This is an archive of past discussions about Stepan Bandera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There was an image, which had sections highlighted, added to this article. Who highlighted the sections? Why were they highlighted?
Unless there is an explanation of the highlighting, the image must be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Why the picture which I took from Ukrainian version was removed? Someone who knows what's going on, please take portret picture from Ukrainian verison and make it available Stanislav (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, if it is removed, simply re-post it, with an explanation on this page. If people see why it is there, it will probably not be removed. Horlo (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The relevant paragraph from this site is the following:
Stefan Bandera – Ukrainian general in the Soviet army who switched to the German side along with his entire army. His troops fought against the Russians on the front and were very active in the murder of Jews in the Ukraine and in Russia. Bandera and his men went underground prior to the German downfall. Well armed by the Germans, he continued his fight against the Russians and his killing of Jews and Poles for several years after the Allied victory. I could ascertain during my 1999 trip to the Ukraine that today Bandera is considered a national hero. All the towns have streets and squares named after him and there are many monuments dedicated to him. He is almost at the same level as two other Ukrainian heroes with Jewish blood on their hands: Bohdan Chmielnicki and Petlura.
Comment by Pan Gerwazy:
No, "Soviet general" cannot possibly be correct. This is probably caused by a confusion with someone else. Vlasov, perhaps?
Bandera was on the German side when they invaded, but was soon arrested for being too independent. He even opposed the formation of SS-Galizien.
But a lot of atrocities were committed by his supporters in his name and Bandera never recanted them or asked for forgiveness.
It is also true that someone in whose name so many innocent people (Jews, Poles and yes, relatives of communist partisans) were killed, should not be so popular in Ukraine.
Well, it is a difficult and controversial question and one has to be respectful of the thousands of innocent victims of the Ukrainian radical nationalism. But there is another problem to bear in mind. Bandera was one of several millions Ukrainian people who witnessed the turmoil of history with its violence and oppression. His fight for liberation of his people against the Polish, Soviet and - last but not least German side was perfectly justified. Remember that the Ukrainian guerrilla forces were desperately fighting the Soviet forces for many years following the end of the WW II., completely forgotten by the divided world (as was the case of the Baltic partisans among others). And the violent experiences which started as soon as during the WW1 and continued in the interwar era with Polish state's repressions and pacification campaigns contributed to mutual hatred which was manifested by the Polish side too. Next to some 50 000 - 90 000 murdered Poles and Jews by the Ukrainian partisans there are some 30 000 Ukrainian civilians killed by Polish forces exactly for the same reasons the UPA turned against the Polish settlers - revenge and a dream of ethnic purity of the disputed territories. It may not excuse the Ukrainian atrocities but it sets the whole case into a more complex contect. The UPA was not the first and far from the only instigator of the terror en masse.
194.108.138.54 11:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC) David
Yes, precisely how many innoncent people were killed by UPA? It is known that NKVD agents dressed up as UPA members, murdered families, and villages. The only thing you could ever accuse UPA of doing, is fighting/killing those who they were fighting against- Soviet agents, Red partisan, Wermacht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazan.ua (talk • contribs) 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
To correct David's quote, Bandera is responsible for murdering some 200,000 Poles, not as you stated between 50,000 and 90,000. Norum (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Bandera's collaboration with Nazi
Colonel Stolze from Abwehr II gave testimony at 25th December, 1945. His testimony was given to Nuremberg Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-231 with the request that it be accepted as evidenceas. It consist information which confirm that Stepan Bandera was the Abwehr's agent, also that Bandera and OUN actively collaborate with Nazi.
"In carrying out the above-mentioned instructions of Keitel and Jodl, I contacted Ukrainian Nationalists who were in the German Intelligence Service and other members of the Nationalist Fascist groups, whom I enlisted in to carry out the tasks as set out above. In particular, instructions were given by me personally to the leaders of the Ukrainian Nationalists, the German Agents Myelnik (code name 'Consul I') and Bandara to organise, immediately upon Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, and to provoke demonstrations in the Ukraine, in order to disrupt the immediate rear of the Soviet Armies, and also to convince international public opinion of alleged disintegration of the Soviet rear."
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-56-12.htmlZaporozhyenCossack (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ZaporozhyenCossack
I see what your getting at but this is not great proof Bandera was an abwehr agent, but just that there was a person in the abwehr who said he was... I included it in the article like this. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me!23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
was a Ukrainian politician and one of the leaders of Ukrainian national movement in (Galicia) Western Ukraine, who headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).
he was a leader of OUN/UVO branch in Galicia (Poland) until imprisonment in 1934. Majority of the Ukrainian political parties as also Andriy Sheptytsky condemned activities of that minor terrorist organization. Even OUN head Konovalets issued an order to halt terrorist activities in Poland. He was imprisoned while UVO/OUN almost disappeared till end of 1938.
Released by Germans September 16 1939 it acted at General Government (Nazi occupied Poland) till June 1941 – while the leader of OUN from August 1939 was Andriy Melnyk. He was unknown at pre 1939 territory of Ukraine until soviet propaganda effort from the end of 1940s.
So I guess how he can be a Ukrainian politician outside of Ukraine, and his OUN described by him not as political party???
Issue with OUN vs Bandera’s OUN required clarification – two head at once:)
(data and facts derived from Нариси з історії політичного терору і тероризму в Україні XIX—XX ст. Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002 )
Blog, opinions section of Kyiv post given as refs for
The Soviet Union discredited Bandera and other Ukrainian nationalist partisans of World War II
while in Time(magazine) (also given as ref -while no such wording can be found) given - Bandera had fought alongside the Nazis against the Russians during World War II
I think that this wording should be given as in Time (also supported Нариси з історії політичного терору і тероризму в Україні XIX—XX ст. Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002
І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN) etc.) or removed. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Missing in timeline
It would be interesting to know (if it's known) why the Germans let him live, did he finish the war in a concentration camp, and what he did after the war. A2Kafir (and...?) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN966-02-2535-0
Bandera together with his deputy Yaroslav Stetsko removed from General Government to Berlin under pretext of assassination threat – unsuccessful attempt were made on Stetsko 9 July 1941 at Lemberg. By end of July OUN-B leadership issued an order to actively “remove” Melniks’s OUN leaders and activists. 30 August 1941 highest OUN officials – M.Stsyborskyy and O.Senyk were assassinated at controlled by OUN-B Zhytomyr – more then six hundred of others OUN activists received a death threat from OUN-B, dozens already was killed. In respond Melnyk’s OUN issued own order to “exterminate Yaro-Bandera diversion”. 15 September 1941 Stetsko and Bandera were moved from private villa’s were they live from July 1941 to secure central Berlin prison. In December 1941 they wrote a memorandum to Alfred Rosenberg in which declared “German and Ukrainian interests in East Europe are the same” and promised OUN-B service under German authorities rules, declared rejection of the OUN-B exclusivity etc.
*Організація українських націоналістів і Українська повстанська армія. Інститут історії НАН України. 2004р
1942 – OUN-B order –“any activities against Germans – it is a help to Stalin”
1943 – Lebid attempts to postpone armed activities and Stepnyak attempts to act against Germans was overruled by Shukhevych OUN-B main targets – Poles and soviet partisans.
Нариси з історії політичного терору і тероризму в Україні XIX—XX ст. Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002 p.662
5 March 1944 OUN-B representative Father Grynyoch (chaplain of the Nachtigal) met at Lemberg with Gestapo and SD, representatives and discuss terms of cooperation with Nazi against Soviets
Summer 1944 – OUN-B/UIA notable activities against rear of 4-th Ukrainian Front
Early September 1944 – Bandera freed by SD, (which absorbed Abwehr in 1944) from Zellenbau.
After the front had passed, by the end of 1944 the Germans supplied OUN/UPA by air with arms and equipment. Some German personnel trained to conduct terrorist and intelligence activities behind Soviet lines, as well as some OUN-B leaders, were also transported by air till
early 1945.
*Організація українських націоналістів і Українська повстанська армія. Інститут історії НАН України. 2004р p.409-410
Soon after Germany fall Bandera and OUN-B “abroad” (ЗЧ ОУН) established contacts with Western Ally intelligence services. -
so his activities after war seems to be classified or distorted
Feel free to expand – a really nice and detailed scholar sources available
ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN966-02-2535-0
І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN)
Berkhoff, K.C. and M. Carynnyk 'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys' in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 23 (1999), nr. 3/4, pp. 149—184
Нариси з історії політичного терору і тероризму в Україні XIX—XX ст. Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002 (slightly outdated but some interesting facts)
Well, actually, I think that this section should be removed. If you can prove it worthy of being kept, please do. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
So, you've asked about massive expansion isn't? While list of sources and it's highest WP:RS grade (HURI of Harvard, Ukraine's National Academy of Science, Shevchenko Univ.) is self evident -- isn't?Jo0doe (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, JoOdoe, what do you mean? Could you please keep your sentences short so they will be easy to understand? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there any SOLID, RELIABLE, and NON-SOVIET source…
…to clearly prove the alleged “crimes against humanity”, “genocide” and “Nazi collaboration” by Stepan Bandera personally? I’m asking this because it seems like most of the accusations against him came from the Stalinist era, which was not so prone tohistorical truth.--187.37.65.76 (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Stepan Bandera was awarded (post-humorously) the title Hero of Ukraine by the Ukrainian president Victor Yushchenko 2 days ago. Before giving such an award Bandera was studied scrupulously. In order to make sinister remarks the sources have to be spotless and not tainted. --Bandurist (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Doubtful, it looks more like a careful political stunt to compensate for his appalling loss in the elections. A loser honors losers, nothing surprising in that. Maybe Russia should posthumonously the title Hero of Russia to Stashinsky, and also equate the former MGB/NKVD/MVD/military men who fought against the UPA as veterans? --95.165.137.101 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Just now in the article was used infobox "office holder", but in this template lack of the ethnicity and citizenship fields, but Template:Infobox person has these fields (and death_place, body_discovered, death_cause, resting_place, resting_place_coordinate etc) making the infobox more informative. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Brotherhood of Veterans of the 1st-Division of the Ukrainian National Army as a source
Written by a published historian (Logusz, M.A. in History and teaches it at a military academy?) and reprinted from Forum. Not the best source (university publication etc.) but not unreliable either.Faustian (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
That's already been described somewhere. Logusz's publisher (Schiffer Publishing) is legitimate. The excerpt was taken from Forum magazine by Andrew Gregorovich. His bio states "ANDREW GREGOROVICH was a Department Head in the University of Toronto Library System for over 30 years and is the author of many bibliographies, including two which include Jews and Ukrainians: Canadian Ethnic Groups Bibliography (1972) and a Bibliography of Canada's Peoples (1993). He was Chairman of the Toronto Historical Board, President of the Ontario Library Association, President of the Ontario College & University Library Association, President of the Canadian Multilingual Press Federation, and a member of the Academic Board of the Governing Council of the University of Toronto. He served as Executive Director of the Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation Centre in Toronto and has been Editor-in-Chief of the quarterly Forum Ukrainian Review since 1967." There's no reason to tag that as dubious just because you don't like it. I hope you aren't planning on becoming disruptive again on the English wikipedia, after having been blocked from the Russian one (and already blocked on this one for a year).Faustian (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you be stright on topic and simply provide a link which prove your text? Thanks. Could you provide a link were GREGOROVICH prove Logusz assumptions? Thanks If you would like to discuss anything else - you can do it at my Talk. Also may be you don't know but Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science prepeared extencive "OUN and UPA in 1943" ISBN978-966-02-4911-0 which does not prove Logusz claim . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So link to sources which indicate Logusz as a published historian. Link to That's already been described somewhere. I hope you know - it should be link to secondary scholar sources - you know no place for original research. Please behave. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Stolze testimony
The Stolze testimony refers precisely to the pre-6/22/1941 time period. Any attempt to apply it to 1945 would be a misrepresentation and WP:SYNTH to make Bandera look like a lifelong German agent.-Galassi (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Galassierased citation of the document and link to the book published at Institute of History of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine official site with comment "no such PDF in existence". As this book is wellknown and frequently cited as a relevant source I'd checked this situation. It is this site design problem - the document can be accessed via MS InternetExplorer, but FireFox doesn't work with it. I'd restored the link and citation with comment "this pdf exists, use MS InternetExplorer", but User:Galassireverted my edit with comment "neither Safari nor Firefox can find this PDF".
This kind of behaviour can not be welcomed in WikiPedia as technically everybody can access this document via MS InternetExplorer (this software tool is free) so the source is verifiable. I'm sure this misunderstanding has to be resolved. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The book is fine, but the PDF doesn't exist at the URL given. I am not obliged to download IE, and it is useless on my MAC.-Galassi (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia general rules are, for example, a book is in a library in Australia, but this library is public, not private. It means everybody being in Australia can access this book. If some wikipedia editor can not access this book, this book IS verifiable, as somebody else CAN take it and read. It is no any rules in Wikipedia stating on-line sources must be accessible for every Internet browser. If online source is accessible via IE - it is accessible. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/2.pdf and history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf not the same URL. While it's simply online version of paper book published by Institute of History of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in 2004 - so per WP:V Name,Publisher Date of Issue, page number and inline citation is Ok.Guess why not to try Google? Jo0doe (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Himka citation reffered to OUN (early 30s) - but not OUN-B appeared in 1941 which he clear distinct.
It's not article about OUN in 1942 under Mykola Lebed - it's article about S.Bandera and endorsed by him documents in 1941
Guess why Institute of History of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine should be "balanced" through Ukrainian Quarterly and even Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964
YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12, pp. 259–96, 1958–59 - can't find such claims at mentioned source - could you WP:V? Thanks
Guess Moisei_Fishbein? Moysey Fishbeyn graduated in 1976 from Kiev Institut of Pedagogy with specialization in philology. ? I was unable to find mentioned text at poorly attributed source. Can you WP:V? Or {{citation?}}.Thanks Any comments on Ukrainian Quarterly 1964?Jo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Jo0doe seems to have cherry-picked points of information in order to present a one-sided impression to push his POV. He objects to the correction. Fishbein's text was given at a conference at the University of Illinois, YIVO is a legitimate source, Himka wrote about the OUN before and during the war. Jo0doe is just being disruptive again.Faustian (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You suggest Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences namely ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN966-02-2535-0 І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN)
, K.C. Нариси з історії політичного терору і тероризму в Україні XIX—XX ст. Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002 "OUN in 1942" "OUN and UPA in 1943" ISBN978-966-02-4911-0 Berkhoff and M. Carynnyk 'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys' in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 23 (1999), nr. 3/4, pp. 149—184 Dr. Franziska Bruder The International Institute for Holocaust Research No. 12 -June 2008 p.37 ISSN 1565-8643 as a cherry-picked points? Could your give a link to WP:RS which bear same conclusion? I suggest you mean In the Ranks of the UPA: A Collection of Memoirs by Form[er] Soldiers of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army), ed. by Dr. Petro Mirchuk and V. Davydenko, Prolog Association Library No. 1052, New York: Society of Former Soldiers of the UPA in the USA and Canada, 1957; pp. 342-49 from here [5] - so per І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 p.23 P.Mirchuk is "official OUN-B party "historian" which works are highly inaccurate and stright tendency to ditort. misrepresent and whitewash (Головними недоліками праць Мірчука є їхня спрямованість на виправдання будь яких дій Організації, очернення оппонентів та відверте замовчування співробітництва між ОУН та нацистами). You know book [6] gives quite differ from Petro Mirchuk fairytale about "When the Germans entered Lviv, I was probably the only Jew who was happy about their arrival." Could you cite YIVO? WP:V? (I expect Gurby battle here again) Thanks. Any suggestion on Ukrainian QuarterlyJo0doe (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
While in regards to Himka resent opinion about book which "exonerate the OUN of charges of antisemitism and complicity in the Holocaust "- rejecting sources that compromise the OUN, accepting uncritically censored sources emanating from émigré OUN circles, failing to recognize antisemitism in OUN texts, limiting the source base to official OUN proclamations and decisions, excluding Jewish memoirs, refusing to consider contextual and comparative factors, failing to consult German document collections, and ignoring the mass of historical monographs on his subject written in the English and German languages. Any relevance to text added to artile? about Ukrainian nationalism did not include antisemitism Jo0doe (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestion for inline citation which given details which proves text incerted? Any suggestion about Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964 scholar value? I'll wait for two weeks (while collecting "Gurby battle" diffs over past years). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Views towards other ethnic groups
This section has become a huge coatrack, as it documents none of Bandera's own words or opinions. Any of these available? This need to be addressed ASAP.-Galassi (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
May I remind you -
In May 1941 at a meeting in Krakow the leadership of Bandera's OUN faction adopted the program “Struggle and action for OUN during the war” (Ukrainian: ”Боротьба й діяльність ОУН під час війни») which outlined the plans for activities at the onset of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and the western territories of the Ukrainian SSR. [32] Section G of that document –“Orders for first days of the state living organization” Ukrainian: “Вказівки на перші дні організації державного життя» outline activity of the Bandera followers during summer 1941
- it's Bandera's own words and orders - while a reggards to Ukrainian quarterly 1964 or Society of Former Soldiers of the UPA in the USA and Canada, 1957 claims - all of them is irrelevant to Bandera own orders and word. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ukraine has several competing "chief rabbis". However this article is not about them, but rather Bandera. We need quotations of his own words apropos Jews.-Galassi (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway his relations with Jews can't be completely separated from Jewish relations with him, I guess. Just now is much easier to find a negative or neutral POV, but positive one is not so frequent. That is why adding informations supporting mr.Bandera cooperation with Jews makes some disbalance if the volume of this texts is compareable to the information criticizing him. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a note - per source - Friedman P. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Nazi Occupation| YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. XII 1958-59 - OUN(B) story about Stella Krenzbach was a Jewish woman who served in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as a nurse and intelligence agent- the entire story is a hoax. (see ppp202-203) also same conclusion at Himka's 2008 text - see Taras Kurilo and John-Paul Himka -"Україна модерна", ч. 13 (2), 2008). See also same Himka's work (instead of obsolete 1997) - and see him analysys of the OUN early ideology Милянич Ю. Жиди, сiонiзм i Україна // Розбудова Нацiї. 1929. № 8-9, Мицюк О. Аграризація жидівства на тлі загальної економіки. - Прага, 1933, Мартинець В. Жидiвська проблєма в Українi // Iдея в наступi. - Лондон, 1938. Again see Dieter Pohl Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941-1944: Organisation und Durchführung eines staatlichen Massenverbrechens" (München, 1996). Again -see this Head of Bandera's Ukraine confession - Тому стою на становищi винищення жидiв i доцiльности перенести на Україну нiмецькi методи екстермiнацiї жидiвства, виключаючи їх асимiляцiю i т. п - at. Berkhoff K. C., Carynnyk M. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 1999. Vol. 23. No. 3-4. P. 162. Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I also suggest expand citation given at text Jews must be isolated, removed from governmental positions, those who are deemed necessary may only work with an overseer in whole - as Жидів ізолювати, поусувати з урядів, щоб уникнути саботажу, тим більше москалів і поляків. Коли б була непоборна потреба оставити, приміром, в господарській апараті жида, поставити йому нашого міліціянта над головою і ліквідувати за найменші провини" - so we should not ommit Poles and Moskals (I think this term need to be explained in text directly as earlier was given).ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
claims about "Jew associates, notably Lev Rebet and Richard Yary." seems to be a part of the the KGB Disinformation Campaign Against Ukrainians and Jews. By Ukrainian Quarterly:) Per Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 -Richard Yary was a gestapo - Bandera Liasons officer; Lev Rebet was a head of Bandera's Government after Stetsko arrest which stated Відносно жидів приймемо всі методи, які підуть їм на знищення", and never be a Jew see- [7].Jo0doe (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't selectively translate quotes. It's unfortunate that you seemingly haven't learned from your year-long block and are back to repeating your behavior, some examples in the past being hereand here and here. Of course you can cherry-pick and find individual antisemitic quotes linked to and by Bandera. For a long time you kept inserting this quote from an OUN conference: "OUN-B also declared that Jews of the USSR were the most faithful supporters of the Bolshevik regime and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in the Ukraine." Thanks to Pawel providing an excellent source by Jaroslaw Hrycak, we now see that the conference not only stated the above but also condemned anti-Jewish pogroms because they distracted attention from the real enemy of the Ukrainians, the Bolshevik regime (conversation is here). So rather than present everything, you put in one piece of information but hide another in order to push your skewed POV. Thus forcing other editors to waste their time tracking down your additions. As for Richard Yary - according to his wikipedia article he was of Hungarian-Jewish descent and married to a Jewish woman, Rosalie Spielvogel, and was the liason between Bandera and the Abwehr. This was rferenced from Chuyev, Sergei - Ukrainskyj Legion - Moscow, 2006. The referenced Ukrainian wikipedia article and the Russian wikipedia article here both say the same things about him. As for the Krenzbach "hoax", it was taken from a paper at conference at the University of Illinois which can be read here. The Polish wikipedia article article about Krenzbach, seen [Stella Krenzbach here], lists Phillip Friedman's work as a source which is interesting given your claim that he considers it a hoax. And here Krenzbach is mentioned by the Ukrainian president's wife at a speech in the presence of Israel's ambassodor at a Kieven synanogue where she stated "One of the most active members of the Ukrainian Partisan Army was Stella Krenzbach. Later, when she worked with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, she appealed to diplomats: “a free Ukrainian state will be the guarantee and the proof of the just peace all over the world”. I am asking you again, please refrain from being disuptive.Faustian (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please be stright on topic. So can you cite me a page from Phillip Friedman's work were he indicate how Bandera issue orders to save a Jews? You know WP articles are not RS by themselves . While who is Chuyev, Sergei ? Does his work was endorsed by two Scholar Councils like Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 for instance ? So you object again (as it happened with Gaupshturmfuhrer der SS Y.Krokhmalyuk "source") to remove hoax from WP? Pitty - so could you prove your claims above by link or direct citation as requested (it's also conserned For a long time you kept inserting this quote) Thanks . I'll hope you'll not oppose to Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України judgement about I OUN-B conference claims vs Боротьба й діяльність ОУН під час війни orders and facts given? Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I also hope you can handle a diff between pogrom and Shoa (Тому стою на становищi винищення жидiв i доцiльности перенести на Україну нiмецькi методи екстермiнацiї жидiвства, виключаючи їх асимiляцiю i т. п - at. Berkhoff K. C., Carynnyk M. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 1999. Vol. 23. No. 3-4. P. 162. ) - see more here [8] Thanks. Jo0doe (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
[9] - good - while you've need to add 2 more refs - Ihor Kordyuk "Сучасна Україна" (1958), and Taras Kurylo John-Paul Himka with aid by the Carynnyk M. at Україна Модерна 13(2) 2008 p.260 (edition by Historical Research Institute - L`viv Franko University)
Jewysh physician and his wife whom he knows in Israel who were saved by UPA, another Jewish physician and his brother who lived in Tel Aviv after the war - I can count 4 persons - does it mean many? I was unable to find Jewish fighters - WP:SYN? Again how 4 persons which was not killed becouse they was physician had a connection towards Bandera's Views towards other ethnic groups?? 259–96 inconclusive for when Bandera was in conflict with the Germans, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army under his authority sheltered many Jews. page number and citation please. Thanks. And again Why scholars opinions compared with poet claims based on source assessed as "hoax" ? (see WP:RS for more)Jo0doe (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, there's no implication that those were the only four saved. He mentions many medical personnel. Fighters was from a different article (although at least one was mentioned by Friedman). I don't have to go to the libraries and hunt for sources that are already referenced, for your sake. Please don't take up people's time needlessly.Faustian (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So could you cite a page number about "many" Thanks. "Fighters" - please avoid WP:SYN - distinct sorces in text. You can save your time and Wp:reliability simply to follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR reccomenations. Any suggestion for Mr.Bandera relations to 4 saved physicians? Which scholar institution published "Ukrainian Quarterly"?.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the poet Fishbein had previously been one of the editors of the Soviet Ukrainian Encyclopedia, and as such he has perfect historical credentials. PLease don't waste our time. -Galassi (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you specify a volume or artilce name? I'll check. Which WP:RS indicate perfect historical credentials of Mr.Fishbein? - [http://www.kavkazcenter.com/ukr/content/2009/06/26/10098.shtml] this one? In order to don't take up people's time - please add a ref to your info (like I do). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Chronology order of the Views_towards_other_ethnic_groups section
November 1942 – early 1944 In late 1942, Ukrainian nationalist groups began a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Volhynia, and in early 1944, these campaigns began to include Eastern Galicia. It is alleged that up to 100,000 Polish civilians were murdered, by Ukrainian groups including the OUN-Bandera which bears primary responsibility for the massacres
1930 (obsolete text (1997)of Himka which in 2008 conclude)Unlike competing Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms, Ukrainian nationalism did not include antisemitism as a core aspect of its program and saw Russians as well as Poles as the chief enemy with Jews playing a secondary role. .
March 1942 German intelligence concluded that Ukrainian nationalists were indifferent to the plight of the Jews and were willing to either kill them or help them, depending on what better served their cause.
why Mr.Yuriy Lukanov, a freelance journalist in Kyiv deserved to be citing twice? Is he is scholar and Kyiv Post is an edition of the Ukrainian Academy of Science? I think his opionions irrelevent in WP.
Here [11] in source [12]
JOHN-PAUL HIMKA (University of Alberta) clearly indicate intent of the Bander's followers
When Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the nationalists' hopes seemed on the verge of fulfillment. At the behest of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the revolutionary wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Volodymyr Stakhiv wrote to Hitler on 23 June 1941 to express confidence that the German campaign would "destroy the corrupting Jewish- Bolshevik influence in Europe and finally break Russian imperialism" and to point out that "the restoration of an independent national Ukrainian state along the lines of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty will firmly establish the ethnic ( vцlkische) new order in Eastern Europe." (22) The letter fairly accurately captures the mood of the nationalists. The reference to the "Jewish-Bolshevik influence" was not a stock phrase of Ukrainian nationalism, which tended to identify Bolshevism more with Russians than Jews, but an indication that the nationalists were willing to accommodate Nazi anti-Semitism.
Also in Himka's text later
it is reasonable to assume that the Bandera partisan movement, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)--... -- liquidated Jewish partisan bands because they were pro-Communist.
During the Ukrainian-Polish irregular war that was conducted as a shadow conflict within World War II, some Jewish partisans sided with the Polish side and therefore were attacked by forces associated with the Bandera movement
How does any of the above contradict what is written in the article, "Unlike competing Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms, Ukrainian nationalism did not include antisemitism as a core aspect of its program and saw Russians as Poles as the chief enemy with Jews playing a secondary role" which itself is paraphrasing and summarizing Himka. Please do not make dishonest claims about other editors that they are misusing sources.Faustian (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice example of cherry-picking Himka. You quoted "it is reasonable to assume that the Bandera partisan movement, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)--... -- liquidated Jewish partisan bands because they were pro-Communist". You left out a part - the full quote was "Although inadequately documented, it is reasonable to assume that the Bandera partisan movement, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)--like its Polish counterpart, the Home Army (AK)--liquidated Jewish partisan bands because they were pro-Communist."
Here is an entire paragraph from Himka, which shows that that my summary was accurate and your accusation was false. Himka wrote: "Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33) Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine. In certain states within which the Ukrainians found themselves, anti-Semitism suffused the political culture (late imperial Austria, imperial Russia, interwar Poland, interwar Romania). This constant exposure to anti-Semitic ideology probably facilitated its acceptance when it was also espoused, in a more lethal form, by the German occupation authorities."Faustian (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So actully why Himks's text directly related to Bandera was ommited??? It's article about leader of the revolutionary wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists not about AK - so irrelevant text ommited and clearly noted as "..." So could you indicate me at entire paragraph from Himka, word Bandera? word Bandera movement? Himka's clearly distinct general "Ukrainian nationalism" (like Hrushevskyy, Khvylyovyy, Scrypnik etc.) and revolutionary wing Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists .So any suggestions about scholar conclusion - indication that the nationalists were willing to accommodate Nazi anti-Semitism? Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
" indication that the nationalists were willing to accommodate Nazi anti-Semitism" yes, we know you like to cherry-pick words and phrases to push your POV. The full story is above.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is written from a very POV-ish position. It has to be modified to reflect a more NPOV position based also on Polish, Jewish and Russian sources. Dr. Loosmark22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Care to point out specifically one-sided sections of the article? Or is this just a blanket statement meant to cause debate?--Львівське (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
ok for example this sentence: Unlike competing Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms, Ukrainian nationalism did not include antisemitism as a core aspect of its program and saw Russians as well as Poles as the chief enemy with Jews playing a secondary role. is absurd. i don't know about the other 3 but Polish nationalism did not include "antisemitism as a core aspect of its program". Secondly the lead is problematic, not a word about the over 100.000 Polish civilians murdered by the Ukrainian nationalists and not a word about the cooperation with the Nazi Germany, it only says he's a controversial figure in contemporary Ukraine, without explaining why. Dr. Loosmark08:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The belief that the Jews were trying to take over Poland was a central one in Polish nationalist Roman Dmowski's programme. Himka's statement was not a reflection of some sort of biased POV-pushing, it was reality. The murder of 100,000 Polish civilians wasn't his direct decision (he was certainly inditrectly responsible so it needs to be mentioned in the article) so the lead isn't appropriate. The German cooperation ought to be the lead, however, I agree on that. It's signifciant and very controversial, thus notable.Faustian (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't talk about Roman Dmowski but generalize about "Polish nationalism". (And even then Dmowski has actually not collaborated with the Nazi German to kill Jews like the nationalists from some other countries did). Dr. Loosmark15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
If you look at a lot of Polish nationalist writers of the 1920's and 1930's you will see all sorts of antisemitism. One Polish n ationalist theorist actually considered Nazism to be a form of Judaism. Just because Polish nationalists were anti-German and ant-Nazi doesn't mean they weren't antisemitic. Dmowski's group felt that the Jews would never achieve a homeland in Palestine and that instead they would seek to take over a European country. He felt that Poland, with its large Jewsish population, was the logical target and his policies were meant to eliminate this possibility (so he organized boycotts of Jewish businesses, his overnment set quotas on the number of Jews permitted to study in universities, etc.). Anyways, this is off-topic. Himka is certainly a reliable source and the fact that the lack of a Jewish conspiracy as being central to Ukrainian nationalism in contrast to that of Ukraine's neighbors seems to be notable enough for a sentence in the article. I don't see a consensus to change it.Faustian (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Again generalizing on Polish nationalism based on Dmowski is a bit absurd. If you really want to set such standards then we can find some "interesting" things that some Ukrainian nationalists wrote and then we can generalize that to all Ukrainian nationalists. Are you sure you want to go down that road? And what does it mean "you don't see consensus to change it"? You disagreeing is not really no consensus. Dr. Loosmark20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Dmowski was the principal Polish nationalist. His party vied for control of the country; he was not a marginal figure. And his ideas were rflected in Polish government policy. Here are his ideas about Jews. The ideas of another Polish nationalist theorist are here. Either way, the conclusion is not mine but that of Himka who is a reliable source. When I wrote I "don't see consensus to change it" I meant that I don't see a lot of editors wanting to change it. The fact is credible, coming from a reliable sourse specializing in such matters, and notable. Other than, "I don't like it because it says something bad about Polish nationalists" I don't see why anyone would want to exclude it. Could you give another reason?Faustian (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
What another reason? The reason is it's simply not true, not all Polish nationalists were anti-Semites, it's a ridiculous statement. Many nationalists were in opposition to Dmowski's ideas. BTW you don't see many editors wanting to change it because not many editors are aware of this article. Perhaps the best idea would be we post a notice on appropriate notice boards to get inputs from Hungarian, Romanian, Russian editors as well. Maybe they have more sources which should clear whether nationalists movements in those countries were all anti-Semite. Do you agree? Dr. Loosmark10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So you want to canvas Hungarian, Russian, etc. nationalists in the hope that they contradict what a reliable source states? It's a good thing that wikipedia has rules stressing the need for reliable sources. Here is the full text by Himka. The antisemitism part: "Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33) Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine." It's clear that antisemtism was a major component of Polish National Democracy, which was the major Polish nationalist movement (it controlled the parliament, for goddness sake!) as demonstrated here. And obviously antisemtism played a major role in Hungarian nationalism and Romanian nationalism. Might there have been some fringe Polish nationalist groups that weren't antisemitic? Who knows, but their existence wouldn't undermine Himka's correct generalization. Now, rather than engage in a pointless battle against a reliable source, or canvass other nationalists to join your struggle, why don't you just find another reliable source? Any one out there claiming that Roman Dmowski actually loved Jews?Faustian (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all I don't want to canwass Hungarian, Russian, etc. nationalists in the hope that they contradict what a reliable source states. I am not at all interested in the opinion of any "nationalists", i am interested only in the opinions of respected editors from those countries and their opinion would only matter if they can provided reliable sources to back it up. I have read the full text from Himka but an wikipedia article can't be based on one source alone and especially I mean a claim such as that the Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian nationalism were all Anti-Semitic but only Ukrainian was not. That requires more than just a single source. Btw the Polish parlament was controlled by Piłsudski's left-wing nationalist Sanacja party who wasn't based on anti-Semite concepts so it seems that you aren't very familiar with Polish political situation between the wars. Dr. Loosmark13:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh and another thing Faustian saying things like Any one out there claiming that Roman Dmowski actually loved Jews? isn't really helpful and neither is this: [13]Dr. Loosmark13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify. Himka's conclusion that you object to has two parts. The first is that antisemitisnm played a central role in Polisn, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian nationalisms. Do you consider this part - Himka's generalization that antisemtism played a central role in Polish nationalism to be true or false? We aren't talking some fringe nationalist groups but a generalization of Polish nationalism, the most signifciant and powerful of which was that espoused by the Polish National Democratic movement that controlled the Polish parliament prior to Pilsudski's coup in 1926 and served as the core of opposition to Pilsudski afterward. The second part of Himka's conclusion is that (unlike the rival antisemitic Polish nationalism) within Ukrainian nationalism antisemitism did not play a central role. Himka did not state that antisemtism did not exist within Ukrainian nationalism, rather he concluded that Ukrainian nationalism didn't include antisemtism or a Jewish conspiracy as part of its core ideology and that Jews were not seen as a main enemy by Ukrainian nationalisms but, to the extent they were viewed as enemeies, it was in a seocndary role to the main enemies, Poles and Russians. Is it the second part of Himka's conclusion you object to? Because, btw, the second pat of Himka's conclusion is also supported by the Jewish expert on Ukrainian-Jewish relations during the 1930's and 1940's, Phillip Friedman. Friedman concluded the same thing, described how the OUN-B opposed anti-Jewish pogroms as distracting the Ukrainian population from what the OUN-B claimed were Ukraine's main enemies and provided a quote from the OUN-B to support this assertion (it's in the article already).Faustian (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Faustian what I contest is not so much Hlimka conclusions about the Ukranian nationalism but rather that the antisemitism was a core aspect of Polish nationalism. It's a gross oversimplification at best or even just plain wrong. Dr. Loosmark14:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So you object to the first part. Okay. Would you be satisfied with a brief clarification in the article (such as, "early to mid 20th century Polish nationalism" which is what Himka was writing about) so that modern Polish nationalists aren't tagged as antisemites? Because clearly Roman Dmowski was the dominant Polish nationalist of those tiems and antisemitism played a central role in his ideology, as it did in the ideologies of the ROmanian and Hungarian nationalists of those times. (just read the articles about the Arrow Cross Party and the Iron Guard.)Faustian (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, because the early to mid 20th century Polish nationalism did not have Anti-Semitism as its core. Such a generalization is just not true. The article at the moment says that the Ukrainian nationalists saw the Russians and the Poles as the chief enemy not Jews. Well it was much the same with the Polish nationalists, their chief enemy were the Germans. At the moment we have a tragicomic paradox that the nationalists who did not collaborate with Nazi Germany and who did not participate in murders of Jews - the Polish nationalist - are painted as anti-semitic, while the nationalists who did those things, the Ukrainian nationalists are described as not being antisemitic. Mind I am not saying that Dmowski did not write some antisemitic stuff however that belongs into his article. Dr. Loosmark11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As a compromise I propose striking out the first part so it would look like this: Ukrainian nationalism did not include antisemitism as a core aspect of its program and saw Russians as well as Poles as the chief enemy with Jews playing a secondary role.Dr. Loosmark11:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the fact that antisemitism wasn't a core part of the Ukrainian nationalist program - and that this differentiated it from Polish, Russian, Hungarian, etc. nationalism - is a very notable fact. And, with all due respect to you, I am not convinced when you claim that antisemtism wasn't a core aspect of pre-World War II Polish nationalism. Dmowski and other important Polish nationalists did believe in a Jewish conspracy against Poland and this belief was reflected in Polish policies. The well-referenced wikipedia articles about them attest to these facts. Also, I don't think this article portrays the Ukrainian nationalists as not being antisemitic. It rather portrays their relationship to Jews as being ambivalent - pro-Jewish at times as well as anti-Jewish, in accordance with their stance towards Jews.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Nahum Goldmann in his book The Jewish Paradox p.153 write:" Before the war I was in touch with the Polish government, which made no bones of its antisemitism, and in particular its foreign minister, Joseph Beck. When I told him that Poland ought to grant its Jews greater economic freedom, his reply was cynical: "On the contrary, we are actually thinking of maybe introducing the equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws. And he explained it as follows: 'We need foreign currency - dollars for instance. Well, since there have been the persecution of the Jews in Germany your organizations have been sending big sums of money. We have three million Jews in Poland; Germany only has seven hundred and fifty thousand. So we should be getting three to four times as much money!' So the Joint Distribution Committee paid a premium for the persecution of the Jews.--Bandurist (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Himka writes: It has also become more difficult to maintain the innocence of Ukrainian national ideology in light of recent research. It is now clear that Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia was already highly racialized in the late 19th century[49] and had developed an elaborate anti-Jewish discourse.[50] Anti-Semitic articles appeared regularly in the interwar Western Ukrainian press.[51] During the war OUN leader Yaroslav Stetsko expressed his support for German-style eliminationist anti-Semitism.[52] (War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora' (2005). The cited article (Zwoje) is from 1999.
-Both factions of the OUN were anti-Semitic themselves, and wartime documents with regard to leading Banderists show that during the German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the process.[14]
- Stefan Lenkavsky', the OUN-B propaganda chief openly endorsed the German methods against the Jews. [15]
- Ukrainian nationalists usually support their claim that the UPA was multiethnic and/or not anti-Semitic by pointing to the fact that the organization had Jewish doctors in its ranks. However they fail to state that these same doctors were eliminated by the UPA once the Germans retreated from Ukraine.[16]
With the advance of the Red Army, Jewish specialists were killed/executed. [17][18][19] Obviously not all of them were murdered.
Does Friedmann mention anything about it? He is given as one of the sources.
"In the official organ of the OUN-B's leadership, instructions to OUN groups urged those groups to "liquidate the manifestations of harmful foreign influence, particularly the German racist concepts and practices." - the year should be stated.--Hedviberit (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Friedman noted a claim by two sources (first by a woman whose surname began with E, I don't have Friedman's book and probably won't have time to go to thje university library for awhile) but noted that there were no details to the first claim and that the second claim was mistaken. Specifically, he wrote that a claim that Jews were killed by UPA when the Soviets advanced was mistaken because in reality it was not a Soviet advance but a German one and the Jews did not escape in time. Friedman did note that he personally met several Jews who had been saved by UPA and lived in Israel after the war. One has to twist Friedman's work in order to use it to unambiguously support the claim that UPA killed its Jewish personnel. Read note 14 here.
As for Himka - as noted he did not deny that Ukrainian nationalism included antisemitism, rather that antisemitism wasn't a core aspect of its program and that Jews were never seen as the principal or even a principal enemy. There was no belief in an anti-Ukrainian Jewish conspiracy and that these facts differentiated Ukrainian nationalism from that of its Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian neighbors. Himka's conclusion was that the relationship betwen Ukrainian nationalists and Jews was ambiguous and in my opinion, for the purposes of this article, a brief conclusion is probably warranted while a more detailed description may belong in the OUN article. The examples of antisemitism you cite above mostly came from the period when the OUN was still cooperating with the Germans. In accordance with Himka's conclusion, the OUN was certainly willing to kill Jews if that were the price for a beneficial alliance with Germany (and the anti-Jewish propaganda mostly from 1940 to 1941 supports this assertion) but it was not an end in itself and otherwise the OUN was willing to help Jews. Antisemitism was temporary and strategic rather than a coe part of tghe programme. The citations you quoted support this too:
Both factions of the OUN were anti-Semitic themselves, and wartime documents with regard to leading Banderists show that during the German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the process.[20]
In 1940-1941 antisemitism gravitated toward the centre of OUN ideology and policy, remained a key element of OUN political thoughts even after June 1941, and then declined in 1942. At one meeting of the council of Seniors in the summer of 1941...Stefan Lenkavsky', the OUN-B propaganda chief openly endorsed the German methods against the Jews. [21]Faustian (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Category missed
Per article text, dozen of sources and own Bandera's words -
Category - Nazi collaborators
While I guess which one to choose -
Polish Nazi collaborators (Mr.Bandera was a citizen of Poland)
or
Ukrainian Nazi collaborators (as far as OUN(B) declared a "Ukrainian" "state" in Lviv - state which "will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world?)
Or add both - I think same category also missed at Mr.Shukevitch, Yaroslev Stetsko and some other listed in WP persons which actively collaborate with Nazy from early 1933 (see І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN)
ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN966-02-2535-0 Організація українських націоналістів і Українська повстанська армія. Інститут історії НАН України.2004р,D.Vyedeneyev O.Lysenko OUN and foreign intelligence services 1920s-1950s Ukrainian Historical Magazine 3, 2009 – Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine etc.etc.
Thank you for your suggestionsJo0doe (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[22]
13. Deeply deplores the decision by the outgoing President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, posthumously to award Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) which collaborated with Nazi Germany, the title of 'National Hero of Ukraine'; hopes, in this regard, that the new Ukrainian leadership will reconsider such decisions and will maintain its commitment to European values
On the contrary, had the poisoning succeeded in killing him it would have only given sympathy to his cause. So by kissing a hot iron he gained sympathy votes. Well all evil passes, yesterday he was heroising styopa the bender, today you have his adversary putting an ethnic Russian into the premier's seat. I call it Fail with a capital F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.130.130 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... A nazi who killed 150000 (!ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND!) people is presented here as a heroic patriot and an example for young Ukrainians to follow. I think that just one sentence about bandera's mass murder activity is some kind of absurd and that this hitlerist genocidal fanatician demands at least one extra independent cathegory where one could find some neutral and truthful informations.
It's not that hitler=bad and bandera=good. ALL the nazis are evil, ok?
And don't get me wrong - I'm no communist, I'm a Nationalist myself, but I hate nazism so much as I am a Pole.
Only Truth shall set you free - time to get this, people.
The fact that you refer to him as "a nazi" shows you have a POV to push. He was never a Nazi. Hell, he was an enemy of the Nazis...--Львівське (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
czyli co ? bandera jednak nie taki zly powiadasz...? nie kompromituj sie chlopie bo z narodem polskim masz tyle wspolnego co Chung po z pierogami slaskimi.. Rex 74 krk (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Bandera response to Nazis in 1943
This piece of information is especially dubious: "In 1943, Bandera was asked by Nazi officers whether he would support Hitler or not. According to one unverified source, "Bandera quickly replied that it was clear that the Nazis would lose the war, and there was nothing to be gained for Ukraine by siding with them".
If there any other NPOV sources that could confirm that? I mean the response "no" to such question about Hitler answered by prisoner in concentration camp should have lead to gas chamber for sure. I doubt this had place in reality.
Activities of OUN and UPA with Nazis that followed were very intense: people were trained, ammunition was supplied, joint actions were coordinated. If Bandera thought that Nazis would loose, then why this intense cooperation followed?
This contradicts to other information in the article. Maybe someone would try to bring everything in line? This inconsistency really strikes, when you read the article.Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Relations with nazi Germany section needs cleaning up
Agree - nice scholar - National Academy of Scinces of Ukraine- sources exist - from Spring 1933 at Berlin untill Spring 1945 - at Vienna. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Picture candidates
No. 1No. 2
Should one of this 2 pictures be added to the article? Since they say something about his present popularity (or not and these are just exceptions?).
Viktor Yuch wanted votes in Lviv (Lwow) and Viktor Yanu does not want to loose votes in Sevastopol (the same in Polish???) is probably closest to the truth... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me!22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
PL wiki was right; read reference 58 and 59 in Roman Shukhevych's wiki-article. Is Shukhevych a controversial figure in Poland by the way? I have no idea on what ground Viktor Yuch gave the award to Bandera. Never attempted to look it up... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me!22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stepan Bandera's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This time you`ve forgotten. In 1941 he was in prison in Berlin, but after 1945 not. He was in East-Poland to help the bandits against the new government. In two years his "partisans" killed 12000 polish inhabitants to support their struggle against the Soviet Union. He was a killer and no hero. In 1946 he went to Germany. Berlin, 21.2.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.6.200 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr.Bandera Nationality
His ethnicity was Ukrainian, but nationality? Formally he was Austro-Hungarian, next Polish, next German, but never Ukrainian, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestions? While per p.279 of the ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN966-02-2535-0 in 3 July 1941 talk with German official regarding 30 June 1941 event Bandera stated "By the order of OUN I declare themselves a leader (German: Führer) of the Ukrainian peoples." German official comment on that stuff - "Einer Reich - Eins Führer" :)Jo0doe (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
And one Volk, but in the infobox is written "nationality: Ukrainian", but are some nationality definition (or listing?) recommendations? If smb changed nationality several times? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In ethnic POV only, but he never was a Ukrainian citizen, I guess. Do you have, collegue Galassi, any relevant sources about mr.Bandera citizenship other then I'd listed? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
He was a citizen and the leader of the republic he proclaimed in 1941. It lasted a few days, but it is sufficient to avoid all dubious labels.Galassi (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
My question is why few days of the republic he proclaimed decides his nationality? Did his republic issue any documents establishing mr.Bandera sitizenship? How many years he was Polish? How many years he was German? Is it relevant to claim his nationality according the few days of selfproclaimed republic? Was this republic recognized by any state? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Again per p.279 ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN966-02-2535-0 "German: Führer) der Ukrainishce Volk" Bandera proclaimed Українська держава на матірних українських землях "Ukrainian State at the maturity Ukrainian land" (p.258, p.318,,319 etc). OUN-B planned to declare "Ukrainian State" at Kiev - but fails - German not occupied it at expected times. While per National Academy of Science conclusion Bandera's "State" cannot be deemed as such - see p.14 of above - "Здоровий глузд не дозволяє приєднатися до висловлювань щодо того що "Акт" можливо вважати одним з епізодів державотворчої діяльності українського народу".(general meaning of text "Common sense does not allow to deem "Act 30 June 1941" as a state creation". I expect WP should bear common sense:) ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So -per common sense - No state mean no citizenship.Suggestions? Indicate all? 1909-1918 -Austro-Hungarian, 1918- ?ZUNR?) 1918-1939 - Polish, 1939-1945 Nazy Germany 1945-194? displaced person 194?-1959 German ???Jo0doe (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@Jo0doe: An opinion of an anonym Nazi official is hardly of any interest for Wikipedia in defining the term "nationality". But if you personally are guided by the Nazi propaganda in your views on nations and nationalities, you'd probably work on your German to better understand the ideas. No German, including the most illiterate ones, would ever put the phrase the way you claimed the official had done. The mistakes you made are just ridiculous. The right phrasing is : "Ein Volk, ein Führer". And there is virtually no problem in listing all citizenships Mr. Bandera had as Wiki has already done in the case of one of your masterminds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler195.122.252.10 (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
There is some confusion here between "nationality" and "citizenship". In Europe these two concepts are often not the same: "citizenship" denotes statehood whereas "nationality" denotes ethnic group. Bandera had several citizenships but his nationality was always Ukrainian. See also Nationality. Tsf (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots. --Bandurist (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It is a Russian calque of a "nationality" definition, but in English nationality is "membership of a nation or sovereign state. Nationality can be acquired by being born within the jurisdiction of a state, by inheriting it from parents, or by a process of naturalization. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state". So question is clear: what nationalities we need to list? All or the first? Or the last one? And, please, collegues don't try to push a Russian nationality term definition, use English. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You should reread carefully the definition of Nationality in English Wikipedia which includes the paragraph already cited above:
"Alternatively, nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots."
Bandera is neither ukrainian, nor a hungarian (what "Stepan" might suggest) nor a german (Austrian empire) name. Galicia was populated by a variety of ethnies back then (therefore the most likely choice of ukrainian, hungarian oder austrian). But it's a spanish/italian word- meaning "flag". Is his ancestry spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.27.201 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The hero he is
For overwhelming majority of contemporary Ukrainians, the one who cruelly kills everyone whose opinion differs from his one (or his organization/movement's one) is a hero. So it would be fair if Bandera's hero of Ukraine title will be restored. In Ukrainian people's eyes he is actually a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.111.70.176 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I just removed this cause it where strong accusations whit bad references:
Bandera actively collaborate with fascistі, there are many facts of this collaboration in archives of the Nuremberg tribunal [1][verification needed]. His main ideas of nationalism about destruction of jews, poles and russians are very similar with Hitler's ideas.[verification needed]
^" The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, #. 3, pages 160—166"
I haven't got a copy of the "The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials" at home so that could have been made up (page 160-166 might as well be about something else). And that Bandera's "main ideas" (typical WP:weasel wording) are the same as Hitler defiantly need some strong references. I'm not trying to whitewash Bandera (I'm not a fan of him). But wikipedia is should not be a playground for nationalistic battles. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A very poor attempt at putting in false information into a wiki article. Bandera was not even mentioned in the Nuremburg War trials. If he were - do you think that he would have lived in Munich after the War? Fascisti? Nationalism is not about dstruction of Jews, Poles and Russians. I don't think much of the above paragraph at all. Bandera wasn't worried about Nuremburg. In fact it was a Soviet agent that assassinated him. 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
After the Red Army evacuated Buczacz at the end of June, and before the arrival of German forces on 7 July 1941, local Ukrainian vigilantes murdered certain Jewish individuals who had been active in the Soviet administration. Ukrainian policemen attacked Jews in what was in part a militia riot, in part a pogrom, looting property and coercing some Jews into forced labour in the town. The violence in Buczacz was directed by a Ukrainian schoolteacher, doubtless inspired by the militant ethno-nationalism and anti-Semitism of the German-backed Organization for Ukrainian Nationalists of Stepan Bandera. According to their aggressive and angry nationalist ideology, Jews were castigated as protagonists of Communism and as collaborators of Poland and Soviet Russia in the oppression suffered by Ukrainians. Yet, the Ukrainian progrom was merely a prelude to the catastrophe that was soon to unfold. When the German forces arrived, they were followed in their wake by the dreaded "Special Action Groups," the Einsatzgruppen extermination squads.
Every attack involving Jews is usually labeled a pogrom. It is an overused term. Its nice to blame the actions of a schoolteacher on an organization but where is the proof. Words such as doubtless actuially are quite doubtful in this case. The Bandera factions has not been proven to be antisemitic. In fact many of the leaders were either Jewish or married to Jews i.e [[[edit]Richard Yary]]. The Jews mentioned were not attacked because they were Jewish but because of their actions during he Sovie occupation of Western Ukraine. Regarding Ukrainain Fascists, - the Ukrainian nationalists groups do not fall into the definition. It doesn't even make it into a related sub catagory, despite it being widely used by Soviet ideologistsmn Bandurist (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"The Jews mentioned were not attacked because they were Jewish but because of their actions during he Sovie occupation of Western Ukraine"
Hitler can say the same, the jews were not attacked because they were Jewish but because they were marxist. This is that Hitler say in Mein Kampf. Hitler not hate jews for his religion but for they are marxist, according to him.
Also many nazis were accused in Nuremberg and many lived quietly in the U.S.A. and other countries. This is not a valid excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.165.115.92 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well according too Paul Robert Magocsi some UPA'ers did admire fasisism, but to say that makes all of them fasist is a bit over the top. Ofcourse that is what the USSR wanted the world to believe: "Ukraine can't become a state since it soon will be ruled by the UPA fasist". I find it said that educated people who write historic books rather reley on/believe Soviet propaganda then trying to make there own analyses... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Gehlen became chief of the Third Reich's Foreign Armies East (FHO), on April 1, 1942. He was thus responsible for Germany's military intelligence operations throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. His FHO was connected in this role with a number of secret fascist organizations in the countries to Germany's east. These included Stepan Bandera's "B Faction" of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN/B),15 Romania's Iron Guard,16 the Ustachis of Yugoslavia,17 the Vanagis of Latvia18 and, after the summer of 1942, "Vlassov's Army,"19 the band of defectors from Soviet Communism marching behind former Red hero General Andrey Vlassov. Later on in the war, Gehlen placed one of his top men in control of Foreign Armies West, which broadened his power; and then after Admiral Wilhelm Canaris was purged and his Abwehr intelligence service cannibalized by the SS, Gehlen became in effect Nazi Germany's over-all top intelligence chief.
Well trying to use the Nazi's in order to gain Ukrainian indipendence is something else then trying to kill all Jews, Poles and Russians (a.k.a. what Hilter wanted). Now we know all about Auswitz and other Nazi crimes, but Bandera didn't know that. German newspapers didn't write about Auswitz. I mean Stalin had just killed milions Ukrainian in the Holodomor, so Bandera might have tried to use 1 killer (Hitler) to help him get Ukraine away from another (Stalin). Not my choice btw...— Mariah-Yulia (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mariah-Yulia and Bandurist, everything that You have written are Your conjectures "...Bandera might have tried...". We don't know what he think, but we know what he did. Bandera's Declaraition from 30.06.1941 consist evident calls to collaborate with Adolf Hitler and Nazi. The agitation leaflets, which was distributed during the meeting 30.06.1941 contained Stepan Bandera's photo and evident calls to kill Jews, Poles and Russians and these is the facts of his life. The encyclopedia, as I think, must contain facts, but every reader can make conjectures by himself "what did Bandera tried". We don't talk about Stalin here, this is a separate topic. I only want that the facts of Bandera's collaboration with Nazi and his anti-human work will not be forgotten.
Zaporozhyen Cossack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.204.28 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This "agitation leaflet" calling on "killing Jews, Poles and Russian" - where is it? I would really like to see a copy of it, because I do not believe that it exists. If it did, it would be widely available and quite sensational.
Regarding the declaration of Independence: numerous books have been published which have shed light on these events. In particular, I recall Kost' Pankivsky's books "Vid derzhavy do komitetu" and a number of others. Pankivsky was one of the non-party members elected to a position in that attempt to establish a Ukrainian government. He was very critical of Stetsko and Bandera, and published all the documents of that day, pointing out attempts to doctor them after the fact by the Bandera faction. He was very critical of this. I remember Pankivsky in his book pointing out that in the original it was written that the Ukrainian state was established, not re-established, as they often publish even today - and the Greeting to Hitler and the German people was edited out. As a result Pankivsky became persona non-grata in some Ukrainian nationalist circles but ... the materials that you have put forward are incorrect and tendicious. In 1941 the Bandera faction did not have a program for the elimination of other ethnic groups in Ukraine. Bandera himself did not have any close affinity with the German Nazis who murdered his brother. In my opinion Bandera only became a matyr after his death and only because the Soviets assassinated him. Had they of left him alone he would have been replaced and would have joined the ranks of the many obscure Ukrainian political figures that are by and large quite unknown.Bandurist (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course I don't have one of this leaflet at home, and even if I have it, I think, You don't beleave me. And what You can say against his active collaboration with Nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.204.28 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that you would, but a link to any publication or site that has printed it would be a nice start. Regarding active collaboration with the Nazis - I am shocked by how the Soviets and the Nazi's collaborated to divide up Poland in the Secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I am shocked that the Nazis and the Soviets marched together and celebrated the destruction of Poland in Brest - photos and documents which continue to be unearthed, primarily by Baltic and Polish scholars. these materials are based on documents. Your statements are based on hearsay. Regarding the Bandera faction, (of which I am not a member b.t.w.) I am disappointed that they have doctored documents, rather than explain their actions and within the historic context of the times, but I am not surprised either. One needs to remember that the Nazis at that time did not have a negative track record, and in Western Ukraine, which up till WWI was part of the German speaking regime of Austria-Hungary, the Austrians treated the Ukrainians much better than the Poles, and then you have the brutal Soviet regime with its famines, purges, censorship and terror. In the brief 2 years the Soviets were in Western Ukraine they left a very poor opinion of themselves.
Ukrainians only had one SS division (Galizien) and 3 brigades (a parachute, an antitank group and a cavalry). The Russians had over 140 divisions and 250 brigades that fought for the Nazis against their own people including 5 full SS divisions (the two main ones being the 6th and 15th), and even an Airgroup.
In 1941 277,761 soldiers of Ukrainian ethnicity who were captured as soldiers in the Red Army were released by the Germans from POW camps. Were they all collaborators? A recent book bout these Russian division has been published see here
This article is not about Stalin and Hitler collaboration!!! This article is about Bandera. So, as I think, his biography will not be full without all fact of his life, so Bandera's collaboration with Nazi and his anti-human work must be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.204.28 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent IP edits
Re [23] - neutral point of view also means a neutral tone. Dropping in the word "terrorist" all over the place, obviously does not conform to that standard. It's already mentioned that he was charged and convicted on that charge.Volunteer Marek20:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
```
How is "occupied Western Ukraine" a neutral tone? This was the Second Polish Republic at the time and "Ukrianias" were not in the majority of Eastern Galicia at the time. "occupied Western Ukraine" is Ukrainian nationalist propaganda supported only by Stalin and Hitler's crimes against humanity, of which Bandera was complicit.
How was Bandera a politician? What office did he ever hold in any country?
Why is his criminal conviction and life sentence for the murder of Polish minister not included in your introduction? Instead we read "The son of a clerical family, Bandera was an activist, a scout, and eventually the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement." We are going to start citing from the press coverage of the statements he made at his trial. He was a terrorist in the same mold as Osama bin Laden and his Al Queda followers. Terrorist was the correct description of his political activities. His Nazi collaboration s well documented by Poles, Jews, Russians and other Ukrainians. The Ukrainian nationalist propaganda here needs to be corrected.
``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually the very first sentence states "was a Ukrainian politician and one of the leaders of Ukrainian national movement in occupied Western Ukraine (Galicia), who headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), a right-wing movement that engaged in acts of political violence." Thank you for admitting your non-nuetral POV ("He was a terrorist in the same mold as Osama bin Laden and his Al Queda followers."). Even the articles on Lenin and Stalin don't describe them as "terrorist" in the lead. Faustian (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, "occupied Western Ukraine" is actually POV and should probably just be plain ol' "Galicia". I'm not sure if the role in the Pierecki assassination should be in the lede - he did get a death sentence for it so maybe. Regardless, this information should be presented in a neutral way, not in an obviously POV tone with "terrorist" being dropped all over the place.Volunteer Marek17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Poland captured East Galicia from the West Ukrainian People's Republic in a war, not democratic referendum, and census data indicate that this region was majority Ukrainian (over 60%, per Snyder) so occupied might be technically correct. However I removed the word because it's not essential to the article or lead and there's no reason for distracting conflict.Faustian (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps all over the Galicia Ukrainians were majority. But Lwów had mostly Polish ethnicity. Most of inhabitants of Lwów never supported West Ukrainian People's Republic. They struggled against it though according to the founders of that "state" they were inhabitants of the capital city. So remove word "occupied". It's a Ukrainian propaganda. Lwów was mostly Polish so more accurate is to say Ukrainians occupied the city.
Lviv was not majority Polish prior to Polish rule. Poles were a plurality but not a majority. According to 1910 census the city was only 51% RomanCatholic (which included Austrians, Czechs etc.) The Jews were neutral or leaned in favor of the Ukrainians, and were massacred for it by Polish forces. See Lwów pogrom (1918). Also this article referred to Galicia not Lviv anyways.Faustian (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
views on other ethnic groups
Which russian troll keeps removing "Russia" from the views on other ethnic groups section?
Can't stand to read up on how even Bandera hated your scumbag bastard version of a slavic race?
Bandera's opinions on Russians would be a useful addition to the article. Presumably any views he had, either positive or negative, were expressed more eloquently than your own. Rugxulo (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sokil/Sokol
I can't edit myself (I don't have wiki account and I don't want one) but please change change link in Education section of "Sokil sports Society" (currently to non-existing page) to correct (existing article)
Bandera's Nazi collaborating whitewashed out of this "biography"
FACT: Bandara and the UIA actively collaborated with the Nazi military. They were enthusiastic Nazis and Jew haters: why else would they openly wear helmets with swastikas on them? Why do UIA militants today wave giant yellow flags with the Waffen SS 'wolfsangel' symbol proudly displayed? There are countless photos of this all over the internet for anyone to see. There are even photos of Ukraine army vehicles and tanks with the Nazi swastika and wolfsangel Waffen SS symbol painted on them! For UIA/Bandara apologists to try to deny this truth is shameful and, as the Simon Wiesenthal Center points out, this is to honor Nazi collaborators who killed thousands of Jews because they were Jewish. This wiki entry is mere propaganda trying to hide the inconvenient truth that Bandara and the UIA people hated Jews then and hate them now. UIA supporters have been recently quoted saying "the holocaust never happened". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:8D1C:741E:9109:8593:9A11:401D (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Like you have said, thats why apointing Bandera as a Heroe of Ukraine on 2010 dragged condenation by Russians, Jews and others.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Prisoner of Sachsenhausen concentration camp - if you imagine a starved, hard working and beaten Bandera you are wrong. Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The summary of the assessment of Bandera as "ranged from totally apologetic to sharply negative" is POV. "Totally apologetic" is a strange term, but must be considered a "back-handed' compliment, at best. I would have thought that the leader of the anti-Soviet resistance should simply be honoured by the Ukrainians as a national hero.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Stepan Bandera. 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:
I have just added archive links to one external link on Stepan Bandera. 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:
Currently, the infobox says Ukrainian. Wasn't he technically Polish? Obviously, he had Ukrainian ethnicity, but he was a citizen of Poland, not of Ukraine which did not exist at the time?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
NO, he wasn't Polish because at the time Ukraine Ukrainian_People's_Republic was occupied and devided by Soviet Union and Poland so there was an Ukrainian nationality and you should know it because you are a moderator. For example, you made this article Nikolay_Bekryashev and you wrote that he was a russian painter but using your logic he wasn't because Russia did non exist at the time so he was soviet painter. If you open another article on wikipedia you will see that usually soviet people denoted like russians (but Russia did non exist at the time) so your logic is wrong. And please add to infobox Nationality Ukrainian. P.S. The talk that you made is provocative. Olexis (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, why did you decide that Bandera wasn't ukrainian? "absolutely not Ukrainian"- what does that mean? The question isn't answered. Are you a historian to affirm that? Or you decided it yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olexis (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"Ukrainian nationality" would mean Bander was a citizen of Ukraine. As Ukraine did not until 1991, he could not be an Ukrainian citizen. Period. He is certainly an Ukrainian politician, but this does not mean his nationality was Ukrainian.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, you have obvious difficulties with English and you are a POV pusher. You should not be editing the English Wikipedia, certainly not until you learn the language.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
please read this [[24]] , so why do you discuss this again???
"In English and some other languages, the word nationality is sometimes used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth). This meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Kurds, Kabyles, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit and Māori)" -> [[25]] so you should write -> Nationality Ukrainian :) . Am i wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. User:Jo0doe has been fortunately blocked both here and on the Russian Wikipedia for blatantly falsifying sources. There is no ambiguity, nationality means citizenship, not ethnicity.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
But i didn't talk about that user, who cares, i'm just saying that English wikipedia says "In English...This meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state" that is my message. I can't understand your logic; for you, maybe, there is no ambiguity but for English wikipedia there is. And we are using English wikipedia so it is possible to write that.
Agreed that this is too much. I'm not against retaining a paragraph mentioning a few notable cases but these sections are excessive.Faustian (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
why i can't change the second sentence of this article to Bandera is a controversial historical figure honoured by the contemporary ukrainians [1] and Ukrainian nationalist movement and far right organizations such as the Right Sector[2][3] and at the same time accused by polish[4][5] and russian[6][7] nationalists.He was a Prisoner of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp[8]
I see you decided that if I have no access to internnet you can do with the article whatever you want. I hope other userts will revert your POV pushing, just for the record: calling me a pro-Russian administrator is bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea when you have or not an internet connection so, please do not write that. I've just started a new talk, just like you saidOlexis (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, "accused by polish and russian nationalists". Accused of what? In your opinion, how are your changes an improvement? That's not obvious to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I see no need to add this, and actually no improvement at all; the addition will only serve to make this article a POV-magnet in the long run. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Stepan Bandera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Stepan Bandera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).
Xx236 I see no benefit in such an interwiki link. I've removed it, but I've left Moscow Avenue and Stepan Bandera Avenue as red links. Personally, I doubt that such obscure articles would even meet with WP:N for English language Wikipedia. Moscow Avenue is a 20th century built street of no historical significance. I wouldn't be adverse to the red links being removed for both. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Stepan Bandera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I have just modified 16 external links on Stepan Bandera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Of course one can find sources calling him terrorist, fascist, whatever. However, he is generally described in 3rd party sources as a "Ukrainian nationalist". Let's check the source that was currently used to label him a "terrorist" [27]. It tells in Summary (1st phrase): "This article discusses the reinterpretations of the career of Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera...". Yes, that is how he is generally described. According to another citation used for sourcing in the lead (an opinion of a MI6 operative) he was actually a "bandit". OK, should we call him a "bandit" in the lead? Of course he collaborated with Nazi, and that is already correctly noted in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree. When I checked the article about the most famous terroristOsama bin Laden I found the lead does not call him a "terrorist". He is described as "a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization". I think we should stick with this style here too. I doubt anybody may claim the sources used in this lead are non-reliable or non-mainstream, so I replaced the text with what these sources say: Bandera became a leader of a more militant wing of Ukrainian nationalist movement because he was a head of the terrorist activity in the past. He was also a convicted terrorist (the article says about that too).
With regard to his political activity, I am not sure what the lead is talking about. This statement is unsourced, and I have no idea during which period of his life Bandera got a chance to participate in any political activity. Maybe, you can explain me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
"The article has to be expanded with translation from Russian"
Why is that? Russian view on Bandera is highly skewed. To suggest expanding the article using Russian sources is the same as to suggest expanding article on Yasser Arafat from Jewish sources.
Shmyg (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the official Russian view and a view of a Russian speaking world. The latter includes Ukrainians, Jews and Russian diaspora. Actually, more educated Russian speaking Internet users live outside of Russia than inside. By the way, Russian speaking sources tell about Bandera essentially the same as English, Polish or Jewish sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Is Bandera really controversial?
The lede says:
"Bandera remains a highly controversial figure today, both in Ukraine and internationally, with some hailing him as a liberator who fought both the Soviets and the Nazis while trying to establish an independent Ukraine, while others consider him to be a Nazi collaborationist and a war criminal."
I am wondering if Bandera is really considered as a liberator by someone besides some Ukrainians (both in the Ukraine and abroad). As far as I know, there is an international scholarly consensus about Bandera. Can anybody provided sources to support the statement that he is a controversial figure both in Ukraine and internationally?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the statement about Bandera as a internationally controversial figure was restored [28]. The problem is that the sources that have been used to support this statement are misused. The statement: "Bandera remains a highly controversial figure today, both in Ukraine and internationally" implies that Bandera is a subject of controversy both in Ukraine and internationally. However, the sources that used areforeign sources that describe some domestic controversy around Bandera. Thus, one of these sources say that Bandera "is regarded in western Ukraine as a hero of the independence struggle, but regarded by many in Poland, Israel and Russia as a terrorist and Nazi collaborator who died with the blood of thousands on his conscience". It does not mean Bandera is a controversial figure internationally, it means there is a contradiction between the view of Bandera in western Ukraine and in Poland, Russia and Israel (Bandera is generally unknown in other countries). The fact that Bandera is seen in Ukraine as a controversial figure is recognised internationally, but that does not mean he is a highly controversial figure (internationally).
If no sources will be provided that Bandera is a subject of debates outside of Ukraine, I am going to revert this edit within one week. As far as I know, there are no debates about Bandera outside Ukraine, and the majority views of him is that he was a leader of a paramilitary organisation responsible for multiple war crimes and a Nazi collaborator.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Bandera is no bigger Nazi collaborator than the USSR that provided the Nazi regime with resources during the WWII before Hitler turned to them. Shmyg (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I see the statement about an international controversy has been restored [29]. I would like to see the sources that say that. An edit summary is not enough. If no sources will be provided that allow us to speak about an international controversy, at least, it Poland, Israel and Russia (because Bandera is essentially unknown outside of these country), I'll remove this statement. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I am a little bit puzzled by these two reverts, and especially by the edit summary: this revert restores the edit tagged with the "citation needed" template, but the edit summary says the text is "well referenced". Is it logical? This revert restores "Sic!" notion, which is a purely editorial remark that is hardly allowed by our neutrality policy rules. Interestingly, this edit summary speaks about some "consensus", whereas the two users who added this text seem to have abstained from the talk page discussion. I am also not aware of any 1RR restriction imposed on this page. I revert these two edits; before reinserting this text, please, discuss it in the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid we are slowly heading in the disrection of arbitration enforcement. I already gave Openlydialectic a notice in September 2018, if they continue editing disruptively in the articles on East Europe they should be just topic-banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it's just me and my lack of fluency in English, but doesn't work word CONTROVERSIAL imply that he is looked down upon, at least by some, outside of the Ukraine? Because that was the expression I was trying to convey by trying to protect that word from the removal. Which is funny because having read this discussion, apparently I was wrong. Lost in translation, I guess. Perhaps, if the consensus here is that he's universally looked down upon outside of the Ukraine, we should try to convey that one way or another in the lede? Openlydialectic (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
" if the consensus here is that he's universally looked down upon outside of the Ukraine,". This seems to be an incorrect assertion - outside Russia, Poland, and perhaps Israel few people outside Ukraine have heard about him, so such negative feelings cannot be described as "universal."Faustian (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct. However, the point is not if the negative feeling are universal. As you correctly noted, he is not known outside of Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia, Poland and Israel, so we cannot speak neither about some universal feeling, nor about some international controversy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:UNRA_sl.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:UNRA_rov.jpg){kind=link}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 