Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 19 down vote favorite
2

In 1954 Soviets transferred Crimea from Russian Soviet Republic to Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

Why is this strange?

The whole act, at least officially, was meant to be "a gift", a token of friendship. You do not normally give huge pieces of land in moderate climate, which are also strategically located.

Russians are not known for giving land away, quite the contrary - Russia has been constantly expanding since XVII century.

After the deportation of the Tatars by Stalin Russians were the majority population of Crimea at that time (and still are).

Russia doesn't seem to have a solid foothold of the Black Sea coast - it seems that their only usable naval port apart from Sevastopol (which is in Crimea and is only leased from Ukraine!) is Novorossiysk.

share|improve this question
I am not able to give an answer to this great question. But I want to add that Russia has a pretty solid foothold in the Crimea and that Sevastopol serves as one of the major ports of the Russian navy (what makes your question even more forceful!). At my last trip there about a year ago the Russian flag welcomed every visitor. Except the Crimean Tartars who try to claim more and more ground recently, the typical average Crimean believes to be Russian, not Ukrainian. Investors from Russia prefer to do business on the Crimea, then in Odessa as second choice, and bypass the rest. – Ben Oehler Oct 25 '12 at 20:32

2 Answers

up vote 14 down vote accepted

TL;DR

Khrushchev wanted to (1) test his political power, and (2) to please the Ukrainian population, and (3) to shift the rebuilding cost to the Ukrainian republic.

Khrushchev wanted to test his political power

If anyone would wanted to challenge Khrushchev, just rising to power, his controversial idea and hollow arguments would be a perfect occasion. The stake was very little at the same time. Seemingly Khrushchev wanted to test his position before more important changes he may have been planning. http://books.google.com/books?id=RwfIEhLDaMsC&lpg=PA310&pg=PA311

Khrushchev wanted to please the Ukrainian population

While the Russian and Ukrainian cadres were in great friendship ever since 1930s (1920s?), Ukrainian people's drive for independence was a recurring problem for the Soviet Union. During World War II this drive has risen again to a great extent. After the war, Soviet power went into a de-facto war with Ukrainian nationalists and relations became very strained. http://books.google.com/books?id=DHFDjhPugJIC&pg=PT199&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OlGKUMH9DISxtAauk4GwDw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw

The Crimea had an opinion of a crown jewel, the best vacation resort in Soviet Union. So the gesture would appear favorable to Ukrainian commoners. In reality...

Shift the rebuilding cost to the Ukrainian republic

In reality , after the 1944 mass deportations of Crimean Tatars the region became an economical disaster zone. It would require major investment, and Khrushchev wanted to shift this to the Ukrainian budget. http://books.google.com/books?id=l5uiWHgRphQC&lpg=PA500&pg=PA499

share|improve this answer
5  
Just as an addendum, I'd like to point out that the governments of the Republics were pretty powerless entities during the USSR era. The central Soviet Communist Party hierarchy was where power resided. So which republic administered which territory was really just a bookeeping issue. I doubt Krushchev ever envisioned a day comming where Russia and the Ukraine were two separate countries and his action became a really important event. – T.E.D.♦ Oct 26 '12 at 15:05
@T.E.D. Absolutely true. I had very close friends in Ukraine in 86-91 years. They were members of the nationalistic movement in the western Ukraine - the centre of the Ukrainian nationalism. And having anti-SSSR views I said they should look for independence. And they argued, they didn't expected or even waited for any independence except some more cultural autonomy. – Gangnus Dec 26 '12 at 22:39
How the deportation of the Tatars affected it being an economic disaster zone? – Anixx May 2 at 2:46
1  
@Anixx you've no clue as to what a sizable fraction of a region's population being ripped out and transported forcibly elsewhere does to that region (and the one they end up in)? Or are you so blinded by communist fervour that you can't see anything wrong with it for the simple fact that it was communists doing it? – jwenting May 2 at 6:29
@jwenting what fraction of the Crimea's population were Tatars before the war? – Anixx May 2 at 7:37
up vote 3 down vote

At that time, Ukraine was under the control of the Soviet Union. And the Russians basically controlled the Soviet Union. So they basically controlled Ukraine.

Thus, the transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine was a "Greek" gift that would enable the Russians to control Ukraine better. Since it was on their "books," the Ukrainians would have to manage it, while the Russians would de facto control it.

Not a bad idea, as long as Ukraine in fact remains your colony.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.