Censorship during the Directory of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (1918-1921)

Abstract

The purpose of the research paper is to study the development of censorship bodies during the period of the Directory of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, both within Ukraine and in exile, from 1918 to 1921, and to illustrate how the government sought to maintain control over the state by establishing censorship bodies. The scientific novelty is in the reconstruction of a holistic picture of the censorship policy of the Directory of the Ukrainian People’s Republic based on the introduction of new documents into scientific circulation, the reconstruction of little-known institutional structures of censorship, and the demonstration of the actual mechanism of censorship functioning in specific political and military conditions. Conclusions. The study demonstrates that censorship during the period of the Directory of the UNR was a complex, contradictory, and at the same time natural phenomenon, caused by the extreme conditions of state building in 1918-1921. Despite its declared commitment to democratic freedoms, the Directory government could not relinquish control over the information space, since the press played a key role in shaping public sentiment, mobilizing the population, and countering hostile propaganda. This led to the establishment of a complex, albeit unstable, system of censorship bodies, ranging from the Committee for Press Affairs to temporary military censorship structures and the Censorship Collegium. The principles and practice of censorship were characterized by inconsistency: the authorities simultaneously proclaimed a course for freedom of the press, but maintained a wide range of prohibitions, increased the responsibility of editorial offices, closed opposition publications, and introduced forced Ukrainization of the Russian-language press. In the second half of 1919, censorship gradually began to be curtailed, primarily due to the organizational decline of state structures, frequent government relocations, and the objective impossibility of maintaining centralized control. During the period of the UNR government’s stay in exile, the final rejection of comprehensive censorship became inevitable. The experience of the Directory demonstrates that censorship in emergency conditions becomes an instrument of state survival, but its implementation inevitably exacerbates the contradiction between the principles of democracy and the need for security.