(3) Gratuitous accusation of mimicking. Mr. Safer informs us of the marchers that "Their chants
and banners mimic another more fearsome time."
But this is absolutely gratuitous - neither the chants nor the banners are mimicking anything.
The marchers are not wearing swastika armbands and their banners do not contain Nazi symbols.
They are not chanting "Death to the Jews!" but only "Slava natsiyi!" which means "Glory to the
nation!" and is about as ominous in Ukrainian as "Vive la patrie!" is in French.
Mr. Safer's syllogism here seems to be: The Nazis sometimes held torchlight parades. These
Ukrainians are holding a torchlight parade. Therefore, all Ukrainians are Nazis.
(4) If it sounds like "Nazi," then it must be "Nazi." 60 Minutes broadcast the above-mentioned
"Slava natsiyi!" several times, but never provided a translation. But as "natsiyi" sounds like
"Nazi," this invites the listener who does not know any Slavic languages to think that something
is being said about Naziism, and the context supplied by Morley Safer suggests that this
something is complimentary.
(5) The menace of boy scouts and girl guides. Desperate for any images that to a gullible 60
Minutes audience might be suggestive of undying Naziism within Ukraine, Morley Safer presents
film clips of Ukrainian boy scouts and girl guides.
(6) Censorship through muted translation. When a Ukrainian in Lviv says "A Russian shot my
brother!" 60 Minutes mutes the English translation to the point that it is almost inaudible.
The critical viewer is left wondering whether the operating principle might not be that when a
Ukrainian says something that might win sympathy for Ukrainians, omit it; in the case where the
image has some overriding appeal (that was a pretty craggy Ukrainian, he was pretty excited, and
the lighting was wonderful), then mute the translation to the point of inaudibility.
Furthermore, in the 60 Minutes transcript of The Ugly Face of Freedom, the statement "A Russian
shot my brother!" is entirely omitted, one might imagine following this same principle of
avoiding attracting sympathy to Ukrainians.
(7) Who welcomed the Germans? Mr. Safer says that "The same square greeted Hitler's troops
fifty years ago as liberators," making this seem like another symptom of a Ukrainian addiction
to Naziism.
Of course we understand that it was not the square which greeted Hitler's troops at all, but
rather people in the square, and it was smart on Mr. Safer's part not to draw attention to the
people, because there might follow the natural question of "What people?" and the honest answer
would have to be "All people - Ukrainians, Poles, and Jews." Jews welcomed Hitler's troops?
Yes, so it would appear:
The prevailing conviction [was] that bad things came from Russia and good
things from Germany. The Jews were historically oriented away from Russia and
toward Germany; not Russia but Germany had been their traditional place of
refuge. During October and November, 1939, that conviction, among other
things, drove thousands of Jews from Russian-occupied Poland to German-occupied
Poland. The stream was not stopped until the Germans closed the border.
Similarly, one year later, at the time of Soviet mass deportations in the newly
occupied territories, [there was] widespread unrest among Ukrainians, Poles,
and Jews alike. Almost everyone was waiting for the arrival of the German
army. When the army finally arrived, in the summer of 1941, old Jews in
particular remembered that in the First World War the Germans had come as
quasi-liberators. These Jews did not expect that now the Germans would come as
persecutors and killers. (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews,
1961, p. 206)
Upon experiencing the impulse to blame Ukrainians for welcoming the Germans, the impartial
journalist might recognize that all groups had been traumatized by their exposure to Communism,