The Ukrainophilism of P.E. Shelest in the Interpretation of Modern Ukrainian Historiography

Abstract

The author of this article explores the discussion in contemporary Ukrainian historiography of the “Ukrainophilia” of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, Pyotr Efimovich Shelest (1963‒1972). Ukrainian historians are trying to determine the extent to which the Soviet leader proved to be a consistent follower of the political line of the Union centre, the areas in which he defended the interests of the republic, and whether he should be considered a representative of National Communism. The purpose of the article is to analyse the key provisions of and evidence for the conception of Shelest's “Ukrainophilism” and “localism” developed by Ukrainian scholars. Particular attention is given to the conclusions of Yu.I. Shapoval on the inconsistencies in Shelest and his actions, his peculiar dual loyalty (all-union and republican), and his constant manoeuvring between two political discourses (centralist and anti-centralist). According to the historian, Shelest's views were formed during the Stalinist era. This point of view has been widely accepted in contemporary Ukrainian literature. The article specifies that Shelest as a politician was a product of Soviet Ukrainianisation of the 1920s. It was at this time that the seeds of the paradox that contemporary Ukrainian scholars have been writing about were sown.