Talk:Ukrainian National Committee

Collaborationist organization

This article should be in the category "Collaboration during World War II," as the organization is clearly a collaborationist one. It is even listed on the page Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers. Also, as it says here (Historical Dictionary of Ukraine), "Late in 1944, hoping to involve Ukrainians in resisting the Red Army's advance, the Germans released the OUN leaders from prison and allowed the formation of a Ukrainian National Committee led by Gen. Pavlo Shandruk." That clearly shows that the Germans formed it to mainly serve their own purposes, fighting for them against the Red Army. As it says here, the Ukrainian National Army (the force of the Committee) was "A military formation within the German armed forces" and "the Ukrainian National Committee, with the approval of the German government, announced the formation of the Ukrainian National Army (UNA), which was to group approximately 220,000 Ukrainians serving in the German armed forces into one army." One of the committee's leading members, Oleksandr Semenenko, was a Soviet citizen who was the mayor of Kharkov during the German occupation of the USSR, while Shandruk was not a German citizen either. Most of the members of the Committee and its forces fit the definition of collaborator, "a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy." Славянский патриот (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A wikipedia page such as Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers is not a reliable source. Whether or not individual members of the Committee had been collaborators is irrelevant, because this article is about this organization, and not about those members. The first source you linked to, [1] does not state that the Germans formed it (if they did, this would indeed suggest collaboration) but that they allowed it to be formed. So, Ukrainians and not Germans formed it. Your second link was to an article not about the the Ukrainian National Committee but about a related yet different organization - the Ukrainian National Army. And you quoted selectively. The very next sentence was: "The committee hoped that after the defeat of the Germans the UNA would play an important role in establishing an independent Ukraine, an outcome made possible by postwar rivalry between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. " So the purpose of organizing this army was not to serve the Germans but to help establish a free Ukraine after Germany's inevitable defeat. Remember the Oxford definition of collaborator [2]: "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector". So that article does not support that this definition applies. BTW, here is a reliable source discussing the Ukrainian National Army:[3]. The oath its soldiers took (even German personnel embedded in it had to take this oath) was: "I will always and everywhere fight for my Ukrainian homeland with weapons in hand and under a Ukrainian flag." Note that Shandruk was appointed leader by the government-in-exile of the Ukrainian National Republic. Again, not evidence of collaboration. Faustian (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

More: [4]. A Committee for for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia was formed under Vlasov, and Ukrainians were expected to subordinate themselves to it. However, instead they independently of the Germans established their own Ukrainian National Committee and refused to subordinate themselves to Vlasov. "Faced with Ukrainians' obduracy and unable to bring effective pressure against them, the Germans gave in. On 12 March 1945 Alfred Rosenberg officially recognized the Ukrainian National Committee as the sole representative of Ukrainians in Germany." The article then states that the Committee appointed Shandruk as head of the Ukrainian National Army. The UNA was sent to Austria but was ordered to surrender its weapons. It refused to do so, and took an oath not to Germany but to Ukraine. It soon afterward surrendered to the Western allies.

This, of course, contradicts the idea that this organization can be classified as "collaborators."Faustian (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In effect, what the Committee and the Army did served Germany's purpose. They continued to fight the Red Army with the Germans in order to surrender to the Western Allies. Don't forget that the Germans allowed it to be formed hoping to involve Ukrainians in resisting the Red Army's advance. Aiding the enemy. The quote you brought up is irrelevant, because we know they fought the Red Army with the Germans, under German operational command, but we know they never fought against them under the Western Allies, who were, as we know, allied with the USSR (and who repatriated many Ukrainian collaborators, among others, back to the USSR). The Ukrainians' purpose in organizing it may have been, in their view, to serve their nation (as was Vlasov's) but in effect what they did before they were disbanded was aid the Germans by organizing a unit for fighting the Red Army with them, which was what the troops continued doing. All of its members were non-German citizens aiding Germany, which definitely fits "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector." They may have taken an oath to Ukraine but that is also irrelevant as an independent Ukrainian state did not exist, the Ukrainian National Republic government-in-exile was not recognized by anyone, and while the Germans said they recognized the Committee as a representative of Ukrainians in Germany, they did not recognize it as a state. After that they simply continued serving the Germans' purpose. Vlasovites did not take an oath to Germany either.

Furthermore, the quote I brought up earlier from Against Stalin & Hitler implies that Shandruk and Vlasov agreed to cooperate, especially since the next sentences after that one were "The Cossacks had also come into line. And all was happening four years too late." Throughout the book it mentions that Vlasov tried to bring them under his fold, so when it says they came to an "agreement" and that Shandruk "came to approve of Vlasov's views and programme" it is implying that they reached an resolution to work together to some extent.

In the source you brought up, the fact that the Committee was formed for serving the Germans' purposes is made clear, as it says Shandruk was persuaded to take the role by an SS officer. Then it says that the UNA's 2nd Division suffered 60 percent losses in fighting the Red Army, which, again, was aiding the Germans by fighting the Soviet troops.

The organization fits the definition of collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you did not acknowledge that you wrote an incorrect summary. You claimed that a source wrote the Germans formed it, when in reality that source stated "allowed it to be formed." Fighting the Soviets may have been a purpose for both Ukrainians and the Germans, but when the UNA disobeyed German orders and refused to hand over their weapons to German troops, they did not serve the German' purpose. when the Ukrainians refused to subordinate themselves to Vlasov and instead formed their own organization, they did not serve the Germans' purpose. Indeed, the very foundation of the Ukrainian National Committee was an act of refusing to serve the Germans' purpose. As for the charge of "treason", a necessary component of collaboration, two points:

1. Again, this article is about the Ukrainian National Committee, not about its individual members of units. It may have included collaborators whose own individual articles can then correctly have the collaborator categorization, but you must show consensus that the UNC itself involved betrayal and that it worked for an enemy rather than for its own people. As we have seen, the UNC was formed by the Ukrainians not the Germans, its very formation was an act of defiance against German wishes, and it was focused on helping Ukrainians in Germany and not on serving German interests. The fact that in some areas German and Ukrainian interests coincided does not change that. We have evidence that in several areas German and Ukrainian interests did not coincide and in those instances the UNC worked against German interests (refusing to disarm, refusing to join Vlasov, etc.) so they did not betray Ukrainian interests.

2. Secondly, whom did UNC allegedly betray? Vlasov was a Soviet officer who switched sides in order to fight against his old army under the German occupiers of his territory. Thus, a collaborator. Whom did the UNC or its leadership betray? Most of the leaders were citizens of Poland, because Poland conquered Ukraine during the Polish–Ukrainian War. The exiled leadership of the Ukrainian National Republic may not have even had Polish citizenship but defunct "Ukrainian" citizenship. Was a Ukrainian organization obligated to follow Polish rather than Ukrainian interests in order not to be a "traitor?" Would you classify Pilsudski, a Russian citizen, or other Poles/Russian citizens fighting for German-allied legions during World War I as "collaborators?" That being said, the UNC dd not fight against Poland so in that sense they did not betray Poland. The UNA under the UNC instead fought against the Soviets. the Polish government of whom the UNC leadership were citizens was not an ally of the Soviets, after Katyn information was revealed, diplomatic ties broke down. Indeed, Shandruk was awarded Poland's highest military honor after the war - not something that would have happened to someone who betrayed Poland. While wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, I'll note that the article for Pyotr Krasnov, a Russian monarchist White who never had Soviet citizenship, does not categorize him as a "collaborator" even though he fought against the Soviets with the Germans and was executed by the Soviets. Which is correct, as he did not betray anybody.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hans von Herwarth

Johnnie Herwarth von Bittenfeld and S. Frederick Starr: Against Two Evils: Memoirs of a Diplomat-Soldier during the Third Reich. London: Collins, 1981 and New York: Rawson, Wade, 1981 ISBN 978-0-89256-154-4 ISBN 0892561548 Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kultura reference

P. Szandruk, Historyczna prawda o Ukraińskiej Armii Narodowej, „Kultura” 1965, 6/212, s. 85-103 Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)