You are on page 1of 9

Nationalism

Home About IEU


User Info Index Search Contact Address

Search ADV Text Title

Nationalism

<<< print >>>

Nationalism. In the Ukrainian political consciousness of the late 19th century nationalism was
usually equated broadly with national consciousness and patriotism. Over time it developed
a significantly narrower meaning. Prior to the First World War and during the Ukrainian
struggle for independence (1917–20) it was equated with an independentist mind-set. Then,
in the 1920s, an ideological current emerged that adopted the name ‘nationalism’ and
developed a political and literary movement around the concept. Since that time the idea of
Ukrainian nationalism has centered around readily identifiable groups or parties.

Nationalism is defined differently in different political systems. In the USSR it was commonly
labeled ‘bourgeois nationalism,’ a term used indiscriminately to smear national groups
opposed to Russian centralism. Continuous repressions by the communist regime in its
struggle against ‘nationalism’ actually inspired varying degrees of popularity for the concept,
albeit without specific ideological, social, or constitutional-political content. In the earliest
years of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic national communism emerged in part as an
attempt at securing a degree of independence for Ukraine from Moscow's rule (within the
parameters of a Soviet political system). In Anglo-American terminology nationalism is a very
broad concept. It includes national consciousness, the principle of national sovereignty, and
the principle of national self-determination or liberation. By and large English-language
literature on Ukraine considers nationalism to be the province not only of the fervent few, but
of all patriots regardless of party affiliation. The term, however, generally used to
differentiate a specific ideology of nationalism that pertains to a political movement from the
wider understanding of patriotism or independentism is ‘integral nationalism.’

Genesis and early development. Mykola Mikhnovsky is commonly referred to as the father
of Ukrainian nationalism, although that designation is not entirely accurate. Mikhnovsky was
one of the cofounders of modern Ukrainian independentist thought, but the historical and
legal underpinnings of his ideology (such as a project for the restoration of the ‘Pereiaslav
Constitution’) were foreign to the tenor of later integral nationalism, which cared little for
constitutional or legal argumentation. The same is true for such prerevolutionary proponents
of independentism as Yuliian Bachynsky, Ivan Franko, Viacheslav Lypynsky, and Lonhyn
Tsehelsky (and even Dmytro Dontsov in his early writings).

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

Integral nationalism emerged only later in reaction to the events of the Ukrainian struggle for
independence (1917–20). It first appeared in the 1920s as the spiritual ferment of a young
generation protesting the collapse of Ukrainian statehood and searching for direction in the
postwar world. The first attempts at establishing nationalist organizations came out of
student circles in Galicia and the emigration—the Group of Ukrainian National Youth
(Prague), the League of Ukrainian Nationalists (Poděbrady), and the Union of Ukrainian
Nationalist Youth (Lviv). The Ukrainian Party of National Work, led by Dmytro Dontsov,
Dmytro Paliiv, and Volodymyr Kuzmovych, and its organ Zahrava (1923–4) had nationalist
leanings. It was the publicist Dontsov who finally crystallized Ukrainian nationalist ideology,
particularly with his widely influential work Natsionalizm (Nationalism, 1926). Other major
ideologists of the movement, whose works commonly appeared in the Prague-based
Rozbudova natsiï, included Dmytro Andriievsky, Volodymyr Martynets, Mykola
Stsiborsky, and Yuliian Vassyian.

The Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO) was established in 1920 by a group of former
officers of the Sich Riflemen (Yaroslav Chyzh, Yevhen Konovalets, Vasyl Kuchabsky,
Mykhailo Matchak, Andrii Melnyk, Roman Sushko, Yevhen Zyblikevych, and others) and
Ukrainian Galician Army (Yuliian Holovinsky, Osyp Navrotsky, Mykola Saievych, Omelian
Senyk, and others). In 1929 the UVO joined ranks with the rising generation of young
nationalists to create the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) under the
leadership of Konovalets. From that time the OUN served as the vanguard of the nationalist
movement, which now had a broader base and included a large number of supporters.

Ideology. Integral nationalists professed themselves to be the harbingers of an ‘idealistic’


worldview, which they understood not only as the antithesis to the materialist philosophy of
Marxism-Leninism but also as a remedy for the positivism of leading figures of Ukrainian
democratic thought (including Volodymyr Antonovych, Mykhailo Drahomanov, Ivan
Franko, and Mykhailo Hrushevsky). In their search for causes of the failure of the Ukrainian
struggle for independence (1917–20) nationalists became convinced that the masses had
sought an independent state but had been frustrated and disillusioned by weak governmental
leadership. Criticism of individual failings grew into a systematic rejection of the democratic
and socialist principles that had been the hallmark of the Ukrainian national movement in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. The humanist traditions of the prerevolutionary Ukrainian
leadership were characterized as naive and lacking in national conviction. Nationalists
believed that their era demanded new forms of revolutionary action that could match the
ruthlessness and determination shown by Ukraine's enemies.

The nationalists insisted on the primacy of will over reason, action over thought, and practice
over theory. Their doctrine of nationalism was infused with aspects of the irrational,
voluntaristic, and vitalistic theories popularized in Western Europe by such philosophers as
Henri Bergson, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gustave Le Bon, Georges Sorel, and Oswald Spengler. In
the place of objective scientific discovery the nationalists propagated myths and favored an
ideologically ‘correct’ image of the Ukrainian past. They promoted a cult of the struggle and
reverence for national martyrs with the building of ceremonial grave mounds and
commemoration of anniversaries, such as that of the Battle of Kruty.

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

The nationalist worldview also embraced a form of ethical idealism that spurned individual
happiness (in the eudaemonic sense) and celebrated the heroic virtues of courage, fidelity,
and self-sacrifice. That idealism was in keeping with a pragmatic relativism in regard to
traditional moral values, which were subject to the demands of political expediency—as, for
example, in the end's justifying the means. Some publicists even openly advocated
Machiavellianism. The nationalists sought to develop a new type of Ukrainian—a ‘strong
man’ of ‘unbending’ character, fanatically devoted to the ideals of the movement and ready
to sacrifice self and others for the cause.

The nationalists regarded the nation as the ultimate ideal. One of the resolutions of the 1929
Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists stated: ‘The Ukrainian nation is the starting point for all
activity and the end goal of every undertaking by a Ukrainian nationalist; the nation is the
highest form of human society.’ Integral nationalism rejected political values that did not
relate to the national interest. In contrast to the majority of those involved in creating the first
modern Ukrainian state, who viewed national independence in the context of universal
notions of liberty and justice, integral nationalists considered international relations as a
‘struggle for existence’ that was decided purely by force. They believed that a continual
succession of sabotage and terrorist actions would prevent foreign powers from entrenching
their control over Ukrainian lands and keep the masses in a constant state of revolutionary
fervor. Such individual revolutionary deeds would eventually blossom into full-blown
national revolution that would culminate in the rebirth of a Ukrainian state. They were
vehemently opposed to the existing political order in Ukrainian lands under the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics. Within the interwar Polish state they rejected any attempts at
furthering the Ukrainian cause through so-called organic or evolutionary methods of political
action and had a poor opinion of attempts at ‘realpolitik.’ Those efforts were judged as
‘opportunism’ or ‘minimalism,’ and were countered with statements of the need for
‘principalism.’

Ukrainian integral nationalism resembled a totalitarian movement. The all-encompassing


character of the movement was reflected in the complete and unqualified submission of its
followers to nationalist ideology and organizational discipline. The movement did not restrict
itself to political affairs, but sought to control cultural matters also, particularly in regard to
literature, which was considered an important means of shaping society's worldview. The
nationalist milieu produced a literary school known as the Visnykivtsi (around Dmytro
Dontsov's journal Vistnyk) that included such writers as Bohdan Kravtsiv, Yevhen
Malaniuk, Leonid Mosendz, Oleh Olzhych, Ulas Samchuk, Olena Teliha, and Yurii Lypa.
Nationalists rejected the concept of independent esthetic criteria and opposed ‘art for art's
sake’ with calls for an engaged literature. Nationalists also sought to extend their influence
over the Ukrainian institutions and organizations outside the USSR—in effect, to bring all
community activity under the control of their movement. They were ill disposed to other
political parties, camps, and centers, and their occasional co-operation or agreements with
them were commonly tactical in nature.

Nationalist doctrine devoted little attention to socioeconomic problems, but certain tendencies
were evident. Its hostility to socialism was clear and unequivocal. Moreover the nationalists

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

did not differentiate between the totalitarian communist and democratic variants of socialism:
they presented Ukrainian socialist democratic parties (such as the Galician radicals) as demi-
Communists. They rejected liberal capitalism but were markedly supportive of the co-
operative movement (as reflected in Mykola Stsiborsky's Natsiokratiia [Natiocracy]). Some
nationalist publicists propagated the doctrine of so-called national solidarism, the exact
formulation of which remained rather vague.

Political program. The political order of the future Ukrainian state was to consist of a one-
party system and would be based on a principle of supreme leadership (vozhdyzm). There
would be only one political organization (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists), which
would consist of a supraclass of ‘better people.’ The state structure would be formed from a
hierarchy of leaders under the supreme leader (vozhd), who would function both as leader of
the movement and head of state. Propaganda and educational materials for young cadres
would consistently underline the role and authority of the leader. Yevhen Konovalets and
then Andrii Melnyk and Stepan Bandera were accorded a kind of charismatic aura. A type
of populist ‘demophilia,’ marked by the idea of ‘the will of the masses’ as the ultimate
authority, also entered nationalist thinking.

The nationalists mastered successful methods of mass organization and inspired large
numbers of people to action through emotional appeals. They gained influence in various
segments of society, including the poorer peasantry and young tradespeople (notably in
Lviv). The movement's leading cadres in Galicia in the 1930s consisted largely of students.

The motivating factor of Ukrainian nationalism was the pathos of the Ukrainian liberation
struggle. Its main success lay in its ability to arouse dynamism in postrevolutionary
Ukrainian society and to secure the continuation of the independence struggle after the
failure to maintain statehood. The closest relatives of Ukrainian nationalism were not German
Nazism and Italian fascism, which were the product of industrialized and urbanized societies,
but similar ideologies of parties among agrarian peoples in less-developed countries of
Eastern Europe, including the Ustaše (Ustashi) of Croatia, the Romanian Iron Guards, the
Slovak L'udaks (supporters of A. Hlinka's Slovak People's party), and the Polish National
Radical camp. Ukrainian nationalism was a uniquely generated phenomenon, although its
development was decisively influenced by foreign models. The Ukrainian movement also
adopted certain symbolic paraphernalia (such as forms of greeting). Racist theory, in
particular anti-Semitism, was not an intrinsic part of Ukrainian integral nationalism, although
in the 1930s some publicists touched on anti-Semitic themes, and others began to examine the
issue of the ‘Ukrainian race.’

The origins and development of Ukrainian nationalism were particularly influenced by the
dire political circumstances of the Ukrainian people in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalinist policies
in the USSR threatened the very physical existence of the Ukrainian people, and under Polish
domination the Ukrainian population was shut out from positions of authority and subject to
arbitrary rule. That situation was compounded by the poor economic conditions prevalent in
Western Ukraine—general economic stagnation, rural overpopulation, and high
unemployment among the intelligentsia. The conditions undermined faith in legal efforts to

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

produce change, radicalized the general population, and gave credence to extremist
tendencies. The obvious crisis that beset many European parliamentary democracies at that
time also undermined the prestige of democracy among the Ukrainian citizenry. Ukrainians
obviously could not support the post-Versailles status quo, and they sympathized with
revisionist tendencies. In spite of their credo to rely on their ‘own strengths,’ Ukrainian
nationalists looked to Germany for support in their cause; certain circles in the Reich, in turn,
encouraged those expectations and calculations.

1929–39. From the founding of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists to the outbreak of
the Second World War nationalism grew to become the most dynamic political force in the
Ukrainian world outside the Soviet Union. It managed to transcend regional boundaries and
extend its influence among Ukrainians in Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, among the
political émigrés in Western Europe, and even among those in North America. It nevertheless
remained centered in Galicia and, despite repeated efforts, did not manage to spread into
Soviet Ukraine.

Nationalist doctrine stressed the need to wage a revolutionary struggle against all occupiers of
Ukrainian lands, but until 1939 OUN-directed sabotage and terrorism was focused exclusively
against Poland. Anti-Russian action largely took the form of combating Sovietophilism
(regarded by nationalists as a new form of Russophilism) and assassinating Soviet diplomats.

The nationalist dynamic proved so strong that other currents in Ukrainian political life were
willingly or unwillingly influenced by it. The effect was most strongly felt among supporters
of the former Hetman government, who, despite the warnings of Viacheslav Lypynsky,
increasingly began to change their conception of the Hetman from one of a constitutional
monarch to one of a dictator. Some members of the Government-in-exile of the Ukrainian
National Republic also began to lean in that direction. Nationalism even attracted some
supporters from the ranks of the Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance. Nationalist
ideology was not actively opposed by the Greek Catholic church. Some younger priests were
even active members of the movement; a group of ‘Christian nationalists’ (Konstantyn
Chekhovych, Vasyl Hlibovytsky, and others) emerged from their ranks.

All the same, nationalism did not go unchallenged. In the 1930s Dmytro Paliiv established a
party known as the Front of National Unity that espoused ‘creative nationalism’ (formulated
by Mykola Shlemkevych) and hoped to compete ideologically with the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists. Others who opposed integral nationalism on ideological grounds
included Galician radicals and social democrats (Karlo Kobersky and Volodymyr
Starosolsky), some national-democrats (Stepan Baran, Milena Rudnytska), some Catholic
activists (Osyp Nazaruk), and supporters of the democratic traditions of the Ukrainian
National Republic in Prague (Isaak Mazepa, Panas Fedenko). Moreover the revolutionary
nature of integral nationalism made it, by definition, inimical to the Ukrainian National
Democratic Alliance (the mainstream Galician Ukrainian political party) as a whole and
brought it into conflict with the Ukrainian Catholic authorities, notably Metropolitan Andrei
Sheptytsky.

Neither the criticisms of other Ukrainians nor the repressions of the Polish authorities could

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

stem the growth of nationalism. Nevertheless the movement itself had begun to show signs of
internal crisis by the 1930s. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, simultaneously an
underground army and a political movement (even an unofficial party), was hard-pressed to
reconcile the imperative of strict organizational discipline and secrecy demanded by its
revolutionary posture with the need to generate mass appeal as a political movement: mass
participation rendered the organization vulnerable to penetration by informers and
provocateurs. Many nationalists also found it difficult to discriminate between the tactics and
methods used to combat the ‘occupational regime’ and the way in which they dealt with their
Ukrainian political opponents. The moral and political capital amassed in the struggle against
an external enemy became the basis of efforts to establish their hegemony over Ukrainian
civic life. Internal political motivations, conscious and unconscious, came to influence OUN
strategies. A new social type now emerged in Western Ukraine, the ‘professional
revolutionaries,’ who were usually motivated by the noblest ideals but commonly exhausted
themselves and their potential contributions after several years of feverish activity.

The irrational underpinnings of integral nationalism confounded sober critical analysis and
rendered perspective and appropriate decision-making, as well as the rectification of
mistakes, very difficult. In the 1920s, nationalist groups were often centers of discussion and
spiritual quest; by the 1930s the intellectual level of the nationalist environment had declined
sharply. Young dilettante publicists self-confidently began tackling so-called global problems.
Their writings were characterized by pathos, inflated rhetoric, and a penchant for poetic
clichés drawn from the works of national bards or the articles of Dmytro Dontsov. The aim
of that kind of writing was to create an emotive atmosphere. Thus, while serving to
strengthen the collective resolve of Ukrainians outside the Ukrainian SSR, nationalism
lowered the level of Ukrainian political culture.

The Second World War. The war was the period of nationalism's greatest heights and most
fundamental organizational and ideological crisis. With the Soviet occupation of Galicia and
Volhynia in 1939 and the expansion of Nazi control over most of the European continent, the
activity of other political parties and groupings in Western Ukraine ground to a complete
halt. Only the nationalists continued to function. In Soviet-controlled territories they
maintained their underground network, and under Germany they benefited (until 1941) from
a semilegal status, even in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Three major developments influenced
the subsequent development of Ukrainian nationalism: a schism in the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists, the German occupation of Ukraine in 1941–4, and direct contact with
eastern Ukraine and the Soviet system.

In 1940 the OUN broke into two hostile factions, the Banderites and the Melnykites. The
conflict was the result of differences in personality and tactical preference. In many respects it
was caused by a lack of understanding between émigré nationalist circles, who considered
Andrii Melnyk to be the successor of Yevhen Konovalets, and the more extremist elements
on Ukrainian territory (headed by Stepan Bandera), who, motivated by their achievements in
the armed struggle and by their personal suffering, sought the leadership of the organization.
After their split into two factions in 1940, each continued to use the OUN name and claimed
adherence to the same ideology. The schism not only weakened the capability of the

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

nationalist movement to deal with external problems but also resulted in a bloody internecine
struggle that compromised fundamentally nationalism's moral prestige.

The colonial policies of Nazi Germany's occupational authorities in Ukraine did not coincide
with the foreign policy adopted by the nationalist movement. German unwillingness to enter
into partnership with the Ukrainians, however, freed nationalists from roles comparable to
those played by the Croatian Ustaše or the Slovak L'udaks.

The Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine in the fall of 1939 meant a shift for the nationalists
from an anti-Polish to an anti-Soviet orientation. It also opened the way to central and eastern
Ukraine for the nationalist movement, which previously had been restricted to Galicia and
Volhynia. The movement displayed extraordinary initiative and great daring in its dealings
with a hitherto unknown Soviet reality, and the patriotism and self-sacrifice of its
representatives attracted sympathy and trust as well as a desire by nationally conscious
Ukrainians in those regions to participate in the cause. The movement's weakness in
socioeconomic issues, however, and its streak of totalitarianism proved to be major stumbling
blocks to greater popularity among a population whose experiences under the Soviet regime
had given it a revulsion to any form of dictatorship.

Wartime proved to be the supreme test of the nationalist movement. Despite the movement's
internal difficulties it was the strongest Ukrainian political force of the day, and it managed
to lead a resistance movement against both a Hitlerite Germany and a Stalinist Soviet Union.
In 1942–3 the resistance took concrete form in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a body that
kept alive Ukrainian aspirations to statehood in even the most adverse circumstances.

The forerunner of revisionist currents in OUN ideology was Ivan Mitrynga, who had sought
to make the nationalist movement deal with Soviet realities and turn its ideology more to the
left. The process of ideological revisionism affected the various branches of the movement in
different ways. Members of OUN expeditionary groups that worked with the underground
in central Ukraine were the most susceptible. The resolutions of the Third Great Congress of
the OUN, held in 1943 by the OUN (Bandera faction), and the platform of the Ukrainian
Supreme Liberation Council of 1944 contained significant changes in ideology. Some of the
fundamental revisions were the abandonment of compulsory idealism, and the toleration of
pluralism both in the liberation movement and in the future Ukrainian state; the rejection of
racism and ethnic exclusivity, and the recognition of the legal equality of all citizens of
Ukraine regardless of ethnic background; and the adoption of a detailed socioeconomic
program, which favored a mix of nationalized, co-operative, and private sectors. When it
came to the question of the future political order, however, the changes offered were vague
and inconclusive.

Postwar developments. The anticommunist underground in the Ukrainian SSR fought on


until the early 1950s. Sources available in the West indicate that by that time the Ukrainian
resistance movement, although tied to the earlier Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,
had completely purged itself of the characteristics of integral nationalism and had adopted
democratic independentism. The writings of such publicists as Petro Poltava and Osyp
Hornovy in the late 1940s and early 1950s clearly illustrate such an evolution.

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

Emigré nationalism was still represented by the factions of the OUN, but there were now
three of them. In the late 1940s a splinter group broke off from the Bandera faction because of
the faction's apparent reversion to the old tenets of integral nationalism. The new group
consisted of members of the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council and other OUN
revisionists. The group, which actually stepped outside the bounds of traditionally nationalist
organizations, was initially led by Lev Rebet and was known as the OUN (Abroad).

The OUN (Melnyk faction) kept the OUN name after the war. By means of its work with
other émigré parties in the Ukrainian National Council it proved that it had abandoned the
old tenets of party exclusivity. The faction, right-wing and conservative but largely moderate
in orientation, included most of the intellectuals of the nationalist movement. The traditional
mentality and ideology of integral nationalism were best preserved in the emigration by the
OUN (Bandera faction).

Before the changes in Ukraine in 1991, as a political movement and an ideology Ukrainian
nationalism could be active only in the emigration. Even in its splintered form it remained an
explosive and vibrant force. It had great ideological difficulties, however, because of its
confrontation with Western democracy, its inability to deal fully with the question of the
political beliefs of Ukrainians in Ukraine, and its lack of contact with political processes
there. Nevertheless it left an indelible mark on Ukrainian history, both as a sign of the
people's life and as a revolutionary force in the struggle for self-determination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rudnyts’kyi, S. Do osnov ukraïns’koho natsionalizmu (Vienna 1920)
Dontsov, D. Natsionalizm (Lviv 1926; rev edns, Munich 1951 and Toronto 1966)
Stsibors’kyi, M. Natsiokratiia, 2nd edn (Prague 1942)
Pozytsiï ukraïns’koho vyzvol’noho rukhu (Munich 1948)
Martynets’, V. Ukraïns’ke pidpillia vid UVO do OUN: Spohady i materiialy do peredistoriï
ukraïns’koho orhanizovanoho natsionalizmu (np 1949)
Lisovyi, R. Rozlam v OUN (Neu-Ulm 1949)
Mirchuk, P. Za chystotu pozytsii ukraïns’koho vyzvol’noho rukhu (Munich–London 1955)
OUN v svitli postanov Velykhykh Zboriv, konferentsii, ta inshykh dokumentiv z borot’by 1929–55 (np
1955)
Zhdanovych, O. (ed). Orhanizatsiia Ukraïns’kykh Natsionalistiv: Zbirka stattei (Paris 1955)
Shankovs’kyi, L. Pokhidni hrupy OUN (Munich 1958)
Poltava, P. Zbirnyk pidpil’nykh pysan’ (Munich 1959)
Knysh, Z. Rozbrat: Spohady i materiialy do rozkolu OUN u 1940–1941 rokakh (Toronto 1960)
Krychevs’kyi, R. OUN v Ukraïni, OUNz, i ZCh OUN: Prychynok do istoriï ukraïns’koho
natsionalistychnoho rukhu (New York–Toronto 1962)
Lapychak, T. Ukraïns’kyi natsionalizm (New York 1962)
Rebet, L. Svitla i tini OUN (Munich 1964)
Pan’kivs’kyi, K. Roky nimets’koï okupatsiï 1941–1944 (New York–Toronto 1965)
Armstrong, J.A. Ukrainian Nationalism, 2nd edn (Littleton, Colo 1980)
Motyl, A. The Turn to the Right: The Ideological Origins and Development of Ukrainian Nationalism,

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]


Nationalism

1919–1929 (New York 1980)


Lashchenko, O.; Mel’nyk, K.; Veryha, V. (eds). Na zov Kyieva: Ukraïns’kyi natsionalizm u II
svitovii viini (Toronto–New York 1985)

Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky

[This article originally appeared in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, vol. 3 (1993).]

List of related links from Encyclopedia of Ukraine pointing to Nationalism entry:

1 Alchevska, Khrystia
2 All-Ukrainian Association of Proletarian Writers
3 Anarchists

4 Andriievsky, Dmytro
5 Antireligious propaganda
6 Antonenko-Davydovych, Borys

7 Bandera, Stepan
8 Bazhan, Mykola
9 Bochkovsky, Olgerd Ippolit
10 Boichuk, Mykhailo

11 Cherniavsky, Mykola
12 Chornovil, Viacheslav
13 Communism
14 Conservatism

15 Dontsov, Dmytro
16 Dovzhenko, Oleksander
17 Drahomanov, Mykhailo
18 Film

19 Front of National Unity


20 Futurism

+ 20 Records >>

A referral to this page is found in 66 entries.


Click Home to get to the IEU Home page; to contact the IEU editors click Contact.

To learn more about IEU click About IEU and to view the list of donors and to become an IEU
supporter click Donors.
 

 
Home | Contact | About IEU | Donors


©2001 All Rights Reserved. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies.
 

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNationalism.htm[2/10/2018 12:15:41 PM]

You might also like