Talk:Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia

Untitled

While I think most Poles and Ukrainians will know what the title of this article refers to, Western readers probably lack the context. How about "Pacification of Ukrainians in Lesser Poland, 1930" - it's a bit long but gives more information about the event for anyone who's searching for it?radek (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Lesser Poland? Nobody is familiar with that term. The current title is succinct and to the point. It is used in the English language publications on the subject.http://books.google.ca/books?id=FG2zVBGsKDYC&pg=PA498&dq=pacification+of+Ukrainians#v=onepage&q=&f=false --Hillock65 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it has a Wiki article Lesser Poland so it's not exactly obscure. How about at least adding "1930" to the title? Otherwise it's just to general and not specific enough - it could refer to, for example, fighting during the Chmielnicki uprising or any number of things.radek (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Or how about "Eastern Galicia"?radek (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure time frame and place wouldn't hurt. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So "Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930)" would work?radek (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

#s for number of villages affected and size of forces used

I got the numbers which are presently in the article from Polish wiki. Snyder however gives similar numbers (although I think he's rounding); [1] (450 villages rather than 493 villages from Polish wiki, 1000 policemen rather than 1041)radek (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got the same number from the Ukrainian source. 450 it is. [2]--Hillock65 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

dyk-ing the article

A few more refs and I think we can put this up for DYK. We got about 4-5 days to do it. Remember that for DYK the article doesn't have to be perfect (in fact part of the reason to DYK is to generate interest and further improvements to the article) - just have refs for the major points.radek (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to help over that period, but I do hope to see this DYKed. It would be a shame not to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hillock, you want to propose a suitable hook?radek (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. How about this one?

...that collective punishment meted out on mostly innocent Ukrainian peasants in Galicia during Poland's Pacification campaign resulted in marked deterioration of animosity between the two peoples on the eve of WWII. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"marked deterioration of animosity" means that they began liking each other more which I think is the opposite of what happened. How about "...that collective punishment meted out to mostly innocent Ukrainian peasants by Polish authorities during the Pacification campaign in Eastern Galicia resulted in increased bitterness and encouraged extremists on both sides?"?radek (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tymek? You ok with it? (It'll have to be nominated soon or the chance will pass)radek (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am OK, but I am afraid the hook might be too long. Tymek (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's barely under the limit. We'll revise if someone objects.radek (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I listed it here [3].radek (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right on the length - I changed it to "that collective punishment meted out to mostly innocent Ukrainian peasants by Polish authorities during the Galicia Pacification campaign resulted in increased bitterness and encouraged extremists on both sides?"

A side note

IMO there is no doubt that the Pacification was a masterpiece of activists of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, with their doctrine of permanent revolution, and stance which can be described as "the worse the situation, the better for us". The violent, exaggerated response of Polish government to the terror campaign was exactly what they were counting on. All across the 1930s, they randomly murdered Polish and moderate Ukrainian civilians, then anxiously awaiting reprisals. Polish police in the interbellum were very brutal, as can be seen in the 1937 peasant strike in Poland, where virtually all victims of the police were Polish. The OUN fanatics knew this very well, and their policies only deepened the rift. Ukrainian peasants suffered, but neither the OUN, nor the police cared about them. Tymek (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All that is more or less true, but the Polish government gave the OUN ammunition from the get go. If there was no brutal and unrelenting subjugation of a substantial Ukrainian minority in Poland, OUN wouldn't have had the support. The root cause of all the strife and later tragedies lies therein, not in OUN or anyone else. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the membership of OUN among the 5-million Ukrainian minority of Poland? Also, I personally have doubts if Ukrainian support of the OUN was always voluntary. Let us not forget that OUN activists would kill all those who wished for improvement in Polish - Ukrainian relationships. Among those killed by OUN was Iwan Babij, principal of Ukrainian high school in Lwow. Under the relentless terror of the OUN, it is not surprising that some Ukrainians were forced to support them. Tymek (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To end this political discussion I will only mention that OUN and other organisations are secondary to the main cause of bitterness and resentment, and that is brutal Polish subjugation of Ukrainian minority. For some reasons some Poles seem to shift blame to OUN and others forgetting that OUN itself appeared as a reaction to the sad state of Ukrainian minority in Poland and Polish government's heavy-handed and brutal repressions against Ukrainian minority gave the OUN all the ammunition and all the support they needed. I suggest we close this discussion since, I am afraid we will hardly achieve understanding as you seem to believe that OUN is to blame for everything. Besides, WP discussion pages are ment for improving the article, not for off-topic political discussions.--Hillock65 (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, we totally disagree on it. I only hope that you are not blaming the Poles for the Volhynian Genocide of 1943-1945 (they deserved it, because of what now non-existent Polish administration did years before). Tymek (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some polish sources

2008, polish historians conferency at Tarnów. Source Pawel Wieczorkiewicz about pacification:

Efektem tego i powstania OUN stały się podjęte od lipca 1930 roku działania sabotażowe, które można określić jako coś pośredniego między powstaniem zbrojnym a akcją nieposłuszeństwa obywatelskiego. W tej sytuacji pacyfikacja Małopolski Wschodniej stała się koniecznością i w gruncie rzeczy była najmniej dolegliwym środkiem, jakie mogły zastosować władze polskie. [...] Represje ograniczały się jednak do batożenia opornych i odpowiedzialności za łamanie prawa. Przed sądami postawiono ponad 400 osób. [...] Jednocześnie na Ukrainie sowieckiej zaczęto organizować Wielki Głód. [...] Analogia ta jest tym bardziej uderzająca, że we współczesnej martyrologii ukraińskich nacjonalistów pacyfikacja owa, która była w perspektywie drobnym epizodem, urosła do wymiarów zbrodni, bodaj czy nie ich zdaniem: porównywalnej z Holocaustem, a na pewno z „tzw. zbrodnia wołyńską” . Wybatożenia zadków, często słusznego, nie można stawiać na równi z odcinaniem głów, otwieraniem brzuchów, wyrywaniem języków, wyłupianiem oczu, czego dopuszczali się Ukraińcy na Wołyniu i później. [...]Powtórzę jeszcze raz: W moim odczuciu, z perspektywy czasu [wspomniane pacyfikacje] były posunięciem wymuszonym okolicznościami, wymuszonym działalnością OUN i nie miały nic wspólnego z czymś, co można określić mianem zbrodni. Spirala terroru nakręcała się w tej sytuacji sama. [...]Symbolem martyrologii ukraińskich nacjonalistów stał się obóz odosobnienia w Berezie Kartuskiej założony jako skutek [dokonanego przez nich A.S.] zamachu na Bronisława Pirackiego w 1935 roku. Warto mieć jednak na uwadze, że po pierwsze osadzono tam osobników, co najmniej podejrzanych o terroryzm, a Ukraińcy stanowili wśród więźniów zdecydowaną mniejszość. Po drugie warunki w owym obozie, choć surowe niewątpliwie, były nieporównywalne z tym, co działo się w łagrach sowieckich

[fast translation] Sabotage action taken since July of 1930 which it is possible to describe something indirect became the effect of it and the OUN coming into existence between the armed insurrection and the share of the civil disobedience. In this situation the pacification of Eastern Lesser Poland became the necessity and in fact she was least nagging means Polish authorities could apply which. However repressions limited themselves to lashing resistant and liabilities for the law-breaking. Over 400 persons were presented with judgements. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And one more very important source: Corpus of the protection of the borderland - p. 4-6. Ekspozytura ukraińska w Nowym Jorku nawoływała mocarstwa i Ligę Narodów do wysłania do Małopolski międzynarodowej komisji śledczej. Popierany przez Niemców Petrusewicz o interwencję Ligi zabiegał w Genewie. Tamże w styczniu 1931 r. skierowali „petycję” posłowie ukraińscy. Polska w odpowiedzi na to wskazywała, iż traktat o ochronie mniejszości nie tylko obdarza je przywilejami, ale nakłada też na nie obowiązek lojalności wobec państwa, w którym żyją. Bez trudu też wskazano, iż pacyfikację wywołali sami Ukraińcy swoją akcją przeciw państwu i gwałtami wobec ludności polskiej. Złożono dowody, iż metody stosowane przez Ukraińców przerastają wielokrotnie nawet to, co wroga propaganda zarzuca Polsce. Toteż Liga Narodów, po zbadaniu sprawy, 30 stycznia 1932 r. powzięła uchwałę stwierdzającą, że „Polska nie prowadzi przeciwko Ukraińcom polityki prześladowań i gwałtów” i że „pacyfikację” wywołali sami Ukraińcy przez swoją „akcję rewolucyjną” przeciwko państwu polskiemu. Społeczeństwo polskie we wszystkich odłamach, z jednym wyjątkiem socjalistów, oceniło pacyfikację zgodnie jako przykrą, ale nieuniknioną koniecznością państwową.

[fast translation] The Ukrainian branch office in New York called powers and the League of Nations for sending to Lesser Poland of international commission of inquiry. Petrusewicz supported by Germans sought intervention of the League in Geneva. There in January 1931 r. directed „ petition ” Ukrainian Members of Parliament. Poland in the reply to it showed that the treaty on the protection of minorities was not only giving them privileges, but he is putting also on not a duty of loyalties to you which live in. Easily they also showed that very Ukrainians had provoked the pacification with one's action against you and with rapes towards the Polish population. Evidence that methods applied by Ukrainians are outgrowing even what the hostile propaganda is accusing Poland of repeatedly was folded. Hence the League of Nations, after examining the matter, of 30 January 1932 r. adopted the stating resolution, that „ Poland isn't pursuing the politics of persecution and rapes against Ukrainians ” and that „ pacification ” very Ukrainians provoked through one's „ revolutionary action ” against the Polish state. The Polish people in all fragments, with one exception of socialists, judged the pacification in harmony as the unpleasant, but inevitable national necessity.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More a repression than a pacification

This article would more accurately be titled Repression of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930). As written, it creates the misimpression that the pacification was justified. It was more accurately a case of collective punishment of the ethnic Ukrainian population in response to the deeds of a fairly small number of OUN operatives. Also it underplays the immensity and the savagery of the repression. For a more complete account see Polish Atrocities in Ukraine (1931, full text) here: http://archive.org/stream/polishatrocities00revy/polishatrocities00revy_djvu.txt

In describing interethnic conflicts such as this, bias is very hard to avoid. However the book includes many first hand accounts, items from the Polish press and government, items (mostly censored) from the Ukrainian press in E. Galicia and much contemporary correspondence originating from the area under repression. As a contemporary collection of several hundred eye witness accounts, I believe it to be a superior resource to any of the other volumes in the 'references' list. Temazcal777 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "pacification" is whitewashing from the Polish side, completely unacceptable in English-language wikipedia (in the Polish one as well of course). --Tino Cannst (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You know some English, do you? Using "so-called" brings in at least some qualification to the term which is surely needed given such a NPOV term "pacification".--Tino Cannst (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Crime against humanity

@ Niki 24 - Where does this source[4] you used in your recent edit here[5] say that The Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia was a crime against humanity? GizzyCatBella🍁 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

as said in the refernces it fits under article 7: 1(k) and 1(h) Niki 24 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Niki 24 what do you mean the reference "fits"? Im asking you again. Where does the reference you inserted say --> The Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia was a crime against humanity? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

yeah youre right. Niki 24 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of any efforts to add a discursive nature to the article

Never thought I would have to defend the merits of the New York Herald Tribune, published by a disinterested American correspondent (John Elliot), a survivors eye witness testimony and an article by the US Christian Science Monitor over Lucyna Kulińska a candidate for the Sejm who works for a nationalist organization accused of anti-semitism, Jan Pisuliński and Adrian Adam Ostanek who works for a government military university. None of my edits citations were motivated by self-interest, national allegiance and one of them lived through the event, this can hardly be said for the prized citations of the 'stable version' of this page. I also have never seen any wikipedians contributory edit removed outright because an editor disagrees with one of the citations (I really don't think my edits were within the WP:CANTFIX category), nor an editor having their edit contingent on convincing an editor in the talk page of the merits of their citations, if this was the standard set by WP:EP this site would create massive practical inefficiencies, it would also be wikipedia endorsing WP:OWN.NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YanT121#Suspected_sockpuppets talking to each other

NachmannWikiWhat I don't think you should use documentary as citation, I don't see this in wikipedia, e.g. if I edit about US and Gulf War or other wars... because its controversial you need to have good sources but I dont see anything wrong with the other sources that you provide. I think as long as yr citing that information with the good sources then I dont see any problem.NakanoHaruki (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)NakanoHaruki

To be honest I am honestly indifferent and don't care that much, still yet to find an article stating documentary sources are forbidden, also quite an anomaly you NakanoHaruki are saying they are not allowed and yet there is a whole page dedicated to how to correctly cite audio-visual materials, as for the other materials I think we can fairly say they are acceptable and comply with WP:RS.NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat

You need scholarly sources for that not a 1930’s newspaper and You Tube videos. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's best to discuss things here. Can you list, one by one, changes you want to make, and explain the reasons for them, what soruces support them or what information is removed that is not supported by soruces? Also, Wikipedia policies strongly prefer newer sources, and not video sources (since they are difficult to cite). Just like best practices in academia - it's very rarely to see sources from 1930 or video sources cited in modern academic papers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue has already been discussed here, if Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and GizzyCatBella chose to ignore the discussion and practice 'discussion avoidance' ('Arguing more discussion is needed, without discussing more') as per the Wikipedia outlined status quo stonewalling tactics (WP:STONEWALLING), notwithstanding the fact I even requested the latter to refer to the talk page, then its really not my problem. The constant use of 'soruces' is laboring under a misunderstanding, and also smacks of Stonewalling ('Unreasonable sourcing demands'). Also not quite sure why this is such a nebulous point but just to repeat for another time, there is no use of audio-visual sources in my version, I agreed with NakanoHaruki that I would not use them, but rather only contemporaneous sources to the event itself. As for it being rare to see contemporary sources to the topic itself I find this hard to believe, in fact WP:RS is far more inclined towards sources of the time, the point also seems to be slightly paradoxical, all sources whether they are academics articles published in the 21st century (secondary historical resources) or not indirectly utilise first hand accounts and reports contemporary to the event. The conduct of the latter user is also in contravention of numerous Wikipedia rules and guidelines, including WP:REVERT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:HANDLE, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:CANTFIX, and generally opposed to WP:AFG. Their reversion of any efforts to add novel information to the page is status quo stonewalling, and their repeated placations of "I'll check your other sources soon" and "I'll examine those sources later and will comment" are all clearly indicative of ownership of content, infact their behaviour is an expressly listed step in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR-"The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article" (expressly forbidden). But most of all the pugilistic behaviour towards any minor attempts to add a novel or discursive nature to the text and towards prospective Wikipedia users is unabashedly in conflict with the procedural guideline of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:DNB). There is a de-facto moratorium on this page against any new information, I think there could really be some conflict of interest issues here present as well, its really unacceptable.NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat

You’re claiming concensus for your changes here -->[6]. I don’t see any consensus for your changes and for sources you are trying to use. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Reread what is written GizzyCatBella, for there is no point in elaborating what has transpired if it is not to be read, there is a whole page (WP:STONEWALLING) explaining what is going on here WP:BRNOD; 'Arguing more discussion is needed, without discussing more'; 'Unreasonable sourcing demands'; 'Finding excuses to ignore discussion results'. The behaviour that is going on here is really detrimental to the operation of Wikipedia, thats all that has to be said.NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat

Actually, GCB, take a look at how recent this account is. Then take a look at what he writes. I think a Sertain Page of Interest is waiting for a report. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with NakanoHaruki and GizzyCatBela don’t use documentary sources, not on pages like this one. However, the quote from Elliot on how the pacification process was carried out seems pretty reasonable, same with the stuff under 'background' from the US CSM from the version as of 16:09, 29 October 2022‎. There is also another whole article in the Manchester Guardian about the event, check it out NachmannWikiWhat, let me know what you think about the Manchester Guardian paper, pretty comprehensive overview.TimothyKloucester (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)TimothyKloucester

Well TimothyKloucester I am not going to be the person to effect the change, there is an effective moratorium on this page, disruptive behaviour is being exhibited to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change, users are being intimidated in violation of WP:DNB and all behavioural policy of Wikipedia, one editor is reverting the edit and then another immediately comes in to support them, 'unreasonable sourcing demands' are being imposed (a tactic of WP:STONEWALLING) to preserve the current version and ensure no new information is added, and WP:OWNINFORMATION is definitely being invoked here. Most importantly all WP:DONTREVERT have been ticked, specifically undoing a revert under the pretence of "I'll examine those sources later and will comment" is by definition 'Do not revert an edit because you need time to determine whether you agree with the edit'. There is no bona fide attempt to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM but rather a total reversion of any new information to preserve the current condition of the page, the editing conduct here is not healthy, hence I for the most part am disengaged. NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat End of sock puppets talking to each other --> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YanT121#Suspected_sockpuppets - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian question

The background of Ukrainian sabotage was completely different. the "Ukrainian question" was on the agenda for the Poles - repression, Polonization. Poles were also resettled on Ukrainian lands and territories were given to them, entire villages were burned, and anti-Ukrainian policy was pursued. This is what outraged the society. That's why the sabotage started. And this was a response to the Poles, not terrorist actions. 82.25.15.65 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Acts of Terror" not "Terrorist Action"/"Terrorist Attacks"

Terror is already a verb and it means "political violence", saying "terrorist attack" would be like saying "shooter attack" instead of "shooting".
Terror losing the verb meaning and "terrorist" becoming a more common word is a cold war phenomenon, using it is wholly anachronistic and implies that emphasis is on "terrorists" (people who are associated with terror) and not on "terror" (political violence).

Remember to use natural language. 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)