Jump to content

Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

recent edits

In regard to this edit I already addressed the issues with it in the section right above. Since I was reverted, allow me to elaborate:

  1. The term "massacres" is NOT confined to Polish historgiography. To make that - unsourced - claim, is POV
  2. Ukrainian historiography, from what I understand, is split on how it describes the events.
  3. Organized Polish underground units played a very very minor role in the events in Volhynia. There basically was no organized Polish resistance there (it had been eliminated by both the NKVD and the Nazis, and the % of Poles there was relatively small). The events in Volhynia were pretty much a one sided massacre. Polish resistence was formed in response to the massacres, and at a pretty late date (not really operational until summer of 1943)
  4. It's just factually incorrect to say that Operation Tempest somehow coincided with the massacres in Volhynia. The massacres took place from Feb 1943 to the end of that year, with the apogee occurring in July. Operation Tempest began in early 1944. The two actually had nothing to do with one another.
  5. It's POV to describe Operation Tempest as "collaborating with the Soviets". By that token you might as well label the landing in Normandy as "collaboration with the Soviets".

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, well that may have been true. However here are few issues.
  1. The term "massacre" is NOT a neutral point of view and completely ignores the Ukrainian sources facts.
  2. Ukrainian historiography, from what you understand only shows your intentions - pushing your personal point of view. Also some Polish historians such as Grzegorz Motyka also have different point of view on the subject.
  3. Your knowledge of Polish underground organizations seems to be quite limited. However Armija Krajowa could have not appeared out of the thin air.
  4. Look at the article on Operation Tempest before claiming when it started. Plan for it were initiated in 1942.
  5. Have you read the article on Operation Tempest. Yes, it does say something about allies of ally, but it does not change the fact.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the first few sentences, the purpose of the article is simply to discredit the Ukrainian resistance movement rather than familiarize the reader with subject of the article. There were no court cases that prove the fact of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army conducting the ethnic cleansing, yet the wikipedia has the nerve to do so. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, frankly, are you trying to use wikipedia to build your own legal case against the Ukrainian resistance movement? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The book Polskie Siły Zbrojne w drugiej wojnie światowej: Armia Krajowa, t. III, "Instytut Historyczny im. Gen. Sikorskiego". Londyn, 1950 says that the end goal of Operation Tempest was the recognition by the Soviet government the Polish exiled government in London and without any concessions on the issue of the Polish eastern borders. Ilyushyn, Ihor. Polish underground on the territory of the Western Ukraine during the World War II. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, a question. How do you oscillate two major battle events one from another when they were taken place during the same time and at same place: the "massacre" 1943-1945 and operation tempest 1943-1945? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr, you left four comments here so it's sort of hard to reply to everything at once. But let me try.
Whether the term "massacre" is POV or not is determined by reliable sources. If reliable source use that term, then that's the term we go with. And they do.
In terms of Ukrainian historiography my comment was only meant to highlight the differences in how various Ukrainian authors approach the subject. In terms of "Polish historiography", Grzegorz Motyka is already used extensively in the article. Which is as it should be given that he's the expert on the subject. And yes, he has very often been accused by (some fringe authors) of being a "UPA-apologists". But those fringe authors are not used in the article. And Motyka himself describes the events as "massacres" although he categorically rejects the label "genocide".
My knowledge of Polish underground organizations is just fine, thank you very much.
I have looked at the article on Operation Tempest (which isn't very good btw) and also I'm quite familiar with the relevant literature. While plans for it may have began in 1942 the operation itself was not began until well after the massacres were over. Which is even what the (crappy) Wikipedia article says. Basically, there's no way you can argue that stuff that happened in 1944 somehow caused stuff that happened in 1943. It's not relevant to this topic.
The purpose of the lede is to summarize the article. It's not necessarily to "discredit Ukrainian resistance". But if the actions of UPA/OUN speak for themselves then that's what we put in there. History has no POV.
Personally I see the Ilushyn source as highly problematic, not just in the parts that you mention but generally. I'd very much like to remove it per WP:FRINGE. I've refrained from doing so so far in the interest of compromise but my sense of it is that it should go.
Your last question is simply not correctly posed, as I've already explained. The massacres took place during 1943. Tempest didn't commence until 1944. The massacres were aimed at Polish villages. Tempest was aimed at fighting Germans. They had nothing to do with each other.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Serious issues with interest group ownership

To be honest, I've started delving into the references here and am finding sources that should, at the very least, be discussed at the RS/N. Approaching the article's subject from an "from what I understand" stance could be problematic if the sources been using are far from neutral (i.e., Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist) per WP:BIASED and Wikipedia's list of controversial issues, although I've not checked into other sources as yet). While VM may possibly have a point about "massacres" issue, the content, in general, is representative of a pattern of narrative being represented in English Wikipedia: new articles, such as Yaroslav Hrytsak; misuse of article talk pages such as Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army (recently featuring Yaroslav Hrytsak and Tadeusz Piotrowski as if they weren't controversial); unsourced characterisation of Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) as "Rzeczpospolita's political profile is moderately conservative and arguably comparable to that of The Times in Britain. It should be noted, however, that the contemporary Rzeczpospolita reveals a moderately national taste, especially when defending the Polish raison d'etat during historical debates about Polish-German and Polish-Russian relations."; etc.

I'm beginning to wonder whether a neutral editor should be called in, or whether its an AN/I issue. At the moment, it's being regulated by interest groups... which doesn't really tally with the spirit of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, the article is written according with principle of cherry picking to expose an own belief for reality. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't feel comfortable about potentially unethical goings on. Just to clarify, Aleksandr, VM + everyone else concerned, I'm most certainly not squawking about any form of cabal as I know the usual editors on either side of the disagreements are good people and good editors who are transparent about their views. I'm concerned about the number of POV pushers that have started to surface since the recent events in Ukraine have brought new contributors into the mix, or has resurrected others who made reasonable decisions to back off. Focus on current affairs articles has opened the doors to POV-ers on all things Ukrainian and Russian. It's a worrying trend, which is why I'd prefer to see some sort of neutral administrative input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, I certainly understand the concern that some people might try and use this particular article as a way of agenda-pushing in light of the recent events in Ukraine. And if that happens I'll be the first to revert them. But this isn't about that. This is about stuff that happened eighty years ago - but it did happen. History has no POV and our responsibility as Wikipedia editors is to present what happened in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. There's basically no way to get around the fact that OUN/UPA massacred Poles in Volhynia and that's what the article's about. Just because some individuals and countries try to twist history today in a cynical attempt to screw Ukraine over, is no excuse to try and counter those efforts by whitewashing what happened... eighty years ago. History's complicated and not always pretty, and not always the way we want it to be. My only purpose is to present it as neutrally as possible - and that means basing it on reliable sources - whether it has to do with the 1943 massacres by OUN, or the present Russian attack on Ukraine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Marek (plus Lvivske and Aleksandr). I've actually gone OFFTOPIC by posting this section on this article page. They're concerns of a far broader nature so, if no one has any objections, I think I should move this section to my own talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the contention that "history has not POV", as we all know, history is very much point of view; replete with competing narratives. Yes, massacres happened and I don't think anyone is denying that. However, when we start censoring half of the story to push an objective, that becomes a major issue. Also, as I've pointed out, the title, which is blatant original research. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

History doesn't have a POV, individuals do. But this isn't a place to discuss epistemology. And we're not "censoring half the story". We are following reliable sources - hence this isn't "blatant original research" either - in presenting how the events are described. There's a common misconception, of which you should be very well aware, that "NPOV" or "BALANCE" requires giving equal weight to all "sides" of a topic. This isn't the case (otherwise we'd be giving as much space to crazy rumors originating from the Russian internet about the current Ukrainian crisis as to legitimate reports). What NPOV involves is presenting the various "sides" in proportion to how seriously they're treated in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand it as being an flawed contention. It is subject to various narrative lines and, the further the events are from the time of the occurrences, the more prone they are to be deconstructed and reconstructed (to the point of being reinvented) according to POV interpretations. That being the case, it is a misnomer to work on the premise that one narrative is the true narrative. This is why I consider that reliable sources are not simply the ones that pop up in google searches or google books. All that demonstrates is the most popular and/or POV-pushed narrative lines. Specifically searching for 'scholarship' backing a personal preference is not the equivalent of WP:RS. Approaching historical subject matter in this manner is neither neutral nor providing the reader with vital context. Events of such terrible magnitude are not born of a vacuum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia, while there is no "true narrative" there is a narrative which represent reliable sources, and that's what we follow. And yes, because this is a mainstream encyclopedia, these views are going to be those which tend to be "most popular", at least as far as scholarly and academic views go (not necessarily popular views among the populace). No one's "searching" for scholarship to back a personal preference. Well, ok. Some editors may be doing that - but that is the OTHER editors, not me. Like looking for sources whose points of view are not shared by the wider academic community, but which support a particular narrative. That's the essence of WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, major works on the subject do call this historical event a "massacre". And most certainly they do not say that the massacres were concurrent or had anything to do with Operation Tempest (which would be silly, seeing as how one happened later than the other).
As far as the "vacuum" goes - note that the article already has a very extensive section about the "background". Personally, I happen to think that that section is a bit too long and somewhat POV (it tries to draw a direct link between the interwar repressions against Ukrainians and the massacres, which is just not there. An indirect link, yes. But not a direct one). So this can't be an objection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

picture of children hanged on a tree is not from the massacres

It is often presented falsely as an account of UPA murder. But instead this is a police picture of children hanged by mentally ill gypsy woman in central Poland in 1923. There is article on Polish wiki, that needs a translation. pl:Marianna Dolińska, I don't know but maybe other pictures from these years are falsely attributed, there was a war then and people were killed in many unusual circumstances, without witnesses, sometimes on personal vendetta, even people who did the pictures, were physically on the place, had interest in falsely attributing the perpetrators to shape the historical memory and direct sentiments to particular nation pwjb (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I see from archive that the picture has been in the article and then was removed but, I think it should be inserted here again but with an explanation about the error. Problem is that there are many books that will be with us forever that have the picture with false information and people will use it for the rest of the history to illustrate the subject. pwjb (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties could have been as high as 20,000

  • Does the number include Ukeainian victims of SB?
  • Where does Motyka give the number? No such numer exists in the table.
  • The text by Cienciała is rather popular. The lecture 11 links to lecture 16, which however doesn't cover the problem.Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
On page 448 he says that his initial estimates were between 15,000 and 20,000, but that as more data has been gathered, he believes the number to be between 10,000 and 15,000, in all areas and including Operation Vistula.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The table also needs to have the V+G+P column moved to the right of the EP column, as the former is the "total" number but right now it doesn't look that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Many scholars consider the conflict to be a civil war. by Lvivske

  • Unsourced.
  • The scholars are probably Ukrainian nationalists only.

Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I read something like this in Snyder. Can someone confirm (am busy IRL). Here's what a quick google search revealed - it is a reliable source [1](opinion of a legitimate historian, expert in this field, in a peer-reviewed journal). This isn't "many" but it is clearly a reliable one, who is certainly not a Ukrainian nationalist (not even a Ukrainian). Faustian (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Full quote by Burds: "The wider picture of the history of Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict in Galicia enables us to avoid putting too much emphasis on isolated events (like the Volhynia terror of 1943 and the Polish terror of 1947), and instead to see how both ethnic groups capitalized on European geopolitics of the 1930s and 1940s, as well as a succession of foreign occupation regimes, to extend their influence in Galicia. The more I study Galicia, the more I come to the conclusion that *the defining issue* was not Soviet or German occupation and war, but rather the civil war between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Poles. In this scenario, the ethnic cleansing in the region was not solely the product of German occupation (a traditional fiction), nor merely grounded in some deep-rooted popular anti-Semitism (a regionally adjusted Goldhagen thesis), but was also driven by ethnic Ukrainian versus Polish visions of the fate of postwar Galicia. Ethnic cleansing was one among a number of weapons in the arsenals of all who fought over control of the region, and no principal player (other than the Jews) could resist the temptation of making easy gains through ethnic-based operations and policies." [Emphasis mine]Faustian (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I found the Snyder reference and placed it in the article. Thank you, googlebooks.Faustian (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The level of expertise of Burds By the end of 1944, there were hundreds of thousands of dead. And hobbits won. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Another diamond of Burds' expertise the Polish terror of 1947. As everyone knows Polish nationalists ruled Poland in 1947, especially the Army and the security forces. BTW - was the terror in Soviet Ukraine Ukrainian?Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) the Volhynia terror of 1943 and the Polish terror of 1947 - when Ukrainians kill it's the Volhynia terror, but when Polish Communists deport, it's the Polish terror. Neutrality.Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I doubt Burds is biased against Poles or pro-Ukrainian. His work on UPA has been quite critical. I'd guess he uses "Volhynia terror" because the description for those events is similar - Volhynian massacre, or whatever. Faustian (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Burds writes about Galicia, what is the connection between Galicia and Volhynia?Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The actions were part of a reciprocal cycle of violence where Poles ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Ukrainians during the same period - during which period? Post-war isn't the same period as WWII and AK isn't Polish Communists.Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
1930's and 1940s. He seems to see it as a civil war that began in 1930s violence and escalated during the 40's, with Poles and Ukrainians engaging in acts of violence on each other. Thus, according to him, it doesn't make sense to just focus on one period. Ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians from Poland in 1947 can't be understood without considering Volhynian massacre, which cannot be understood without considering Polish treatment of Ukrainians prior to the war, according to Burds and his critique of Snyder.Faustian (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
He seems to see it as a civil war that began in 1930s violence and escalated during the 40's - no, that's not how he sees it. It's ridiculous to talk about a civil war in the 1930s. Burds talk about anti-Ukrainian violence in the 1930's (which is already covered in the article) but he certainly does not say that there was some "civil war" in the 1930's. Or even 1942. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that last sentence does not reflect sources in general, and these sources in particular. One can talk of a civil war in the Lublin region, with a bit of a stretch, something resembling a civil war in Galicia at a very late date, but Volhynia and beginnings of Galicia, were mostly just one sided massacres.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We aren't citing Burds' statement hundreds of thousands of dead (which, when combining Polish and UKrainians casualties as Burds does, is not too horrible far off the mark) nor referring to it as Polish terror. But its a reliable source, one of two, that describes the situation as a civil war.Faustian (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither source describes the massacres as "civil war" (because they weren't). The civil war, if it can be called that, came later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The massacres weren't described as a civil war but as part of the civil war (or the way the civil war was carried out). Burds states the massacres are part of a civil war: "The more I study Galicia, the more I come to the conclusion that *the defining issue* was not Soviet or German occupation and war, but rather the civil war between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Poles". He seems to place the massacres in the context of the conflict of the 1930s and 1940s, although I suppose that can be interpreted differently. Snyder page 175: [2] has a section called "civil war" that states "Volhynia is where the Ukrainian-Polish civil war began" and then goes right into discussing the ethnic cleansing. He clearly states the "civil war" began in the 1940's.Faustian (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with most of that interpretation. First, with regards to Burds he DOES NOT state the massacres (were) part of a civil war. The quote you give above does not state that. It just says that there was - in Burds' view, other scholars disagree - a civil war, but the text in the same paragraph suggests he's talking about what happened AFTER (and as a result) of the massacres.
With regard to Snyder, yes, he says that there was a civil war. But it started with the massacres. The civil war came with the Polish retaliation, which occurred, according to Snyder "to the west, across the river Bug/Buh". In other words not in Volhynia and maybe not even Galicia but in present day Poland, after the massacres.
And again, just stepping back and using common sense. It doesn't make sense to talk of a civil war in Volhynia as these were one sided massacres by UPA. Of both Poles and Ukrainians. There was no actual "fighting" going on, only "killing". Actual "fighting" did not start until Galicia. And I do think Xxx236 makes a good point below, that if we follow the civil war logic, then we wind up with the notion that there was actually a Ukrainian-Ukrainian civil war going on, as UPA killed a significant number of Ukrainian civilians.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Burds was quite clear. "The more I study Galicia, the more I come to the conclusion that *the defining issue* was not Soviet or German occupation and war, but rather the civil war between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Poles. In this scenario, the ethnic cleansing in the region was not solely the product of German occupation (a traditional fiction), nor merely grounded in some deep-rooted popular anti-Semitism (a regionally adjusted Goldhagen thesis), but was also driven by ethnic Ukrainian versus Polish visions of the fate of postwar Galicia. Ethnic cleansing was one among a number of weapons in the arsenals of all who fought over control of the region,"
So according to Burds, the defining issue was a civil war between Ukrainians and Poles. Ethnic cleansing was driven by Polish vs. Ukrainian visions of the fate of postwar Galicia. And, ethnic cleansing was one of the weapons used by all who fought for control over the region. How is that not clear to you? I am not stating Burds was right or wrong - I'm just describing what he's saying. He's saying the ethnic cleansing used by both sides ("all" - thus it includes not only Polish removals butg UPA mass-murders) was a weapon in the Ukrainian-Polish civil war.Faustian (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
the civil war was carried out by UPA and SB.
What about the Ukrainian-Ukrainian war? Where is it described in this Wikipedia?Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you find a source, by all means put it in. There was fighting between UPA and Bulba's group and between UPA and Melnyk groups. But I haven't seen a source describe these conflicts as a civil war. In contrast, two relaible sources link these massacres to what they describe as a civil war between Poles and Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Marples' book

Marples is quoted here as an author of an article. He has however published a book: http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/HeroesandVillains.htm I don't know the book but if we accept Marples we should quote his final description, too.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

UPA killed 350 Czechs

Was there a Czech-Ukrainian civil war too? Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that says so, put it in. Good luck.Faustian (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If we reduce this article to Massacres of Poles I'm not sure if this is a right place.
My source is Motyka. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Motyka described is as a Czech-Ukrainian civil war?Faustian (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think your comments about murdering non-Ukrainians were funny. Would you please respect the victims?Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Who said it was funny or a joke? Please stop assuming bad faith and stop derailing the discussion with your insults. Using victims for this purpose can also be seen as disrespectful. If Motyka described a civil war between Czechs and Ukrainians it should be included as such. If not, then no. Is that clear for you?Faustian (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia — perhaps we should move the discussion about Czech-Ukrainian relations to another page? --E-960 (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My question is - why only Massacres of Poles ? UPA started murdering Ukrainians, later came Poles, Polish Armenians and Czechs. Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, you can write an article called Ukrainian massacre of Czechs — but, this one is about the Poles. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia to start another article. --E-960 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Burds and Snyder

First, I'm not sure if this really should be in the lede. It's about the wider conflict not these specific massacres. These specific massacres began a conflict whose later stages (Operation Vistula, fighting in Lublin region) could possibly be described as civil war.

Second, Burds does not say that these massacres were part of a civil war. That'd be sort of silly, since prior to Klym Savur's initiation of attacks in February of 1943 there was no fighting of any appreciable magnitude going on between Poles and Ukrainians (there was some assassinations and settling of local matters but these were the kinds of things that went on between various underground groups all the time), certainly not in Volhynia where the Polish underground had no presence, having been eliminated by the Soviets and Gestapo.

What Burds say, in referring to it as a civil war, is that it might be a good idea to "avoid putting too much emphasis on isolated events (like the Volhynia terror of 1943 and the Polish terror of 1947)". Putting aside the huge difference in magnitude of casualties that occurred in 1943 and 1947 (Volhynia 1943-1944; between 60k and 120k, Op Vistula 1947; 8k at most), it's pretty clear that one preceded the other. There's nothing in the source which says that a civil war was ongoing when the massacres started.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about 8000 victims of the operation Vistula. Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That number also includes those killed in UPA vs Polish underground fighting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
But not in 1947 only.Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Burds rather clearly described the ethnic cleansing as one of the many weapons used in the civil war between Ukrainians and Poles; thus it was part of the civil war in the way that blitzkrieg was part of the war between Germany and France.Faustian (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
But when he's talking about ethnic cleansing by UPA he's talking about these massacres. When he's talking about ethnic cleansing by Poles (sic) he's talking about the deportations under Operation Vistula. I don't like the equivocation here, but even allowing it, there's nothing in Burds about these massacres being part of a civil war. If there was a civil war it started because of the massacres.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree the equivocation is inaccurate. Deportations are not massacres, even though both can be labelled ethnic cleansing as they result in population removal. See my comments above. Burds quite clearly describes the cleansing (and thus both massacres and deportations) as "one among a number of weapons in the arsenals of all who fought over control of the region." Since Ukrainians were massacring rather than deporting, and Burds used the word "all" (so he was referring to Ukrainian form of ethniuc cleansing also), the massacres were described by Burds as a tool in fight for control between the two peoples over control over Galicia. A fight that he described as a civil war.
You seem to think that a civil war cannot involve or even be dominated by massacres. The Rwanda genocide is often considered part of a civil war: [3] Rwanda Civil War (Hutus vs Tutsis)

Years: 1990-1994 Battle deaths: 2,772 [1] Onesided violence: 517,946 [2] Faustian (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see either Burds or Snyder describing these massacres as civil war or even as part of a civil war. They do say there was a civil war but in both cases they seem to be talking about what came after the massacres.
This touches upon an issue we have discussed previously and that's the scope of the article. Ideally we would like to have a meta article on the Polish-Ukrainian conflict which could span the interwar period, the occupation period and the immediate post war period and there describing the general events as a civil war would have a place. And then this article would be one of the sub-articles in that conflict. But this article is about massacres in Volhynia and Galicia, which were not a civil war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Burds clearly described the conflict as a civil war and the ethnic cleansing as a tool used in the struggle. Thus, it was part of the civil war, according to Burds. It was a tool used by both sides in that civil war.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Burds: "The more I study Galicia, the more I come to the conclusion that *the defining issue* was not Soviet or German occupation and war, but rather the civil war between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Poles... Ethnic cleansing was one among a number of weapons in the arsenals of all who fought over control of the region, and no principal player (other than the Jews) could resist the temptation of making easy gains through ethnic-based operations and policies..."Faustian (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If the whole contribution of Burds is one 1999 short text, I doubt if Burds deserves to be quoted here as an expert. On August 3, 1990, the Polish Senate adopted a resolution condemning the postwar Polish government's Operation Vistula(Operation Vistula), what did he demand more in 1999? Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Burds is an expert on UPA and events of 1940's:[4].Faustian (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It was an extremal case of ethnic cleansing - tortures and massacres of children and women. Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the statement describing Burds' and Snyder's take should be removed from the lead section. The characterization of the conflict as a "civil war" is a fringe view. If you want to dispute my statement than I'll ask you to show me the Wikipedia article titled Polish-Ukrainian Civil War or books by the same title that describe the violence entirely from that perspective (not many historians, academics and institutions view this event as such). All, we have now are just two short statement which make the claim, but fail to articulate why the struggle should now be characterized as a civil war. Only well established facts should be included in the lead. --E-960 (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I want to quickly add that the events in question do not fit the formal definition of a Civil war, but of Ethnic conflict making the views of Burds or Snyder all the more controversial and going against the common understanding of the events, and thus inappropriate for the lead. See the definition: An ethnic conflict or ethnic war is an armed conflict between ethnic groups. It contrasts with civil war on one hand (where a single nation or ethnic group is fighting among itself) and regular warfare on the other.--E-960 (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Snyder is arguably the foremost Western expert on this topic, who is hardly anti-Polish; the claim comes from a book published by Yale, so ascribing a "fringe" label to this doesn't seem accurate.Faustian (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that the sentence starts out with a weasel word "some" you can't have that in a lead… come on. Also, if it was a "civil war" what battles took place between UPA and AK. In any case that would be separate from the actual massacre, that was a ethnic conflict not a civil war. What kind of an expert is this when he can't properly name the conflict. That's why this should not be included in the lead. --E-960 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait - so according to you Snyder can't be an expert because he can't name a conflict in a way that a random wiki editor approves of? Really? Here's Snyder's bio. As for examples of civil wars that are not like the American Civil war, look into the Rwandan Civil War. But never mind - Snyder's statement is enough.Faustian (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As I've tried to explain above, when Snyder (or Burds) is talking about "civil war" they are not referring to the massacres specifically. They are referring to what happened afterward in Lublin/Chelm region and during Operation Vistula, maybe in Galicia. I do agree that "some" is a bit misleading in that sentence and I also have serious reservations about including this sentence in the lede. Snyder's opinion obviously belongs in the article but I'm not sure if it necessary in the lede. For now I'm ok with it as long as it is properly and carefully phrased so that there's no "mind reading" of what "Snyder (or Burds) really meant".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think that this sentence should be in the lead, if those two authors called the violence "ethnic conflict" that's one thing (I would agree), but calling it a "civil war" is bizarre. When you say civil war — you think of the American civil war or Spanish civil war. --E-960 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

E-960, would you please desist from disruptively pushing content, particularly content which is WP:UNDUE for the lead. You're no longer a newcomer by anyone's standards, therefore it should not be unreasonable to expect some form of collaborative engagement with other editors. Thank you for your consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Another source by Timothy Snyder describing these events as part of a civil War between Ukrainians and Poles: [5]. "Throughout 1943 Volhynia was the battlefield of a multisided civil war, with Soviet Ukrainian partisans, nationalist Ukrainian partisans, Polish self-defense outposts, and the German police all engaged." From The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization edited by Ray Brandon, Wendy Lower. Published by Indiana University Press. VM: clearly Snyder is referring to Volhynia not what happened afterward.Faustian (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And yet more sources: [6]. [7]. "destructive civil war between Poles and Ukrainians in the years 1943 and 1947." A dissertation (thus peer-reviewed) for a Ph.D. in histroy at the University of Michigan. From Oxford University Press: [8] (this one states a war between Ukrainians and Poles, doesn't use the words "civil war.").Faustian (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, please do not try to blackmail the discussion by accusing me of being disruptive. Wikipedia allows for everyone to participate and I broke no rules of etiquette by including this statement which is TRUE and backed up by a source. So, how the events are viewed by Poland and Poles is in no way bias, (especially, if the position was stated by a historical body such as the Institute of National Remembrance). But, you trying to hide that fact can be considered as such. --E-960 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, please note that Wikipedia allowes for the inclusion of such statements, because WP documents legitimate views (this is one), as long as it is made clear where the statement is from — and this sentence does articulate that this is the position held in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no "blackmail"(sic) being deployed here. For starters, try adhering to WP:BRD, not BRRRRRR. It's backed up by a source by no means puts it in the 'sacrosanct, therefore must be prominent in the lead' leagues, doesn't it. How many other nations recognise it as such, and how many RS (that means, not WP:BIASED or a nice piece of synth) discuss this as a prominent feature. Please read WP:LEAD again. While the content may or may not be pertinent to the body of the article, how is it anything other than POV pushing for the lead? How is the Polish National Institute of Remembrance's characterisation lead-worthy? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Polish National Institute of Remembrance seems to be the main Polish body investigating these events. It's conclusions seem to be significant enough that a properly worded description doesn't seem to be inappropriate for the lead, IMO.Faustian (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Faustian, yes if there is a source that does not contain the words "civil war" and — the weasel word "some" is removed, then it would improve the statement. These "experts" unfortunately are painfully misusing the term "civil war" which in military terminology has a very specific meaning (kind of like words "strategic" and "tactical" mean very distinct things are are not interchangeable). Ethnic conflict is the correct term in this case. --E-960 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There are now 5 reliable sources using the term "Civil War." I suspect I can google more, with time, but 5 ought to be sufficient. Whether someone like you or I find the term to be "misusing" is irrelevant. We are both just wiki editors, not reliable sources.Faustian (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
But again, the "multisided civil war" does not refer to these massacres. I'd also wouldn't really count a dissertation until it's published.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
When sources state Volhynia 1943 and describe the civil war as "destructive" - it is reasonable to conclude that the massacres are involved. Indeed, in the next sentence after the destructive civil war is mentioned, the author describes UPA targetting Polish civilians in order to cleanse the territory. Also, the dissertation is published and peer-reviewed by the historians Endelman, Porter-Szucs, Gitelman, and Pior Wrobel.Faustian (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Volunteer Marek, there is no such thing as a Polish-Ukrainan Civil War. If there is — where's the Wiki page on it or Encyclopedia entries (Britannica has no entry with that name)? --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, a similar approach is used on the Armenian Genocide page, where the lead section describes the different positions of countries on the issue. Also, Wikipedia recommends that in case of controversial subject matter, it's ok to highlight the varying points of view as long as the source/side is named, and the statement is not worded in such a way as to give universal credence. You are welcome to include a lead statement on how the Ukrainian side views the events of 1943. --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is something that was discussed a while back: to have a page/article on Polish-Ukrainian conflict which would span years 19xx-1947 or which would cover the whole thing at a high level of generality, and then link to specific sub-articles, such as this one. The trouble is this would require a lot of work and nobody's been exactly jumping up to, er, volunteer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that there was a Ethnic conflict, but no civil war… This is what Wikipedia states: An ethnic conflict or ethnic war is an armed conflict between ethnic groups. It contrasts with civil war on one hand (where a single nation or ethnic group is fighting among itself). --E-960 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself. We have 5 reliable sources describing a civil war.Faustian (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A 6th source, published by Cambridge University Press: [9]. Volhynia massacre is mentioned in the same paragraph as the words "Polish-Ukrainian civil war."Faustian (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm piling on, but source #7: [10]. "In 1943 terrible atrocities occurred in Volynia, where local Ukrainian nationalists...set out to "cleanse" the area of its remaining Polish inhabitants. The Poles retaliated, and so began a long brutal Polish-Ukrainian civil war which spread to other neighboring regions. Source: A Concise History of PolandJerzy Lukowski, Hubert Zawadzki

Cambridge University Press, Jul 6, 2006.

So we've got one book published by Yale, two by Cambridge describing the civil war. 7 reliable sources total so far.Faustian (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as I keep pointing out, these sources talk about the massacres *initiating* a civil war, not being a part of civil war. The Lukowski/Zawadzki source is pretty clear: first, "terrible atrocities". Then "Poles realiated". Then "civil war". The massacres were not a civil war. It's possible to argue however that they led to a civil war. This is what these sources are saying (although personally I disagree with this view).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh you are correct that several of the sources state that they initiated the civil war. But some (the dissertation for example) describe them as part of it. At any rate, plenty of reliable sources describe a civil war connected to the massacres; this is hardly a fringe view.Faustian (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are reliable sources which connect it to a civil war, which is why I am not opposed to this being in the article. I have mixed feelings about whether it belongs in the lede. Though if it does, then so does IPN's assessment of the massacres. I'm actually satisfied with how it is right now (at the moment that I write this).Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally satisfied as well.Faustian (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Faustian, you keep providing sources that describe the conflict as a "civil war" of some-kind, all in short passing statements (there is such a things a misquoting sources). Yet, you are not able to provide an encyclopedic entry that lists the Polish-Ukrainian Civil War. Looking over the sources you provided; the authors liken the conflict as a civil-war. After all, what state was that civil war in — Greater Germany? Then perhaps it was a German civil war? — just plain goofy, hehe — not lead material. We should perhaps initiate a RFC on this one. --E-960 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion that a term used in 7 reliable sources is "goofy" is irrelevant and shouldn't guided editing policies.Faustian (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is this a "weasel word."? Some historians say this. It's a fact. Not that I mind if it is removed.Faustian (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch clearly notes that "some" is a weasel word. --E-960 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Volhynia was not a genocide while Srebrenica was?

Here is an interesting fact how the western world sees the sufferings of the Polish nation:

  • Volhynia and Eastern Galicia massacre - over 120.000 Polish women, children and UNARMED men killed - verdict - not a genocide at all.
  • Srebrenica massacre - 8.000 Bosniak ARMED soldiers killed - verdict - of course, it was a genocide.

Why? Because the victims of Volhynia were Polish? 195.69.81.75 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You perfectly got the point. Antipolonism is very strong nowadays, people generally deny the sufferings of the Polish nation. Claiming that the Volhynian massacre was not a genocide is like saying that the massacre of the Armenians was not a genocide as well. 159.205.246.81 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that this is an article talk page, not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to indicate some historical facts, not view my opinions. My intention is to show that Wikipedia should label the Volhynian & Galician massacre as a genocide, not only an ethnic cleansing, don't make a taboo of it, talk about it, discuss. Use common sense, and be objective, please. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reliable sources for this contention? Again, this is not a not a blog or forum. If you want to 'discuss' this, use your common sense and go to an appropriate venue. Read WP:TALK as I have already pointed out to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/7629265/Ethnic_Cleansing_Genocide_or_Ukrainian-Polish_Conflict_The_Mass_Murder_of_Poles_by_the_OUN_and_the_UPA_in_Volhynia Katchanowski claims it wasn't a genocide. He uses however the lower estimate 35 000, so if his estimate is wrong the subject returns. It's mathematics, not to be discussed.Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The common way of referring to it, for whatever it's worth, is "ethnic cleansing with elements of genocide". One can disagree with that characterization and compare it to Srebrenica, but unless there's reliable sources on the table, discussion is pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The truth is, that at least 100.000 Polish unarmed men, women, and children were murdered in the Volhynian (so called) massacre. The truth is that it was indeed a genocide. The world doesn't want to accept that fact mostly because the numerous sufferings of the Polish nation are consciously omitted by the worldwide antipolish propaganda, which pictures the Poles mainly as bums, trouble-makers, alcoholics, thugs, antisemites, aggressive and non-intelligent animals. 78.8.90.252 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

About Shmuk's book

[11] he joined the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which was engaged in a struggle to drive both German and Soviet occupants from Ukrainian soil - UPA murdered rather Polish civilians.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Lesser Poland

Lesser Poland isn't about Eastern Lesser Poland. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of victims of the Volhynian Genocide

The number of Polish children, women and unarmed men, that were murered by the Ukrainian UPA army during the Volhynian Genocide was around 120.000. Many historians estimate that the number of Polish victims was not lower than 80.000 and could reach 140.000 people. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

mutual ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian and Polish people

made Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Polish Army with Polish battalions Schutzmannschaft (107, 202) [1], and Soviet partisans Myroslav Chekh. Як Москва відкрила браму до пекла на Волині. І українці, і поляки були пішаками у грі великих держав // «iPress.ua» from: Mirosław Czech. Jak Moskwa rozpętała piekło na Wołyniu // Gazeta Wyborcza, 08.03.2013 21:14 in 1943 during the Second World War in Volyn.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In traditional Polish historiography biased perceived as ethnic cleansing exclusively Polish population; in Ukrainian - like "action in response to" the atrocities of the Poles on Ukrainian civilians. This topic is much more studied by Polish historians who deal with this problem by the end of the Second World War. In the works of Polish historians tends to exaggerate the Polish victims by impairing Ukrainian victims counted dead Ukrainian at the hands of the Poles as Poles were killed by Ukrainian and included among the Polish victims of other people in part even of Polish nationality who died in very different circumstances and who had no relation to Volyn Massacre. Ukrainian historians began to investigate primarily the subject after restore of Ukraine's independence in 1991.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Violence against ethnic Ruthenians

The 1931 Polish Census recorded significant numbers of ethnic Ruthenians who declared themselves as such. Graphics making reference to that Census need to accurately reflect the data reported, and not distort it. Historical accounts from the region note that the Ukrainian nationalists used violence, or threats of violence, against the Ruthenians who had rejected the Ukrainian nationalist agenda.2601:44:8901:4240:19C6:8177:A623:25B6 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy is back. Unless someone can provide a Reliable Source indicating large numbers of self-identified Ruthenians being killed this is a marginal issue that deserves no more than a sentence or two in the article. with regards to census, reliable sources place "Ukrainian" and "Ruthenian" together and maps reflect this. Examples are here: [12], here: [13], even Piotrowski while including a table with official census results lumps Ruthenians together as Ukrainians in the text body: [14] which is the standard consensus approach of writing about this. No reason to make the issue more confusing by describing two ethnicities instead of one. Faustian (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
What guy? (That is a very sexist comment.) There was a negligible number of Ruthenians in Wolyn, but sizable numbers in Galicia, thus far less violence in Catholic Galicia. The religious and ethnic distinction needs to be noted. Since Ruthenians were 90% Catholic, this could be considered religious violence which was directed against them. Piotrowski is neither a historian nor an an ethnologist. Even if he, were, if you want to make a graphic for the Polish census, it needs to be factually accurate. The present graphic is not. Don't cite the Polish census for what it didnt' report, i.e., that Ruthenians were a subgroup of Ukrainians. It's academically dishonest and inaccurate. It also lacks a NPOV. Cite whatever else you want, but don't distort what the Polish statistical office published in 1931 to promote a nationalist agenda.2601:44:500:3408:5DEF:A62B:BDC0:AFFD (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I listed two reliable sources that use the data from the Polish census to combine Ruthenian and Ukrainian into one category: "Ukrainian." Here is one of these: [15]. Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe. Authors are Poles, not Ukrainian nationalists. Here is one author, Piotr Eberhardt: [16].Faustian (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Also this user is removing the language map from all articles. The map doesn't separate out Ruthenians from Ukrainians but it is accurate (it just doesn't list every single language category). Volunteer Marek  15:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, if you want to cite the census, it needs to be reported accurately. Ruthenians were not Ukrainians before the war. The census did not report that. The violence by the Ukrainian nationalists is part of how they were forced into that ethnic identity. Issues about the census should be addressed on the census page 2601:44:500:3408:5DEF:A62B:BDC0:AFFD (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The map incorrectly categorizes the self-declared ethnic Ruthenians as Ukrainians, nationally, and regionally. While the Ruthenians were forced into the Ukrainian state by Stalin and the Ukrainian nationalists subsequently, it is clearly not recognized that this had happened before the war, nor was it recognized by the Polish state. Statistically, the Ruthenians are 90% Catholic while Ukrainains are nearly equally divided. Magosci and other have noted linguistic differences between the two groups. Andrew Wilson noted in The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation that communities from those who left the region now living abroad have a different accent. Kate Brown in Biography of No Place noted a unique Polish-Ukrainian dialect in the region. Russian sources have noted that the Galicians are ethnically different from other UKrainians. Clearly there were differences here, and the Polish census noted this. Ukrainian nationalist are hostile to this idea. Issues about the census should be raised on the Census page and not create different fiefdoms elsewhere2601:44:500:3408:5DEF:A62B:BDC0:AFFD (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ruthenians were mostly in Galicia, where Ukrainians were Catholic to the same degree as Ruthenians. Please stop attempting to hijack this article with your Ruthenian fixation.Faustian (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yaroslav Hrytsak about the massacres

According to Hrytsak http://wyborcza.pl/magazyn/1,147225,18418145,kresy-dla-nas-pieklo-dla-was-raj-rozmowa-z-jaroslawem.html Ukrainians aren't able to discuss the massacres of Poles, beacsue they fight the war. They didn't fight however any war till 2013 and Ukrainian historians abroad generally don't participate in the war. Polish emigrants during the cold war (Kultura) cooperated with other emigrants and prepared liberal solutions. Unfortunately Ukrainian drawers are still empty 75 years later.Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

300,000 - 1990 Władysław Siemaszko

It was a starting hypothesis. Does Siemaszko confirm the number is his books? If not - the numer should be removed or explained - Some Poles believed that the number of Polish victims was 300,000 but the research didn't confirm this.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Scott's thesis

Suzanne Elizabeth Scott. (2009). The Failure of the Entente: Protection of Poland's Volhynian Ukrainian Minority, 1921-1939. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations (ETDs). pg. 54

According to Scott:

In August 1937, in response to an influx of Polish colonists, peasants refused to bring their crops to town. Industrial workers joined the strike in solidarity. The government took the opportunity to assert its power and quickly suppressed the strikes, killing at least forty-two strikers in the process.149

149 Ibid., 169. The number 42 is from government reports. The reports do not discuss wounded individuals. The likelihood that more people were killed and many more wounded is high.

Ibid. is: Seton-Watson, Hugh. Eastern Europe Between the Wars, 1918-1941. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1986. First published by Cambridge University Press in 1945.

In second edition of his book (1946) Seton-Watson makes quite a different claim (p. 169):

In August 1937 the Polish peasants organised a strike. They refused to bring their products to the towns, in a desperate attempt to obtain the attention of the Government to their needs. In some of the big towns the workers declared strikes of  solidarity. The Government sent the police into the villages and suppressed the strike by force. There were a number of armed conflicts, and the dead were certainly more than the forty-two admitted by the Government. The strike made a deep impression at home and abroad. It showed that the masses in town and country were hostile to the Government, and it was even believed in more than one neighboring capital that Poland was on the verge of civil war.

Snippet-view of the book

The wiki version based on Scott's thesis goes even further in assigning nationality:

In response to an influx of Polish colonists to Volhynia in 1937, Ukrainian peasants refused to bring food to the towns and Ukrainian workers went on strike in solidarity with the peasants. The Polish government crushed the strike, killing at least 42 Ukrainian strikers

I find it highly unlikely that the 1986 edition would give different account of events, because the strike in August 1937 was indeed a mass protest by Polish peasants, organized by People's Party and brutally pacified by the police. The official sources talk about 44 victims, the names of 42 were published at the People's Party congress in Kraków in February 1938. Were they all Ukrainians? I doubt it. 9 peasants, for example, were killed in Kasinka Mała which is quite far from Western Ukraine and certainly far from Volhynia.

Another source describing the strike of August 1937:

...in August 1937, peasant strike virtually cut off food supplies to the cities. The peasants called for a moratorium on debt repayments and for economic aid to help with high levels of indebtedness caused by payments for land obtained under the land reform acts. The decision to attack the government was the result of a split within the ZSL leadership. Witos called for an all-out attack on the ruling military coterie. Maciej Rataj, the chairman of the ZSL, had doubts about the effectiveness of strikes and was anxious about the likely consequences of relation. In the end, the decision was made to call for a peasant strike, which led to Rataj resigning. The Government' response was to send in troops. In battles which followed, 44 peasants were killed and thousands arrested.

Anita Prazmowska, Poland: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 2010, p. 126.

Hedviberit (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The wiki version is an accurate description of Scott's dissertation, which is focused on the Ukrainian minority in Volhynia and is clearer from the wider context of Scott's work (which is no longer available on-line, it seems - the old links don't work). There is the possibility that Scott was mistaken in the use of Seton-Watson. It would be good if more of Seton Watson were available online to confirm this, however, as based on the snippet "Polish peasants" could have referred to peasants who were Polish citizens, including ethnic Poles and Ukrainians (I am being generous to Scott here). Timothy Snyder's Sketches of a Secret War mentions violent strike actions in Volhynia in the mid-late 1930s with dozens of deaths.Faustian (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Scott's thesis is still available through Internet Archive. I have checked the 1986 edition of Seton-Watson and it seems just the same as the second. It has only a paragraph about strike of "Polish peasants" in "August 1937", exactly on the page that Scott points to – 169 (no other strike or similar event is mentioned). No changes in wording (compared to the second edition) and nothing that would suggest (from the context) that the strikers or the killed strikers were Ukrainian. I have quoted the relevant paragraph in full.
M.A theses seem to be considered weak sources - WP:IRS - Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. If Snyder writes in "Sketches..." about some Ukrainian strike in Volhynia with dozens of casualties, why not add information provided by him in place of Scott's material? I will try to search for this. Hedviberit (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
If this is a MA thesis then I'm definitely against using it in the article. Additionally, if these strikes or later protests were organized by Witos and ZSL then that more or less establishes that Polish peasants were involved. It could very well been a class issue rather than a ethnic issue so I wouldn't be surprised if Ukrainian peasants participated as well. However, that still means the current wording is inaccurate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is, to remove this. Although the wording in the article does conform to the master's thesis which is about the Ukrainian minority. When in his thesis about the Ukrainian minority, Scott writes "in response to an influx of Polish colonists, peasants refused to bring their crops to town" it seems clear that the peasants are Ukrainians. I suppose there may be some ambiguity about the workers. Snyder writes about 1936 rather than 1937. In Secret War, pg. 142, he discusses peasant strikes organized by Communists, of Ukrainian peasants refusing to bring food to towns. Communists engaged in violence against those who didn't strike, and police killed at least 31 people in firefights and arrest actions.Faustian (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
According to Snyder the revolt was oriented also against the Jews [17].
In our text the Jews are first mentioned during WWII. They existed and influenced the situation.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties

The same estimates (2000-3000, 10000-15000) are listed twice, the phrases should be integrated.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

150 converted to Roman Catholic cathedrals

A small church isn't a cathedral.
was converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral by decree of the Polish government - the Polish government was able to assign the building to the RC Church but not to decide it was a cathedral. BTW - the Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral, Lutsk was RC under tsars and probably no other RC cathedral existed there. Which church do we discuss?Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed cathedrals back to churches. It seems to have been a minor case of vandalism.Faustian (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Snyder citation in lede

A line on the motivations was removed from the introduction for being of an unsupported point of view. It's from Timothy Snyder, who is widely respected as a neutral voice in this area of history. On page 173 he quotes a UPA report which reads "the population was liquidated for cooperation with the Gestapo and the German authorities." and another "“In the Werbski region the Polish colony Nowa Nowica (40 farms) was burned for cooperation with the German authorities. The population was liquidated.” He also states personally that "revenge by Poles in German uniforms was a solid reason for Ukrainians in Volhynia to believe UPA propaganda about the Polish enemy." He says that there were 1,200 local Poles who collaborated as policemen, and that the Germans called in a battalion of Polish police to assist.

But I've got sidetracked here, the quote I originally referenced was this: "By summer 1943, Polish collaboration was used as a general ra- tionale for the cleansing action begun that spring. As an OUN-Bandera leader summarized the situation in August 1943, German security “uses Polaks in its destructive actions. In response we destroy them unmercifully.”64 I dont think this seems to be of a biased point of view, or should be left out. The reasons behind the killing and how the UPA justified them are kinda important here. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It certainly belongs in the article. Not sure if it's important enough for the lede. This wasn't the main cause for the massacres and the lede shouldn't suggest that it was. I'm rather neutral on that.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The Snyder citation should be removed, these are only claims that UPA made against the Poles… "Ukrainian Propaganda". Thus, such statements have no place in the lead, perhaps somewhere further down in the article as references to the views UPA had, and it should be noted that there is no evidence of Polish collaboration in this case, just UPA propaganda. The lead should focus on the murders themselves (who, what, when and how), not view of individual historians, much less propaganda claims, even if they are a historical fact. --E-960 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I came across this Bloomberg article [18] that makes a reference to Synder, quoting: "many Volhynian Poles sympathized with the Red Army" so UPA was making all sorts of claims, clearly not lead material . --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Snyder indicated that Polish-German was used for propaganda purposes but not that it didn't happen or that it wasn't a cause (though not primary cause) for the massacres.Faustian (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the causes (plural) be explained? There were a number of factors that lead to the decision. From what I can see ethnic state-building was a reason for both sides (Poles also wanting homogeneity to ensure pre-war borders returned), but retribution was another major cause. Limiting the lede to just make it seem like racism was the motivating factor without much context could mislead readers. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As my edit summary indicated, the problem is that 1) it doesn't belong in the lede, and 2) the claim was made in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Then clean up the voice rather than doctor the narrative. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems with article title

West Galicia or more properly New Galicia (marked in yellow), was an administrative division of the Austrian Monarchy c. 1795
Where exactly is Lublin? Certainly not in Galicia.

If this is "Eastern" Galicia, so where exactly is "Western" Galicia ... in Silesia? Please look at page 215 in Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. Scarecrow Press. 2013. ISBN 081087847X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) The title of this article not only contradicts historical facts but also its own background introduction. Your feedback is appreciated, Poeticbent talk 00:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

isn't 'eastern galicia' the term used by english language historians? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that West Galicia is also in Spain. Galicia was a region of the Austrian Monarchy after the Partitions. Another administrative unit of the Monarchy annexed from Poland in 1795 became known as West Galicia. However, the Austrian "New" or West Galicia was located north (!) of East Galicia, not west. Most importantly though, West Galicia was not a geographic region but and administrative one which ceased to exist at the end of the Monarchy (World War One). Geographically the region around Lublin was/is known as Lesser Poland. The proper way of describing the area of massacres (without the confusing Austrian legacy) is offered by Katchanovski, as simply Volhynia and Galicia. Poeticbent talk 04:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Bandera involment

The article points out the OUN-Bandera organization as one of the major participants in the Volhynia massacre. But I think it should be mentioned that Bandera himself was in a german prison during this whole period, and didn't participated in the massacres. I think this issue needs to be clarified, since it can mislead the reader about the role of Bandera himself in the events. 94.139.128.98 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bandera was not entirely cut off from politics and the activities of the OUN-UPA. The OUN-B knew that Bandera's wife visited him, and they used her to forward letters in both directions. Contact with Bandera could not have been difficult, because in 1943 the OUN-B in Ukraine bought cloth of the best quality, to be conveyed to Bandera by his wife, for a suit. According to the testimony of OUN-B member Mykhailo Polevoi, other people also had access to the Providnyk.
— Rossolinski, page 286

Poeticbent talk 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia/Archive_10&oldid=1119820838"