Симпозіюм 70-ліття Голодомору в Україні 1932-1933 рр.

November 8, 2003

Програму веде проф. Тарас Гунчак

Перше засідання:
Dr. James Mace (Kyiv) – “Why Was It Genocide?”
Dr. Margaret Siriol Colley (Great Britain) –“Gareth Jones: A Voice Crying In The Wilderness”

Друге засідання:
Наталя Дзюбенко (Київ) –“Голодомор: свідчення очевидців”
Володимир Лозицький (Київ) та Володимир Даниленко (Київ)
“Архівні матеріяли, пов’язані з Голодомором 1932-1933 рр.”

Тарас Гунчак

Проф. Тарас Гунчак, виступивши із вступним словом, відкрив симпозіюм присвячений трагедії українського народу. У своєму слові професор зазначив, що впродовж десятиліть в Україні замовчувалася правда про геноцид проти українського народу. Про трагедію нашого народу мало знали в інших країнах світу. Тому так важливо, що сьогодні в усіх засобах масової інформації ведеться розмова про злочин сталінського режиму.

Джеймс Мейс

Dr. James Mace (Kyiv)

Is the Ukrainian Genocide a Myth?

In 1988 the US Commission on the Ukraine Famine arrived at nineteen findings, among them (No. 16) that what happened to the Ukrainians in 1932-1933 constituted genocide. This was, fact the most important of the commission’s conclusions, and as the person who drafted those conclusions for the commission’s approval, I feel a certain responsibility to defend it in this journal in the light of new evidence that has been made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union and published by scholars in Ukraine.

United Nations reports

There have been two major United Nation documents on genocide, the Ruhashyankiko report of 1978 and the Whittaker report of 1985. Both are major studies of genocide from the standpoint of the commission, with the second intended as a corrective to the former. The Ruhashyankiko report had been forced to delete any mention of the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire because of extensive pressure by the government of Turkey. The Whittaker report was intended as a corrective and did hold that the Armenian massacres had constituted genocide. These reports, however, were merely adopted by a UN subcommittee and did not necessarily reflect the views of higher UN bodies, let alone of the UN as a whole. The same is true of the US Commission on the Ukraine famine, which was adopted by and thus reflected the opinion of a temporary joint (hybrid) commission of the Congress, representatives of the president of the United States, and public members appointed by the members from Congress but was in no way binding on either Congress or the president, since it required approval from neither.

Neither of the UN reports mentioned Ukraine. If Turkey had been able to block findings not to its liking, imagine what the Soviet Union could have done. Moreover, while the Whittaker report was being prepared, I corresponded with the author, who said that since the issue was one of only three million or so Ukrainians, about 10% of the total Ukrainian SSR population at the time, it really did not merit consideration as genocide. As a person having no standing with the body in question, there was little I could do to pursue the matter further.

However, it should be kept in mind that when Ukrainians raise the issue of the international recognition of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 as genocide, about all that is feasible is something on the order of the UN reports, and any attempt to get an amendment to or revised and updated report would likely face the same obstacles placed by the Russian government as those placed by that of Turkey to any recognition of the Armenian genocide in past years. In addition, it must be kept in mind that Russia, unlike Turkey, is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and thus carries far more weight in all UN organizations. Still, what is not feasible today might well become so in the future.

The International Commission of Inquiry

Unlike the US Commission on the Ukraine Famine, in 1990 the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932-33 Famine in Ukraine, a moot court sponsored by the then World Congress of Free Ukrainians, stopped short of such a conclusion, stating: If the intent to eliminate seems to have been present, was it nevertheless bent upon eliminating “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, “as such”? There is no doubt that the famine and the policies from which it arose were not confined to Ukraine, even if the territories with a Ukrainian majority appear to have been tragically privileged. Moreover, history has since largely confirmed that Stalin’s hatred extended beyond the Ukrainians. One is led to envisage the possibility of a series of genocides, however frightful that might be, but this does not in itself rule hypothesis of a genocide during the 1932-33 famine.

To this extent, and with due regard for the substantiating data supplied it, the Commission deems it plausible that the constituent elements of genocide were present at the time.

This is a little like the Scottish verdict of “not proven,” that is, the charge is one explanation that does not necessarily exclude others but not enough for a conviction. It was adopted because the chairman of the commission, Prof. Jacob Sundberg, argued, …such prosecution would have to take the general defences into account, the most important of which perhaps would be that invoking the Genocide Convention would mean its retroactive application to a moment in Europe’s history when no European or American power was willing to intervene in favour of the victims of the famine, not even by relief on purely humanitarian grounds, much less by a forcible humanitarian intervention of the type that used to hit the Ottoman Empire. While this was presented as a dissenting opinion of the chairman, it was certainly taken into account by his colleagues in drawing up the majority opinion. In fact, with the exception of this point Prof. Sundberg’s dissent was perhaps stronger than that of the majority of his colleagues colleagues in its condemnation of the Soviet policies that brought about the famine. While Prof. Sundberg found that among the multiple goals Stalin’s regime pursued in creating the famine was “destroying the Ukrainian nation,” it was precisely on this point that the majority, which found that the Genocide Convention applied to acts committed before its legal adoption, found its reason for dancing around the issue of whether this element needed to demonstrate genocide had been legally proven or merely proven to be one of several “plausible” explanations.

Why the Holodomor Was Genocide

With all due respect to the distinguished legal scholars on the tribunal, the only real reason for not finding that a crime of genocide had be
en perpetrated was that those most obviously culpable were almost all dead by the time the given commission announced its findings, and finding something to charge with a crime now, thirteen years later, would be well nigh impossible. However, Professor Sundberg, not the majority, was quite correct in finding on the basis of the limited evidence we had at the time that the intent was there. Consider a private letter of September 11, 1932, from Stalin to Kaganovich, recently published from the personal archives of Lazar Kaganovich: August 11, 1932: …The main thing is now Ukraine. Matters in Ukraine are now extremely bad. Bad from the standpoint of the Party line. They say that there are two oblasts of Ukraine (Kyïv and Dnipropetrovs’k, it seems) where almost 50 raikomy {district Party committees} have come out against the plan of grain procurements, considering them unrealistic. In other raikomy, they confirm, the matter is no better. What does this look like? This is no party, but a parliament, a caricature of a parliament. Instead of directing the districts, Kosior is always waffling between the directives of the CC VKP(b) and the demands of the district Party committees and waffled to the end. Lenin was right, when he said that a person who lacks the courage at the necessary moment to go against the current cannot be a real Bolshevik leader. Bad from the standpoint of the Soviet {state} line. Chubar is no leader. Bad from the standpoint of the GPU. Redens lacks the energy to direct the struggle with the counterrevolution in such a big and unique republic as Ukraine. If we do not now correct the situation in Ukraine, we could lose Ukraine. Consider that Pilsudski is not daydreaming, and his agents in Ukraine are much stronger than Redens or Kosior imagine. Also consider that within the Ukrainian Communist Party (500,000 members, ha, ha) there are not a few (yes, not a few!) rotten elements that are conscious or unconscious Petliura adherents and in the final analysis agents of Pilsudski. If the situation gets any worse, these elements won’t hesitate to open a front within (and outside) the Party, against the Party. Worst of all, the Ukrainian leadership doesn’t see these dangers… Set yourself the task of turning Ukraine in the shortest possible time into a fortress of the USSR, into the most inalienable republic. Don’t worry about money for this purpose. Transforming Ukraine at any cost in the shortest possible time into a fortress of the Soviet Union and the most inalienable republic is a pattern that the late Hryhory Kostiuk as early as 1960 was able to describe on the basis of Soviet official press sources as Hryhory Kostiuk’s Stalinist Rule in the Ukraine: A Study in the Decade of Mass Terror, 1929-1939 (London, 1960). Based on what could be learned from the official Soviet Ukrainian press of the period, Kostiuk called this policy one of turning “the non-Russian republics of the USSR into de facto provinces of Russia.” Now, of course, with Ukrainian historians having had over a decade to work in the archives, we know much more about the details. We know about Molotov’s and Kaganovich’s direct role in Ukraine and the Kuban after being appointed heads of special commissions on October 22, 1933, to oversee the grain procurements in those places and how they were able to send the very top Communists in their own jurisdictions wherever they decided in order to fulfil whatever tasks they assigned. We now have the terrible decree of November 18, 1932, that Molotov pushed through the Ukrainian Politburo, taking away everything but the seed (that would be taken under a separate decree in late December) if they had not fulfilled their quotas, placing collective farms on blacklists and fining individual peasants in other foodstuffs (in kind) for “maliciously” not having enough bread to seize. We have the Moscow Politburo decree signed by Stalin and Molotov on December 14, 1932, blamed “shortcomings in grain procurements” in Ukraine and the North Caucasus (read the Kuban) on “kurkul and nationalist wreckers” in order to unleash a reign of terror on Party officials, decree how many years specific officials in several districts should receive from the courts, end Ukrainization in the North Caucasus, condemn its “mechanistic” implementation (thereby de facto eliminating it there also), and the following day ending Ukrainization in the rest of the USSR. We have Kaganovich’s diaries recalling how on his first day in the North Caucasus he told the local leadership, “Without doubt among those who have come from Ukraine (i.e., Skrypnyk’s Commissariat of Education —J.M.) there were organized groups leading the work (of promoting kulak attitudes —J.M.), especially in the Kuban where there is the Ukrainian language.” We also now have thousands of eyewitness accounts recorded in Ukraine itself, basically identical to what the Commission on the Ukraine Oral History Project began to collect almost 20 years ago from those who had fled to North America. The first outpouring was when Stanislav Kul’chyts’kyi published a list of highly “Party-minded” questions in Sil’s’ki visti (Village News) for a book of people’s memory that the Writers Union had commissioned the late Volodymyr Maniak to compile. Maniak sorted through 6000 letters sent in response to Kul’chyts’kyi’s questions to publish 1000 accounts. Now there are enough individual memoirs and collections of eyewitness accounts to make up the bulk of an impressive biography. These witnesses can no longer be dismissed as fascist collaborators. Many fought in the Red Army during the Second World War and were exemplary Soviet citizens. In short, under such pressure from the very pinnacle of Soviet power, witnessed to both by the documents of the perpetrators and the memories of those who survived, the question ceases to become, How many millions died? One is forced to ask instead, How could so many still survive when literally everything possible was done to starve them to death? Each account is individual, but taken together their collective accounts of traumatization cannot fail to move even the most “scientific” of historians. Still, the basic outlines of what happened and why remain basically the same in general outline as what we learned from classical Sovietology working on the basis of the official Soviet press. The only difference is that now we know in much more detail just how invasive Moscow’s interventions in Ukraine were. And what Raphael Lemkin — the Jewish jurist from Poland who coined the term genocide, wrote the basic documents, and lobbied them through the United Nations — had in mind when he first developed the term is quite clear: Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressor group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals. Denationalization was the word used in the past to describe the destruction of a national pattern. This author believes, however, that this word is inadequate because: (1) it does not connote the destruction of the biological structure; (2) in connoting the destruction of one national pattern, it does not connote the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor; and (3) denationalization is used by some authors to mean only deprivation of citizenship.

Some scholars have called for defining genocide in either too narrow or too broad for scholarly purposes. But what the author of the term had in mind and what was actually adopted by the international community were actions “subordinated to the criminal intent to destroy or cripple permanently a human group.” Few would doubt that Ukraine was crippled by the Stalinist period in ways that are both painfully obvious and agonizingly difficult to define. For this reason, in my
more recent work I have tried to understand how and why independent Ukraine has thus far been unable to transform itself in the ways we might think appropriate and its people deserve. For this reason I have found it useful to describe contemporary Ukraine as a post-genocidal society.

As is the case with any culture of which we are not a part, those who are not part of the Ukrainian nation that has lived through the Soviet period, a nation that has been shaped or distorted by precisely that experience, cannot tell them how to understand themselves any more than we can tell them how to overcome all the obstacles that their past has burdened with. Ukrainians in Ukraine with make their own Ukrainian history. Having lived there for a decade not as an expatriate but as one of them, I might be more aware of this than most. Ukrainian historians today have largely retreated from the Party-mindedness of yesterday into the compilation of facts and documents, leaving them to the historians of tomorrow to figure out what it all means for them. We have written our books and will continue to do so. They will either embrace or reject what skills we can offer, preserved in the various works we will leave behind. It is, after all, their country, and they will make their own history for the rest of the world and their own posterity to deal with. We can only hope that they will find what we have to offer of some use. For the reason, Raphael Lemkin, believed that genocide was a crime against humanity because nothing else can “convey the specific losses to civilization in the form of the cultural contributions which can be made only by groups of people united through national, racial or cultural characteristics.” It is up to them to define and recover their own losses in this sphere.

Маргарет Сіріол Коллій

Dr. Margaret Siriol Colley (England)

Gareth Jones: A Voice Crying In The Wilderness

For almost 70 years, my uncle, Gareth Jones, the first named journalist to expose the 1932-33 famine genocide has been conveniently ‘airbrushed’ out of history, by being the first and main casualty in the politics of acknowledgement of the Holodomor.

His only crime was his journalistic pursuit of the truth. Sticking his head above the parapet, he refused to be silenced, on righting the moral injustices of the Soviet famine, which from first hand knowledge, he clearly knew to be true. Tragically, he paid the same ultimate price as many others who displeased the Stalinist regime.

Gareth Jones was kidnapped and murdered under mysterious circumstances by bandits in North China, just over six months after his last series of articles for Randolph Hearst in 1935, where he again, repeated his famine observations of March 1933.

You may ask who was Gareth Jones? Well, he was born in 1905 in Barry, South Wales, and educated first, in his father’s school, and then afterwards he attained two first class degrees, at the Universities of Aberystwyth, and Trinity College, Cambridge in French, German, and Russian.

In 1930, he became a foreign affairs advisor to Former Wartime Prime Minister David Lloyd George and first visited Russia and Ukraine in August 1930 . On leaving Moscow, on August 26th 1930 he wrote to his parents from Berlin. I should like to quote a few passages from his letter:”Hurray! It is wonderful to be in Germany again, absolutely wonderful. Russia is in a very bad state; rotten, no food, only bread; oppression, injustice, misery among the workers and 90% discontented the winter is going to be one of great suffering there and there is starvation. The government is the most brutal in the world. This year thousands and thousands of the best men in Russia have been sent to Siberia and the prison island of Solovki. In the Donetz Basin conditions are unbearable. Many Russians are too weak to work.” One should note that the convention of the time meant that the word “Russia”, was used in the West to describe all parts of the Soviet Union. On his return to Britain, he was summoned to David Lloyd George’s country home in Churt where he met Lord Lothian. Lothian impressed with Gareth’s diary notes, introduced him to the editor the London Times, who subsequently published three unsigned articles entitled “the Real Russia.”

Gareth wrote: “The success of the five year Plan would strengthen the hands of the Communists throughout the world. It might make the twentieth century a century of strugg1e between Capitalism and Communism.”

Soon after Gareth’s return from the Soviet Union, Ivy Lee of Wall Street, New York, the then renowned Public Relations Advisor to big business, engaged Gareth Jones’ services, especially for his in-depth knowledge of the Soviet Union.

Gareth arrived in New York in May 1931, and shortly after his arrival, he was invited to accompany a young Jack Heinz II, of Heinz Ketchup fame for an extensive six weeks tour of Gareth had kept a very extensive diary of their visit, which Jack Heinz later transcribed into a small book, entitled “Experiences in Russia – 1931: A Diary” – in which Gareth wrote the foreword: “With knowledge of Russia and the Russian language, it was possible to get off the beaten path, to talk with grimy workers and rough peasants, as well as such leaders as Lenin’s widow and Karl Radek. We visited vast engineering projects and factories, slept on the bug-infested floors of peasants’ huts, shared black bread and cabbage soup with the villagers – in short, got into direct touch with the Russian people in their struggle for existence and were thus able to test their reactions to the Soviet Government’s dramatic moves: Time does not permit me to quote from the book, but there are several references to starvation and deaths where “peasants had been sent away in thousands to starve”

After a year in the employ of Ivy Lee and due the fact that the United States was suffering from severe financial depression, Gareth returned to David Lloyd George for another year and unbeknown to many, he assisted the former wartime prime minister in writing his War Memoirs.

In London, in the September of 1932, Gareth learnt through several informed sources, including Malcolm Muggeridge, of reports emanating from Moscow, of a severe famine crisis in the Soviet Union. Professor Jules Menken (of the London School of Economics), an eminent economist of the time, told Gareth that he “dreaded this winter, when he thought millions would die of hunger and finally stated that “There was already famine in Ukraine.”

In light of this information on the 15th and 17th of October, Gareth wrote two prophetic articles published in the Cardiff Western Mail entitled: “Will There be Soup?” where he painted a very bleak picture of the coming Soviet winter.

Before returning to the Soviet Union, on February 23rd, Gareth through his connections with Lloyd George, became the first foreign journalist to be invited to fly with Adolf Hitler to a Frankfurt rally, just four days before the burning of the Reichstag, and he wrote in the Western Mail: “If this aeroplane should crash the whole history of Europe would be changed. For a few feet away sits Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Germany and leader of the most volcanic nationalist awakening which the world has seen.”

Before leaving Germany he wrote in the Western Mail: “The Europe of 1933 has seen the birth of the Hitler dictatorship in Germany. What will it see in the Soviet Union?” Then on the first of March 1933, with his usual frenetic lifestyle Gareth was in Moscow, where he embarked on a tour of Ukraine. On his way to Kharkoff, he narrowly escaped being arrested at a small railway station when he enter
ed into conversation with some peasants. They were bewailing their hunger to him, and were gathering as a crowd, all murmuring, “There is no bread,” when a militiaman appeared. “Stop that growling,” he had shouted to the peasants; while to Gareth he said, “Come along; where are your documents?” An O.G.P.U. (secret police) man appeared from nowhere, and he was submitted to a thorough grueling of questions. After his fate had been decided the fortunate Gareth was allowed to proceed on his way.

He had piled his rucksack with many loaves of white bread, with butter, cheese, meat and chocolate, which he had bought at the foreign currency stores. Gareth believed that, “To see Russia one must travel “hard class,” and go by a slow train. Those tourists who travel “soft class.” and by express trains, get only impression, and do not see the real Russia.”

Gareth was later to write in The Daily Express in April 1933: “In every little station the train stopped, and during one of these halts a man came up to me and whispered in German: “Tell them in England that we are starving, and that we are getting swollen.”

In one of the peasant’s cottages in which I stayed we slept nine in the room. It was pitiful to see that two out of the three children had swollen stomachs. All there was to eat in the hut was a very dirty watery soup, with a slice or two of potato, which all the family including myself, ate from a common bowl with wooden spoons.

Fear of death loomed over the cottage, for they had not enough potatoes to last until the next crop. When I shared my white bread and butter and cheese one of the peasant women said, “Now I have eaten such wonderful things, I can die happy.” I set forth again further towards the south and heard the villagers say, “We are waiting for death.” Many also said, “It is terrible here and many are dying, but further south it is much worse. “ On March 29th 1933, in Berlin, immediately on Gareth’s return from the Soviet Union, he issued a press release, which 1931 Pulitzer Prize winner, H. R. Knickerbocker reported through the New York Evening Post Foreign Service. Similar statements then appeared in the British press including the then Soviet–sympathetic Manchester Guardian, which quoted Gareth: “I walked alone through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, “There is no bread; we are dying”. Knickerbocker commented that: “the Jones report, because of his position, because of his reputation for reliability and impartiality and because he was the only first-hand observer who had visited the Russian countryside since it was officially closed to foreigners, was bound to receive widespread attention in official England as well as among the public of the country.” On March 31st Walter Duranty made his outrageous and prompt rebuttal to Gareth’s press release: “Since I talked with Mr. Jones I have made exhaustive inquiries about this alleged famine situation. . . . There is serious food shortage throughout the country with occasional cases of well-managed state or collective farms. The big cities and the army are adequately supplied with food. There is no actual starvation or death from starvation, but there is widespread is mortality from diseases due to malnutrition . . .” “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.”

Gareth immediately on his return to Britain wrote at least 20 articles. In fact over the previous 4 years he had published between forty to fifty articles in Britain, the USA and other countries.

The New York Times on May 13th, 1933, printed a letter of reply from “Mr. Jones” to Walter Duranty’s article of March 31st, in which Gareth said: “he stood by his statement that the Soviet Union was suffering from a severe famine. The censors had turned the journalists into masters of euphemism and understatement and hence they gave “famine” the polite name of “food shortage” and “starving to death” was softened to read as “widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.”

Countering Walter Duranty’s rebuttal in the New York Times, Gareth Jones concluded by congratulating the Soviet Foreign Office on its skill in concealing the true situation in the U.S.S.R. “Moscow is not Russia, and the sight of well-fed people there, tends to hide the real Russia.”

On May 8th 1933, Gareth wrote a long letter to the Editor of the Manchester Guardian in support Muggeridge’ series, of three articles in which he concluded:”I hope fellow liberals, who boil at any injustices in Germany, or Italy, or Poland ,will express just one word of sympathy, with the millions of peasants, who are the victims of persecution and famine, in the Soviet Union”

After Gareth’s visit to the Soviet Union in 1933, he was banned from returning. In a letter to a friend he wrote: “Alas! You will be very amused to hear that the inoffensive little “Joneski” has achieved the dignity of being a marked man on the black list of the O.G.P.U. and is barred from entering the Soviet Union. I hear that there is a long list of crimes which I have committed under my name in the secret police file in Moscow and funnily enough espionage is said to be among them. As a matter of fact Litvin off [the Soviet Foreign Minister] sent a special cable from Moscow, to the Soviet Embassy in London, to tell them to make the strongest of complaints to Mr. Lloyd George about me.” Whilst working at The Western Mail and unable to return to the Soviet Union, Gareth gave many public lectures entitled: “The Enigma of Bolshevik Russia” throughout Britain and Ireland in 1933, and then across the United States in late 1934.

In October 1934, after one year in the wilderness, Gareth embarked on a ‘World Wide Fact-Finding Tour’, with his eventual destination to be Manchukuo – otherwise known as Japanese controlled Manchuria. He wanted to find out what the Japanese were intending to do, in the light of their desire to expand territorially.

Following an earlier interview with Randolph Hearst in Wales, during the previous July, Gareth was invited to be a guest at St Simeon’s, Hearst’s American Estate on 1st January 1935. Here he was commissioned to write a series articles for Hearst’s New York American. These were printed on January 12th and 13th 1935, in which he was given a further platform to reassert his previous 1933 observations of famine in Ukraine: Leaving the States on January 18th, he spent 6 weeks in Japan where he interviewed a number of very influential politicians, one being General Araki Sadao, who had designs on expanding northwards into Soviet Siberia.

After traveling extensively around the Pacific basin, Gareth had some transport laid at his disposal for an extensive trip into the wilds of Inner Mongolia, by the German Wostwag Company – now known to be a trading front for the OGPU.

On his journey, he discovered a Chinese town that had been newly infiltrated by the Japanese and where troops were massing. Apprehended for a number of hours he and his German companion, were advised to take one of three routes back to the town of Kalgan. One was safe and the others infested by bad bandits. Despite taking the recommended route, they were both captured two days later, His companion was released, but Gareth was held for £8,000 ransom, but tragically, he was killed on August 12th 1935, after 14 days in captivity, and on the eve of his thirty birthday.

Paul Scheffer, the well-respected Editor-in-Chief of the non-Nazi Berliner Tageblatt – and who was previously, the first journalist banned by the Soviets in 1929 for his negative reporting of the five- year plan – and who was a close friend of Gareth’s, wrote a front page editorial on August 16th 1935: “The number of journalists with Gareth Jones initiative, and style, is nowadays, throughout the world, quickly falling, and, for this reason, the tragic death of this splendid man is a parti
cularly big loss. The International Press is abandoning its colours – in some countries more quickly than in others – but it is a fact. Instead of independent minds, inspired by genuine feeling, there appear more and more men of routine, crippled journalists of widely different stamp who shoot from behind safe cover, and thereby sacrifice their consciences. The causes of this tendency are many. Today is not the time to speak of them.”

For almost 70 years Gareth’s articles have been almost, but not quite forgotten. And now is the time to speak… This year, the honest and truthful reporting of my uncle, has at last been rediscovered and vindicated for its original accuracy, over his 1933 public spat with Walter Duranty, within the columns of the New York Times.
Nevertheless, it is fitting, that here at Columbia University, the home of excellence for American journalism, that Gareth’s ghost has come back to haunt those who stopped at nothing, to silence his conscience.

And to end, I would like to thank you, Professor Von Hagen, for the honour of speaking at this prestigious platform, which to has allowed me to finally put my uncle’s soul to rest – by recognising at this conference, his courageous role, in one of the greatest barbaric episodes in humanity.

Доповідачі другого засідання

Натяля Дзюбенко
Володимир Лозицький Володимир Даниленко

Під час дискусії

Ганя Кріл / brama.com Юрій Гаєцький

Святослав Трофименко Володимир Петришин

Мелася Рудь та Александер Миськів Вікторія Симотюк