The Soviet Union annexed new territories in the West during World War II, legitimizing its claims by promising to build socialism. To lead the process, the Bolsheviks sent experienced Communists, who had proved their credentials during the collectivization of the 1930s and the war. These outsiders were known as Easterners (skhidnyaky). There was a clear hierarchy between Easterners occupying top positions and locals who were expected to listen to their colleagues from the East and follow their orders. In addition to the nationalist insurgency in Western Ukraine, such a distinction solidified strong identities of Easterners and Westerners in Soviet Ukraine. Unlike many other Western Ukrainian oblasts, where locals typically held a significant presence in state institutions, Transcarpathia stood out as the only region where locals were strongly represented in leadership positions and shared power with Easterners. The Transcarpathian local Party leaders officially accepted their subordinate status but managed to either resist the supervisors from the East or cooperate with them. Under such circumstances, the division between Easterners and Westerners was not as strong as in other parts of Western Ukraine. This paper examines the division between Easterners and Westerners within the Transcarpathian Oblast Party Committee. To what degree did this division form political confrontation and act as an obstacle to forming political alliances? Transcarpathia serves as an example of interactions between Easterners and locals, in which the latter had more agency in pursuing their interests.
