Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Selectively Citing Koch

I've fixed the disruptive editor's/troll's Cherry picking information from secondary sources. In the Hostilities section: [1] he took one quote from chapter 14 [2], from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served his POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, the secondary source stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. After this intense fighting succeeded, UPA's activity level vs. the Germans decliend significantly. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. The particular editor pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. Any further disruptions to this section by the vandal/clown will be removed, as usual.Faustian (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great – you omit conclusion about anti-Nazi activity of OUNappeared at 2 sections of Ukrainian National Academy of Science work – at p.180, p.199. See p.191 “But we should to acknowledge that the negotiations between Nazis and OUN/UPA continued.” So you again put other in misconception (or if use your civil habit – you cheat them) and represent UNAS conclusions as it were an editor one. Taking into account your experience in psychology – it’s really silly step to accuse someone for own action (intresting to note but OUN also adopt similar practice) Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions are put in the article, your claim that I ommitted them is false. What a surprise. The article states: "UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets (as well as Soviet partisans), did not focus all of its efforts against the Germans. Indeed, it considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović, [39] UPA held back against the Germans in order to better prepare itself for and engage in the struggle against the Communists. Because of this, although UPA managed to limit German activities to a certain extent, it failed to prevent the Germans from deporting approximately 500,000 people from Western Ukrainian regions and from economically exploiting Western Ukraine. [40]" This is what the source actually states, and is not cherry-picked. Why do you revert that paragraph?Faustian (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you comprehand what conclusion located not at the middle of the chapter - but in final words'. So why you remove a conclusion -

• In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants.

[ --Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry picking as usual. That Chapter's summary on page 199 [3] includes all that you left out: that the anti-German struggle was, for UPA, temporary and did not occupy the primary priority - the struggle against the Bolsheviks was UPA's main concern. This meant that the struggle against the Germans took on the role of "self-defence of the Ukrainian people", considering the Nazis to be temporary occupiers of UKraine. The military actions of UPA did not play a strategic role in the conflict between Germany and the USSR, and only, to a certain extent, limited the actions of the German occupation authorities in terms of their economic exploitation of Volyn and Polissia, the material basis of the Ukrainian liberation struggle.

Again I see a light at the end of tunnel – but past practice reflect it as temporary event.

So does my text contradict with what you are mentioned above with Article chapter related to Anti-German activities of UPA? So why not to follow this idea in the article? Or at Least a Koch statements? As far as I can see - not--Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify something here. Do you or do you not consider Cherry picking to be an acceptable way to present information from a source?Faustian (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I’ve no practice with what you are spoken about. Look like you familiar with it – so please consider WP rules before made any decision. I hope you don’t forget – “academic conclusion”Jo0doe (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See the top of this section. And see the conclusion, which you cherry pick from as well:

I hope you comprehand what conclusion located not at the middle of the chapter - but in final words'. So why you remove a conclusion -

• In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants.

[ --Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry picking as usual. That Chapter's summary on page 199 [4] includes all that you left out: that the anti-German struggle was, for UPA, temporary and did not occupy the primary priority - the struggle against the Bolsheviks was UPA's main concern. This meant that the struggle against the Germans took on the role of "self-defence of the Ukrainian people", considering the Nazis to be temporary occupiers of UKraine. The military actions of UPA did not play a strategic role in the conflict between Germany and the USSR, and only, to a certain extent, limited the actions of the German occupation authorities in terms of their economic exploitation of Volyn and Polissia, the material basis of the Ukrainian liberation struggle. Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So I ask you to answer this question directly: Do you or do you not consider Cherry picking to be an acceptable way to present information from a source?Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I’ve no practice with what you are spoken about.

Thanks for confirming that you are a liar. See the top of this section for evidence of your cherry-picking. Your lie notwithstanding, you still haven't answered the question.Faustian (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Look like you familiar with it – so please consider WP rules before made any decision. I hope you don’t forget – “academic conclusion”. Do you or do you not consider that Koch statement contradict with "In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory "--Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is no contradiction, which is why I have included the Koch quote in the article. Do you dishonestly imply that I am trying to leave it out? The problem is not the Koch quote but your cherry-picking and selective citation from the source by trying to present the Koch quote while ignoring the other information from that source. So I ask you again, Do you or do you not consider Cherry picking to be an acceptable way to present information from a source?Faustian (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I’ve include in the article data which strictly inline with conclusion

Wrong. You selected (correct word: cherry-picked) data that mathced your cherry-picked version of the conclusion, as is clearly demonstrated in this conversation.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

and represent almost all party info about events (unfortunately I was unable to find any report from Polish side about UPA anti-German activity). I also include L.Shankovskyy data.

Sure, after adding editorializiation not found in the the original source. The original cited passage referred to him as "noted historian", you ignore that and instead write, "former UPA fighter." bfore anything taken from Shankovsky. Maybe you will be consistant, and on the Holodomor article editorialize any citation from Kulchytsky by stating "former COmmunist Party idealogue"?Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I ignore detailed myths by Shankovskyy and Krochmalyuk– per WP:UNDUE recommendation and other RS source data about HSSPF RuЯland-Mitte and HSSPF RuЯland-Sьd– as similar to the fact that no trace of Flat Earth conception at Earth article exist.

Actually added quite a bit from Krokhmaliuk into the article. For example, here you are adding a lot of info from Krokhmaliuk into the article: [5]. Some examples of what you added from Krokhmaliuk into the article:

"As a rule the UPA did not attack units of the Wehrmacht, knowing that they were fighting against Russian Communism. Likewise, the frontline forces of the German army did not take any part in manhunts and operation against the UPA, sometimes even refusing to assist the German security and police forces against UPA."

"According to the UPA/OUN, the initial stage of “BB” (Bandenbekempfung) operation under the command of Sturbahnfuehrer SS General Platle and later under General Hintzler against the UPA produced no results whatsoever. This catastrophic development was the subject of several discussions by Himmler's staff that resulted in the sending to Ukraine of General von dem Bach-Zalewski, responsible only to Hitler himself. "

"According to post war OUN/UPA estimates, General Prutzmann, von dem Bach-Zalewski's successor as commander of the "BB" did not introduce any new methods in combating the UPA. The UPA-North grew steadily, and the Germans, apart from terrorizing the civilian population, were virtually limited to defensive actions."

Rather hypocritical to complain about Krokhmaliuk stuff in the article when you yourself added much of it. Were you mistaken? Should we remove what you added?Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why actually you remove Fedorov info about UPA– which actually was active in anti-German action at Wolynia – and his and other Soviet partisan activities easily traced through Nazi archives, while UPA/OUN-B not P.S. About Cherry Picking – ask yourself about Burds, Subtelnyy etc “citation” habit Jo0doe (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course you cherry picked from Burds as well - adding all of those examples of UPA atrocities described by Burds while ignoring the Soviet crimes mentioned by Burds in the same article. Here it is: [6]. And then you revert warred against inclusion of data taken from Burds (250,000 deported by Soviets)that didn't match your POV. So Burds is another example of your cherry-picking.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects this reality - UPA considered the Germans to be a secondary enemy (the SOviets the primary one) and thus focussed more of its efforts against the Soviets, limiting its anti-German actions to defending itself and Ukrainian peasants from the German occupying authorities but not interfering with German anti-Soviet combat. So of course UPA wouldn't didn't play a role in the liberation (i.e., Soviet establishment of control) over western Ukraine. Nothing controversial in that, and it's already reflected in the article which states:

So here it’s against the facts – the correct wording would be –

• UPA considered the Germans to be a tertiary enemy (Poles and the SOviets the primary one). In order to match historical facts – as far as may be you don’t know but in July 30 1941 Soviet denounce the Soviet-German agreements and recognize the Poland territory and Government in London. So , legally Soviet liberated from Nazi occupation the territory of one of Ally – which in August 1945 officially transferred to USSR – because Poland got former German territory.

So article should reflect historical facts instead of inspirations.--Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets (as well as Soviet partisans), did not focus all of its efforts against the Germans. Indeed, it considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović, [39] UPA held back against the Germans in order to better prepare itself for and engage in the struggle against the Communists. Because of this, although UPA managed to limit German activities to a certain extent, it failed to prevent the Germans from deporting approximately 500,000 people from Western Ukrainian regions and from economically exploiting Western Ukraine.

However, in the interests of being collaborative, I have no problem with adding that UPA did not play a role in the reestablishment of Soviet control over UKrainian territory.Faustian (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not distort what the actually academic source say about propagandistic claims of OUN/UPA about Anti-German activities at p.180.

Actually that is already included in the article (last paragraph of this section:[7]). If you had bothered tio read it before reverting and edit warring, you wouldn't have made the comment above.Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So per war time period any actions against Ally forces are considered as collaboration – in addition to clear collaboration which lasted from early 1944 till almost end of war – so in article given a wrong emphasis to “self-defense” of people which lasted at limited areas of Wolhynien und Podolien Gbsrk (No trace known at Galicia) – which lasted 5-6 months vs more then a 12 months collaboration with Nazi So again proposals of article structure - see Russian WP version of article - see every forces which UPA acted against noted,. But should be added from English

• Arms of UPA
• UPA and “Final solution”

And given a separate chapter

• UPA Structure

1943 Spring– August

August 1943- February 1944

February 1944- Autumn 1944/ winter 1945

1945 structure.

Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, continue making disruptive edits and continue to be reverted. If it helps, perhaps you will make your proposed changes/new sections on the talk page first. As for using the propagandistic joke of the Russian UPA wikipedia page as your model - thanks for sharing your opinion.Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad to note but group of editors and IP address with Ukrainian Diaspora origin extensively exploit the en:WP to represent a Blank spot of own history. It’s really interesting to see how editor called Diasporical Blank spot historical facts “a nasty”.Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's as sad as it is funny to see that on the Russian wikipedia we see the identical pattern of revert-warring of the article [8] and nasty arguments on the talk page: [9]. What's it like, Jo0doe, to spend your life causing unpleasantness?Faustian (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Same editors origin is'nt And same historical illitaracy - a strange--Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I could understand it , I may actually laugh, but ...... ?????? Bandurist (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New reading about OUN-B/UPA

Berkhoff, K.C. 'Was There a Religious Revival in Soviet Ukraine under the Nazi Regime?' in: Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 78, nr. 3, pp. 536-567 , 2000. Berkhoff, K.C. 'The ‘Russian’ Prisoners of War in Nazi-Ruled Ukraine as Victims of Genocidal Massacre' in: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 15 (2001), nr. 1, pp. 1-32 . Berkhoff, K.C. 'Ukraine under Nazi Rule (1941-1944): Sources and Finding Aids [part 1 & part 2]' in: Jahrbьcher fьr Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 45, nr. 1 & nr. 2, pp. 85-103, 273-309 , 1997. 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 . Jo0doe (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

cdvr.org.ua -propaganda source

If look at propose of cdvr formation we can found that this public organization created to "promote positive image of OUN-UPA" and expect to use propaganda for that proposes. Thus please use cdvr work at cdvr article. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Even better, why don't you use Jo0doe work in troll article? Thank you. Faustian (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack as usualJo0doe (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Says the same clown/troll who compared other editors to Nazi collaborators.Faustian (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A diff pleaseJo0doe (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

UPA and SB dressed as Soviet Partisans, Red Army and NKVD to commit atrocities.

• DYK that UPA dressed as Soviet Partisans, Red Army and NKVD to commit atrocities against civil populations -

Is it better than your dressing in a clown suit? Faustian (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

see book

• Політичний терор і тероризм в Україні XIX - XX ст. : історичні нариси Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002 issbn 9660000251

pages 757-758 with pictures of UPA and SB in soviet uniform and description of "freedom fighting"

• Does it not a good reason to visit a library for a first timeJo0doe (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent "news"

• "Opponents" of the UPA

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian), Ukrainian National Army, Ukrainian Liberation Army, Ukrainische Hilfspolizei, Schutzmannschaften

• Indeed intresting to see about UPA activities at Austria and German land in 1944-45. UPA fighting agains Shukhevich battalion - :))
• Indeed intresting to see another 1988 Subtelnyy and L. Shankovskyy 1952 citation from Karol.

DYK

• [10]

In dealing with the SD the Tribunal includes Amts III, VI, and VII of the RSHA and all other members of the SD, including all local representatives and agents, honorary or otherwise, whether they were technically members of the SS or not.

The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those members of the Gestapo and SD holding the positions enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes. The basis for this finding is the participation of the organisation in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to hold the positions enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st December, 1939.

• In light what 5,6 regiments of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia was under SD command.
• In light of the UPA and Galicien volontiers cooperation at in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war
• In light that the Shukhevich battalion was under SD wile german anti-partizans actions was classified as war crimes .
• In light that UPA was supplied SD by information (mean agents)
• In light that Abwehr agents was transferred to SD in 1944 (Bandera. Stetsko, Hrynyokh, Shukevich etc)Jo0doe (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the original research above, whatever it means.Faustian (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A Jews about UPA and it "constituded elements"

Published not in Ukrainian Quarterly Galicia survivors - why not add to a relavant chapter to balance Subtelnyy 1988 vision

Here is a typical story of the action as told by survivors: “At eleven a.m. three strong knocks were heard at my door. “Who is there?” An immediate answer came, “The Gestapo.” I opened the door and four people entered. A German in an SS uniform with a skull and cross-bones on his cap, a Ukrainian policeman in his black uniform, and two Ukrainian civilians. The German was armed with a Parabellum pistol and the policeman had a rifle. Both civilians held thick sticks.

On May 3, 1946, testimony was presented in Munich by a resident of Stryj, Shmuel Zeliger (file number: Munich archives, testimonies, 191/76). He related: “On a frightfully cold night in January 1942, Ukrainian gendarmes and policemen invaded the homes of the poor people (in Stryj), and rounded up about 800 people. Several hundred were also brought from Zydaczow, Mikolajow, Zurawno, Chodorow, Bolechow, Dolina, Bobrka, and Skole. They were all loaded on village wagons and transported to the mountains. Many froze along the way. Almost all of the children froze. The rest were left in abandoned farmers' cottages. The strong ones fled and returned to Stryj. The rest of them, that is more than 80% of them, died of cold and hunger.

The Ukrainian nationalist bands policy was the murdering of Jews. So, for example, when Bandera's people got information about Rozia Adler hiding in the village of Hoszow, they requested that she be handed over. After robbing her, she was murdered. This happened in early summer of 1944. In the winter, Ukrainian nationalists had already started attacks on the Polish population, by killing a family of seven at Polanice village. They finally set fire to all Polish houses in the neighboring villages. Whole families were burned alive. Several families of Poles were murdered in Bolechow proper, although not in great numbers.

• Notorious collaborators and German citizens as well as the Volksdeutsche fled weeks earlier. Most Ukrainian policemen joined the Bandera forces.

Jo0doe (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Source, please?Faustian (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Likely the same source the Polish trolls on the Ukraine.com forums get this crap from--Lvivske (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for sharing you opinion about Holocaust survivors rememberence.Faustian - so the book is here [11] Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

EhJJ (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Thanks for your offer! There seem to be many issues under contention. Hoe specific should we get?Faustian (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to summarize the issues as succinctly as possible. If it is not possible to resolve (or at least make progress) on this dispute, then further steps of the dispute resolution process may take place, namely to involve users from the WikiProject European history and/or WikiProject Military History (EhJJ)^TALK 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Jo0doe (talk) 08

03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)):

• To follow reccomendations [12] [13] in article text (identify a source and author)

• Exclude WP:QS (cdvr.org, p.242 Krochmalyuk and Krochmalyuk at all, infoukes O14-USSR). Do not ref XXX through XXX more then one time. To provide a referenced information - like for UPA in 1949-56 etc. Use scholar (historians) works instead of "Ukrainian Quarterly",SBU, CIA etc for facts, figures and dates. Fairly provide all involved party opinions - not OUN-B OUNs, Soviets, Germans, Poles (see WP:UNDUE for more). Do not "play" with sources text (like Despite the stated opinions... ). Use text in appropriate place (do not put 1947 in 1942)

One issue at a time, please, and we can begin the discussion. Want to start with Krokhmaliuk's work?Faustian (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've provide a general issue of the article. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Great that you've provided a "general issue of article." However, because opinions may be different on each specific case, you ought to define what you would like to discuss specifically. You've identified seven issues above. So which issue specifically would you like the third opinion on?Faustian (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's one simple issue to follow the WP reccomendations and rules. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We both agree on that. The question is who is following them and who isn't. Can we decide on a single, specific issue involving the rules that you would like a third opinion on or are you not interested in getting a third opinion?Faustian (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by EhJJ

....

This seems to be beyond the scope of WP:Third opinion, but I'll leave the request there, and the info above, in case another editor can provide some insight. My recommendation at this point would be to split each problem into it's own sub-section. The four I counted are:

1. Exclude WP:QS
2. Fairly provide all sides, per WP:UNDUE
3. Avoid weasel words
4. Correct errors of improper citation

Good luck! (EhJJ)^TALK 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you refused the third opinion by breaking up your general argument into specific points to be discussed.Faustian (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by your comment and how is it useful to building or improving the encyclopedic content in this article? If you want another third opinion on a more specific issue ask for one. The opinion offered seems to include many helpful and useful suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we have two options:

1. Discuss specific issues of this article.
2. Discuss whether to follow the Wikipedia guidelines.

The second option is ridiculous. Obviously we need to follow the guidelines! So, what specific part of this article is in contravention? How can we improve the article, one part at a time? I will be glad to provide a third opinion, but you need to tell me: on what? (EhJJ)^TALK 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not so ridiculous as you noted - see a long talk page about ridiculous - not evryone fairly ready to follow it. As it can be noted in the discussion -it taked more then year to identify propaganda poster as propaganda poster. The specific issue all originated from guidelines follow. If there no titanic effort from "Freedom-Fighter" proponents to include QS and not WP:V source and misuse or remove "wrong" scholars citations - there no problem at all. But if we trace this more than year story - no intent was implemented. It's pitty itself. But as far as WP:reliability is a MUST - we should step forward in general approach. Othervice - we'll have another dozens of talk page about what was major achivements of such formaton- the killing of 100+ K civilians or 1864 persons of NKVD staff?Jo0doe (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. So let's start with the issue of sources:

• Do you consider Jeffrey Burds' work to be a reliable source? Here is his home page [14] and his CV: [15]. His work, cited in the article, is available on-line in English: [16]. A particular editor has aproblem with Burds' work and figures that he includes in the article. In my opinion, we don't judge reliable sources, we just report what they say.

After "maskirovka units" and assesment which that specific work gain on scholar conference - questionable. But pitty - I'm not oppose to include this specific author and his claims from resently self published work in russian[17]. I just simply would like to: 1) not to present historical exclusively his own vision - represent all known scholar data. 2)I oppose to use his own vision regrarding second half of 1944 in the section described 1943 events.Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So you personally question Burds' Eng;sh-language work but find his Russian-language acceptable. What about the third opinion?Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you expirienced difficulties with my text comprahanding?Jo0doe (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• How about Paul Robert Magocsi and Orest Subtleny? I use them as reliable sources, another editor disagrees.

Indeed both of them represent North Ukrainian Diaspora approach - but - it's not true that I' disagree - I just would like to have in article correct representation of what actually appeared in their work and to indicate thier names in the article before the claims - so the reader will be confident in assessment - which opinion he read. While as regards 100000 of 1996 Magoci work - I was unable to find similar figure in his 2007 work - as far as this figure was widelly criticised by scholar community (including also Orest Subtleny!) I really don't see the nessesity to include in article range 10-100 which has no sence. Anyway I don't oppose to that figure - I just would like to mentioned clear the year and Author. That's allJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Author is mentioned in the reference. There is even a wikilink to the author's biography. The article will be a cumbersome mess if before every other statement it's added "according to Mgosci..." or even better, as you used to add, "according to North American Ukrainian Magosci...". It is redundant; that's what the note is for.Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see only one figure from Magocy. While could you prove your alleged claims about my recent edits with diff - thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Much more controversial Yuri Krokhmaliuk's UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823. Do we use it, and if so, how? Krokhmaliuk is not an academic and his work was originally published by the UPA veterans themselves. Clearly it should be considered WP:SPS and we should be careful about its use. Now let's look at the policy regarding the use of such a source:
• Yuri Krokhmaliuk's - a member of Military Commityy of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian) (військова управа дивізії СС "Галичина")- may be this "issue" (and not only this) caused that he was going to Argentina and not directly to Canada, US or Australia"Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So you are accusing the author of being a war crimnal because he lived in Argentina before coming to the USA? Is that your argument?Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No I simply mentioned irrelevancy of "Jewish elements" author in WP article not about Nazi propanda. As regard to engeeneer Yuriy Krochmalyuck with joined the SS-Galicia with 6 or 7 SS-regiment . I don't care about Nazi collaboratorsJo0doe (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Many Ukrainians emigrated to Argentina. Between 3-500,000. Jo0doe is being completely asinine in his statements.--Lvivske (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean many Galicians? I hope you know what there a special Law appeared at US and Canada on SS criminals - thats why actually many of them was allowed only than such measures were lifted Jo0doe (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean many Ukrainians. Galicians is a broader term; Ukrainians have a heavy population in Argentina/Brazil, this is a fact. What's your deal?--Lvivske (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

Yes, it is.

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

This may be problematic. The book doesn't include information about the mass murder committed by the subject against Polish civilians.

Book is collection of nationalistic propaganda - word "Jewish elements" is self evident. Story about how UPA killed Viktor_Lutze, defeated several SS and Waffen-SS division by batallion size formation, fully destroyed Sydir_Kovpak unit and dozens of NKVD divisions (despite only 1 (one) deployed), typhus lice spreaded by NKVD beggars and lot of similar funny stuff.Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. it does not involve claims about third parties;

I"m not sure how this would apply in this case.

1. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

No, it does not.

• Yes - a lot of "history" about Russian oppressed freedom loving Ukrainians,

The source sn't used for that info but for info about the topic of this article - UPA.Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

Of the source? No.

• scholar conference held recently noted what this specific book appeared in the 1972 serve as indulge for Vietnam war defeats - as UPA posed as formation which was able to resist to "Soviet super power" - so OUN sponsors from Radio Free Europe (RFE), Radio Liberty (RL) (originally Radio Liberation from Bolshevism) and the Institute fir the Study of the USSR clarly visibleJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

It certainly is not.

Chapter

1. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

Yes, it has been. Paul Robert Magocsi, in Ukraine: a History, spends 40 pages (685–725) describing and briefly evaluating scores of sources for further reading. He starts the paragraph about WWII Ukrainian military organizations with Tys-Krokhmaliuk (1972).

My approach is to use Krokhmaliuk's work conservatively - to match it to something written by Subtelny or Magocsi and flesh in the details with Krokhmaliuk's work. *(i.e., Magosci, citing Krokhmaliuk I believe, mentioned that UPA engaged in pitched battles with the retreating Germans over Carpathian passes. I used Krokhmaliuk's work to add some details about those battles; Subtleny mentioned warfare in Volhynia and I used Krokhmaluiuk's account for that also). In cases where Krokhmaliuk contradicts a reliable source, I suggest we go with the RS. But otherweise K.'s work seems useful. What is your opinion?

And thank you for your time! Faustian (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• See facts above - QS with nationalistic propaganda can be used in the article about itself - if it deserve it. There lot of recent scholar work dealed specifically with article subject based on archival data - not on SS apocrypha.Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Look like editors prefer to engage in word sport - instead of intent to have a WP as reliable source or discuss sometingJo0doe (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-Write

Would anyone be opposed to me rewriting the entire article from scratch in the near future? If anything, just to clean out the biased statements and keep everything sourced and accurate.--Lvivske (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! I was going to do something similar but am much too busy in RL to take on such a project now. I'll check on your progress.Faustian (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing loads of research papers right now, but I'm thinking maybe after March 20th when I get some actual free time on my hands.--Lvivske (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Something I had suggested earlier but never got around to doing - because the article is so huge, it might make sense to split int into two articles. One would be purely about UPa and would describe its organization, history of its creation, membership, weapons, etc. The second article could be called "Ukrainian nationalist resistance during and after World War II" and would include all of the info about the battles etc not only by UPA but also by the Polessian Sich. Each of those articles would be much shorter than this one. Faustian (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. What would be a good article to model the UPA and other one after for style? I'm thinking UPA w/ USMC article, not sure for the latter...--Lvivske (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking, in general, of an analogy with the articles Polish–Ukrainian War and Ukrainian Galician Army (although the latter article, unlike the proposed UPA article, doesn't include info about its creation and how it was organized).Faustian (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Music

Would it be worth while having a section on UPA music? Is there a documented history of Ukrainian song and music dedicated to the UPA? Personally, I have boxes of UPA records, just wondering how prevalent a topic this is--Lvivske (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some such material, but it has not been subjected to scholarly study. Sifting for authentic material in the fakeloric UPA-pop is not easy.--Galassi (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Ukraine liberated by the Red Army" is clear biased statement

Yes? No? Liberation implies "individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will" according to wiki. This does not illustrate the truth of the situation at all; it's either an annexation or a military occupation--Lvivske (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is commonsensical and commonly-accepted definition. UPA contributed to the same liberation, regardless of its relationships with USSR.Galassi (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To liberate: " to free; to release from restraint or bondage" Liberty: " the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force". The Red Army brought neither. It was a military occupation that annexed a disputed territory.--Lvivske (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Liberated its own "legal" (and MULTIETHNIC btw) pre-War territory from Nazi-German bondage. That is a cold, if sad (for a few), fact. --Galassi (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References to liberation are more controversial with respect to territory that was pre-war Poland (or, for that matter, with respect to Soviet liberationof the Baltics.) Dictionary.com states [18] (Definition #2):

"to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government."

So technically liberation works as a term. Although perhaps a more nuetral but equally correct one can be used instead.Faustian (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Even still, Soviets were a "foreign oppressive government", and "Nazi's were seen as liberators", so I just don't think it even works in this context. I still contend that re-occupation, annexation, incorporation all work better.--Lvivske (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Soviet was NOT a "foreign oppressive government" but a local and native one, even if some saw it differently. The idea of "Nazis as liberators" didn't last very long, and was definitely out of fashion by 1943.--Galassi (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How were a Moscow Bolshevik government, run by Georgians and many Jews..."local and native"???--Lvivske (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you are one ot THOSE. I thouhgt so... Thanks for the confession (this also explains your statement re "inflated jewish casualties"). FYI, Jews in the Soviet Gov't were eliminated by 1938. One was kept (Kaganovich). Ãlso: keep it in you mind: all claims that "Moscow Bolshevik government, run by Georgians and many Jews" are part of a Moscow/MAUP plot to make Ukrainians look like idiots. Because no intelligent Ukrainian would believe such crap.Galassi (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame I never got to drink the soviet kool-aid like yourself...--Lvivske (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this is about more than a dictionary definition and labelling the discussion as such is simply misleading. Now, aside from the fact that liberation is simply how it is referred to by nearly all academic sources and encyclopaedias (maybe not Ontario based ones), this process is viewed as such in Ukraine (maybe not in rural Lviv). We have parades, holidays, countless monuments, museums, and even government websites ([19][20][21]) on this for a reason. Millions of Ukrainians fought in Red Army, did they re-occupy themselves? Does the slim minority that fought against them and is now in the Diaspora change that, or should Ukraine determine whether Ukraine was liberated? --Tavrian 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, Dictionary.com states [22] (Definition #2): "to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government."

Emphasizing the word "or", technically speaking both the German conquest of Ukraine and Soviet reconquest of Ukraine could be considered "liberation" as in each case the Ukrainian nation or territory was freed from the control of a foreign or oppressive government. Presumably, liberation in this article about UPA refers to territory taken over by the Soviet army in western Ukraine (where UPA operated, for the most part) not Kiev or Kharkiv. While in this context "liberation" is technically correct, neither the Poles nor the Ukrainians living there probably felt themselves to be liberated by the Soviets. Incidentally, the article about Estonia in World War II does not refer to the Soviet return to Estonia as "liberation." I auggest we use a more nuetral term (establish control?).Faustian (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you find "incidental" about that? Estonia had nothing similar with the USSR, who simply came in and annexed them. The Russian Duma even recognized this as occupation sometime in the early 90s. So the Estonian response, on Wikipedia and in real life is quite logical. And although it is hard to say that Western Ukraine was liberated in 1939 that doesn't make the two cases similar. Ukrainians were joined into one entity for the first time in history in 1939 and liberated from Nazis (who would have killed every last Slav after the Jews) by their own, local army in 1944. But either way the edit ([23]) that we are debating is referring to all of Ukraine. The makes it liberation. --Tavrian 03:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are referring to all of Ukraine, then liberation does not apply to all cases. This deals with the interim Nazi controlled territory. As Faustian has said, the dictionary definition of the word can be ambiguous in this context, and not fully give an accurate POV on the situation. When dealing with civil conflicts, to label any side as a "liberator" misconstrues the dynamics of the conflict itself.--Lvivske (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the word "liberation" is used in reference to Soviet forces in two olaces of the article. Tyhe liberation of Kiev and the liberation of all territories of Ukraine. I have no problem with leaving liberation in with reference to Kiev. In the latter case, while yes liberation is correct "establish control over" or "drive the Germans out of" or something similar is equally correct and less contentious.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Bobanni's current edit and defining it as "re-established control"--Lvivske (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Credit Faustian - I do not like to waste a good idea,Bobanni (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "re-established control" is the best way to describe it to, can't get more neutral then that! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The new version is not ‘‘unneutral’’; but I think it is hiding the commonly used term on the topic and is just simply less informative. I don't oppose it, but what I do oppose is countering all historiography on the topic with a dictionary definition and people without arguments voicing their valued opinion. Now, although "liberate" is the accepted term of western scholars when describing not only Ukraine but even Poland, I think I can offer a compromise (no self respecting historian would write "the Red Army re-established control of Lviv on July 1944").

The current version reads:

After the Red Army re-established control of Ukraine, the UPA avoided clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military fearing their offensive action would annihilate them.

I think it is unnecessary to attempt to describe the phenomenon that is the Soviets ridding a territory of the Nazis or even to describe the Soviet presence on given territory. The context of the sentence only requires that we say that UPA did want to face regular Soviet units in battle. So I propose:

As the Red Army approached western Ukraine, the UPA avoided clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military fearing their offensive action would annihilate them.

Regards, Tavrian 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, how is Germany vs USSR a civil conflict? --Tavrian 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

UPA vs. Red Army is a civil conflict, don't be a smartass--Lvivske (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But we're not trying to say that the Red Army liberated the Western Ukraine from UPA, are we? --Tavrian 18:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; and this new suggestion works as well. I say roll with it.--Lvivske (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tavrian's compromise sounds good to me.Faustian (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No self-respecting historian? see the following from google

The Decision to Stay in Russia -- Mariental Massacre Even though the Red Army re-established control over the region, the Red grain commissars who survived the onslaught by the villagers kept a low profile. ... www.mariental-louis.com/decision.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages TDS; Passports, Visas, Travel Documents

Forcing the Germans out of Lithuania by 1944, the Red Army re-established control, and Sovietization continued with the arrival of communist party leaders ... www.traveldocs.com/lt/history.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages Antonenko explains long history of Georgian conflict - The Daily ... When the Red Army re-established control, the open conflict was swept under the rug, but tensions remained. Nonetheless, “tremendous reconciliation” between ... www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/16/21818/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Russia Profile - Antonenko explains long history of Georgian conflict When the Red Army re-established control, the open conflict was swept under the rug, but tensions remained. Nonetheless, “tremendous reconciliation” between ... www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1224176562 - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Bobanni (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I can vouch for Antonenko being an expert in the field of Georgia-Russia relations. (PS: I deleted the double pasting that happened, hope thats alright)--Lvivske (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You google searched "Red Army re-established control" ([24]), found 3 results, and those are your historians? Three links from the whole internet that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and are written by no one. Great find.

And the whole point of my edit was to change the meaning (what's wrong with the English?). I thought that it was unnecessary to attempt to describe the phenomenon that is the Soviets ridding Ukrainian territory of the Nazis or even to describe the Soviet presence on given territory. Why? Because there is already an established term for that - liberation. It is established because it is by and large how the majority of the population of the Ukraine sees it and because it is very common usage in sources on the topic. Read even western literature on Ukraine in 1943/44 (forget about Russian/Ukrainian literature). Even Canadian works, from the depths of Alberta, they'll either call it liberation or nothing at all. And just in case someone's here to shout "communist propaganda" take a look at my favourite example: Antony Beevor(!), "A writer at war" (2005) p 267. --Tavrian 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you're saying that we shouldn't try to invent a bicycle with new terms here, you're right Bobanni. We should use terms that are established used in this context. If you know one other than liberation, I'd love to hear it. --Tavrian 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1 - Meanings of words get lost in translation, if we're writing in english we should use proper english terms to describe the situation 2 - Ukrainian public opinion doesn't make it a historical fact 3 - We have already found other established words other than liberation... 4 - I've done some preliminary searching in some journal databases and am finding "liberation" used exclusively to describe Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union, no descriptions of such for when they joined... 5 - It seems to me that the only ones describing it as liberation are the soviet authorities themselves...--Lvivske (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So what's wrong with Tavrian's version? Why not use that. It is accurate and neutral.Faustian (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have no objections to that one. You guys can sort this new mess out yourselves ;-) --Lvivske (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's break it down:

• List of sources that refer to Red Army activity in Ukraine (43/44) as re-establishing control:
  • 1
  • 2
• List of reputable (even famous) english sources that refer to Red Army activity in Ukraine (43/44) as liberation:
  • Antony Beevor(!), "A writer at war" (2005)
  • John Erickson "The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War With Germany‎" (1999)
  • David Glantz, Aleksander A. Maslov "Fallen Soviet generals" (1998)
  • David Glantz "The Battle for L'vov, July 1944" (2002)
  • David Glantz "The Battle for the Ukraine" (korsun-Shevchenkivski) (2003) - actually all works by David Glantz, probably the best known english language historian (who probably wrote the most material too) when it comes to the Eastern Front.
  • Leonid D. Grenkevich "The Soviet partisan movement" (1999)
  • Also note how they're all published recently, after everyone knew full well of the Soviet terrors. --Tavrian 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And to address your comment:

• "Meanings of words get lost in translation" - are the above sources not in English?
• "Ukrainian public opinion doesn't make it a historical fact" - it makes it a common usage term.
• "have already found other established words other than liberation..." lol, what are those? "re-established control" and its three internet links?
• "I've done some preliminary searching in some journal databases and am finding "liberation" used exclusively to describe Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union, no descriptions of such for when they joined..." - this comment just puzzles me. For one, what journals? Two, who's talking about Ukraine joining the Soviet Union? And three, did you even read what I wrote? Did you see me quoting the CPSU or western historians?
• "seems to me that the only ones describing it as liberation are the soviet authorities themselves" - I guess I have to use Bobanni's tactic to get this through to you ([25]). --Tavrian 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus for Tavrian's version, why not go with that:

As the Red Army approached western Ukraine, the UPA avoided clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military fearing their offensive action would annihilate them.

Faustian (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the problem with this version is that Bobanni feels my changing the meaning of the sentence (and God awful grammar) was unwarranted. So let's discuss terms that should define Soviet presence in Ukraine (1943/44). --Tavrian 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "liberation" would be appropriate for areas east of the 1939 border. For areas west of that border, valid arguments can be made for both "liberation" and "occupation" (same as for Baltics, Poland, etc.). Which is why, to avoid controversy, I support the nuetral version (since UPA operated primarily in areas west of the 1939 border, mention of Soviet troops with regards to UPA have to do with that territory). Bobanni has the right to his opinion, and it does not seem unreasonable. However in this case consensus seems to be for the nuetral version so even if he cannot be convinced we should go with it.Faustian (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

just want to point out that the Ukrainian Liberation Army fought on the German side, so conflict there if using liberation for the opposition.--Lvivske (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If I have to tell you what's wrong with that I think you should reconsider taking part in discussions like this. (P.S. care to fill in that List of sources I outlined nicely for you so we can continue?) --Tavrian 23:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, it's a perfect example of how the word "liberation" is used by both sides in many wars, and how it would be biased to use it in a complex, objective article like this. Example, would it be accurate to say "The Red Army liberated Ukraine from the Ukrainian Liberation Army?" It would be a confusing statement...

PS: Continue what?--Lvivske (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a perfect example of why uses wikipedia uses internal links and footnotes. Confusing grammatically or not, if someone wants to find out what the Ukrainian Liberation Army is they can click on it. Similarly if a reader wanted to find out which sources refer to Soviet liberation of Ukraine they can click on the little blue number. And it becomes difficult for me to argue my point Lvivske, if you won't read what I write. It is irrelevant what both sides of many wars call themselves what matters is academic consensus and the local interpretation. P.S. Continue the discussion of terms that should define Soviet presence in Ukraine (1943/44). --Tavrian 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

local interpretation is ambiguous, and the term was used by locals on both sides. As for your sources, how do you suggest I get my hands on those works? Have a particular database in mind?--Lvivske (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Try a library lol. However you can view most of David Glantz's works on google books. --Tavrian 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pfft, libraries are things of the past.... That said, I'm in a library right now...no time to read this stuff now but I'll get around to it shortly--Lvivske (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No significant foreign support?

Is the following correct? The sources do not seem very authorative, and other sources describe support from m16 and cia. In addition it had German support before it became anti-nazi.

"Among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique in that it had no 
significant foreign support.
Its growth and strength were a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed   
among the people of Western Ukraine"93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This was taken from Orest Subtelny's Ukrainian history book. The point is significant foreign support. The CIA aid, compromised by the double agent Kim Philby, was not significant.Faustian (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany

I have added this category, which reflects the content of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Today views about UPA

The intro says: the majority of the Soviet (eastern) Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been primarily collaborators with the Germans. But the article does not say if they changed there opinion. Are there some polls about that in cerculation? Demonstrations like these ones in 2007seem to sugest there are still Ukrainians who see OUN/UPA to have been primarily collaborators with the Germans. Some views of today opinions about UPA would make this a better article I think. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Woman fighters in UPA?

There where female Soviet partisans operating in Ukraine during World War II, where there also female UPA partisans?
Could be a good expansion of Women in the military. Now it looks there that the Red Army was much more emancipated then it's counterparts. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This book says there where... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

Due to the article's incredible length I had earlier (a few months ago) proposed to split the article: [26] The UPA would retain information about formation, organization, weapons, etc. along woth brief summaries of battles, the massacres of Poles, etc. A separate article, titled "Ukrainian nationalist resistance during and after World War II" would merge this article's invormation about UPA's various battles against Nazis and Soviets with information involving Taras Bulba Borovet's resistance movement as well (this article would, of course, retain a summary of these actions). The article about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia already exists, but there would be a link to it in the summary contained on this article. The model for this split would be to have a situartion roughly comparable to that of the Polish–Ukrainian War and the Ukrainian Galician Army.

When I proposed this a few months ago nobody objected but I thought I'd ask again because considerable time has passed. I am busy now but am hoping to start work on this in a week or two, barring any serious objections.Faustian (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would massacre of Poles stay but actions with Nazis and Soviets go to another article? Just wondering where the distinction is made--Львівске (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Both would stay as summaries and there would be links to the new article about Ukrainian nationalist resistance and to the established article about massacre of Poles in Volyn, respectively.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd like to get the article as sorted and light-weight as possible, will be easier to do the full sweep bias/credibility check afterwards - then I want to finally get down to handling more of the organization and military aspects of it when I have time.--Львівске (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

UPA and Poles Section

Some comments concerning mine and others' edits. It seems that chronologically this section ought to be (and is) a brief summary of the ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volyn with a link to the main article on that topic. These events mostly occurred in the summer of 1943 and lasted through 1944. The events in Poland itself were different - as Timothy Snyder points out, the UPA there consisted of overwhelmingly of local Ukrainians who had nothing to do with the events in Volyn. While the Polish communist government attempted to link the massacres in Volyn with its own ethnic cleansing (Operation Vistula) these events and locations ougth to be kept distinct in the article, as they are now. Given that this section is not about Ukrainians and Poles in general but about the ethnic cleansing (mostly occurring in 1943-1944) specifically, the title of this section ought to reflect this.

I don't object to having a picture in this section, provided that the picture is accurate and appropriate. Given that this section is a brief summary, more pictures than one would seem to be adding undue weight to this aspect of what UPA did. I also don't object to a single sentence describing some of the brutal nature of the killing of Poles. The existance of such acts is well documented in reliable sources (not just Polish or Soviet propaganda) and it would seem, to me, to be appropriate to briefly describe them.Faustian (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not exaggerated, or given undue weight. As it was, "cutting with knives, killing, murdering, disemboweling, etc." why not add punching, kicking, yelling, elbowing, scratching...and any other verb you can think of. Killing is killing, and if there were methods of note then include them.--Львівске (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that briefly highlighting the brutal nature of the attacks is important although more than a sentence of this stuff is certainly excessive and doesn't add anything to the article.Faustian (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be cited, though. The link it refs to is dead. I personally think the wording is way off and maybe not the best, most neutral way of putting things. If the Poles want to put such graphic details in, have a credible verifiable source we can cite. --Львівске (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder's books describe this stuff in a lot of detail.Faustian (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is it available?--Львівске (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Googlebooks has excerpts here: [27]. There is some interesting stuff about brutal Polish reprisals also. Timothy Snyder has written some great books about Ukrainian-Polish relations, and biographies involving fascinating but not too widely known figures in 20th century Ukrainian history: [28] and [29].Faustian (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Ihor Iljuszyn (in Polish and Ukrainian) book about UPA brutal murders of Poles and Ukrainians. Read Grzegorz Motyka book, or Witalij Masłowśkyj here summary. There are many OUN-UPA lies about this genocide. My family survived thanks to Ukrainian neighbour who helped to escaped before UPA assault. But so many Polish were killed.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we talk about the Polish lies, then? It's a two way street --Львівске (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that a section ("Historiography"?) about UPA's portrayal in the various histrorical traditions, which would include among othr things Ukrainian cover-ups of the massacres as well as Polish nationalist and Communist exaggeration of them, would be a great idea.Faustian (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, since that is all news to me. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would help keep things in perspective. I think we should remember to state in the text who claims what, whenever possible. example: "Russian authorities claim the UPA massacred a million innocent Jews and collaborated with Hitler himself" (just making something up there) rather than just taking their 'factoid' and stating it in the article as if universally true.--Львівске (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda photos

Since I'm in a revert war with Pawel over this, we should discuss it further

They come from here: http://www.starwon.com.au/~korey/Wolyn%2043.htm

Is this a credible source by any means? I mean I see Polish propagandists posting these same pics all over Ukrainian websites in a smear campaign, I find it hard to believe wikipedia would allow them to use them here. Are these legit pictures? Propaganda? Without proper credibility, it could be holocaust victims with a new title, no? Such graphic pictures need to be absolutely verified to be in an article like this.--Львівске (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The second image on that website is a well-known hoax. It is of gypsy children murdered in 1923 by their mentally ill mother. This tragedy has been exploited by Polish nationalists and presented as a crime of UPA: [30]. Does the picture being placed here exist on website other than that one? I don't think that we ought to take pictures from websites that post garbage.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is the proof that it is a "well-known hoax"? Loosmark (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He provided a link to the debunking in his post...--Львівске (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok i read that, the linked page says that it was a good faith error rather than deliberate "exploitation by Polish nationalists" as Faustian claims. Loosmark (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the licensing and all we have to go by. The burden of legitimacy is on Pawel here. Below is the licensing summary for the image:

File information

Description	English: Polish civilian victims of March 26, 1943 massacre committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in the village of Lipniki (Kostopol County), Poland Polish: Kolonia Lipniki (gm. Berezne, pow. Kostopol). Zwłoki zamordowanych Polaków podczas napadu UPA na kolonię 26 marca 1943 r. Fot. Sarnowski.Zdjęcia dzięki uprzejmości p. Henryka Słowińskiego. Fotografia z książki Ewy i Władysława Siemaszków pt. "Ludobójstwo" tom 2, str. 1294. Russian: Краткое описание.
Source	http://www.starwon.com.au/~korey/Wolyn%2043.htm
Date	1943
Author	Władysława Siemaszków, Ludobójstwo, page 1294, from Henryk Słowiński collection
Permission (Reusing this file)	See below.

--Львівске (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The desciption needs to be changed and corrected, otherwise theis stuff will just continue to be reposted over and over again. ҃҃--Bandurist (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP UPA propaganda, there are many sources with this photo. This pictures are true evidence of UPA crimes. I saw it in many books in Poland. There is one true OUN-UPA mourdered about 150 thousands polish cywilians and it cant be any excuse. I am not deleting your informations about UPA fights, despite it is propaganda (Motyka writes about it: UPA had killed 10 German soldiers so lies it was 100) so I demand that u would stop deleting true about Polish genocide. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because polish propagandists publish it, doesn't make it not propaganda!--Львівске (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And one more things AK actions wasnt similiar, Polish soldiers wasnt so cruel as UPA. And it was revenge. But i am not removing that text. --Paweł5586 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You don't honestly believe this garbage do you?--Львівске (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can scream garbage as much as you want but AK's objective was to fight the Nazis, they never planned any ethnical cleansing unlike those "heros" who were massacring women and children. Loosmark (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is garbage to say that AK terrorists did nothing while the UPA are monsters. Nobody is innocent in war, not even the benevolent Pole.--Львівске (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I request you appologise and withdraw the accusation that the AK were terrorists otherwise I will be forced to report you. Loosmark (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They are called terrorists on their own wiki page by the Soviets, will you report facts too? Get over yourself--Львівске (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, stop with the mutual accusations. THAT particular picture is NOT of UPA's killings. I'm not sure it could be called a "hoax" since I think in some sources it was attributed to UPA in good faith (or more precisely without bothering too much to check sources) but it's actually a picture of, if I remember correctly, children killed by a Gypsy mother who went crazy during a famine (possibly Holodomor). I'm also pretty sure that the true origin photograph was revealed by Polish researchers and that it was first publicized in the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita (or, Rzepa) - so there's neither "Polish propaganda" nor Ukrainian attempts at hiding unpleasant fact here. I don't know about the other pics, but I would be inclined to not include them unless independent confirmation of their nature can be found. I hope that when the shoe is on the other foot (sketchy sources on something or other that Poles supposedly did) other editors would likewise err on the side of caution.radek (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

+1--Львівске (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the "+1" supposed to mean, but here's the Rzepa article: [31]radek (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand I think the Lipniki pictures are authentic.radek (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at this photos, the new polish site of Association Commemorating Victims of the Crime of Ukrainian nationalists - source. Pictures are sortes by provinces. Stop telling about UPA as heroes. There is nothing heroic in killing innocent children and woman. These crimes have no excuse. Redgards to you all, specially to Lvivskie. I hope you rethink some things about UPA--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I could care less about your smear site. The UPA were heroes, you're not going to change things with your doublespeak. --Львівске (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

UPA cruelly murdered about 150 thousands innocent people. This is indisputable fact. Thats all. If u want belive they are heroes, your choice. --Paweł5586 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve coverage of UPA cruelty. Still it looks like the Rzecz Pospolita article cited by Radek is credible and the particular image is a fabrication. As we do not include fabrications in the articles please do not include the image unless the Rzecz Pospolita article arguments are refuted in a very credible source Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to restate. 1) The image is not a fabrication but it is a misattribution - a different case (a mistake rather than purposeful deceit). Of course this doesn't change the fact that it should not be included in the article. 2) The other photos, like those from the killings at Lipinki, are, as far as I can tell from a legit source. The fact that they were included on a website which also included the misattributed photo does not discredit them, of course.radek (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Propagandists and Jews

From this source: [32], originally published in the Ukrainian Quarterly:

"Jews participated in the UPA as well as other anti-communist and anti-Nazi units. The Soviet propagandists complained,

During the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945, many Zionists were members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army (UPRA). For example, the Zionist Haim Sigal, alias Sigalenko, was a chieftain and 'Bulba's' right-hand man. . . . A number of Zionists such as Margosh, Maximovich, 'Kun' and others were officers in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army."

Faustian (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

now the UPA is even a Jewish friendly organisation? what's next? Loosmark (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say it was nuetral than friendly. You didn't know about the Jews in UPA? Or that 3 members of the OUN's central leadership had Jewish wives? Here is some more: [33]. An excellent and unbiased article about the OUN and Jews is here: [34].Faustian (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It really did vary from location to location.--Львівске (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing

Faustian inserted this in the article: The UPA's cooperation with Jews was extensive enough that, according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA, some Soviet propaganda works complained about Zionist membership in UPA. Seems to be a complete POV to muddy the waters - and picture UPA as an organisation friendly to Jews instead of an organisation which collaborated with the Germans on exterminating the Jewish people. Loosmark (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd really have to document the latter.Galassi (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The article stated that the relationship was complex, not that UPA was "pro-Jewish."Faustian (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above quote seems to say "extensive", not "complex" (I'd be more ok with "complex" although that's sort of weaselly). This [35] could be inserted as a contradiction of the above statement. With respect to the general topic, during World War II, the Nazis were the main enemy and Soviet propaganda would try and tarnish anti-communist guerrilla forces as "fascist" and "collaborators" - sometimes this was a complete fabrication, sometimes it was pretty much right on, and sometimes it was ... "complex". Then, after 1948, and especially after it became clear that Israel was NOT going to be a pro-Soviet socialist state, "Zionists" became the boogeyman of Soviet propaganda. And in some of these "complex" cases, former supposed "fascists" and "collaborators" became "Zionists" - in an Orwellian "We've always been at war with Eastasia, no, Oceania" kind of way. This is basically what is going on here. However, a few basic facts are that, overall UPA was NOT "pro-Jewish", a significant portion of it collaborated with the Germans in the Holocaust (whether out of personal anti-semitism or simply political expedience), another, smaller, portion might have "cooperated" with Jews (I'm actually not sure what that really means in this context - did they help them hide from the Germans? did they assist them? And even then this seems to be another one of the politically, not ethically, motivated endeavors). And then there was the manifesto [36]; "Poles behind the San, Germans to Berlin, Jews to the Gallows".radek (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If anyone is pushing a biased POV, it's Loosmark and his continuous "UPA WERE EVIL!!" diatribe.--Львівске (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lvivske!

Please don't mark substantial, important and potentially contentious changes to the article as "minor"!!!!! Like you did here [37] and here [38]. These are not "minor" edits. "Minor" edits involve removal of OBVIOUS (obvious to everyone, not just to you) vandalism and things like inserting a comma. I have told you not do to this before. Your persistence in doing this is disruptive.radek (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only have you never brought this up before, but the fact that you're starting a thread in the talk section just because I was absent minded in ticking off a box is just crazy.--Львівське (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[39].radek (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but not everyone always catches every history page comment. Use some sense here...--Львівське (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"absent minded"? oh please. Loosmark (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

99.9% of my edits are marked as minor. It's default and I could care less of it. The fact that I wrote a question in the comments section ("fixed?") is evidence enough I'm not trying to hide anything.--Львівське (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Change your settings then. I'm not saying you're trying to hide anything but because a lot of editors will routinely ignore edits marked as "minor" it's common courtesy to only do mark them as such for really minor things.radek (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, click on "My preferences" at the top of the page, then click "Editing" and then uncheck the "Mark all edits minor by default" box. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR restriction on this article

Since this article concerns Ukrainian-Polish conflicts in Volhynia during the 1940s, it's been placed under 1RR per the previous action at the talk page of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. The definition of a revert is at WP:REVERT. Any editor who works on this article is now limited to one revert per day. Any admin may enforce the restriction by blocks. See the linked posting for details. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Львівське should be banned from Wikipedia for removing photos and text with sources.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what you're doing? Deleting sections of the article that are properly sourced for no reason and pretending it's propaganda? Please use the talk page to dispute the Polish sub-section as I've encouraged everyone else so we can reach a consensus on what to include and how it should be weighted. Baiting me by purposely vandalizing the article won't get you far.--Львівське (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

UPA/Poles section discussion

There is no reason for anyone here to be walking on egg shells about single reverts, nor edit warring trying to delete or misword sections of the article that are cited. That said, let's all get along here, eh?

Here is the UPA/Poles section as it is at the time of this writing:

The UPA's ethnic cleansing operations against the Polish population began on a large scale in March 1943 and lasted until the end of 1944. In Volhynia, deadly acts of aggression, including the mass murder of Poles, occurred throughout 1943 before spreading to eastern Galicia in early 1944.

In addition to the UPA, Ukrainian peasants also participated in the violence, and large groups of armed marauders, unaffiliated with UPA, brutalized civilians. Because of this, the exact number of Poles killed specifically by UPA is unknown. Estimates of the number of Polish casualties in Ukraine during this period range upward from 60,000.

Now let's all just talk about it, suggest changes, and collaborate on making this section as accurate and encyclopedic as possible. Yes? Feel free to cut and paste other comments on the same material over here. Let's all get this in one place, and hammer this out once and for all.

Issues with section 1

• This section shouldn't mention Galicia. OUN-M operated there whereas OUN-B/UPA was in Volyn. (correct me if I'm wrong)--Львівське (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you are wrong. Galicia was the home of OUN-B. Also, by that time the UPA had assimilated most of the other Ukrainian military units. OUN-M did not have any significant military presence then. --Lysy^talk 07:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with section 2

• Since this section should be only about the UPA and their role in the massacres (with the rest of the details going in their appropriate article), I think this should be the line:

"Because of the mutual participation of peasants(*) and (((VARIOUS UNAFFILIATED ARMED GROUPS? ARMED BANDIT GROUPS? HOW TO DESCRIBE THEM?))),(*) the exact number of Poles killed specifically by the UPA during the massacre is unknown. Estimates of the number of Polish casualties in Ukraine during this period range from 60,000 upward to 500,000.(*)"--Львівське (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In Ukraine or in Volyn ? I've never heard of 60,000 estimate for the number of Poles killed in Ukraine. --Lysy^talk 08:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with section 3 (UPA & SS)

Can anyone comment on this alleged joint actions of UPA with an SS Galizien detachment ? Was it not marginal ? --Lysy^talk 09:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have issue with this line, as I believe it is both a misquote (possibly in bad faith) and simply not true. Can someone else comment on alleged SS+UPA collaboration/alliance? First I've ever heard of it...--Львівське (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've not heard about his either. I believe this might belong to the "black legend" of the UPA category. It should be either documented with reliable sources or removed. --Lysy^talk 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge there were never any joint actions. The Division was OUNm inspired, UIA was OUNb. They were not known for any joint actions. The division had one Battle at Brody where the division was destroyed before heading to Slovakia. I have heard that apparently a handful joined the UIA after the Brody battle but they apparently deserted because they ealised that they were used as cannon fodder. Non of the books or films I have seen have any such joint action mentrioned. Bandurist (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If we had sources on some sort of joint-op between OUN-M & SS then maybe that could be a section, but erroniously mentioning it in the Polish section puts up big red flags for me. Is this enough consensus to remove?--Львівське (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes. Probably a red herring. --Lysy^talk 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Go ahead and remove.radek (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with section 4 (Solved)

"According to unidentified Ukrainian sources, Polish extremists started to exterminate Ukrainian civilians in some areas west of Western Bug and San rivers in 1942". What are these mysterious sources ? Let's limit this article to documented facts only. And why is this sentence in the article in the first place ? Is it about UPA ? How are the territories west of Bug and San relevant here ? --Lysy^talk 12:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

who says they were unidentified? it's referenced with a legit source, no? As far as relevance, is pretext not needed?--Львівське (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well here, the obvious controversy is with the sentence "It has been documented that Poles began exterminating Ukrainian civilians in some areas west of the Western Bug and San rivers in 1942". The source doesn't say "it has been documented". It says "According to some Ukrainian sources" which sounds a lot more guarded and less definitive. The author seems to be saying that sources which say this exist but is neither acknowledging their veracity nor dismissing them (at least in the portion of the text I struggled through). So "according to unidentified Ukrainian sources" is a lot closer to the source than "it has been documented" which is, frankly, OR.

  Is it original research to call refer to a source as a source? The problem I have with the "according to unidentified ukrainian sources" line is that it almost legitimizes the source itself, like almost saying it's hearsay. Either the source is legitimate or not. If it is...we shouldn't attempt to give weight to it's veracity one way or another. (this of course ties into your 3rd concern)--Львівське (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  We don't even know what these sources are, as Mukovsky does not reveal them. --Lysy^talk 11:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Second, there appears to be something in the text about "extremists" but I can't quite make out whether this is referring to extremist Poles or extremist Ukrainians - what does "українців польськими екстремістами" mean (since this involves word endings and grammar I can't make it out)? For that matter how about getting the whole relevant chunk of text translated? If this is referring to some extremist group perhaps we can make out which one and put that in the article.

  Polish extremists. However, for a delicate topic like this, I'd rather suggest to use published scholarly sources, and not websites. --Lysy^talk 12:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Finally, best as I can make out the source itself seems to be an online magazine of "War History" written for the popular public. On Wiki these sort of sources are in a somewhat gray area when it comes to being considered "reliable". I've seen similar magazines rejected on grounds of reliability before, especially if what they're supposedly saying contradicts or cannot be confirmed by more academic sources. Sometimes though, on articles on esoteric topics where sources are sparse, these kind of sources are tolerated. So overall, this leads me to think that unless some other, more reliable source, can be found to at least partially support the claim, this source should perhaps be removed on RS grounds.radek (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Ditto. --Lysy^talk 12:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• according to the paper by timothy snyder ("causes of polish-ukrainian ethnic cleansing) the following is said: Polish self-defense units acted in kind, took no prisoners nor did they spare unarmed men; Germans recruited 1200 Polish policemen in April 1943 to replace Ukrainian deserters, who then pacified Ukrainian villages; in July 1943, a battalion of Police police was dispatched to pacify Ukr. Villages, named "Schutzmannschaftbataillon 202"; in 1943, 10,000 Ukr. civilians killed by Poles, soviet partisans, & German police.

It appears we no longer have to rely on this questionable source, Snyder verifies the Polish reprisals quite well--Львівське (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2009

I agree, Snyder makes a good source, and unbiased research. Let's refer to Snyder then, instead. --Lysy^talk 12:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the information about Polish (AK) reprisals or Soviet/German collaboration against the UPA should be in a separate sub article, not in the one about the UPA's ethnic cleansing in Volhynia, no? (this is part of my reasoning to expand this section)--Львівське (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to say that it does not belong there. But it should be described somewhere. Maybe in the more general article about PL-UA relations during WW2, as I proposed elsewhere ? --Lysy^talk 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article of itself about PL-UA conflict throughout the entire era of 194#+ should be done. For the UPA article though, it should have all UPA-PL conflict, with this one about Volyn as a sub section to it. No? Surely there was more to UPA and Poles than Volyn and Galicia massacres--Львівське (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, so we can change that to Snyder. It'd be nice to have a break down of those 10,000 killed - what proportion was Soviets, what proportion was Germans and what proportion was Poles.radek (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think info like this should go on the UA-PL entire history article we proposed on the volyn massacres article. If it wasn't Polish vs. UPA then it shouldn't even be here, right?--Львівське (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with photograph

• this website is not a legitimate source. In fact, it has proven propaganda photos on it. Can we get a legit source on this photograph to prove it is real and what it depicts is accurate? --Львівське (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The photograph was apparantly pulled from that website but it actually comes from a book - Władysława Siemaszków, Ludobójstwo, page 1294, from Henryk Słowiński collection - as the image description indicates. Also it does not include "propaganda photos" but rather it includes one photograph which recent research (of which the authors of the website may very well be unaware of) has shown to be misidentified. Big difference.radek (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we verify this collection somehow?--Львівське (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

* I move that the caption below it read (just trying to condense it): "Victims of a massacre committed by the UPA in the village of Lipniki, Poland"--Львівське (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Add ", 1943" and I'm fine with that.radek (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike many others I have seen, the monography of Siemiaszko is considered as a reliable and respectable one, as it is based on detailed research. I have the book at home, so I can verify if the photo is there, if there is a need for that. --Lysy^talk 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So Lysy, you're on board with canning the pic too and using it on the volyn article alone?--Львівське (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does not illustrate UPA. Posting the photos of the victims of any military unit does not make sense. It would be different if we had any UPA soldiers visible in the picture. --Lysy^talk 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the disputed photo with 2 others, one of the UPA marching in Volyn, and another of UPA practicing firing drills in another region of Poland. Should give example to both the importance of volyn, and give a look to other areas where they operated. Hope to add to the text when i have time.--Львівське (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Other

• I move that the title be renamed "UPA and Poles" or something similar, and the the above be made a sub-section. There is more to the UPA/Polish history than simply the Volynian massacres, no?--Львівське (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, while it seems tempting at a fist sight, I would not do this, as we would be risking a dangerous oversimplification and anachromism here. For example the events in Volhynia and operation Wisła both involved Poles, but were completely separate things and shouldn't be mixed too easily. I would rather stick to chronology of the events. There's a very good (and thick) book on the UPA by a Polish author Grzegorz Motyka. Maybe we could use it to structure the article. --Lysy^talk 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agree.Faustian (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  It would be oversimplifcation to say that outside of attacks in Volhynia/Galicia the UPA had no other connection to, or battles with Poles.--Львівське (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Of course but if they are of lesser importance, then we can include them in the relevant sections. We do not want to structure the article into "UPA vs nation_a", "UPA vs nation_b" etc. sections do we ? I would suggest for a historical article to stick to the chronology of the events, and to present how the UPA evolved in time. --Lysy^talk 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're on to something. But there being so much overlap, maybe dividing it against the 3 fronts and keeping those respective sections chronological? (as it is now)--Львівське (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that putting e.g fights against Armia Krajowa and against communist Poland together would be a good idea. These were completely different Poles, in different territories, under different commands and with different goals. Or similarly mixing up Volyn with Wisła could suggest that these were somehow directly connected. --Lysy^talk 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Nothing is inferred, it's just grouped. It's an article about the UPA.--Львівське (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Still, it should not mix things up under a common header. Let's leave it in its own section. --Lysy^talk 08:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read..

"Damning information from the KGB archives about UPA atrocities was circulated in press conferences and published in the popular press. Graphic data on massacres of peaceful citizens, ethnic Poles, and Soviet activists, and the close collaboration with the Nazis, were used to underline the essence of the nationalist movement as alien to the national body.109 In response to pleas by the L'viv regional party committee secretary, the Central Committee in Moscow addressed the issue in a specific decree. The Central Committee went out of its way to prevent the "justification of the crimes of the OUN bands under the guise of criticism of Stalinism." To counter the rehabilitation efforts by a variety of opposition groups in western Ukraine, it ordered the release of archival documentaries on the nationalist atrocities during and after the war, arranged for young people to meet victims of the nationalists, and organized a scholarly conference on the "anti-people" deeds of the OUN-UPA. With the approach of the fiftieth anniversary of the Great Patriotic War, the treacherous nationalists were to be exposed. As long as the Myth of the War was the pillar of the polity's legitimacy, the excision of the nationalist cause was non-negotiable."

Nature, Nurture, and Memory in a Socialist Utopia: Delineating the Soviet Socio-Ethnic Body in the Age of Socialism Author(s): Amir Weiner Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 104, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 1114-1155 Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649563

Also this image may be useful somewhere concerning Ukrainian/Nazi collaboration: thumb|200px|

• “In 1939, Nazi Germany favored Ukrainians in the Generalgouvernement carved from occupied Poland.”

[Ukrainians in the Generalgouvernement: A History of the Ukrainian Central Committee] (Chicago, 1975), 49, 197, 280

--Львівське (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand the following image has a UPA solder stomping both a Soviet and Nazi flags. Bobanni (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

UPA propaganda poster. OUN/UPA formal greetings is written in Ukrainian bold on two horizontal lines Glory to Ukraine (Glory to (her) Heroes)

...on the other hand?--Львівське (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

UPA and Poland

Львівське proposed that a separate "UPA and Poland" section is created. I and Faustian object this idea. Can we discuss (and possibly list) here, which events related to Poland should be mentioned in the article ? Then we would be able to see how to best structure it. --Lysy^talk 05:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about UPA vs. AK? Do we have evidence of this? Also, Polish-Ukrainian fight for Lviv. Was this UPA or OUN-M? --Львівське (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Current name of section is good. There werent many UPA vs AK fights. Usuually UPA attacked defenceless villages with unarmed civilians somtimes UPA fought with polish self defence e.g. Przebraże Defence.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Current name of the section" - which one do you mean ? "The ethnic cleansing of Poles from Volhynia and Galicia" or "UPA and Poland". Mind that ppl reading this talk page in the future may not know which version you're referring to. --Lysy^talk 12:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the other involvement of UPA vs Polish, I'll try to collect some sources and we can then decide if this is notable or not. This will take me several days somehow, I should be able to do this next week. --Lysy^talk 12:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

UPA in Volyn and UPA vs. Poland (meaning in 1945-1946 in the territory of modern Poland) were quite different phenomena. They occurred seperately in time and involved different people (UPA in Poland 1945-1946 were mostly locals who had nothing to do with Volyn massacres, and included OUN-M members). There probably ought to be a section about UPA in Poland and it ought to be seperate from the section about the massacres.Faustian (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure...I guess. Anyway, what about Peremyshl Battalion (Przemyśl) - "On August 16, 1947, commander V. Shchyhelskyi ("Burlaka") divided his unit into seven groups, which were each independently, to break through the encirclement by Czechoslovak troops and made their way into West Germany."....Czechoslovak troops? I knew I wasn't crazy when I put the Czech flag in the infobox!

"not all of them made it to West Germany. Some groups were destroyed, or were captured by the Czechoslovak Communists, and later handed over to the Polish People's Republic."

"In the Krivan Mountains in Slovakia, Shchyhelskyi's unit was encircled by about 10,000 Czechoslovak troops. The Vah River and the mountainous terrain were assets to the enemy. It was not possible for the UPA unit to break through this encirclement. The author describes this situation, the manoeuvres made by his unit, the skirmishes that frequently took place with the Czechoslovak army"

Also, seems to me that Polish troops vs. UPA during Operation Vistula should have a section, no?--Львівське (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, during and before Operation Wisła (which was the direct result of these fights). BTW: I think we should not translate names of military operations into English. I also agree with Faustian, that these (Volyn, and "Wisła") are completely different events and should not be grouped together. --Lysy^talk 08:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UPA in Lviv & Yaroslav here; " Polish army units in the Zakerzonnia region "http://www.infoukes.com/upa/series01/sum31.htmlЛьвівське (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The photo of UPA victims

Why do we want the picture of Polish UPA victims in this article ? What do we want to illustrate ? --Lysy^talk 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been me vs. Pawel on this for a while...--Львівське (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have any argument for keeping this picture, explaining what is its purpose here, I think it should be removed from the article. --Lysy^talk 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is UPA victims photo. This is related with this section. Please dont remove.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this is a photo of UPA victims. What I'm wondering is why do we want to have this photo in the article. What do we want to illustrate with it  ? --Lysy^talk 10:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably "The ethnic cleansing of Poles from Volhynia and Galicia" - can you check on the photo in the Szymanski book and see if these are Polish victims?radek (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UPA its not only nice photos with guns, and propaganda posters. Its photos of UPA victims as well. Like Einsatzgruppen--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but then it should be a picture of UPA, not the victims. Take a look at Einsatzgruppen or SS-Totenkopfverbände, there are always photos of members of the units. So my question again is why do you insist on having the photos of the victims bodies in this article. Please explain this. --Lysy^talk 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Becouse its evidence of UPA crimes. Sorry I dont think any man could took a photo shot during UPA massacre.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time, we had such evidence, it turned out to be a pre-war photo of children killed by her mother. The facts that the UPA committed the murder is already described in the article. It has to be supported with secondary sources, not with "evidence" photos, as this would be a blatant original research. To put this in other words, why don't we put photos of murdered Jews in the Nazism article ? Because we have the Holocaust article for that. --Lysy^talk 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo matches to this section. This section is about massacres of Poles, and this photo shows Massacre. It must be here.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but I'm trying to discuss the reasons. Normally, we illustrate articles about military units or organizations with the photos depicting leaders or members of these units, not the people killed by them. Why should this article be different ? --Lysy^talk 09:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are dead on correct in this statement. That said, I just found a picture of UPA units in Volyn...no brainer to use it here?--Львівське (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional photos

There's a lot of great photos on the other language wiki's on the UPA. I'm not sure how to link to an image on another wiki though, so help? Here are a few that I think should be included in this article.

• this (crop and adjust, just use the poster image)
• area of operations
• UPA soldiers, no brainer to use
• great propaganda illustration
• and another
• currently (OUN but depicts UPA soldiers
• unsure what to classify as
• more currency of UPA (interesting note, but the lower picture of a soldier w/ trenchcoat in front of stone is used a lot in ukrainian cemeteries here in canada for UPA vets)--Львівське (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If they're on Wiki commons you can just link to it in the usual manner. Otherwise you might have to download them from those pages, and re-upload them to English Wiki or Wiki commons, assuming that the copyrights are fine.radek (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is a gallery a good idea? I just stumbled upon a slew of additional pictures, not sure where to put them at the moment --Львівське (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we try to select them together ? Mind the copyright issues. --Lysy^talk 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm?

Aftermath

I wonder if this section, solely with the quote from John Armstrong should be there ? He claims that the UPA activities (1944-1945) lasted much longer than the Hungarian revolt. But we know that e.g. Lithuanian resistance lasted much longer. This may be appropriate maybe for an academic discussion, but do you think such opinions should be included in an encyclopedic article ? --Lysy^talk 10:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of Aftermath section would be good. But you're right and additionally generally Wiki discourages the use of long quotes. Also the quote isn't really about the "Aftermath" but rather "Significance" or something like that. So the section should be there, but not that the present material.radek (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What should be there, then ? --Lysy^talk 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Brutal and cruel

Certain editors insist on removing the word "brutal" from the description of the mass killings of Polish civilians by the UPA in Volhynia. The extreme brutality of the murder, where thousands of victims were tortured to death, often in front of their families, who usually shared the same fate, is the crucial element to characterize the UPA actions. The only reason why certain editors insist on hiding this aspect of the UPA's history seems to me to be an attempt to whitewash its crimes. What we should be doing here instead, is to present an objective image of the organisation, together with all the bright and dark spots on its history. So, if anyone wishes to hide the UPA's unprecedented brutality in the article, please take some time to explain your reasons in the talk page first. --Lysy^talk 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic nor academic tone. Period. Galassi has already told you this. It's a superfluous statement aimed and giving a biased, weighted view on what happened. Let's stick to the facts, not over the top adjectives.--Львівське (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The extreme brutality and tortures are the key elements in characterizing these events. They are well known and documented facts. What is "not encyclopedic" in this other than an attempt to hide it in order to whitewash the UPA ? --Lysy^talk 10:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The facts are: UPA was brutal and cruel. One of thousands relations sources. Bronisława Murawska-Żygadło - eyewittnes: Nie pamiętam już, ile czasu minęło, nim odważyłam się powrócić na swoje podwórze. Przed progiem domu ujrzałam leżącego w kałuży krwi mego ojca, nieco dalej leżał zmasakrowany braciszek Adaś, pod oknem na podwórzu spoczywało na ziemi ciałko dwuletniej Basi skłute bagnetem lub nożem. W sąsiedniej zagrodzie u stryja Aleksandra leżała martwa moja mama, miała zupełnie pociętą głowę. Nieco dalej na tym samym podwórzu zobaczyłam martwą babcię Bronisławę – matkę mego ojca, zmasakrowane zwłoki stryja Aleksandra i jego dwóch córeczek w wieku 7 i 9 lat. Widząc po raz pierwszy trupy, i to najbliższych mi osób, poczułam w głowie zamęt i chaos. Ogarnęła mnie dziwna apatia, drętwota myśli i ciała. Nie wiem, ile to trwało. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know and I don't think anyone denies the cruelty of UPA (or maybe rather Ukrainian peasant neighbours or in fact both). The victims were routinely killed in a cruel way, and often tortured before being killed. We don't really need to go into the details here, this has been thoroughly documented by many eyewitness relations. What I'm worried about is why would we want to hide this in the article - I don't expect any detailed description as this is not the right place to do this, but merely acknowledging the fact that the murders were extremely cruel. --Lysy^talk 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a matter of context, the sub topic at hand, and repetitive use. --Львівське (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, eyewitness accounts for such events as brutal mass executions, while important, cannot be considered encyclopedic in this situation for the following reasons: first, such a traumatic event will not imprint facts into the memory, but rather emotions will always prevail - as anybody who has ever been victim of even a street mugging will attest (that's why any 7-11 clerk who is robbed will be taken aside and interrogated by police separately from the crime scene); second, the KGB and other soviet partisan units entered Poland and Ukraine disguised as UPA with the sole purpose of carrying out such atrocities with extreme prejudice to highlight the hatred between Ukrainians and Poles. Now, please do not take this as a statement that members of the UPA did not do bad things. However, it was not UPA policy to kill civilians in any way. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, there was never an official, formal policy for the Final Solution either.--Львівське (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Wannsee Conference Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pany i Rezuny

"Pany i rezuny" - an interesting book by two Polish historians, Motyka and Wnuk, about AK - UPA cooperation after 1945. Already in 1944 AK issued a memorandum to UPA calling to cease the hostilities. In 1945 a collaboration agreement was signed between AK and UPA, and in 1945-47 AK provided UPA with food, equipment, supplies, housing and medical support and UPA provided intelligence reports and declared its readiness to support AK militarily. Until spring 1947 several joint actions were carried out. --Lysy^talk 11:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the title mean? Horlo (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Masters and pl:Rezun = ukr. Різун, the butcher. This book is out of date, now Motyka have changed his view at many circumstances.--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Horlo (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Hello,

Could somebody please show what parts of the article need cleanup to meet WP standards? I would be glad to bring them up to snuff.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

If there are no objections, I will remove the "cleanup" tag from the article.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Really, if there are no objections, I will remove the tag. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Horlo (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Hello,

Could somebody please explain which parts of the article are not neutral, so that we can work to improve it?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the Neutrality tag

Hello,

Please help improve the article by explaining specifically why it does not meet Wikipedia neutrality guidelines.

If there are no suggestions, please allow me to remove the tag.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the tag. Horlo (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Wow, I actually didn't notice how patient you were being here. Rare to see on Wikipedia these days.radek (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Operations in Poland

there should be a section detailing all operations undertaken in poland, against the AK, partisans, the ethnic cleansing, everything. It shouldn't be pigeon holed to to be just a link to the MinVG article.--Львівське (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AK? What actions against AK? AK didnt exist since the begining of 1945. Main UPA operation was the ethnic cleansing--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

so you're saying we should only mention "main" and censor everything else to support the polish POV?

The following need to be added:

• Operation Tempest
• 27th Home Army Infantry Division (Poland)
• The Home_Army page goes into some detail on AK/UPA
• Armia Ludowa (as mentioned in the intro paragraph) " the Polish communist army — the Armia Ludowa — was massively attacked by the UPA."

--Львівське (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Tempest had nothing similiar to UPA, it was action against Germans. We can add informations about few UPA vs 27th Home Army fights. And later with AL. But in this situation section about Massacres of Poles have to be rebuilt and we should add many more facts - UPA orders to kill, some descriptions of massacres. --Paweł5586 (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving the massacres its own chapter over all other actions in poland is blatant POV pushing and undue weight--Львівське (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we should have a section: "Operations in Poland" and subsection: "Ethnic cleansing of Poles"/Massacres of Poles.--Hedviberit (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what it is right now? (well, it has the main article heading, since there are no other subs yet I figured it would be redundant until the section expands. Either way--Львівське (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't redundant. We can't wait until the section expands. Please stop removing the picture - there was a consensus about it. This photo is proper illustration of ethnic cleansing, much better than marching UPA soldiers.--Hedviberit (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was never consensus to use it, just on the caption. I have no problem with there being a sub on the massacres, just not pretending to be the entirety of polish action--Львівське (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First prepare text in private then change anything it will be better.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR on this article

See an earlier posting about the #1RR restriction on this article (one revert per editor per day). Lvivske, since this has been a hotly-contested article, try not to use the word vandalism in your edit summaries. If you can't solve a dispute, open a WP:Request for comment or, if only two editors are involved, ask for a WP:Third opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some people have already reverted twice on October 22. Please work this out immediately and revert yourself as needed to avoid sanctions. You are all experienced contributors and there is no reason to let this article descend into chaos or get sent to the admin boards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if we start an e-mail list to prevent 1RR's Ed? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have one already?:)--Jacurek (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It cant be that some people remove text with sources, its vandalism. Same thing is with the section name. Section about Massacres of Poles cant be named as Massacres in Western Ukraine or else.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Pawel deleted sourced photo of UPA in Poland because it went against the view that UPA was only in Volyn/Galicia....that's vandalism, or at the very least, bad faith--Львівське (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

UPA-Poles sect. ROUND 2

Massacre of Poles in Galicia–Volhynia

Current agreed upon version

Main article: Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

Beginning in 1943, the UPA adopted a policy of massacring and expelling the Polish population of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. The ethnic cleansing operation against the ethnic Polish population began on a large scale in March of that year and lasted until the end of 1944. In Volhynia, deadly acts of aggression, including the mass murder of Poles, occurred throughout 1943 before spreading to eastern Galicia in early 1944.

File:UPAarchive3.jpg

UPA soldiers training in Kałuszyn, Poland

In addition to the UPA, Ukrainian peasants also participated in the violence, and large groups of armed marauders, unaffiliated with UPA, brutalized civilians. Because of this, the exact number of Poles killed specifically by UPA is unknown. Estimates of the number of Polish casualties in Ukraine during this period range upward from 60,000.

---

Okay, since this turned into a shitshow again, let's ALL talk this out before making wild and crazy additions to this and turn it into biased tripe again.

What problem do you guys have with the pictures? They depict the topic EXACTLY. The photo of corpses doesn't belong on the UPA page, just as you don't see photos of nameless dead bodies on the Wehrmacht page either, or dead Iraqis on the Marines page, etc.

Below is what was on the page before I cleaned it off. I've bold/underlined all wildness.--Львівське (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Recent revision

The UPA's ethnic cleansing operations against the ethnic Polish population began on a large scale in March 1943 and lasted until the end of 1944. In Volhynia, known at the time as the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939), deadly acts of aggression, including the mass murder of Poles, occurred throughout 1943 before spreading to eastern Galicia in early 1944. In June 1943,Dmytro Klyachkivsky head-commander of UPA-North made a general decision to exterminate Poles in Volhynia. July 11, 1943, is regarded as one of the bloodiest days of the massacres, with many reports of UPA units marching from village to village, killing Polish civilians. On that day, UPA units surrounded and attacked Polish villages and settlements located in three counties –Kowel, Horochow, and Włodzimierz Wołyński. The atrocities were perpetrated with utmost cruelty. The victims, regardless of their age or gender, were routinely tortured to death.

In August 1943, during III OUN Convention Roman Shukhevych accepted "Volhynia stategy" (ethnic cleansing) against Poles realised by Dmytro Klyachkivsky. As the Supreme Commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army he continued anti-Polish action in Eastern Lesser Poland (Eastern Galicia). In April 1944, main Command of UIA ordered massive ethnic cleansing of Poles from Galicia. In late 1943 and early 1944, after most Poles of Volhynia had either been murdered or had fled the area, the conflict spread to the neighboring province of Galicia. Unlike in the case of Volhynia, where Polish villages were usually destroyed and their inhabitants murdered without warning, in east Galicia Poles were sometimes given the choice of fleeingor being killed.

The methods used by Ukrainian nationalists in this area, however, were the same, and consisted of killing all of the Polish residents of the villages, then pillaging the villages and burning them to the ground. By the end of summer 1944, mass acts of terror aimed at Poles were taking place in Eastern Galicia with the purpose of forcing Poles to settle on the western bank of theSan river, under the slogan "Poles behind the San".

In addition to the UPA, Ukrainian peasants also participated in the violence, and large groups of armed marauders, unaffiliated with UPA, brutalized civilians. Because of this, the exact number of Poles killed specifically by UPA is unknown. Estimates of the number of Polish casualties in Volhynia are estimated to be over 50,000. Total number of UPA victims in Volhynia, Galicia and current Poland are range from 80,000 to 100,000.

Fact Checking

1. "In June 1943,Dmytro Klyachkivsky head-commander of UPA-North made a general decision to exterminate Poles in Volhynia"

2. "July 11, 1943, is regarded as one of the bloodiest days of the massacres, with many reports of UPA units marching from village to village, killing Polish civilians."

3. "units surrounded and attacked Polish villages and settlements located in three counties –Kowel, Horochow, andWłodzimierz Wołyński." / " victims, regardless of their age or gender, were routinely tortured to death"

4. " August 1943, during III OUN Convention Roman Shukhevych accepted "Volhynia stategy"

5. 1944, spread to Galicia?

6. "slogan "Poles behind the San""

7. Total Polish casualties by UPA = 80-100k?

Confirmed Facts to be added

• July 11 1943, UPA attacked 167 localities, killed perhaps 10,000 Poles (re: Snyder, Causes) --Львівське (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• UPA commanders refer to Poles as "servants of German and Russian imperialism" (re: Snyder, Causes)--Львівське (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Officers refer to Volyn massacres officially as "the Polish action" and Poles as 'the Polish problem' (re: Snyder, Causes)--Львівське (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• UPA, 1943, killed about 50k Poles (re: Snyder, Causes)--Львівське (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  "conflict between Ukrainian and Polish nationalists resulted in the deaths of between 60,000 and 80,000 Poles in the years between 1939 and 1944" (Irmgard Hein Ellingson --Львівське (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  "approximately 50,000 to 100,000 Poles and Ukrainians were murdered and approximately 1.5 million Ukrainians and Poles were forced to leave their homes between 1943 and 1947" (re: Snyder, To Resolve...) --Львівське (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• April 1943, Mykola Lebed proposed "to cleanse the entire revolutionary territory of the Polish population" (re: Snyder, Causes) --Львівське (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• " the fog of war denied Poles and Ukrainians time to understand each other's positions, and provided plenty of pretexts and opportunities to Poles and Ukrainians who were willing to escalate the conflict. In particular, war made it much easier to conflate the actions of particular groups with the intentions of entire nations." (re: Snyder, To Resolve...) --Львівське (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Motyka is now the ultimate imparticla source for this operation? Puh-leez.--Львівське (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: I think including the range in terms of number of victims is acceptable. The pictures you added are good but probably belong in a different section, as they don't pertain to the massacres. A picture of victims in the section devoted to the massacres doesn't seem grossly inappropriate to me, though it doesn't have to be here because there is a main article for that. I agree with you that the language ought to be toned down.Faustian (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the pictures work in the scope of the overarching topic, that is UPA in Poland, but if we could find a picture of UPA soldiers taking part in the massacres, or possibly a propaganda poster related to it, that would be infinitely better than a pile of random dead bodies.--Львівське (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if those particular soldiers in the pictures massacred anyone. Putting those images there makes it look as if they are on their way to or from a massacre. Also, the massacres in Volyn and the UPA struggle in Poland were different events and, from the Ukrainian side, had different participants (according to Snyder, UPA in what is now Poland consisted of local Ukrainians who had nothing to do with Volyn massacres) so the pictures you added, while perfect for this article, don't belong in that section.Faustian (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Photo must include UPA + massacre, and not just UPA, and not just the massacred. Regarding UPA in Poland, have you read any good journals or books regarding operations not related to the massacres there? I'm going to be in the library for a while tomorrow, insanely huge Ukrainian section here so should have just about everything.--Львівське (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations has a lot written about that. Massacres were not a prominant feature of UPA's activities in Poland so unless it's Nortom garbage things written about what was happening in Poland are not going to be centered on massacres. Basically UPA was struggling to prevent the deportation of ethnic Ukrainians by getting into fights with Polish security forces, sabatoging railroads that could take people, destroying records (so the authorities could not identify who was Ukrainians and who Polish thus making it more difficult to identify Ukrainians and deport them), and destroying an occasional Polish villagein retaliation for Ukrainian villages being destroyed. Unlike in Volyn, destruction of Polish villages in Poland by UPA was retaliatory and on a much smaller scale - it wasn't a priority (unlike in Volyn).Faustian (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I had no idea! I guess this underlines the need to have this section elaborated on, as the undue weight to the massacres has given me the wrong impression, nevermind the casual reader.--Львівське (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Faustian on this one.--Jacurek (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the title(s), how should we approach this? I think we should have an overarching title to encompass everything that happened in Poland with the UPA, and obviously a section on the ethnic cleansing operation. Bandurist recently changed the main title to "UPA Polish relations", and I don't think that fits the purpose of a broader title, but rather their relations is more of a sub. No? And for massacres...have any of you guys found an official name for the operation itself yet? Just like "the Final Solution" is called what it is, and not "killing of jews in germany and poland"--Львівське (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing text with sources. Motyka is good and reliable source.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You know damn well the issue with the Motyka text, bot the source and the biased prose you inserted.--Львівське (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What issue with the Motyka text? I Poland Motyka is recognized as pro-Ukrainian historian. If u want I can re-write this paragraphes using Filar, Siemaszko, Kulińska and other. Stop reverting--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already clearly bold/highlighted the problem areas. Are there certain facts that you feel need to be inserted into the section? Say which and we can insert them using proper prose and following wiki guidelines.--Львівське (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not we can just blank the important referenced information about the massacres/ Whether we want it or not but for many Poles UPA is primarily notable as the main perpetrator of the massacres against them. Motyka and other Polish historians might be biased. If there are any notable sources showing UPA in different light "e.g. that the massacres were spontaneous and UPA leaders had not ordered it then the other view should be there but we cannot just blank the sourced info. I have restored deletion and propose to find sources supporting pro-UPA views rather than to blank anti-UPA sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's showing an extremist side and is not presented in encyclopedic tone. We should collaborate on here to add more, as we agreed upon the last version before Pawel decided he was above the process. This is the only part of the article under fire, we should work together to get accurate information in there, not allow 1 person to slap propaganda in there with a disputable source.--Львівське (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The tone can be made more encyclopedic as well as biased information can be attributed and balanced by information from the other side (I guess modern Ukrainian scolarship could provide plenty of academic research sympathetic to UPA). What is not acceptable is to censure referenced info Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire piece needs to be rewritten from scratch as its just a poor translation at best. Take the cited facts, put them here, and put them in properly. It shouldn't be my burden to have to clean up every mess Pawel makes when he finds his propaganda. Look at the above discussion prior to this one concerning this section, he blatantly put the same text back that was agreed upon to remove.--Львівське (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Motyka is a reliable source. Lots of his work has involved debunking the wild claims of nationalist writers like Prus and propagandists like Gerhard and others. Having said that I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask Pawel to provide quotations from the text he is using (in Polish) to verify claims being made (I don't have that particular Motyka book).radek (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to have english/western sources to back it up. The 80-100k claim is in conflict with major scholars who say 50-60k. Pawel even changed the original Snyder quote. Snyder states 106k Poles+Ukrainians died during that period, but not by UPA directly, just as a result of the war on all fronts during this time period.--Львівське (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

50-60k is the number of Poles killed by UPA in Volhynia. According to Snyder, In 1943 alone, UPA killed 40,000-60,000 Polish civilians in Volhynia, the number of Polish victims of ethnic cleansing in Galicia in 1944 is estimated at about 25,000. (The reconstructions, pp. 170, 176). Please note that Motyka's estimates are for years 1943-1947. While writing about the number of Polish victims, Snyder uses phrase: "UPA killed" - so there is no doubt to whom the murders should be ascribed.--Hedviberit (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking in a different Motyka book I do have (W Kregu "Lun w Bieszczadach" - mostly about anti-Ukrainian propaganda in communist Poland) I assume the sentence "In August 1943, during III OUN Convention Roman Shukhevych accepted "Volhynia stategy" (ethnic cleansing) against Poles" (which does sound like a clumsy translation) is related to statements made by Shukhevych at a conference of UPA leaders in 1944 (later one) which talked about the "liquidation of Polish population in Volhynia" - but also stressed the fact that in Galicia "the command of UPA ordered the expulsion of Poles if they were unwilling to leave voluntarily" (my emphasis). What happened in Volhynia and what happened in Galicia were two different things.radek (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest we have Volyn, Galicia, and Poland as 3 separate sub-sections?--Львівське (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to split the Ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia and Galicia section into two. A distinction in the text between what happened in Volhynia and in Galicia should be made - right now, it isn't.radek (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, in the paragraph right after following the one I refer to above Motyka lays the blame on 1) the policies of the interwar Polish government, 2) the nationalist ideology of OUN-B, 3) the terror and bestiality of both occupying forces; Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. So basically, everyone. Then he goes on to say some very positive things about Taras Bulba-Borovets. After that, next paragraph is about "bloody Polish reprisal actions".radek (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading a Burds article right now that has a primary source recount from the Polish side talking about the reprisals, definately would help the UKRvPOL WW2 article. In the Snyder article, it talks about how though Ukr deaths weren't as much, its what lead so many to join the partisan movement. Maybe mention reprisals and how it perpetuated the cycle of revenge on both sides...motive is necessary pretext for the sheer of volume of killings that took place--Львівське (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please read up on vandalism in Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Vandalism - reverting edits labelled as vandalism in edit summary will be reverted. Bobanni (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is any mistake in Motyka text? Is something wrong? Maybe I would provide more sources.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Motyka, p. 148" isn't a source, you don't even provide proper referencing, just the guys name. --Львівське (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So ask for pages, byt dont remove. I will provide today.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided pages. Stop removing its vandalism.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You inserting disputed, biased, bad faith text/images is more vandalism than me reverting to the group-agreed version.--Львівське (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, please re-read WP:NOTVAND and stop reverting good faith edits with summaries like rvv. It is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Inborn nature or a result of propaganda?

I quite understand why an UPA enthusiast will not like the citations from Grzegorz Motyka and Norman Davies. Still I fail to understand why do you hate so much the Ukrainian population of Volhynia and Galicia? Stressing the untrue condemnation that Ukrainian peasants also participated in the violence... is simply defamation of Ukrainian neighbours of the victims. Not only from books, but also from my family members' accounts I know many cases of Ukrainians suffering and even loosing their lives because of helping victims of UPA. Trying to suggest that pillages and killings in 80 Polish villages simultaneously is something like spontaneous action of neighbours is simply a dirty slander against Ukrainians made by UPA fanatics. Rembecki (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Actually the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and other sources confirm that villagers participated in the massacres.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate users using biased propaganda literature as a "legitimate" source to smear war veterans. That's my issue. You know very well that Motyka isn't a legitimate impartial source, his wiki page on here was made by the same people who have been committing the destruction of this article (pawel, piotrus, etc.) --Львівське (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Motyka may be biased but he is certainly a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a conflict between presenting biased information and presenting reliable information? The information becomes compromised.--Львівське (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to read some critical work - a list of Motyka's errors. Returning to the second issue: I simply would not like to believe that there exist a nation, that was able to commit outrageous crimes on their neighbours, even if such a noble organisation as UPA was trying to moderate them, as you suggest. I do not believe that any nation is a nation of born murderers - people simply get deceived by dangerous doctrines. And XX century's right of nations to self-determination was one of them. Rembecki (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

All sources about UPA crimes are biased for Lvivskie, Faustian, Bobanni, Gallasi. Patriotism means for them denying massacres. I suggest you to find another "heroes". UPA for sure isnt deserve for this tittle.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just facts, there are no sources about UPA crimes which not would be recognized as "biased" by you. Even Motyka now.--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from dishonesty and personal attacks. I did not state that Motyka was biased. Nor did I ever state that Snyder or Burds were biased, and you know that because we have both been involved on these topics for a long time. This is just part of your longstanding pattern of abuse of other editors.Faustian (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You said Motyka may be biased. Stop playing games. The truth is simply, UPA made ethnic cleansing of Poles from Volhynia and Galicia. Klaczkowskyj and Szuchewycz ordered attacks on Poles. There is nothing biased and untrue in this text. Stop removing this.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not read enough by him to know whether or not he is biased. But I do know he is a reliable source. That is why I wrote, "Motyka may be biased but he is certainly a reliable source." Please stop lying about me and stop being abusive.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrific Article

"To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943-1947

Snyder's point in this article is to demonstrate between both sides the "contradictory accounts of what happened and why." Pretty much exactly what we need for this article. I recommend those working on this page to check it out.--Львівське (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

quotes: " UPA leaders [End Page 94] apparently assumed that the Second World War would end with the exhaustion of both Germany and Russia and that Ukraine's final enemy would be a resurrected Poland unwilling to abandon its eastern lands. Accordingly, Ukrainians believed they had to strike during the war, before a revived Poland could transfer forces and settlers from central Poland. 13 The temptation for preemptive action was heightened by expectations of a Polish offensive."

• Different ideas of legitimacy - Polish: political-legal idea, Ukrainian: majoritarian-ethnographic idea.--Hedviberit (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

" As early as 1941, the Poles understood that a future rebellion against German power would involve a war against Ukrainians for Eastern Galicia and probably Volhynia as well, and they wanted to achieve a quick "armed occupation." 15 The plans of the Armia Krajowa for a rebellion, as formulated in 1942, anticipated a war with Ukrainians for the ethnographically Ukrainian territories that fell within Poland's prewar boundaries. 16 By 1942, the formation of sizable Polish partisan units in the east could not but remind Ukrainians of Polish territorial claims. "

"the first reaction of the AK was to attempt to cooperate with Ukrainian nationalists to prevent anarchy" Don't forget that:

• "Ukrainian cooperation with Nazi Germany had discredited Ukrainian partisans as potential allies to Poles;[17]"

• "The advent of the UPA and its attacks on Polish civilians (1943-1944) killed any spirit of compromise on the Polish side: although..."

"In the minds of many patriotic West Ukrainians, this Polish presence was an illegitimate occupation, symbolized most powerfully by "colonies" (the official term) of Polish settlers established in the 1920s and 1930s. "

• the Polish enemy was represented by very large numbers of civilians: dominating Lwów and other cities. The OUN (and thus the UPA) accepted a totalistic form of integral nationalism, according to which Ukrainian freedom required ethnic homogeneity. The Polish enemy could therefore only be defeated by the removal of Poles from Ukrainians lands.[23]

"March 1943 by five thousand Ukrainian policemen to abandon the German-backed regions and form guerrilla units in the Volhynian forests. The Ukrainian partisans threatened to liquidate Polish villages if the Poles took over the posts that the Ukrainians had just relinquished. 25 Making good on this threat, they eliminated entire villages in April 1943 on grounds of Polish collaboration. 26 (This induced the Poles to form self-defense units, and thus to ask the Germans for arms, which confirmed Ukrainian suspicions of Polish collaboration, and so prompted further attacks.)"

• "Although Volhynian Polish participation in the German police, Soviet partisant armies, and the Home Army followed the UPA atrocities, it nevertheless furnished the UPA with useful sources of propaganda." (The reconstruction, p. 174)

• "That said, the auxiliary police remained heavily Ukrainian despite the desertions of March and April, and Ukrainian policemen in the German service continued the pacifications of villages (often Polish) suspected of sheltering Soviet partisans." (Causes, 224)

• "While Ukrainian nationalists in Volhynia were threatening Poles with death for collaboration, in May 1943 Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Galicia were joining (despite official OUN-Bandera opposition) the new Waffen-SS Division "Galizien."

"It is as yet unproven, but certainly plausible, that the murderous violence unleashed against Poles was meant to be general." (For corroborating evidence, see Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces, and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 1998), pp. 246-247.)

• "the cleansing of Volhynia was a coordinated action on a massive scale." (The reconstructions). "By February 1943 the OUN appears to have initiated a policy of murdering Polish civilians as a means of resolving Polish question in Ukraine".

• "the policy of liquidating Poles proved popular within the UPA, and found support among (often land-starved) Ukrainian peasants in Volhynia.[28]"

"Polish partisans of all political stripes attacked the UPA, assassinated prominent Ukrainian civilians, and burned Ukrainian villages"

• "Although local Polish units would take matters into their own hands, there is no evidence that the Polish government contemplated a policy of general revenge against Ukrainian civilians."

" In January 1944, the AK formed the 27th Infantry Division of Volhynia, consisting of 6,558 troops who were supposed to engage the UPA and then the Wehrmacht."

• "Absent the UPA's ethnic cleansing, the division would never have arisen." ("The reconstruction, p. 174)

"Throughout the spring of 1944, the AK and UPA battled intermittently for control of Eastern Galicia and its crown jewel, Lviv. The UPA attacked Polish civilians, but Polish preparations and Ukrainian warnings limited the deaths to perhaps ten thousand. "

" The UPA's activity in Poland ceased on 17 September 1947, when OUN commander Jaroslav Starukh perished in his bunker. 89 With Starukh dead, UPA commander Miroslav Onyshkevich released his soldiers from their oaths. "

" the Polish army's attacks on the UPA slowed in the winter of 1947 because soldiers were busy falsifying the results of parliamentary elections"

This article has been used in the Volhynia Massacres article and I recently used it in my Stanislaw Radkiewicz article (which could use an expansion on his role in planning Operation Wisla).radek (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it OK if I protect the article for a week or two, so you could handle the dispute on the talk page rather than revert? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute, just a small miscommunication. We're on the same page now.--Львівське (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think protection is needed at this point. Just the regular BRD converging towards some kind of consensus.radek (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. lets give it a try. Just make sure that the BRD cycle would not get anybody blocked for edit warring. The line separating the things is thin.Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Galicia

The problems with this section are not going to be resolved until first it's split into two - the massacres in Volhynia and the expulsions in Galicia. Part of the problem is that all the reverts that are being made contain a mix of both legit, reliably sourced info, as well as a good bit of POV (not to mention style problems). So each revert is half bad/half good. Basically the whole section should be re-organized. The style problems include the fact that the same thing (massacres in Volynia) is being repeated three or four different times.radek (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I wanted to go to the barebone version I have above, and add as seen fit. Pawel's mashup is just too confusing and needs to be rewritten/organized from scratch, but at least as it is now it kinda makes sense. I agree Volyn and Galicia should be separate.--Львівське (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by: massacres vs expulsions. The order from the UPA high command could have been different (can be noted in the article), but the execution of it - often conducted in similar way. Other factors that limited the number of Polish civilian deaths were: demographic balance more favourable to Poles, better Polish self-defence, mobilization of home Army Units. Nevertheless, UPA killed 25 thousand Polish civilians in Galicia. As Snyder writes: In 1943 in Volhynia, UPA practice seems to have been to attack villages and murder population without warning: in Galicia in 1944 the UPA seems to have sometimes presented Polish families with a choice of flight or death... UPA attacks on civilians in Galicia well still organized, and still brutal. As in Volhynia, UPA units often killed every inhabitant of a village, not sparing women and children. The UPA's security forces roamed the countryside, killing the Polish families and individuals.(cited from: [40], p. 176) The choice between genocide and ethnic cleansing would be understandable, but the phrase "massacres of Poles" describes events in both areas where ethnic cleansing/"expulsion" took place. How to treat this? --Hedviberit (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the factors you list; demographics etc. may very well have been the reason for the difference in what happened in Volhynia and in Galicia, but the difference in what happened still exists. But certainly, Snyder's assessment should be included. It's actually a bit more complicated too - Eastern Galicia where I think it was more like Volhynia, and Western Galicia where they were mostly expulsions (and where more Ukrainians died in the fighting then Poles).radek (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC):

I agree that the differentiation between Eastern and Western Galicia should be made. Most of Ukrainian victims were indeed killed in the area of present day Poland and the situation in Eastern Galicia resembles more that in Volhynia. As far as I remember, Motyka estimates the number of Ukrainian victims in Eastern Galicia at 1-5 thousand (but he notes that it is probably closer to one thousand).

My stance on this remains to identify the entire situation as "ethnic cleansing" as it encompasses the entire operation, whereas "massacres" focuses on one (though largely frequent) aspect of what happened. Best solution would be to call it what the UPA called the operation officially, Pawel quoted the phrase "Volhynia strategy" but I'm not sure how good that translation is considering his track record.--Львівське (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was well known, widely used name for this action (like e.g. akcja "Wisła", action "Vistula"), possibly encompassing what happened in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, then we should use it. But I think most scholars either write about "ethnic cleansing" or "massacres", some are of opinion that it was genocide.--Hedviberit (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

date active?

the article says 1943-49, but the tombstones on the pic at the bottom, as well as the pic of a monument i'm about to upload say 1942-1952. can someone clarify? --Львівське (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

LMAO

This is an unbelievable edit: [41]. Apart from the fact that the article does not talk about the 1940s, I find it hilarious that Faustian believes that what Romerstein presents as a bunch of Soviet propaganda claims about anti-Soviet Ukrainian insurgents and Zionists are taken as evidence of some tangible reality when the author of the cited article refers to them as propaganda. The author doesn't claim anything like what you are propounding – that

"The UPA's cooperation with Jews was extensive enough that, according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA, some Soviet propaganda works complained about Zionist membership in UPA."

He simply asserts that Soviet propaganda at the time made the link between Jewish nationalists and Urkainian nationalists: ie, what the guy is saying is that the Soviets said that the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents were working with the Zionists, and he is saying it as part of an overview of Soviet propagandistic campaigns aimed to damage the nationalists, without suggesting we take anything away from it, as your formulation would have. Well – what other items of Stalinist propaganda are you going to cite as evidence, Faustian? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You ought to read more carefully before laughing. The author wrote, "The horrors inflicted by both the Nazis and communists brought Ukrainians and Jews together. Jews participated in the UPA as well as other anti-communist and anti-Nazi units" and THEN added the other stuff I quoted above. So the author wrote that UPA and Jews worked together, and then stated that Soviet propagandists complained that Zionists were in UPA. Got it?Faustian (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You added "The UPA's cooperation with Jews was extensive enough that, according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA, some Soviet propaganda works complained about Zionist membership in UPA." Please show me where this author (a member of the House of Un-American Activities Committee, but I'll leave that aside) says that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army worked with the Jews extensively enough to prompt claims that the UPA was collaborating with Zionists. What we have in the source is the statement that some Jews fought in the UPA and that Soviet propaganda claimed that the UPA was collaborating with the Zionists. We already know that there were Jews in the UPA, so if that is the point of the insertion, it is redundant. If the point is to claim that Zionists collaborated with the UPA, then all you have are propaganda claims. If you want to insinuate that the significance of some Jews' participation int he UPA prompted Soviet "propaganda complaints" – which seems to be what the formulation is doing – it is an original interpretation because the article you are citing revolves around Soviet attempts to discredit various nationalist groups through propaganda. Since the author of the article does not make any connection between the extensiveness of such collaboration and its reflection in Stalinist propaganda – an instrument so far from reality that it accused a number of Stalin's opponents, Jewish communists, of being Nazi spies in the 1930s – you are doing WP:OR. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right about OR. My mistake, I'll reword it.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Soviet Union uber-jew-friendly? The entire thing was controlled by em--Львівске (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're writing this tongue-in-cheek? Jews played a significant role during the Revolution but under Stalin the USSR became rather antisemitic. Credible evidence suggests that on the eve of his death Stalin was planning major large scale murders of Jews.Faustian (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, especially for racism. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What was racist about the comments above?Faustian (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a variation on the old Jewish Bolshevism canard. I was referring to Lvivske, who's already used anti-Polish slurs in his edit summaries as well. I would appreciate it if it stopped. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...and what exactly is "racist" about Jewish Bolshevism?.--Львівске (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That it's an antisemitic canard – and notorious enough to be documented here. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely a matter of your own personal opinion.--Львівске (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've let you know. No WP:FORUM. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My post was directed at the discussion, you're the one who derailed it with the canard card. Take a look in the mirror.--Львівске (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope – your post was composed of "Wasn't the Soviet Union uber-jew-friendly? The entire thing was controlled by em." PasswordUsername (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lvivske occasionally betrays being given to nasty canards, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Death-toll_of_Jewish_Soldiers .....--Galassi (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your pro-Jewish biases at the door and stick to the facts you guys are trying to cover up here. Or are you guys going to call more buddies to come in and disrupt this talk page?--Львівске (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An anti-Jewish bias is a lot worse. Keep that in mind. (as well as the notion that "Не кожний мерзотник є антисемітом, але кожний антисеміт є мерзотником.")...--Galassi (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

або віщуни ;-) --Львівске (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PasswordUsername's comment about that Soviet propaganda, it's ridiculous to have that in the article. Loosmark (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't. It does belong there, for several reasons. 1. Ryko Jary, one of the key figures in the movement was Jewish, as was Sigal-Sigalenko. 2. Soviet post-war propaganda did much to vilify UPA, often enough banding it together with Zionism. 3. The latter still goes on, culminating in the Russian neologism "жидобандеровщина" (i.e."kikebanderovism"). The article must reflect all this.Galassi (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that Soviet propaganda accused Zionists of being in UPA is indeed significant. Moreover, this supposed link was highlighted during the persecution of Jews by the Communists: [42]. It certainly deserves mention in the article. I assumed good faith in Lvivske and that his comments were a sort of joke. I hope I wasn't wrong.Faustian (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Lvivske's comments were "sort of a joke", UPA had a "complex" relationship with Jews, Polish victims of massacres are guilty because Ukrainians didn't have all the rights in pre-war Poland and Soviets propaganda accusations about Zionists are a proof that the UPA didn't help the Nazis prosecute Jews. Makes sense. Loosmark (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like his "joke" about "inflated Jewish WW2 casualties". A real comedian! So much for "good faith".... As to the facts: The Bulba-Borovets (whose righthand man was Sigal-Sigalenko) branch of UPA seems to be entirely blameless on the Jewish account. --Galassi (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Galassi, if you have materials saying that there was significant Jewish cooperation with the UPA (I haven't come across it, but I won't simply discount it), we can have it in the article, but there should be sources explicitly saying so – ie, actually affirming that it was the case. The problem with Faustian's material is that it does not do so – it rather presents a House of Un-American Activities Committee man's enumeration of various Soviet propaganda claims. Faustian seems to agree with me above. I have no problem in including what you say, but we need sources documenting whatever it is we present on Wiki, without the need for active interpretatation-and-extrapolation by either reader or writer. All conclusions presented here must be sourced to some previous establishment of those conclusions by a WP:RS writer. Additionally, the article does not discuss the Bulba-Borovets branch of the UPA – the note (small font) just under our lede section declares

Note: Another separate, independent UPA also existed in Volyn from 1941 until July 1943. It was nominally formed earlier in late November 1941 and from spring 1942 was a most active Ukrainian nationalist armed group before the formal formation of the UPA in spring 1943. This group belonged to political opponents of the OUN(B) - OUN(UNR), and allied itself politically with OUN(M). This grouping led by Taras Bulba-Borovets had links to the UNR in exile. It was renamed the Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army in July 1943 before being later partially and forcibly absorbed into the UPA of the OUN(B).[8]

The Bulba-Borovets branch thus were opponents of the movement discussed here, but the foregoing still holds as general WP policy. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief comment - the Bulba Borovets group was not a branch of UPA but an entirely seperate organization originally called UPA. It was left-wing but anticommunist; Bulba was opposed to the killings of civilians (Polisha and Jewish). After Bulba refused to subordinate his group to the OUN-B, armed OUN-B units captured Bulba's wife and tortured her before killing her. Some of Bulba's guerrillas were absorbed by UPA while Bulba himself fled. The OUN-B group then usurped the name UPA.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely correct to say that the Bulba-Borovets group was a separate UPA rather than a branch, as it is described in the article and how I should really have better worded myself here, but thanks for this clarification here regardless. It seems then that the UPA Jews Galassi referenced are out of place here, as they were working with Bulba-Borovets, rather than the Banderovite group discussed here (unless they were also actual collaborators of the Banderovites when they forcibly absorbed the Bulba-Borovets UPA). PasswordUsername (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To Passwordusername: The Jews listed in the article worked with the Bandera-affiliated UPA. This was the only UPA after 1943 and the only UPA operating outside Volhynia (i.e., in the Carpathian mountains).

To Loosmark: yes, the relationship between UPA and the Jews was complex (unlike the relationship between UPA and the Poles). Referenced in the OUN article, three leaders of the OUN's Provid (sort of the Central Committee) had Jewish wives. Ukrainian extreme nationalism, unlike Polish or Russian nationalism, did not have antisemitism as part of its platform. Yes, Jews were criticized as working for the Russians or the Communists, but there was no attention paid to some sort of Jewish conspiracy and the anti-Jewish remarks were conditioned upon the supposed collaboration with Ukraine's enemies, not with being Jewish. Read this balanced article: [43]. German documents state that according to German estimates the OUN was indifferent towards the Jews, willing to kill them or help them depending on what they felt was better for the OUN. When the OUN sought to infiltrate the German police, their members willingly helped the Germans kill huge numbers of Jews (while protecting those Jews who helped the OUN). When the OUN came into conflict with the Germans, they no longer needed to persecute Jews and stopped doing so. Yes, Jews hiding in Polish villages were killed along with everyone else in those villages, and Jewish partisans groups allied to the communists were also killed. Ont he other hand, other Jewish families were saved by UPA, and there were Jewish fighters in UPA (one of whom wrote an article about his experiences) as well as many Jewish doctors, nurses, and pharmacists within UPA's ranks. A Jewish doctor who headed an UPA underground hospital was awarded UPA's highest award, the Golden Cross, after he was killed during an NKVD atttack on that hospital in 1946. So, yeah, the relationship was complex. BTW there was an all-Jewish battalion in the Ukrainian Galician Army that fought against the Poles in 1919 as well as the Bolsheviks [44]. Both Jews and Ukrainians suffered from a pogrom committed by Polish forces in Lviv in 1918. The UPA-Jewish link was not some sort of wierd, freakish occurance. Faustian (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this sentence Ukrainian extreme nationalism, unlike Polish or Russian nationalism, did not have antisemitism as part of its platform. supposed to mean? Polish nationalism did not have antisemitism "as part of its platform", whatever the hell that is. Secondly I think you need a reality check, if the OUN was willing to kill the Jews depending if they "felt that was better for the OUN" or helped to kill "huge numbers of Jews" when they wanted to "infiltrate the German police" that doesn't mean they were "indifferent towards the Jews", it only means these guys were sick in their brains and were ready to kill innocent people. Period. Loosmark (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what the reliable sources say. Antisemitism was a feature of both Russian and Polish nationalism (remember the Black Hundreds? of the anti-Jeish Polish pogrom in Lviv in 1918?) It was not a feature of extreme Ukrainian nationalism. The OUN was amoral,as Sheptycky said. It was willing to kill Jews or others if doing so acomplished their goal of a "free" Ukraine under their rule. But persecuting Jews was not seen as an end in itself for the OUN.Faustian (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC

Ok, you gotta be careful here. Anti-semitism was part of the platform of SOME, EXTREME elements of Polish nationalism, like for example the National Radical Camp. But "nationalism" is a pretty broad brush to paint with. Pilsudski can be easily described as "Polish nationalist" but he was pretty pro-Jewish (and even pro-Ukrainian in some sense). It ws the same with Ukrainian nationalists - some, like the above mentioned B-B group were not anti-semitic, while others were. Sources to that effect are not hard to find, [45].radek (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Page number got lost in the above link. It's pg. 104. Quote: "The Ukrainian nationalist underground, the UPA, was distinctly anti-Semitic".radek (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dmowski and the National Democracts are routnely described as antisemitic. Just a few examples: [46], [47], [48] "two politial passions are ingrained in M Dmowski, hatred of the German and hatred of the Jew." Timothy Snyder [49]: "Dmowski saw a Polish folk nation in fierce competition with wily Jews and disciplined Germans." And here is a lot about it: [50]. Basically Dmowski was proposing a Zionist plot to take over Poland.

As for your page, the info following that quote presented the complex nature of UPA's relations to Jews. Basically, antisemitism was part of thr Polish nationalist and Russian program, often as part of a narrative involving conspiracies etc. (remember Dmowski's calls to boycott Jewish businesses?) It existed among Ukrainian nationalists but was not central to their ideology, whose enemies were Poles and Russians, not Jews.Faustian (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This article represents the way nationalistic historians rewrite the history of UPA and in particular OUN/UPA and Jews. UPA members killed many many more Jews than they saved Jews. See the book by Spector about Holocaust in Volhynia, the books on Holocaust in Galicia by Eliahu Jones, etc. And How about UPA crimes against the Polish civilian population, which numbers tens of thousands? and OUN/UPA fascist ideology???

What is not being covered here? Would you prefer the Jewish section be rewritten by Jewish revisionists and tell a one-sided story and make it as ugly as the Polish section is currently? --Львівське (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

CIA and MI6 aid

I notice this isn't in the article yet, where should their support of the UPA go in the article?--Львівське (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably.Faustian (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

huh?--Львівське (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I was agreeing that putting it in the article was a good idea. I suppose chronolically would be good.Faustian (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Army supporting[citation needed] Party of Regions

Couldn't find a ref that said that Party of Regions (PoR) is supporting the Red Army, is pretty POV statement without a ref, especialy since PoR does state they are anti-Stalin. PoR seems to ignore UPA altogheter... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Extenion proposed

A "current views in Ukraine" section would be an interesting adition to this article. But I do not have the time to do it now... Wonder if anybody in Krym and Eastern Ukraine is interested in this new "UPA victims" monuments. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting poll, 48% of respondents in Ukraine said people must be punished for collaboration with Nazis. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish woman's Testimony about UPA

The whole article is translated into English here.Faustian (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at: pl:Stella Krenzbach, --Birczanin 08:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) good read, thanks --Львівське (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• A "testimony" clearly indicated as hoax at Friedman, P.. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12,1958–59

pp. 285, [51]. Same conclusion presented The Scholar Journal “Ukraina Moderna” #13 2008 p. 260 at John Himka's artilce. Hoax need to be removed.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OUN/UPA/Jews

The general OUN material is becoming a huge WP:COATRACK. It needs to be moved to the OUN article. UPA/Jews question should have a preamble summarizing the relevant attitudes immediately prior to the establishement of UPA.--Galassi (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A paragraph summarizing the OUN stuff (initial rejection of pogroms, then committing them, including a casualty estimate of 1941 - several thousand Jewish victims) should be sufficient. We must be careful not to minimize the extent of the pogroms in the summary, that's not why we're summarizing. Also, the actions of the OUN are important because deserters from the police comprised a significant portion of UPA when UPA began - perhaps 1/4 of UPA (~5,000 deserting police out of 20,000 UPA in early to mid 1943 - my numbers may be a bit off I'm not checking them now) and the most hioghly-traiend and critical group within UPA, so their actions towards Jews are relevant and need to be included. The article about UPA itself is too long, no need to have more than a summay of OUN stuff here.Faustian (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Page(s) needed

Article text Other historians, however, do not support the claims that the UPA was involved in anti-Jewish massacres cited by

• Himka, John-Paul. "War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora" (PDF). Spaces of Identity 5 (1): 5–24. http://www.univie.ac.at/spacesofidentity/_Vol_5_1/_PDF/Himka.pdf.

and

• Institute of History, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Insurgent Army

It would be nice to indicate a page(s) were Himka's (see his text above) and Institute of History, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences provide a text which suggest sentence appeared at the article. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)