they both became quite significant for autonomy. The domestic political crisis was exacerbated by anti-Ukrainian Hungarian agitation and confrontation between generations of Ukrainophiles. Despite this, the autonomy continued to gain influence: the security service, the police, the judiciary, and the Carpathian Sich were established.
Uploads
Papers by Artem Khovrat