P. Krasnov, Ataman of the
Almighty Don Host (an independent self-proclaimed
anti-Bolshevik Don Republic)
explained why Hetman, who was called the Russian
aristocrat and ‘not sincere’ Ukrainian, could stand for an independent Ukraine. P.
Krasnov stressed that if P. Skoropadsky and even himself, as Russian people, the same
as A. Denikin, could give themselves up to destroy the independence of Ukraine and
the autonomy of the Don, then in the capacity of Hetman and Ataman, they could not
do this without betraying the people who chose them [24].
A famous Ukrainophobe and Hetman’s assistant Duke G. Lechtenberg regarded
P. Skoropadsky as a man of purely Russian culture. Duke G. Lechtenberg also
remarked that he did not know whether P. Skoropadsky believed sincerely in any
particular Ukrainian culture or not. At the same time, he was convinced that Hetman
could have played the role of the second Bohdan Khmelnitsky, who led the Ukrainian
Cossacks to the Tsar’s scepter in 1654 [25].
Despite the anti-Ukrainian propaganda by supporters of the ‘single and
indivisible’ Russia, P. Skoropadsky made a lot of positive steps in ethnonational policy
for the Russian ethnos. He hosted thousands of refugees from Bolshevik’s Russia that
caused great concern among both the Russian leaders and the Ukrainian socialist
parties. The latter were very much indignant that Hetman recognized various
‘reactionary’ state formations and blamed him for not wishing to conclude a peace
treaty with the RSFSR. In fact, it was not Ukrainian, but the Russian side that during
the peace talks did not seek as quick as possible conclusion of the formal peace treaty.
S. Shelukhin, the head of the Ukrainian delegation at the peace negotiations with the
RSFSR, pointed out in the report to the chairman of the Council of Ministers that
Bolsheviks, for the reason that Ukraine was not fighting against them and was not
threatening them by anything, ‘were not at all interested in the conclusion of peace and
establishment of state borders, and because of this they deliberately delayed the peace
talks, in order to completely get used everything for themselves without any loss...’
[26].
Skoropadsky’s ethnic and national policy
in estimations of modern
researchers. Some Jewish scholars who eyewitnessed the events of 1918, such as S.
Goldelman and I. Cherykover, wrote about the reactionary, pro-Russian ethno-national
policy of P. Skoropadsky and pointed out the persecution by Hetman’s authorities of
the Jewish national movement [27].
However, most of modern Ukrainian scientists do not agree with this point of view
and indicate Hetman’s efforts to ensure peace and national equality of all citizens of
Ukraine. They cite the facts to prove this: the set-up of the Jewish Cultural League, the
Union of Polish Landowners in Ukraine, the Polish People’s Houses, the holding of
the Jewish Sanitary Congress, the All-Ukrainian Polish Congress, the renewal of
activity of the Czechoslovak Committee, the creation of Department of Jewish
- 1207 -