etsky - by merit of Zionist activities - was understandably one of the first to receive an immigration certificate to Palestine. His collaboration in the murder of tens of thousands of Jews did not make him unfit in the eyes of the officials of the Jewish Agency, who were distributing the certificates. He went to Eretz Yisroel where, it has been reported, the revengeful hand of the Jews of Bedzin killed him while he was taking a trip in the mountains. (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, pp. 122-123) A related demonstration of how the accusation of Nazi collaboration is not levelled impartially, but is used as a political weapon can be found in the case of Dr. Israel Kastner. Comparison 2: Ukrainian Cruelty on Behalf of the Nazis Compared to Jewish Cruelty on Behalf of the Nazis Morley Safer states, addressing himself to Simon Wiesenthal: "I get the impression from people that the actions of the Ukrainians, if anything, were worse than the Germans." What can Mr. Safer possibly mean by such a statement? Does he mean that he knows of a Ukrainian whose actions are worse than Hitler's, and another Ukrainian whose actions are worse than Himmler's, and another whose actions are worse than Eichmann's, and so on down the line? Surely, this is an impossibility, as Ukraine has never been accused either of starting the Second World War or of engineering the Final Solution. Surely all that Mr. Safer means is that some Ukrainians can be found who were worse than the average German, or the average Nazi, or even the average member of the SS. Agreed - undoubtedly such Ukrainians exist, but what of it? Similar deviants exist in all groups. Relevant here is that every faithful account of the Jewish Holocaust is peppered with statements such as the following: Question survivors of the ghettoes and camps. They all certify that the beatings they received at the hands of the Jewish 'golden youth' were filled with scorn. They fulfilled their tasks with a zeal and cruelty to a greater extent than that required by the German commanders. (Y. Efroiken, Sanctity and Valor of the Jews, in Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 21) He [K. Tzetnik] depicts the figure of Eliezer Greenbaum, son of Yitzchak Greenbaum, who, thanks to his tactics of acting as informant and displaying cruelty - to an extent which amazed even the Germans - was elevated to the rank of the bloc commander. (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 21) Practically all of the kapo officers were academicians - persons with degrees - who behaved like wild beasts and at times were more cruel than the Nazis. (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 121) Is it in the interests of historical truth to allude to the Ukrainian beasts without mentioning the Jewish beasts? Does the depiction of one without the other constitute information or disinformation, reporting or propaganda? Who commands such bias in the media? Who pays for it? These are issues worthy of address by a team of intrepid investigative reporters, should any be found. Comparison 3: Ukrainians Saving Jews Compared to Jews Saving Ukrainians Jews have had many opportunities to save Ukrainians. For example, Jews could have saved Ukrainians during the induced famine of 1932-33, during which Jews fared better than Ukrainians for several reasons: (1) Jews tended to be urban whereas the famine tended to be rural; (2) Jews were more affluent, and money buys food even during a famine; (3) Jews received support from other Jews in the West; (4) Jews occupied positions of authority, and in fact can be said to have administered the famine. Thus, Jews had ample opportunity to save Ukrainians simply by giving them food or by sabotaging the food-confiscation process. Or, in the mass deportations and executions, during which Jews again occupied positions of authority, there was again ample opportunity for Jews to subvert the process and hide or save Ukrainians. We have already seen above innumerable cases of Ukrainians saving Jews, but can we now locate a single case of a Jew saving a Ukrainian? Simon Wiesenthal, for example, had his life saved by the Ukrainian Bodnar, but did Simon Wiesenthal ever in his long life reciprocate by saving a Ukrainian? We saw above that an entire Ukrainian family was shot by the Nazis for hiding a Jewish woman, but can we find a single instance of an entire Jewish family being shot by the Bolsheviks for hiding a Ukrainian woman? We saw above that the Ukrainian mayor of a town was shot by the Nazis for helping Jews, but can we find a single instance of a Jewish mayor - and there were many Jewish mayors in Ukraine - being shot by the Bolsheviks for helping Ukrainians? We saw above Metropolitan Sheptytsky risking his life and the lives of other Ukrainians by hiding Jews on church property, but can we find a single instance of a rabbi risking his life and the lives of other Jews by hiding Ukrainians on synagogue property? We saw above Metropolitan Sheptytsky writing to Himmler protesting the shooting of Jews, but can we find any similar case of a rabbi writing to Lazar Kaganovich protesting the starvation of Ukrainians? One would like to see a statement from Morley Safer as to the justification for this double standard. When the most rudimentary and obvious comparisons indicate that Ukrainians have been disposed to Jews much more favorably than Jews have been disposed to Ukrainians, how can Morley Safer justify concluding the opposite? CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots 60 Minutes peppered its broadcast with distortions and misrepresentations. Here are nineteen miscellaneous instances: (1) Doctoring the sound track to bring out the evil of torchlight parades. The torchlight marchers are not a clear indication of anything, and without some enhancement, the scene would have fallen flat, and so 60 Minutes overlaid an exaggerated, rhythmic tramping sound which added an ominous militaristic flavor to the scene. In fact, given that it is dark and there is no band and the marchers are not singing, it is impossible for any but local groups of them to keep in step, and simple leather-soled or rubber-soled shoes could not have made such a sound - it would have taken cleated boots. The rhythmic tramping superimposed by 60 Minutes continues to be heard even when the paraders can be seen to be walking more than marching. One can see that the added sound effects are only imperfectly coordinated with the movements of the feet. (2) "Adolph Hitler Square". "The place they're marching in was once called Adolph Hitler Square," Mr. Safer tells us, but does not add that it was so called by the Germans and that it was not called that either before the Germans came or after they left. (3) Gratuitous accusation of mimicking. Mr. Safer informs us of the marchers that "Their chants and banners mimic another more fearsome time." But this is absolutely gratuitous - neither the chants nor the banners are mimicking anything. The marchers are not wearing swastika armbands and their banners do not contain Nazi symbols. They are not chanting "Death to the Jews!" but only "Slava natsiyi!" which means "Glory to the nation!" and is about as ominous in Ukrainian as "Vive la patrie!" is in French. Mr. Safer's syllogism here seems to be: The Nazis sometimes held torchlight parades. These Ukrainians are holding a torchlight parade. Therefore, all Ukrainians are Nazis. (4) If it sounds like "Nazi," then it must be "Nazi." 60 Minutes broadcast the above-mentioned "Slava natsiyi!" several times, but never provided a translation. But as "natsiyi" sounds like "Nazi," this invites the listener who does not know any Slavic languages to think that something is being said about Naziism, and the context supplied by Morley Safer suggests that this something is complimentary. (5) The menace of boy scouts and girl guides. Desperate for any images that to a gullible 60 Minutes audience might be suggestive of undying Naziism within Ukraine, Morley Safer presents film clips of Ukrainian boy scouts and girl guides. (6) Censorship through muted translation. When a Ukrainian in Lviv says "A Russian shot my brother!" 60 Minutes mutes the English translation to the point that it is almost inaudible. The critical viewer is left wondering whether the operating principle might not be that when a Ukrainian says something that might win sympathy for Ukrainians, omit it; in the case where the image has some overriding appeal (that was a pretty craggy Ukrainian, he was pretty excited, and the lighting was wonderful), then mute the translation to the point of inaudibility. Furthermore, in the 60 Minutes transcript of The Ugly Face of Freedom, the statement "A Russian shot my brother!" is entirely omitted, one might imagine following this same principle of avoiding attracting sympathy to Ukrainians. (7) Who welcomed the Germans? Mr. Safer says that "The same square greeted Hitler's troops fifty years ago as liberators," making this seem like another symptom of a Ukrainian addiction to Naziism. Of course we understand that it was not the square which greeted Hitler's troops at all, but rather people in the square, and it was smart on Mr. Safer's part not to draw attention to the people, because there might follow the natural question of "What people?" and the honest answer would have to be "All people - Ukrainians, Poles, and Jews." Jews welcomed Hitler's troops? - Yes, so it would appear: The prevailing conviction [was] that bad things came from Russia and good things from Germany. The Jews were historically oriented away from Russia and toward Germany; not Russia but Germany had been their traditional place of refuge. During October and November, 1939, that conviction, among other things, drove thousands of Jews from Russian-occupied Poland to German-occupied Poland. The stream was not stopped until the Germans closed the border. Similarly, one year later, at the time of Soviet mass deportations in the newly occupied territories, [there was] widespread unrest among Ukrainians, Poles, and Jews alike. Almost everyone was waiting for the arrival of the German army. When the army finally arrived, in the summer of 1941, old Jews in particular remembered that in the First World War the Germans had come as quasi-liberators. These Jews did not expect that now the Germans would come as persecutors and killers. (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1961, p. 206) Upon experiencing the impulse to blame Ukrainians for welcoming the Germans, the impartial journalist might recognize that all groups had been traumatized by their exposure to Communism, and all hoped for relief from the Germans. (8) Chief Rabbi of Ukraine. Although Rabbi Bleich is introduced by 60 Minutes as the "Chief Rabbi for the Ukraine," he is in fact an American from Brooklyn, New York, perhaps unqualified to hold such an exulted title for several reasons: (1) Rabbi Bleich is a Hasidic Jew, and so perhaps not authorized to speak for other Jewish sects. (2) Rabbi Bleich is newly-arrived in Ukraine carrying his full load of American-engendered prejudices, and seemingly unaware of the history of Ukraine, or even of the contemporary situation of Jews in Ukraine. (3) Rabbi Bleich, as of the date of the 60 Minutes broadcast, spoke some Russian, but negligible Ukrainian. Some Ukrainians might think that one prerequisite for the post of "Chief Rabbi of Ukraine" would be fluency in Ukrainian. The title of "Chief Rabbi of Ukraine," then, may be viewed as being self-proclaimed and presumptuous, and as carrying no standing within Ukraine or anywhere else. In crediting the title, Morley Safer was just blowing up Rabbi Bleich's credentials to give his words more weight. (9) An observation or a hypothetical case? Rabbi Bleich is shown saying, "Obviously, if someone - you know? - screams 'Let's drown the Russians in Jewish blood!' there isn't too much love lost there." Yes, if anyone did scream such a thing, we might safely infer that the screamer was motivated by a hatred of both Russians and Jews (even though we wouldn't be able to conclude much about anybody other than the screamer). But in fact Rabbi Bleich does not claim that anybody ever did scream such a thing. The 60 Minutes viewer is left with the impression that Rabbi Bleich was reporting something that he witnessed, but his wording commits him to nothing more than contemplating a hypothetical case. (10) Lenin's Jewish ancestors. After interviewing the editor of Lviv's daily For a Free Ukraine, 60 Minutes cuts to Rabbi Bleich saying "There's an article that came out just two weeks ago where they tried to prove that Lenin was really Jewish...." The impression created is that this article was published in For a Free Ukraine, and that For a Free Ukraine is a major newspaper in Western Ukraine's major city. In fact, however, "there's an article that came out" does not precisely inform us where the article was published. Perhaps it was published in Ukraine's equivalent of a supermarket tabloid. Perhaps it wasn't published at all, but only circulated in pamphlets. Perhaps it's just a rumor and nobody can produce such an article. But even if published in For a Free Ukraine - so what? A higher standard of journalism than that exhibited by 60 Minutes would have reported who was the author of this article, what position he holds in Ukrainian society, how good were his data and his arguments, where was the article published, about how many people may have read it, does anyone believe it, does it alter anybody's attitudes toward contemporary Jews even if they do believe it? - But of course such questions weren't answered, and we are left able to conclude no more than that Rabbi Bleich wishes us to believe in the existence of a virulent Ukrainian anti-Semitism. The Bleich statement is representative of a large number of statements in which events are referred to obliquely, indirectly, vaguely - and on this basis, the viewer is invited to jump to some strong conclusion. "I get the impression from people...." says Mr. Safer. Now there's a lazy substitute for investigative reporting! What people? Why can't we see these people for ourselves? Perhaps they are just a couple of cronies of Mr. Safer's whose company he prizes because they are as bigoted as himself. And what do we care what one or two of Mr. Safer's friends think? 60 Minutes should show its viewers the data on which these people are basing their conclusions and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. But this is not what 60 Minutes did - its broadcast was short on data and long on instructions on how to feel. (11) Morley Safer, genetic theorist. Mr. Safer tells us that "The Church and Government of Ukraine have tried to ease people's fears, suggesting that ... Ukrainians, despite the allegations, are not genetically anti-Semitic." Here we see a new escalation in the level of irrationality with Mr. Safer now divulging to us the existence of the allegation that Ukrainians are genetically anti-Semitic. For an anti-Semitism which Mr. Safer failed to document, he now suggests a cause from the fairyland of pseudoscience, and suggests furthermore that the Church and Government of Ukraine have dignified this charge by denying it. That Ukrainians are pronouncedly anti-Semitic, Mr. Safer takes as a given requiring no corroborative evidence, and so he shifts attention to speculating as to how they could have gotten that way. Perhaps Morley Safer will appreciate how bizarre and inflammatory his statement is when its direction is reversed: "The World Jewish Congress has tried to ease the growth of anti-Semitism, suggesting that Jews, despite the allegations, are not genetically predisposed to usury." Now if Mr. Safer had heard that on Ukrainian television, he could have brought it back as very good evidence not only of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, but of Ukrainian irrationality as well - but he didn't hear any such thing during his visit to Ukraine, and he brought back nothing. To encounter that degree of hatred and that level of irrationality, you have to leave Ukraine for the United States and tune in to 60 Minutes. (12) Church of Ukraine. But even while rebutting Mr. Safer's main point, I have been carelessly adopting his slovenly terminology. "Church of Ukraine"? What "Church of Ukraine"? There is no "Church of Ukraine" any more than there is a "Church of Canada" or a "Church of the United States." Ukraine has more than one variety of Orthodox church, more than one variety of Catholic church, more than one variety of Protestant church; and Ukraine has as well a full slate of non-Christian religions. It even has agnostics and atheists - just like a real country. Thus it is not only in his big lies, but also in his small misstatements that Mr. Safer reveals to us that his perception of Ukraine is uninformed, indeed wholly stereotypical. To him, perhaps all Ukrainians conform to some archetypal image - wielding a saber, hard-drinking, pogrom-prone, and Christian (to the question "What kind of Christian?" we almost expect Mr. Safer to ask "You mean Ukraine has more than one kind?"). And so when Mr. Safer speaks, he does not report what he has recently observed in Ukraine, but rather reads off from his internal image. He goes to Ukraine not to study it, not to report on its reality, but merely to provide a backdrop for the proclamation of his own preconceptions, of his own prejudices so deeply rooted that confirmation scarcely seems necessary, of his own stereotypes so apparently unchallengeable that the anticipation that they might be in error does not enter consciousness. (13) Peasants with nuclear weapons. Mr. Safer states: "Uneducated peasants, deeply superstitious, in possession of this bizarre anomaly: nuclear weapons capable of mass destruction thousands of miles away!" This is one piece of information that I did find both newsworthy and disquieting. Although it requires us to lay aside data indicating that American education is inferior to Ukrainian, we cannot but be persuaded that the farmers shown in the broadcast were indeed both uneducated and deeply superstitious - one look at their weatherbeaten faces and deep wrinkles and I was convinced. The information is so alarming and the threat to world stability so great that I expect Mr. Safer must have immediately telegraphed President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine to inform him that the uneducated and deeply superstitious peasants had seized control of Ukraine's nuclear weapons, and to urge him to recapture the weapons and place them back under the control of the educated and less-deeply-superstitious peasants. Who can argue with Mr. Safer's syllogism here? - Old and wrinkled people are uneducated and deeply superstitious. Here is an old and wrinkled person who may or may not be Ukrainian. Therefore, it is dangerous for Ukraine to have nuclear weapons. Out of respect for Mr. Safer's personal vulnerability, I will refrain from demonstrating the retargetability of this syllogism. But to be fair to Mr. Safer, he did not really say that the peasants were in possession of the nuclear weapons - what he actually said was that they were in possession of an anomaly. This is an unfamiliar concept, and I cannot get my mind around it - what does it mean to say that someone is in possession of an anomaly? Perhaps what it means in this case is simply this - that Mr. Safer sensed that even the uncritical 60 Minutes viewer at whom he was aiming his story wasn't going to believe that the Ukrainian peasants had gotten control of the nuclear weapons, and so the thing to do was to speak gobbledygook - to suggest that they did but without actually saying it. (14) Why leave Ukraine? Mr. Safer suggests that the explanation of Jewish emigration from Ukraine is anti-Semitism: "The [anti-Semitic] message is clear to Lvov's Jews. They're leaving as quickly as they can get exit permits." I can think of an alternative interpretation. It is that given the catastrophic and deteriorating economic situation in Ukraine, practically everybody in the country wants to leave, but it is disproportionately Jews who can afford to and who are allowed to. Anybody who is emigrating from Ukraine today is, in comparison to the average Ukrainian, both wealthy and influential. Iosef Zissels, co-president of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine as well as co-president of Va'ad (Confederation of Jewish Communities of the Former Soviet Union) has stated that: "Many Jews are emigrating from Ukraine, not because of anti-Semitism, but because of the unstable situation in Ukraine. They see instability in Ukraine, as well as in all the former republics of the Soviet Union, as lasting a long time" (Ukrainian Weekly, January 26, 1992). (15) Symon Petliura. Mr. Safer tells us that "Street names have been changed. There is now a Petliura Street. To Ukrainians, Symon Petliura was a great General, but to Jews, he's the man who slaughtered 60,000 Jews in 1919." But that is not what happened and it is irresponsible to broadcast such an accusation. Of course here as elsewhere, the 60 Minutes numbers may be somewhat inflated - Orest Subtelny gives us a more moderate range of 35,000 to 50,000 Jewish fatalities (Ukraine: A History, 1994, p. 363), though even the lower bound of 35,000 is still a horrendous number. The main point, though, is that in 1919, Ukraine was in a state of civil war. Two Russian armies - the Bolshevik Red Army and the anti-Bolshevik White army - were rampaging through the country, and both were killing Jews. The White Army, in particular, had an official policy of killing Jews, proceeded to do so in an organized and methodical manner, and can be credited with the majority of the victims: The Ukrainian pogroms differed from those of the Whites in two ways: in contrast to the premeditated, systematic undertakings of the Russians, they were spontaneous outbursts of demoralized and often drunken irregulars, and they were committed against the express orders of the high command. Unlike the White Russian generals such as Anton Denikin, the Ukrainian socialists, especially the Social Democratic party to which Petliura belonged, had a long tradition of friendly relations with Jewish political activists. Therefore, the Directory renewed Jewish personal-cultural autonomy, attracted prominent Jews such as Arnold Margolin and Solomon Goldelman into its government, appropriated large amounts of money for pogrom victims, and even negotiated with the famous Zionist leader Vladimir Zhabotinsky about the inclusion of Jewish police units into its army. But while Petliura's attitudes towards the Jews might have been well-intentioned, he was unable to control the otamany (the court-martial and subsequent execution of Semesenko and other partisan leaders did not improve the situation), and their dreadful deeds were associated with his government. And because many Jews considered themselves to be Russians, they found it easier to lay all the blame for the pogroms on Petliura and the Ukrainians rather than on Denikin and his Russian generals. (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 1994, pp. 363-364). The Jewish accusation against Petliura is that maybe he could have done more to prevent the pogroms. Well, maybe and maybe not. In any case, it is not fair for 60 Minutes to describe a man who implemented vigorous measures to protect Jewish interests and to stop the pogroms - but maybe could have done more - as "the man who slaughtered 60,000 Jews." Further insight into Symon Petliura's attitudes may be gleaned from the Petliura page on the Ukrainian Archive. (16) Blessing the SS. Mr. Safer informs us that "for this reunion [of Galicia Division veterans in Lviv recently], Cardinal Lubachivsky, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, gave his blessing, just as a predecessor did to the SS more than 50 years ago." The blessing of this predecessor was likely the blessing of Bishop Kotsylovskyi and was a blessing of the Galicia Division, which as we have seen above was not quite the same thing as the German SS. (17) The immaturity of blaming others. Mr. Safer tells us that "Western Ukraine also has a long, dark history of blaming its poverty, its troubles, on others." Of course, no evidence of any unusual tendency to blame others is provided - but then the sharing of hatred such as Mr. Safer's is not an evidentiary matter, but is rather the warm feeling you get when you pass along a stereotype and your partners in hatred accept the stereotype without asking for evidence. But we may ask Mr. Safer just what it was that he might have had in mind. Perhaps it was the Ukrainian Holocaust that Ukraine should accept as its own fault and stop blaming others for? Perhaps it was the devastation wrought during the Second World War that Ukraine should start accepting as its own fault? Or maybe it was the eight decades of Moscow's strangulation of Ukraine's economy that Ukraine has really no one to blame for but itself? Ukraine has so many such calamities to choose from that it is impossible to guess - perhaps Mr. Safer would be kind enough to simply tell us precisely which of them he thinks it is that Ukraine should be mature enough to accept responsibility for having brought upon itself. (18) Dividing Ukraine. 60 Minutes gave the impression that its story focussed solely on Western Ukraine, when in fact a portion of it came from Central Ukraine. Rabbi Bleich's full title, for example, is not "Chief Rabbi for the Ukraine," but rather "Rabbi of Kiev and Ukraine," (where Kiev is in central Ukraine) and although 60 Minutes gave the impression that he was interviewed in Lviv, he was in reality interviewed in Kiev. Similarly, while Mr. Safer was in the middle of interviewing representatives of the Ukrainian Catholic church in Lviv and was saying "The Cardinal's deputy, Monsignor Dacko, denies traditional anti-Semitism in the Ukraine....", the viewer was being shown St. Volodymyr's cathedral which unlike Monsignor Dacko was in Kiev and which unlike Monsignor Dacko is Orthodox rather than Catholic. I suppose that 60 Minutes committed itself to the scene-setting introduction "... and the West, where we go tonight ...", and then suppressed the Kiev origin of some of its material so as to give the story the appearance of having a consistent locale; and perhaps as well 60 Minutes wished to restrict its smearing to Western Ukrainians so as to promote divisions within the country. (19) Freedom from slavery is too much freedom (for Ukrainians, anyway). The title of the 60 Minutes broadcast, "The Ugly Face of Freedom" is puzzling. The freedom being referred to must be the freedom from Russian rule, and so the title suggests that Ukraine would be better off back within the Russian empire. But Morley Safer's suggestion is inappropriate for three reasons. First, anti-Semitism is strong in Russia and weak in Ukraine (Ukraine has no counterpart of either Pamyat or Zhirinovksy), and so it is unclear how falling back under Russian rule would assist Ukraine in avoiding anti-Semitism. Second, Ukraine's current problems are more rationally seen as being the result not of too much freedom, but of too little - specifically, Ukraine's problems are the result of continuing to be ruled by the old Communist nomenklatura that had originally been appointed from Moscow and that presently is robbing the country blind while obstructing economic reform. A weak economy, in turn, affects Ukrainian-Jewish relations by inviting scapegoating from each group against the other and by promoting Jewish emigration out of Ukraine. Thus, it is not too much freedom, but rather the absence of freedom from rule by Moscow's appointees that most stands in the way of good Ukrainian-Jewish relations. Third, it is surprising to hear an American objecting to freedom from slavery. Some 60 Minutes viewers will notice that Mr. Safer objects to it on behalf of other people and not on behalf of Americans. I expect that if anyone were to argue that American anti-Semitism or America's low quality of education or America's high crime rate is the result of America having broken away from England, Mr. Safer would not agree. I expect also that if England had been guilty of the horrific crimes against America that Russia has been guilty of against Ukraine, Mr. Safer would find the suggestion odious. In fact, Mr. Safer's suggestion is as odious to Ukrainians as would be the suggestion that Israel would be better off under German rule would be odious to Jews. No, Mr. Safer's suggestion is more odious - this because Berlin today is not ruled by former Nazis, whereas Moscow today is ruled by people who just a few years ago were ardent Communists and who today continue to be ardent imperialists. CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Is there any? Of course there is. Anti-Semitism is universal. Ukraine has some, just as does the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more anti-Semitism in Ukraine than elsewhere? 60 Minutes said so - as much as said that Ukraine leads the world in anti-Semitism - but failed to provide any evidence of this, and in fact does not seem to be aware of how to go about obtaining such evidence. The American Jewish Committee did a better job - it sponsored a survey in 1992 about attitudes toward Jews in the republics of the former Soviet Union, and its findings do not support 60 Minutes' allegations: Based on the total of anti-Jewish responses to items appearing in the questionnaire, the rank order of the states from most hostile to least hostile toward Jews in 1992 is as follows: Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Russia, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova and Estonia. (Ukrainian Weekly, June 21, 1992, p. 6) Worthy of note, too, is that between 1990 and 1992, attitudes toward Jews became more negative in all of the above republics, with the exception of Ukraine and Moldova, in which two republics the attitudes became more positive. The failure of Ukraine to rank high on anti-Jewish responses in this survey should have been noted by 60 Minutes, as should the improvement in attitudes from 1990 to 1992. Instead of applauding the reality of favorable Ukrainian attitudes toward Jews, and the reality that they are getting even better, 60 Minutes seemed bent on encouraging their deterioration. And, if 60 Minutes had wanted personal testimony concerning Ukrainian attitudes toward Jews to bolster the dry facts coming from the opinion poll, then it could have consulted any number of Ukrainian Jews who would have been happy to correct 60 Minutes' biases. The above-mentioned Iosep Zissels, for example, would have offered observations such as that "There was a time when the leaders of Pamiat [or "Pamyat" - the Russian anti-Semitic organization] would travel from Russia to recruit supporters in Ukraine. They didn't find any. We are well aware of this fact" (Ukrainian Weekly, January 26, 1992, p. 4) CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript Jewish Ukrainophobia Is there any? Of course there is. Jewish Ukrainophobia is universal. Ukraine has some, just as does the United States or Canada or Israel. But is there more Jewish Ukrainophobia in Ukraine than elsewhere? Don't ask 60 Minutes - to ask such a question is to violate rules of political correctness. One thing missing from the above discussion of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, then, is any mention of the reciprocal attitude of Jewish Ukrainophobia (or more generally of Jewish phobic responses toward Gentiles or peoples of any other creed). But perhaps we would be able to evaluate statistics on the rate of Ukrainian anti-Semitism more intelligently if we were able to put them side by side with statistics on Jewish Ukrainophobia. If Ukrainian anti-Semitism shows a declining trend over some interval, would this fact not be enriched by a comparison with the trend of Jewish Ukrainophobia over the same interval? In a discussion of Ukrainian-Jewish relations, how is it conceivable that the attitudes of Ukrainians toward Jews is deemed relevant and susceptible to quantification, but the attitudes of Jews toward Ukrainians is not? Here, as in several other instances above, we see a curious paralysis of the comparative function, a puzzling Ukrainian passivity in allowing the Jewish side to set the agenda for discussion and to limit its parameters. Ukrainian motes are put under the microscope and measured and analyzed, but Jewish beams are not. CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript Mailbag 60 Minutes' Mailbag comment on October 30, 1994 - the Sunday following the original The Ugly Face of Freedom broadcast - was inadequate. It failed to retract or correct any of the misinformation noted above. It failed to present the other side of the story. It continued to pour fuel on the fire. Of what possible relevance is it that - as 60 Minutes reports a letter as saying - a fraction of Ukrainians refuses to admit that they collaborated with the Nazis? Possibly, some minuscule fraction does irrationally refuse to admit this (60 Minutes offered no data, of course) - but so what? The same might be true of every other group. Possibly some minuscule fraction of Jews irrationally refuses to admit that Jews collaborated with the Nazis (I don't have any data either), and yet 60 Minutes does not seem to find the existence of this group noteworthy enough to broadcast. The following Sunday, November 6, 1994, 60 Minutes continued to focus on the Ukrainian reaction to the original broadcast, but without correction, without retraction, without apology. 60 Minutes is willing to go as far as admitting that Ukrainians are upset, but not as far as divulging that the cause of that upset is irresponsible and negligent reporting. As of November 21, 1997, 60 Minutes has not broadcast any correction or retraction or apology. CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript A Sense of Responsibility Jews have lived with no other peoples as intimately and for as long as they have with Ukrainians. In this shared history, there have been bright periods and dark episodes. It is possible to imagine a shared future in which the bright periods predominate and the dark episodes are banished. This is the future that Ukrainians and Jews should strive toward, this is the image that should guide them in their dialogues and that should have guided Mr. Safer in his broadcast. Perhaps it is already the attitude that inspires the majority of both Ukrainians and Jews. The Jewish claim to a share of the newly-created nation of Ukraine is as tenable as that of the ethnic Ukrainians and of the ethnic Russians and others who reside there. At present, all three of these groups are beginning to mine that claim in relative peace. Differences are being overlooked, cooperation is the norm, a bright future is possible. Into this scene burst immature and undiplomatic people like Morley Safer needing a sensational story, Simon Wiesenthal desperate to retain his relevance in the modern world by having it believed that 1941 is repeating itself, and Yaakov Bleich disoriented by having been plucked from the United States to fill this exotic role of rabbi of Ukraine - and these three show no grasp of the political situation, no comprehension of the complex world that they are simplifying into their stereotypes, no sympathy for impulses toward reconciliation that are manifest on all sides, certainly no sense of responsibility for nurturing these impulses. This gang of three has no stake in Ukraine - Mr. Safer leaves for home immediately after reading his lines into the camera, Mr. Wiesenthal lives in Vienna (where needing to get along with Germans but not Ukrainians, he expediently concludes that Germans weren't as bad as Ukrainians), and Yaakov Bleich - unhappy in his discovery that in slinging mud he has become muddied, every day more deeply convinced that he has been miscast in this role of rabbi of Ukraine - we may expect will shortly be catching a plane for home. What do any of them care if they are stirring up a hornet's nest in Ukraine? The Jews who are left behind in Ukraine, who have a stake in Ukraine, who need to get along - to these 60 Minutes does not give air time. It's the irresponsible ones with nothing to lose who are able to offer the more sensational testimonials. And not only does 60 Minutes' trio of provocateurs have nothing to lose from chaos erupting in Ukraine, they have this to gain - that if chaos does erupt, they will be able to play the role of prophets who foretold its coming, and they will do this quite overlooking that they helped it come. CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript What 60 Minutes Should Do (1) 60 Minutes owes its viewers a detailed correction, a retraction, an apology. The product was defective, it is dangerous, it must be recalled. Acknowledging that Ukrainians are upset or that they are protesting is not a correction, it is not a retraction, and it is not an apology. Directing attention to Ukrainian feelings is 60 Minutes' way of deflecting attention away from its own negligence. 60 Minutes has valiantly investigated and exposed hundreds of corrupt, or merely erring, people and institutions - the time has come to turn the focus inwards and to investigate and expose itself. Of course this can only be done objectively by an external investigator relying on his or her own independent staff. Inviting such an external investigator to do a 60 Minutes story is the right thing to do; it will be appreciated and admired; it will raise 60 Minutes' integrity from its currently lowered position to a new pinnacle. Damage control won't work. If 60 Minutes really wants respect, it should broadcast a story on itself and call it "The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes." As the misinformation that was planted in the original twelve-minute segment will take longer than twelve minutes to uproot, 60 Minutes should devote an entire nominal sixty minutes to its correction, retraction, and apology - only such a substantial allocation of time can begin to undo the damage. At the other extreme, a correction, retraction, and apology confined to Mailbag will be next to worthless. (2) 60 Minutes should upgrade its research library by acquiring at least the two-volume Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, the five-volume Encyclopaedia of Ukraine, Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: A History, and Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews. This seems a modest investment to plug a huge and dangerous gap in awareness. (3) But books are nothing if they are sitting on the shelves of biased researchers. Find out who contributed to the travesty of "The Ugly Face of Freedom" and get rid of them. And don't worry about their careers - with their special talents, they will be able to get good jobs with supermarket tabloids writing about sightings of Elvis Presley and UFO landings. (4) 60 Minutes should examine with a more skeptical eye materials concerning Ukrainians, and concerning Eastern Europeans generally, that come from biased sources. As a minimal step, 60 Minutes could adopt the rule of thumb that anyone who considers Eastern Europeans to be sub-human might better be assigned to some other topic. (5) 60 Minutes should not be afraid to consult sources capable of balancing a biased story. There are a large number of historians and other academics (some of whom are Ukrainian or East European, some of whom are Jewish, some of whom are both, some of whom are neither) that could have told 60 Minutes at a glance that "The Ugly Face of Freedom" was bunkum. (6) 60 Minutes should rethink its heavy-handed reliance on the gimmick of interviewing by ambush by means of which the side favored by 60 Minutes is apprised in advance of the nature of the interview, has a chance to organize his thoughts, and comes out looking good whereas the side ambushed is misled into believing that the interview will be supportive, but then is hit with questions that are hostile and for which he is unprepared. The ambushed interviewee is discomposed, flustered, fumbles in trying to collect his thoughts, the camera zooms in on his confusion, and he appears duplicitous. It may be a tried-and-true formula, but it doesn't fool every viewer and constitutes poor journalism in the case where the interviewee is innocent, where he would have granted the interview even if he hadn't been misled as to its intent, and where nothing more damning is extracted from him other than his consternation at having been betrayed. (7) In order to permit the viewer to verify the accuracy of a 60-Minutes translation, the original statement should remain audible and not be muted to the point of unintelligibility, and transcripts provided by 60 Minutes should include the original of any statements that had been broadcast in translation. (8) 60 Minutes should rely on professional translators with accredited competence in the original language who might be counted on to provide an undistorted translation. Particularly, 60 Minutes should expect that if it relies on a Russian who merely claims that he understands Ukrainian, it is inviting the sort of biased mistranslation that it did in fact get in its broadcast. (9) 60 Minutes should not tackle a complex, multi-faceted story unless it is willing to invest sufficient resources to get it right. In a typical 60 Minutes story - say the exposing of a single corrupt individual - the number of issues involved, and the amount of data that is relevant, is small, can be gathered with a modest research outlay, and can readily be contained within a 12-minute segment. "The Ugly Face of Freedom," in contrast, presented conclusions on a dozen topics any one of which would require the full resources of a single typical 60 Minutes story to present fairly - and so, little wonder that most of these conclusions turned out to be wrong. (10) 60 Minutes should heighten its awareness of the distinction between raw data and tenth-hand rumor. A hospital administrator examining a document and explaining how he knows that it is a forgery is raw data from which 60 Minutes might be justified in extracting some conclusion; that Symon Petliura slaughtered 60,000 Jews is a tenth-hand rumor which 60 Minutes is incompetent to evaluate and which might constitute disinformation placed by a special-interest group intent on hijacking a story and forcing it to travel in an unwanted direction. (11) 60 Minutes should ask Mr. Safer to resign. Mr. Safer's conduct was unprofessional, irresponsible, vituperative. Mr. Safer has demonstrated an inability to distinguish impartial reporting from rabid hatemongering and as a result has no place in mainstream journalism. He has lost his credibility. Mr. Safer, too, will be welcomed by the supermarket tabloids where he will find the heavy burden of logic and consistency considerably lightened, and the constraints of having to make his words correspond to the facts mercifully relaxed. (12) 60 Minutes should do a story on Simon Wiesenthal and assign it to a reporter and to researchers who have the courage to consider objectively such politically-incorrect but arguable conclusions as that Mr. Wiesenthal's stories are self-contradictory and fantastic, that his denunciations have sometimes proven to be irresponsible, and that he spent the war years as a Gestapo agent. CONTENTS: Preface The Galicia Division Quality of Translation Ukrainian Homogeneity Were Ukrainians Nazis? Simon Wiesenthal What Happened in Lviv? Nazi Propaganda Film Collective Guilt Paralysis of the Comparative Function 60 Minutes' Cheap Shots Ukrainian Anti-Semitism Jewish Ukrainophobia Mailbag A Sense of Responsibility What 60 Minutes Should Do PostScript PostScript A discussion relevant to the above critique concerns third-party attempts to incite Ukrainian-Jewish animosity and can be found within the Ukrainian Archive at Ukrainian Anti-Semitism: Genuine and Spontaneous or Only Apparent and Engineered? The relevance lies in the fact that The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes which you have just read above has been the target of a crude attempt at anti-Semitization, and at the discreditation of the author, myself, as is documented particularly at Lubomyr Prytulak: Enemies of Ukraine anti-Semitize The Ugly Face of 60 Minutes. HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 1441 hits since 23Mar99 Symon Petliura An Introduction Long after Symon Petlura had gone into exile and was living in Paris, armed resistance broke out again and again in his name in Ukraine. Indeed, even today his name is still regarded by the Ukrainian masses as the symbol of the fight for freedom. Symon Petliura: An Introduction Is Symon Petliura the man who "slaughtered 60,000 Jews"? Symon Petliura is relevant to the Ukrainian Archive primarily because he led the fight for Ukrainian independence at the beginning of the twentieth century, and secondarily because Morley Safer in his infamous 60 Minutes broadcast of 23Oct94, The Ugly Face of Freedom, summed him up this way: Street names have been changed. There is now a Petliura Street. To Ukrainians, Symon Petliura was a great General, but to Jews, he's the man who slaughtered 60,000 Jews in 1919. Or is Symon Petliura a fighter for Ukrainian independence? But as the documents in this PETLIURA section will begin to suggest, Safer's contemptuous dismissal is not quite accurate and does not quite tell the whole story. We can begin with a few short excerpts to provide background on Petliura from his entry in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine: Petliura, Symon [...] b 10 May 1879 in Poltava, d 25 May 1926 in Paris. Statesman and publicist; supreme commander of the UNR Army and president of the Directory of the Ukrainian National Republic. (T. Hunczak in Danylo Husar Struk (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 1993, Volume III, p. 856) After the signing of the UNR-Polish Treaty of Warsaw in April 1920, the UNR Army under Petliura's command and its Polish military ally mounted an offensive against the Bolshevik occupation in Ukraine. The joint forces took Kiev on 7 May 1920 but were forced to retreat in June. Thereafter Petliura continued the war against the Bolsheviks without Polish involvement. Poland and Soviet Russia concluded an armistice in October 1920, and in November the major UNR Army formations were forced to retreat across the Zbruch into Polish-held territory and to submit to internment. (T. Hunczak in Danylo Husar Struk (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 1993, Volume III, p. 856) In late 1923, faced with increased Soviet demands that Poland hand him over, he was forced to leave for Budapest. From there he went to Vienna and Geneva, and in late 1924 he settled in Paris. In Paris he founded the weekly Tryzub, and from there he oversaw the activities of the UNR government-in-exile until his assassination by a Bessarabian Jew claiming vengeance for Petliura's purported responsibility for the pogroms in Ukraine (see Schwartzbard Trial). He was buried in Montparnasse Cemetery. (T. Hunczak in Danylo Husar Struk (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 1993, Volume III, p. 856) The above reference to Petliura's assassin being motivated by Jewish vengeance can be taken in two ways: literally or as part of Kremlin-manufactured plot. Assassinated by a Jew? In the first case, if the assassination was indeed the work of a lone Jew longing for vengeance, then it might not be amiss to wonder whether there has ever been any great Jewish leader who has been assassinated by a Ukrainian for wrongs committed by Jews against Ukrainians, or for any other reason for that matter. If not, and I think not, then one might wonder also what the respective statistics might be for all cross-ethnic assassinations of leaders and officials of not only the highest rank, but of any rank as well, and to wonder finally whether any differences in such statistics might be attributable to a differential incitement to vengeance within Jewish and Ukrainian cultures. Or assassinated by the Kremlin? However, crediting Bessarabian watchmaker, Yiddish poet, and assassin Shalom Schwartzbard's claim that he murdered Petliura to satisfy a Jewish longing for vengeance is possibly to be taken in by Kremlin disinformation, as the following passage explains (where the spelling becomes "Schwarzbart"): According to Bolshevist misinformation, the Jews are to blame for the murder of Petlura. [...] The choice of the person who was to commit the murder has always served as the basis for the invention of lies and legends about the actual murder itself. They have always chosen persons to whom - in the event of their arrest - credible tales about motives other than the orders of the Kremlin, motives of a personal or political character, could be imputed, so as to conceal the fact from the court that the order to murder was issued by Moscow. In the case of Petlura, a Jew, Schwarzbart, was instructed by Moscow to carry out the murder. He received orders to give himself up of his own accord to the police as a Communist agent, in order to start a political trial in this way. Thus there was a two-fold purpose behind this murder: to murder Petlura who was a danger to the Bolsheviks, and to direct the political trial of this murder in such a way that the person of Petlura and the Ukrainian government which he represented, as well as the national liberation movement, which was a danger to Moscow, could be defamed from the political point of view. It was Schwarzbart's task during this trial to conceal the part played by the Russian GPU in this murder and to pose as a national avenger of the Jewish people for the brutal pogroms committed against them by various anarchist groups, who operated in Ukraine during the years of the revolution, that is from 1919 to 1921, and in the interests of Russia also fought against the Ukrainian state. The blame for the pogroms carried out by these groups was to be imputed to Petlura. By planning the trial in this way the Russians managed to gain a two-fold success. In the first place, they succeeded in winning over most of the Jews in the world for the defence of the Communist agent Schwarzbart and in arousing anti-Ukrainian feelings, which, incidentally, persisted a long time, amongst the Jews, and, secondly, as a result of the unjust verdict of the Paris court, the Russians and other enemies of an independent Ukraine were able to obtain "the objective judgement of an impartial court in an unprejudiced state," which could then be used in anti-Ukrainian propaganda. For years the Russians made use of this judgement in order to defame Petlura in the eyes of the world and to misrepresent the Ukrainian state government which he represented and the Ukrainian liberation movement as an anti-Semitic, destructive and not a constructive state movement, which would be capable of ensuring human democratic freedoms to the national minorities in Ukraine. The jury of the Paris court, who consisted for the most part of supporters of the popular front at that time and of socialist liberals, refused to believe the testimony of the numerous witnesses of various nationalities, which clearly proved that Petlura had neither had any share in the pogroms against the Jews, nor could be held in any way responsible for them. They ignored the actual facts of the murder, and by their acquittal of the murderer rendered Bolshevist Moscow an even greater service than it had expected. Thus Moscow scored two successes. But it did not score a third, for the Paris trial did not help Moscow to change the anti-Russian attitude of the Ukrainians into an anti-Semitic one or to conceal its responsibility for the murder of Petlura from the Ukrainians. (Anonymous, Murdered by Moscow: Petlura - Konovalets - Bandera, Ukrainian Publishers Limited, London, 1962, pp. 8-9) Three reflections arise from the Schwartzbard assassination: (1) Juror historians. One wonders whether the jurors in a criminal case are competent to arrive at a fair determination of historical truth, or whether they are more likely to bring with them personal convictions of historical truth which are likely to be unshaken by the evidence. (2) French justice. The acquittal of a self-confessed assassin might be an outcome peculiar to French justice. Other Western states might more typically require the conviction of a self-confessed assassin, and consult his motives only to assist in determining the severity of sentence. A comment which in part reflects on the French acquittal: It is a strange paradox that the once so sacred right of asylum, even for the spokesmen of hostile ideologies and political trends, nowadays does not even include the protection of the fundamental rights of life of the natural allies of the West in the fight against the common Russian Bolshevist world danger. (The Central Committee of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN), Munich, December 1961, in Anonymous, Murdered by Moscow: Petlura - Konovalets - Bandera, Ukrainian Publishers Limited, London, 1962, p. 65) (3) True-believer assassins. If an assassin is sent by the Kremlin, then is it necessary for the Kremlin to find one who is personally committed to the assassination? The answer is yes. This is because a Soviet assassin sent to Paris has some opportunity to defect and to seek political asylum. He might choose to do so to escape totalitarianism, to raise his standard of living, to avoid going through with the assassination, and in the Petliura case to avoid the punishment that was being anticipated from the French courts. On top of that, he must realize that once he has carried out the assassination, he becomes a potential witness against the Kremlin, and so might find the Kremlin rewarding him with a bullet to the back of his head for the success of his mission. Thus, it is essential for the Kremlin to ensure that the assassin be energized with a zealous committment to his mission. One way to achieve such committment is to hold his family hostage. Another way is to incite in him a thirst for revenge based on wrongs done to his people. Thus, even if the Kremlin did order the assassination of Petliura, and even if the Kremlin's selection of a Jew to perform the assassination was for the political reasons outlined in the quotation above, it may nevertheless be true that a Jewish thirst for revenge played a useful role, and that all the Kremlin had to do to inspire the requisite motivation was to propose the disinformation that Petliura was the appropriate target of that revenge. Pogromist or fighter for independence? The Encyclopedia of Ukraine entry ends with: [S]ince the mid-1920s he has personified, perhaps more than any other person, the struggle for Ukrainian independence. The personification seemingly also extends to the issue of the pogroms that took place in Ukraine during the revolutionary period of 1918-1920, and Petliura has frequently been invested with the responsibility for those acts. Petliura's own personal convictions render such responsibility highly unlikely, and all the documentary evidence indicates that he consistently made efforts to stem pogrom activity by UNR troops. The Russian and Soviet authorities also made Petliura a symbol of Ukrainian efforts at independence, although in their rendition he was a traitor to the Ukrainian people, and his followers (Petliurites) were unprincipled opportunists. (T. Hunczak in Danylo Husar Struk (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 1993, Volume III, p. 857) A continuing threat to the Kremlin. Petliura's leadership of the fight for Ukrainian independence did not end with his withdrawal from the field of battle: Long after Symon Petlura had gone into exile and was living in Paris, armed resistance broke out again and again in his name in Ukraine. Indeed, even today his name is still regarded by the Ukrainian masses as the symbol of the fight for freedom [...]. (Dr. Mykola Kovalevstky, in Anonymous, Murdered by Moscow: Petlura - Konovalets - Bandera, Ukrainian Publishers Limited, London, 1962, p. 28) However real the continuing resistance that was carried on in Petliura's name, the Russian and Soviet authorities - in order to justify Cheka executions - indiscriminately cited Petliura as the author of real and imagined anti-Soviet actions. For example, summarizing the year 1921 alone, historian Sergey Petrovich Melgunov relates: Particularly large was the number of Petlura "conspiracies" then discovered. In connection with them sixty-three persons (including a Colonel Evtikhiev) were shot in Odessa, batches of fourteen and sixty-six in Tiraspol, thirty-nine in Kiev (mostly members of the intelligentsia), and 215 in Kharkov - the victims in the latter case being Ukrainian hostages slaughtered in retaliation for the assassination of certain Soviet workers and others by rebels. And, similarly, the Izvestia of Zhitomir reported shootings of twenty-nine co-operative employees, school teachers and agriculturalists who could not possibly have had anything to do with any Petlura "conspiracy" in the world. (Sergey Petrovich Meglunov, The Red Terror in Russia, London, 1925, pp. 88-89) Thus, if the impression gleaned from the Shapoval volume is correct (to the effect that the control of the Cheka-GPU-NKVD lay overwhelmingly in the hands of Jews), then the situation might be summarized by saying that even while Jews were in reality pogromizing Ukrainians throughout Ukraine (as we saw in the Melgunov quotation immediately above), they were simultaneously pogromizing Ukrainian leaders in the diaspora, as by the assassinations of, among others, Symon Petliura (1926) in Paris by Cheka agent Schwartzbard employing a handgun, of Colonel Yevhen Konovalets (1938) in Rotterdam by GPU agent Valyukh employing a package bomb, of Lev Rebet (1957) as well as Stepan Bandera (1959) both in Munich and both by KGB agent Bohdan Stashynsky employing a poison pistol loaded with cyanide. This same Bohdan Stashynsky eventually defected to the West where he confessed to the two above assassinations, thereby demonstrating the reasonableness of the distrust that the Kremlin might feel toward its own assassins, as well as the reasonableness of the unease that the assassins might feel concerning being distrusted. Cause and effect. As is often the case with respect to historical events, the thread of cause and effect is difficult to untangle. When Petliura makes the following statement in his Army Order No. 131, he assumes that pogroms cause an opposition to Ukrainian independence: Our many enemies, external as well as internal, are already profiting by the pogroms; they are pointing their fingers at us and inciting against us saying that we are not worthy of an independent national existence and that we deserve to be again forcefully harnessed to the yoke of slavery. However, it is also plausible that causality proceeds in the opposite direction - that Jewish opposition to Ukrainian independence causes pogroms. Of course, the causal link can act in both directions simultaneously, with pogroms and opposition each fuelling the other in an escalating spiral. Who might start such a spiral and who might encourage it? Petliura views the pogroms not as spontaneous, but as incited by "adventurers" and "provocateurs." If he is right, then we may ask who might have sent these adventurers and provocateurs? Who might have been paying them to do their work? Perhaps the answer is those who might have preferred to absorb chunks of a dismembered Ukraine rather than coexisting with an independent Ukraine - most particularly, Russia and Poland. And perhaps those who wanted to increase emigration of Jews out of Ukraine - the Zionists. Russia, Poland, and Zionism benefitted from pogroms on Ukrainian territory. All who wanted to live peacefully in Ukraine - whether they were Ukrainians or Jews - suffered from the pogroms. To see the links to the documents in the Petliura section, please click on the PETLIURA link below. Borys Martos Government Proclamation 12Apr1919 The scum of humanity Above all the Government will not tolerate any pogroms against the Jewish population in the Ukraine, and will employ every available means for the purpose of combating these abject criminals, dangerous to the State, who are disgracing our nation in the eyes of all the civilized nations of the world. Borys Martos (1879-1977) was a Ukrainian political leader, co-operative organizer, and educator. From a Government Proclamation To the People of the Ukraine Riwne, April 12, 1919 To preserve the peace and to maintain public law and order - as the first condition of a free life for all citizens of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic - the Ukrainian Government will fight with all its power against violations of public order, will strike the brigands and pogrom instigators with the severest punishment and expose them publicly. Above all the Government will not tolerate any pogroms against the Jewish population in the Ukraine, and will employ every available means for the purpose of combating these abject criminals, dangerous to the State, who are disgracing our nation in the eyes of all the civilized nations of the world. The Government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic is certain that the Ukrainian people - who themselves have suffered national slavery through many years and are conscious of the worth of national freedom and therefore proclaimed before all things the national-personal autonomy of the minorities in the Ukraine - will support the Ukrainian Government in eliminating these evil-doers who are the scum of humanity. HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 625 hits since 23Mar99 Arnold Margolin The Jewish Chronicle 16May1919 Interview on Petliura The pogroms have been perpetrated by the people of the Black Hundred and by provocateurs for the purpose of discrediting the Ukrainian government. An Interview with Dr. Arnold Margolin in 1919 The Jewish Chronicle London May 16, 1919 Dr. Arnold Margolin, Head of the Ukrainian Diplomatic Mission in London, Chairman of the "Jewish Territorial Society" in the Ukraine, was born in Kiev (in 1877), attended Kiev University, and established himself in Kiev as an attorney. Since 1903 he had been noted as a counsel for the defense of the injured in pogrom excesses. Besides, he participated as a counsel for the defense in many agrarian and political court trials. For his revelations in the well-known Beilis case he was prosecuted by the Minister of Justice of that time, Shcheglovitov, with the result that the further practice of law was forbidden to him. He has taken part in the Ukrainian Movement for many years, and has occupied himself with social problems in the Ukraine. After the Revolution he was a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist-Federalist Party, and for a time he was Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the spring of 1919 he went to Paris as a member of the Ukrainian Peace Delegation. Since January 1920 he has been the head of the Ukrainian Diplomatic Mission in London. - What is the attitude of the Jews toward the new Ukrainian State? On the question of independence of the Ukraine the Jews were split into two camps. On the one side there were the assimilated Jews who having been brought up in the All-Russian political spirit took a stand hostile to the new Ukrainian State. On the other side there were the majority of the Jews - the nationalists, Zionists and the Jewish Socialist Parties - who declared their sympathy for Ukrainian endeavors. The Jews who were themselves an oppressed nation welcomed with sympathy the national struggle of the Ukrainians. The Jews were also split as to their attitude toward the socialist program of the new state. The left wing of the Bund and Poalej-Zion went hand-in-hand with the left Ukrainian parties that were for the exclusion of the bourgeoisie from the government. The majority of Jews were on the side of those Ukrainian parties that interceded for the West-European political system. But in spite of these differences, almost all Jewish parties and organizations recognized the right of the Ukrainian nation to its independence. What is the attitude of the Ukrainian government toward the Jews? In the Ukraine which together with Galicia has a population of 40 millions there live 3 1/2 million (8%) Jews. After the Revolution the ruling power in the Ukraine rested in a parliament in which all parties of the country, including Jewish, were represented. That parliament ("Tsentralna Rada") granted the Jews more freedom and rights than they had anywhere in Europe at any time. All national minorities, of course Jews too, were granted autonomy. It must be stressed also that the Central Council (the Parliament) set up a Supreme Court to which those lawyers were appointed as judges, who had had courage to take a stand against the Russian government during the Beilis trial. - Here Margolin narrated the fate of the Ukraine after the overthrow of the Tsentralna Rada and during the rule of Hetman Skoropadksy, and then continued: Hetman's rule lasted only eight months. [After its overthrow] the Petlura Government renewed the autonomy of national minorities and again appointed Jewish ministers, viz. Mr. Goldelman and myself. Jews belong also to the diplomatic missions which have been sent abroad by the Ukrainian government. The noted Jewish historian, Dr. Wischintzer, one of the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia, is the secretary of the Ukrainian legation in England. How does this government's attitude agree with the fact of anti-Jewish pogroms? There is a difference between pogroms which, unfortunately, have occurred now in the Ukraine, and pogroms in Russia during the tsarist regime. While the tsarist government had itself instigated and organized pogroms, the Ukrainian government is in no way responsible for them. In November 1918 I myself saw the proclamations of the government in the Ukrainian villages and cities which very vehemently condemned the pogroms and explained to the Ukrainian people that the Jews are Ukrainian fellow-citizens and brothers to whom full rights are due. When, however, demoralization had set in the units of the Ukrainian army, its worst elements began to plunder. Again the Ukrainian government rose vigorously against the pogroms, punishing with death the perpetrators of the pogroms and expressing its sorrow for the victims. To my regret, I must state that the latest pogroms which, as far as I know, took place during the months of February and March were exceedingly serious. They have been perpetrated by the people of the Black Hundred and by provocateurs for the purpose of discrediting the Ukrainian government. These occurences made a shocking impression upon me, and at the end of March I tendered the government my resignation. I recognized that fact that the government was blameless; I found it, however, hard to occupy an official post in a country in which my brothers were slaughtered. My resignation was not accepted and the government requested me to continue in my official duties, at least abroad. Now I am one of the four representatives of the Ukraine at the Peace Conference. There is no anti-Semitic tendency in the Ukrainian government. Margolin denies that Jews are playing an important role in the Bolshevist movement, as it is generally assumed. To be sure, there are also Jews among the Bolshevists, but among Jews in general the Bolshevists constitute merely an insignificant minority. The Jewish Zionist and other patriotic organizations received 70% of the votes at all elections. There were no Jews at all among the Russian sailors who played such an important part in the Bolshevist revolution. The fact that there are seemingly so many Jews among the Bolshevists, Margolin attributed to the circumstances that Jews distinguish themselves in all activity by their great energy, and hence the impression arises that there are many Jews in each political party. (The Jewish Chronicle, London, May 16, 1919, in F. Pigido (ed.), Material Concerning Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Years of the Revolution (1917-1921): Collection of Documents and Testimonies by Prominent Jewish Political Workers, The Ukrainian Information Bureau, Munich, 1956) HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 539 hits since 25Mar99 Symon Petliura Jewish delegation 18Jul1919 Provocation of reactionaries and imperialists The delegation asked for granting of an opportunity to Jewish intellectuals to work toward strengthening Ukrainian statehood, and for protection of the Jewish population against the excesses which have taken place as the result of provocation on the part of various Russian reactionaries and Polish imperialists who thus wish to discredit the whole Ukrainian cause in the eyes of Europe. Reception of a delegation of Jewish citizens by Petlura. On July 17 of this year the Commander-in-Chief Petlura received a delegation of Jewish citizens at the Office of the Directorate in Kamenets-Podolsk. The Delegation included: Dr. Meier Kleiderman, the representative of the Jewish community; Alterman, the representative of the Zionist organization; Gutman, the representative of the rabbis; Kreis, the representative of artisans; Bograd, the representative of the Poalej-Zion Party. Petlura addressed the Delegation with a short speech in which he declared that he himself as well as the government were always standing on the side of the Jewish people, and were waging war against those elements who incited the unenlightened masses to various excesses against Jews. The Commander-in-Chief invited the representatives of the Jewish people to a closer cooperation of both peoples for the good of the Ukrainian State, for, only with united forces would it be possible to look after the interests of both peoples, which had always been identical. The Jewish delegation assured the Supreme Commander that all strata of the Jewish people, hand-in-hand with the Ukrainian people, would defend the independent Ukraine, because only a Ukrainian democratic government could guarantee full rights to the Jews. The delegation asked for granting of an opportunity to Jewish intellectuals to work toward strengthening Ukrainian statehood, and for protection of the Jewish population against the excesses which have taken place as the result of provocation on the part of various Russian reactionaries and Polish imperialists who thus wish to discredit the whole Ukrainian cause in the eyes of Europe. Petlura pledged himself to apply the severest measures in suppressing the crimes of the anti-Jewish agitators, and asked the delegation in particular to exert their influence also upon the Jewish population behind the battlefront that they should support the Ukrainian Army in its struggle against the Bolshevists. (Trudowa Hromada, July 18, 1919.) HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 486 hits since 25Mar99 Symon Petliura Decree of Cabinet 18Aug1919 Enemies organize pogroms The Ukrainian and Jewish peoples both of whom work at the reconstruction of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic, find themselves in the face of the common enemies who are trying to sow discord and anarchy in order to destroy the Ukrainian Republic which they hate. Decree of the Cabinet Council of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic. August 18, 1919. (Record of the Proceedings No. 171) The Cabinet Council, after hearing the report of the Minister for Jewish Affairs, Mr. P.A. Krasny, on the situation as it appeared in connection with the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Ukraine - particularly in Kiev - and in connection with the reaction of public opinion abroad, resolve as follows: The Ukrainian and Jewish peoples both of whom work at the reconstruction of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic, find themselves in the face of the common enemies who are trying to sow discord and anarchy in order to destroy the Ukrainian Republic which they hate. For this purpose your enemies organize pogroms, spin provocative news about pogroms in the Ukraine so as to exploit them for their people - with the help of the Polish ruling classes, or of the Denikin reactionaries. In deliberately lying and provocative reports they are changing arbitrarily the places of the pogroms which are arranged in the Ukraine by the Bolsheviks and by the reactionary clique who are in close connection with Denikin's and Polish reactionary circles' secret plans. In mendacious publications and in public letters addressed to the leading representatives of European countries, all these happenings are charged to the account of the government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic, although its aim is to suppress vigorously all pogroms. In view of the fact that such provocations and aims of the Polish and Denikin reactionaries endanger the struggle for freedom of the Ukrainian Republic as well as the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Ukraine, the government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic have set themselves the most urgent task of doing away with all possibility of provocations, pogroms or other excesses, and of calling to account all persons hostile to the Ukrainian State, who are doing the treacherous pogrom work in the Ukraine. The Government has decided: 1. To make at once a proposal to the Commander-in-Chief, Petlura that he issue an order by which all commanders of the respective bodies of troops, from the lowest to the highest ones, would be called to account for negligence and tolerating pogrom excesses, and that they would be immediately arrested as traitors and handed over to a special court-martial which would impose upon them the severest penalty, including the death sentence. 2. To issue an order in the name of the Government and in the name of the Commander-in-Chief to the Ukrainian partisans on the other side of the battlefront that they also 1. should take a vigorous action against the instigators of pogroms, 2. fight against particular treacherous pogrom bands and annihilate them - always remembering that the army of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic does not tolerate pogroms on its victorious march and inflicts the severe punishment upon all the guilty ones. 3. To appoint immediately a special government commission with extensive powers of investigating pogroms and of combating them; the said commission to be composed of one representative from the following offices: The Commander-in-Chief, the Inspector General, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the Minister for Jewish Affairs. The Commission should proceed at once to the frontline to the area of liberated cities and other places of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic. The Commander-in-Chief should be advised to order an authorization with full powers to the Commission. 4. Through inspections, the bodies of troops and the commissioners of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic should be informed about the foreign provocative work of the enemies of the Ukrainian Republic, who exploit the pogrom excesses for their own purposes. 5. By means of a special report from the Prime Minister, to inform the Directorate of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic of this Decree, and to manifest the Government's firm determination and effort in the direction of removing completely any possibility of pogroms in the Ukraine. 6. To issue an appropriate proclamation of the government to the people. 7. The Minister for Press and Information should initiate an intensive campaign against pogrom arrangers; inform the foreign press and foreign public about the actual state of affairs, and protest against the outrageous slandering of the government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic. 8. The Minister of Justice should at once take steps that all those who are guilty of pogrom excesses, i.e. those who already have been arrested as well as those who may be arrested, should be handed over to a special court. 9. This Decree is to be made public. (Ukraina, August 21, 1919.) HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 552 hits since 23Mar99 Symon Petliura Army Order No. 131 26Aug1919 Do not stain those deeds It is time for you to understand that the peaceful Jewish population, their children and women the same as ourselves have been oppressed and deprived of national freedom. They can not be alienated from us, they have of old been always with us and they have shared with us their joys and sorrows. Army Order of the Supreme Command of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic, August 26, 1919. No. 131 Officers and Soldiers! It is time for you to realize that the Jews together with the majority of the Ukrainian population have recognized the evil of the Bolshevist-Communist invasion, and know already where the truth lies. The most important Jewish parties, such as: "Bund", "United Jewish Socialists", "Poalej-Zion" and "People's Party", have decidedly placed themselves on the side of the Ukrainian independent state and are working together hand-in-hand for its good. It is time for you to understand that the peaceful Jewish population, their children and women the same as ourselves have been oppressed and deprived of national freedom. They can not be alienated from us, they have of old been always with us and they have shared with us their joys and sorrows. The gallant army which brings brotherhood, equality, and freedom to all peoples of the Ukraine should not be lending an ear to various adventurers and provocateurs who long for human blood. Likewise, the Army should not be a party to bringing a hard lot on the Jews. Whoever is guilty of permitting such a heavy crime is a traitor and enemy of the country and must be thrust out of human society. Officers and soldiers! The whole world cannot but admire our heroic deeds in the struggle for freedom. Do not stain those deeds - not even accidentally - by disgraceful actions and do not bring down burning shame upon our state in the face of the whole world. Our many enemies, external as well as internal, are already profiting by the pogroms; they are pointing their fingers at us and inciting against us saying that we are not worthy of an independent national existence and that we deserve to be again forcefully harnessed to the yoke of slavery. I, your Commander-in-Chief, tell you that this very moment the question of to be or not to be for our independent existence is being decided before the International Tribunal. Officers and soldiers! The judgement on this question rests in your hands, so decide it by showing an armed fist against our enemies remembering always that a clean cause demands clean hands. Be sure that a severe and lawful punishment by a people's court will overtake all enemies of our country; but remember also that vengeance - often the result of want of careful consideration - is not the way of the Ukrainian Cossacks. I most positively order that all those who are instigating you to pogroms be thrust out of the army, and as traitors to the fatherland be handed over to the court. Let the court punish them according to their crimes by giving them the severest lawful penalty. The Government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic recognizing the harm done to the state by the pogroms has issued an appeal to the whole population of the Ukraine to withstand all attempts of the enemies who might arouse it to anti-Jewish pogroms. I command the whole army to obey this appeal and to provide for its widest dissemination among comrades-in-arms and among the population. This Army Order is to be read to all division, brigades, regiments, garrisons and squadrons of the Dnieper and Dniester armies, as well as the partisan detachments. The Commander-in-Chief: Petliura. The Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander: Junakiv. F. Pigido (ed.), Material Concerning Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Years of the Revolution (1917-1921): Collection of Documents and Testimonies by Prominent Jewish Political Workers, The Ukrainian Information Bureau, Munich, 1956. HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 504 hits since 25Mar99 Symon Petliura Appeal to Ukrainian Army 27Aug1919 To sow discord among us Let the death sentence overtake the perpetrators of pogroms and provocateurs. I demand the strictest discipline from you so that not even a hair of an innocent's head be touched. Appeal of the Commander-in-Chief, Petlura, to the Ukrainian Army. Soldiers of the Ukrainian Army! The Ukrainian Republican People's Army of the Dnieper and Dniester territories, now united into one army, is advancing victoriously, is crushing the enemy, gaining each day new territories of the Ukraine to liberate them from the Bolshevist brigands, bringing with them freedom to the Ukrainian people as well as the certainty of happy days of living in a peaceful and orderly state. The Bolshevist anarchy and maladministration, the horrible Red terror, the tyranny of the extraordinary inquiry commission [the Cheka] and of other criminals for whom there is nothing sacred in life - have sapped our people's strength to the utmost and have flooded our steppes with human tears and with streams of blood of the innocent. Amidst a peal of church bells, with bread and salt, with flowers and tears of joy the weary, oppressed and pillaged Ukrainian people are greeting you, their valiant warriors, as liberators from the yoke and from Bolshevist atrocities, as flesh of their flesh and blood of their blood. A might national enthusiasm has seized our people at your entry into villages and towns, and everywhere a festive reception is awaiting you - and all this has been brought about by you, officers and soldiers of the Ukrainian army! You are living now through glorious and never to be forgotten moments of your life, and together with you all peoples inhabiting the Ukrainian territory are experiencing the same enthusiasm. The holy crusade for the liberation of the oppressed, regardless of their nationality, for the rule of law and order under freedom and democracy and the independence of our republic - these are the ideals in this struggle. The union of all democratic forces of all nationalities in the Ukraine, standing for the independence of our Republic, and their participation in the reconstruction of the state will warrant our victory over our enemies, and will guarantee to us an independent life subject to no one. Our enemies, however, are not sleeping but only watching our every step in order to sow discord among us in one way or another, and thus to frustrate the immediate realization of our people's efforts. The Bolshevists themselves consider the Ukraine Moscow's inheritance - with the difference that formerly it was the heritage of black Moscow, now of a Red one. They see that the end of their rule in the Ukraine is already approaching because the Ukrainian people themselves have risen against them: but they do not give up yet their hope of subjugating the Ukrainian masses. By provocations for which they are spending enormous sums of money they want to divide us from within, hiring criminal elements who are inciting our soldiers to all sorts of outrages and pogroms against the innocent Jewish population; in this way they want to stamp our soldiers as pogrom-mongers, although these soldiers are bringing liberty to all peoples of the Ukraine. Our enemies intend thus to split the Ukrainian and Jewish laboring masses whose ways, in fact, have been bound together by three hundred years of Russian tsarist yoke. Our national army must bring equality, brotherhood and freedom to the Ukrainian as well as the Jewish citizens who are also supporting actively the government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic. All their parties, i.e.: Bund, Obyednantsi, Poalej-Zion and People's Party are standing on the principles of the independence of the Ukraine, and are participating in the reconstruction of the republic. I know myself how the representatives of the Jewish population have helped our army and supported our legal republican government. The enemies of our state, the Bolshevists, are shooting down not only the Ukrainian but also the Jewish people, depriving the others of the barest means of living. I have the highest esteem for the sacrifices made during this war upon the altar of the fatherland by the Jewish population. From the reports by the commanders of our brave divisions and corps as well from reports by State Inspectors I have already learned that the Jewish population brought help to our wounded and sick soldiers, in the hospitals which had been built hastily 3-5 kilometers behind the battlefronts. I have been touched deeply by tears of thankfulness in the eyes of our soldiers for the loving care and human aid given them by Jews, and I have noted with satisfaction how the soldiers of our army were standing guard at the shops and stores of Jews in order to protect them against plunderers. The restoration of a bridge at Starokonstantyniv - which had been destroyed by the Bolshevists - by the Jewish population in an exceedingly short time, as well as their help with foodstuffs and underwear testify also to the loyal conduct of Jews in relation to our army. I am convinced and I ardently hope that in the future such help on the part of Jews will occur ever more frequently and that they will continue to further the cause of peace in our country. The Minister for Jewish Affairs has by a series of measures already exercised some influence upon the Bolshevist circles of Jews so that many of them no longer support Bolshevism, since they consider it now to be their ruin. Together with you I call upon the Jewish citizens to go with us and to support wholeheartedly our army and our government; then we shall be able to affirm that the government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic and you, its army, will finish that great responsible work which you are now doing - destroying the power of the Bolshevists and building up our independent republic in which each nationality enjoys full rights and a peaceful life. Officers and soldiers of the Ukrainian Army! The Ukrainian-Jewish laboring masses see in you their liberation, and future generations will not forget your services rendered to them; history will with pride record on its pages your achievements in this struggle. Beware of provocations, and have no mercy on provocateurs or on those who execute pogroms, or incite the weakest among you to this action. Let the death sentence overtake the perpetrators of pogroms and provocateurs. I demand the strictest discipline from you so that not even a hair of an innocent's head be touched. Bear in mind that you are the elite sons of your great nation which wants to live its independent life and to be subjugated by no one, and therefore keep an unflinching watch on its interests as well as on the interests of all those who help you and are well-disposed to you and to the liberation of your people. Those who are guilty before the Ukrainian people and before the republic, no matter what their nationality, shall suffer the severest punishment according to law prevailing in the territory of the Ukrainian republic; to the innocent, however, you must bring liberation from the hated Bolshevist yoke. The Republic's and my own cordial thanks to and high esteem for your martial bravery, devotion, and self-sacrifice which your offer upon the altar of the fatherland, while liberating our Ukraine and the nationalities living there - including the Jews - from the Bolshevists. May God help us in the great and sacred cause of liberating the nations from the heavy yoke of the Bolshevists! August 27, 1919 Commander-in-Chief: Petlura. (Ukraina, September 2, 1919.) F. Pigido (ed.), Material Concerning Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Years of the Revolution (1917-1921): Collection of Documents and Testimonies by Prominent Jewish Political Workers, The Ukrainian Information Bureau, Munich, 1956, pp. 70-72. HOME DISINFORMATION PETLIURA 836 hits since 23Mar99 Arnold Margolin The Ukraine and the Policy of Entente 1921 Russian and Ukrainian pogroms compared If the beginning of the demoralization of the Ukrainian army was at its tail, by Denikin's army the poison of demoralization came from the head. EXTRACTS from the book by Arnold Margolin "The Ukraine and the policy of the Entente" (Memorandum by a Jew and a citizen). Publisher C. Efron. Berlin, 1921. Chapter XXIV. Pages 310-315. Pogroms of the period of the Directorate, and of Denikin's Army. - Parallels. - Nations and Governments. I have before me the report on pogroms, prepared by the Relief Committee for the Victims of Pogroms, at the Russian Red Cross in Kiev. It is stated in the report that there were no pogroms during the rule of the Central Council, or of Skoropadsky, or during the first two months of the Directorate's rule. Pogroms began after defeats that had been inflicted upon the troops of the Directorate by the Bolsheviks. The heavier the defeats and the farther Petlura's army was compelled to retreat, the more cruel was their vengeance upon the innocent Jewish population whom they identified with Communists. The slogan: "down with Jews and Communists," or "all Jews are Communists" were raised throughout the Ukraine and provoked pogroms everywhere. This explanation of the origin of pogroms is quite identical with the statement made in Temnytsky's and Vasylko's telegram of August 1, 1919. In the course of centuries the entire population of Russia had been listening to accusations by the government of Jews being responsible for all the evils in the world. The ignorant masses believed even the legends about the ritual murder of Christian children by Jews, while even the "specialists" in this subject were declaring that Jews kill only boys. Karab-Tchevsky tells us in the first part of his memoirs ("What My Eyes Saw") that his mother had already in his childhood read to him the New Testament, and when it came to the torturing of Jesus Christ, his nurse or housemaid would exclaim: "the hideous Jews, they surely killed Christ by torture!" (p. 23). The pogroms of the years 1880 in Kishinev and Homel, came as the result of false rumors and of promises of exemption from punishment for plundering during three days. This time, however, the participation of Jews in the Bolshevist movement was no more a rumor, but a fact which it was very easy to exaggerate. On the other side, the impunity for plundering lasted this time not only three days, but indefinitely on account of the absence of any authority that could stop the plundering. For, what authority could exist during the panic of retreat before Trotsky's army? ... Under such conditions a favorable atmosphere was created for the rapacious instincts of the demoralized segments of the army, as w