Valentyn Moroz Ukrainian Voice/Canadian Farmer 21-May-1984 Every cat an antidog

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE WIESENTHAL RFE/RL rfe/rl >

Valentyn Moroz Ukrainian Voice/Canadian Farmer 21-May-1984 Every cat an antidog

Misinterpreting Valentyn Moroz
Moroz's article below is susceptible to misinterpretation, and deserves a word of introduction. The Moroz statement that is most susceptible to misinterpretation is the following:

This statement appears to affirm that anti-Semitism is universal, natural, and therefore acceptable. But whether or not we find this statement to be true or tolerable depends on what sort of anti-Semitism Moroz has in mind. Does Moroz have in mind the kind of anti-Semitism that leads to broken windows and burning houses and shootings? No, this is not at all what Moroz is talking about, and to interpret him in this way would be to gratuitously set up a straw man who could more readily be knocked down than could Moroz himself. Moroz makes clear what he has in mind in the continuation of his statement:

The whole world knows that they don't like the English in France. Do the Englishmen complain to the United Nations about that? The problem would arise if English shops in France were to be put on fire. As long as that doesn't take place, it's a private affair of private individuals.

What Moroz is clearly doing is asserting freedom from totalitarian thought control and totalitarian emotion control. He is articulating the truism that people tend to feel more at ease with people of their own kind, and � it follows inescapably � tend to feel less at ease with people of other kinds. And Moroz is going farther to affirm that our thoughts and feelings are nobody's business but our own; that they are not to be molded by government; they are not to be legislated; they are not to be punished. Only extreme actions can be controlled, legislated, and punished. The French are free to dislike the English, but they are not free to burn down the shops of the English. The Canadians are free to dislike the Americans, but they are not free to shoot the Americans. The Czechs are free to dislike the Gypsies, but they are not free to jail the Gypsies. At worship within our churches, we may dream of a perfectible man who harbors equal love for all under the sun, but in reality we know that this is a Utopian vision whose realization would be harmful to enforce.

Such statements as those above are accurate descriptions of reality, although they are politically incorrect to articulate. It is to Moroz's credit that when called to by his argument, he dares to articulate them. In doing so, Moroz does no more than to articulate that all of us have likes and dislikes, and that these likes and dislikes are ineradicable. Can there be any doubt that on the average, Ukrainians like Ukrainians more than they like Jews; and that on the average, Jews like Jews more than they like Ukrainians? And can there be anything more Quixotic � or more arrogant and dangerous � than for some figure in authority to dictate that such feelings must be eradicated? All that I see Moroz articulating is the libertarian sentiment expressed by Robert Houghwout Jackson: "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." Valentyn Moroz no more than echoes Clarence Darrow's assertion that "There is no such crime as a crime of thought; there are only crimes of action."

And so when Moroz says "every dog is an anticat," all he can possibly mean is the harmless observation that on the average dogs like dogs more than they like cats. When he says "every," he cannot possibly mean "every." We are forced to give him the benefit of the doubt here. If he were asked whether he imagined that it had ever happened that a dog has liked a cat more than it liked other dogs, then he would surely have to admit that such indeed must have happened at some time or other. His "every" is simply literary hyperbole, and must be understood as such. Moroz's "every dog is an anticat" is just a stylistically preferable restatement of the more accurate but also more awkward "on the average, dogs prefer dogs to cats." Moroz's "every non-Ukrainian is to a certain degree an anti-Ukrainian," is just a stylistically more concise expression of "on the average, non-Ukrainians prefer non-Ukrainians to Ukrainians." Moroz's "every non-Jew has something anti-Semitic about him" is just a stylistically more graceful expression of "on the average, non-Jews feel somewhat more at ease with other non-Jews than they do with Jews." These are the things which are true and which are nobody's business. Western law, and official action, concerns itself with certain egregious behaviors; only totalitarian thinking and law concern themselves with reshaping ubiquitous thoughts and stamping out universal feelings.

Liking Valentyn Moroz
I happen to like Valentyn Moroz. I agree with just about everything he says. In many cases, I would have preferred to see his wording toned down. However, despite Moroz's occasional hyperbole and indelicacy, I find his world view insightful and his advice worth taking.

There are, however, at least two kinds of people who do not like Valentyn Moroz. There are the Jews who do not like assertive Ukrainians. And there are the submissive Ukrainians who do not like to be told that they are submissive.

Among the latter, Moroz particularly singles out Ukrainian participants in Zionist junkets:

Nowadays it is fashionable to brag about "good relations" with the Jews and trips to Israel. Are these relations indeed good? What are their practical results?

And in the following statement, Moroz appears to have particular individuals in mind, and it is not difficult for me to think of specific Ukrainians who are aptly described by these very words:

And that's why this and that professor who, after a trip to Israel, brags about his "good relations" with the Jews, appears ludicrous, because these "relations" were paid for by a complete rejection of the sense of his self worth and his readiness to swallow meekly the sharp attacks addressed against the Ukrainians.

Upon any putting forward of Moroz's views, then, these same individuals whom Moroz is indicting can be expected to voice an immediate and loud objection, and this will typically be ad hominem, it will be character assassination. Such critics will not want to examine Moroz's words, because these are too pro-Ukrainian and too critical of anti-Ukrainians; they will prefer, rather, to examine Moroz's character, because it falls short of perfection. Moroz, we will be told, was arrogant and dictatorial, and he mistreated his wife and daughter.

To such attacks, I have no option but to notice the extreme vagueness of the charges, and their irrelevance. Of course anyone who like Valentyn Moroz boldly challenges the status quo will be viewed as arrogant and dictatorial. And on the question of his family relations, I have heard nothing concrete, and in any case judge the matter to be irrelevant. Did Moroz mistreat his family more than did Camelot king Jack Kennedy? Did Moroz mistreat his family more than does Bill Clinton, presently soaring to new heights of popularity as leader of the free world? Why should a Ukrainian leader be held to a higher standard of inter-personal adjustment than respected leaders of the world's foremost superpower?

Thus, one reason (the lesser one) that I reproduce Valentyn Moroz's words below is not because he gives us good advice on family relations, and not because he is a model husband and father, but because he paints for Ukrainians their political reality. I suppose that if Attila the Hun, or Stalin, or whoever, made statements that provided insights into a matter that I was discussing, then I would not hesitate to quote him, and would be justified in brushing aside as irrelevant any protests that these were not nice people; and as Moroz does not fall into their category, then I don't see why his words should be cursed with any taboo that Attila and Stalin are exempted from.

But all the above talk about whether Moroz is right or wrong, a perfect individual or a flawed one, is beside the point, because my main reason for quoting him is not because what he said is true or valuable, but because what he said constituted the provocation for Simon Wiesenthal to initiate a series of moves which attempted to suppress Moroz, moves that were possibly successful. My main reason for discussing Moroz, then, is not to promote his views, but to demonstrate that Simon Wiesenthal does indeed play the role of Grand Calumniator of Ukraine, both in his public work as we have amply seen elsewhere on the UKAR site, and in his secret work, as we are about to see below. Whether we agree with Moroz wholly, or only in part, or even not at all is beside the main point that I wish to make � and that main point is that any Ukrainian wishing to win a public forum may find himself opposed by powerful and yet hidden forces, and that Simon Wiesenthal is one of those forces. We have already seen that the accumulation of information concerning Simon Wiesenthal undermines his claim to being a leading Nazi hunter; what we shall see below is that fresh information concerning Simon Wiesenthal does bolster his claim to being the Grand Calumniator of Ukraine.

In fact, in order to appreciate Simon Wiesenthal's attempt to suppress Moroz, it is not even necessary to read the Moroz article below at all. The reader can skip it entirely, or read a paragraph or two to get an idea of what it's about � and pass right along to the second and third documents that are to be found in the RFE/RL index.

And now here is a translation of the Valentyn Moroz article that first appeared in Ukrainian in the Ukrainian Voice / Canadian Farmer of 21 May 84, and that we shall see prompted the Simon Wiesenthal attempt at suppression:

Ukrainian-Jewish Relations: An Attempt at an Analysis
No one is against the principle itself: to try war criminals. But ... There are several such "buts." First, these people are tried on the basis of Soviet evidence. Can it be considered evidence? � A ludicrous question. Everyone is familiar with the Muscovite talents when it comes to fabricating "witnesses" and testimonies.

Another thing: why is it that one cannot stop talking only about the crimes of World War Two, events which took place almost fifty years ago? In Afghanistan the Soviets have killed more than a million persons. So which crime is more horrible, the one that took place fifty years ago or the one that is being perpetrated now? Is it not more important to try those who are murdering people in Afghanistan now? And this is precisely Moscow's tactics: raise a fuss about World War Two to turn attention away from Moscow's crimes of today. Why, then, did the Jews agree to such a dishonorable role: to be the "smoke screen" for Soviet murderers? Indeed, there are Jews in Soviet prisons; witness for example the campaign to free Shcharansky. No doubt there are now in the West those who used to be NKVD executioners. Apparently, the Jews have nothing to gain from starting a campaign against the NKVD "war criminals" since it was the Jews who were in the majority there... In the well known photograph in Solzhenitsyn's book (in the second edition the photo was no longer there) there appear the NKVD leaders in Ukraine. There were seven of them; five of them were Jews. The crime in Vinnitsa in the 1930's, where thousands of Ukrainians died, is also connected with the NKVD, in which almost all posts were occupied by people of Jewish nationality.

One more fact attracts attention. The trials in America of "war criminals" are conducted against representatives of various nationalities. But a trial of a Ukrainian receives the greatest "resonance." An article is published in The New York Times by Lucy Davidovich in which all the Ukrainians are called "Nazis" and bandits. Other articles are published saying that "Ukrainian guards murdered Jews on their own initiative..." At this point it is no longer clear whether the Hitleriate state was German or Ukrainian. In a Jewish children's textbook it says that Bohdan Khmelnitsky was the "first Hitler(!?)"

Are we indeed the world center of anti-Semitism? Sometime ago the Jews were chased out of Spain; they were chased out of England several times. In France some time ago they burned the entire Jewish community in one town. In Germany they were destroying Jews totally; Russia was known to the whole world for its Jewish pogroms. So why doesn't Lucy Davidovich write about the Germans? The Spaniards? The Englishmen? Certain people say: they don't know the facts. They have to be told. This is naive. They studied the information contained in their "Vienna archives" well. They don't provoke the Germans because Germany is a world power. They don't provoke Russia because she will not let Jewish emigrants go. They do provoke the Ukrainians since at this stage we can be provoked: we have no state of our own. One always needs a bogy, a symbol of hatred, which cements a nation. They picked us as their bogy...

Ostensibly only some "individuals" are being tried and not the Ukrainians as a nation. But why after such trials do articles appear in the newspapers which speak about the "Nazism" of all Ukrainians? How come the Jews don't try their own "individuals" using this type of publicity, form the ranks of Jewish police in Auschwitz? Because they understand that the victim would be not some "individuals" but an entire ethnic group. And that's just the point: using certain Jewish groups Moscow wants to attach the label of "Nazis" to all the Ukrainians in the West. If this view is allowed to spread then even a Ukrainian born in Canada or the United States would lose out. He would not become a professor at the university which is afraid to take the chance. Someone else would be hired since the Ukrainians have such a bad reputation. Who, after all, is on the list of "criminals?" Yuri Shymko, a member of the Ontario Legislature... A soviet newspaper Visti z Ukrainy wrote that he was a "war criminal." Wiesenthal and the Soviets said exactly the same about Dmytro Kupiak, who was a soldier in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Yes, he killed his enemies, and we are proud of him. Just as the Afghan nation is proud of its guerrillas who are killing Moscow's occupiers. The Canadian communist paper The Canadian Tribune wrote the same about me: "Nazi collaborationist Walentyn Moroz, who is responsible for the betrayal of patriots during German occupation." I was three years old when World War Two began. Shymko, I think, was even younger. These are the people that Moscow would like to see as "war criminals:" the most active of the Ukrainians. It is these people's activities that Moscow wants to impede by using the Wiesenthals. And, as a matter of fact, the entire campaign directed at "war criminals" has one purpose � to impede activities of all East European emigrants, and especially the Ukrainians, whom the Kremlin fears the most. When it comes to crimes and criminals the Kremlin does not care. Congressman Ashbrook of Ohio, who spoke actively against the use of Soviet evidence in Western courts, provides an interesting example. In the East German Politbureau there was a "big cheese." Then, in West Germany, it became known that he had been a guard in a Hitlerite concentration camp. So? They made him the chairman of a collective farm! That is, they took him out of the limelight. It never occurred to anyone to try him. Interesting that Congressman Ashbrook died last year under mysterious conditions...

Does everything which I have said mean that I think that any kind of Ukrainian-Jewish contacts are impossible? Some draw that conclusion. For example, in two articles in Ukrainski visti [Ukrainian News] published in Detroit there is a review of an interesting book about the Jews (On Mental Reasons for Jewishness). The conclusion of the book is that Jewish mentality is very specific, unlike any other. "Any attempts to come to an understanding are hopeless." Even if this were true there is another aspect to this. The Jews and we don't live on different planets. Our paths have crossed on our journeys through the world and will cross again. Consequently, whether we like their mentality or not, out of pure practical necessity we must seek some kind of dialogue with them.

But...

But an alliance is possible only among equals. No alliance is possible between a rider and a horse. In fairy tales humans often appear as animals. The predator is the wolf, the stupid one is the ass, etc. If I were to draw a picture of a Ukrainian conference or a meeting in this animal/fairy tale style, I would draw a picture of a hall filled with a forest of rabbit ears... The Ukrainian "chiefs" in emigration are mostly rabbits. Their usual reaction is to hide in the bushes the moment there is a trouble. The Jews (and Arabs as well...) will not respect such people. They respect those who are aggressive. Instead of justifying ourselves and proving how "angel-like" we are we must say as follows:

Anti-Semitism? So what? Every cat is in principle an antidog; every dog is in principle an anticat. Every non-Ukrainian is to a certain degree an anti-Ukrainian. And every non-Semite has something anti-Semitic in him. So why make a world problem out of this? The whole world knows that they don't like the English in France. Do the Englishmen complain to the United Nations about that? The problem would arise if English shops in France were to be put on fire. As long as that doesn't take place, it's a private affair of private individuals. We do not want the subject of anti-Semitism to be a perennial headache for the world.

Keep It to Yourself, for your Internal Consumption.

Another thing which is important for establishing at least an elementary balance in the relations between the Ukrainians and the Jews is self-respect. The one who kisses the hand will never be spoken to as a partner but only as a servant. I am often asked what is my relationship with the "Yevrei." My answer: with the "Yevreis" they are bad but with the Zhyds they are very good. I do not know the word "Yevrei" nor do I want to know it; there is no such word in the Ukrainian language. This is a Russian word. How the Russkies use it and when � this is their problem. We have a historical, an old Ukrainian term � the Zhyds. Is there someone who doesn't like it? So what? Why should I adjust myself to someone else? The Poles use the word "Zhyd" and don't care whether anyone likes it. The same goes for the French: the English word "Jew" is a variant of Zhyd, the stem of which is Judath (Jude in the German variant). Even the Lithuanians in the Soviet Union officially use Zhydas. All these nations would be surprised if it were suggested that they write Yevrei. So no one suggests it to them. No one suggested this to us either. Some of our authors and editorial offices changed Zhyd to Yevrei on their own. Why? Out of inferiority delusion. This is the immortal "shabbat goy:" the person with a servant's complex. Shevchenko in his "Haidamaky" accurately called them Kirpa-Hnuchkoshienko: they are the ones who look down their noses [kirpa] at their own people and bow their heads [shia] before others. Obviously we are not talking here about a "national ambition." However, "hnuchkoshiistvo" [bowing one's head in a servile manner] brings us great practical harm: as long as the Jewish side has at its disposal such Ukrainians with the servant's psychology, prepared in an instant to replace our historical terminology (and with it a system of values), it will never be able to speak to the Ukrainians with the state "Mazepa-like" mentality.

Some naive people say: we ought not react to the attacks of the Jews, we should treat them "delicately." They think that the Jews will appreciate this and will become more kind. But this is a dilettante's logic. The opposite is true: the one who is pushed is the one who is afraid to react to a push.

Nowadays it is fashionable to brag about "good relations" with the Jews and trips to Israel. Are these relations indeed good? What are their practical results? It seems that we are repeating here a 19th century Jewish joke. In Stepan Rudansky's version it goes like this:

Moshko came from St. Petersburg and was bragging that he spoke to the tzar. "And how did you speak?" someone asked "Oh, we spoke gloriously," Moshko answered. "I kept on repeating �ura' ["hurrah"] while he kept on saying "durak" ["you are a fool"].

The same applies to today, except that now we've "duraks." ... This role was also proposed to me. Several times there was a talk about my trip to Israel, especially with Suslensky.* But I asked:

"And what am I going to do there?"

"You will talk to the Ukrainian-Jewish Committee."

"Will I make a speech or give an interview?"

"No, that's going to be difficult..."

In that case what is the point of my going to Israel? For a vacation? There are closer places to spend vacation, and I can always use the phone to talk with the Committee, it's cheaper.

Everyone who was asked to come to Israel should have asked that question. But this question is not raised. We also don't ask any questions of Suslensky before he speaks in Ukrainian halls. First of all: we can agree to have him talk to the Ukrainians only if he guarantees a similar talk for a Ukrainian in Israel. Otherwise it's a one-way influence. Secondly, who is Suslensky, whom does he represent, and what influence does he have in his homeland? How many newspapers and television programs in Israel mention Suslensky's Committee? If we were to check this out we would find that Suslensky represents a few old immigrants from the Soviet Union who have not yet learned Hebrew well and speak Russian amongst themselves. They are viewed in Israel as the Puerto Ricans are in America. So it would be ridiculous to speak about their influence on public opinion in Israel. And this person who represents nobody was solemnly received by the head of Toronto's CUC [The Committee of Ukrainians in Canada] and by the Ukrainian metropolitan in Philadelphia! After such conduct on our part we will be simply ridiculed, but no one will consider us as partners. And that's why this and that professor who, after a trip to Israel, brags about his "good relations" with the Jews, appears ludicrous, because these "relations" were paid for by a complete rejection of the sense of his self worth and his readiness to swallow meekly the sharp attacks addressed against the Ukrainians.

We will not mention Suslensky's article in America, published in Philadelphia, with crude insults addressed against Prof. Mirchuk. Curious, that almost no one noticed these insults, just as they did not notice the arrogant and supercilious tone of this article directed against the Ukrainians in general. On the other hand they jumped at Mirchuk... For what? Because he told the truth? A long time ago someone should have told the truth about the Jewish police in Aushwitz. It treated the Jews more cruelly than the Germans... So why is it that the Ukrainians who served in German police are being tried while the Jews who served in the same police are considered for some reason as innocent angels? There are witnesses that in Chortkov the Jewish police transported the Jews to the places of execution. Mirchuk spoke about similar facts. He gave us an example in what language the Ukrainian-Jewish dialog ought to be conducted. Today we can benefit much more from this dialogue than we could have ten years ago, since the situation with Israel and the world Jewry in general is becoming more complicated. To put it crudely these phenomena are now on a frying pan which is becoming ever hotter. And they would be more pliable if we had our own "I".

A "shabbat goy" forever repeats the same error. Certain Ukrainian leaders began "politicking" with the Germans already in 1943 when it was clear that Germany was a "loser" whom all others rejected. Certain of our "fathers of the nation" began going to Formosa then when all others rejected it and started orienting themselves toward mainland China. Now we have the same "Formosa" all over again: certain of our chiefs are starting to go to Israel precisely at the time when it appears as one of the most compromised regimes in the world; the Beirut adventure threw Begin's government and the entire country into a serious crisis. President Reagan called bombing Beirut a holocaust. Today one ought to think more about contacts with the Arabs rather than the Jews. In any case the Pope officially receives Arafat, and not Begin.

There is another important matter in dealing with the Jews: don't tell them about your "love." The Jews treat such assurances very ironically. Their historical experience taught them not to have too much faith in "love" among nations. They embrace the American principle: do me no harm and I will do good to myself by myself. The Jews treat just as ironically someone who "cares" about them since they are convinced that they are the most talented nation in the world and can take care of themselves. The well known joke says that Moses was not wise, for if he had been, after crossing the Red Sea he would have turned right and would have had oil, instead he went left and now has sand... Another joke, however, says that this was no mistake. If the Jews were able to squeeze water out of stone, then they can squeeze oil out as well. Hence, let's not concern ourselves with the Jews; they are not asking us for it and they will take care of themselves. Let's be concerned about ourselves.

Our arguments in our dialogue with the Jews must be well-wishing but forward-moving [aggressive]. They ought to be as follows:

We are not your poor relatives who came to beg for kindness. "You are faced with some tough times who knows, you might seek our help tomorrow. We need you, but you also need us. Don't spit into the well you might have to drink from it... You say that you are a chosen people and that God guides you in your actions. That means that God also took you to Auschwitz, that was God's purpose. Why, then, do you go with a complaint to the American court?

You say that we wronged Jews. Give us just one example when the Ukrainians wronged the Jews in Palestine... We never advanced on your land, but you did on ours. Ukrainian [paper] money of the UNR [Ukrainian National Republic] times bore an inscription in four languages including Jewish. When an inscription appears in Ukrainian on Israeli money, please show us... That Petliura, whom you have made into a "pogromshchik" (although you know well that it was the Russians who started the pogroms long before 1917) and who was killed by Schwarbart, had several Jews in his government, including a Minister. Do you just as readily put Ukrainians into your government when you're in power?

But the best arguments are practical steps. Confronted with resistance rather than excuses certain Jewish circles would immediately lose any desire to attack Ukrainians. We need more such actions as the Ukrainian demonstration in Cleveland during Demianuk's trial or demonstration in Toronto on May 29, 1982, demanding not to allow in Canada an atmosphere of "pogrom" against Ukrainians which has already spread throughout America. It is interesting to note that both actions received wide coverage in the North American media. Several committees (Toronto, Cleveland, Philadelphia) are fighting against the "war criminals" campaign inspired by the Soviets. We need better coordination among them. It's curious that in Philadelphia, where two Ukrainians have already been tried and great damage has been done to public opinion about the Ukrainians (this is what American newspapers have said) to this day there has not been a Ukrainian demonstration! Apparently the leaders of Philadelphia's "Ukrainian Antidefamation League" are mixing the "useful with the pleasurable:" they are scared to touch the necessary but risky aspects of the matter, limiting themselves to meetings that no one cares about. It's sad when affairs of national honor are made into a hobby...

Does the above mean that I am suggesting a war with the Jews and rejecting any possibility of an understanding? Am I inclined to agree with the author who, in an interesting book on mental reasons for Jewishness draws the conclusion that this is a peculiar mentality far removed from any other and that "any attempts at understanding are hopeless"? No. Even if this were true there is still the practical aspect of the problem: we do live with the Jews on the same planet. Whether we like it or not let's have contacts with them. It's better that these contacts be positive than negative.

So let's extend a hand to the Jews. This hand, however, must be that of a fighter and not of a beggar. The Jews are a nation which respect power and the powerful. Jacob Israel, the legendary father of Israel, fought even God and afterward concluded a treaty with Him: Lead my people on the road of success and I will serve You. The Jews will join us at the negotiation table only then when they feel our muscles. Goldelman, one of the initiators of the Ukrainian-Jewish dialogue, said that until the Ukrainians have their own state any cooperation with Israel is unrealistic. So let's put our conversation precisely on that plane; the future! And don't laugh at us that we don't have our own state! Yesterday you didn't have one either. Not so long ago Jews were ridiculed for not being able to shoot. Today they have mastered shooting so well that in six days they demolished the Arab world. The Ukrainians, 50 million-strong represent a powerful potential. And no matter how long the various mafias of the world keep them in chains this will come to an end! And then the Jews will come to us. But they won't be talking to "shabbat goyim" who can only apologize because they are scared and mumble something indistinct about the Jewish tavern-keepers who pushed his predecessors into committing various "sins". The Jews will speak to the fully grown Ukrainians who will say: "You are a nation and we are a nation. You are a power and we are a power. At times you were on the bottom and we were on top, now it's the other way around. But this can change and tomorrow we may change roles again. Do remember one Polish song: "my granny stood on a balcony while under the balcony a brassband marched. The band leader became my grandfather. After that my mother stood on a balcony and a brassband marched under it. Its leader became my father. Now I stand on a balcony, except there are no more brassbands..." And so it is that nowadays Jewish orchestras blast under American balconies, but tomorrow one may say that Jewish music is no longer needed in America... This mood is getting ever stronger in America. Former Deputy Secretary of State of the USA John Boll published an article in New York Times recently, in which he suggested that a part of the annual aid to Israel be given to ... Lebanon to rebuild the state destroyed by Israeli aggression. This article is very indicative of today's American moods.

*Jacob Suslensky: Chairman of "Jewish-Ukrainian Understanding" Committee based in Israel.

Ukrainskiy Holos / Kanadiyskyi Farmer
Ukrainian Voice / Canadian Farmer
Winnipeg, May 21, 1984.

Translation: Yuri Olkhovsky
Edited by:   Charles P. Trumbull

GB:gk:am

cc. Messrs.   Buckley
              Kaminsky
              Novak
              Shakespeare
              Vaslef
              Wattenberg

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE WIESENTHAL RFE/RL rfe/rl >