Their almost full absence among farmers, workers, miners etc. withing the compass of the territories of Eastern Slavs
And from what time the prejudices against the jews in Russian Impare in the 19 centure were the example for the "Free Ukraine " in 1939;)
Ok. So I evidently want to ask this:
If Jews were outside the scope of the OUN constitution, then does it mean the word NATION (that is mention innumirable number of times in the constitution) doe NOT include Jewish population?
And from what time the prejudices against the jews in Russian Impare in the 19 centure were the example for the "Free Ukraine " in 1939
It does not go about prejudices. It means that their way of life was diffrent from other ethnic groups. Besides their traditions demanded to form a closed ethnical community with its own hierachy and leaders abroad after the exodus from Israel.
OK.
So this was a positive to limit the jews in the civil right, on your mind?
If Jews were outside the scope of the OUN constitution, then does it mean the word NATION (that is mention innumirable number of times in the constitution) doe NOT include Jewish population?
I think there was incertitude about what was within the scope of jews in Ukraine and therefore it required further clarifications after gaining sovereignty.
OK.
So this was a positive to limit the jews in the civil right, on your mind?
The civil rights are connected with civil duties. It was unclear whether they wanted to
to fulfil the civil duties in sovereign Ukraine and to what extent.
Kato,
So in you opinion word NATION (Нацiя) by this document is equals to word PEOPLE (Народ)?
Because for me it is not very obvious. There is a strong feeling that it meens more like Nation in mainly ethnical sense. So like when the constitution says Nation id does not actually mean people (all of humans in the territory) but only those who are linked to Ukrainian Nationality.
So in you opinion word NATION (Нацiя) by this document is equals to word PEOPLE (Народ)?
Because for me it is not very obvious. There is a strong feeling that it meens more like Nation in mainly ethnical sense. So like when the constitution says Nation id does not actually mean people (all of humans in the territory) but only those who are linked to Ukrainian Nationality.
The word Nation is widely used in constitutions to signify citizens of a state. Non-Ukrainains were to receive citizenships according to this constituational draft.
Ok so what do we have so far?
Year 1939… A draft of Ukrainian constitution developed by “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists”, a constitution in which country is governed by the ideas of “Naziocratia”, lead by supreeme leader who is put into power for life and who can not be dismissed. And where Jews are not granted citizenship. Hmmmm… But then there is education, as you said, for everyne. Except Jews of course. Right?
And I have not even finished to read the whole document.
Kato, can you tell us more about the “Naziocratia” work by the author of this constitution draft? Have you read it? Is it avaiable in English?
Mate i thing the translatiion in English could be uncorrect.
As we have seen the world Nation ( НароД) and Nation ( Нация) has the differente sense but the same writing.
You are right, Chevan. That is why I am asking Kato to explain about the work “Naziocratia” which is the corner stone for this constitution draft, as it is writen in it’s article #2.
So the ideas expressed in the “Naziocratia” are paramount for understanding the OUN’s constitution draft. I hope Kato can help us in this respect.
Unfortunately, I have not found the English or Russian translation of the book.
One can download the original Ukrainian text of this book
here
http://www.run.org.ua/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,54/func,fileinfo/id,10/
Here is some critics of this book in Russian for our Russian members:
Свою модель украинского нациократического государства в середине тридцатых годов предложил Микола Сциборский — на то время, фактически, второй после Е.Коновальца человек в ОУН. В 1935 году он издал в Париже книжку «Нациократия», в которой изложил свое видение украинской государственности.
В этой работе он подверг острой и подчас справедливой критике демократический, социалистический, коммунистический и монархический общественные строи. В то же время весьма положительно трактует фашизм итальянской модели. Для Сциборского «фашизм — это прежде всего национализм — любовь к своей родине и патриотические чувства, доведенные до самоотречения и культа жертвенного фанатизма» 20.
Тут же Сциборский разъясняет и сам термин «нациократия»: «Нациократией называем режим господства нации в собственном государстве, который осуществляется властью всех социально-полезных слоев, объединенных — в соответствии с их общественно-производственными функциями — в представительских органах государственного управления» 21. Нациократы заявляли, что «нация — это вечность». «Решающим является то, — пишет Сциборский, — что национализм — это не хлипкая партийная теорийка, это универсальное и непримиримое в своей внутренней логике мировоззрение. «Согласовывать» его с кем-либо методами «конгрессионных дискуссий» и торгов немыслимо… Объединение идеологической сущности национализма с политической тактикой «всеукраинских конгрессов» — равнозначно для него самоубийству» 22.
Согласно модели Сциборского, формой общественной организации для нациократии является государственный синдикализм. Нациократия отбрасывает участие политических партий в государственном управлении. Она отстаивает диктатуру, опорой которой должен стать ударный, боевой отряд революции — организованный национализм. Поскольку же М.Сциборский был одним из наиболее влиятельных членов провода ОУН, понятно, какую организацию он имел ввиду. В то же время, в отличие от фашистской доктрины, которая признает диктатуру единственной формой организации общества, Сциборский подчеркивал, что в нациократическом государстве власть диктатора будет временной. «Покладая на диктатуру чрезвычайные исторические задачи, будучи убежденным, что лишь она сможет их выполнить, — пишет он, — национализм осознает опасность ее самоконсервации и окостенения, когда она станет целью для самой себя… В отличие от других авторитарных концепций, он признает диктатуру не неизменным принципом, а лишь оправданным необходимостью временным периодом» 23.
Сциборский утверждал, что ОУН борется не за господство над нацией — «только лишь за господство самой нации — вот миссия, перед которой стоит и будет стоять организованный национализм» 24
В разрезе нациократическое украинское государство виделось Сциборскому так: народные массы принимают участие в общественной и политической жизни через представительство в органах местного самоуправления и в синдикалистских организациях. Государство должно делиться по административному принципу на края, волости и общины, подчиненные органам самоуправления. Выборы в последние происходят по принципу прямого, общего, равного и тайного голосования. Во всех звеньях административного деления существуют также общегосударственные, административные, хозяйственные и другие учреждения, выполняющие свои функции под непосредственным руководством государственного правительства.
Законодательным органом является Государственный совет, который избирается по тому же принципу, что и местные, из кандидатов, определенных синдикатами. Первым лицом нации и государства станет Глава Державы.
Итак, перед нами несколько упрощенная, однако вполне возможная схема государственного устройства. Кстати, ее элементы (например, представители президента на местах) использовались бывшим украинским режимом Леонида Кравчука, а о других (полное ограничение прав Верховного Совета), кажется, мечтает нынешний.
Kato, how do you translate into English this: “жидiвская народность”?
Who are those people defined by “жидiвская народность”?
It is related to Jews. But how does this constitution define Jewishness? By birth , by religion or anyhow else?
This is another important point taht we have to clear out while talking about the OUN constitution.
You claim that the author used words authoritarian and totalitarian with the meaning different form the todays meaning. Right?
I have good reasons to doubt that.
As I see it, the notion totalitarian appeared in the late 1920s witht refference to Italian fascism. Word authoritartian was born in the end of 19th century.
And to be on the safe side I will try to go to the library and try to get an old encyclopedia from the 1930s.
Fo me, it looks like the author, Mr.Mikola Sciborsky, used these terms with the same understanding as we have today.
“жидiвская народность” - Jewish people
I am inclined to believe that Jewishness was defined by birth.
I am not sure but it seems Israel defines Jewishness by birth nowadays as well.
If OUN constitution defines Jews “by birth” as you say (I think so too), then it is even worse then I expected! Because then you statements like the following ones loose merit: “Besides their traditions demanded to form a closed ethnical community with its own hierachy and leaders abroad after the exodus from Israel”
and
“The civil rights are connected with civil duties. It was unclear whether they wanted to
to fulfil the civil duties in sovereign Ukraine and to what extent.”
Your statements could be understood only in connection to orthodox Jews who indeed form separate social circle but not to unreligious Jews by birth.
By 1939 there must have been plenty unreligious Jews by birth in Ukraine. And all those people were not considered by the States main law - constitution - to be citizens. Every one else, but the Jews. How come?
Me thinks, that Mr. Mikola Sciborsky must had had a special reason for denieing constitutional rights to ALL the Jews of Ukraine.
And I really doudbt that it was due to warm feelings towards the Jews.
Your statements could be understood only in connection to orthodox Jews who indeed form separate social circle but not to unreligious Jews by birth.
By 1939 there must have been plenty unreligious Jews by birth in Ukraine. And all those people were not considered by the States main law - constitution - to be citizens. Every one else, but the Jews. How come?Me thinks, that Mr. Mikola Sciborsky must had had a special reason for denieing constitutional rights to ALL the Jews of Ukraine.
And I really doudbt that it was due to warm feelings towards the Jews.
There were no words about denying all the Jews of Ukraine constitutional rights. It went about the issue of citizenship. The constitution simply stated the necessity to research this issue more and then work out a decision.
We’ve already discussed the role of Jews in the Soviet system in the 1930s.
The proportion of Jews at the average and upper levels Soviet bureaucratic and punitive structures was enormous in comparison with their quantity in Ukraine.
So do you think it would have been right and logical to grant citizenship to some Jewish officer from NKVD and his family members?
To my mind it would have looked the same if Israel granted citisenship to people from SS without any reservations and hesitations.
Exactly - citizenship! Only citizenship garanties to full spectrum of constitutional rights.
And yes, ALL Jews. We know for sure that at first ALL Jews denied citezenship. Then… we do not know what then. Constitution does not say any thing about that (I have not seen it as I have not read all of it).
The constitution simply stated the necessity to research this issue more and then work out a decision.
I do not see it this way. Constitution just states that the actual rules in that special Jewish law will be defined separatly. Byt that time ALL Jews are already denied citezenship.
We’ve already discussed the role of Jews in the Soviet system in the 1930s.
The proportion of Jews at the average and upper levels Soviet bureaucratic and punitive structures was enormous in comparison with their quantity in Ukraine.
Yes, that is right. Jews were very overepresented in the punitive and bureaucratic structures (up to 40%). But they were far from being the only ones. So while others would get citizenship, the Jews would be denied.
So do you think it would have been right and logical to grant citizenship to some Jewish officer from NKVD and his family members?
To my mind it would have looked the same if Israel granted citisenship to people from SS without any reservations and hesitations.
Yes, maybe it would be OK to check. And that is what constitution says about exceptions regarding the other than Ukrainian nationals.
But the Jews would be denied before check according to constitution.