The subject for this symposium may seem at first glance to be rather technical, and perhaps even antiquarian. But for anyone who has attempted to do research and writing, not to mention serious reading, about the part of Eastern Europe we deal with here will know that periodization and terminology are basic. Without a generally agreed—upon conception of them, one cannot produce an understandable historical narrative, much less a viable interpretation. Without such a common conception, the writing of history is like a game in which the opposing players and referees are all playing under different rules.

The problem raised in the title of the paper asks for an answer on two levels: how did the relationships between these two entities work out 1) on the administrative level–the day-to-day relationships and 2) on the ideological/political one. I shall be very brief in answering the first problem and somewhat more lengthy in answering the second one. My reasons for doing so may become obvious as I go along.

The late Mykola Chubatyi, a leading Ukrainian historian who resided in this country since 1939, recalled in one of his numerous writings (Ukrains'ka istorychna nauka i ii rozvytok ta dosiahnennia, Philadelphia, 1971) an event involving then Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Asked by one of his associates why he never mentions Ukraine, Rusk answered: “Ukraine is not a statenation and there never existed a Ukrainian state.” Reminded by an insisting friend that this is not the case, because Ukrainians have had their statehood in the Middle Ages and again during the seventeenth century and the Ukrainian SSR is after all a member of the United Nations, Rusk instantly and professorially fired back that Russia always had some problems in the South.

The Provisional Government, which held power from March to November 1917, had little effect on Lithuania. This was not due to the Russian government's attempt to carry on the war in the midst of internal rebellion and general chaos, but rather to Lithuania's having been overrun by the German army, which occupied the country for the entire period. Nevertheless, this period provides a glimpse into the forces at work, which were to effect profoundly Lithuania to the present. The Lithuanians were trying to establish an independent state of their own against the wishes of the Poles, Russians, and Germans, and in order to understand the situation properly, it is necessary to go back much further in history.

In the new situation created by the collapse of the Tsarist regime in March 1917, the non-Russian peoples directed their efforts towards the realization of their national goals. Ukrainians, who took an active part in the overthrow of the Tsarist rule in Petrograd, were among the most active in asserting their national aspirations and laying foundations for a new relationship with Russia. Leadership of the Ukrainian national movement was in the hands of the Ukrainian Central Rada. The Rada was formed on March 17, 1917, with the participation of representatives of principal Ukrainian organizations. It established a broader base when the All-Ukrainian National Congress convened in Kiev on April 19–21, 1917. The Congress was attended by 900 delegates and some 600 other participants, representing peasant, professional, military, and cultural-educational organizations, in addition to political parties, municipalities, and zemstvos, within as well as beyond the Ukraine.

In view of the vast scope of my topic I have to restrict myself to the most basic aspects and most recent developments in the subject area. Actually, as far as Soviet Belorussia is concerned there has not been much going on in this area. With sufficient cadres of historians to have produced the 12-volume “Belorussian Soviet Encyclopedia” (Minsk, 1969–1975) and a 5-volume “History of the Belorussian SSR” (the first three volumes appeared in 1972–1973), the topic of terminology and periodization has nonetheless been relegated to silence along with the problem of the general state of historiography. For example among the 4,500 entries in the “Bibliography of Belorussia's History: The Period of Feudalism and Capitalism” (Minsk, 1969, 437 p.) one discovers only nine articles on historiography written in the post-Stalin period, the most recent of which is dated 1965. Of the two articles reviewing the state of historical scholarship on the occasion of the fortieth and fiftieth anniversaries of Soviet Belorussia neither discusses or mentions discussions on the subject of historiography, let alone terminology and periodization. This strange abhorrence by Belorussian Soviet historians of their own metier still persists, as we learn from two reviewers of the third volume of the new 5-volume “History of the Belorussian SSR”: “We must note that in this volume as well as in the previous ones the historiographic part is essentially lacking.” Nevertheless, some individual historians and authors demonstrate their keen awareness of the importance of the matter. This was perhaps most perceptibly expressed in 1968 by a Grodno Professor Jazep Jucho (Yazep Yukho). Explaining the origin and history of one of the basic terms of Belorussia's past and present, the name Bielaruś, Jucho observes: “confusion in terminology leads to a distortion of the whole historical process of the development of the Belorussian people.”

Our focus is upon problems of periodization in Belorussian and Ukrainian history. It is tempting, and perhaps even useful, at the outset of this commentary to speculate on what would be the problems addressed in a discussion of this subject had the 1917 revolution resulted in genuine national independence for the main nationalities of the Russian Empire, followed by nearly sixty years of relatively free scholarship within the context of democratic societies. Probably the early period would not have been too different from what actually occurred in the Soviet Union, with a considerable flourishing of the various national historiographies and with vigorous research into the unique elements of the particular national heritage. Indeed, we have the example of the inter-war Baltic states before us which seems to support such speculation.

It is a truism that without clear cut historical terminology and determination of historical periodization, which reflect the multi-dimensional development of individual nations and states, no effective and objective historical research is possible. Therefore, historians should welcome this session which, in my opinion, can serve as a starting point in the discussion dealing with controversial problems of East European historical terminology and periodization.

The word nationalism, as it is generally used in the United States by scholars and journalists, is a pejorative term. If by using the term the writer himself does not mean to evoke unfavorable associations, then by necessity he fails because the educated public in America understands the word to be derogatory. The question therefore is seriously to be considered whether the word continues to be serviceable for impartial analyses of world politics and modern history. Many journalists and unfortunately, also many historians and political scientists use the word as nothing other than an elegant expletive to disparage statesmen and countries–foreign and their own. One may suspect that diplomats and men of affairs have already learned to consider the word useless for day-to-day decisions. Unless scholars begin to use the word with more precision and discrimination, they will be forced to follow the example of practical men of affairs.