A multiethnic region Transcarpathia is a multiethnic region with an ethnic
Soviet Ukraine as a „present“ for liberation by the Red
Army. This long-lasting adherence to Hungary had an impact
also on non-Hungarian autochthonous groups. Local Ukrainians the vast ethnic majority with a share of 80
feel to be different from Ukrainians on the other side of the Carpathians. They are so seen also from there, i.e.
from West Ukraine, e.g.
from L’vìv. While West Ukrai- nians conceive themselves to be the core group of the
Ukrainian nation, they look at Ukrainians in Transcar- pathia not anymore as Ukrainians in the proper sense.
The consciousness of Ukrainians in Transcarpathia goes indeed not in a few cases as far as to a national con-
sciousness different from the Ukrainian: Many of them conceive themselves as Rusyns see Bonkalo, 1990;
Kocsis Kocsis-Hodosi 1998; Magocsi, 1978, 1999a, b, Panchuk,
1995. Ukrainians from outside the Carpathian arc, who had immigrated in the Soviet period, used to
remain outsiders. The at least regional, if not national identity of Transcar-
pathian Ukrainians is supported by the Greek-Catholic Church. This union with Rome, founded in 1646 in
Ungvár [Užgorod] and called the Union of Ungvár, was to support the Pannonian Ukrainians’ Western orient-
tation.
3
The distinct regional consciousness of Transcarpathian Ukrainians expressed itself also by a regionalist move-
ment in 1990 striving for autonomy and culminating in a referendum on autonomy Dezember 1991 that received
an overwhelming majority, but was not respected by Kiev.
Another specific of the region inherited from the times of Hungarian rule is the still vigorous position of the Hunga-
rian language. It is not only cultivated by the Hungarian ethnic minority, but also spoken by other ethnic groups,
especially by other minorities like Germans and Roma. For this reason it is frequently used as a trade language
and for inter-ethnic communication. Regional identity shaped by Hungarian history expresses
itself also in political voting. Thus, in contrast to all other parts of Ukraine, the Ukrainian parliamentary elections
2007 saw in Transcarpathia a regional party as the win- ner.
Especially in the early 1990s Transcarpathian region- nalism was strong and frequently combined with a lack of
loyality to modern Ukraine. In 1994, e.g. with an enquete conducted by the Global Security Program of the
University of Cambridge UK
on the question „To which cou
ntry should Transcarpathia belong to?“ only 52 of the respondents supported the status quo, while 13
pleaded for Hungary, 9 for Slovakia and 14 for independence
Jordan Klemenčić 2004a,
Fig. 23,
p. 295. In the meantime regionalism has certainly calmed
down, but can always be re-activated. 2.2 A traditional borderland
Under Hungarian rule modern Transcarpathia was a borderland towards Galicia
[Galicja, Galičina]. In the interwar period it functioned as a Czechoslovakian
Rus’ka Krajna, Rusy
n Land, Ruthenia. Marchia Ruthe- norum, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Carpatho-Ruthenia,
Subcarpathian Russia, Carpatho-Russia
.
3
But also the Ukrainians in Galicia [Galicja, Gali čina]
were organized in a Greek-Catholic Church, the Union of Brest, founded even earlier 1596. Also this documents a
Western cultural and political orientation of this group. outpost in the East see Kozauer,
1964. After World War II until the early 1990s it was a strategic glacis of the
Soviet Union in the Pannonian Basin see Hokky, 1966; Němec Moudry,
1955. Today it is the Ukrainian bridgehead in the Pannonian Basin with borders to
Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Only in the Northeast and East it has boundaries with other Ukrainian
regions L’vìv and Ivano Frankivs’k.
This borderland function was always linked with the status of an economic periphery. As the thematic maps of
Helmut Rumplers and Martin Segers Atlas of the Habs- burg Monarchy 1848-1918 show Rumpler Seger,
2010, the Hungarian counties roughly corresponding to what is today Transcarpathia Bereg, Máramaros,
Ugocsa were according to most socio-economic indi- cators well behind the average of the Hungarian half of
the Monarchy, which was anyway lagging behind most of the Austrian crown lands, especially the Bohemian Lands
and Lower Austria [Niederösterreich] with the Empire’s capital Vienna [Wien].
Also in the interwar period, Cz echoslovakian “Subcar-
pathia” was by far the least developed province of this in fact rather artificial political construct composed of the
highly developed, urbanised and industrialised provinces of Bohemia [
Čechy] and Czech Silesia [Slezsko], the still well advanced, but more agrarian Moravia [Morava], the
almost completely agrarian Slovakia [Slovensko] and the most backward Subcarpathia. This can clearly be seen in
the so- called “Masaryk Atlas”, published in 1935 Česká
akademie věd a uměni, 1935.
The Atlas of Danubian Countries Breu, 1970-1989
proves that in spite of some efforts to industrialise the region according to Communist principles not very
much has changed under Communist rule. Even com- pared to West Ukraine, Transcarpathia is in a backward
position. It is also a fact that none of the urban settlements in
Transcarpathia succeed at any time to occupy a more prominent position in the central place system. Munkács
[Mukačeve] achieved some importance as a fortress of the defence system along the eastern borders of Hungary,
but not so much as an urban centre. Also Užgorod, modern Transcarpathia’s capital, is not more than a less-
equipped regional centre in the shadow of Košice Slovakia and Debrecen Hungary.