The Greatest Lie of the Twentieth Century
In our ongoing series with Ukrainian historian Tetiana Boriak, she tells Bette Dangerous how the very name ‘Soviet Union’ was a forged on a lie
***Thank you for supporting independent investigative journalism in a time of grave peril with a paid membership.***
Author’s note: Bette members please look for an invite to our Q&A session with Ukrainian historian Tetiana Boriak coming up Sunday, at 11 am Pacific. This will be the culmination of our four-part Speakeasy series with her, where we learned about how Russian weaponizes everything in its ongoing war on the West. We learned about the Holodomor, Stalin and the Kremlin’s man-made famine. We also learned last week about the Executed Renaissance — Stalin’s purge of writers, translators, historians, artists, filmmakers, and philosophers. I am working on additional print reports on these subjects, and those who attended our events who have questions for her, can send the questions to me in advance. Today’s post is fascinating. We are in a war for the very survival of free societies, and the propagandists’ words have been poisoning the discourse for a century.—hsc
“Please see attached the file with the quotations that explain the greatest lie of the Twentieth Century — usage of ‘Soviet’ instead of ‘the Russian’ for the restored in 1921-1923 Russian empire.”—Tetiana Boriak for Bette Dangerous
Soviet as Russian
by Tetiana Boriak
The archival records and speeches of the Bolshevik leaders, as well as as of the Ukrainian party from 1919 to 1923 indicate that “Russian” was simply called “Soviet” serving three goals:
1. to cover the imperial nature of the Russian/Soviet leaders that mentally remained in the matrix of the Russian empire;
2. combat independent movement in the occupied territories;
3. to gain positive image in the world as a democratic state.
Lenin came up with the term “Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia” later replaced with the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. He insisted on formal keeping of the state status by the republics and formal equal right with Russia, believing that such position would eliminate national resistance in these republics.
Commenting on the creation of the USSR, Lenin said that Russia confessed itself equal to other republics, adding at the same time that they (the Bolshevik party) did not give food to “independent” (that is, supporters of independence of these republics).
From 1918 to 1925, there was Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (in Russian – RKP(b)). USSR was created in 1923 (many argue that in December 1922). Anyway, only in 1925 RKP(b) got a new title called to hide Russian imperial nature of the statehood: All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (in Russian – VKP(b)). Such rebranding was also explained with disillusionment toward soon world revolution and concentration on the implementation of communism in the USSR.
Lenin said in November 28, 1919 that Bolsheviks must temporarily unite with Ukrainian communists temporarily allowing “indep.[endant]” Ukrainian republic to exist, keeping in mind “propaganda of complete merger” with the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.
Ukrainian party leader Kh. Rakovsky (born in Romania, ethnic Bulgarian) in 1919: communists must be careful in their writings about Ukraine. They “have to escape everything that can remind imperialist aspirations”, do not stress that Kyiv and Ukraine are “our”.
Former head of Kyiv party regional executive committee A. Bubnov in 1919 agreed with the politics of Lenin that we had “to go easy” and “to make maximum concessions to the nationalistic tendencies” on Russia’s outskirts – Ukraine and other national republics.
A telegram signed in particular by Lenin and Stalin to the Ukrainian party in 1919: if there is the need to keep for some time in Ukraine “independent commissariats”, then these “independent commissariats must work exclusively and in the strictest accordance” with the party directives.
A professional Bolshevik revolutionary with a 12-year experience of secret work in Ukraine I. Lapidus said in the beginning of 1920 that the Soviet power on the “outskirts is nothing more than the military occupation, especially this relates to Ukraine”.
Lev Trotsky, one of the 1917 coup and the Red Army organizers, in 1920 proposed changes of the relations with Ukraine. He argued that by this time, Soviet power barely survived “mainly thanks to the Moscow authority, Great-Russian communism and the Russian Red Army”.
In 1920 Lenin complained that the party takes bread from Siberia, Kuban, but “cannot take from Ukraine because there is the war there” that Red Army is fighting. The results of this war, he continued, is the “question of extraordinary weight for all soviet Federation and its international situation”. This phrase one more time illustrates absence of difference between the former parts of the Russian Empire for Lenin and importance of Ukraine, with the simultaneous attempt to hide occupation under the cover of the “federation”.
In 1921, the V All-Ukrainian meeting of the councils ratified an agreement about the Union Treaty. Thanks to Ukrainian positions, initial draft included a phrase about “full equality between the two republics” (Russian and Ukrainian ones). Kremlin deleted this statement from the final document. Stalin also called the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic in a “live embodiment” of the form of the state union of the “Federation of the Soviet Republics”.
A Ukrainian party leader V. Zatonsky commented that Kremlin did not treat the republics “seriously”, playing the “diplomatic” games. Zatonsky even recommended Lenin to refuse from the term “Russia” in the title “Soviet Federation” because the Soviet Federation is not the “Russian” federation. Lenin reacted with a note “Kha-kha” (in English can be translated as “very funny”). Russian high organs of power were simply renamed into the Soviet ones.
In 1922, Russian narkom of foreign affairs H. Chicherin proposed to analyze the question on “inclusion of the brotherhood Republics into the RSFSR” (that is, into the Russian Socialistic Federative Soviet Republic). Stalin supported the idea of union of the Republics with the Russian Republic as its antinomies.
Ukrainian party resisted.
In 1923 Ukrainian side protested against merging of the Ukrainian Narkomat of Foreign Affairs into the Russian/Soviet one. Stalin blamed Ukrainian party leadership that if these narkomats exist in the republics, then “disappear appearance of the Union as the single state before the external world”. Other narkomats that were ruled from Moscow directly were narkomats of defense, economy, finances, transport, labor, post and telegraph.
In 1922 Stalin, using illness of Lenin, removed the republics’ representatives from the work over the project on the relations between the republics. Stalin represented his project that stated entering the republics to Russian Federation as autonomous units.
In order to hide the imperialist Kremlin’s claims, he believed that the national Soviet councils had to suggest this “initiative”, and the all-Russian Meeting will approve these “initiatives” in December of 1922.
Sick Lenin asked Stalin how the regulation of the republics’ relations was developing. Stalin responded that existing treaty situation is a “chaos” that paralyze both federative economy and economy in “all-Russian scale”. Either full independence should be granted to the republics or “real merging of the soviet republics in one economic unit with the formal spread of the power” of the several narkomats of RSFSR to republic units. Stalin also sincerely said that “the young generation on the outskirts a play in independence refuse to understand as the play, stubbornly accepting the words about independence at face value”.—Tetiana Boriak for Bette Dangerous, December 5, 2025
The quotations are taken from these two books: Кульчицький С. Червоний виклик. Історія комунізму в Україні від його народження до загибелі. Кн. 1. К.: Темпора, 2013. 504 с.; Єфіменко Г. Г., Кульчицький С. В., Пиріг Р. Я., Скальський В. В., Якубова Л. Д. Україна й українці в постімперську добу (1917–1939). Київ: Академперіодика, 2021. 620 с.—TB
****
More on Tetiana Boriak: refugee from the Russian war, Ukrainian historian, and Doctor of Historical Sciences (Dr. habil.) (2024), PhD in History (2008), Associate Professor, Researcher at History Faculty, Vilnius University (Lithuania). Received her MA in History from Kansas University (Lawrence, KS, 2004–2006). She specializes in Holodomor, Soviet totalitarianism, memory studies and social history. Author of three books, two awards: “Oral History as a Source for Holodomor Studies: Formation of Eyewitness Testimony Collections and their Informative Value” (2024; Research Prize of the Rector of Vilnius University 2024 for “significant research work”); “1933: “Why Are You Still Alive?” (2016; the all-Ukrainian award “the Book of the Year” (2016, nomination “History”, category “Research/Documents”). MSCA4Ukraine (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions for Ukraine) Fellow (2025–2027). In 2013–2014 Fulbright Fellow at Harvard University (Ukrainian Research Institute, Boston, MA). Author of 90 articles of them about 40 articles on Holodomor. In 2010–2017 was an assistant of the journalist, researcher, columnist of the Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize winner Anne Applebaum in the project of preparation of an English-language book about the Holodomor in Ukraine for a Western audience: “Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine” (2017; two awards). Host of the historical educational program “History with meat” (2017– February 2022) – about 70 episodes, available on YouTube. Editorial board member of several journals and a member of several historical professional associations. Participated in more than 70 conferences.
****
****
Bette Dangerous is a reader-funded magazine. Thank you to all monthly, annual, and founding members.
I expose the corruption of billionaire fascists, while relying on memberships for support.
Thank you in advance for considering the following:
Share my reporting with allies
Buying my ebooks
A private link to an annual membership discount for older adults, those on fixed incomes or drawing disability, as well as activists and members of the media is available upon request at bettedangerous/gmail. 🥹
More info about Bette Dangerous - This magazine is written by Heidi Siegmund Cuda, an Emmy-award winning investigative reporter/producer, author, and veteran music and nightlife columnist. She is the cohost of RADICALIZED Truth Survives, an investigative show about disinformation and is part of the Byline Media team. Her Hot Type column appears in Byline Supplement. Thank you for your support of independent investigative journalism.
🤍
Begin each day with a grateful heart.
🤍