Streetwise Professor

December 18, 2010

The Kazcynski Crash Report Crashes

Filed under: Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 9:38 am

The Polish government has rejected Russia’s report on the air crash that killed Polish President Kaczynski and 96 others (h/t R):

“In the form it was sent, the report is indisputably unacceptable,” Prime Minister Donald Tusk told reporters Friday on the sidelines of the European Union summit in Brussels. “In the view of negligence, errors and a lack of positive reaction to Polish suggestions, we’re able to say that some conclusions in the report are baseless.”

The findings haven’t been made public, and Mr. Tusk didn’t offer any specifics about what conclusions he found objectionable. The government said earlier that the report would be made public but didn’t say when.

It is interesting to note that Tusk is not hardline, or reflexively anti-Russian, as Kazcynski was.  Indeed, he has been engaged in something of a rapprochement with Russia, much to the chagrin of many Poles.

UPI reports that the Russians failed to take measures that are routine in any air crash investigation in the US or Europe–even those not involving heads of state of visiting countries:

Meanwhile, Warsaw prosecutors are investigating suspicions vital evidence was destroyed by the Russians, Poland Radio said.

Rafal Rogalski, a lawyer representing some the 96 victims’ families, told prosecutors the wreckage is being destroyed, citing a television report showing Russians cutting it into smaller pieces.

Poland has repeatedly asked Russia to protect the evidence, but it was only in October that the plane was fenced off and covered with tarpaulin.

Tusk noted that the Russians did not follow the Chicago Convention on air crash investigations.  (Aside: whenever I see “Chicago” and “convention” in the same sentence, I have visions of riots.  Vivid childhood memory.)

Let’s consider some possible explanations for Russian behavior: (a) coverup, (b) incompetence, (c) they just don’t give a damn.  Hardly an appealing menu.  Any other suggestions?

Poland and Russia have made some tentative steps towards improved relations.  The sloppy handling–under the most charitable interpretation–of a matter of great sensitivity to Poland is hardly evidence for any genuine respect for that country in Russia.  It will be interesting to see whether this disabuses Tusk and others of any illusions they might have about the possibility that Russia seriously contemplates anything remotely resembling a relationship between equals.

In any event, the way this was handled from the first reveals yet again, as if further evidence was needed, of Russia’s consummate skill at undermining its own interests.

Print Friendly

95 Comments »

  1. @Andrew # 3:

    Please do not confuse me with Andrew, as you did in post #48. The Galicians were shocked and disliked Petliura’s forces lack of discipline, one part of which was its pogroming. You keep mentioning Subtelny, but when speaking historically about anti-Jewish thughts about Ukraiians this is dealt with primarily in his section about Russian-ruled Ukraine, not Galicia. Again, about Galicia, he wrote: “the Jews tended to side with the Ukrainians.”

    I am aware of Jewish memories and opinions towards eastern Galciians. These stem from the events a generation after what he have been discussing. A lot of Jews have bad opinions of Germans/Germany from the 1930’s and 1940’s – this isn’t proof that Wilhelmine Germany was particularly antisemitic. The fact is that until the OUN came along Ukrainian nationalism was differentiated from its Russian rival by its relative lack of antisemitism. In other words, antisemtism wasn’t a component of Ukrainian nationalism generally (as proven by the policies of the West Ukrainian National Republic) but of the OUN specifically (and even here, its extent is somewhat exaggerated, but that’s another topic).

    Your comments and those of your anonymous friend re: Gogol are interesting. Nietschze’s daughter claimed that the philosopher was a proto-Nazi, when he was not. (please forgive me – I do not mean to compare Russian nationalism to Nazism, just saying that descendents sometime inaccurately project their own opinions onto the past). Gogol’s own letters and letters to friends indicate that your friend is wrong when he claims that Gogol can be described simply as a “patriotic Russian creative genius.” Indeed, many of Gogol’s contemporary Russian critics did not see him as “a patriotic Russian creative genius.” Some condemned him as a foreigner satirizing Russia, others used his writings to describe the differences between the Ukrainian (Little Russian) and Russian nations. The canonization of Gogol as a purely Russian writer came considerably later and has a mythological quality, reminiscent of some Ukrainian nationalist stories of old Sviatoslav having a cossack hairstyle and mustache being a Ukrainian king. Indeed, Gogol rather seems like an American southerner, not a secessionist but still one who frequently dislikes Yankees and one who views Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee with sympathy, understanding and respect (as Gogol treated Mazepa).

    Bojanowska, btw, had an interesting interpretation of that passage about the Troika.

    Comment by AP — December 23, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

  2. You’re clearly not well versed on much of the subject matter. Mindlessly citing and repeating the half truths and outright distortions of what others say is the tell all sign. In addition, you don’t answer the debunking points to some of what you present.

    My source is quite competent unlike some of the sources you uncritically post.

    Gogol was a Russian writer who wrote in Russian, while also taking pride in the region of the Russian Empire that he was from. Your repeated Mazepa claim was addressed.

    I didn’t misinterpret what Subtelny said in his book.

    You continue to downplay the two major reasons for the Galician Ukrainians dislike of Petliura

    – rural conservative types versus a socialist, who at one time showed an inclination for considering a relationship with the Reds

    – Petliura’s willingness to let eastern Galicia go over to Poland.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 23, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

  3. Pardon the oversight of Andrew with yourself. He suddenly reappeared. Given some of your source material and side comments, it’s understandable for such an oversight.

    He carries on like a rabid Russia hater with a very limited knowledge and intellect.

    You have more the appearance of someone with greater reasoning, albeit swayed by a definite bias. The slants of what you have posted are nothing so new to me.

    People brought up in the West with an interest in Russia are prone to getting a good deal of dubious anti-Russian positions. Lacking are folks with the knowledge and intuition to see the flaws in such spin.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 23, 2010 @ 2:43 pm

  4. “Ukrainian nationalism was differentiated from its Russian rival by its relative lack of antisemitism. In other words, antisemtism wasn’t a component of Ukrainian nationalism generally (as proven by the policies of the West Ukrainian National Republic) but of the OUN specifically (and even here, its extent is somewhat exaggerated, but that’s another topic).”

    NOPE! Way too broad and flawed. For accuracy sake, you should be more second guessing of some of the material you uncritically bring up.

    Ukrainians have the greater rap for anti-Jewish tendencies. Others besides Subtelny partly attribute this to way the Jews were perceived as well as (in numerous instances) essentially used when parts of Ukraine came under Polish rule.

    On other points, the Habsburg regime was where the likes of Hitler were nurtured.

    The saying of drowning the Moskals in the blood of the Jews comes from some Ukrainian nationalist circles and appears most evident in contemporary Galicia.

    Isolating one brief historical moment isn’t a good counter-arguement.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 23, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

  5. Pilsudski is generally not regarded as a chauvinist (at least, his chauvinism is not generally considered to have been extreme nor a defining feature of his policies). It was his bitter rival, Roman Dmowski, who was the chauvinist and whose followers often in opposition to Pilsudski drove Polish chauvinistic policies. A better argument is that Dmowski’s actions resulted in Poland getting screwed.

    Comment by AP — December 23, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

  6. No way. Pilsudski prevented an alliance which would’ve likely defeated the Reds and could’ve served as a start point for noticeably better Russo-Polish relations. Pilsudski had a romantic view of Poland’s imperial past in the manner of a chauvinist. Dziewanowski’s pro-Pilsudski book realtes well to this point.

    Concerning #51 and some other comments in support of any suggestion of Gogol being a suppressed Ukrainan separatist: an original quote from Gogol, instead of hearsay and questionable opinions (some of the latter unspecified) remains an issue. Another flaw are instances like the previous highlight of the mis-translation of the meaning of “region” into “independent state.” Presto, Gogol is a Ukrainian separatist.

    You say that Bojanowska had an “interesting” interpretation of the passage about the Troika. Oh really!? Do tell!

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 23, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

  7. BTW, Dmowski wasn’t/isn’t the only Pole taking a different view from Pilsudski on matters like Poland’s relationship with Russia. It’s wrong and suggestively propagandistic to spin a less critical of Russia line as equalling a more flawed position over the view that’s more negative of Russia.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 23, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

  8. Wow – so much to address Andrew #3. I’ll start with Pilsudski vs. Dmowski. Have you read the Yale historian Timothy Snyder? He is pretty nuetral, and devotes considerable attention to the two Polish figures. I recommend his book Reconstruction of Nations, published by Yale University Press – much of it can be read on googlebooks if you don’t have access to it. To summarize, Dmowski was a Polish nationalist of the the 20th century type, while Pilsudski was an internationalist for whom socialism was closer than was ethnic nationalism. Dmowski wanted Poland to be a nationalist state for Poles only. He was paranoid about Jews taking over (Polish nationalism from that time actually believed that the Jews would never return to Israel and would instead take over a European “host country” – Poland) and his party organized all sorts of anti-Jewish actions. Pilsudski meanwhile made one of his Jewish allies, Gabriel Narutowicz, prime minister (the Jewish Narutowicz was also supported by the mainstream Ukrainian political party). Narutowicz was assasinated by an antisemitic Polish Dmowski follower. With respect to Ukrainians within Poland, Dmowski’s followers were responsible for attempts at forced assimilation into the Polish nation by burning down or shutting Orthodox Churches, closing Ukrainian schools, etc. Pilsudski OTOH tried (and failed) to build up a pro-Polish Ukrainian patriotism, hiring Petliurist school teachers, etc. Ironically Polish nationalsit/chauvinist Dmowski and the Ukrainian nationalsits/chauvinists of the OUN fed off each other and each tried to undermine Pilsudski. Among its other crimes the OUN was assassinating moderate Polish followers of Pilsudski such as Tadeusz Holowko.

    I think you believe that Pilsudski is “worse” than Dmowski not because he is more chauvinistic (he certainly was not) but because Pilsudski was less convenient for Russia. Dmowski wanted Poland to have only the lands that he believed could be thoroughly Polonized, Roman Catholicized and purged of non-Polish elements. From this perspective he was friendly towards Russia because Dmowski felt that Poland could only thoroughly Polonize a small area of land between the two countries and thus didn’t want any part of most of Ukraine. Dmowski failed of course – his policies did not assimilate western Ukrainians but instead helped to radicalize them and set the stage for the OUN’s anti-Polish massacres of the 1940’s.

    Pilsudski on the other hand wanted a multicultural Commonwealth – to be sure, one dominated by Poland – but not one where other nationalities were destroyed. Pilsudski’s commonwealth was to include much territory that Russia also claimed. Thus, Pilsudski can be legitimately seen as being much more of an imperialist than was Dmowski. But he was certainly less of a chauvinist.

    Your views of Pilsudski and Dmowski seem to colored by a particular sort of Russian prism. Which is okay, just don’t pretend it is more objective than others’ prisms.

    Comment by AP — December 23, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

  9. @53 – Galicia. Sorry, I provided multiple sources all describing the positive and real (not just on paper) pro-Jewish polcies of the West Ukrainian Republic. I also asked you repeatedly to provide any examples of repressive actions by the West Ukrainian government. You failed to do so. I also showed you that Subtelny’s writings about Ukrainian antisemtism from the 19th century and earliier were directed at events in the Russian Empire, not Galicia. So, do you concede that the Western Ukrainian Republic and its army were not antisemitic and that there were no antisemitic ?

    Your response seems to be that you simply don’t believe it. Any concrete critcisms of the followign facts:

    *The Ukrainian nationalism that developed before the first world war in Austria, whiel anti-Polish, was not very xenophobic and not antisemitic. Source: Bandera – Romantic Terrorist, interview with Jaroslaw Hrycak. Gazeta Wyborcza, May 10, 2008. The Hrytsak, history professor at Central European University states: “Before the first world war Ukrainian nationalism under Austrian rule was neither very xenophobic nor aggressive. It was anti-Polish, which was understandable, but not antisemitic.”

    *Ukrainian government respected Jewish nuetrality in Lviv with no anti-Jewish riots in the 2 weeks that Ukrainians controlled that city. Source: Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870-1933/39, Volume 2 Herbert A. Strauss editor pg. 1032

    *On February 15, 1919, a law was passed that made the state language Ukrainian. According to this law, however, members of national minorities had the right to communicate with the government in their own languages. The Council of Ministers of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic bought Yiddish-language textbooks and visual aids for Jewish schools and provided assistance to Jewish victims of the Polish pogrom in Lviv. Source: Alexander Victor Prusin.(2005).Nationalizing a borderland: war, ethnicity, and anti-Jewish violence in east Galicia, 1914-1920. University of Alabama Press. pg. 99

    *Approximately one-third of the seats in the national parliament, an amount roughly equal to the share of the population, were reserved for the national minorities (Poles, Jews, Slovaks and others). The Poles boycotted the elections, while the Jews, despite declaring their neutrality in the Polish-Ukrainian conflict, participated and were represented by approximately 10 percent of the delegates. Jews were also able to create their own police units. Source: Aharon Weiss. (1990). Jewish-Ukrainian Relations During the Holocaust. In Peter J. Potichnyj, Howard Aster (eds.) Ukrainian-Jewish relations in historical perspective. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, pp.409-420

    *The Ukrainian Galician Army fielded a Jewish battalion (Zhydivs’kyy Kurin’ UHA) recruited from Jewish university and high school students in Ternopil and led by Lieutenant Solomon Leimberg. Formed in June, 1919, it attained a strength of 1,200 men and participated in combat against the Poles in July 1919 and subsequently against the Bolsheviks. The battalion was decimated by a typhus epidemic in late 1919 and its surviving soldiers were subsequently reassigned to other units within the Ukrainian Galician Army. Sources: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2009). Jews in Ukrainian literature: representation and identity. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp.94-95 and Encyclopedia of Ukraine, pblished by the University of Toronto Press.

    *The government fought antisemitic acts by punishing robbery with execution, and respected Jewish declared neutrality during the Polish-Ukrainian conflict. By the orders of Yevhen Petrushevych it was forbidden to mobilize Jews against their will or to otherwise force them to contribute to the Ukrainian military effort. Source: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2009). Jews in Ukrainian literature: representation and identity. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp.94-95

    ……..

    How can you dismiss all the evidence above, fail to provide even a single concrete counterexample of Galician repression against Jews in the Austrian up to early 1920’s period, and still claim that Ukrainians in those times or their movement was somehow antisemitic?

    ……..

    You claim that the Western Ukrainians turned against Petliura because he was inclined to be pro-Red and because he was willing to give eastern Galicia over to Poland. You are correct on the second point, but utterly wrong on the first. The West Ukrainian government seriously considered allying themselves with the Soviets (by so doing providing a bridge from the Soviets to Bel Kun in Hungary), but didn’t because they didn’t like the Soviets’ terms. In exile Petrushevych, the former leader of the West Ukrainian government, was getting Soviet subsidies for several years. Here’s a very interesting article that describes West Ukrainian/Soviet relations:

    Christopher Gilley, A Simple Question of ‘Pragmatism’? Sovietophilism in the West Ukrainian Emigration in the 1920s, KICES Working Papers, No.4, March 2006

    (You can google the article and download it to read it).

    Of course, culturally the West Ukrainians were more conservative than were the Kieven nationalsits. The Galicians were not more rural, but more civilized, having been used to parliamentrary politics in Austria rather than revolutionary subversion. But like the Finnish conservative Mannerheim who had refused to join the Whites despite his anti-Bolshevism, the West Ukrainian leadership were willing to look at cooperation with the Reds if they deemed it advantageous to the West Ukrainian people. They ultimately did not do so (in part, out of the misplaced hope that the West would support them againtr Poland, and cooperation withthe Reds would eliminate any hope of Western support), but came closer to it than did Petliura.

    Comment by AP — December 23, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

  10. On Gogol (but first an aside)

    The thing to keep in mind with respect to Eastern European history, or culture, is the tendency by people from each nation to construct myths about themselves, which sometimes veer away from reality. One must be wary of adopting a simplistically Polish, or Ukrainian, or Russian, etc. approach. It just isn’t very realistic that historians or culturologists from one of these nations, such as Russians, have a monopoly on the Truth and by some amazing coincidence are more objective than their colleagues from every other nation.

    Anyways, Andrew #3 asked about Bojanowska’s take on Gogol’s dead Souls. He cited this wonderful pasage, one of my favorites, earlier:

    Oh, you troika, you bird of a troika, who invented you? ….Is it not like that that you, too, Russia, are speeding along like a spirited troika that nothing can overtake? The road is like a cloud of smoke under you, the bridges thunder, and everything falls back and is left far behind. The spectator stops dead, struck dumb by the divine miracle: is it not a flash of lighting thrown down by heaven? What is the meaning of this terrifying motion? And what mysterious force is hidden in these horses the like of which the world has never seen? ….. Russia, where are you flying to? Answer! She gives no answer….

    Bojanowska’s interpretation (which I do not agree with, though there is some truth to it):

    “Though it is easy to submit to the rhetorical grandeur of the passage, to let oneself be carried by the seductive sway of itslanguage and imagery, what ahppens if we retrace teh steps that led to it? How does contextualization, so crucial in interpreting the digressions, impact one’s reading of this grand conclusion? The metonymic equation or Russia and the troika ultimately stems from a description of Chichikov’s troika. Just as Chichikov’s revelry in fast driving becomes transformed into a typically Russian characteristic, hisown troika transmogrifies into Russia. This alignment opens up an interpretive can of worms that mars the sublimity of Russia’s final image. For Russi-troika carries theimage of a vehicle that carries a con man escapng tar and feathers. The ethereal troika of the digression, capable of such incredile speed, bodies forth from Chichikov’s decrepit and unreliable carriage…Before they become transformed into fiery steeds drawing a national icon, the horses [three nags] acquire the titles of “Chairman” and “Secretaries” given to them by drunken Selifan…The magnificance of Russia as a dashing troika is sharply diminsished when juxtaposed with the actual carriage that motivated the metaphor…irony deflates nationalistic fervor.” She described Gogol’s playfulness and subversiveness.

    In essence, Bojanowska desctribes 99% of the novel as a cruel description of nasty aspects of Russian life with small passages – digressions – that themselves are ironic and which seem unambiguosuly “pro-Russian” only when viewed outside their context.

    Bojanowska adds interesting accounts of how Russian critics looked at Dead Souls at the time it was published, before the Russian myths about the man became set in stone. According to the memoirs of Gogol’s friend Sergei Aksakov, count F. I. Tolstoy considered Gogol an enemy of Russia. Gogl’s friend Aleksandra Smirnova, having overheard Tolstoy’s conemnation, told Gogol “Tolstoy remarked that you portrayed all Russians in a negative light, just as you gave all your Little Russians something that inspires sympathy…that even their funny sides have something naively pleasant about them. He said that none of your Ukrainians is as vile as Nozdrev, that Korobochka is not disgusting only because she is Ukrainian [the term used was khakhol, a derogatory word for Ukrainians]. He, Tolstoy, thinks that your lack of brotherly feeling [nebratstvo] involuntarily revealed itself when you said of two conversing muzhiks “two Russian muzhiks”…Tiutchev also observed that Muscovites would never say “two Russian muzhiks…” Smirnova said that one can conclude from these remarks that Gogol harbored “that deeply hidden feeling which reigns in Little Russia” – which Bojanowska says is anti-Russian sentiment.

    The critic Nikolai Grech dismissed Dead Souls in the Northern Bee for its “barbaric” and “non-Russian” language. TheBee’s publisher, Bulgarin, claimed that Dead Souls slandered Russia but did not ascribe malicious intent to him, stating that as a Little Russian he didn’t know any better.

    Bojanowska: “In the eyes of [Russia’s] conservative press, the author’s Ukrainian identity to a large extent explained and magnified his transgression against the Russian people. The “media moguls” snidely stressed the writer’s “Little Russian” origin and persistently “downgraded” him to the status of a Ukrainian writer. The Library’s review of Gogol’s 1842 Collected Works linked the “tons of excess filth” in Gogol’s work to the tradition of “Little Russian poetry.” The term “Ukrainian humorist” resounds in the article like a dismissive incanttion…the reviewer blames Gogol’s Ukrainmian national prejudice for his image of Russia, characterizing his works as “Strained Little Russian satire against Great Russian civil servants.”

    Comment by AP — December 24, 2010 @ 1:04 am

  11. @ Andrew#3, who appears to be a typical pederastic russophile, you claim my sources are The diatribes you parrot against Denikin are sheer bunk as shown by their lies in terms of what he said and didn’t say and how he carried on.

    Well give us some alternative source boyo, because pretty much every period account of the Whites, and pretty much all historical evidence shows what a racist bunch of pigs they were, and Denikin was pretty much the worst.

    His stated intention to restore Russia to its pre 1914 borders, his refusal to recognise the independence of Poland, Finland, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and his attempted invasions of Georgia and Azerbaijan, his racism towards ethnic minorities in the empire, and his crimes against humanity in the form of mass executions are all well documented.

    And the Russian attitude to the independence of far older peoples continues to this day:

    Prime Minister Vladimir Putin yesterday laid flowers on the Moscow grave of General Anton Denikin, a White Russian leader whose opposition to the aspirations of non-Russian nations in the Russian Empire and unqualified commitment to the “indivisibility” of Russia opened the way for the victory of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

    Indeed, it was Denikin’s unwillingness to make any concessions to non-Russian groups, combined with Lenin’s false promises of respect for national self-determination that led to the collapse of the anti-Bolshevik cause and allowed the communists to triumph, first at the expense of the Russians and then of the non-Russians among and around them.

    And consequently, as several commentators have already pointed out, Putin’s latest remarks, including in particular his denigration of the separateness of Ukraine, are certain to drive many non-Russians away from Moscow, even if they appeal to Russians as “the [latest] end of the [Russian] civil war” and a reaffirmation of the continuity of Russian history.

    Yesterday, Putin laid flowers on the graves of anti-Bolshevik generals Anton Denikin and Vladimir Kappel, émigré nationalist philosophers Ivan Il’in and Ivan Shmelyev, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at Moscow’s Sretensk Monastery. Accompanying him and relaying some of his words was Archimandrite Tikhon.

    After laying flowers on the leader of the South Russia government, Putin quoted Denikin’s suggestion that “no one must be allowed to interfere in relations between us, big and little Russia, Ukraine. This was always an affair of Russia itself!” And he added that Denikin considered that any movement toward disunity was “impermissible.”

    http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11837&Itemid=1

    Comment by Andrew — December 24, 2010 @ 6:45 am

  12. One issue with many outside “scholars” and “analysts”, (even those who strive to be balanced), is a non-native command of language and lack of instinctive comprehension of the cultural components of any situation or argument, which is almost genetic with those that share the ethnic-cultural heritage (such as yourself)…

    This is ironic being posted by a Long Island Jew who’s hardly ever been to Russia and has no command of the Russian language whatsoever: can’t speak, can’t read, doesn’t understand a word.

    Comment by peter — December 24, 2010 @ 7:11 am

  13. @AP

    Citing Grech and Bulgarin as authorities on Gogol is a no-no of course. If you must pick one quote, I’d go with Nabokov:

    … ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???-?????? ? ??????, ???? ?? ??????? ??????, ?????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ???? ????, ???? ??? ?????????? “????”, “?????” ? “?????????” – ?? ???????? ??????.

    ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????, ??????????? ??? ????, ????? ??? ????????, ?? ????????? ????????? ??? ??? ???????. ?? ??????? ???, ?? ???????. ??? ?????? ??? ???????. ?? ????????? ? ???????. ??? ??????? ??????????. ?????? ??????. ?????????, ????????????, ?? ????. ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????, ???? ? ?????. ???????, ???? ?? ??? ??????????? – ???? ????????? ????????, ???????, ??? ?????? ? ?? ?????????. ?? ? ???? ????? ??? ???????????? ???????? – ??????? ????, ???? ?????????.

    ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????. ??? ?????? ??????. ??? ??? ????. ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????, ????????????, ??????, ?????, ??????? ??????, ?????, ??? ????? ? ????-????. ????? ?????-?????? ??????? ??????? ?????????????. ? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ?? ??????? ?????????????? ? ??????.

    ?? ? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ? ?????? (??, ???????, ? ? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????). ??? ????????????, ??? ? ?????? ??????? ??????????, – ??? ??????? ?????, ? ?? ????. ??? ???????? ????????? ???? – ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????; ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????????, ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???, ?, ?? ???? ??????????? ???????? ?? ?????????, ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??????…

    If that’s too purist for you, here’s Rozanov:

    ? ??? ????? ??????? ? ????????? ??????: ? ? 62 ???? ?????: “?? ???????, ??????? ?????”. ???, ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ? ?? “??????????? ??????????”… ?????? ?????? ?????-?? ???????? ???? ? ?????????, ??????? ???????? “????”; ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????. ?? ????? ??? ???? – ??????, ? ?? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ?????, ???? ? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????…

    Comment by peter — December 24, 2010 @ 7:12 am

  14. Much ado about nothing (at least) in relation to what’s being specifically discussed.

    AP, your stated non-agreement with her take is quite understandable, given how one can opine that Chichikov’s vehicle as a negative criticism, is contrasted with the positive, patriotic, dramatically idealized image of Russia – the country Chichikov inhabits, and is not worthy of… as in: “we leave the Chichikovs of this world behind in the dust, and see a glorious Troika-chariot surging ahead.” Writers have pointed out the weaknesses and foibles of society. This shouldn’t be confused with the agenda of some others.

    One can accuse Gogol of being negative about Little Russia-Ukraine in the “Terrible Vengeance,” since he writes his glorious description of the Dnieper River – the great cradle and pride of Rus (and Ukraine), just as the hero embarks on a river journey that is filled with ghouls and other satanic terror Rhetorically put, could this be symbolic of a perceived demonic soul of Ukrainians?”

    The “racist pigs” are the La Russophobe trolls with their crude lies and distortions. This includes how they downplay the bigotry of non-Russian bigots on account of their being anti-Russian. The cited Georgian Daily is known for parroting faulty anti-Russian propaganda. Russia hating trolls and the views of some (stress some) others don’t constitute “everyone” as falsely stated.

    The White position is quite clear as evidenced by Kolchak’s clear on record statement in support of Polish independence – based on Versailles. Denikin and Wrangel agreed, with Denikin expressing great interest in such an alliance. The Whites similarly recognized Finnish and Estonian independence. (Among the sources are Brinkley. Both provide specific citations on what was said. Lehovich especially provides actual quotes and sources citing Kolchak’s and Wrangel’s clear comments on the subject. So much for the lies to the contrary.)

    Once again, consider the period in time when Britain and France had imperial possessions which they weren’t so willing to give up. The White differences with the Finns stemmed on Russian property rights in Finland and what Finland’s borders should constitute. Once again, the Whites were by no means an exclusively ethnic Russian entity.

    A chauvinist more aptly characterizes someone who refuses to acknowledge the past wrongs of his/her country, while seeking borders predominated by other people who don’t want to be part of their romanticized dream world. Pilsudski certainly fits that category. Brinkley (who doesn’t appear partisan in any direction) describes his manner as “imperialistic.” Brinkley also notes Pilsudski’s opposition to the Whites’ support of the Galician Ukrainian position of not being part of Poland – while also noting that the White position made no claim on Galicia – instead treating the Galician Ukrainians as more of a foreign entity.

    Once again, nothing was said to counter my views on Jews. “Advanced” Austria included prejudiced attitudes against others. Hitler and his likes didn’t just suddenly come about overnight. Russian Empire based Ukraine is where Ukraine’s greatest figures have tended to come from, unlike the more rural Galicia – where contemporary political extremism includes use of such chants as drowning the Muscovites in the blood of the Jews.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 24, 2010 @ 9:56 am

  15. Also note Yushchenko’s arbitrary Soviet like declaration of Bandera as a “Hero.” A blend of Red/Brown extremist advocacy, downplayed within neoliberal, neoconservative and sheer Russia hating circles.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 24, 2010 @ 10:29 am

  16. Touching on something else brought up: although a great writer, Nabokov is generally not considered (within reason) to be at the same level as Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Nabokov was known for writing uncomplimentary, if not spiteful commentary about others including Dostoyevsky. Reference to the “dumfoundingly difficult” Russian language relates to what was brought up about the difference in the mistranslation between “region” and “independent nation.”

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 24, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

  17. Keeping in mind that the difficulty of the language doesn’t excuse calculated falsifications. In the specfic example given, the words in question don’t seem to present a great “nuance challenge” for a qualitatively high level fluent Russian and English speaking person to differentiate. (Five for five with such a view from individuals fitting that category). The issue remains flimsy attempts at spinning Gogol into a “Ukrainian” separatist, with the hope that no one will catch such deceit.

    Academically, this particular is in stark contrast to the referenced works of Lehovich and Brinkley.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 24, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

  18. A note, in her work Bojanowska doesn’t portray Gogol as a separatist; rather she portrays his love of Russia as an act of will that didn’t come naturally to him despite the author’s best effort to try to love Russia. She also highlights Gogol’s non-Russian nationalist view of Ukrainian historical figures such as Ivan Mazepa. I don’t think she can be dismised so easily, her CV is impressive:

    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~slavic/people/faculty_pages/edyta_bojanowska.htm

    As are the reviews of her work on Gogol:

    A major contribution to the history of Russian literary culture. Bojanowska illuminates Gogol’s works in a new and interesting way, and makes a convincing case for his identification with Ukraine and his frequent inclination to compare Russia unfavorably to it. Her research is extensive, her argument fresh, stimulating, and controversial. The implications for our understanding of Gogol are enormous.
    –Jeffrey P. Brooks, Johns Hopkins University (20070801)

    Edyta Bojanowska confronts head-on a fundamental anomaly: Nikolai Gogol was a Ukrainian, but he became a great Russian writer. She shows how Gogol, throughout his literary career, was deeply torn between his identity as a Ukrainian and his commitment to be a Russian writer. It was his mission to sear Russian hearts with his message of truth and righteousness and show them the way to purify their souls. But his Ukrainian heart was never really in it; he didn’t like Russia or believe in it. This is an illuminating, impressive, and original work by a very talented scholar.
    –Hugh McLean, University of California, Berkeley (20080101)

    Bojanowska’s study is the most thorough yet attempted of Gogol’s internally contradictory national identity, and it presents a challenging and convincing portrayal of his creativity…For a thorough and insightful study of Gogol’s perpetual preoccupation with national identity…there is no better place to begin thean with Edyta Bojanowska’s book.
    –Geoffrey A. Hosking (Times Literary Supplement )

    Takes full advantage of historical hindsight, producing a well-grounded and elegantly astute consideration of Gogol’s ever-evolving sense of nationalism and offering a valuable contribution to a growing field of postcolonial studies on Russia…Readers of Gogol will want to turn to Bojanowska’s study for a focused and enlightening treatment of the dynamics of nationalism in his life and work.
    –Amy Singleton Adams (Russian Review )

    Comment by AP — December 25, 2010 @ 11:55 pm

  19. Dislike of Jews in Austria stemmed from the lower classes and the same sort of quarters that also hated Slavs and wanted nothing to do with h tem. Of course, this had no impact on Galician Ukrainians, whose influence from Austria came from above rather from the Viennese gutters where Hitler came from. You have again failed to come up with a single represive act against Jews committed by Ukrainians in the Austrian era and immediately afterwards. Not a single one. Despite the fact that Easterrn Galicians maintaiend control over a large area with 4 million peoole for about 9 months, giving t hem plenty of time to engage in repression. The claim that 80 years later people in Western Ukraine say nasty slogans, and your thesis that this “must have come from somewhere” isn’t proof. I am interested in facts. You got any?

    Chauvinism and imperialism are two different things; there are empires that can be characterized as chauvinistic (Hitler’s Germany) and also mulitnational Empires (pre-Stalin USSR). And there can also be very chauvinistic non-Empires which are content to seek ethnic purity within their own borders. In the Polish context, Pilsudski was no chauvinist although he can be characterized as an imperialist. He had a romantic dream of recreating 17th century multinational, multiethnic Poland stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea which would be big enough to stand against Germany or Russia. If you recall, Poland of the 17th century had the largest Jewish population in Europe because it had served as a refuge for the Jews who were being persecuted elsewhere. Pilsudski’s feelings for the Jews were reflected in his Jewish friend becoming Poland’s president. Dmowski, Pilsudski’s rival, wanted a smaller ethnically pure Poland. For Pilsudski, as long as one was loyal to the Polish state all one’s national expression was acceptable. Dmowski, on the other hand, wanted a pure Polish state. He was opposed to Polish expansion because he did not want the Polish share of the population to be diluted; he wanted Poland to be just big enough that the minorities could be thoroughly assimilated and disappear. Dmowski was outraged that due to Pilsudski a Jew became Poland’s president, and one of Dmowski’s followers murdered the Jewish President. Dmowski tried, but failed, to pass a law that would confiscate property from Jews and distribute it to Poles, but succeeded in establishing quotas on the maximum numbers of Jews allowed in Polish universities. An interesting fact: when Dmowski tried to ban kosher preperation of food in Poland the Ukrainian parties stood alongside the Jews in opposing this law. Their reasoning was, first the Jews, then us.

    Comment by AP — December 26, 2010 @ 12:26 am

  20. … although a great writer, Nabokov is generally not considered (within reason) to be at the same level as Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

    That’s a lot of opinion for someone whose familiarity with the Russian classical literature is limited to “Taras Bulba the Movie”.

    Reference to the “dumfoundingly difficult” Russian language…

    What reference? Nabokov didn’t say any such thing.

    Keeping in mind that the difficulty of the language doesn’t excuse calculated falsifications. In the specfic example given, the words in question don’t seem to present a great “nuance challenge” for a qualitatively high level fluent Russian and English speaking person to differentiate. (Five for five with such a view from individuals fitting that category).

    ? ????? ?? ?????. Can you please repeat it in smaller words for the less “qualitatively high level fluent” of us?

    Comment by peter — December 26, 2010 @ 4:37 am

  21. On how enlightened the Habsburgs were, some links on the Talerhof concentration camp:

    http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/kr/taler.htm

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Talerhof

    The second link use Ukrainian while omitting Rusyn. The historical occurrence at issue doesn’t get as much attention as some others with one major reason liklley having to do with a predominating agenda to deal with other matters.

    AP, David Irving has academic credentials as well. I sense you wouldn’t be so willing to embrace him and quite understandably so. You show me something specific (directly from Gogol – the name of his work and link) that lauds Mazepa. On another particular you raise, keep in mind that among literary peers there can exist some antagonism in a way that is arguably not in line with reality.

    Your points on Pilsudski don’t address his chauvinistic tendencies that were raised. Some supporters of his mindset can be quite anti-Jewish, whereas his opponents aren’t all by default anti-Jewish.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 26, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

  22. Touching on the last thought, some other matters come to mind.

    Under Ceaucescu, Romania was the only Warsaw Pact Pact country which recognized Israel, while having the worst human rights conditions in that Soviet bloc organization.

    Ottoman Turkey’s comparatively good treatment of Jews doesn’t excuse the abuses it committed against others like the Armenians.

    For accuracy sake, one shouldn’t underestimate the politics behind the historical and political spin on a number of issues. Among others, Benny Morris suddenly has a motive to discuss some unfortunate aspects of Turkey’s past. The motivating factor being the decline in Turkish-Israeli relations.

    In some circles, the Austro-Hungarian suppression of eastern Slavs reasonably deemed as pro-Russian isn’t as politically a sexy issue to research and follow-up on as some other issues.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 26, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

  23. Maybe the Poles should be busy looking inside on why the entire leadership of a nation: political,economic and military, was on one single plane? Well, all except or Tusk, who is now top dog.

    As for criminal past activity: funny, how Hitler’s former allies, the Poles, who were his best friends from 1937-1938, till they got a chunk of Czeckoslavakia, which they failed to conquer in 1924, are not called out on this. Only when Hitler called on them (by the way, Poland was the 2nd fascist dictatorship of Europe in 1926, Italy in 1923) to prepare for war with Russia, did they suddenly turn neutral.

    How about investigations into Poland’s concentration camps for Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, Belarus and southern Poland, who refused to convert to Catholicism? They ran those camps from 1930 to 1939. How about the mass murder of Jews by Poles, before the Germans even arrived, in 1938-1939? How about the mass murder of Ukrainian and then Red Army prisoners in Poland in 1922, 1923-1924? How about the mass murder of German civilians by nationalis Poles in concentration camps in 1945-1946?

    Poland sells her victimhood like an expert. Jesse Jackson has much to learn.

    Comment by Stanislav Mishin — December 26, 2010 @ 11:05 pm

  24. Oh and we won’t even go into 500 years of Polish occupation of Rus land, occupation brought by torch and sword and marked by mass murder and theft.

    Comment by Stanislav Mishin — December 26, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

  25. Andrew#6, you are a twit. Polish “brohers” did not live in western Belarus and western Ukraine, but since you are such an expert, why don’t you grow a pair of balls (if some western feminazi hasn’t cut the off) and go to those areas and tell those who suffered Polish brutality for almost 500 years, how the Poles were trying to free them.

    Was Poland also doing that in 1922 when it invaded independent Ukraine? Or Lithuania? Or Czeckoslavakia? Or do you not know any history and are just mouthing off typical Western propaganda?

    Comment by Stanislav Mishin — December 26, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

  26. La Russophobe, wrong as usual, McCain’s party did not, the conservatives did. McCaine is a leftist trash, who was called the songbird in Vietnam because he told everyone so many secrets. He’s your type, a dimwitted, sell out, open to the highest bidder, like Mexico. Small, corrupt and evil.

    Comment by Stanislav Mishin — December 26, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

  27. Self correction on #72:

    “Under Ceaucescu, Romania was the only Warsaw Pact Pact country which recognized Israel, while having the worst human rights conditions in that Soviet bloc organization.”

    ****

    Should read as: “Uunder Ceaucescu, Romania was the only Warsaw Pact Pact country which didn’t break diplomatic relations with Israel….”

    Breaking diplomatic relations with a country doesn’t necessarily mean not recognizing the given country’s right to exist. Concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Soviet bloc favored a two state solution (of Israeli and Palestinian states).

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 27, 2010 @ 12:08 am

  28. … keep in mind that among literary peers there can exist some antagonism in a way that is arguably not in line with reality.

    ??. Are you trying to say that there existed “some antagonism” between Gogol and Nabokov “in a way that is arguably not in line with reality”? That’s even sillier than those funny “dumfoundingly difficult” and “qualitatively high level fluent” of yours.

    Comment by peter — December 27, 2010 @ 11:34 am

  29. What are you smoking, Stanislav?

    > Was Poland also doing that in 1922 when it invaded independent Ukraine

    In 1922 there was no independent Ukraine – Ukraine was mostly under Russian occupation by that time, with the western part occupied by Poland.

    Comment by Ivan — December 27, 2010 @ 11:55 am

  30. @70: Hilarious! Thank you for the laugh.

    @Andrew #3: I am quite familiar with Talerhof; my own great-grandfather was held there. It was an internment camp where for about 2.5 years people suspected of being spies for Russia with whom Austria was at war were interred. The first winter was awful because the Austrians, perhaps not thinking about h ow long the war would drag on, faield to provife any decent shelter for the peop;e being held there. About 3,000 people died at Talerhof until the Austrians themselves, disgusted by its persistently poor conditions, shut it down. When you compare Talerhof with the camps set up by the British for Boers (where over 20,000 peopole, mostly women and children) died, or the centuries-long systemic system of exiling people to Siberia or to Arctic monastaries as was done by Russia (not to mention the exponentially more brutal “improvement” on the tsarist system by the Soviets) then yes, Austria comes across as quite civilized, relatively speaking.

    …………..

    Gogol’s direct words about Mazepa, from his Mazepa’s meditations:

    “But what could be expected of a people so different from the Russians, who breathed freedom and robust Cossackdom [in the original: dyshavshemu volnostiu i likhim kozachestvom] and wished to live their own way of life? They were threatened by a loss of nationality [Gogol’s word: natsionalnost] and by having their rights made to a greater or lesser extent equal with the people who were personally owned by the Russian autrocrat. Without it, Peter would have no impact on them. All this preoccupied the delinquent hetman.”

    As can be seen, Gogol by hs own words viewed Mazepa as someone who cared about his people and who was motivated, not by personal greed or treachery, but by wanting to prevent his free people from becoming slaves of Russia. There is of course no statement by Gogol that Mazepa was right or that he, Gogol, agreed with Mazepa’s separatist actions. But Gogol did show sympathy for the man and showed that his opinion of Mazepa was radically different than is the russian nationalist view of him as a self-interested traitor.

    The comparison you made of Bojanowska to David Irving, in addition to probably violating Godwin’s Law, is rather silly. So your rebuttal of her Harvard position , her publication, and good reviews of the same work that you and your friends don’t like by other respected and qualified academics is that David Irving (who has no connections to her whatsoever) is also an acadamic? Really?

    ………

    You wrote: “Your points on Pilsudski don’t address his chauvinistic tendencies that were raised. Some supporters of his mindset can be quite anti-Jewish, whereas his opponents aren’t all by default anti-Jewish.”

    If what you call is his “chauvinsitic tendencies” is his desire for a large Polish-led federation dominated by Poland but which respects minority cultural and religious rights, so long as the mionorities respect the Polish state, no argument. “Supporters of his [Pilsudski’s] mindset can be quite anti-Jewish” is meaningless. Who? How many? “whereas his opponents aren’t all by default anti-Jewish” I agree and never claimed otherwise. Although it is a fact that Pilsudski’s opponents are the opponents of a man who was the Jews’ protector, while the supporters, such as you, of Pilsudski’s bitter enemy Dmowski are supporters of a vicious antisemite, one may indeed have reasons to support one and dislike the other that have nothing to do with Jews, although Dmowski’s antisemitism was far from an obscure personal quirk but was a major element of his public policies.

    Comment by AP — December 27, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

  31. AP, your openly stated sense of “humor” is at the flawed level as some of your ongoing comments.

    No, Austria-Hungary wasn’t so enlightened as some of the offspring from that entity were to further reveal. Regarding Talerhof, note the many Austro-Hungarian POWs taken by the Russian army.

    You’re the one uncritically propping suspect work. I aptly show where your basis for doing so is flawed. Kindly give the original language quote from Gogol (as opposed to someone else), specifically referencing the work and where it can be preferably found.

    These works are academically sound:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Volunteer-Allied-Intervention-Russia-1917-1921/dp/1597403911

    http://www.amazon.com/White-Against-General-Anton-Denikin/dp/0393074854

    These books contrast with Dziewanowski’s on Pilsudski, which is a great read on how Polish nationalists like Pilsudski view themselves while side-stepping opposing views.

    The fact of the matter is that the Galician Ukrainians opposed becoming part of Pilsudski’s overly idealized and in reality imperialistic notion of Poland and its near abroad. For good reason, this was the perception of many non-Poles under Polish rule.

    Your constant rehashed imagery of Pilsudski versus Dmowski continuously fail to address how people thinking like Pilsudski on a number of issues weren’t free of bigotry and that those opposed to Pilsudski weren’t all in the bigoted category.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 27, 2010 @ 11:36 pm

  32. For whatever eason, my reply was posted as #81, without showing up at the top, which kept listing only 80 comments total. Now that #81 doesn’t show at the bottom at all. Hence this re-submission. A#3

    AP, your openly stated sense of “humor” is at the flawed level as some of your ongoing comments.

    No, Austria-Hungary wasn’t so enlightened as some of the offspring from that entity were to further reveal. Regarding Talerhof, note the many Austro-Hungarian POWs taken by the Russian army.

    You’re the one uncritically propping suspect work. I aptly show where your basis for doing so is flawed. For authenticity sake: if possible, kindly give the original language quote, specifically referencing the work and where it can be preferably found.

    These works are academically sound:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Volunteer-Allied-Intervention-Russia-1917-1921/dp/1597403911

    http://www.amazon.com/White-Against-General-Anton-Denikin/dp/0393074854

    These books contrast with Dziewanowski’s on Pilsudski, which is a great read on how Polish nationalists like Pilsudski view themselves, while side-stepping opposing views.

    The fact of the matter is that the Galician Ukrainians didn’t seek becoming part of Pilsudski’s overly idealized and in reality imperialistic notion of Poland and its near abroad. For good reason, this was the perception of many non-Poles under Polish rule.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 29, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

  33. For whatever reason, my reply was posted as #81, without showing up at the top, which kept listing only 80 comments total. Now that #81 doesn’t show at the bottom at all. A second re-submission didn’t go thru. This third one is from another computer. A 3

    AP, your openly stated sense of “humor” is at the flawed level as some of your ongoing comments.

    No, Austria-Hungary wasn’t so enlightened as some of the offspring from that entity were to further reveal. Regarding Talerhof, note the many Austro-Hungarian POWs taken by the Russian army.

    You’re the one uncritically propping suspect work. I aptly show where your basis for doing so is flawed. For authenticity sake: if possible, kindly give the original language quote, specifically referencing the work and where it can be preferably found. Gogol’s authentically expressed views on matter like Mazepa and Poland are well established, unlike what you’re claiminig.

    These works are academically sound:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Volunteer-Allied-Intervention-Russia-1917-1921/dp/1597403911

    http://www.amazon.com/White-Against-General-Anton-Denikin/dp/0393074854

    These books contrast with Dziewanowski’s on Pilsudski, which is a great read on how Polish nationalists like Pilsudski view themselves, while side-stepping opposing views.

    The fact of the matter is that the Galician Ukrainians didn’t seek becoming part of Pilsudski’s overly idealized and in reality imperialistic notion of Poland and its near abroad. For good reason, this was the perception of many non-Poles under Polish rule.

    Comment by Andy_III — December 29, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

  34. AP, I see a mild acknowledgement by you on people opposing Pilsudski.

    In a somewhat related particular, you’re frankly being idiotic in saying that because I might agree with someone in one instance – suggests my support of bigotry. On par with saying that vegetarians are Nazis because Hitler was (if I’m not mistaken – which could be). The point is nevertheless clear and bleep Godwin.

    I’m also not keen on the stated support of minority rights, while supporting people with chauvinistic anti-Russian tendencies like Pilsudski, who doesn’t seem to ever acknowledge any Polish wrong doing. In an earlier set of comments, you suggest support of Russian nobles getting their land confisticated in Ukraine unlike Polish nobles.

    FYI, Russia’s treatment of Finland gets comparatively high marks among future Euriopean nations that were part of European empires.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — December 30, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

  35. I will take your stooping to personal attacks as an implicit acknowledgment that you’ve lost the argument, Andrew #3. You repeatedly confuse bigotry with imperialism (two totally and not necessarily related things) and, oddly, seem to view one side (Pilsudski) as imperialistic but do not emphasize this of another side (the Whites) as both fought over Ukraine. I am curious – do you believe that Petliura’s semi-puppet Ukraine would be less independent than the White vision for Ukraine (as an integrated part of th Russian Empire)? Complaining about Pilsudski’s imperialism is an interesting position given that you support the Whites; remember Denikin’s hanging of a few dozen Ukrainophile Kuban cossack leaders?

    I neither suggested nor stated that you were a bigot. I simply pointed out to you the reality that you are willing to, and do, support a truly vicious bigot (Dmowski) just because his position is “better” for your idea of Russia’s benefit.

    I deal with facts, Andrew #3. I don’t see many presented in your posts. Which of the works below are, in your opinion, “suspect”?:

    *Although relations betwen Poles and the West Ukrainian Republic were antagonistic, those between the Republic and its Jewish citizens was generally nuetral or positive. Deep-seeded rivalries existed between the Jewish and Polish communities, and antisemitism, particularly supported by Dmowski’s Polish National Democratic Party, became a feature of Polish national ideology. As a result, many Jews came to consider Polish independence as the least desirable option following the first world war. Although Jewish political organizations declared their nuetrality in the Polish-Ukrainian struggle, many individual Jews offered their support or sympathized with the West Ukrainian government in its conflict with Poland, particularly after they were recognized as a national minority by the Ukrainian government. Jewish officers of the defunct Austro-Hungarian army helped form the officer corps of the West Ukrainian military, and Jewish judges, lawyers, doctors and railroad employees joined the West Ukrainian civil service. Taken from: Alexander V. Prusin. (2010). ”The Lands Between: Conflict in the East European Borderlands, 1870-1992.” Oxford: Oxford University Press pg. 93

    *The Ukrainian nationalism that developed before the first world war in Austria, whiel anti-Polish, was not very xenophobic and not antisemitic. Source: Bandera – Romantic Terrorist, interview with Jaroslaw Hrycak. Gazeta Wyborcza, May 10, 2008. The Hrytsak, history professor at Central European University states: “Before the first world war Ukrainian nationalism under Austrian rule was neither very xenophobic nor aggressive. It was anti-Polish, which was understandable, but not antisemitic.”

    *Ukrainian government respected Jewish nuetrality in Lviv with no anti-Jewish riots in the 2 weeks that Ukrainians controlled that city. Source: Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870-1933/39, Volume 2 Herbert A. Strauss editor pg. 1032

    *On February 15, 1919, a law was passed that made the state language Ukrainian. According to this law, however, members of national minorities had the right to communicate with the government in their own languages. The Council of Ministers of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic bought Yiddish-language textbooks and visual aids for Jewish schools and provided assistance to Jewish victims of the Polish pogrom in Lviv. Source: Alexander Victor Prusin.(2005).Nationalizing a borderland: war, ethnicity, and anti-Jewish violence in east Galicia, 1914-1920. University of Alabama Press. pg. 99

    *Approximately one-third of the seats in the national parliament, an amount roughly equal to the share of the population, were reserved for the national minorities (Poles, Jews, Slovaks and others). The Poles boycotted the elections, while the Jews, despite declaring their neutrality in the Polish-Ukrainian conflict, participated and were represented by approximately 10 percent of the delegates. Jews were also able to create their own police units. Source: Aharon Weiss. (1990). Jewish-Ukrainian Relations During the Holocaust. In Peter J. Potichnyj, Howard Aster (eds.) Ukrainian-Jewish relations in historical perspective. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, pp.409-420

    *The Ukrainian Galician Army fielded a Jewish battalion (Zhydivs’kyy Kurin’ UHA) recruited from Jewish university and high school students in Ternopil and led by Lieutenant Solomon Leimberg. Formed in June, 1919, it attained a strength of 1,200 men and participated in combat against the Poles in July 1919 and subsequently against the Bolsheviks. The battalion was decimated by a typhus epidemic in late 1919 and its surviving soldiers were subsequently reassigned to other units within the Ukrainian Galician Army. Sources: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2009). Jews in Ukrainian literature: representation and identity. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp.94-95 and Encyclopedia of Ukraine, pblished by the University of Toronto Press.

    *The West Ukrainian government fought antisemitic acts by punishing robbery with execution, and respected Jewish declared neutrality during the Polish-Ukrainian conflict. By the orders of Yevhen Petrushevych it was forbidden to mobilize Jews against their will or to otherwise force them to contribute to the Ukrainian military effort. Source: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2009). Jews in Ukrainian literature: representation and identity. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp.94-95

    Comment by AP — December 31, 2010 @ 8:58 am

  36. Your manner was appropriately dished right back at you AP.

    I didn’t “lose” anything AP.

    On the contrary, it’s false to claim that Gogol supported Mazepa and Poland as a good offset to Russia. Nothing like that exists from Gogol – quite the opposite. To insist otherwise is among other things foolish.

    The same goes for the lie that the Whites didn’t support Poland’s independence. In fact, the Whites looked forward to a White Russian-Polish alliance against the Bolsheviks in 1919. Pilsudski refused out of an anti-Russian bias and imperialist desire on his part.

    The primary source documentation on these points is quite clear and has been accepted by responsible academics familiar with the subject. To overlook this while uncritically lauding a dubiously surmised overview of Gogol is flawed. Likewise, with your ongoing attempt to suggest that I support bigotry. The fact of the matter remains that for good reason many eastern Slavs and other non-Poles didn’t view the Poland between two world wars as a great example of multiethnic harmony.

    On your anti-Russian takes, Russia and Ukraine are linked to Rus unlike Poland. Mazepa is viewed as a Russian and Ukrainian literary figure and not as Polish and Russian or Polish and Ukrainian pairings. Ukrainian Cossack leader Pavlo Skoropdasky supported a Russian and Ukrainian union, with the term “All-Russian” specified. To this day, Russia is far more popular in Ukraine than Poland. Trying to suggest any near comparison between Poland and Ukraine as similar to Russia and Ukraine is historically, culturally, linguistically and religiously absurd.

    Omce again, I never said that there were noticeable pogroms in Galicia during the Russian Civil War period.

    Your claim of Denikin is factually wrong, while downplaying that the defeated Kuban faction you refer to turned against the prior position of the Kuban at the time – instead opting for an anti-White position during a war. Your suggested “morality” doesn’t fault Pilsudski for supporting Petliura. While lauding the Galician Ukrainians, you downplay their opposition to Pilsudski and preference for the Whites over the Polish nationalist leader.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — January 1, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

  37. Another fact with a source:

    Relations between Jews and Ukrainians were much more peaceful on the Austrian side of the post-1795 border than they were in the territories east of the Zbruch river controlled by Russia. The multiple pogroms that occured in Russian-ruled Ukraine in the 19th century did not spread across the border into Galicia, where Jews and Ukrainian were enagaged in political cooperation. Whatever anti-Jewish political agitation existed in Galicia, it was limited to Polish political parties operating in areas where not many Ukrainians lived. taken from: Frank Golczewski. (2008) Sheds of Grey: Reflection on Jewish-Ukrainian and German-Ukrainian relations in Galicia. In Ray Brandon, Wendy Lower (Eds.). ”The Shoah in Ukraine: history, testimony, memorialization”. Indiana University Press: pp. 117-129

    You construct a straw man argument. I never suggested that Gogol supported MAzepa and Poland. I stated that he sympathized with Mazepa hand had the view of him that was not the view of Russian nationalists. He considered Mazepa to be a national leader who thought about his own peole’s welfare. Gogol did not state that Mazepa made the right decision. Gogol’s own words:

    “But what could be expected of a people so different from the Russians, who breathed freedom and robust Cossackdom [in the original: dyshavshemu volnostiu i likhim kozachestvom] and wished to live their own way of life? They were threatened by a loss of nationality [Gogol’s word: natsionalnost] and by having their rights made to a greater or lesser extent equal with the people who were personally owned by the Russian autrocrat. Without it, Peter would have no impact on them. All this preoccupied the delinquent hetman.”

    My words:

    As can be seen, Gogol by hs own words viewed Mazepa as someone who cared about his people and who was motivated, not by personal greed or treachery, but by wanting to prevent his free people from becoming slaves of Russia. There is of course no statement by Gogol that Mazepa was right or that he, Gogol, agreed with Mazepa’s separatist actions. But Gogol did show sympathy for the man and showed that his opinion of Mazepa was radically different than is the russian nationalist view of him as a self-interested traitor.

    Yet I wrote: “There is of course no statement by Gogol that Mazepa was right or that he, Gogol, agreed with Mazepa’s separatist actions.” Yet you wrote “it’s false to claim that Gogol supported Mazepa and Poland as a good offset to Russia. Nothing like that exists from Gogol – quite the opposite. To insist otherwise is among other things foolish.” YOu faslely implied that I claimed that Gogol supported Mazepa. Having to resort to misrepresentations of my positions suggests that you have lost the arguments, also.

    Turning to Kuban, The Russian Civil War By Evan Mawdsley writes that Kuban’s leaders attacked Denikin’s “military dictatorship.” The Kuban Rada was demounced as separatists, and Denikin ordered a coup again the Rada. “Under the heavy hands of Wrangel and Pokrovsky the most exrme Kuban ‘Mirabeaus’ were hanged and others were exiled.” So, how many Ukrainian politrical leaders did imprialist Pilsudski hang in 1919, versus those hanged by “non-imperialist” Denikin?

    You mention Skoropadsky’s declaration of a union but failed to mention that he was promptly deposed in a popular uprising right after agreeing to it. Indeed, during the civil war period there was no significant pro-Russian native movement in Ukraine. All the forces there (Petliura’s Ukrainian nationalsits, Makhno’s anarchists, the various warlords) were opposed to Denikin. Indeed, like Petliura or Pilsudski they seem to have considered the Reds to even have been a “lesser evil.” The closest thing to any White-Ukrainian cooperation was Galician flirtation with joining the Whites in exchange for their help vs. Poland, although little came of this.

    Appealing to the memory of a state that ceased to exist in 1241 as somehow making a White invasion of Ukraine “not an invasion” does not seem very realistic.

    As for curent popularity of Russia or Poland in Ukraine, the data is mixed depending on the survey and geographical region. For example, one poll in 2009 showed that Poland was seen as Ukraine’s best friend, Russia was in second place. At any rate, surveys about attitudes today are not relevent to events in 1917. But Shifting the discussion away from uncomfortable facts seems to be a pattern with you.

    Comment by AP — January 2, 2011 @ 10:12 am

  38. Your claim of being misrepresented is faulty given what’s on record at this thread. Among other things, this includes uncritically citing the gross mis-translation of the Russian meaning of “region” that gets presented as “nation.” The “shifting the discussion away from uncomfortable facts seems to be a pattern with you.”

    Where does Gogol sympathize with Mazepa? There has yet to be presented a firmly established reference of Gogol saying so. BTW, a not so distant Ukrainian poll puts Mazepa’s popularity in Ukraine at under 35%. So, its’ not just “Russian nationalists” with such a view of Mazepa.

    The general overview of Mazepa includes reasonable observations that he wasn’t such a great leader prior to his break from Peter and that Mazepa’s move thereafter was sheer opportunism on Mazepa’s part. With this in mind, Peter did Mazepa a favor by supporting the latter, when another person could’ve been supported.

    Your ongoing pro-Austria-Hungary slant ignores numerous variables. As part of the Russian Empire, Finland had the greatest autonomy of any future European nation under a monarchy. In Austria-Hungary, there was support for Russia, which the Habsburgs were wary of. The Russian Empire was also where many prominent Ukrainian historical figures were born and educated.

    Was Galicia free of anti-Jewish activity in 1648? What happened there during WW II is pretty well established, despite some claims (feeble at that) to the contrary. Present day eastern Galcia has its share of extremism as well.

    The pogroms in parts of the Russian Empire were a most unfortunate aspect and by no means an exclusive act of intolerance relative to the treatment of Blacks and Indians in America and what Ottoman Turkey did to many Christians. I’ve no doubt that with or without revolution, the former Russian Empire would’ve achieved a positive development in an arguably greater way than what occurred.

    Was Makhno more of an anarachist than Ukrainian nationalist? Petliura was willing to give up eastern Galicia to Pilsudski. The Galician Ukrainians allied themselves under the command of the Whites. Contrary to the anti-Russian propaganda of some Ukrainian nationalists, the Whites and Reds found considerable support in Ukraine. This greatly explains why Petliura’s support melted.

    Skoropadsky had a conservative anti-left side to him which put him in opposition to some like Petliura. Another issue had to do simply with wanting to be on top. Skoropadsky’s predicament was complex in that he received German support at a time when the Whites were allied with the West. At the same time, Skoropadsky never exhibited anti-Russian biases that are typical among the activist minority of Ukrainians who get disproportionate coverage in the West. One can find attempts to spin Skoropadsky as a positive figure by some Ukrainian nationalists with anti-Rusisan leanings. That take seems somewhat akin to the weak attempt at trying to make Gogol into something that he hasn’t been known for.

    From the perspective of someone who isn’t enthusiastic or unenthusiastic about capital punishment (instead, seeing plausible points on both sides of that issue), I don’t think that American WW II GI Eddie Slovik deserved a death sentence over the referenced Kuban Cossack faction issue. FYI, Wrangel (not Denikin) had the call to decide on how to act against the Kuban faction in question. Upon assuming the full leadership of the Whites, Wrangel is credited with bringing greater discipline to the Whites as well as developing and instituting a progressive socioeconomic reform policy in the civilian sector. In exile, he lived a dignified life.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — January 3, 2011 @ 9:45 am

  39. I took he time to follow-up on the dubious claims of Gogol.

    They reveal the opposite of your uncritically propped source, whose characterization can be gently put as creative and more frankly described as on the falsifying hack side – with a seeming agenda to disparage patriotic Russian views.

    Show me a Harvard promoted work second guessing the nationalism expressed by Poles like Pilsudski and the minority of anti-Russian Ukrainians.

    Comment by Andrew#3 — January 3, 2011 @ 11:26 pm

  40. … the gross mis-translation…

    That’s ironic coming from someone who thinks that “UPA” stands for “Ukrainian Partisan Army”.

    … of the Russian meaning of “region” that gets presented as “nation.”

    You’ve totally misunderstood the ?????????? vs. ??????????????? issue — and there is really no issue in the first place:

    ?????????? ????. 1) ?????. ???????????? ??????????????, ?????????? ?? ??????; ???????????. 2) ???????????? ????????????; ????????????.

    Do ask your “qualitatively high level fluent Russian and English speaking” friends to translate this for you, especially the little word “?????.” at the very beginning.

    Comment by peter — January 4, 2011 @ 5:34 am

  41. Thanks peter for adding some more reality to this conversation. I doubt that Andrew#3 will respond to your points. His friends apparently are better scholars than the Harvard professor specialising in this stuff, and better experts than the Berkley, Johns Hopkins etc. professors who favorably reviewed her work.

    I’m still waiting for Andrew #3 to give some examples of Ukrainians hanged by imperialist Pilsudski, to compare to “non-imperialist” Denikin (or Wrangel). As far as I know Eddie Slovak was not a Ukrainian and he wasn’t hanged by Pilsudski.

    I don’t know about Harvard works and Pilsudski, I based much of what I had written about Pilsudski and Dmowski on the books by an Oxford-trained Yale history professor, Timothy Snyder. I suppose neither Yale nor Harvard, generally considered among the top universities in the world, produce scholars good enough for Andrew #3 and his friends?

    Anyone remotely familiar with Skoropadsky would know that he was involved in paramilitary Ukrainian nationalist activities during his exile (he was much more popular among Galicians, making up most of the Ukrainian diaspora, than among the central Ukrainians who overthrew him). The attempt to present his offer of union with Russia as other than a tactical move, or him as a great Russian patriot and his Ukrainianism as “spin”, is laughable indeed but fits Andrew #3’s pattern. From the University of Toronto-published Encyclopedia of Ukraine:

    “For most of the interwar years Skoropadsky lived in Wannsee, near Berlin, and received German financial support. From there he headed the hetmanite movement, consisting of monarchist émigré organizations, such as the Ukrainian Union of Agrarians-Statists in Europe, the United Hetman Organization in Canada and the United States, and the Ukrainian Hetman Organization of America. He was also honorary president of the Ukrainian Hromada society in Berlin. Because of his links with governing Junker circles, in 1926 he was able to initiate the creation of the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Berlin. Skoropadsky never relinquished his claim to Ukraine. During the Second World War he lobbied the Nazi government for the release of the leaders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists imprisoned in German concentration camps. He was mortally wounded during an Allied air raid on the railway station at Plattling, in Bavaria, and was buried in Wiesbaden. Excerpts from his memoirs appeared in Khliborobs’ka Ukraïna (vols 4 and 5 [1922–3, 1924–5]) and under separate cover as a 1992 Kyiv volume of his Spomyny (Reminiscences). A collection of essays about Skoropadsky and his times, edited by Olena Ott-Skoropadska, appeared in 1993 as Ostanni het’man (The Last Hetman). Skoropadsky’s memoirs regarding events from late 1917 to December 1918, edited by Jaroslaw Pelenski (who also provided a foreward) were published in 1995.”

    Comment by AP — January 4, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

  42. Anyone remotely familiar with Skoropadsky would know…

    To be fair to Mike (aka Andrew#3, Sissy Pie, BS Serum and whatever else he calls himself these days), he’s making some progress. A couple years ago he couldn’t even spell “Skoropadsky” remotely correctly.

    Comment by peter — January 6, 2011 @ 4:36 am

  43. The crackpot revisionism on Gogol has been thoroughly deconstructed:

    http://marknesop.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-khodorkovsky-conviction-dont-let-the-door-hit-you-in-the-ass-on-the-way-in/#comment-2203

    So much for the La Russophobe troll and limited in knowledge hack claiming differently.

    The Harvard label is by no means flaw free and in the discussed instance is nothing more than a demagogic coverup. There is more than one hack in political academia. It is therefore no surprise that they can find each other.

    Comment by Anya — January 6, 2011 @ 8:39 pm

  44. PS – Like the U of Toronto is not free of crackpot Ukrainian nationalist revisionism.

    Comment by Anya — January 6, 2011 @ 8:40 pm

  45. Nothing in the supposed “deconstruction” wasn’t covered here. Attacking Harvard or the University of Toronto suggests an inability to attack the arguments on its own merits.

    Comment by AP — January 7, 2011 @ 8:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress