Mid-May this year marked the 110th birthday of Mykola Shrah, who was a typical representative of the 1890s generation, but also a man whose life story deserves special notice. He lived a life that can hardly be described as a success story. However, compared to most of his contemporaries and colleagues, he was at least lucky enough to survive, quite an achievement in the 1930s, especially considering that he was one of the leaders of the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (UPSR) and deputy chairman of Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s Central Rada. An emigre who returned to Soviet Ukraine in 1923, Shrah was arrested several years later as an “enemy of the people,” and tried with others involved in the “Ukrainian National Center” case. He was perhaps the only defendant who was not sentenced to death. He continued to work for a Soviet institute and even managed to defend a doctorate in his twilight years. All in all, he is a unique example from Ukrainian history.
Mykola Shrah was born in Chernihiv on May 4, 1894 to Illia Liudvigovych, a well known Ukrainian lawyer and civic figure, and Yelizaveta Isaakivna. He spent his childhood in a large family, in an atmosphere of care and affection. Mykola, the youngest of the Shrah family, studied well and graduated with honors (silver medal). In his youth he developed a passion for music and took part in concerts. Mykhailo Zhuk painted a portrait of him holding his cello. The young man has an intellectual high forehead and a face with delicate, sensitive features — a visage befitting a poet and artist, rather than a politician. Mykola was not destined to make a career as a musician. In 1912 he entered Moscow University’s law school, probably swayed by his father’s arguments, although judging by everything, the soul of this young, obedient son did not lean toward jurisprudence. It was then that he became involved with the Ukrainian socialist youth movement, so it is safe to assume that revolutionary activities interfered with his graduation.
He must have arrived in Kyiv in the spring of 1917, doubtless sincerely wishing to participate in what he believed was the process of creating a new way of life in Ukraine. In his autobiography, meant for the Soviet authorities, Mykola Shrah wrote that in 1917-1918 he worked as a deputy manager of a public library in Kyiv. But archival documents confirm that he was engrossed in Kyiv’s political life at the time. His political affiliation was totally determined in this period. At the founding conference of the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries on April 3-4, 1917 he represented Moscow’s Socialist Revolutionary community. Nor was it coincidental that Mykola Shrah linked his destiny to the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries. Dmytro Doroshenko writes that it was “a party made up of young people, considering its leadership: Mykola Kovalevsky, Levko Kovaliv, Pavlo Khrystiuk, Volodymyr Zalizniak, Mykola Shrah.” Mykola Shrah’s party affiliation largely determined his place and role in the Central Rada, where he held an important post at Ukraine’s first representative body. He was faced with an even greater challenge when he was elected a member of the Presidium during the Rada’s fifth session (in late June 1917). Later, he and other presidium members joined the Central Rada’s committee. Largely owing to his initiative, the committee shortly became known as the Mala Rada (Small Council). Mykola Shrah was appointed deputy chairman of the Central Rada, under Mykhailo Hrushevsky, and became one of his principal aides, owing to the SR party’s influence and numerical strength. Judging from documents and information that were recently uncovered, as well as memoirs and works by P. Khrystiuk, M. Shapoval, V. Vynnychenko, D. Doroshenko, and M. Kovalsky, Shrah dedicated all his time and energy to his numerous responsibilities, although he did make a number of serious errors. Considering that some of the above-mentioned authors did not like the Socialist Revolutionaries — and that there was no love lost between them and Mykola Shrah — the fact remains that the general attitude toward him was not bad.
It may be assumed that he himself fostered that attitude. The young man proved to be a sober- minded and restrained individual. For that reason he was entrusted with making important statements on behalf of his party. At an emergency meeting of the Small Council (November 21, 1917), Mykola Shrah read a resolution of the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries faction: “We do not recognize the authority of the people’s commissars as the all-Russian government, and without dwelling on whether this authority answers the will of all-Great Russian democracy, the Central Rada will reckon with the Council of People’s Commissars as the actual government of the Great Russian center. The Central Rada deems it necessary to form a homogenous all-Russian Socialist Federal Council of Ministers in order to conduct peace talks.” It is thus clear that the Socialist Revolutionaries knew how to operate with an eye to the complex situation, and that the still common perception of their extreme revolutionary stance are not entirely true.
Like his father, Mykola Shrah consistently followed the Ukrainian Central Rada’s course, and did not alter his stance when it came time for the Ukrainian National Republic to join the Russian federation, although he could not have foreseen the numerous obstacles on this path. In an article entitled “Khto yak rozumie” [Who Understands What and How], he refuted articles in the Russian press, which were vilifying both the Central Rada and the Ukrainian movement in general. The Russians arbitrarily accused the Ukrainians of the very thing that Russia was actually doing (e.g., inciting nationalistic and chauvinistic sentiments). At the same time he wrote, “The Ukrainians, by getting organized, are about to become a tough and powerful link in the chain of the future Russian federation.” Approximately one month later, the young politician was overjoyed to comment on the outcome of talks between Russia’s Provisional Government and the Central Rada, describing the process as an “apotheosis, a quiet, tranquilizing chord ending a long, at times tempestuous, discordant melody, at present, there are finally no obstacles, to understanding democracy. Russia has acknowledged the fact [of our democracy], and ours has in turn has realized that Russia is not our enemy, but our supporter, at first unable to understand what is actually happening [in Ukraine], committing serious errors, but then sincerely making amends.” This sample of Mykola Shrah’s political journalism is distinguished by its genuinely youthful maximalist view of Russian-Ukrainian relations — however remote from reality — and his use of music terminology, unquestioning belief in the idea of autonomy, and his appeal to reason. The sad fact remains that such appeals have about as much effect during revolutionary upheavals as cries in the wilderness. His calls for understanding were never heeded, and his hopes were never fulfilled.
Shrah remained deputy chairman of the Central Rada until it dissolved on April 29, 1918. He was not arrested after the Hetmanate coup, and he gave his undivided attention to party work. At the fourth UPSR convention (held clandestinely in mid-May), Mykola Shrah was again elected a member of the Central Committee. After the Hetmanate’s collapse, Shrah found himself immersed in Ukrainian revolutionary life. In Chernihiv he supervised arrangements for county and gubernial peasants’ conventions, seeking to have the delegates pass resolutions in support of the Directory; he also wrote for local newspapers. He left for Kyiv before the Bolshevik forces entered Chernihiv. On January 15, 1919 Mykola Shrah was appointed Special Governmental Aide, Fifth Class. Several weeks later he became the UNR’s Consul to Budapest.
As was the case with many other Ukrainian politicians, Shrah’s diplomatic career proved to be short-lived. The following year the young diplomat became an ОmigrО in Austria, where he found refuge with his wife. Their life in Vienna was complicated by financial difficulties. Shrah did some moonlighting as a translator with a Ukrainian publishing house, yet he and his wife were often malnourished. This, however, seemed to give impetus to his research. Mykola Shrah worked extensively at the Sociological Institute founded by Mykhailo Hrushevsky, and gave lectures to Ukrainian ОmigrОs on “The State and State Law” as part of a social sciences program.
Young Socialist Revolutionaries were attracted to the Soviet government for a number of reasons, especially after the Bolsheviks embarked on the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the policy of indigenization, which they regarded as a basis for rapprochement. Most ОmigrОs believed they could cooperate with the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine (CP(b)U), sincerely hoping that thus they would be able to work for the good of the people. Gradually, people close to Mykhailo Hrushevsky became convinced that they should return. All researchers stress the role played by Mykola Shrah in Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s plans, when he decided to send his younger colleagues to hold talks with the Soviet government. Shrah himself made a dozen trips to Soviet Ukraine. In mid-1922 he was fortunate enough to visit Kharkiv, Poltava, and even Chernihiv, his native town. In 1923 Shrah and his wife returned to Ukraine and settled in Kharkiv, then the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The following March Mykhailo Hrushevsky brought his family to Kyiv. The Soviet party leadership attached considerable importance to the arrival of former UNR dignitaries. “The national communists required Ukrainian experts to supervise education and the national economy. They did not have such numbers of experts among their party members. Therefore, the political emigration centered on Mykhailo Hrushevsky and his colleagues, including P. Khrystiuk, M. Shrah, M. Chechel, et al., were immediately given important posts in the Council of People’s Commissars and other state structures,” write the Ukrainian researchers Volodymyr Prystaiko and Yuriy Shapoval. The Bolsheviks also gained much by having that group renounce their political activity, as evidenced by “Declaration 66,” an appeal to the Ukrainian intelligentsia to cooperate with the Soviet government, utilizing the available resources for national and cultural construction.” Mykola Shrah was among those who signed this document. Like most of his comrades, Mykola lived a modest life as a Soviet civil servant, even though he held a rather high position. He was a deputy departmental head with the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VRNH), when the case of the “Ukrainian National Center” made headlines. During his stay in the capital city of Soviet Ukraine, he must have maintained friendly contacts mostly with people with whom he had lived in emigration, none of whom harbored evil intentions toward the Soviets.
Be that as it may, neither Mykola Shrah’s work-related duties nor his deeds, personal likes, and antipathies meant anything when he was arrested on March 1, 1931. Needless to say, the illegality of this action is not in dispute. The official charges read that he was involved with an insurgent group of three and the leadership of a counterrevolutionary organization. With the aid of fabricated cases against Hrushevsky’s colleagues, who were beaten into giving testimony, the GPU was compiling evidence against Mykhailo Hrushevsky. The protocols of interrogations of the patriarch of Ukrainian scholarship, which have now been made public, mention Mykola Shrah numerous times in a very dangerous context. Mykola Shrah stated in March 1965: “I was subjected to prohibited means of interrogation in 1931. I was frequently interrogated during the night, forced to stand during questioning, and was shouted at and otherwise abused by interrogating officers; they tortured me physically, as well as morally. In addition, my daughter died at the time of my arrest, which traumatized me a great deal. I knew nothing about that ‘organization’ and had never done anything by way of sabotage or preparing a rebellion. At the demand of the interrogating officers, I identified ‘participants in a counterrevolutionary organization,’ my friends and former members of the UPSR.” In February 1932 Mykola Shrah was sentenced to six years of imprisonment, but the following October a board meeting of the OGPU commuted the sentence to exile in Saratov oblast [Russia]. Somehow he avoided being rearrested (which would have meant certain death), considering that almost all of the fifty people who had been tried and convicted in the “Ukrainian National Center” case would die. A reasonable assumption is that his older brother Volodymyr Shrah, who held an important post at Russia’s Glavsevmorput North Sea Chief Directorate, must have intervened on his behalf. He probably instructed Mykola to keep changing his places of residence. Mykola Shrah’s autobiography records that he and his family had to roam around, managing to cross practically the entire Soviet Union until 1945, when he succeeded in completing his post-secondary education, majoring in economics. Beginning in 1947, he began his career as an instructor and research fellow with Lviv’s Polytechnic Institute, where he was eventually promoted from senior lecturer to professor. In 1969 Moscow’s Ekonomika Publishers released his [Russian-language] monograph Promyshlennyie kompleksy (Teoreticheskie ocherki) [Industrial Processes (Theoretical Sketches)]. Mykola Shrah’s scholarly legacy remains important even today. In a word, he implemented his creative potential as a researcher. He died on February 1, 1970 and was buried at Lychakiv Cemetery in Lviv.
In 1992 a memorial plaque listing teachers and their meritorious contributions to Ukraine’s public life, culture, and education was unveiled in the conference hall of Lviv’s Polytechnic Institute. The first name engraved in gold is that of Petro Franko, followed by Mykola Shrah. Regrettably, nothing has been done in Chernihiv to immortalize his and his father’s memory, both of whom worked in order to achieve the goal to which they devoted their lives and for the sake of which they overcame trials and tribulations. In this sense their lives were crowned with victory, whose name is Independent Ukraine.
