Shevchenko in Washington. The Struggle for Values

The process of erecting a monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington in 1964 on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of his birth lasted several years and caused a considerable resonance in the foreign press. At the same time, the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr’s activities around the event have not yet been made public. Declassified documents from the archives of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine now allow us to see how the kremlin leadership, American political circles, and the Ukrainian diaspora acted in those circumstances and what positions they took.

“Open a Case on Raising a Monument to Shevchenko”

Among the kgb archival documents that mention measures to erect a monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington, the oldest is dated March 1963. It mentions the beginning of the work of a Shevchenko Memorial Committee in 1960. It was headed by Roman Smal-Stotskyi, President of the Main Council of Shevchenko Scientific Societies, Yuri Sheveliov, President of the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences in the United States, and Lev Dobrianskyi, Chairman of the Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America. Harry Truman, the 33rd President of the United States (1945-1953), agreed to become the Honorary Head of the Committee.

The document states that the Ukrainian community obtained permission from the US Congress to build the monument on the square bordering the respectable Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., and that it cost a lot of effort. Just by the way, the article mentions U.S. Senator of New York Jacob Javits and Congressman Alvin Bentley’s assistance in resolving this issue. The former proposed that the US Senate pass a law to honor the memory of Taras Shevchenko, and the latter registered a resolution in the US House of Representatives. On September 13, 1960, the then President of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower, signed it and thus gave it the status of Public Law 86-749 of the United States of America. That same year, a competition was announced for the monument’s design and for the collection of voluntary contributions.

References to the procedure for laying the monument on September 21, 1963, are accompanied by the following phrases in the kgb's documents: “About two thousand Americans of Ukrainian descent arrived from Washington, D.C., and other parts of the country for the gathering organized by Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists. Representatives of the US Government also took part in this regular anti-soviet demonstration. Senator Thomas Dodd (Democrat, Connecticut), House member John Lesynskyi (Democrat, Michigan), former House member Alvin Bentley, and Chairman of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America Lev Dobrianskyi spoke at the monument's dedication ceremony” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – V.1. – P.36). The then US President John F. Kennedy also congratulated American Ukrainians on the consecration of the site for the monument.

Those events were monitored not only from the perspective of the ussr embassy in the United States and the kgb residentura, but also from the broadcasts of the Voice of America, Freedom, and Vatican radio stations and publications in the American press and Ukrainian emigration publications. In particular, there is a printout of the Voice of America program about the monument's start and speeches of the participants at the banquet at the Mayflower Hotel.

“...At a large table along the entire hall sat invited guests,” says the text, “many members of the American Congress included. The keynote speech was delivered by Congressman Mike Feehan from Ohio, who tirelessly supported all the events for this commemoration of Shevchenko. In his speech, which revealed his extensive knowledge of Eastern European issues, Congressman Feehan said: “Today, the curtain has been lifted on one of the epic chapters of the great book of human freedom that had been closed to Westerners for far too long. This is the true meaning of today's celebrations on the occasion of the dedication of the square for the monument to Taras Shevchenko, which will soon take its rightful place among the monuments to freedom that adorn our capital” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 57).

Similar documents were accumulated in the 1st Directorate of the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr, whose leadership decided in October 1963 to open a separate information file entitled “Regarding the Monument to Taras Shevchenko”. In the decision to open the file, an employee of the directorate stated as follows: “Having studied the materials on anti-soviet plans and actions of Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists abroad in connection with the construction of the monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington and materials on countermeasures taken by the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr, I consider it advisable to create an information file to accumulate materials on chekists’ measures aimed at disrupting the Ukrainian nationalists’ attempts to use the monument to Shevchenko for anti-soviet purposes” (FISU – F.1.– Case 11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 1).

The text of the resolution makes it clear that the kgb planned not only to monitor the events related to the installation of the monument and to collect information about it, but from the very beginning intended to somehow obstruct, counteract, and use this situation to discredit the Ukrainian national liberation movement.

“Ukrainian Artists’ Appeal” written by the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr

According to archival documents, as early as May 1963, the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr came up with the idea to prepare and send a private letter to the Shevchenko Monument Committee from the Society for Cultural Relations with Ukrainians Abroad, signed by Y. Smolych, M. Rylskyi, M. Bazhan, and others. The letter was supposed to state that the entire Ukrainian people deeply honor the memory of Shevchenko and express their satisfaction with the construction of a monument to the great Kobzar in the United States, which should be seen as recognition of his enormous contribution to the treasury of world culture and progressive ideas.

“Along with this, the letter will draw attention to the intentions to desecrate the great cause of erecting a monument to Taras Shevchenko by inciting anti-soviet propaganda, enmity between peoples, which is an outrage to the memory of the great humanist and champion of friendship between peoples,” reads the document of the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr, addressed for approval to the central committee of the communist party of Ukraine and simultaneously to the chief of the 1st main directorate of the kgb under the council of ministers of the ussr (FISU. –F.1 – Case11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 2-7).

At the same time, the text of the “Appeal” included phrases condemning “attempts by some people to use his good name for their dirty political purposes” and “for propaganda against the Ukrainian people and the Soviet Union”. The doubts of current researchers that the text of the “Appeal” was directly written by well-known Ukrainian cultural, creative, and public figures and actually signed by them are confirmed by archival documents. They clearly state that this was the work of the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr. In particular, a document addressed to the chief of the kgb under the ussr council of ministers Volodymyr Semychastnyi, dated June 21, 1964, states: “...For this purpose, in November 1963, the newspaper “Literaturna Ukraina” published an appeal prepared by the kgb under the council of ministers of the Ukrainian ssr to the Ukrainian emigration regarding the construction of a monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington, D.C...” (FISU. – F. 1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 354).

In the copy of the “Appeal” stored in the archival funds of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, only the names of the signatories are printed. It has the following full title: “To the Great Kobzar – a Worthy Honor. A Word to the Ukrainians, to the Entire Ukrainian Community in the United States, to the Taras Shevchenko Monument Committee. There are no handwritten signatures under it. This was a common practice of the time, when collective letters in support of the policies of the communist party and the soviet government were prepared in this way, and the persons whose authorship was indicated at the end were only informed. Not everyone and not always resorted to public protests against that.

V. Semychastnyi states in this document that after the text of the “Appeal” had been prepared and agreed upon, it was reprinted in the newspaper “Visti z Ukrainy” and distributed in the United States through the soviet news agency APN in English, issued as a press release by the Mission of the Ukrainian ssr to the United Nations, and published in the so-called progressive emigrant publications that operated under the patronage and support of the ussr. After that, the chekists began to wait for a reaction.

The kgb modeled possible reactions in advance. “It should be assumed,” the memo to the central committee of the communist party of Ukraine stated, “that the Shevchenko Monument Committee will be hostile to this appeal of the Society, which will inevitably debunk itself in the eyes of numerous Ukrainian emigrants and will allow us... to denounce the leaders of nationalist organizations... If the Shevchenko Monument Committee responds favorably to the letter... we will also be able to use this situation to neutralize the nationalists’ anti-soviet campaign around the monument in our propaganda work abroad” (FISU. – F.1 – Case 11725. – V. 1. – P. 2-4).

As evidenced by the documents attached to the case, the reaction to the “Appeal” was really different. The OUN Foreign Units and a number of other emigrant organizations criticized it in their press and called it “the kgb’s another provocation”. The UHVR's Foreign Office stuck to a wait-and-see attitude. The UNO, OUN-z, and URDP were generally positive, with some reservations.

Lev Dobrianskyi, a member of the Committee for the Creation of a Monument to Shevchenko, commented on the “Appeal” in a program on the Svoboda radio station on December 18, 1963. His comments were unexpectedly tolerant and friendly for the kgb. He called it a historical document. “For this is the first time,” he said, “since the iron curtain divided the family of one nation, that creative people of Ukraine have spoken loudly and publicly to their countrymen in the West. They spoke sincerely and warmly, as brothers of the same mother speak to each other...” He further pointed out that he understood that Ukrainian artists had to live and work in difficult conditions of political and national enslavement. He mentioned that in the text of the letter he distinguished “where there is native warmth and love, and where there is someone else’s bile and someone else’s sting..., where there is the voice of our people, and where there is the voice of those who do not care about our people or the authors of this letter... In the content of the Kyiv letter, we have the right and duty to distinguish between what comes from the heart... and what is dictated by political circumstances...”

In addition, L. Dobrianskyi called on all Ukrainians to unite around the bright image of Shevchenko, to honor him both in the Ukrainian ssr and abroad, not to make him a tool in the Cold War, and not to use the event of the monument's construction in Washington to artificially incite hostility between the ussr and the United States. The head of the UCCA was well aware that the text of his speech would also end up on the desk of the kgb, so at the end of his speech he said the following words: “Taras Shevchenko should not become a ball in any political disputes. The honoring of his memory should not be abused to incite any passions, national or social” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 27-29).

Soon after, a group of Ukrainian cultural figures in America and Canada prepared and published a response. It was signed by Vasyl Barka, Vasyl Vytvytskyi, Roman Kupchynskyi, Ulas Samchuk, Levko Chykalenko, Yar Slavutych, and others, a total of 61 people. The text attached to the case refers to Shevchenko’s greatness, to the fact that he fought not for some abstract Ukraine, but for a free and independent one. The signatories criticized the fact that the authors in their “Appeal” called moscow “the capital of our Motherland” (with a capital letter). At the same time, they gave examples of how moscow has always tried to destroy or diminish everything Ukrainian or appropriate it for itself. They called for a meeting without official formalities, to talk about Taras Shevchenko and other matters, to understand each other.

“Like you,” the response concluded, “we would like to see the whole world finally liberated, as you aptly put it, “from all tyranny and imperialism of all kinds. Like you, we do not want a new world war, we do not want to see the deadly candles of thermonuclear bombs over Ukraine and humanity. Like you, we would like to live to see the realization of Shevchenko's ideals of freedom and love...” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 257-263).

Commentary for the Washington Post

Along with monitoring the reaction of emigrant circles, kgb officers also studied the position of the American public, in particular of the press, trying to influence it in the way they needed. One of the documents states that the “Appeal” was discussed on the pages of the Washington Post, the Evening Star, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. In particular, it is stated that the Washington Post called on the US leadership to reconsider the decision made earlier by the US Congress to allocate a spot for the monument to Shevchenko.

The newspaper argued that the Ukrainian poet was known to only a few Americans, that a monument to him could be offensive to Americans with russian, German, Polish Catholic and Jewish roots, and accused the initiators of intending to use Shevchenko as a weapon of the information Cold War against the soviet union. This opinion was supported in a commentary for the newspaper by the Permanent Representative of the Ukrainian ssr to the United Nations, Luka Kyzia.

The case file states that in November 1963, after coordination with the central committee of the communist party of Ukraine, he answered the Washington Post correspondent’s questions. Unlike previous protest statements by the embassy of the ussr regarding the construction of the monument, this time they voiced support for such an initiative. But, as stated by L. Kyzia, he protested against the efforts of the American initiators of the monument to use this event “to stir up hostility towards soviet Ukraine, moreover, to aggravate the Cold War”.

The comments also included a position on the monument's appearance. “We want the monument to the great son of the Ukrainian people to reflect the image of a poet and fighter, a revolutionary and a democrat,” emphasized L. Kyzia. “But what is proposed by the “initiators” (as evidenced by the published photographs) has nothing to do with Taras Shevchenko. It is clear that the entire Ukrainian people have a negative attitude to the “initiators” who have distorted the image of Shevchenko and are trying to achieve their own political goals” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 1. – P. 154).

The soviet side provided these answers separately for broadcast on radio “Moscow”. According to the archival documents, after the program was aired, Radio Liberty host Zenon Pelenskyi mocked L. Kyzia. He pointed out that Shevchenko looked wrong to the official representatives of the Ukrainian ssr because he did not hold a sickle in one hand and a hammer in the other. But if the soviet press had published a picture of the monument’s design, people would have appreciated it. “The author of the project,” said the host of Radio Liberty, ”is the Ukrainian sculptor Leonid Molodozhanyn. His Taras Shevchenko is a young man who boldly steps forward. His left hand is holding the side of a knee-length long coat at chest height, as it was worn in the poet's youth, his face is full of expression and strength, at this it is noble, even gentle.”

The case file does not say whether the kgb residentura in the United States or soviet diplomatic representatives had anything to do with the Washington Post’s negative articles about the monument. It is only noted that, under the influence of the articles published in the newspaper, US Secretary of the Interior Stewart Yudall tried to reconsider the construction of the monument on one of the central squares of Washington, D.C., designated for this purpose. But in vain.

In a press bulletin of the press department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian ssr, dated December 1963, all those events are presented under the title “Campaign to Cancel the Decision of the US Congress to Erect a Monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington.”

“Gag orders” from the kgb and the central committee of the communist party of Ukraine

After moscow had analyzed the effect of the “Appeal” and publications in the emigrant press and the Washington Post on the basis of materials from the foreign residentura, in March 1964, the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr was instructed to take other measures. Including to consider preparing a new “Appeal” and simultaneously publishing a series of articles in the newspaper “Visti z Ukrayiny” exposing Committee members R. Smal-Stotskyi, L. Dobrianskyi, Y. Revai, and others for alleged collaborating with foreign intelligence, committing criminal offenses, and carrying out hostile activities against the Ukrainian people. The facts for this and recommendations on how best to present all this were to be provided by kgb officers according to already developed and proven schemes. In addition, measures of ideological influence on people of Ukrainian origin who visited the Ukrainian ssr as tourists were planned. The intention was to encourage them to write stories in the foreign press after the trip about how everything was going well in the Ukrainian ssr and how Shevchenko’s testament was being implemented in their homeland.

They also instructed to show to the signatories Yu. Smolych, M. Bazhan and others the materials received from abroad and “to entrust them to write a number of articles for the republican press and radio with deeply reasoned facts that would debunk the leaders of Ukrainian nationalists in the falsification of T. Shevchenko’s works”. As shown by the archival documents, Yu. Smolych alone wrote two such articles. One – “And There Will Be the Truth on Earth” (published in the newspaper “Visti z Ukrainy”, June 1964). The other – “The Doomed Abjure” (“Literary Ukraine”, October 6, 1964).

On this, in the report to moscow, the kgb of the Ukrainisn ssr pointed out that the articles were prepared by Yu. Smolych “on our task” and that they “expose the attempts of modern nationalist leaders to use Shevchenko’s name, works and monument in Washington in their dirty political purposes”. (FISU – F.1 – Case 11725 – V. 2 – P. 45).

Reports on the preparation and publication of such articles were regularly sent to moscow. At the same time, the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr developed a “Model List of Articles to order the members of a special tourist group of cultural figures of the Ukrainian ssr for the American continent, which is advisable to print in the newspaper “Visti z Ukrainy”. The list consisted of 12 points and traditionally envisaged, on the one hand, condemnation of nationalist leaders abroad, on the other – the propaganda of the soviet way of life.

Apart from this, the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr issued and spread abroad a brochure “The People’s Son – the Peoples’ Brother” with a circulation of 10 thousand copies. It, as stated in archival documents, “exposes the falsification of T. Shevchenko's work by Ukrainian nationalists”. An example of such an “exposure” is a kind of reference- recomendation, prepared in the central committee of the communist party of Ukraine, entitled “Delibirate Falsification of Taras Shevchenko’s Life and Work by Ukrainian Bourgeois Nationalists”'. It criticizes foreign Ukrainian Shevchenko experts for the fact that, in contrast to the soviet doctrine, they try to prove that the poet was a hater of russia, a religious man, an enemy of materialism and socialism. In particular, the brochure criticizes Yar Slavutych for comparing Shevchenko with US President Lincoln in the liberation of the indigenous population from slavery, and with R. Smal-Stotsky-for admiring the phrase about “Washington with new and righteous law”, dreaming about a better future for independent Ukraine.

In the same paper, a paragraph quoting leader of the OUN (M), Oleh Shtul-Zhdanovych, from the article entitled “We Will Win Another Battle” in the newspaper “Ukrainske Slovo” is particularly noteworthy. It reads: “The year 1964 will undoubtedly be the year of our battle with moscow for the ideals of Taras Shevchenko: we will raise them, it will drown them out with falsification. Our task will not be easy. All the more effort is needed on our part. We have every opportunity to win this battle. The importance of this victory is so great that it justifies the greatest and most sincere efforts” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 2. – P. 221).

It was about the struggle for values.

“The Monument Unveiled. Is the Goal Achieved”?

The inscription on the monument also testified to the values for which Shevchenko fought and which were defended by Ukrainian figures abroad. The following words were engraved: “This monument to Taras Shevchenko, the nineteenth-century Ukrainian poet and fighter for the independence of Ukraine and for the freedom of all mankind, who, under foreign russian imperialist tyranny and colonial rule, appealed to Washington with his “new and righteous law”, was unveiled on June 27, 1964...”

This inscription greatly irritated the soviet leadership and official representatives of the ussr in the United States. However, they could not change these words, the poet's appearance on the pedestal, and the procedure for unveiling the monument. At the same time, according to kgb records and reports, the embassy of the ussr made two submissions to the US Department of State regarding the construction of the monument, a speech at the UN in this spirit, and a number of unofficial demarches. In particular, the embassy sent a note of protest “against the performance of the counter-revolutionary “anthem of Ukraine” by the orchestra of the US Navy during the starting the monument to Shevchenko”.

Archival documents mention discussions about a delegation from the Ukrainian ssr’s possible participation in the opening ceremony and laying of flowers. The organizers allegedly agreed to this, but on the condition that the flowers would be laid after all the official events. Discussion of this issue continued in various formats.

One of the kgb memos refers to the March 1964 meeting in the United States between a leading OUN figure Yevhen Stakhiv and writer Vadym Sobko, who came to America as part of a delegation from the Ukrainian ssr. Yevhen Stakhiv asked if at least two representatives of the Ukrainian ssr could attend the unveiling of the monument. V. Sobko replied that it depended on the nature of the celebrations. “If during the unveiling”, he said, “nationalist flags are waving and songs like “Shche Ne Vmerla Ukrainy...” (The Glory and Will of Ukraine Have Not Yet Perished – Transl.) are performed, then, of course, representatives of the Ukrainian ssr will not participate in such celebrations” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – V. 1. – P. 169).

Eventually, during the unveiling of the monument on June 27, 1964, “Shche Ne Vmerla Ukrainy...” was sung, and there were many blue and yellow flags and people in embroidered shirts on the square. The American press wrote that the United States had not seen that huge a number of people on the occasion of the opening a monument since the opening of the Monument to Washington on July 4, 1848. The solemn procession started from the National Mall in the US capital, where the obelisk commemorates George Washington.

The kgb’s information file contains a number of texts from the Voice of America, Svoboda, and other radio stations, in which the hosts spoke quite emotionally and positively about the celebrations and the speech of former US President Dwight Eisenhower. Some magazines even called the monument the second Statue of Liberty in the United States. Along with this, a press bulletin posted by the ussr foreign ministry portrayed the events in a different light.

“Dwight Eisenhower's speech,” the press bulletin pointed out, “was openly hostile and anti-soviet. To please the bourgeois nationalist audience, while describing the “march” of representatives of the Ukrainian emigrants to the monument, he expressed confidence that this demonstration would “ignite a new world movement in the hearts, minds, words and deeds of people, a continuous movement dedicated to the independence and freedom of all peoples and all enslaved nations around the world.” Praising American democracy, the former President said that its application throughout the world is opposed by “fascism and communism.” He goes on to characterize the situation in old russia of Shevchenko's time and speaks of “the concentration of power in the hands of an elite group, a government bureau, one person”, and “Ukraine’s dependence on russia’s colonial rule”. Moving on to the present day, the speaker slanders that “today the same pattern of life exists in the soviet union and in all enslaved countries” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – V.2. – P.1-4).

The press bulletin of the Ukrainian ssr ministry of foreign affairs also emphasized the speeches of a number of American senators and congressmen at the festive banquet. It pointed out that “all of them glorified the ideas of the struggle for freedom preached by Shevchenko and expressed their appreciation to Ukrainians for their steadfastness and loyalty to those ideas, that is, they encouraged Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists to continue the struggle “for an independent Ukraine” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 2. – P. 1-4).

Another issue of the press bulletin contains interesting and quite relevant words from Senator Keating's speech on July 6, 1964, in the US Senate. He said as follows: “The impressive statue that stands today in our nation's capital serves to remind us all of the tyranny of the soviets... They have repeatedly tried to distort his demand for freedom for all peoples and the right to choose the government of their choice... The Shevchenko Memorial serves as a constant reminder of the cruelty of the soviets, who are constantly attempting to suppress freedom – even the very idea of freedom – in the oppressed countries of Eastern Europe. This monument serves another purpose. It constantly reminds the American people of their obligation to fulfill Shevchenko's hopes for the liberation of the Ukrainian people and all the peoples of the world... The sight of this monument will not allow us to forget about our friends, the peoples who are now languishing behind the iron curtain” (FISU. – F.1. – Case 11725. – Vol. 2. – P. 15-16).

Despite this reaction and feedback to the unveiling of the monument, the kgb believed that the countermeasures they had taken had achieved their goal. But was this really the case?

Encouragement: Impossible. To Continue

In July 1964, a report on the implementation of all measures related to the construction of the Shevchenko monument was sent from Kyiv to chief of the kgb under the council of ministers of the ussr V. Semichastny. At the end of the document, it was pointed out that active operational measures contributed to deepening contradictions among the Ukrainian nationalist emigration and exposing the leaders of Ukrainian nationalists as bitter enemies of the Ukrainian people and ardent opponents of the unity of the Ukrainian emigration with their homeland. It was therefore proposed to reward those who were involved in the events.

moscow was not so optimistic about the “active countermeasures”. They complained that the unveiling of the monument resulted in Ukrainian nationalists’ another anti-soviet demonstration, and was supported by many US senators and congressmen who expressed their support for the Ukrainian independence movement, assured solidarity, and provocatively commented on the speeches of soviet leaders at the unveiling of another monument to Shevchenko – in moscow. So nobody was awarded. They offered to do it at their own level. They also drew attention to the need for more offensive measures.

According to declassified documents, in pursuance of these instructions, for several years the kgb of the Ukrainian ssr had been conducting activities related to the unveiling of the Shevchenko monument in Washington. In particular, they launched a whole campaign around the soil that people tried to take from Shevchenko's grave in Kaniv at different times, take to Washington, and place in a capsule at the foot of the monument. They also again resorted to publishing articles and brochures related to this event and replicating them abroad. At the same time, the unveiling of another monument to Shevchenko – in moscow – was popularized in every possible way.

But there is no detailed information about this monument in the file. It is just mentioned. According to open sources, when the then first secretary of the cpsu central committee Nikita Khrushchev learned of the intentions and specific plans of the Ukrainian diaspora, he ordered that a monument to Shevchenko be urgently made and installed in moscow, but a taller and better one, and that it be unveiled earlier. The somewhat taller monument was made. The unveiling took place on June 10, 1964, 17 days early. But the appearance upset many Ukrainian figures. The poet was in a “shynel-krylatka”(overcoat with a long pelerine – Transl.) which he never wore.

The decision to close the case was made only in August 1969. In other words, the kgb had been taking countermeasures against the construction of the monument to Shevchenko in Washington for almost six years. Both during his lifetime and in bronze, the Great Kobzar and the values he celebrated in his works and defended throughout his life did not give rest to those who were quite frightened by his words about “Washington with a new and righteous law”.