Page 2, 10th November 1939

10th November 1939
Page 2
Page 2, 10th November 1939 — THE UKRAINE Is It Russian ?
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags


Share


Related articles

Millions Await Pope's Visit To The Ukraine

Page 4 from 22nd June 2001

Ukraine Test For Gorbachev

Page 2 from 7th April 1989

Converting The Ukraine To Catholicis11

Page 10 from 25th March 1937

Russians Resist Papal Visit

Page 4 from 18th May 2001

Catholic Hospitality For Atheist Congress .

Page 1 from 24th April 1936

THE UKRAINE Is It Russian ?

SK—Does Mr A. Moore intend to renew the futile controversy which over a number of years has been carried on intermittently in the Catholic Press of this country, too often with scant courtesy cu.]. the Ukrainian side? What is the -use of threshing out this old question again, whether racially, linguistically, etc., Ukrainians are something quite distinct from Great Russians, with an opponent who does not even

trouble to read my article carefully? I had made it clear that if " at some future time the Ukrainians and White Russians' demanded a wide autonomy, the new Russia . . . would have to be built on principles of a genuine federation."

Surely this is no wild " imperialist enthusiasm "? No one denies the existence of a Ukrainian separatist movement in Galicia, nor that it existed among some intellectuals in old Russia, but it was restricted to a small goolip; the masses of Ukrainians, the peasants, never questioned their unity with the rest of Russia. There are certainly linguistic differences between Use speech of Great, Little and White Russia, but less marked than between French and Provençal, for instance. On tide matter Professor S. Bunch seems to be a greater authority than Th. E. Korsht and he explicitly denies that the Ukrainian is a separate language, but only a dialect.

I would suggest that Mr M Dore reads through the first volume of Professor Kluchevsky's History-he would see that the eminent scholar looks upon the Ukrainians as a "branch of the Russian people." I could also recommend him to read up on this subject wane of the writings of Professor Sir Paul Vinogra dov. In his third volume Professor Klucheveky gives a true vesesion of the alleged " conquest of the Ukraine " and shows Khmelnicki in his truo light. One really wonders whether my opponent has heard of the Pereyaslavl Rada which unanimously voted for the reunion with Muscovy?

I feel the deepest veneration for the martyred Metropolitan Sztspticki, who was not only a great spiritual leader, but also a national leader. But I have never seen any pronouncement or writing of his bearing the stamp of narrow nationalist propaganda. Judging by his disciple and friend, Bishop Czarnecki, who was in charge of the Catholics of Eastern rite outside Galicia, and whom I have the privilege of knowing personally, this chauvinist spirit was totally absent with the hierarchy of Ukrainian Catholics. Otherwise, thee would have been scarcely fitted for their great apostolic work.

YOUR BUSMAN C'DMRESPONDENT.




blog comments powered by Disqus