Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

New source avialable

John Paul Himka: "The young generation is hard to believe that the nationalists have done everything that I and other researchers describe" 30 June 2010

How significant it was part of Ukrainian Nationalists OUN and UPA in the Holocaust in Ukraine? It is easy for me to answer because I'm writing a monograph on this subject and know exactly what happened. At the beginning the Ukrainian militia did it. This militia was OUN militia, linked to the Stetsko Government. Militia were responsible for pogroms and mass executions of Jews, as well as to some extent the Communists and Poles. They did it jointly with the Germans, and coordinate their actions with them. Police raided the ghetto , they were ready for it, and those who participated in such dirty work came later trained killers. And then, in spring 1943, thousands of policemen moved to the UPA. , first in Volhynia, and also from Galicia. And they killed the Poles, as well as all surviving Jews. Maybe not all - those that were, say, doctors, or skinner, could live at least temporarily. The rest are killed. Then in winter, in December 1943 th - January-February 1944, policy toward the Jews has become harder. Banderists invited Jews from bunkers, saying that will not kill them, they say, they have become Democrats, allies of Britain and America.. But there were few Jews who had no confidence in Banderivtsi, and they were right because the majority of Jews were killed by the Banderites . Only a few managed to escape.

Jo0doe (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Canadian Historian give an answer to a question imposed in 1958 by Philip Friedman here [2] - Why has only such a small number of them remained alive? Section "UPA and Jews" need to be given inline with most recent scholar conclusion. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedman noted that the doctors and their families he found did not live "temporarily" but survived the war and lived in Israel. Feel free to add Himka's statement, though - it's a reliable source. Do you have alink to his full article - I wonder if you are leaving out any part that he writes.Faustian (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope monography will be printed by end of this year. Can you specify a number of doctors and thier families given at Friedman work. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When it is, we should use it. Friedman personally knew met one and knew of another but did not state those were the only ones (so no original research to claimthat Friedman said 2 were saved, as you migth do).Faustian (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - so one +one and not "many" [3]. It's intresting fact to compare - after Nazi only at Lwow were survived more than 300 Jews (dozens of them was a doctors or nurses under SS/SD aegis) - and thier memoirs and testimony widelly known. After OUN/UPA from whole Eastern Poland survived the war only one + one and sole known "testimony" qualified as hoax. Jo0doe (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So, as I suspected when I wrote "Friedman personally knew met one and knew of another but did not state those were the only ones (so no original research to claim that Friedman said 2 were saved, as you might do) I was right in predicting what you would do. Based on that quote you claim "After OUN/UPA from whole Eastern Poland survived the war only one + one". Unfortunately that kind of approach to sources is the reason why when you use them they need to be verifiable, either online or in university libraries in the English world, before you put info based on them in.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed a point - you've add "many" using Friedman as a source but Friedman does not say that. There no other credible scholar sources known which prove "many" claims - may be you forgot to cite it? Does Why has only such a small number of them remained alive? is not given in source?Jo0doe (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but what exactly is the fact that Friedman knew two Jews who were saved supposed to prove? Some Jews were saved even in Germany but so what. The predominant tendency was to kill them. Tg68tg67rf573ur (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK?--Львівське (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is trying to prove anything here?Faustian (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The footnote here: [4] Friedman cites Shankowsky uncritically. He writes: "Shankowsky writes that in his formation of the UPA there were 14 Jews. Practically all survived. There were undoubtedly some Jews also in the underground organization of the OUN. A report of an Einsatz Gruppe (doc. 4134 in the Ollendorf trial) states that Jews were active on behalf of the Bandera movement..." Just because Friedman wrote that he personally met one Jewish physician and his wife who were saved by UPA, and knew of another nd his brother in Tel Aviv who were likewise saved, does not mean that according to Friedman those were the only two who were saved. The important thing was the way Jo0doe twisted what was said to claim "After OUN/UPA from whole Eastern Poland survived the war only one + one." This shows that he sadly continues his misuse of sources in order to disrupt wikipedia. And, btw, unlike him, I do not cherry-pick from sources in order to push a POV, I included this from Friedman into [5] into the article.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedman conclude Why has only such a small number of them remained alive? Does it mean "many" in English? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article states "Many Jewish families were sheltered by the UPA." The footnote supports that. Not all of those who were sheltered, survived the war. Friedman's footnote describes this in more detail; it's conveniently summarized in a footnote in this article, here: [6]. Please stop battlegrounding here.Faustian (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify the source conclusion which was ommited in texts above and (even insertion about non existance did not state those were the only ones of such) . The "many" repeatedly was inserted in several article but Friedman conclusion were ommited.In addition to above Himkas's I've suggested your earlier a scholar source [7] - [8] p.40 with same as Himks's facts- but this "answer" also not appeared in articles text. Also edit [9] directly followed with the citation (which also [10] provided by you) actually does not exist at pg. 159 John Armstrong (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press - Once the OUN was at war with Germany, such instances lessened and finally stopped . I hope you fix texts accordingly.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No omission of conclusions. The info is indeed in Armstrong's book. Is the page number wrong? If so, just fix the page number rather than make false accusations - which is what you;ve done in the past, accusing me of hoaxing when I just got the year of the book wrong by a year. That sort of battlegrounding behavior was one of the things that led to your year-long block, remember?Faustian (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've unable to find Friedman conclusion in artilces text - can you suggest a dif? Since you're an editor which add this ref - please indicate a correct page or remove unsourced info. P.S. A Black Forest and Makivka -[11] Thanks.Jo0doe (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with summarizing. Now please stop taking up otherwise productive time.Faustian (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with summarizing if the summarizing is done properly which unfortunately does not appear to be the case here. Tg68tg67rf573ur (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? Friedman described many instances of Jews having been sheltered by UPA in his work. He described uncritically the 14 sheltered within Shankovsky's unit (did not refer to Shankovsky's claim as a lie or hoax), described a large number (forgot how many - dozens at least, perhaps low 100's, don't have Friedman's work in front of me) sheltered by UPA at a camp which as later ovverrun by the Germans (who then were "conceivably" killed by the Germans), described meeting a Jewish physician and his brother who made it to Israel after having been sheltered by UPA, etc. I summarized this by saying "many" which sems accurate to me. What was "improper" according to you? Do you prefer a number, such as "hundreds?" That would be less accurate, as Friedman doe snot supply a total number of Jews sheltered by UPA, although he does describe enough exmples that they could be summrized as "many." Faustian (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedman mentioned two camps of skilled Jewish workers sheltered by UPA, one with 100 people and a second with 400 people (pg. 189). He states that according to Betty Eisenstein UPA began the practice of selecting only useful Jews to save and that according to her, UPA killed these Jews when the Soviets approached. In the footnote, however, he notes that she is mistaken on the latter point. As the article's footnote states, Friedman notes that the UPA did not disband the camp when the Soviets approached but that the camp was overrun by a German motorized battalion, and in Friedman's words "conceivably some of the Jewish inmates were left behind, fell into the hands of the Germans, and were exterminated." Friedman also notes uncritically the 14 doctors claimed to have been saved by Shankowski, also notes the Jewish chief of an underground hospital, says he met one Jewish doctor and his wife in Israel who were saved by UPA, knew of another and his brother, mentioned another in Rokitno who was admitted into a Bandera group, etc. (notes 59, 60, 61) I think that "many" is an accurate brief summary.Faustian (talk)

Full quote from Friedman please. Tg68tg67rf573ur (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Friedman gave multiple examples of Jews having been sheltered by UPA. I summarized these by stating "many." Do you doubt that he gave examples of many Jews having been sheltered by UPA (do you claim I am lying about what he wrote?). Do you want the entire work by Friedman transcribed by me? Sorry, but go to your library and find it, it's available in most university libraries.Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedman work relatively short from pg 259 to pg 296 (including notes) - so would be great to cite "multiple examples of Jews having been sheltered by UPA" - I was unable to find it. Thanks P.S. Friedman will be really surprised if he read front page from Львівські вісті # 99 May 6 1943 or page 3 from Краківські вісті # 154 18 July 1943 signed by Lew Shankovsky a member of the SS-Freiwilligen-Schützen-Division «Galizien».Jo0doe (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. I asked you to cite the passage where, according to you, Friedman says that the UPA saved 100s Jews. I think you should be able to do that without "transcribing the entire work", no? Tg68tg67rf573ur (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I said I do not have the book with me. Perhaps you didn't catch it, but I wrote: "Friedman described many instances of Jews having been sheltered by UPA in his work. He described uncritically the 14 sheltered within Shankovsky's unit (did not refer to Shankovsky's claim as a lie or hoax), described a large number (forgot how many - dozens at least, perhaps low 100's, don't have Friedman's work in front of me) sheltered by UPA at a camp which was later overrun by the Germans (who then were "conceivably" killed by the Germans), described meeting a Jewish physician and his brother who made it to Israel after having been sheltered by UPA, etc. I summarized this by saying "many" which seems accurate to me." Which of the above statements I made do you claim to be false? As I said, I don't have the book in front of me. If don't want to assume good faith in my edits, and don't want to wait until I go to a university library I suggest you go yourself to verify, Friedman's work is not hard to find in the English-speaking world. It isn't found only in the library of the Ukrainian parliament in Kiev.Faustian (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you getting so agitated? I am just curious what is in the Friedman book and how exactly did you summarize the content. You know even in Germany "dozens at least" or "perhaps low 100's" Jews were saved but nobody is summarizing it as "many Jews were saved". Context here is everything. Tg68tg67rf573ur (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not agitated, sorry if I came across that way. I gave examples above. If you'd like more you'll have to wait until I go to the library, though, or find the work yourself. He gave examples of many being sheltered. The article describes, corrctly, UPA and OUN killing many also. Very likely they killed more than they saved, which doesn't mean they didn't save many.22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Very likely they killed more than they saved" change that to surely they killed many more than they saved. btw does he gave any examples of Jews killed and if yes how many examples? Tg68tg67rf573ur (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedman noted a band of 80 Jews who were surrounded and killed by UPA in the forest. I don't remember other numbers of those killed. I am pretty sure that the thousands of killed by OUN militiamen in 1941 plus the Jews killed when the Polish villages they were hiding in were destroyed, or those killed in the forests because they were assumed to be Soviet partisans or working with them, outnumber those sheltered. But still many Jews were sheltered, some of whom survived the war.Faustian (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Himka is a really sketchy source, link--Львівське (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Himka meets all the criteria of a reliable source, professor at a respected university, well-published, etc. Lozinsky is an OUN member, I think. His criticisms of Himka are also wrong. He accuses Himka of claiming that Kolodzinsky was alive (Which was false, he died before UPA was formed). However, in the quote from Himka - “book of reports of UPA’s Kolodzinsky division, for example, about how they stumbled upon twelve Hungarian Jews hiding in the forest in Volhynia and “dispatched them to the bosom of Abraham.” it is not clear that it was claimed that Kolodzinsky was preent - the division as simply named after him, presumably because he was a martyr for the cause. The other problem is Himka seeemd to confused "OUN" with "UPA" when describing Bulba-Borovets, which seems to have been strictly a typo (does anyone really think, as Lozonsky implies, that Himka who wrote extensively on this topic doesn't know the difference between the two organizations?). Faustian (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Himka seeemd to confused "OUN" with "UPA" when describing Bulba-Borovets, which seems to have been strictly a typo". That's kind of a big 'typo' to make, don't you think? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Or misstatement. It doesn't strike me as anything more than that. A guy writing about UPA and OUN over and over mixed the two one time, and no editor caught that and fixed it. Seems understandable to me.12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, Himka basically says exactly what I said about his error and "error:" [12].Faustian (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag and anthem

Does exist any scholar source(s) about flag and anthem used by this formation? Now claim that the organizational flag of OUN-B adopted in April 1941 (see this book [13] used as flag of UIA is unsources.

Anthem: Source from "Narodna Pravda" on April 9, 2008 - fails the basic WP:RS requirements - it's a blog page by unknown user. Recently added - "So, who is the author of the famous song "Hey, in meadow the red viburnum has tilted"? from www.aratta-ukraine.com and Ukrainian literature. Sixth grade. (textbook)] also, in general, fails WP:RS - but both does not even mentioned it as UIA anthem. Please suggest and add a scholar source(s) for both claims. Thanks P.S.www.aratta-ukraine.com would be nice source for the Sich Riflemen songJo0doe (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag is widely sourced and common knowledge, you're cherry picking. Need a source? Find it yourself--Львівське (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT with WP:RS (I suggest a book with ISBN: 966-96340-5-9 (Ukraine);0-920092-82-9 (Canada) by Ін-т української археографії та джерелознавства ім. М. С. Грушевського НАН України). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely have lost your point here. Are you actually contesting that the black and red flag is the flag of the UPA?--Львівське (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per scholar conclusion - see О.Кучерук До історії символіки ОУН // Український археографічний щорічник. ... Інститут української археографії та джерелознавства ім. М. С. Грушевського НАН України Нова серія. – К., Нью-Йорк, 2002 page 182 - іноді можна зустріти твердження, що символіка ОУН-р [black and red flag etc] використовувалася як символіка УПА, що абсолютно не відповідає істині.- I've to remove unsources data. Feel free to find a scholar source which debunk scholar conclusion. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You will not be removing anything.--Львівське (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

False article

Stupid and false article/

1. Do not show background Ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia and Galicia (Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930), resettlement of Poles in Volhynia, collaboration with the Germans, the Polish population, laws adopted by the Polish government in exile of the destruction of Ukrainian Volyn).

2. Little describes the Terror Polish chauvinists of the Ukrainian population in 1947 Полтавець (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutual ethnic cleansing in Volhynia and e. Galicia

"Ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."

User Lvivske claims that the ethnic cleansing in Volhynia and e. Galicia was mutual (i.e. Poles/Polish forces tried to remove Ukrainian population from Volhynia and e. Galicia) and that this thesis is formulated by Timothy Snyder in his work: "The reconstruction of nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999".

He is welcome to support his argument with quotations from the above mentioned book.

Nowhere does Snyder write that the Poles/Polish forces attempted to ethnically cleanse the territories of western Ukraine of Ukrainian civilians or that the UPA ethnic cleansing was in response to similar measures taken by the Polish army. He provides the following reason for the UPA attack on Polish civilians:

The cleansing of Poles was the work of the OUN-Bandera, which drew a different lesson from the German defeat at Stalingrad than the OUN-Mel’nyk. While the OUN-Mel’nyk saw an opportunity for more productive collaboration with the Germans, the OUN-Bandera perceived an urgent need for independent action. For the OUN-Bandera, the crucial moment was perhaps the increased activity of Soviet partisans in Volhynia from February 1943.34 (pp. 166-167).

Both the Polish Home Army and the Ukrainian UPA planned rapid strikes for territorial gains in Galicia and Volhynia. Had there been another Polish- Ukrainian regular war, as in 1918–19, the issue of who began the conflict would be moot. But the preemptive strikes against Poles envisioned by the OUNBandera in early 1943 were not military operations but ethnic cleansing. As we have seen, even before the war the OUN accepted a totalistic form of integral nationalism, according to which Ukrainian statehood required ethnic homogeneity, and the Polish "occupier" could be defeated only by the removal of Poles from Ukrainian lands. (p. 168)

[the ethnic cleansing of Poles from what became Western Ukraine (and also Jews), not mutual ethnic cleansing between Poles and Ukrainians, is the subject of the chapter 8 (Ethnic cleansing of Western Ukraine)]

Ukrainians learned the techniques of mass murder from Germans. This is why UPA ethnic cleansing was striking in its efficiency, and why Volhynian Poles in 1943 were nearly as helpless as Volhynian Jews in 1942. It is one reason why the campaign against Poles began in Volhynia rather than Galicia, since in Volhynia the Ukrainian police played a greater role in the Final Solution. This links the Holocaust of the Jews and the slaughter of the Poles, since it explains the presence of thousands of Ukrainians in Volhynia with experience in genocide.(p. 162)

SLAUGHTER In spring 1943, the UPA gained control over the Volhynian countryside from the Germans,43 and began the murder and expulsion of the Polish population. Poles were at most 16 percent of the Volhynian population in 1939 (about four hundred thousand people), and had been reduced to perhaps 8 percent (two hundred thousand people) by 1943.44 They were scattered about the countryside, deprived of their elites by deportations, with no state authority except the Germans to protect them, and no local partisan army of their own. The OUNBandera decision to use its UPA against these Poles can only be seen as the ethnic cleansing of civilians.45(p. 169).

Snyder does write about instances of Polish retaliations or "vengeful" collaboration with the Germans, however, nowhere does he categorize Polish actions as ethnic cleansing. The first division of Home Army in Volhynia was formed in January 1944 (Absent the UPA’s ethnic cleansing, the division would never have arisen), Polish government ordered civilians not to be harmed. (p. 173-174) As for "eradication", the UPA was eradicating the Polish presence in Volhynia in 1943, using thousands of partisans who had helped the Nazis eradicate the Jews in 1942.(p. 174)

Note that Snyder sometimes discusses this ethnic cleansing in a wider context of Polish-Ukrainian civil war (1943-1947), which covered more territory than just Volhynia or e. Galicia, including south-eastern areas of present-day Poland (Lublin region etc.) - the situation there was quite different and both sides were equally brutal.Hedviberit (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Snyder's book is very well balanced. Only please bear in mind that this article is about UPA, not about Polish Home Army or ethnic cleansing. --Lysy^talk 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Snyder considered the removal of Ukrainians from what is now southeastern Poland to have been ethnic cleansing. He titled a chapter starting on page 179 The Ethnic Cleansing of Southeastern Poland.' He did not claim that Poles tried to ethnically cleanse Ukrainians in Volhynia, but he claimed that they did ethnically cleanse Ukrainians from areas on the Polish side of the post-war border (Lemko territory, around Przmysl). He stated that UPA in that region was mostly local, and thus mostly innocent of the crimes of Volhynia, and that its main purpose was to try to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians from those lands. Quote from Snyder: "even before the mas killings of Poles by Ukrainians began n 1943, some nationalists in the tradition of Dmowski's National Democrats dreamed of expelling every Ukrainian from Poland." He adds that after 1943 other Poles also envisioned deporting 5 million Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, we always somehow tend to confuse Volhynia and Galicia, not that the distinction is crystal clear, but for the simplicity ... how about saying: The army also played a substantial role in ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of Volhynia as well as defending the Ukrainian population in East Galicia. Would such wording be overly simple, or acceptable in the articles summary/intro ? --Lysy^talk 00:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This would certainly be better and more precise.Faustian (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Snyder writes also about ethnic cleansing of Poles in Galicia/Eastern Galicia: The UPA campaign to rid "Western Ukraine" of Poles began in earnest in Galicia in January 1944. In 1943 in Volhynia, UPA practice seems to have been to attack villages and murder populations without warning; in Galicia in 1944 the UPA seems to have sometimes presented Polish families with the choice of flight or death... UPA attacks on civilians in Galicia were still organized, and still brutal. As in Volhynia, UPA units often killed every inhabitant of a village, not sparing women or children. ("Ethnic cleansing of Western Ukraine", page. 176).

For him the territory of eastern Galicia lies outside the borders of Poland: Now that Volhynia and eastern Galicia have become western Ukraine... ("Communism and cleansed memories", p. 211). On the other side of the border (Poland), both Polish and Ukrainian forces could indeed be accused of "ethnic cleansing".

The chapter "Ethnic cleansing of South-Eastern Poland (1945-1947)" concerns mainly the repatriation (expulsion, resettlement) of Ukrainians to Soviet Ukraine and "Operation Vistula", ethnic cleansing policies of communist Poland, though it also mentions the role of Polish partisans, who helped to render Poland intolerable (through killings of Ukrainian civilians). This fragment seems to be relevant:

That said, the UPA was pursuing interests in Poland in 1945 that we can ascertain and describe. Most of its actions were designed to halt deportations, and its recruiting propaganda presented it as an organization that would defend Ukrainian homes.54 Propaganda is propaganda, but it does suggest why people joined. The balance of civilian deaths in southeastern Poland tends to confirm that the goals of the UPA at this time and place were resistance and defense rather than ethnic cleansing. In September 1944, right after the front had passed, the UPA issued orders halting the "mass anti-Polish actions," at least within the borders of what was becoming communist Poland.55(p. 192).

My proposition is: ... "The army also played a substantial role in ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of Volhynia and East Galicia (or "West Ukraine"), as well as defending the Ukrainian population and preventing deportation of the Ukrainians in South-Eastern Poland."Hedviberit (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Lublin region doesn't seem to be part of Galicia.Hedviberit (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hedviberit, you guessed it right, I confused the Lublin area with East Galicia. I like the wording that you propose. Faustian, what do you think ? --Lysy^talk 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good!Faustian (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you all. Now, I'm having problem with the claim that Armia Ludowa fought against UPA in the last year of the war. Where does this come from ? Armia Ludowa existed until mid-1944 only. --Lysy^talk 22:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone meant the armed forces of the Polish communist regime, People's Army of Poland? Hedviberit (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This would make sense, unlike the current sentence. --Lysy^talk 17:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Changed it, but I'm still not sure what was the original intention of this sentence. --Lysy^talk 18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stella Krenzbach had never existed

John-Paul Himka, Falsifying World War II history in Ukraine "The second deception on which Levytsky relies is the autobiography of Stella Krenzbach, who supposedly fought in the ranks of UPA and then became prominent in Israel. This text was first published in the Ukrainian diaspora in 1954 and in Ukraine in 1993. It has been circulated on the Internet in recent years by Moisei Fishbein. Very soon after the original publication, Bohdan Kordiuk, who was one of those Bandera nationalists incarcerated in a concentration camp (Auschwitz), repudiated the memoirs as fake in the newspaper Suchasna Ukraina (no. 15/194, 20 July 1958). He wrote: “...None of the UPA men known to the author of these lines knows the legendary Stella Krenzbach or have heard of her. The Jews do not know her either. It is unlikely that anyone of the tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees after the war met Stella Krenzbach.” He concluded: “It seems to us that until there are proper proofs, the story of Dr. Stella Krenzbach has to be regarded as a mystification.” Philip Friedman, who had been a specialist in Galician Jewish history before the war and one of the fathers of Holocaust studies after the war, also rejected the authenticity of the Krenzbach text. According to the promoters of the text in the 1950s, its alleged author went to Palestine after the war, where she was later employed as a secretary in the foreign ministry. Supposedly, she had first published her memoirs in the Washington Post, and then a few weeks later she was shot and killed under unknown circumstances. Friedman checked the biography. He searched the Washington Post from that period and could not find the memoirs. He had inquiries made about Stella Krenzbach in the Israeli foreign ministry. They had never had an employee by that name, and they knew nothing about the supposed homicide. “Moreover,” wrote Friedman, “a careful analysis of the text of the ‘memoirs’ has led me to the conclusion that the entire story is a hoax.” (Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust, 203-04.)"--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The current article reads: "A Jewish woman, Stella Krenzbach, the daughter of a rabbi and a Zionist, joined the UPA as a nurse and intelligence agent. She was arrested by the Soviets and sentenced to death after having been tortured, but was liberated from the Soviet prison by the UPA. She crossed over the Carpathians along with other UPA soldiers and in her memoirs, written in Israel, wrote "I attribute the fact that I am alive today and devoting all the strength of my thirty-eight years to a free Israel only to God and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. I became a member of the heroic UPA on 7 November 1943. In our group I counted twelve Jews, eight of whom were doctors." [124] although her account has been challenged as a hoax.[125]"Faustian (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably details of her "life" ought to be shortened and this paragraph reworded.Faustian (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarify?

The article states: "Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivsky and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to their main enemies (the communist forces of the Soviet Union and Poland), the Third Conference of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists - held near Lviv from 17–21 February 1943 - took the decision to begin open warfare against the Germans"

But wasn't this the conference at which Klyachkivsky and Shukhevych pushed Lebed (who, btw, strangely enough, is not even mentioned in the article) aside? There's some chance I might be getting my dates confused, but if so, it's a matter of emphasis. The take over by Klyachkivsky and Shukhevych might have happened in March 1943 where as this seems to be referencing a conference in February - regardless, Lebed was marginalized fairly soon after this event so I'm not sure if this is the proper event that should be focused on. There is also the confluence between the Klyachkivsky and Shukhevych take over and the initiation of the massacres in Volhynia (IIRC Lebed was opposed to at least some of them on strategic grounds) and the mass desertion of Ukrainian policemen from German service. So the "despite" doesn't really fit in there.VolunteerMarek 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Snyder blames Lebed for the massacres. I'll have to look into this (dates and details may be fuzzy, I don't have the book in front of me) but Shukhevych seems to have taken control of the OUN not in early 1943 but at the OUN conference in August 1943. The massacres started prior to Shukhevych's assuming the role of leader; the high point continued into the beginning of his leadership but declined afterward.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to go and look it up too. I think Shukhevych's de facto take over happened earlier - though I'm not sure whether it was February or March - but was "completed" or "certified" (de jure) in August (Lebed kept some semi-ceremonial post and retained the fiction of leadership of OUN-B for awhile). The massacres were initiated by Klyachkivsky (and a few other local Volhynian leaders, particularly Ivan Łytwyńczuk (sorry, don't know the Ukrainian spelling) "Dubovyi") in February but with Shukhevych's (at least tacit) support. The way I remember it is that Klyachkivsky and Shukhevych used the attacks on the Poles as an example that they were "doing something" while Lebed and other "politicians" were just all talk, and that's how they marginalized him (this would suggest March, once the massacres have begun, as when Lebed was pushed aside).

I'm a little puzzled by the fact Snyder is blaming Lebed here - not that Lebed was blameless, and I believe his concerns were mostly strategic (timing wasn't right, etc.), but I don't think he was the main instigator. VolunteerMarek 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What you write makes sense to me. Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations, pg. 165, states "When in April 1943 OUN-Bandera leader Mykola Lebed proposed 'to cleanse the entire revolutionary territory of the Polish population', an act which totally recast Ukrainian-Polish relations, he was thirty-three years old." On page 201, when discussing the Cold War, "Mykola Lebed, the Ukrainian nationalist leader perhaps most responsible for the Volhynian terror that began the Polish-Ukrainian civil war, was employed by US intelligence." Probably Lebed made the political decision to cleanse Volhynia, Klyachkivsky gave the order, while Shukhevych seems to have tacitly supported it.Faustian (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait till I get some books to pursue this further. Klyachkivsky was definitely responsible for carrying it out. Shukhevych most likely supported this and he definitely thought it worked well enough in Volhynia to implement it in Galicia (he made statements about how the success of the "Volhynia strategy" means it should be carried out in Galicia). I'm still not quite sure as to Lebed's role though.VolunteerMarek 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's what Motyka says in his latest book "From the Volhynnian Massacres to Operation Vistula". I'm just going to translate but I think I can be trusted on this, yeah?

pg 97.: "Between February 17-23 of 1943, an OUN-B conference was held near Oleska. Mykola Lebed, Roman Shukhevych and Mychajlo Stepaniak were the main participants."

The text goes on to put the conference in context: it took place after the battle of Stalingrad and Motyka says that at this point OUN began seriously considering the possibility that the Soviet Union was going to win the war and that the "end game" for the territory that they cared about was going to be against either USSR or Poland or both. As a result OUN-B decided that the best strategy would be too conduct an armed uprising or just fighting against Nazis in order to win support from the Western allies in their eventual struggle against the communists. The explicit proposal to begin an insurrection against Nazi Germany was made by Mychajło Stepaniak (uk-wiki) [14] (pl-wiki), who, btw, could use an en-wiki article. Stepaniak also proposed forming a sort of "united front" which would include other, non-OUN, Ukrainian parties, in its opposition to Nazi Germany. Shortly after the conference Lebed additionally decided to change some of the symbols and signs of the OUN, and in fact to change its name to OSD (more or less something like Organization of Independentists) in order to further disassociate the organization to any times with Nazi collaboration... which was more or less captured by the part of OUN that was comprised of former members of the Nachtigall battalion, of which Shukhevych had been a leader (right? I'm not messing this up right?)

As result, pg. 98 states that "This political line, which was introduced by the functioning providnyk Lebed caused a protest among some of the commanders of the OUN. He was accused of dictatorial tendencies, which were supposedly manifested in the limitations he placed on the actions of regional commanders. The dissatisfaction was particularly strong among the officers of the former Nachtigall battalion."

Just as a note in case it may seem like Motyka is "anti-Nachtigall" elsewhere in the book he largely absolves them of some of the crimes they have been accused of committing like the Lwow Pogrom (while noting that there *might* have been some individual members from the battalion involved).

He goes on to say:

"At a meeting of the coordinating committee of the OUN-B which took place May 11-13 the matters came to a head and his opponents openly criticized Lebed. Surprised, Lebed left the meeting in an attempt to end it. However, in his absence, the remaining members decided to relieve him of his position as providnyk and created a steering committee of three, the Bureau of Provid. In this way the control was taken over by Znowji Matla, Dmytro Majiwskyj and the "first among equals", Roman Shukhevych. At the time of the inner power struggle of the OUN-B leadership in Galicia, in Volhynia, Dmythro Kljaczkwsky, "Klym Sawur", began to carry out the orders of the 3rd conference of OUN-B (the massacres of Poles in Volhynia - VM)"

There's more info on pgs 130-131

First it affirms Kljaczkwsky's order to massacre the Poles in Volhynia but notes that it was opposed by some of the local commanders (the person specifically mentioned is Jrija Stelmaszczuka - again I apologize for not knowing the Ukrainian spelling here). Stelmaszczuka, objecting to the order to murder civilians on conscientious objector grounds send a letter to Lebed whom he thought was still head of OUN-B. At the same time he was told by another representative of OUN-B central command, Adruszczenka, that these orders were NOT from "central command" but got "twisted by regional commanders (i.e. Klym Sawur - VM). This was right around the time that Lebed got kicked out of OUN-B leadership, but given how information traveled in the circumstances, there's probably no way that either Stelmaszczuk, Andruszenka or maybe even Kljaczkwsky could've known that.

pgs 214-217 back track a bit because they focus on how these "orders of the 3rd conference of OUN-B" - for the massacrses - came to be (previous chapter was strictly about the development of OUN). It took place in August 21-25 near Tarnopil, and it was called by Shukhevych. Issues not related to this present discussion included a call for active partisan warfare against the Soviet forces (in addition to against Poles and Germans) and for incorporating "democratic principles" into OUN's program - a guarantee of freedom of speech, confession and press. At the same time the conference "consolidated Shukhevych's power, affirming the personnel changes made previously". Additionally it signified "giving up on the idea of an armed uprising against Nazi Germany" since for Shukhevych the main enemy was the Soviet Union and he tried to limit UPA's fights against the German (probably given his Nachtigall background - OR by VM).

Lebed, as a consolation prize, was made a "Minister of Foreign Affairs" and tried to establish contacts with Hungary, Germans and Poles. But his role was very much diminished.

Then: "During the conference an open confrontation occurred between the supporters of Klym Sawur (the guy responsible for the massacres in Volhynia) and those of Lebed". Lebed was supported by Stepaniak and both issued a declaration in which they alleged that "UPA disgraced itself by its bandit attacks against Polish civilians, just like OUN disgraced itself by its collaboration with the Germans". However, these allegations were met with outrage by the rest of the conference, most of whom supported Klym Sawur and decided that the "experiences of Volhynia" (i.e. the massacres) should be implemented in Galicia. (Later this was moderated somewhat - VM). Stepaniak writing later commented that Shukhevych's supporters legitimized the massacres but thanks to his and Lebed's vocal opposition, the statements condoning the massacres never made it into the minutes of the conference. At any rate, at that point, it seems that Lebed (along with Stepaniak) were pretty much done as far as practical power within the OUN.

So it's a complicated picture. I'm still trying to make sense of it though I think the rough outlines are clear. The underlying difficulty is that it seems there were several things going on at once:

1. There was a power struggle between regional commanders (like Klym Sawur) who wanted more autonomy in their region and "centralizers" like Lebed who wanted to keep a tight control of the forces (hence the accusations of "dictatorial tendencies)
2. There was a conflict between fundamentally "anti-Soviet" views of folks like Shukhevych (who saw USSR as the "final enemy") and the fundamentally "anti-German" views of Lebed (who at the very least thought it was important for OUN to fight the Nazis in order to establish credibility with the Western Allies). That in turn gets complicated by what *I* (yes, OR) think is a fundamentally "anti-Polish" view of folks like Klym Sawur. But since Shukhevych/Sawur in a prescient - though twisted - way actually foresaw that Poland was going to be taken over by Soviet Union, these two views were complimentary. And then you have Stepaniak who was betting/wishful thinking that a third world war was going to happen in which the Western Allies were victorious and so allied himself with Lebed. In a very very twisted way - the kind that should disparage people of the idea that history is "just" - Shukhevych and Klyachkivsky called it right, but the very fact that they were right led them towards some horrible policies. Lebed and Stepaniak were basing their policy on wishful thinking and while it was naive, it did cause them to oppose the ethnic cleaning and massacres.

It's a strange and sad story. Anyway. Which parts of this do we want to put in the article?

VolunteerMarek 04:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a lot to mull over. I still have to do my re-write based on my previous research that I did nearly a year ago...fml...--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks VM for that research! In some way all of that is worthy of inclusion, in my opinion.Faustian (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1RR restriction on this article (reminder of 2009 notice)

Here is a repost of the notice of the 1RR restriction on this article, which was originally imposed in 2009 and is still in effect.

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)

-EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nazism

Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe proved that OUN UPA was an anti-semitic, pro-nazi organization. Here is the article: [15].

Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe, who completed his MA at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), is currently completing his dissertation, Stepan Bandera: Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Fascist (1909-2009) at the University of Hamburg. He lives in Berlin and works at the Vienna Wiesenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies in a project on antisemitism at European universities in the interwar period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.229 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, GRL really hates the UPA.--Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, as a well educated person working for the various Universities including Wiesenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies he just wrote the truth. OUN-UPA were anti-Polish and antisemitic pro-Nazi collaborators. Nothing new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.229 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The "truth"? Say, "baa!" (1) Please explain how an "anti-semitic" organisation came to have Jews in its ranks? (2) Please explain why this "pro-Nazi" organisation had its key members arrested and imprisoned by Nazis and actively fought against the Germans? Here's an idea: grow up and realise that men like Rossoliński-Liebe are unable to look beyond childish dichotomies that result in the simplifying of complex political situations to nothing more than irrational and immature tirades against anything they consider anti-semitic/pro-Nazi no matter how academically-unsound their ridiculous position. If you believed everything every academic has "proved" (impossible given the pluralism of "proof" in academia) you would be a dribbling imbecile in a psych ward. You're half way there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.175.211 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

litopys

This [16] is bordering on (if not outright is) spamming.

Also, did we have a discussion on Litopys before?Volunteer Marek 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO it seems like a good primary source, useful for noncontroversial information such as daily life of UPA fighters, etc. but it is obviously biased, like the journals of AK fighters would be. Nothing wrong with providing a link for further reading, I suppose, but I agree with you regarding its excessive use Faustian (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On the matter of it being used as a source - I think that using it carefully for non-controversial text is fine. I've seen litopys both criticized for bias, and praised for making rare and important historical documents available (sometimes by the same person).

On the matter of the "Further reading" - the reasonable thing would be to collapse all the litopys literature into a single link to the main page.Volunteer Marek 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) There seem to be much too many references to works in the Litopys website. Probably the main webpage link would be sufficient, rather than a long list for various articles in the website. What do others think?Faustian (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If there's no objections in the next day or two, I'll implement this.Volunteer Marek 18:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Going through some of the text and sources

I've removed [17] this source [18] (note: the original link in the article was dead) by Himka because it just does not support the claim that "Other historians, however, do not support the claims that the UPA was involved in anti-Jewish massacres". Unless I'm missing something, the point of Himka's essay is that there WAS involvement in anti-Jewish massacres, though by "Ukrainian auxiliary police" (Himka: "Instead, there persists a deafening silence about, as well as reluctance to confront, even well-documented war crimes, such as the mass murder of Poles in Volhynia by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the cooperation of the Ukrainian auxiliary police in the execution of the Jews." - compare with article sentence) rather than strictly speaking, UPA. The thing is though that a lot of those auxiliary policemen deserted German service in 1943 and joined UPA.

I'm also considering removing this link [19] but it's dead. Can anyone find an updated/live version? Volunteer Marek 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

here's a cache of it link--Львівське (говорити) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea which part of the book is being referred to by the text? Volunteer Marek 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Which part of the text does that link to?Faustian (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The original was a dead link, the one provided by Lvivske above is to a table of content.Volunteer Marek 06:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant which part of the wikipedia article did that link to? best.Faustian (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This one [20].Volunteer Marek 13:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like all the detailed (and excellent) work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has been taken down. Yanukovich's people at work? Fortunately a lot of the references, while leading to dead links, have page numbers. In the absence of page numbers I'd be inclined to remove the reference. I downloaded a couple of chapters and have them on my computer as pdf files, and am willing to em-mail them to you if you're interested.Faustian (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Section on Polish ethnic cleansing.

The section is written from a single perspective. Nothing is mentioned of similar actions from a Polish side that simultaneously were taken place during that period there. Also there is nothing said about what led to inter-ethnic conflict. No analysis is being drawn. The section is simply spilling all the dirt about the organization portraying it exclusively as the terrorist-like. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, that section has been heavy on the revert wars. It needs to be totally rewritten. We had a good stable version but then it got mucked up, and any attempt to take out the crap has been reverted so its been stuck like this for a bit.--Львівське (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with some of the philosophy here is that since NO MENTION is made regarding the Polish attacks on Ukrainians it is seen as one sided. How? Does it erase the facts about what happened? No I do not see that. The main question I ask is this, did this happen, did the UNA do this? Simply because someone else did something to you does that give you the right to go out and do the same to others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.38.154 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Still BOTH sides should be cited for fairness. It's not right to only list one side, whether you think so or not. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. That means listing both sides. MarikaYkrainka (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing similar beetwen well organized destruction made by UPA and single Polish retaliatory actions. About 1 thousans Polish villages were burned down, about 50-60.000 Poles were mourded. I dont find any Ukrainian investigations against Poles, in other side Polish Instytute of Membrance marked UPA anti Polish actions as genocide.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is need to be deleted because it is not presenting objective (true) history. We can't put into encyclopedia article polish politic view of a ukrainian army history. --Severynsr (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As I see there is no denying to delete this section. I'm deleting it.. --Severynsr (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The section is well sourced (and honestly, some of those "clarification needed" tags appear to be spurious) and provides important info and background. There is no reason to remove it, although if you can point out some specific problems with it then these can be addressed.Volunteer Marek 22:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek.Faustian (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture

The mass grave of UPA victims discovered during the exhumation in Wola Ostrowiecka (August 2011)

1. There is no such village as Wola Ostrowiecka on a map today.
2. This is not official exhumation (see text below).
3. On the picture we may see some several bones - This is not "THE MASS GRAVE".
4. There is no documents who this people were.
5. There is no documents that this are victims of UPA.

This is a very serious accusation that is not documentally confirmed.

According to next information - Poles illegally conducted archaeological excavations in Volhynia?:
That place is the territory of Ukraine and this exhumation was with violation of Ukrainian legislation:

1. work was carried out without an open letter to carry out such work;
2. earthworks were carried out without a specific binding in limiting the clear identification of excavations in the array;
3. according to Ukrainian legislation, the exhumation in the Ukraine has the right to only authorized Ukrainian legal entity;
4. during these studies there were no specialists, anthropologists of Ukrainian parties affected by the interpretation of the obtained materials;
5. around a cluster of skeletons were found the remains of charred wood that has not been taken for analysis, was not studied and the soil around the skeletons, bones examination was not performed. The absence of these data call into question the assertion that these people were killed, and not, for example, suffocated in a burning building and could be covered by the collapse of the wood. Considering this is questionable and when it happened;

Before putting such photo and making a loud statements a legal process of exhumation according to Ukrainian legislation is needed. Let's wait for legal results and please don't put into Wikipedia not truth information.

Therefore this photo should be removed until the official results of the exhumation from Ukraine.

--Severynsr (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no such village today exactly because it was destroyed during the massacres.
• I don't know what an "official" exhumation would be, but there was an exhumation.
• The exhumation uncovered at least one (two actually IIRC) mass graves. There are also credible estimates of the number of victims; 570 to 620 people (not counting other massacres nearby).
• Yes there are documents, including testimony and reports of UPA members who participated in the massacre.

Honestly, this is one of the best known and well documented of the massacres. I don't know what the zik.ua source is (it doesn't read like a reliable source - it's making excuses that sound like typical denial) but there's a half dozen sources which supports that this massacre occurred. The photos are legit as well since they appear to have been taken by the guy who supervised the exhumation.Volunteer Marek 06:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Poland is engaged in falsification of history. This section presents only Polish point of view.

More sources about this picture:

1. Conclusions on Polish excavations at Lyubomlschyni - biased and prejudiced
2. «Svoboda» seek the truth about the excavation of Poles in Volhynia by police

--Severynsr (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Svoboda Party's website is a not an academic peer-reviewed source. Its opinions are irrelevant with respect to the veracity of this picture or of the massacre. As VM stated, the official status of the exhumation is irrelevant also - this is a wikipedia page, not a court case. What matters is if academic reliable sources support it. That being said, the link to this massacre in the picture is to "Biuletyn Informacyjny, Miesięcznik Światowego Związku Żołnierzy Armii Krajowej, No. 9 (257), Warsaw 2011, p.63." Is that a reliable source? Is it a peer-reviewed academic journal or simply a journal by AK members or in support of them (equivalent to Litopys UPA or something like that). If it's the latter, could we get a more reliable reference for the photo and the massacre? Otherwise, perhaps this would be more appropriate?Faustian (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo and a few related ones seem to be the work of Leon Popek who was the historian in charge of the exhumation (also I think some of his family were murdered in the massacre). Looking at Commons it seems that he released a few of the photos from the exhumation into public domain and they were reprinted in several places (I'm basing that on the fact that there's a note about a OTRS ticket - which is where they usually confirm the copyright status of images). So given that Popek is a professional historian and was in charge of the exhumation I'd say that the photo can be considered reliable. It might also be in his book [21].

As to the massacre, it's actually one of best documented ones, both because it shows up in UPA reports, testimonies and because a few dozen people managed to escape (actually, mostly with help from their Ukrainian neighbors) so there's also lots of witness accounts. Some of these are here [22]. It's also mentioned in this source [23] and in Motyka's book (where he quotes some of the UPA soldiers involved).

The site was also supposed to be the place of a joint appearance by Ukrainian and Polish presidents (I forget exactly when) and an example of "Polish-Ukrainian Reconciliation" but the place was changed at the last minute (according to Polish sources because in this particular massacre the death toll was so high and the methods so brutal).

Here's another source on the exhumation: [24]. It states that it was/is carried out by both Polish and Ukrainian archaeologists (this was the second exhumation, there was one in 1992 [25] (that image is probably not public domain)) and both (as well as other) sources stress that both Ukrainian authorities (aside from Svoboda) and local Ukrainian populace have been very helpful in organizing the exhumation (though initially there were some tensions).Volunteer Marek 18:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems satisfactory, then.Faustian (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Map

{{Map requested from|Ukraine}} I miss a map of the areas of UIA presence. --Error (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

POV

• Polish-Ukrainian problems still exist.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Recognition - what about the condemnation ?
• Monuments (for combatants or victims) - monuments and graves of Polish victims should be also mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the picture, there is an another source [26]. If there are better pictures, please replace this one, but the article should contain pictures. Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I objected mainly to description of photograph, not to the photograph itself. The caption read: "The mass grave of UPA victims discovered during the exhumation in Wola Ostrowiecka (August 2011)." However, there's a difference between "UPA victims", and "victims of UPA", similar, for example, to "Ukrainian victims" versus "victims of Ukrainians". I was taken aback by the grammatical structure of the sentence and the lack of reference. I fixed that now. Poeticbent talk 14:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dead link

One of the basis sources "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" isn't available under the old link.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Armaments

Axes and saws were used to kill civilians.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Armaments are weapons used for war - not instruments of execution. Since axes and saws weren't used in battles, these were not armaments.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The "executions" were massacres of thousands of civilians, if we are so precise in our language. The problem of the massacres seems to be underestimated in the article, doesn't it?Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Armament "A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broademr context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary."Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Armaments are war instruments. Here: [27] armaments plural of ar·ma·ment (Noun)

Noun 1.Military weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments". 2.The process of equipping military forces for war

In articles about the armaments of the German military we don't include data about gas chambers. It seems that including saws and axes in the armaments section, you are trying to mention the massacres in areas of the article not really linked to them.

"The problem of the massacres seems to be underestimated in the article, doesn't it"

Maybe, but in that case expand the appropriate section rather than add saws to the section about armaments. Keep in mind that UPA fought for about 10 years, and most massacres of Poles occured during a 1.5 - 2 year period. Large numbers of people who fought and died within UPA's ranks in the later 1940's had nothing to do with massacring Polish civilians, and as Snyder noted in some locatins such as the region now part of Poland UPA behaved like the AK (didn't initiate massacres, but retaliated). Faustian (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quoting this Wikipedia and you don't. Please contribute to this Wikipedia if you know better.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You are quoting the wikipedia article about weapons. Also, wikipedia is not a reliable source for this; a dictionary is. I provided you with dictionary definitions.Faustian (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

UPA and SB murdered thousands of Ukrainians.Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And?Faustian (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

End of UPA resistance doesn't mention Czechoslovak participation.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can contribute something there, using reliable sources.Faustian (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed the following section:

Removed section

Polish Terror in 1942 Before the World War II started, in 1930, Polish conducted "pacifications" against Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia, to suppress the nationalist and separatist sentiments. One of the consequences of that action was that previously moderately oriented Ukrainians became radicalized, and even those who had previously felt loyalty to the Polish state began supporting separation. Once the war started, systematic nationalizing policies of the newly emerging nation-states (or the national and Nationalist liberation movements, in some cases) to produce ethnically homogeneous "national" populations, usually conceived in the interwar period, intensified, with the encouragement of the occupying Nazis. In 1942, a campaign of terror was started against Ukrainians in Kholmshchyna and Polissia, as part of the effort to "pacify" (or "nationalize") Polish territories. Such pacifications were implemented with partial participation of Polish Schutzmannschaft battallion 202, which also operated in Volhynia and Podolia and was subordinate to the German Schutzpolizei. In November 1943, more than half of the battalion deserted. Counting all Volhynian Schutzmannschaften (not only Battalion 202) at least 700 Poles trained by the Germans joined the 27th Volhynian Division of the Armia Krajowa. Losses of Polish citizens in World War II by ethnic group were: 3,100,000 Jews; 2,000,000 ethnic Poles; 500,000 Ukrainians and Belarusians. The official Polish government report prepared in 1947 listed 6,028,000 war deaths out of a population of 27,007,000 ethnic Poles and Jews; this report excluded ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian losses. However some historians in Poland now believe that Polish war losses were at least 2 million ethnic Poles and 3 million Jews as a result of the war.

The first paragraph of text has nothing with 1942. The second paragraph cannot be named Polish terror - it is a German terror on Ukrainian-populated territories of Poland. I am at lost what the author wanted to tell by the third paragraph but it is obviously not connected with Polish terror. All three paragraphs tell nothing about UPA that is the subject of the article. If the text is useful (e.g. somehow explained the reasons for Podolia atrocities from UPA poiny of view, can somebody reformulate the section into a relevant, comprehensible text Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A jewel of parallel world historiography: Once the war started, systematic nationalizing policies of the newly emerging nation-states (or the national and Nationalist liberation movements, in some cases) to produce ethnically homogeneous "national" populations, usually conceived in the interwar period, intensified, with the encouragement of the occupying Nazis. It's about Slovakia or Croatia, but Poland existed since 1918 and Polish nationalism was fought by the Nazis once the war was started. Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

At war with the Nazis?

How could they be at odds with the Nazis if they were fascists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Because they weren't. --Львівське (говорити) 05:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

UPA was the military arm of the OUN, OUN was allied to the Nazis until 1942, thus the UPA was allied to the Nazis.I have provided multiple sources for this but blatantly User:Lvivske removed them.

VOA is the mouthpiece of the US government, it should be avoided especially when dealing with controversial topics such as this one.--Kathovo talk 08:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

this sounds like conspiracy talk, please provide sources. This article makes no mention of what you're talking about. Specifically, the OUN was never allied with the Nazis, but they did have an arrangement of mutual peace until 1941 (as did the Soviet Union and many other countries). That you're trying to push the OUN working with the Nazis after they killed its members and imprisoned its leader is kinda silly, don't you think? --Львівське (говорити) 14:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also your 'sources' were missing page numbers and none had direct quotes or anything of the sort. Controversial claims need verifiable sources.--Львівське (говорити) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

1. "...the OUN's ties with Germany extended back to 1921. These ties intensified under the Nazi regime..."[28]
2. "The OUN, which viewed the Soviet Union and Poland as its chief enemies, was supported by Nazi Germany and supported Nazi anti-Semitism." [29].
3. "The conclusion of another historical document points to the uneasy collaboration of OUN-UPA members with the Nazis against the common enemy, the communists."[30].--Kathovo talk 15:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This all seems off topic with regard to the above dispute --Львівське (говорити) 15:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How is this off-topic? You requested sources and I provided you with references showing that in 1942 to 1943 they were collaborating with Nazis.--Kathovo talk 15:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

none of those sources make any mention of year, or that they were even allies. Just they had "ties" and "support", and that members of the OUN-UPA collaborated with Germany against Communists (no mention of year or if it was a group thing, again). --Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you like dates and quotes:

1. "February 22, 1944-German forces, with the assistance of the police regiments of the SS-Galizien and the UPA, attack Huta Pieniacka."[31]
2. "March 12, 1944-The UPA together with the police regiments of the SS-Galizien, attacks the Dominican monastery in Podkamien near Brody..."[32]
3. "June 14, 1944-An AK field report states: 'There is local anti-Soviet cooperation between the UPA and the Wehrmacht...'"[33]
4. "Most of the textbooks and many historical monograms are silent about the different aspects of the UPA's volatile cooperation with the Germans that had already begun in early 1944".[34]

And speaking of "anti-UPA propaganda": "Most of the schoolbooks, as well as statements by many historians and intellectuals, all maintain the myth of an untainted UPA that always fought against totalitarian powers..."[35]--Kathovo talk 08:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kathovo, your contributions to content on a variety of articles in the same vein indicates something of an obsession. While you've done your homework on cherrypicking from two sources, you are essentially trying to introduce WP:FRINGE and are, as evidenced by the tone of your WP:POV discussions here, incapable of being neutral. As a suggestion, you are welcome to write an alternative criticism article... so long as it meets the criteria for articles and can stand up to scrutiny. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, my editing behaviour holds zero weight in the discussion. Secondly I have provided a large number of references by prominent scholars in this field all claiming there was a certain connection between Nazi's and Ukranian nationalists, failing to mention them and using articles from the VOA instead is certainly a POV.--Kathovo talk 10:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I know Jilje by name but I can't remember their work so I'll have to review this further. I do find the following quote troubling ("Most of the schoolbooks, as well as statements by many historians and intellectuals, all maintain the myth of an untainted UPA"), as it indicates that most hold the opposite view...that is, most historians and intellectuals argue this, but this particular author is arguing the exact opposite. If consensus in the academic community is A, we can't represent the article as B based off of a minority opinion / assessment. I think this requires further review and digging for sure. My initial instinct was that since it wasn't already in the article this was fishy (as we've worked on this for years, I figure it'd be brought up if used in most sources) and I still stand by the need for further sourcing. --Львівське (говорити) 01:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also vaguely familiar with Jilge as a scholar in the field of post-Soviet Ukraine. A quick scan through the article and the university journal it is lifted from, however, leaves me with a distinct impression of postmodern readings of this and that as 'Other'. 'Competing victimhoods' is a narrative form I can deal with, but I'm painfully aware of such 'research' from my own experience as being overtly specialised philosophical decipherment (to the point of reinvention how factual accounts are to be read) as opposed to old fashioned research. This is a form of analysis which expends more effort on analysing narrative form itself than dealing with the nuts and bolts realistically.

If I felt convinced that it isn't merely another approach to deconstructing how historical narrative is manipulated and evolves, I might tend to take it a little more seriously. It would be ill-advised to take such a source on board on its own (or even simply within the context of a small academic think tank where they all source each other). (Hope my babble made some semblance of sense!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The quote discusses propaganda and rewriting of history in modern Ukraine mostly in schoolbooks by Ukranian nationalists. This is stated many times throughout the section, I don't understand how you failed to see it.--Kathovo talk 10:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This entire section from Shared History, Divided Memory by Barkan, Cole, & Struve suggests that OUN's ideology mirrored National Socialism regardless of whether OUN cooperated with the Germans or not. This is how I understand your discourse. Poeticbent talk 04:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Then it appears that you've misunderstood both my discourse and rationale for wanting more in the way of further, non-partisan sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is how David R. Marples describes the controversy you speak about in his Heroes and Villains (pg. 27). I think his would be a 'non-partisan source' like you requested. Poeticbent talk 06:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did a fairly comprehensive search on the subject matter yesterday and also found Marples. Considering that "Heroes and Villains" is a comprehensive balancing act of various positions, using this extract would be WP:CHERRY unless it could be established that introducing Jilge's stance is not WP:UNDUE/WP:BALASPS. In light of the abundance of sources in stark contrast to Jilge's critiques, there would need to be a justifiable criticism section established with enough WP:RS that isn't easily refuted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalists tried political collaboration with Germany in 1941, and failed. Hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists joined in the German invasion of the USSR as scouts and translators, and some of them helped the Germans organize pogroms. Ukrainian nationalist politicians tried to collect their debt by declaring an independent Ukraine in June 1941. Hitler was completely uninterested in such a prospect. Much of the nationalist leadership was killed or incarcerated. Stepan Bandera himself spent most of the rest of the war in Sachsenhausen. Some Ukrainians continued to collaborate with the hope of gaining military experience or of some future political reversal when the Germans might need them. But in occupied Ukraine, as everywhere in Europe, the vast majority of practical collaboration had little to do with politics. - Timothy D. Snyder

[36] --Львівське (говорити) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this fairly much expresses my understanding of UPA (and independent partisan organisations throughout Europe). The friction and schisms between those who followed Bandera's principles and breakaway factions would make it impossible to address the complexity of the breakaway factions and smaller groups (who could not be considered to be a part of UPA in any meaningful sense) without writing a treatise rather than a criticism section. Under these circumstances, I could only understand the addition of soundbytes without thorough context as being WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bandera was just one of the leaders of OUN, even so he clearly did collaborate with the Germans prior to his arrest and after his release.

"The organization in early 1940 split into two factions named for their leaders, Andreii Mel'nyk and Stepan Bandera, OUN-M and OUN-B. At different times and to different extents, both wings cooperated with the Germans"[37].--Kathovo talk 10:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read the discussion in between your first pointing out this source and reintroducing it as the sources (note the plural form) to demonstrate it as meeting WP:BALASPS? Please read circular reasoning before pursuing this any further. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That rule concerns balancing aspects within one article, e.g. do not include excessive info about an alleged anti-semite letter in a recently self proclaimed republic. For balancing contradicting views it is WP:Balance which you should have refereed to:

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Any way, the sources don't contradict each other, both state clearly that at least some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with the Nazis and most had fascist tendency.--Kathovo talk 07:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration and alliances are different things, and you are specifically arguing for a formal alliance between the OUN-B and Germany after 1941. --Львівське (говорити) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To further qualify Lvivske's point, unless there is a formal alliance (meaning a formally agreed commonality of objectives), if there are members working as agents for a non-allied party whose objectives and methodology are at odds with the party they supposedly working for, they are using their position for acts of subterfuge (commonly known as spies and plants) undermining their party's objectives. This was not uncommon: Germans who worked as plants and informants for the British and visa versa, multiplied by all of the parties involved in the war.

Please qualify 'most had fascist tendency'. Who - most of the entire OUN-M and OUN-B for the duration of the 1941-45 period? What - is a 'fascist tendency'? Tending toward extremism, a slight bent, in their dreams? It sounds as if you're desperate to push the word 'fascist' into the content couching it in some sort of nondescript qualifier.

I'm still failing to see how 'relatively equal in prominence' applies here. You've found a source and appear to be a dog with a bone about the subject matter of this article. Your approach to the content seems to be that of someone who has been boning up on hearsay, rumours and Ukrainophobe propaganda and is determined to find something (anything) to substantiate their own preconceptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule that stipulates factions have to sign a "formal" agreement of alliance to be lumped together in the infobox. Looking at current events; is there any "formal agreement" between those paramilitary groups in the Syrian Civil War or the 2014 Crimean crisis? If we apply your argument the opposite way, was there a "formal" declaration of War between the UPA and the Nazis? Why are the they then shown as enemies?

Iryna Harpy I have warned before that you're slowly slipping into ad hominem mode. Please leave me out of it and do focus on the subject under discussion. Consider this a second friendly reminder.

So far I have provided not one but five specialised and peer-reviewed references to support the view of a Nazi-UPA connection, and I assure you there is no lack of sources.--Kathovo talk 13:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to post google results, I'd like to point out that the first non-wiki result that showed up for me bluntly stated "The legacy of UPA continues to be a complex issue in contemporary Ukraine. Owing to effective Soviet propaganda of presenting UPA as Nazi collaborators (which has no basis fact)" --Львівське (говорити) 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy of an anonymous piece published by the The Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation Centre. Reliable materials should come from peer-reviewed journals and publishing houses, not a partisan organisation headed by a Physics proffesor.--Kathovo talk 19:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

you're the one who posted the google results. I also click the goog scholar link and the first article that came up free was the katchanovski one, and he doesnt mention post-1941 collaboration either. --Львівське (говорити) 20:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that there was actually a statement of allegiance from Ukrainian nationalists to Hitler's New Order (Nazism) in the Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941.--Kathovo talk 22:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, this was a proposed alliance which was shot down, and its also 1941 while you are arguing for 1943+ --Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There was have always been a tensed alliance between the OUN and the Nazis, before 1941 and after 1943, many references testify to this.--Kathovo talk 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And yet you have produced none. --Львівське (говорити) 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have shown over twenty different references to prove my point, you are the one who produced literally zero counter references.--Kathovo talk 08:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Kathovo, you are now edit warring by introducing patent POV nonsense based on spurious readings of English language sources. Using "oun nazi" as the search term is an indication of what, exactly? The sources you are drawing on discuss pedagogical issues related to investigating whether the Ukrainian curriculum needs to be better structured, or are discussing broader concepts of nation building and national narrative which you have cherry picked (without addressing the national narrative of other parties involved) and have come to a WP:OR conclusion. Changing "Opponents" into "Allies" begs the question of your motivation for editing this article. You've engaged in WP:TE by trying to tie up other contributors on this talk page: i.e., posturing as having balanced RS in order to demonstrate that you are sincere but, in fact, demanding that we refute the ridiculous. From where I stand, this reads as being WP:NOTHERE in its most objectionable form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell you haven'y taken a look at those sources. This is an English Wikipedia, English language references are preferred over non-English, and since we have a multitude of English references on this subject there is no need to include Ukrainian language references, especially since they are deemed untrustworthy by many neutral Academic references I also cited above. So please drop the cherry picking arguments because it's getting ridiculous.

"Pedagogical issues"... really? These articles clearly discuss National myth building and Historical revisionism in post-Soviet Ukraine, another proof you haven't even made an effort to read those references.--Kathovo talk 08:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even going to discuss the calibre of the arguments you've pulled as a WP:Coatrack on which to change "Opponents" into "Allies". It's a blatant POV push which is completely at odds with even the majority English RS on the subject matter. You seem to have misread the preference for English language references:
"English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."
Considering that the majority of scholarly research is not available in the English language, and that there are substantially more than a large number of English language scholarly publications that are in agreement with these non-English sources, therefore at odds with the sources you found using "oun nazi" as the search parameter (I don't know how you've made the quantum leap from a few to many), I'd say that the onus is on you to establish how the sources you're drawing on could possibly justify changing "Opponent" to "Ally". There are no such statements in your sources. This is nothing more than inaccurate POV WP:SYNTH you've created in your own mind.

Note, also, that the subject of the article is the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army", not OUN and any conspiracy theories you've elicited because you appear to be desperate to find them; nor is the subject "The Ukrainian Insurgent Army and historical revisionism and nation building". That would constitute another article altogether. Please read the discussions on this talk page, including archived discussions, in order to familiarise yourself with its previous history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Kathovo, could you also confirm that you are IP user 95.221.147.227 as, from the identical content changes, it is evident that you are one and the same. I suspect you have forgotten to log in for several of your edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's wasn't me.--Kathovo talk 08:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that on good faith. The editing patterns bore a remarkable resemblance, but the same could apply to any number of contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that cooperation between OUN aand Germany doesn't belong here, in terms of "alliances", so the 1942 anbd earlier cooperation doesn't belong. How formal was the cooperation between UPA and Germany in 1944 and later? I know the Germans dropped off supplies in exchange for information. If the relationship was formalized, would it be acceptable to list Germany as an enemy (1942-1944) and also as an ally (1944-1945)?Faustian (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of any formal alliances. Kathovo has not presented any evidence of formal alliances, but did present the argument earlier in the discussion, "There is no rule that stipulates factions have to sign a "formal" agreement of alliance to be lumped together in the infobox. Looking at current events; is there any "formal agreement" between those paramilitary groups in the Syrian Civil War or the 2014 Crimean crisis? If we apply your argument the opposite way, was there a "formal" declaration of War between the UPA and the Nazis? Why are the they then shown as enemies?". I'm understanding this as being, "Just because there wasn't a formal agreement, the burden of proof here lies with you to bring conclusive evidence that there wasn't a de facto agreement/sweetheart contract, because there wasn't a formal document signed that they were at war with each other." That's an awful lot of WP:TE. After to-ing and fro-ing with Kathovo regarding how many policies and guidelines he/she is blatantly flouting, I'm getting a little tired of by relentless angry mastodon charges and edit warring on the article itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have included 10 references in the article that show directly or indirectly that the UPA relationship with Germany was more that of allies than of enemies. The sensible thing from your side would be to remove Germany altogether from the infobox and explain your POV while backing your claims with references.

You still haven't addressed the issue of excessive reliance on nationalist Ukrainian historiographies. Nearly half the references are Ukrainian, that is despite criticism of such textbooks.--Kathovo talk 16:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian does not equal Ukrainian nationalist. Would you remove sources on Russian or Polish topics simply because they are written in Russia or Poland? Also, documented cooperation is not necessarily an alliance. Is there an infobox showing USSR and Germany as allies in 1939?Faustian (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no lack in English language sources, read WP:NONENG. Yes, we have a little article called Invasion of Poland where the USSR and Germany appear as allies.--Kathovo talk 09:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would the sensible thing to do be to remove Germany as an opponent from the infobox? I'm unaware of any dispute on whether the UPA fought the Nazis --Львівське (говорити) 02:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I included 5 reference when I removed it. I have also included some quotes above, I can add more if you're still skeptical.--Kathovo talk

According to your revisionist theories, this would mean having to go through every country involved in WWII with independent and underground movements one by one and turn history on its head. By your rules of 'neutrality', all research from the nations in question must be disqualified as being nationalist propaganda as no nation can be considered to be exempt from nation building narrative (if there are such nations, please let us know which ones fit the bill). Let's see, there were Nazi collaborators in the French Underground, therefore the French Underground Resistance was a Nazi ally... ad infinitum. It seems you are proposing a whole new and highly unique thesis (AKA WP:OR on who had allegiances with whom, consequently UPA is now to be understood as being a branch of the Nazis?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Collaboration" is just a umbrella-term used by historians to describe a wide range of pro-German actions during WWII. I was unaware that some members of the French Resistance against German occupation were also German collaborators, isn't this a contradictory statement? On the other hand Vichy France, whose leaders were widely described as collaborators, is considered an ally of Nazi Germany.[38] --Kathovo talk 09:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just want to point this out since it caught my eye, but this source being used in the initial argument says that Rivne was "liberated" by the Soviet army in february 1944. Just for history's sake, Rivne was annexed during the Soviet invasion of Poland and Rivne Oblast formed a month later. Do neutral sources consider the Soviet-Nazi pact carving up Europe as "liberation"? --Львівське (говорити) 05:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that is interesting. This is one of Kathovo's RS, isn't it? No, I certainly haven't encountered any 'neutral' source that would claim any such thing. Perhaps, considering that Kathovo has assured us that he/she has read all of the sources provided with care and was not WP:CHERRYpicking, he/she could enlighten us as to this matter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I could understand the language being used for Kiev since it was part of the USSR prior to WW2, but this just caught my eye. Weirder is that the author Piotrowski is Polish...the author is Tadeusz Piotrowski, a sociologist (re: not an historian). I know his name comes up a lot when discussing the UPA-Poland conflict because his work is cited a lot on wiki, and he generally gets dismissed due to his lack of credentials and conflict of interest. --Львівське (говорити) 07:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Rovno was fought in February 1944 and it resulted in the liberation of the city. Piotrowski is a widely cited academic and expert of national socialism in WWII Eastern Europe, so he is quite an authority when it comes to the UPA. Are there any academics that discredit his work?--Kathovo talk 09:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Why, then, can't I find any of his works in this area being cited by 'peers' in the academic world? The only citation I've found was here: "GENOCIDE COMMITTED BY UKRAINIAN NATIONALISTS ON THE POLISH POPULATION DURING WORLD WAR II", an online extremist Polish nationalist forum. His publications outside of his actual field include, "Vengeance of the Swallows: Memoir of a Polish Family's Ordeal Under Soviet Aggression, Ukrainian Ethnic Cleansing and Nazi Enslavement, and Their Emigration to America", "Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947", "The Polish Deportees of World War II: Recollections of Removal to the Soviet Union and Dispersal Throughout the World", "Genocide and Rescue in Wołyń: Recollections of the Ukrainian Nationalist Ethnic Cleansing Campaign". Er, yes, I'm convinced that these balanced titles have been peer reviewed, but not by the global academic community. Sounds as if he has a little bit of an axe to grind, don't you think? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you should improve your search methods.--Kathovo talk 10:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of peer reviews, exactly? There's nothing here to indicate anything other than his works being funded by private grants, and he's certainly not published carrying any university or college byline (a standard for contribution to the institution's research quantum). Perhaps in the field of sociology?

McFarland press deals in various adult non-fiction, claiming that they publish serious academic works. I can also attest to their publishing anything that'll get a rise out of anyone (catering to all tastes opens more wallets). By their own definition of themselves, McFarland pride themselves as being "recognized for its serious works in such popular fields as the pop culture (especially film), sports (especially baseball) and automotive history." None of the online versions available discuss his credentials, which is the practice for a known and reputable scholar in the field they're writing about. He's not even credited as having a doctorate.

To be honest, I'm not even certain as to how he qualified for a Wikipedia entry as some form of recognised sociologist per WP:GNG. Could you please indicate where scholars specifically in this field of historical research reference his works (aside from extreme right wing Polish sources which, after being funded by them, have his works translated, published and distributed by McFarland in English, Polish, German, Ukrainian and Russian, etc.)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Piotrowski is a Professor at the University of New Hampshire. Macfarland does provide peer-reviewing. If you have a problem with either take it to WP:RSN.--Kathovo talk 08:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He is a professor in Sociology. Not History. His field may include information on the social effects of historical events, but history is not his field. When it comes to controversial topics the standard of the information ought to be without problems.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Border between sociology and contemporary history is pretty much vague. Branches of Sociology include Historical sociology and Sociology of World War II, the latter is the field which concerns formation of such radical organisations as the UPA.

I hope that you guys start scrutinising the sources used in this article with the same vigour and enthusiasm.--Kathovo talk 15:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That UPA was an organization collaborating and allied with Nazis is well known historical fact. I am surprised that this is even debated, if needed numerous scholarly articles and books can be added as source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a well known myth, if you'd like to prove it as fact you'll need to start on those numerous articles and books--Львівське (говорити) 02:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/577915/Collaboration_and_or_Resistance_The_OUN_and_UPA_during_the_War Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Katchanovski.pdf Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

References removed from the article

• Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe
• Himka, Collaboration and or Resistance
• Per Anders Rudling, The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right, The Case of VO Svoboda

Himka, Rossolinski-Liebe and Rudling are academic historians, who don't support Polish nationalists.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Himka and Rossolinski-Liebe seem nonobjectionable (I know less about the latter than about the former though). Rudling, on the other hand, is clearly biased: [39] and should be used carefully.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see this is about stuff that gets put into external links/further reading. Personally I actually very much dislike these sections so I wouldn't have a problem with nuking it altogether.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

History of Ukraine's Unvanquished Freedom Fighters

The title makes the referenced text unacceptable.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please learn history of UPA. 362 ways of murdering and torturing [40]. Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A link to a what looks like a murder-porn that references the work of Aleksander Korman, who infamously had the picture of gypsy children murdered and tied to a tree with barbed wire by their mentally ill mother in the 1920's, on the cover of his book as an UPA crime. The original link is gone (it was discussed on wikipedia) but full translation is here, thanks to google: [41].Faustian (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I realize now that the user was trying to say "The Ukrainian Insurgent Army: A History of Ukraine's Unvanquished Freedom Fighters (exhibition brochure). Lviv 2009." should be removed from the Books / further reading section because it is "unacceptable". --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Unacceptable" on what grounds? Is this an I don't like it argument, while the murder-porn has been posted here as an I like it? Perhaps I've misunderstood Wikipedia policy, whereby articles and talk pages are supposed to reflect scholarly, mainstream, encyclopaedic research and discussion. Instead, both the article and the talk page are being bombarded by WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. It's getting quite WP:TEDIOUS.

Incidentally, apologies for the misjudged WP:ROLL. I was about to make dinner IRL, and realised that I didn't have time to pick through all of the additions and subtractions from the article until later (the edit summary being dishonest, with far more in the way of major changes having been made to the text than it conveyed). I should have just let it stand until I could get back to it. Feel free to trout slap me for leaving the tidying up to others. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Volodymyr Viatrovych in general, and that work of his in particular, has been heavily criticized by historians, as it's more of a polemic rather than a serious scholarly work. It'd be a bit like putting works by Edward Prus or Wiktor Poliszczuk in the external links. On the other hand, from what I understand, some of his other publications (in particular those pertaining to UPA and NKVD) received a better review. I also have this vague recollection that I saw something about how he's going to cooperate in some study with the Polish Institute of National Remembrance somewhere.

I would support removing it, although since it's not used as a source I don't feel that strongly about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Volodymyr Viatrovych has legitimate credentials and as such is not in the same category as Edward Prus or Wiktor Polszczuk. On the other hand his works are clearly biased and with repsect to controversial topics more objective sources ought to be used. I would place Viatrovych in the same general category as Rudling.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Poliszczuk and Prus both also have credentials. But I wouldn't use them based on the reception of their works by other historians. In that way they are very similar to Viatrovych. Anyway, none of these are actually used as sources but are just in the "External Links" section which is what the controversy is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right about Prus. Poliszczuk does not have credentials as a historian. Wiktor Poliszczuk is a lawyer with a political science Ph.D. (specialty in commie-era research of OUN ideology). You are right that this topic doesn't involve sources used in the article body anyways.Faustian (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with Ogniomistrz Kaleń?

My phrase "Communist Poland produced an anti-UPA movie Ogniomistrz Kaleń." has been removed with a comment "but dose further reading doe...". It's vandalism.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a little bit of "trivia". And if it's gonna get mentioned there's a lot of context that should be included. Like for example the fact that it was a propaganda movie intended to justify Operation Wisla (Motyka actually has a good book on the subject).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole Popular culture section should be discussed, why some films are described, the other ones listed and Ogniomistrz Kaleń removed. I have written "Communist Poland produced an anti-UPA movie Ogniomistrz Kaleń." where ant-UPA means for me propaganda, everyone can correect the wording. "Ogniomistrz Kaleń" is based on "Łuny w Bieszczadach".

Popular culture subject includes books, eg. The Museum of Abandoned Secrets by Oksana Zabuzhko, who writes that Polish civilians were massacred like pigs because they treated Ukrainians like pigs (?). In Poland Włodzimierz Odojewski has published at least two important books about UPA. Stanisław Srokowski is a survivor and the massacre is his main subject, at least of four books.Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yaroslav Hrytsak

I don't know Ukrainian historiography but Yaroslav Hrytsak is quoted here only one time (Ярослав Грицак має понад 500 наукових публікацій uk:Грицак Ярослав Йосипович)[42].Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OUN/UPA in the lead

The acronim isn't explained in the lead.Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

engaged in a series of guerrilla conflicts

False, ethnic cleansing with mass extermination of civilians isn't a "guerilla conflict".Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

They did both. You do realize UPA existed until the 1950s and that most of its membership did not exterminate Poles?Faustian (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Xx236 can you be specific about the part of the article you are discussing? As Faustian says, there was guerrilla conflict, against the NKVD for example. There were also massacres. Both could be true. Without being precise it's hard to tell what it is you're addressing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

One phrase which summarizes the subject is a very difficult goal finishing the writing, so maybe discussing the lead is premature but if it exists, let's discuss it. The UPA had a project of ethnically pure Ukraine, it waged a series of massacers of civilians which caused Polish defence and revange. It's not exactly a guerilla conflict which existed in certain areas between the UPA and HA.

UPA didn't kill, it massacred. It was a peasants' way like the Galician slaughter but all Poles were qualified as landlords, which they weren't.Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The greatest problem in trying to communicate with you, Xx236, is that your English is very poor. I have no doubt you have something you wish to express, but I can't understand what it is that you're trying to express. It's highly frustrating (for you, too, of course), but it makes difficult to know where you are making valid points and where you are being disruptive. Please try to understand that, from the point of view of other editors (and we must include English speaking editors who are monolingual), your posting of links, expressions of doubt and challenges to the content is annoying. Unless we can communicate with you, it's just an exercise in futility. Additions you've made to the content of the article may well be in good faith, but ride high on emotive language (i.e., not neutral, and definitely not encyclopaedic) without citations, or sourcing texts that haven't been properly checked for being POV or meeting the criteria for being reliable sources, is exhausting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The quality of this article is low, see threads below.

Your comments regarding the Home Army article should be written on Talk:Home Army. Such defence of this article is Tu quoque.

Which emotional words have I put into the article?

According to Yaroslav Hrytsak Ukrainians in Ukraine aren't able to accept the real image of the UPA, because they had only 20 years to do so. This doesn't apply however to Australians or Canadians of Ukrainian origins. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The number of Polish refugees from Western Ukraine

UPA expelled Poles from Western Ukraine, I'm not able to find the source but there were about 300,000 survivors.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

789,000 Ukrainians and 488,000 Poles were deported by the Soviets

Deported - where? Through the Soviet border or to Siberia? Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 700-800 thousands of Poles were deported from Ukraine to Poland 1944-1946.Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 580,000 of Ukrainians were deported from Poland to Ukraine. So the numbers have been exchanged.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The wrong numbers were accepted during years. After the correction they should be verified. So please verify. And tell me, why weren't they verified during many years? Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Monuments (for combatants or victims)

The text describes facts in Ukraine and ignores eg. Poland, compare ru:Памятники жертвам ОУН-УПА, uk:Список пам'ятних знаків жертвам ОУН і УПА.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.pch24.pl/pomnik-upa-bedzie-stal-na-polskim-cmentarzu--bo-na-ukrainie-jest-zla-sytuacja,22477,i.html Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead - drive out the occupying powers

Please explain who were the occupying powers. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

could be all three, no? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The article should be written for any reader, who doesn't know the subject. BTW - what is all three? Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The number was changing [43] says Two.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing blogs into the picture? You still don't seem to be able to discern between WP:RS and blogs, forums and the stuff of fictionalised history. Wikipedia is not a populist, sensationalist forum, it's an encyclopaedic resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the litter posted all over this talk page by Xx236, evidently the only "occupying powers" were Ukrainians. Does that make anything resembling sense? No? I thought not. Does it suggest that Xx236 is obsessed by his/her own WP:POV? Yes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The language: litter, is obsessed. You are breaking basic rules of Wikipedia.

I'm asking - who were the occupying powers? Which occupying powers was UPA able to drive out?

I admit - I'm obsessed, I believe that Wikipedia article should be written with basic respect to facts.Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The extraordinarily biased sites and information you've gleaned point to the fact that you're not interested in respecting the facts, but the facts as you believe them to be. What you are engaged in is obsessing over over-the-top, deeply emotive and biased interpretations of events. There's nothing encyclopaedic or neutral about how you engage here, nor the WP:POINTy nature of your questioning of content. In fact, your editing history indicates that you're a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Please drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The article presents Ukrainian nationalistic POV. The article misinforms. A simple question - who were the occupying powers isn't allowed. obsesing and biased are perfect descriptions of the current article. Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Many dead links

Dead links make part of the article unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See WP:LINKROT:
"Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:LINKROT, it doesn't prize link rots. I understand that it describes a situation when there exist some, eg. printed sources, so it's possible to check them using some time/money. This article is based partially on non-English, unavailable outside Ukraine, sources, which make some parts of it unverifiable.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The full book about UPA published by the Ukrainian ACademy of Science was on-line; for some reason the link no longer works; fortunately the aarticle is properly referenced with page numbers etc. For proof of the book's existence, here: [44] although the links to the text don't work. Some years back I copied the pdf of one of the chapters (referenced in this article) on my computer and can e-mail it to someone for verification purposes.Faustian (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could email it to me, Faustian. I'd like to have a chance to read through it... plus, it doesn't hurt to have a number of Wikipedians with a copy for future reference purposes (as we all pop off our perches)! Thanks, in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't e-mailed anyone through wiki and am not sure how the process works. Send me an email or let me know. The chapter is in Ukrainian. It's an excellent source - extremely extensive, and written by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.Faustian (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Citing a book written in Ukrainian and published only in Ukraine is not ideal on English-language Wikipedia. However a citation to such a book is verifiable.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture

• The paragraph doesn't inform about books.
• Why these selected movies are described? Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Undefeated is about the life of Roman Shuhevych and the hunt for him by both German and Soviet forces, - what about the first part of his undefeated life, the extermination of Polish civilians?Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalistic POV

The army also played a substantial role in ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of Volhynia and East Galicia

• OUN(B) and UPA exterminated Poles in Volhynia and many writers describe the crime as a genocide [45]. There are opinions that there exist analogies between the Volhynia extermination and Holodomor, which put both crimes into the genocide category.
• OUN(B) and UPA desgined and executed ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of East Galicia.
• Armenian minority was also the victim, eg. in Kuty.
• OUN(B) and UPA murdered Jews, eg. Jewish members of UPA.
• Czech minority was also exterminated [46].Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/7629265/Ethnic_Cleansing_Genocide_or_Ukrainian-Polish_Conflict_The_Mass_Murder_of_Poles_by_the_OUN_and_the_UPA_in_Volhynia Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Biased lead

The lead lists the Polish People's Army but no Soviet formation. BTW - the Polish People's Army was supported by other formations. Selecting one from many Polish, Soviet and Czechoslovak formations is POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

unaffiliated with the UPA

large bands of armed marauders, unaffiliated with the UPA, brutalized civilians - which page of the quoted article says so and about which period? Burds' article describes the period under the Soviets and the massacres took place under the Germans. Germans and UPA controlled Western Ukraine to oppose any unafilliated bands. Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Page no added, whitewashing of UPA continues. UPA murdered Polish civilians mostly under the Germans. Burds describes the situation under the Soviets 1944/1945. Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Rudling and Romanovski

I do not understand comment by Irena Harpy I based my edit on this article http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/191/roman.htm Даниил Романовский КОЛЛАБОРАНТЫ: УКРАИНСКИЙ НАЦИОНАЛИЗМ И ГЕНОЦИД ЕВРЕЕВ В ЗАПАДНОЙ УКРАИНЕ "В конце 1943 года командир УПА Роман Шухевич огласил устный приказ уничтожать поляков, евреев и цыган и, в виде исключения, брать в отряды только медицинский персонал (которого в Западной Украине остро не хватало)[4]. Существует много свидетельств о евреях-специалистах, которых отряды УПА брали с собой, а потом, когда приближалась Красная Армия, расстреливали." (It is in Russian, but it can be translated with Google's help. And how does it refer to Per Anders Rudling which is well-known specialist too? Cathry (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See this and this. Rudling draws heavily on Romanovsky precisely due to his extremist WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So, some pro-OUN editors think that Rudling is not OK, it is interesting original research surely. But i still do not see any mentiom of Romanovski in that talk. Cathry (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who has problems with Rudling is pro-OUN. Also your source does not appear to be reliable. Is it from a peer-reviewed historical journal? Written by a historian?Faustian (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Not everyone who has problems with Rudling is pro-OUN." Well, give me example of not pro-OUN historian, who criticize RudlingCathry (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried to discuss this in a WP:CIVIL manner with this user, Faustian. Cathry seems to have difficulties per WP:NPA, and is unable to comment on content and not the contributor. I do not appreciate WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm also apparently expected to trot to and fro from his/her talk page and this talk page.

Romanovsky is an historian of very limited recognition. His credentials as approaching the subject-matter with extreme bias is notable. The only place I can find his research being cited in the English language is by Rudling (per this journal, "Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe", as an example): see Chapter 2 (Rudling), The Invisible Genocide: The Holocaust in Belarus. Romanovsky, himself, does not have any credentials to suggest that he is accepted by mainstream academics, much less taken to be an historian of any calibre outside being quoted and published in propagandist blogs on RU sites. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I can find much more Romanovsky - is historian from Israel. At example, his article here Rudling is accepted by academics, and professor at Lund University. Aboud Frieman info, i can not find his article online but i found mention of his work by Himka, "In his survey of Ukrainian-Jewish relations during the war, he mentioned that he had come across reports of UPAsetting up labor camps for Jews and liquidating the Jews later; he was not sure, however,whether to give credence to them.(Since he wrote, many other such reports have beenfound.)" http://www.academia.edu/577915/Collaboration_and_or_Resistance_The_OUN_and_UPA_during_the_WarCathry (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No proof that Romanovsky is a historian, only that some of his works have been cited by reliable sources. Is there a link to his bio? Also the source you are inserting is not from a peer-reviewed source such as an academic journal or a book published by a university. It's a magazine article. Phillip Friedman is the "father of Holocaust historiography" :[47]. It is absurd to treat the two equally as your edit attempts to do, and describing him merely as "another researcher" is actually quite inaccurate.Faustian (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you see what Himka writes about it? After Friedman work new sources were discovered Cathry (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some background on Daniil Romanovsky which I've barely managed to scratch up by digging through google, Faustian.

Cathry, this is supposedly being discussed at the relevant RSN, but you are now edit warring on an article which is clearly identified at the top of this talk page as being on the Eastern European sanctions list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no evidence that Romanovsky is actually a historian but evidence that he is a big fan of Lucy Dawidowicz, who is actually controversial herself:[48]. It seems that equalizing Romanovsky to Friedman is indeed a big mistake.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"no evidence that Romanovsky is actually a historian" One more time his article here This book Nazi Europe and the Final Solution is edited by Israel Gutman and David Bankier " he is a big fan of Lucy Dawidowicz" He did not say he is big fan , he mentions book which he find, when it was difficult to find anyCathry (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not see his credentials as a historian listed. And you are not citing this chapter from a peer-reviewed book (doing so would seem to be acceptable) but the non-historian's on-line magazine article, which is not reliable.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad he from Israel it may be difficult to find it in English. Now, there is some Leo Heiman treated as reliable source in article) Is it from peer-reviewed magazine or book really? And Himka write same thing Cathry (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Information about Romanovsky here http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hologen13&div=35&id=&page= Cathry (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Taras Kuzio here at 3:00 refers to Rudling and Himka as part of the "Gang of Four" who are revisionists with an agenda, ideologically driven, and pseudo-academics. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Taras Kuzio is not historian, and I see he is ideologically driven by nationalists and NATO. Cathry (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how you pick and choose what is and isn't a reliable source, Cathry. What's the determining factor for WP:RS according to you: whether the source suits your agenda or not? I can't seem to find any thread of rational thinking in your arguments other than the source being WP:BIASED in favour of your opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

i already tired to find here your personal remarks which have very little sense. Do your understand that most reliable sources (about this theme) are academical historians? Cathry (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

UPA and Jews

A nonexisting nurse obtained several lines. Why? Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This hoax has been presented as fact by fans of OUN, and it is important to document that it is a hoax.Faustian (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a right place. A specific Propaganda section is needed.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea - a section of pro and anti propaganda.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not terribly confident about that. I'm envisaging two potential WP:COATRACKS and a lot of WP:RECENTISM being introduced. This is supposed to be an article on UPA in the context of the time and place it belongs in history. I'm envisaging it being becoming another Holodomor battleground if it's opened up to current day politicisation. If this happens, then the subject of the article ceases to be the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" and becomes "Ukrainian Insurgent Army revisited as a political tool". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Historiography and how UPA has been presented is a topic worthy of inclusion, but one that can easily get out of hand.Faustian (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Particularly at this juncture. I'm barely holding down the fort on multiple articles on Ukrainian and Russian history. There's a massive amount of POV attacks, blanking and refactoring going on while editors are focussed on recent events in Ukraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please show where and when have I politicised UPA crimes. You haven't protested against systematic removal of UPA crimes descriptions, see eg. Volhynia but you predend to be neutral. Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The alleged nurse was exactly a political tool and has been recently used by Zabuzhko (The Museum of Abandoned Secrets).Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"our scouts and their spies" One of POV-examples is claims about Rudling unreliability Cathry (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

His lack of neutrality has been established.Faustian (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No Cathry (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Leo Heiman

What is it "Despite the earlier anti-Jewish statements by the OUN, and UPA's involvement in the killing of some Jews, there were cases of Jewish participation within the ranks of UPA, some of whom held high positions. Jewish participation included fighters, but was particularly visible among its medical personnel. These included Dr. Margosh, who headed UPA-West's medical service, Dr. Marksymovich, who was the Chief Physician of the UPA's officer school, and Dr. Abraham Kum, the director of an underground hospital in the Carpathians. The latter individual was the recipient of the UPA's Golden Cross of Merit." Only source is Leo Heiman, "We Fought for Ukraine - The Story of Jews Within the UPA", Ukrainian Quarterly is it OUN paper? Cathry (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal: [49]. Its publisher is not the OUN, indeed its publisher at the time of the Leo Heiman article's publication was led by Vasyl Mudry, an anti-OUN political and cultural figure who had been friendly towards Poland.Faustian (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it is peer-reviewed? It is false. And who is Leo Heiman? Cathry (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So you claim it has no scholarly editors? Leo Haiman is cited numerous times: [50]. Heiman was an Israeli correspondent for the London Daily Mail: [51]. He was himself a veteran of UPA and the statement in the article merely states that he fought within UPA and his own experiences. I am not using Heiman to draw historical conclusions or judgement, but to state a fact that he experienced. As a reporter he is reliable for that purpose. Faustian (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

NO, Heiman is not cited "numerous times" Online shop is not reliable source to prove he was veteran or something else. And I can not find surnames of jews he mentions in other works. "An academic journal is a peer-reviewed periodical in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published." And that one was founded "to fight with soviet propaganda"- so it is obviously not academical. Cathry (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Something interesting, mention of Heiman here by Holocaust denier I am not surprised:) His article http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/A1.html So "jew" "former UPA fighter", who says that there are "bad jews (khazar)" and "good(not khazar)" is reliable source, and historian Romanovsky - is not, it is great, i think. Cathry (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One more Leo Heiman? Or he was soviet partisan also? http://www.worldcat.org/title/i-was-a-soviet-guerrilla/oclc/638745663 http://www.worldcat.org/title/ukrainians-and-the-jews/oclc/10806177&referer=brief_results biography of that(?) Heiman, who became reporter and writer http://www.globaldreamers.org/holocaust/survivors/amity/ I think it is one person, but it seems he was soviet partisan, not UPA, do you read his article by yourself?Cathry (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Leo Heiman writing in the Ukrainian Quarterly is cited by several reliable sources: Ukraine During World War II: History and Its Aftermath : a Symposium edited by Yuri Boshyk, Andriy Wynnyckyj, published by Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto. Also Social Change and National Consciousness in Twentieth-century Ukraine By Bohdan Krawchenko, also published by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto. Also here: The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization edited by Ray Brandon, Wendy Lower published by University of Indiana.

I suspect there were two Leo Heimans. At any rate, the one we are citing here has been cited by reliable sources. His article was called ""We Fought for Ukraine - The Story of Jews Within the UPA". It's autobiographical and being used in this article as a primary source, describing his own experience. I suggest you review Wikipedia policy regarding primary sources: [52] "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Leo Heiman's work is acceptable as a reliable primary source. As for Romanovsky, he may be used as a primary source too, in describing his personal experiences as a Jewish dissident.Faustian (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Romanovsky is historian, who was published in peer-reviewed book and worked at Yad Vashem, so his works can be used as reliable sources. Cathry (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"I suspect there were two Leo Heimans" No, it was one, and think he was soviet partisan, and unreliable source as himself. I see he was cited, but there was example of executed jews in that citations, not fighters, So if you want to base some informations on historian works who cited Heiman you can do it with attribution, but not as primary source. Cathry (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you personally object to using him as a primary source? You gave no argument. Reliable sources have used him as a primary source, as we see above. And you present no evidence that there was only one Leo Heiman. I somehow suspect that a Soviet partisan would not be writing all over Ukrainian Quarterly. Faustian (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is book I was a soviet Guerilla in all sites claimed to be written by those Leo Heiman, who wrote others. If editor of Quarterly was adherent to Poland and not to OUN, he can, because he was from Polish city and went to Israel after war, and maybe he wrote about OUN-UPA as reporter from someone else. Do you have proofs that he is primary autobiographical source as UPA fighter? Cathry (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have "proofs"? In all seriousness, instead of persisting in pointing the stick, I suggest you drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.globaldreamers.org/holocaust/survivors/amity/ Cathry (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-4-040 Note that the question of what "Soviet" fighter means is raised. You are working on the assumption that it was used in the literal sense you wish to see it in in order to discredit him as a source (the term is a fuzzy one and badly qualified according to experts in the area). Heiman is used by reliable sources: understandably disparaging for you because you'd like to eradicate any obstacles standing in the way of the narrative as you want it portrayed. In light of the fact that you are not a scholar in this field, this is WP:OR on your behalf. In light of the fact that you have come to this article with hefty negative preconceptions, that makes you an extremely WP:POV would-be 'contributor' to the content not adverse to cherry picking material in order to create a WP:COATRACK on which to hang your spurious, original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Leo Heiman is cited by Hasia Diner http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=49m0rrjou5QC&pg=PA281&dq=leo+heiman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6LgPVLG2IIbnyQOOxYEw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=leo%20heiman&f=false and he writes how ukrainian nationalists killed people Cathry (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe Leo Heiman cited in Ukrainian Quarterly is a different one form the one you mention?Faustian (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have that number Ukrainian Quarterly? If yes, pleace cite what he wrote, or cite that historians who used his memoirs. Cathry (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to that journal at this moment. So?Faustian (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So it is doubtful info about jewish fighters in this UIA. And, there was another UIA (UPA) at 1941-1943 Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army, so it is not clear which one was meant in that article. Cathry (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proof? Sorry, not being able to produce a journal at the moment Cathry requests it is not evidence of doubtfulness. Perhaps you can find the journal.Faustian (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proof to what? Do you had that journal? Cathry (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Cathry, you are blatantly WP:GAMING. Time to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

UIA in Holocaust again

"Some jews who fled the ghettos for the forests were killed by members ot the UIA. I base this edit on article Soviet Union by Zvi Gitelman (p. 320) in this book "The World Reacts to the Holocaust edited by David S. Wyman, Charles H. Rosenzveig " As it was reverted "WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and added as an obvious instance of WP:ADVOCACY." I want to see explanations here. Cathry (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

The table states that opponents of UIA was Czechoslovakia, but in article, there is no explanation why or any mention of incidents in the teritory of CS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.107.246 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

UPA-AK working together?

I vaguely remember this, or am I imagining things? Can someone point out a source? Did they (UPA and Home Army) work together on a front? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

They did in 1945 and after, and only in certain areas (NOT Volhynnia or Galicia where there was wayyy too much bad blood for obvious reasons - basically only in territories of present day Poland) and only in certain circumstances. One famous example is the Attack on Hrubieszów (I did write that article). There's some Polish language sources in there. There were also several other more minor instances of cooperation, as well as many instances of ceases-fires, once the Soviets/Communists became the main threat. Indeed, these arrangements (and to be honest, there weren't that many of them) became the basis for the communist propaganda in post-war Poland which took the official line that "the bandits of the AK supported the fascists of the UPA". The movie Ogniomistrz Kaleń and the book pl:Łuny w Bieszczadach are prime examples of this propaganda. Volunteer Marek  00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the infobox perhaps have a section marked "allies", then, as well as a list of "opponents"? Other pages that use the war faction infobox list both opponents and allies. It seems clear that different armies were both allies and opponents of the UPA at different times (or even, as you say, geographical areas). Esn (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

When you say "1945 and after", how much after? Esn (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So, is there anyone who's against the idea of listing UPA's allies in the infobox? If not, I will go ahead and add it in when I get some time. Allies will include Nazi Germany and the Polish Home Army. Esn (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and archives carefully before making executive decisions. Naturally, as you seem to be aware of WP:ARBEE, I have no doubt that you'll take WP:OR and WP:CHERRY into account before initiating any changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's cherry-picking to list only its opponents and none of its allies, that's all. I don't think this is an especially unreasonable view. It is well-documented that UPA militarily cooperated with some groups at times, even while it fought against them at other times. This is nothing unusual in wartime, in which alliances can be complex. Esn (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Opponents

The list is incomplete. Certainly UB acted against UPA.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC) NSZ, BCh Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080224080545/http://www.vkpb.ru:80/gpw/guerrilla_ukr.shtml to http://www.vkpb.ru/gpw/guerrilla_ukr.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224035831/http://www.fsb.ru:80/history/autors/sokolovskaya.html to http://www.fsb.ru/history/autors/sokolovskaya.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930031611/http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/300202.shtml to http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/300202.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080930070727/http://history.org.ua:80/oun_upa/upa/index.htm to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct x 4. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Vitaly Maslovsky

• What is the value of Maslovsky's works?
• No article about Vitaly Maslovsky. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are articles about him on Russian and Polish wikies: ru:Масловский, Виталий Иванович, pl:Witalij Masłowskij. Take your pick Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I know they are. There is no such article here and I'm interested why. Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, Russian and Ukrainian academics are very poorly covered on en-wiki in general. The other obvious reason that Maslovsky seems to be mostly notable as a vocal critic of UIA and his strange death (allegedly related to his criticism). This makes his bio to be a subject of interest for devoted critics of UIA and modern Ukrainian nationalists. I guess there are much less devoted critics of UIA on en-wiki (or, say, on uk-wiki) than on ru and pl wikis. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to assess his work. The Russian Wikipedia article is low on sourcing, and the fact that the majority of his research was during the Soviet era could be off-putting considering that the UPA was branded as being politically the lowest of the low... and that sentiment continues to run deep in the Russian and Polish narrative for different reasons. Personally, I've never heard of him. Unless there are fairly contemporary evaluations of him and his work that aren't embedded in POV narratives, I'd be hesitant to start any article on him, much less any of his works. Just running a google check on his name in Russian yields dubious sites and articles.

While I wouldn't want to disqualify his work based on who cites him, neither would I feel confident in touching on conspiracy theories surrounding his death, or of his work being enshrined as credible as the by-product of a perception of 'martyrdom' that appears to have been attributed. Either his work stands on its own merits or it's tainted by propagandist values. I'm unable to make such a value judgement as I simply don't know where his research stands in the realms of potential bias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Funny how you say 'bias' and only mention Russian and Polish narrative, as if Ukrainian government history and research institutes were into much more than pseudohistory and propaganda. Volodymyr Viatrovych. --81.169.130.52 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article talk page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Please stop IP hopping and edit warring the article's content by introducing your own original research. Your presence has become WP:TEDIOUS. As regards the article on Viatrovych, read WP:WINARS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sluzhba Bezpeky before 1945

The article should mention existence of Sluzhba Bezpeky during WWII, now it suggests that the Sluzhba was anti-Soviet only.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: I want to clean up the SB article a little first before addressing it here. It's in need of some copy-editing and finding archived sources as most of the links are dead, or have been lost somewhere in the editing history (i.e, there's a reference to Subtelny giving the page number, but the actual work has been deleted). Fortunately, the SB article hasn't been developed much since it was begun, therefore I shouldn't encounter any problems rescuing refs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The SB was established in 1940, which should be mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071210164450/http://history.org.ua:80/oun_upa/upa/ to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070502210000/http://www.dt.ua:80/3000/3150/54958/ to http://www.dt.ua/3000/3150/54958/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140512203523/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2014/05/09/in_a_divided_ukraine_even_victory_over_hitler_isn_t_what_it_used_to_be to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/09/in_a_divided_ukraine_even_victory_over_hitler_isn_t_what_it_used_to_be
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080411144138/http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/15.pdf to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/15.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208114349/http://gzt.ru/topnews/world/-sud-donetska-lishil-banderu-zvaniya-geroya-/299737.html?from=rotationnews to http://www.gzt.ru/topnews/world/-sud-donetska-lishil-banderu-zvaniya-geroya-/299737.html?from=rotationnews

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20070502210000/http://www.dt.ua:80/3000/3150/54958/

http://web.archive.org/web/20140512203523/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2014/05/09/in_a_divided_ukraine_even_victory_over_hitler_isn_t_what_it_used_to_be

http://web.archive.org/web/20080411144138/http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/15.pdf

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20151208114349/http://gzt.ru/topnews/world/-sud-donetska-lishil-banderu-zvaniya-geroya-/299737.html?from=rotationnews

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Reconciliation

It's not only the problem between the veterans, but also between the civilians and veterans. Xx236 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's complicated... but the whole article really needs to be cleaned up without edit wars erupting, and using reliable sources. Getting rid of trivia and OR has made for a good start. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/14.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vkpb.ru/gpw/guerrilla_ukr.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsb.ru/history/autors/sokolovskaya.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/20.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uvkr.com.ua/ua/visnyk/visnyk2005/april2005/komar.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/21.pdf

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

All instances were already correctly formatted. Cyberbot II changes added superfluous https://web. in front of https Wayback urls, as well as changing the date format to mm|dd|yyyy rather than the pre-existing dd|mm|yyyy format used by this article (contrary to MOS:DATEUNIFY). Thanks all the same, Cyberbot II. Hope you get this bug ironed out soon! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Article tagged with POV June 4-5, 2014 timeframe, and Talk Page discussion is not apparent!

The last archive is a confused, nationalist-editors warring mess without a proper title for this tag. If it is still not resolved, it should have been carried forward to the active Talk Page. It appears User:Xx236 first applied the tag, and was modified several times by others. Within 48 hours discussion needs to resume, or the tag removed. 98.67.181.111 (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Try looking in the talk page archives. There has been discussion, but articles under Wikipedia's Arbitration sanctions are prone to edit warring and often the article just remains as is with the template left in place as the closest to a consensus version that's been reached. The fact of there not having been a resolution simply means that it hasn't been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Personally, I think that the POV should stand as there are problems with the content. I don't necessarily agree with Xx236's take on the complexity, but editors don't have to agree with each other to work collaboratively on improving articles.

By the same token, you have the right to remove the tag as discussions have gone stale, and tags are not intended to be used as badges of shame. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this. The tag is stale and needs to go. --192.12.184.6 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Destructive Battalions

Mentioned once, unexplained.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the name with Destruction battalions.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of the terminology "victims"

One editor claimed I don't seem to understand how the term "victims" is neutral in regards to the Monuments section. Who determined that anyone who was killed by the UPA was automatically victimized? Could this editor please elaborate? Much thanks. Thegoodmanisamazing (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you prove that everybody who got wounded or died during UPA actions was their enemy? Oh, and please read Victim. The Banner talk 21:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The stalker creep strikes again. You really should get a life. And can you prove that everyone who died from UPA actions didn't die intentionally or was their enemy? Evidence is in your own words. Oh, and please read Stalking. You really may relate to what is on the page. Thegoodmanisamazing (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha, more personal attacks... The Banner talk 21:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegoodmanisamazing: Neither have you understood what the policy of WP:HARASS means. There is a clear-cut difference between your interpretation of 'stalking' and what is not harassment. Your behaviour towards/interaction with other editors is confrontational and clearly pointing to a lack of good faith in other editor's intentions. Having looked at your editing history, you have started your (thus far) limited input by calling editors out and making WP:PPOV changes. Oh, and note that it is not uncommon, nor is it harassment for experienced editors like The Banner or myself to examine the edits of inexperienced editors. The Banner was simply pointing out what I would have said on the matter had I responded first. Added to that is the fact that 'victims' is used in mainstream sources, ergo we follow the sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Source 79

Source 79 cannot be accessed from its original source as the page is no longer available. The other link which contains information relevant to the source cannot be translated. Therefore, it should be considered an unreliable source and all information pertaining to it should be deleted if an English version of it cannot be found soon. Thegoodmanisamazing (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Check again. Of course there is an archived version there. Even if it were not, read WP:LINKROT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Checked again just like you said. Still can't be translated. Wikipedia articles written in English should cite sources that are written in the English language or ones that are on websites where they can be translated. Thegoodmanisamazing (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

1) I've encountered no problems with translating the article using Google Translate using both Firefox and Chrome. 2) Read WP:NONENG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

A citation is needed for the last sentence of the first paragraph. If one is not found it will be deleted. Thegoodmanisamazing (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You could have clicked on the link to the article to get your sources...

 Done The Banner talk 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Monument in Warsaw

The monument contains tables with names of 2136 places, where UPA killed Poles.Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

OUN-B or OUN(B)

Please choose one of the two.Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The UPA, fighting a two-front war

UPA fought more than two wars, the majority of victims were Polish civilians.Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the popularity - UPA and SB murdered Ukrainian sceptics. You don't need to murder if you are popular. Ukrainian terrorists murdered mild Ukrainians already before the WWII.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

After Galicia had been taken over by the Red Army, many units of UPA abandoned the anti-Polish course of action - it's not exactly Snyder's text.Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is still correct to speak about two-front war, because UPA's military activity against Germany was minimal (and was limited mostly with rhetorics, per Rudling). Some sections of this article are written based on obscure and apologetic sources, and they need to be rewritten almost completely, because opina of really good internationally renown historians are dramatically underrepresented here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets;; - nothing about the Poles.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking seriously, that looks suspiciously close to what Ukrainian school textbooks say. Meanwhile, I am not aware of any significant military encounters between UPA and the Soviet Army until the very end of the war. By fighting against Soviet partisans UPA was de facto Nazi cobelligerent (like Finland, which was not the Axis member). By waging partisan war against the Soviets UPA also played a role of Nazi co-belligerent. In addition, during that period, UPA's partisan activity was just a self-defence: many of them were former Nazi collaborators and war criminals, so they would hardly escape justice. Regarding UPA's actions against Germans, the article's section about that aspect of UPA activity is unconvincing. It is based solely on few obscured or obsolete sources, partially Ukrainian, partially, Ukrainian emigrant sources (during those times, almost all Ukrainian emigrants had a connection to OUN and participated in creating a UPA mythology). However, even these sources tell nothing about UPA's attempts of sabotage or other active actions, they focused mostly on self-defense. In other words, UPA was not an anti-Nazi force, its behaviour would be probably better described by the term "armed neutrality": "We want to preserve a control over some rural districts, and we are not touching you until you are not touching us".

In addition, the full passage looks ridiculous. It says: "The 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." Taking into account that the same article says that UPA's strategy was to avoid direct clashes with the Red Army (which is quite understandable, because UPA was a small formation, not more than 20-30 thousand), it is unclear what UPA was focused on. Probably, ethnic cleansing and genocide?

I saw one questionable source - Yuriy Tys-Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number. The other stuff was written by historians at the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Seems legitimate, and the works provide details not found elsewhere.Faustian (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is a quoted German source, taken form an academic paper by American scholar Jeffrey Burds [53]: pg. 291 German Major-General Brigadefuhrer Brenner writes "The UPA has halted all attack on the German Army. The UPA systematically sends agents, mainly young women, into enemy-occupied territory." So we have corroboration from a non-Ukrainian source that UPA did, at some point, attack German units before they stopped.Faustian (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am wondering what the Home army was doing? Why this "the most numerous underground force" was incapable of defending their compatriots? I am asking sincerely, because I am not aware of the details of interactions between UPA and AK.

I think the whole section needs a major rewrite. These sources should be replaced with really good sources authored by internationally recognised scholars, and all weasel wording removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Home Army#Volhynia

Home Army#Eastern Galicia

The area was administered by Germans. Their policy toward Poles and Ukrainians was very complicated. Crimes committed by the Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 4 – Polizei are poorly documented, so sometimes it is unclear if Germans or Ukrainian nationalists were responsible. Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• UPAPrzemysl.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian ban

Ukraine doesn't allow to bury victims of UPA in Ukraine. [54]Xx236 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

1993 Ukrainian Encyclopedia isn't reliable

It presents Ukrainian POV. The question of UPA-German fights has been studied since that time.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/02/the-historian-whitewashing-ukraines-past-volodymyr-viatrovych/

Volodymyr Viatrovych wasn't an author 1993 Ukrainian Encyclopedia article. This encyclopedia is a reliable source, otherwise it can be argued that Polish sources are also unreliable.--KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously many Polish sources are unreliable and obsolete. And obviously the UE isn't reliable regarding Ukrainian-Nazi relations, there are pl4enty newer academic texts.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Source Katchanovski, Ivan. "Terrorists or National Heroes? Politics of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine" is Unreliable, and Other Sources That Utilize Yaroslav Stets'ko's Alleged Autobiography Are As Well

This source, particularly its usage in the first paragraph and the second paragraph, to make a rather scathing claim, is quite unreliable, and its usage in this wikipedia article is dubious. This source is used to support a claim that "The OUN's stated immediate goal was the re-establishment of a united, independent Nazi-aligned, mono-ethnic national state on the territory that would include parts of modern day Russia, Poland, and Belarus." The source, to make this claim, refers to Berkhoff and Carynnyk, which in turn utilizes parts of Yaroslav Stets'ko's alleged autobiography. Yaroslav Stets'ko's autobiography is a disputed source in the academic world and therefore it is unreliable to use sources that rely on his alleged autobiography. I think that inflammatory comments that rely on disputed sources should not exist in wikipedia, much less in the first paragraph of a wikipedia article, the one that garners 99% of the attention.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.50.179 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The claim itself does not appear to be a WP:REDFLAG, and as such I'd call [55] reliable (academic conference paper). If they use a somewhat controversial source, well, it's a perogative of scholars to make such calls. Ping User:K.e.coffman.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Source is reliable and info is important enough to belong in the article. However its placement at that point in the article is questionable. The organization existed since the mid 1930s and long after the war ended, whereas its goal of being Nazi-aligned was limited to the late 1930s to early 1940s. Thus the statement should be moved to the appropriate section, or at least clarified if kept in the lede to indicate that this was an immediate goal during the time of the German invasion of the Soviet Union rather than some sort of central OUN goal as implied by the current placement.Faustian (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I think this statement belongs in the lede. I changed it to make a necessary (IMO) clarification. There is nothing controversial about the fact that OUN wanted to be an ally of Nazi Germany at the time.Faustian (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with Faustian on this issue. I do have some extreme reservations as to who is reliable to what degree. I've been too ill to start a debate, but the fact of an academic existing and publishing on academia.com does not automatically make them reliable enough a source to support the annihilation of a neutral tone such as this, ("Violence was accepted as a political tool against foreign as well as domestic enemies of their cause, which was to be achieved by a national revolution led by a dictatorship that would drive out what they considered to be occupying powers and set up a government representing all regions and social groups." to "The OUN's stated immediate goal was the re-establishment of a united, independent Nazi-aligned, mono-ethnic national state on the territory that would include parts of modern day Russia, Poland, and Belarus.").

There are a plethora of Eastern European scholars on academia.com. Many have as much credibility as Katchanovski, but entirely antithetical opinions to his yet he has become conveniently the sole contemporary voice and, one by one, edit by edit, the colour of the language of this article has been turned from a neutral to an absolutist POV that this was the only reason for their existence. I've been watching description after description of the UIA being turned into an arm of the Nazi party. What truly reliable scholar do you have to make this assertion, Piotrus? While I have respect for the number of edits you have made, you have worked tightly in tandem with editor such as Poeticbent. I was sorry to see him topic banned. I know that you, like he, are passionate about Poland, but sometimes we have to be cautious as to whether what we are doing is about our personal point of view. We're not going to have them turned into being part of the Nazi army, as was implied at one stage.

I know I've edited in a POV manner myself, but have had people remind me to be neutral and follow truly mainstream thought, not the singular opinions of anyone who publishes online. I have always rethought my position to reflect the mainstream. Right now I'm upholding the consensus regarding Cossacks. They are classified as an ethnic group unto themselves, yet Ukrainians and Russians are trying claim them as their own. I would ask that you step back from your love of Poland and think about sourcing. Yes, certainly the Nazi troupes were welcomed in Western Ukrainian initially: they thought he would be be their saviour from Stalin and Polish rule. Deeper into Ukraine, they were more suspicious when they found out what Hitler was. Many had dispersed by then and ended up as Nazi prisoners of war. Try reading Babi Yar by Anatoly Kuznetsov as an eye witness account of the complexity and insanity of the times. There is truth, and there is truth. Thanks for hearing me out. Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If there are concerns about neutrality, attribution is a good first step. I have no strong feelings about the placement of this information, as I certainly understand UNDUE can be an issue, and I would need to investigate this issue further to make my own call. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thank you for being prepared to review the issue. While mainstream thought has defined branches\offshoots and predecessors to be undoubtedly heavily right wing, there was a period of time when a lot of young men joined to fight the Nazis and dispersed to get away from the bloody minded leftovers. Certainly, attribution is required. I, myself, come from an Eastern Ukrainian upbringing of muttering 'Banderovtsi'/'Banderivtsi' (I grew up with Russian, Ukrainian and Polish friends) under out breath when we encountered a Catholic Ukrainian church, or Western Ukrainians. Because I made a vow to try to be as neutral as possible in editing Wikipedia, it makes me more cautious about my personal opinion. It has always been a problematic article, therefore I don't want to overdo this exercise. It's a pity that Ukrainian extremists have chosen to brand him a national hero in these politically highly charged times, but nationalism has raised its ugly head again to the point of every district wanting to become a separate nation-state. I don't have the energy to fight it out over the details any more, so I'll leave it in both yours and Faustian's capable hands. There are others who been working the content of late whose judgement and knowledge of the subject is heavily coloured by blogs. That's not to say that they're not working in good faith, but that they have difficulties in understanding beyond the more recent political ball game. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian police and the Holocaust

Quote:

most Jews were actually killed by Germans, the OUN police, working for the Germans, played a crucial supporting role in the liquidation of 200,000 Jews in Volhynia in the second half of 1942 although in isolated cases Ukrainian policemen also helped Jews to escape. Most of the police deserted in the following spring and joined UPA.

The OUN police joined the UPA? That paragraph doesn't sound all sensible to me, because the UPA was an armed wing of the OUN. Perhaps the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police was meant? Because this sounds wrong, honestly. --Spafky (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Краковець Пам'ятник Шухевичу 09395.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

UPA in Czechoslovakia

https://litopysupa.com/books/the-upa-in-light-of-slovak-and-czech-documents-1945-1948-book-2-the-upa-raid-into-western-europe-1947-the-czechoslovak-route/ Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

213.134.179.144 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove that UIA are neo nazi group. That isn't true. It's a propaganda that made by russians as the way to oppress ukranian people and eventually start a war

Not done – please clarify. There is no description of "neo nazi" used. Mellk (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Grammar, spelling, minor rewording

In the introductory paragraph, how about changing

The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army at the period from December 1941 untl July 1943 has the same name (Ukrainian Insurgent Army, or UPA).

to

From December 1941 to July 1943, the Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army shared the same name (Ukrainian Insurgent Army, or UPA). 71.162.197.249 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)