Evaluations of Khmelnytsky

Polish historians usually give negative assessments of Khmelnytsky’s activity. Bukowietska, for example, blamed the hetman for initiating a bloody civil war, in which a “brother fought against a brother”. She called the hetman a “primitive drunkard” (because of his habit of excessive drinking), who “destroyed the liberties his people enjoyed.” Another Polish historian J. Friedberg said that Ukrainian Cossacks were ruled by greed in the war and that they used the slogan of protecting the Orthodox religion only to cover their real egoistic intentions. In his opinion, the Cossack leaders wanted “heaven on earth for themselves,” where peasants would be their serfs. In general, many Polish historians consider Khmelnytsky as traitor who, by starting a civil war and by concluding unions with Poland’s enemies, betrayed his motherland – the Rzeczpospolita.

Jewish historians blame Khmelnytsky for initiation of pogroms and massacres of the Jewish people. They call him the instigator of the first genocidal catastrophe or first ‘holocaust’ in the history of the Jews. They generally give a very negative assessment of the Cossacks as rude and cruel people.

Contemporary Russian historians (as did their tsarist and Soviet colleagues) praise Khmelnytsky for the Pereiaslav Agreement which initiated the unification of Ukraine and Russia. Russian historians have tried to prove that the only aim of the Khmelnytsky uprising was the overwhelming desire of the Ukrainians to be “reunited” with their “elder brothers” – the Russians. Most Russian politicians support this theory as it suits Russia’s political aims well. In general, Russian historians say that the Ancient Rus People or Древнерусский народ (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians) were artificially separated by the Tatar-Mongols in the 13^th century; then later in the 17^th century hetman Khmelnytsky “fulfilled the desire of the Ukrainians to be reunited” with their powerful brothers. Thus, according to this point of view, Ukrainians and Russians should live together in a form of federation or confederation as they have common roots and can be considered two branches of the same people.

Contemporary Ukrainian historians severely criticize this theory as it undermines Ukraine’s historical foundation for independence. One group of Ukrainian historians thinks that it would have been better if the hetman had refrained from the union with Moscow.²¹ Ukraine’s greatest poet, T. Shevchenko, was especially critical of the hetman for brining Ukraine under Russian control. P. Kulish and M. Hrushevsky criticized the hetman for desolating Ukraine.²² They said the hetman used the common masses as cannon fodder to achieve his ambitious personal aims. Another group of Ukrainian historians, however, praises Khmelnytsky. They say that he raised national consciousness and dignity among Ukrainians, made Ukraine known in Europe and managed to get autonomy which lasted over 100 years within Russia’s borders.