HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

234 ReviewsJewish organizations, on the other hand, hoped for a large slate of possible solutions:denaturalization, deportation, extradition to Europe or Israel; use of all evidencemeeting the standards of Canadian courts (including documents from Sovietarchives); and establishment of a Canadian version of the OSI. Troper and Weinfelddo a fine job of presenting most points of law, though Old Wounds is not a legaltreatise and some legal terms—especially "war crimes" and "crimes againsthumanity"—require further clarification.The announcement of the completed report caught ethnic leaders off guard, butdid a good job of satisfying everyone. With less than twenty-four hours notice, ethnicleaders were called to a confidential briefing in Ottawa. There, on 12 March1987, they learned the content of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on WarCriminals. Judge Deschênes put forth a variety of legal options. Jewish andUkrainian leaders expected a policy debate over which options to make law. Beforethey could collect their thoughts, however, government policy was declared. Just asthey left their briefing, the minister of justice rose in Parliament to state thegovernment's chosen course: trials in Canada.Jews were pleased. The commission had investigated some eight hundredsuspects. Twenty serious cases were identified. Another two hundred cases requiredfurther study. Changes in the criminal code were proposed that would allow trials tobe conducted in Canada for war crimes committed abroad. The report also clarified,once and for all, the unfortunate complicity of government officials by whose connivancewar criminals settled in Canada. As early as 1948, some Canadian officialsagreed to overlook such criminality. Scandalously, this policy remained in place aslate as 1982; but no more.Ukrainians were also pleased. The government appeared to heed their objections,and the made-in-Canada solution was acceptable. A Canadian OSI would not becreated. Ukrainian nationalist organizations, including the Galicia Division, werecleared of suspicion. Nor were any Ukrainians said to be among the top twentysuspects. Soviet evidence remained a concern, but standards for its use were strict.Ukrainians had gone to battle with the "legendary" Jewish lobby, and emerged successful.In the process, the Ukrainian polity grew in strength. Its improved organizationand fundraising could be brought to bear on future tasks.Years of ethnic wrangling subsided. Appropriate changes were made in theCriminal Code, the Immigration Act, and the Citizenship Act. Finally, for the firsttime, war criminals living in Canada found themselves in the dock.A reviewer's summary cannot do justice to Troper and Weinfeld's intricate andrevealing narrative of ethnic lobbying and governmental vicissitudes. They relatethese complex developments with clarity and authority, making excellent use of arange of sources. They often cite the general and ethnic press (relying on translationsand digests of Ukrainian-language papers). Government documents are also used,though sometimes government conduct receives less scrutiny than ethnic organizations.The authors, who are both Jewish, raise the possibility that they might not beobjective. They seem, however, to have established their bona fides with Ukrainiansand Jews, since organizations and individuals from both communities opened theirfiles to them. Extensive use of this material is combined with over ninety interviews