May 4, 1919

I had a general roundup today of all the Ukrainian delegates that are available and listened once again to what they had to say. I urged them, as instructed, to compose their differences, to combine to secure what they all—or nearly all—want to see, a greater and an independent Ukraine on both banks of the Dnieper. Again, they spoke at length of their past glories, of the Cossack republic, of their hard-riding ancestors who formed a living bulwark against the Tartar horde, of the Rus-Kiev state, so long the valiant outpost of Christian civilization. They denounced with equal bitterness the Russians and the Germans and the Poles.

“The Russians seek to destroy our belief in God, and the Germans try to rob us of our language, which is the voice of our souls, and take away our farms. We can trust no one, and yet, can we stand alone? Ukrainia must be re-established—but how? Our democratic friends are far away, and the predatory people who want our grain and oil are very near. The Allies, thanks to America, have won the war; but will they win the peace? ”

One of the delegates from Pennsylvania says he has bad news from home. He is advised that people beyond the Atlantic are saying: “Bring our boys home and let us leave Europe to its own devices.” Then a delegate from Galicia reveals that the Lenin program, “peace, bread, and land,” has a strong appeal to his people who have suffered an imposed serfdom for generations.

“But can we trust the new Russian?” he asks. “Is he very different from the old Russian? Has the leopard changed his spots?” And who can answer that?

Then the Germans are discussed. They, at least, have not concealed their purpose. They covet the Ukraine as a war granary which would help them to regain the position they have just lost. All agree that the selfish purpose of the Germans is plain.

Again, another delegate voices the familiar lament:

“America is so far away and we cannot stand alone.” Then he makes a very intelligent analysis of the changes that have come over and so completely transformed the military scene:

“In America, the embattled farmers achieved freedom; they fought behind hedges and trees. At Yorktown and at New Orleans they met and defeated guard regiments, the trained soldiers of Europe; but today that is impossible. The farmer with such weapons as he now possesses cannot with any hope of success stand up against the trained soldier with modem equipment. We tried it against the Germans and we tried it against the Russians. The result has been the slaughter of our sons. And so, we are forced to ask: ‘Will the world stand by and see forty million liberty-loving people trodden under foot by despots whose purpose is to enslave the democracies—all of them?’“ After everyone has spoken, I have my say, as per instructions:

“You must place your trust in the League of Nations, which is being fashioned now by the forward-looking peoples. Its purpose is collective security and freedom for all. It will be vigilant and always ready to smash the land-grabbers. It will be watchful and ready to curb any movement that threatens the peace of the world. It has been created for that very purpose.”

“I suppose it is our best bet,” said the Ukrainian delegate from Pittsburgh—none too enthusiastically.

All the delegates nodded and silently filed out. I am sorry for the Ukrainians. After all, the Covenant is an untested experiment and the sealed book of the future may have surprises for all of us. America is far away and there are many among us who would like to withdraw still farther into our transatlantic shell. Today as so often before it is only too apparent that the President’s “clearly distinguishable frontiers of nationality” is a pipe-dream. And, as my chief well says, “When you change a boundary line, look out for squalls!”