LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (03/12/00)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

ODVU leader responds to column

Dear Editor:

The February 6 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly, published the second in a series of provocations by the former chairman of the Young Ukrainian Nationalists (MUN) and the former vice-chairman (1970-1972) of the Organization for the Rebirth of Ukraine (ODVU), Myron Kuropas, son of one of the pioneering founders of ODVU, against the chairman of the provid (leadership) of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and former president of the Ukrainian National Republic, Mykola Plawiuk.

The membership of ODVU in the United States and of the Ukrainian National Federation (UNO) in Canada are surprised and astonished that the English-language organ of the Ukrainian National Association, whose members include Ukrainians of various political ideologies and thoughts, would include such a provocative article.

In his column titled "OUN from Konovalets to Plawiuk," in addition to the indignant attack on Mr. Plawiuk, Dr. Kuropas demonstrates a true lack of knowledge of the history of the OUN. Dr. Kuropas equates the ideological programmatic positions of the OUN with the ideas of Dmytro Dontsov and the "fashionable radical movements in Europe," when, in fact, the ideologues of the OUN were Yulian Vassian, Mykola Stsiborsky, Dmytro Andrievsky, Osip Boidunyk, et al., who equated the ideological political positions of the OUN with the ethos, or spiritual and historical foundations of the Ukrainian nation, and who never recognized or avowed the principles of "He who is not with us is against us" or that "terror is the modus operandi."

Alluding to the historical establishment of the OUN during its founding congress in Vienna in 1929, and to the journeys of Col. Yevhen Konovalets to the United States and Canada with the aim of creating a "far-reaching network" of moral and material support for the actions of the OUN in various countries, Dr. Kuropas alleges that they occurred in 1930, when in fact these trips took place in 1929, four months after the Vienna Congress of OUN. The aim of these trips was the creation and preparation of the organizational structure of a nationalist movement in these countries.

The columnist further incorrectly relates the course of events that led to the OUN split. He writes that after the assassination of Col. Konovalets in 1938, his very close associate, Col. Andrii Melnyk, became his successor during a special congress in Rome, which the author alludes was held in 1939. Furthermore, ignoring certain events in Poland, the columnist writes that a younger and more militant group within the OUN, under the leadership of Stepan Bandera, gathered in Krakow and founded a second OUN. And, he writes, that a struggle for control of the nationalist movement between the Melnykites and Banderites then ensued.

In fact, it was during this very time, immediately after the assasination of Col. Konovalets, that Col. Melnyk became chairman of the provid of the OUN, known by the acronym PUN (Provid Ukrainskikh Nationalistiv). Roman Shukhevych, later to become the legendary leader of UPA, delivered to Col. Melnyk a petition or request from PUN that he, Col. Melnyk, assume the responsibilities of the PUN chairman, and then in August 1941 Col. Melnyk was elected and affirmed as chairman during the second Supreme Convention of Ukrainian Nationalists (VZUN) in Rome, which was attended by delegates from ODVU and UNO.

It was not until 1940, not 1939 as the columnist implies, that despite the many efforts, pleadings and steps taken by Col. Melnyk to preserve unity within the ranks of the OUN that the split occurred. Dr. Kuropas summarizes these facts as follows: "in Poland, meanwhile, a younger more militant group of OUN established a second OUN led by Stepan Bandera." Dr. Kuropas does not provide or mention the actual names of this group that split off from OUN. At the time the group called itself OUN-SD (Samostini Derzhavnyky), again later changed its name to OUN-R (Revolutionary). The name has now been changed again by Slava Stesko to KUN - Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. The terms OUN-M and OUN-B were never official, but were commonly used terms.

Dr. Kuropas further incorrectly presents the facts regarding the successors to Col. Melnyk, who died in 1964. The successor to Col. Melnyk was the tireless researcher of the processes and changes taking place in the USSR and Ukraine, Oleh Shtul Zhdanovych, who died November 4, 1977, and not 1978 as stated by Dr. Kuropas. Dr. Kuropas completely omits the fact that upon the death of Shtul Zhdanovych Denys Kwitkowsky assumed the chairmanship of PUN until his death on March 15, 1979. It was only then, upon the death of Mr. Kwitkowsky, that Mr. Plawiuk assumed the position of chairman, which was again reaffirmed during 10th VZUN.

Let's return to the events following World War II and the arrival of the military groups within OUN, which created the so-called networks and influences within UNO in Canada. It is precisely at this point that the attacks begin on Mr. Plawiuk, who, having become the chairman of the provid of OUN, began instituting his own order. Dr. Kuropas writes: "Venerable UNO leaders such as Wolodymyr Kossar and Paul Yuzyk (later senator) were eased out of the organization." In truth, both of these venerable and respected UNO activists had their own ideas and concepts regarding the new "immigrants," and they of their own accord withdrew from any active participation in UNO. Mr. Kossar was replaced by Vasyl Hultaj, not by Mr. Plawiuk, a fact misrepresented by Dr. Kuropas.

With the rise of the Ukrainian republic and free government, the chairman of PUN and former president of the UNR-in-exile pursued the requisite resolutions. The last VZUN taking place in the diaspora decided to relocate the headquarters of PUN to Kyiv, and the last session of the governing body of UNR decided to transfer the powers of UNR-in-exile to the government of Ukraine in Kyiv. From then on, and under new accords, began the most demanding and responsible efforts of the PUN chairman.

Having transferred the power of the UNR-in-exile during a special session of the Ukrainian Parliament in Kyiv, the leadership of the OUN began the task of expanding the work and activities of the organization in Ukraine; establishing branches of the OUN in every oblast; initiating the preparation and printing of The Ukrainian Word, the press organ of the OUN; creating and establishing a women's organization named after Olena Teliha; founding youth organizations like Smoloskyp and student organizations like Zarevo. These great efforts and hard work have resulted in making the OUN a viable factor and important participant in the rebirth and re-establishment of spiritual and nationalist life in Ukraine.

Highlighting the aspirations of KUN in Ukraine and of Mrs. Stetsko in the Parliament together with their known goals, Dr. Kuropas sarcastically emphasizes that Mr. Plawiuk "remains a penumbra." However, Dr. Kuropas need not be concerned because the positions of the OUN are represented at the forum of the Parliament by adherents and sympathizers. The appropriate and suitable efforts of the OUN headed by Mr. Plawiuk continues to provide the proper course of action to consolidation and unification of the nationalist movement, signs of which include the fact that the OUN was joined by Yurii Shukhevych, the son of UPA Commander Taras Chuprynka, the groups of UVO named after Mr. Konovalets, and other groups of the OUN in Ukraine as associate members of the OUN.

Several representatives of the younger generation have traveled to, or rather have returned, to Ukraine - for example the former members of MUN, including their former leader Dr. Kuropas who ascribe defamatory or libelous remarks towards Mr. Plawiuk. By writing these types of defamatory commentaries and by attempting to diminish the authority and position of the chairman of PUN and the former president of the UNR-in-exile, who is working very diligently and under very difficult circumstances and environs for the rebirth and renewal of our homeland, Dr. Kuropas has earned condemnation.

We firmly believe and sincerely hope that the editorial board of The Ukrainian Weekly will find much better use for the precious limited printed word in its newspaper than irresponsible defamatory attacks upon Ukrainian leaders, who continue to work in difficult situations for the betterment and rebirth of the spiritual life and nationalist revival in Ukraine.

Alexander Prociuk
Philadelphia

The letter writer is president of the Central Committee of the Organization for the Rebirth of Ukraine (ODVU).

About the OUN-M and the OUN-B

Dear Editor:

Dr. Myron Kuropas in the article "OUN from Konovalets to Plawiuk" (February 6) discusses some of the history of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and effects of this organization on the Organization for the Rebirth of Ukraine (ODVU) in the United States of America and the Ukrainian National Federation (UNO) in Canada. At this time, when Banderites (OUN-B), Melnykites (OUN-M), and some other factions of the OUN claim to have a democratic nature, Dr. Kuropas' description of the OUN as an integral nationalistic and authoritarian organization deserves praise and recognition by Ukrainian democrats.

His description of this Galician organization that terrorized Poles and Ukrainians who did not agree with their dogmas and aims is similar to that given by outstanding historian Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (Vol. 3, pages 552-555). In his discussion of integral nationalism Dr. Lysiak-Rudnytsky states that "Ukrainian integral nationalism resembled a totalitarian movement. The all-encompassing character of the movement was reflected in the complete and unqualified submission of its followers to nationalist ideology and organizational discipline ... Nationalists also sought to extend their influence over the Ukrainian institutions and organizations outside the USSR - in effect, to bring all community activity under the control of their movement. They were ill disposed to other political parties, camps and centers, and their occasional co-operation or agreements with them were commonly tactical in nature."

Since it is in the nature of the OUN movement to take over or to control, by various manipulations, other Ukrainian organizations, Dr. Kuropas should not be surprised that more aggressive nationalists of OUN-M took control of less aggressive nationalists of the ODVU and UNO organizations. Therefore, blaming Mykola Plawiuk for taking over control of the UNO in Canada and making organizational and personnel changes in this organization seems to be unjustified. The well-known leaders of the UNO such as Wolodymyr Kossar, Paul Yuzyk, M. Pohoredsky, W. Topolnycky and others did not publicly object to the undesired changes in UNO and continued to be loyal and supporting members of this organization. Actually, as I have observed, UNO leaders were happy, in fact, to get "new blood" into their organization with nationalistically minded immigrants from Europe. I think that the reason for domination of UNO by newly-arrived members of the OUN should be attributed to the passivity and unjustified expectations of the UNO leaders who dreamed about a unified organization of Ukrainian nationalists.

I can understand Dr. Kuropas' disappointment about the failures of OUN-M to live up to his expectations but I cannot agree with his assessment of the comparative achievements of OUN-M and OUN-B. In particular, Dr. Kuropas lists and praises the achievements of the OUN-B and especially one of its leaders Slava Stetsko, but criticizes OUN-M for inactivity and weakness. He writes "While the OUN-M is barely breathing in North America, the OUN-B has captured the leadership of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and the Ukrainian World Congress. Like them or not, the OUN-B leadership has earned our respect."

It is difficult to understand how a knowledgeable politician and historical writer of the stature of Dr. Kuropas could call on the Ukrainian community to respect OUN-B, an extremely nationalistic organization that since its split from OUN-M has caused the continuous chaos in Ukrainian political life. It did not participate in the organized structures of the Ukrainian community unless cooperation promoted the aims of OUN-B.

OUN-B, for example, did not participate in the formation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) but took it over by force after Taras Borovets and OUN-M formed the first UPA units in the spring of 1942 (Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Vol. 5, page 392). OUN-B persistently tried to destroy the Ukrainian National Council, a parliamentary organization of all Ukrainian parties and organizations that united in support of the renewal of a democratic Ukrainian state and support for the government-in-exile of the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR). This government existed from 1948 to 1992 after which Mr. Plawiuk, the last president of UNR, transferred the mandate and insignia of the once-independent Ukrainian state to President Leonid Kravchuk of the newly elected government of a democratic Ukraine. I can only praise and approve of the constructive role Mr. Plawiuk and OUN-M played in the formation and activity of the Ukrainian National Council.

About 30 years ago OUN-B deceitfully took over the control of Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and by this action they split Ukrainian organizations in the United States into democratic and OUN-B controlled groups. Continuous negotiation between representatives of these groups did not lead to the agreement and formation of one representative body in the United States because OUN-B is incapable of cooperating and compromising for the common good of the Ukrainian community. Contrary to these shameful activities of extreme nationalists, OUN-M by working with other parties of the diaspora, demonstrated that it abandoned the previous tenets of nationalistic exclusivity and could be a helpful force in the building of the Ukrainian state and our life in the American diaspora.

No, I cannot respect the achievements of OUN-B, because they were obtained by terrorism or devious means. I am also happy to learn from Dr. Kuropas' article that there are young Canadians that want to rejuvenate the UNO and revitalize the principles on which this organization was built by their fathers. I wish them good luck.

Ivan Kochan, Ph.D.
Grass Valley, Calif.

FDR bashing and the truth

Dear Editor:

I would like to reply to Leo Iwaskiw's letter, "FDR Gave Stalin Half of Europe" (February 20). My comment is that repeating the same thing many times does not make it true.

As if to prove his contention, Mr. Iwaskiw points to a plethora of evidence about Soviet agents in Franklin Roosevelt's administration. But no connection was shown between these agents and the subject matter - the supposed "give-away" of Europe.

Also, you will not find any such showing in the old and in "the recently published" sources. None of the rehash is actionable upon careful scrutiny.

However, it is indisputable that at no time during World War II did the Allies have physical control of Eastern Europe. Franklin D. Roosevelt could not possibly give away something that he did not have, much less in the face of de facto Soviet power to seize it.

As for agents and spies, there was a harvest of them on all sides. For instance, Soviet agents were placed at the heart of the German Supreme Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) as well as at the Army High Command (Oberkommando der Heere). Less is known about American spies.

In other writings, armchair strategists theorized that FDR could have cut a deal with Germany to pre-empt a Soviet advance. But FDR, of course, was quite aware of Stalin's own prowess at double-dealing, and would not put at risk the Anglo-American forces in France and Italy by inadvertently bringing on a re-run of the 1939 Soviet-German pact. FDR's lack of enthusiasm for wading onto slippery turf has been cited by some as equivalent to a sellout of Eastern Europe. Others loved it as a figure of speech for demagoguery.

Despite the life-threatening heart disease from which he suffered in the last year of his life, FDR was not the enfeebled dreamer pictured by his detractors. He had the right sense to press for the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. Any American president, Democrat or Republican, almost certainly would have made the same decision.

The root cause of FDR bashing by right-wing crusaders has little to do with his foreign policy. It is seeded entirely in the myopia toward his New Deal legacy. This ire has also been the prime stimulant used to muddy the waters and exploit the sentiments and the vote of folks of East European background.

Boris Danik
North Caldwell, N.J.

Thanks to Weekly for its fine work

Dear Editor:

Thomson newspapers, a chain of 50 U.S. newspapers and five Canadian dailies was recently put up for sale. The company feels the newspapers are no longer profitable, the emphasis will be put on the electronic media.

The Hearst corporation's flagship, the 112-year-old San Francisco Examiner is likely to close. On the block since August, no one has an interest in buying it.

These days, when stories like the above appear in the news it is quite common to blame the electronic media for the demise of newspapers. I believe quite the contrary: it is poor journalism and the editorializing of the news in the print media that is fueling the growth of the electronic media. In the electronic media, especially on the Internet, people can scan many sources quickly, hoping to find the truth. Once the "large press" became more interested in social commentary than in performing the nearly sacred tasks of the fourth estate, they doomed themselves.

Thankfully, you folks at The Weekly have continued to produce an excellent newspaper. Your newsbriefs are excellent, factual and to the point. Roman Woronowycz's reports from Kyiv are also excellent and I find them in good agreement with other sources I follow. Those of you who work at The Ukrainian Weekly in the United States are also doing a great job.

My special appreciation also goes to Myron Kuropas. He has the courage to tackle very difficult issues. Dr. Kuropas, I know you take a lot of guff over some of your columns, but please keep up the good work. We need the information you possess to help us make decisions. You may be called names, but your facts are irrefutable.

I have been reading The Ukrainian Weekly cover to cover now for six years - every week except those happy weeks when I am in Ukraine.

The printed word is not out of style, nor will it be in the near future. You are the glue that holds together the Ukrainian community in America. The community is spread over such vast distances that the Churches and fraternal organizations could not bind it together. It takes The Weekly and the Ukrainian language Svoboda to do that. Many of us will not turn to the electronic media. Please keep up the good work continue to keep us focused on Ukraine, and moving forward with that feeling of unity and that we are one community.

Thanks again to all of you at The Weekly for the fine job you have done for so many years.

Walter Wess
Manahawkin, N.J.

More on French philatelic society

Dear Editor:

In his January 2 profile of the Ukrainian Philatelic and Numismatic Society and its various chapters, Ingert Kuzych makes reference to a new UPNS chapter in Paris.

We wish to inform your readers that the newly organized French society for the study and research of Ukrainian postal history, the Société Franco-Ukrainienne de Philatelie (SFUP) is not a chapter of the UPNS nor its affiliate. The SFUP (formerly known as Cercle Philatélique St. Wladimir) is, however, affiliated with the French Association Philatélique.

More information on the SFUP may be obtained by writing to me at: 2339 Thomas St., Chicago, IL 60622, or to André Bisotto, SFUP, 6 rue de Palestine, 75019 Paris, France. (When writing to the address in France, letters should be written in either French or Ukrainian.)

Robert O. Pauk
Chicago

The writer is the U.S. liaison for the SFUP.

| Home Page |