Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force European history Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 (Jan 2005–Dec 2007) Archive 2 (Jan–Feb 2008) Archive 3 (April 2008) Archive 4 (April–July 2008) Archive 5 (June–Oct 2008) Archive 6 (Oct 2008–Nov 2009)

This is an unbelievable edit: [1]. Apart from the fact that the article does not talk about the 1940s, I find it hilarious that Faustian believes that what Romerstein presents as a bunch of Soviet propaganda claims about anti-Soviet Ukrainian insurgents and Zionists are taken as evidence of some tangible reality when the author of the cited article refers to them as propaganda. The author doesn't claim anything like what you are propounding – that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. The fact that Soviet propaganda accused Zionists of being in UPA is indeed significant. Moreover, this supposed link was highlighted during the persecution of Jews by the Communists: [2]. It certainly deserves mention in the article. I assumed good faith in Lvivske and that his comments were a sort of joke. I hope I wasn't wrong.Faustian (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Loosmark: yes, the relationship between UPA and the Jews was complex (unlike the relationship between UPA and the Poles). Referenced in the OUN article, three leaders of the OUN's Provid (sort of the Central Committee) had Jewish wives. Ukrainian extreme nationalism, unlike Polish or Russian nationalism, did not have antisemitism as part of its platform. Yes, Jews were criticized as working for the Russians or the Communists, but there was no attention paid to some sort of Jewish conspiracy and the anti-Jewish remarks were conditioned upon the supposed collaboration with Ukraine's enemies, not with being Jewish. Read this balanced article: [3]. German documents state that according to German estimates the OUN was indifferent towards the Jews, willing to kill them or help them depending on what they felt was better for the OUN. When the OUN sought to infiltrate the German police, their members willingly helped the Germans kill huge numbers of Jews (while protecting those Jews who helped the OUN). When the OUN came into conflict with the Germans, they no longer needed to persecute Jews and stopped doing so. Yes, Jews hiding in Polish villages were killed along with everyone else in those villages, and Jewish partisans groups allied to the communists were also killed. Ont he other hand, other Jewish families were saved by UPA, and there were Jewish fighters in UPA (one of whom wrote an article about his experiences) as well as many Jewish doctors, nurses, and pharmacists within UPA's ranks. A Jewish doctor who headed an UPA underground hospital was awarded UPA's highest award, the Golden Cross, after he was killed during an NKVD atttack on that hospital in 1946. So, yeah, the relationship was complex. BTW there was an all-Jewish battalion in the Ukrainian Galician Army that fought against the Poles in 1919 as well as the Bolsheviks [4]. Both Jews and Ukrainians suffered from a pogrom committed by Polish forces in Lviv in 1918. The UPA-Jewish link was not some sort of wierd, freakish occurance. Faustian (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ok, you gotta be careful here. Anti-semitism was part of the platform of SOME, EXTREME elements of Polish nationalism, like for example the National Radical Camp. But "nationalism" is a pretty broad brush to paint with. Pilsudski can be easily described as "Polish nationalist" but he was pretty pro-Jewish (and even pro-Ukrainian in some sense). It ws the same with Ukrainian nationalists - some, like the above mentioned B-B group were not anti-semitic, while others were. Sources to that effect are not hard to find, [5].radek (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dmowski and the National Democracts are routnely described as antisemitic. Just a few examples: [6], [7], [8] "two politial passions are ingrained in M Dmowski, hatred of the German and hatred of the Jew." Timothy Snyder [9]: "Dmowski saw a Polish folk nation in fierce competition with wily Jews and disciplined Germans." And here is a lot about it: [10]. Basically Dmowski was proposing a Zionist plot to take over Poland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

pp. 285, [11]. Same conclusion presented The Scholar Journal “Ukraina Moderna” #13 2008 p. 260 at John Himka's artilce. Hoax need to be removed.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [12].

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 [13]. It's also mentioned in this source [14] 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: [15]. It states that it was/is carried out by both Polish and Ukrainian archaeologists (this was the second exhumation, there was one in 1992 [16] (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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Actually Canadian Historian give an answer to a question imposed in 1958 by Philip Friedman here [17] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks - so one +one and not "many" [18]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

The footnote here: [19] 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 [20] into the article.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [21]. Please stop battlegrounding here.Faustian (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [22] - [23] p.40 with same as Himks's facts- but this "answer" also not appeared in articles text. Also edit [24] directly followed with the citation (which also [25] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 -[26] Thanks.Jo0doe (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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:" [27].Faustian (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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 [28] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [29] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe proved that OUN UPA was an anti-semitic, pro-nazi organization. Here is the article: [30].

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This [31] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

I've removed [32] this source [33] (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 [34] but it's dead. Can anyone find an updated/live version? Volunteer Marek 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

This one [35].Volunteer Marek 13:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Ukraine may be able to help!

I miss a map of the areas of UIA presence. --Error (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Polish-Ukrainian problems still exist.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

I have restored the picture, there is an another source [36]. If there are better pictures, please replace this one, but the article should contain pictures. Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Armaments are war instruments. Here: [37] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I have removed the following section:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How could they be at odds with the Nazis if they were fascists?