"Ukrainian-American Citadel": from the pages of UNA history (Chapter 5) (08/15/04)

"Ukrainian-American Citadel": from the pages of UNA history

Following is part of a series of excerpts from "Ukrainian-American Citadel: The First 100 Years of the Ukrainian National Association" by Dr. Myron B. Kuropas, published in 1996 by East European Monographs of Boulder, Colo. The excerpts are reprinted with the permission of the author. (The book is available from the author for $25, plus $2.50 shipping, by writing to: Dr. Myron B. Kuropas, 107 Ilehamwood Drive, DeKalb, IL 60115.)

Chapter 5

Establishing a national UNA ideology

The collapse of the Russian empire and the establishment of [Central] Rada rule in Ukraine in 1917 electrified the community and inaugurated a new series of debates regarding the future political alignment of Ukraine. In an April editorial titled "The Russian Revolution and the Ukrainian Question," Svoboda reflected on initial Rada support for federation with Russia: "We don't dare deny our people, in their evolutionary development, the establishment of their own nation either in a union with the Russians or in their own independent manner. ... When the existence of a nation is possible for Poles, Lithuanians, Finns, and even ... Armenians ... then we believe it is absolutely natural that a Ukrainian nation be created on Ukrainian ethnographic territory on the basis of certain basic human rights and laws." ...

"We should not be divided by party differences," Svoboda editorialized on May 10. "We shouldn't dare be bigger socialists, bourgeois, Catholics or Orthodox than we are Ukrainians. On the contrary, first we should be Ukrainians ... we must all begin the national work" and "become extreme nationalists."

In an article titled "Must We Wait Much Longer?" Svoboda expressed dismay with the apparent lack of nationalist zeal exhibited by the Rada. "The national indifference of Russian Ukrainians has reached the point that at a time when all kinds of peoples are exercising their independence and autonomy, Russian Ukrainians are still not coming out as Ukrainians but as Russian progressives ... For them the Ukrainian national situation is in last place."

Later, however, Svoboda again reviewed Ukraine's tragic past and, reflecting on its own earlier advocacy of total independence, published an editorial titled "Khmelnytsky or Mazepa?":

"To argue now in favor of independence is very nice, in words, but we must be aware of the present situation in Ukraine, the present strength and the present maneuvering of her nearest neighbors. We are not saying Ukrainians should not have national aspirations. God forbid! We would love to have an independent Ukraine today but looking at things realistically, we are afraid that the struggle might have an unfortunate ending ... we believe we should seek an autonomous Ukraine united with Russia on the basis of an equal with an equal. ... That means we believe Khmelnytsky's plan to be a better plan than that of Mazepa. ... Selecting union with Russia as the most realistic plan for the formation of our national life in keeping with Khmelnytsky's ideal does not mean, however, that we are rejecting the future realization of the Mazepa ideal."

"Russian Ukrainians Striving for Ukrainian Republic United with Russia on Federated Basis" read the headline for the lead article that same day. "Russia must be transformed into a series of republics united by common interests and a common spirit," the story declared. "All must be equal, not centralized control but decentralized." On June 26 Svoboda reported that the UNA and Svoboda sent the following telegram to the Ukrainian congress in Kyiv: "Sincere greetings to all participants at the Ukrainian Congress in Kyiv! Hold high the flag of a free Ukraine which is dear to all of us regardless of borders and oceans which have divided the sons of our large Ukrainian family. Go forward bravely and a free, united Ukraine will come to be." Svoboda monitored events in Ukraine very closely in the days that followed and used big, bold headlines to call attention to what was happening. "Huge manifestation in Kyiv," read the headline on May 22. "Ukrainian soldiers delegation demand autonomous Ukraine" declared Svoboda two days later.

As soon as it became apparent that a federation with Russia meant Russian domination, Svoboda changed its posture.

"Until very recently, the ideal prevailed among Ukrainian revolutionaries ... of a federated, cooperative life between Ukraine and Moscow on the basis of a partnership between equals; when, however, Moscow is demonstrating its desire to continue to rule and to direct all Russian peoples, including Ukrainians, then for the Ukrainians there is only one road and that is the mobilization of all of their strength towards freeing themselves from the hands of the Muscovite occupants and the establishment of their own nation."

As the Kerensky government began to disintegrate, Svoboda kept its readers informed with headlines such as: "New Crisis in Russian Cabinet" (August 7); "New Cabinet in Russia Ratified; Non-Socialists Have Majority" (August 9); "Russia Bordering on Ruin Once Again" (August 25); "Situation in Ukraine Creates New Crisis in Russian Cabinet" (September 11); "Ukraine on Side of Kerensky" (September 15); "40 Different Nationalities Take Part in Kyiv Congress" (September 29).

On November 20, Svoboda greeted the third Rada universal proclaiming the establishment of an autonomous Ukrainian republic with bold headlines: "Independent Ukraine: Bolshevik Leadership Proclaims Right of Self-Determination of Russia's Peoples - Kerensky Flees." Admitting that Ukraine's move toward greater independence came as a surprise, Svoboda, like the Rada, still believed an alliance with Russia was possible. "We must believe that the national declaration of independence of the peoples is only the first programmatic step taken at the congress in Kyiv," Svoboda declared the same day. "The next item on the agenda must be the creation of a democratic federation of free peoples for the purpose of peaceful coexistence and a common defense."

Svoboda initially welcomed the forced Bolshevik takeover of the Russian government. Federal union was still possible, Svoboda editorialized, if the Russians would accept "separation for all non-Muscovite peoples from the Muscovite nation." When Bolshevik words turned to Bolshevik domination, Svoboda changed its mind again. By December 13, Svoboda was blasting Lenin and Trotsky for calling the Rada bourgeois. "It is true that the Rada is not wholly socialistic because it includes representatives of other organizations ... and that is because the Rada is a representative body for all Ukraine. ... But to tell the truth, Bolsheviks would not be happy even if the Rada were socialist. They would be satisfied only if the Rada were Bolshevik. ... Ukraine does not need one party to run things."

By January 1918, Svoboda was even more wary of the Bolsheviks. "The Ukrainian Rada in Kyiv is having troubles not only with Russian Bolsheviks but also with Ukrainian Bolsheviks, or rather, the 'homegrown' variety," Svoboda wrote. "Why should there be a Russian Social Democratic Party in Ukraine as well as a Ukrainian Social Democratic Party as an affiliate?"

Responding to the Rada's January 22 declaration of independence (by a vote of 508 to 4), Svoboda editorialized:

"This change in posture did not come about as the result of the Rada's own initiative. This change was precipitated by Muscovy's traditional approach to Ukraine.

"Ukraine has had enough of Muscovite brotherhood. Ukraine was once united with tsarist Muscovy as a free and autonomous nation. Muscovy trampled this freedom and subjected the Ukrainian people to a yoke of oppression. ...

"Ukrainians fought alongside Muscovites to rid themselves of tsarist oppression. They toppled the tsar and his bureaucracy; it appeared as if the two brotherly peoples could now enjoy their freedom and independently decide their destinies.

"But no. The regime of Prince Lvov 'permitted' Ukrainian students to learn in their own language and there the matter ended. ... The socialist Kerensky came into power but he too hesitated in permitting full autonomy to Ukraine. ... The Bolsheviks took over. In principle, they not only recognize Ukraine's right to autonomy but to independence as well; in practice, however, they support the Muscovite-Bolshevik front in Ukraine ... with rifles and cannons.

"To all these provocations of the new Muscovy, from Lvov to Lenin, the Rada - only now, in unequivocal terms - has answered with the proclamation of an independent Ukrainian republic."

"The struggle of the Ukrainian National Rada against the Bolsheviks," explained Svoboda, "is the struggle of federalism against centralism. It is the struggle of the Drahomaniv ideal against those of Lenin. ... Every neutral person must admit that within Lenin's program there is hidden a streak of Russophilism."

The Ukrainian Alliance of America, meanwhile, established a Ukrainian information bureau in the Capitol office suite of Rep. [James A.] Hamill and intensified its efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy. By that time, however, the Poles had already gained the upper hand within the White House. When President [Woodrow] Wilson promulgated his famed "Fourteen Points" on January 8, 1918, calling for, among other things, national self-determination in Europe and a redrawing of European boundaries along national lines, the 13th point dealt specifically with Poland. It declared that "an independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by an indisputably Polish population, which should be assured free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity would be guaranteed by covenant." The alliance responded to Wilson's Fourteen Points with the following telegram to the president:

"We greet your message on the peace program with heartfelt appreciation [and believe it is] a means of opening the way for a free world in modern times. ... In particular we appreciate your declaration that the new Polish kingdom should embrace only those lands which are indisputably inhabited by Poles. This signals support for the cause of the Ukrainian people which are now struggling against attempts ... to subject the Ukrainian provinces of East Galicia, northwestern Bukovyna, and Kholm, inhabited by over 5 million Ukrainians, to the new Polish kingdom, ruled by Polish nobility."

Initially, the Ukrainian American community believed that Wilson's support for national self-determination included Ukraine's aspirations. Their optimism was short-lived.

In his reflections on Ukrainian American involvement during this period, Father [Peter] Poniatyshyn related how, with the assistance of Rep. Hamill, the UNA and other alliance executives met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, East European specialists in the State Department, and even Secretary of State Robert Lansing. The response was always the same: it was in the best interests of the United States to have Ukraine remain an integral part of Russia.

| Home Page |