Страница 218 из 340
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 ma
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