Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tymek (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 20 July 2009 (→Let us stick to the topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:42, 20 July 2009 by Tymek (talk | contribs) (→Let us stick to the topic)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Poland Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 11, 2009.

Archives

Edit war warning

If the edit warrring continues, I'll protect this article. Please discuss things on talk, not just edit war.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I expect no arguments for blanking and QS reinstating in article - simply group of editors tend to exploit the WP for own proposes-- Jo0doe (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You should prbably just block JoeDoe rather than protect the article - most of his edit history consists of edit warring on different topics related to Ukraine.Faustian (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And most of edit warring initiated by same cooperative of editors. And all edit warring related to removal by cooperative of editors “undesired info” about Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists – Bandera (OUN-B)fraction Nazi origin and collaboration, war crimes etc. – but not to UKRAINE as allegedly claimed above.

Untrue. Jo0doe (talk) has also been quite active in edit warring the Holodomor article: . The real pattern behind Jo0doe (talk)'s disruptions is not "related to removal by cooperative of editors “undesired info” about Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" (I, for example, have added much such undesirable info myself) but about attacking the most anti-Soviet historical topics in Ukraine. I do not know Jo0doe (talk)'s political beliefs, but I can speculate about them because his devotes his disruptions to going after the two topics that most divide Blue from Orange Ukraine - UPA and the Holodomor (just as an example, in reaction to Yushchenko stipulating that monuments to the Holodomor be built, politicians in places such as Crimea put up monuments devoted to the victims of UPA.) Faustian (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative of editor much more liked to pose OUN-B proponents or sponsored by OUN publications as RS for WP.

A perfect collections – isn’t:

Сивицький, М. Записки сірого волиняка Львів 1996
Українсько-польське протистояння у вересні 1939 року у тогочасній пресі та споинах очевидців / Українсько-польський конфліцт під час Другої світової війни. Львів, 2003(In Ukrainian) Dziuban
newspaper "Krakow News" for April 1940
Just in the second half of 1939 wrote H. I. Kuntz in his article "again in Lviv" printed in the "Berliner Berzenazeitung" the Poles murdered over 60,000 Ukrainians

While a “wrong history” removed without explanation

СПІЛЬНИЙ ВИСНОВОК УКРАЇНСЬКИХ ТА ПОЛЬСЬКИХ ІСТОРИКІВ ЗА ПІДСУМКАМИ ІХ-Х МІЖНАРОДНИХ НАУКОВИХ СЕМІНАРІВ (Варшава, 5-11 листопада 2001 р.)
Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 5
http://www.memo.ru/HISTORY/POLAcy/g_1.htm

Simply because they not allow to perpetrate a hoax in WP for cooperative of editors.

As you’ve point out – no discussion intent exist – simply provocative messagesJo0doe (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account the recent edits - I can conlcude what affort were given to hoax the WP by distorting the facts and give a wrong emphasis to events -- Jo0doe (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "cooperative of editors." It's just you against everyone else. Here is Jo0doe (talk)'s edit history: . Everything that is not talking (in JoeDoe's case, talking means nasty arguments), is edit warring, typically massive reversions that are themselves reverting by one of many editors. Since Jo0doe (talk) limits his disruptions to Ukrainian topics, most of the people who revert him seem to be Ukrainians. But not exclusively - he has also engaged in revert warring with User:Narking as seen here: . As for Jo0doe (talk) 's accusations of "hoaxing", he has also accused me of hoaxing because I provided the year 1972 instead of 1973 for a reference.

A good summary of his behavior is here: . Note that this was written back in March 2008, and the problem with this one particular editor Jo0doe (talk) continues.

The real question is - why is he allowed to continue being disruptive? One reason may be that a lot of administrators are unfamiliar with the content and prefer to stay away from the mountain of info. But behind that smokescreen is the fact that Jo0doe (talk) engages in disruptive behavior.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So – just another “Austrian officer” case. So here article which reflected the OUN-B activities , allegedly claimed as “Ukrainian topic” – not – it actually should be placed as Galician’s Fascist activities category – it’s may be for some extremists look like Ukrainian, but that is not true. As regards hoaxing – see a short list of such http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army/Archive_03#WP:NOHOAXES – most of them perpetrated by editor recently nominated me as “troll” and “clown”. All edit warring as spin around explained in War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora by J O H N - P A U L H I M K A

Cooperative of editor would like to compose WP articles to match this “black spot” – see examples what they don’t like to see or distort to justify or downgrade the facts
UPA

OUN -B General Instruction adopted in 1941 “ Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” , There exist a several documented cases when such redistributed arms to Poles self-defense units were confiscated by Nazi’s and such Polish settlements were immediately after exterminated by OUN/UPA. Some survived Poles found shelter near the Soviet partisan’s camps. In second half of 1943 in some areas they together with polish self defense units conducted cooperative actions against UPA; in 1944 such actions reached a larger scale.

Memorandum dated 8 May 1941, entitled “General Instructions for all Reich Commissioners in the Occupied Eastern Territories”.

In these instructions to his chief henchmen Rosenberg outlines the political aims and purposes of the attack. …. The Ukraine shall become an independent state in alliance with Germany

Apparently convinced that the group of Stetsko had the backing of the Germans Metropolitan Sheptitskyy wrote a pastoral letter in which he exhorted the people to support the newly proclaimed government “the scarifies which the final attainment of our goals require demand above all dutiful obedience to the just orders of the government which do not conflict with God’s law.” Moreover he declared:

We greet the victorious German Army as deliver from enemy. We render our obedient homage to the government which has been erected. We recognize Mr.Yaroslav Stetsko as Head of State Administration of the Ukraine. The pastoral letter was read over the radio by chaplain of Nachtigall Battalion Father Hryn’okh the same morning. It appeared to have removed any doubts which may have been lingering in the mind of most prominent Ukrainians in Lviv concerning the origin of the Stets’ko government. [12

Indeed it can’t be found at Ukrainian Diaspora source what OUN/UPA adopt a Hitler salute as official greetings

IV Окремі постанови 2.ОУН уживає свойого окремого організаціного прапору червоної та чорної краски.
3.Організаційний привіт має форму піднесення випростованої правої руки в право-скіс вище висоти вершка голови. Обовязуючи слова повного привіту: «Слава Україні» - відповідь –«Героям слава». Допускається скороченн привіту – «Слава»- «Слава».

But WP is not Ukrainian Diaspora Online property – so cooperative effort to hoax WP by Blank Spots in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora should be limited Jo0doe (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up Himka. Another example of your using him out of context. Speaking of Ukrainian nationalist antisemitism, Himka concluded:

"Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33) Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine. In certain states within which the Ukrainians found themselves, anti-Semitism suffused the political culture (late imperial Austria, imperial Russia, interwar Poland, interwar Romania). This constant exposure to anti-Semitic ideology probably facilitated its acceptance when it was also espoused, in a more lethal form, by the German occupation authorities.

"...A remarkable example is the decision by the Bandera movement to infiltrate the Ukrainian police units set up by the Germans. Although the police units were at first largely recruited from the pre-existing police forces, volunteers were also accepted, especially after the Germans realized that the pre-existing police formations, particularly in the pre-1939 Soviet Ukraine, included a large number of Communist party members in their ranks. The Bandera movement, that is, the radical wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was intent on establishing a Ukrainian state and understood that it needed an armed force to achieve this goal. Participation in the police units would provide Ukrainian nationalists with some training and with arms. Indeed, the thousands of Ukrainian policemen who deserted in the fall of 1942 contributed immensely to the formation of the Bandera- dominated UPA. (37) Prior to that the Bandera movement had virtually taken over a police academy in Rivne, where the Banderites stockpiled weapons and taught recruits to prepare for "a war of liberation of Ukraine against Germany" until their activities were uncovered by the Germans in the spring of 1942. (38) The nationalists of the Bandera movement reckoned that as the front moved eastward, relatively few German forces would be left in Ukraine. At that point, the Ukrainian police could overwhelm the German civil administration ("If there were fifty policemen to five Germans, who would hold power then?"). (39)

Of course, infiltrating the Ukrainian police formations meant taking part in anti-Jewish actions. Apparently, this did not constitute an obstacle of conscience for the radical nationalists. In fact, taking part in some actions was probably useful, since weapons could be confiscated during ghetto clearings and added to the stockpile. (40) When the Germans discovered the stockpiles associated with the Rivne academy, the members of the Bandera movement denied that they were theirs and said they belonged to Jews. (41) According to the Germans, to finance their activities, the Banderites raised some of their contributions from Jews, whom they often blackmailed. (42) On the other hand, the Bandera movement provided some Jews with false papers. (43) The impression created by the German documentation is that the extreme Ukrainian nationalists were so indifferent to the fate of the Jews (44) that they would either kill them or help them, whichever was more appropriate to their political goals."

WP is not Jo0doe (talk) online property, you know. All your words are just a smokescreen for your one-man edit warring.Faustian (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -

Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic ideology

It's a articles about past not modern. Read carefully "Blank spot" article--Jo0doe (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Tymothy Snyder vs. Original Archival Research

A classic example of article disruption by Jo0doe (talk) . Here is the reversion: . Misplaced Pages is based on secondary sources. The article, referenced to secondary sources such as Timothy Snyder, states that: "During 1939-1941 1.450 million inhabitants were deported by the Soviet authorities, of whom 63.1% were Poles, and 7.4% were Jews. Others escaped from the Soviet-occupied territories to the areas controlled by Germans. Several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of Soviets, including Polish officers from Sovietannexed territories murdered by NKVD in the Katyn massacre, and others. The deportations and murders deprived the Poles of their community leaders."

Jo0doe (talk) apparently decided that the reliable secondary sources indicated that the Soviets were too brutal, so he tried to add archival data to contradict the conclusions of the secondary source : According to declassified NKVD data 309-321 thousands of Poland citizens were deported in 1940-41 from annexed by USSR Poland territory, of those 10864 was died by July 1, 1941. Amongst them non less then 80 thousands were Jews refugees. From captured and interned in 1939-40 130 242 of Polish Army military personnel 42 400 were released , approximately 43 thousands transferred to occupied by Germans territory, 15131 were executed in 1940. While according to Timothy Snyder, several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of Soviets, including the Polish officers from Soviet occupied Poland murdered by NKVD in the Katyn massacre, and others. .

So, we see Jo0doe (talk) using original research to try to discredit a reliable secondary source on an article page. This disuptive editor has beendoing such tricks on the UPA page and the Holodomor page for months, then engaging in low level revert wars to try to include his version. This has been going on for months. Because he has been allowed to continue, we see the pattern of his disruptions expanding into other articles such as this one. When will he finally be blocked? Any admins following this article?Faustian (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been trying to do the same in the Russian wiki and Ukrainian wiki. The reaction to him there has been swift and strong. Here people are too nice to him. Bandurist (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you've visit a ref on info my dear friends.--Jo0doe (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DE

Editors now try spoil the WP:Credibility by including deliberately in it propaganda originated from student work - see

УКРАЇНСЬКО-ПОЛЬСЬКЕ ПРОТИСТОЯННЯ У ВЕРЕСНІ 1939 РОКУ У ТОГОЧАСНІЙ ПРЕСІ ТА СПОМИНАХ ОЧЕВИДЦІВ

and similar quality of other sources by cooperative of editor.--Jo0doe (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

An interesting reading

Collaboration in Eastern Galicia: The Ukrainian police and the Holocaust Gabriel N. Finder; Alexander V. Prusin

East European Jewish Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 2, Winter 2004, pp. 95–118 ISSN 1350-1674 (print); 1743-971X (online)

Some text would be useful for article.

The Soviet occupation of eastern Galicia from September 1939 to June 1941 reinforced Ukrainian national ambitions in the region. Since Soviet rule spelled the demise of the despised Polish state, a considerable number of Ukrainians initially welcomed the Soviets and occupied higher levels in the Soviet administration.

Ukrainian collaboration purposefully enabled the redistribution of social capital and space in the region in an effort to establish a nationally homogenous Ukrainian state, a ‘Ukraine for Ukrainians’. A Ukrainian police force was a cornerstone of this policy

While Ukrainian police forces distinguished themselves in Lwow, they were active helpers of the Germans throughout eastern Galicia, in the countryside as well as in towns. The Ukrainian police was also deployed in the repression of the area’s Polish population. For example, on 1 November 1941 Ukrainian policemen in Stanislawow took part in a mass round-up of the Polish intelligentsia (and the city’s Jews). The Ukrainian police actively participated in round-ups of Poles for forced labour in Germany. In their marching songs Ukrainian policemen would sing ‘death to the Lakhs and the Judeo-Moscovite commune.’59 The brevity of this essay does not permit us to discuss the role of Ukrainian police forces in the persecution of ethnic Poles, but in this regard we would like to make one observation. Within the context of the Ukrainian restructuring of western Ukraine (eastern Galicia and Volhynia), Poles constituted a significant threat to Ukrainian aspirations of hegemony in the region. Thus in Volhynia in March 1943 and then in Galicia in August of the same year the leadership of OUN-B initiated the forcible mass removal of the Polish population in which deserters from the Ukrainian police force in Volhynia played a
conspicuous role.

and esppecially that conclusion

Violence generated by war and escalating to genocide became the tool of Ukrainian nationalist dreams, laying the foundations for a prospective – and chimerical – Ukrainian state on the basis of conquest, subjugation and, ultimately, the annihilation of Ukraine’s principal enemies in eastern Ukraine – Jews and Poles.

--Jo0doe (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jo: You can get more pertenant information like this from the Flat Earth Society site here and discuss it on the forum here. They would appreciate your "scholarly" input and erudition. Bandurist (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish police under Soviet occupation

The article says Cases where Polish police collaborating with the NKVD handed over documentation regarding the activities of Ukrainian nationalists were common. What Polish police was allowed to act in Volhynia under Soviet occupation ? I'm interested in the original context of this information in the source as I expect this sentence is misplaced in the article. --Lysy 15:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no Polish police in Volhynia under the Soviets. All Polish policemen were arrested as soon as the Red Army entered the area, and many of them perished in the Katyn Massacre. I have no idea why this untrue sentence is in the article. Tymek (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help out with proper references, so we can have that allegation fixed as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

The current version seems to changed repeatedly by a Polish user in a way that seems to deliberately cloud issues involving certain Polish actions. With respect to the book Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-10586-X Google Books, Snyder states that Polish kapos murdered Bandera's brothers. He also stated that In the Chelm region, 394 Ukrainian community leaders were said to have been killed by the Poles on the grounds of Nazi collaboration. An editor unhappy with these facts places "Allegedly" before the first one and a "check" tag after the second, even though the second fact is referenced by the book and page number (it is incidentally in the first paragraph on that page). If we decide to do this kind of thing to facts we don't like, a Ukrainian editor with similar attitudes can just as easily add "alleged" in front of and "check" after any referenced fact about Ukrainian crimes. If a fact is referenced, please leave it alone.Faustian (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You don’t get it, do you? What upsets me is NOT your source but your blanket reverts wiping out improvements I made, unrelated to the book by Snyder. I can see you didn’t notice reference I fixed earlier to Władysław Filar. You are NOT looking at what you’re doing, and that’s not good. – Going back to the English language. You cannot say that one version only (your version) is the “correct” one (in summaries to your revert war naturally), while in fact the next sentence clearly states that the allegations were DENIED by actual Auschwitz witnesses. I repeat, if the allegations were denied by some witnesses in the camp, than the Bandera brothers were only ALLEGEDLY (English please) the victims of Polish kapos. Snyder is but one source, Devin Owen Pendas (which I provided) is another. --Poeticbent talk 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The source indicated that Polish witnesses denied the involvement of Kral, not the involvement of Polish kapos in general, so based on that source one cannot place allegedly in front of what Snyder says. In another reliable source has something contrary to Polish kapo involvement, then of course allegedly (or some other way of stating that sources differ) would be appropriate. But all that you have provided is a source stating that a t atrial, Polish witnesses denied the involvement of Kral. So I am fixing it to reflect what the sources state.Faustian (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to what the source says

Please see: . Someone changed the article to state the 100 abandoned churches were converted, which is blatantly not what the source stated. Let's not let nationalism cloud one's edits.Faustian (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

latest changes to the article

Faustian would you stop reshaping this article a bit? your addition of this text: During the German occupation, the Polish government in exile and the Home Army considered that Volhynia would have to be returned to Poland after the war. Polish commanders had explaiwend that this would involve a war against Ukrainians followed by a swift "armed occupation. is useless. It was a very normal situation that the Poles supposed that Volhynia which was a part of Poland occupied by the Nazis would return to Poland, that can hardly be called a "plan". That was some pathetic excuse by the Ukrainian Nationalist to barbarically murder civilians for ethnic cleansing. Loosmark (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

His edit is factual and makes the section more informational and well rounded. Stop pushing your Polish POV against facts.--Львівске (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

what "Polish POV against facts"? Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian included cited facts which contributed to the tension among the sides. Your argument is that the part about Poland wanting to make war should be swept under the rug.--Львівске (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What cited facts, the fact that the Poles normaly expected that their country will be restored as it was before being attacked by the Nazis is a fact that "contributed tension among sides"? Is that an excuse for the mass massacres of civilians? Loosmark (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Poles "expect" that disputed territory be returned to them? Is this assuming Poland won, or what? Misplaced Pages isn't a place for assumptions. --Львівске (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a normal that a country which is occupied by a brutal regime expects that it will be restored when the occupation ends. It's as simple as that. Same as for example the French expected that the Basque lands will remain part of France when the Nazis move out. Loosmark (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the historical context, there was no assumption than the Nazis would even lose. Second, it was disputed territory by 4 parties, so to assume anything is just ignorant. Third, considering WW2 began due to TOV Polish occupation of German territories, how could Poland expect anything be returned at all?--Львівске (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WW2 began because of Polish occupation of German territories?!? Jesus, no wonder wikipedia is turning into a joke... Loosmark (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So if you had it your way, the re-taking of the Polish Corridor should be censored as well? Good grief! --Львівске (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are simply embarrassing. I've seen people arguing all kind of crazy things on wikipedia, but that the WW2 began because of Poland beats everything off. I'm out of words. Loosmark (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a sugar coated version of history in Poland or something?--Львівске (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the version of history accepted in all normal countries, in fact i've never heard of any country having anything different. I'm curious, are people in your country taught in schools that the WW2 started because of Poland? Loosmark (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WW2 started because Germany invaded Poland, which happened because Poland refused to cede the lands they obtained in the Treaty of Versailles back. Are you denying this fact? This is common knowledge... --Львівске (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that the WW2 started due to quote: Polish occupation of German territories. Every country i heard of (including Germany) accepts the truth that war was started because of the Nazis' criminal agressive policies. Are you still claiming that the WW2 started due to something Poland has done? Loosmark (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name one person who claims that WW2 was started because of "criminal aggressive policies," that's an oversimplistic, biased, revisionist way of putting things. --Львівске (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The WW2 started because of Hitler and the Nazis. Do you agree with this or not? Loosmark (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, as it is far too simplistic for such a world changing event. I think it would be more fair to say that WW2 started because of WW1. --Львівске (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek's comments below are factual and ought to be included in the article. The general picture is that Poland wanted to reestablish control over Volhynia, populated by that time (thanks tot he Soviets and Germans) by 8% Poles, and were preparing for a military conflict to establish control. The OUN chose to preempt this in mid-twentieth century fashion by slaughtering and driving out the remaining Poles.Faustian (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Text based on Snyder

The Snyder book is searchable on Amazon: . While the text added to the article is in the book (in fact, it's taken almost verbatim - thus constituting a copy vio) what's left out is the context of the paragraph and some key passages in the Snyder book. Basically the Polish government in Exile entertained the possibility that, after Hitler's attack on Stalin, the Second World War would end in a similar way as the First World War - with mutual exhaustion of Germany and Soviet Union. In this case they believed that fighting between some Ukrainians and Poles was likely to break out and that this was something that Polish forces should prepare for, since they wished to reestablish pre WWII borders. The "armed occupation" part obviously refers to the fact that this imagined state of affairs would require an increased military presence in those regions of pre war Poland where this was more likely. At the same time, the book states, the Polish Government in Exile supported the idea of an independent Ukraine although they wanted it to be established on pre-war Soviet territory. The text further states that this idea of possible war with some Ukrainians in the event of Russian and German exhaustion became stronger after 1943 due to the collaboration of some Ukrainians with the Nazis.

Importantly the text also notes (previous page) that OUN-B THOUGHT EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They also expected an eventual exhaustion of Germany and Soviet Union and afterward a confrontation with the Poles. The difference was that because of this they thought they had to move WHILE WWII was still going on - whereas the Poles where only planning for the future - and this is partly what led to initial actions against Poles in the region.

As it has been entered now, the text in the article does not represent the source in a NPOV, balanced, manner.radek (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest the text be changed to to maintain neutrality? I'm having a hard time seeing any bias for malice in the disputed prelude section as it is.--Львівске (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek's intepretation of Snyder is absolutely correct. My question is how, specifically, the included parts violate NPOV.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't that clear? You only entered text what the Poles were planning, and nothing about the OUN-B plans making it look like as if the OUN-B massacres were some sort of a reply to something - they weren't, they just wanted to massacre as many civilians as possible to ethnically cleanse the teritory. Loosmark (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OUN-B plans were preemptive - based on the understanding that Poland would try to retake the territory. As Snyder noted on page 168, "the preemptive strikes against Poles envisioned by the OUN-B were not military operations but ethnic cleansing." Your phrase "they just wanted to massacre as many civilians as possible to ethnically cleanse the territory" is just one POV among many. Although there is no doubt that they wanted to ethnically cleanse the territory, and no doubt that they murdered 10,000s of people in brutal ways, there is considerable controversy among historians whether the murders were themselves an OUN-B goal with respect to the ethnic cleansing, whether they were done on the initiative of the local OUN commanders, etc. The idea that the OUN simply wanted to murder for the enjoyment of it or whatever and that national reasons were merely an excuse has been discredited as the fantasy of Polish nationalists: . Faustian (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly murdering brutaly 10,000s civilians is so sickening that the article should concentrate on that rather than on what the excuses used for the murdering were. After all even the Nazis were killing Jewish people because of "preemptive" reasons but wikipedia doesn't care for their reasons and rightly so. Loosmark (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does concentrate on that. Doing so doesn't mean we ignore underlying causes, one of which is Polish claims on the territory. One source (Snyder) explicitly states that the ethnic cleansing was a preemptive strike by OUN with respect to Polish-Ukrainian conflicts over the territory.Faustian (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, I have to respectfully disagree here. As I said before the POV is not in what was included but what was excluded. I will try to come up with something that's more balanced but gimme a bit because this is a sensitive issue and I'm busy with real life stuff. Couple things; Poland did want to "retake" the territories, but they wanted to "retake" them from the Nazis (or Soviets), not from Ukrainians as it is being implied. It's true the OUN-B plans were "preemptive" but that leaves out the fact that they were also "murderous". There isn't that much distance between "ethnic cleansing" and "massacre as many civilians as possible" - so the POV is essentially the same as in Snyder. The "true" motives of OUN-B and whether or not they acted according to a central directive or on (widespread) local initiative are indeed controversial but they don't concern any of the text from Snyder that is being reffed. It IS important that whatever motivations OUN-B had, these are not presented as excuses for the murders which is what I think Loosmark is (in my view, rightly) worried about. Yes, the Polish Government in Exile regarded Volhynia, Galicia and other regions as part of the Polish state and OUN-B didn't - but the fact that the PGiE's goal was reestablishment of Poland in its prewar borders (which is a perfectly normal goal for an exiled government to have) is very much secondary to what the title of this article states this article is about.radek (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your corrections and trust, by your comments here, that they will be appropriate. I generally agree with what you are saying. About "retaking" - yes, it was about retaking from the Germans, but it was understood by the Poles that doing so this would involve (as in 1919) taking also from the local Ukrainians who made up the majority of the population, and that doing so would involve an armed conflcit against those local Ukrainians. While we know that the UPA's implementation of its preemptive ethnic cleansing was murderous, it is still controversial about whether its plans were murderous. I agree 100% that the article ought not make excuses for UPA crimes. On the other hand, explanations are absolutely necessary and Polish plans for Volhynia are an important piece explaining UPA's plans that resulted in the massacres in Volhynia.Faustian (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek, I don't think it's fair to say that a Polish effort to retake Western Ukraine / this region would be directed only at the Nazis and Soviets. It goes without saying that a Polish military campaign to retake the area, especially if against Ukrainian regiments of the Red Army, would result in significant amount of Ukrainian civilian casualties. How the massacres acted as a preemptive measure are an important factor for understanding why the massacres took place.--Львівске (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From the text in the source and other sources I think that the PGiE thought that they might have to fight against OUN-B and other possible militias. Whether or not this would involve civilian casualties and how many is just speculation (Original Research) not found in the source.radek (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And since when to preempt a military campaign you have to slaughter 60.000 to 80.000 civilians, mainly women and children? This is sick logic. Loosmark (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid making uncivil accusations against other editors.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made no accusation against other editors let alone an uncivil ones. I'm just dismantling this logic that a military campaign can be preempted by murdering 10.000s civilians. Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I retract my comment. I should, however, be clear in not implying, as in your commnent below, that those discussing with you are excusing the massacres or taking UPA's side.Faustian (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair point. Loosmark (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A Polish campaign to retake this territory would have undoubtedly resulted in significant Ukrainian civilian casualties, no?--Львівске (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point this is just unsourced speculation - maybe? But who knows? radek (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And? Is that a good an excuse to start to mass murder innocent civilians? Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it was "a good excuse." It was, however, an underlying reason for the events. The elimination of the Polish population would make Polish retaking of Volhynia more difficult and useless (the Polish military would be fighting to gain territory with no Poles living in it).Faustian (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not for anyone here to decide whether it was a just reason or not, but it was in fact a reason and should not be censored to support your POV--Львівске (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, nobody here is to decide that because it is already decided: nobody with a sane brain would argue that there could be a "just reason" for murdering so many innocent civilians. Loosmark (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the key is to explain OUN-B's thinking here (roughly, "if we don't act now, Poles will retake this area later), but be honest about what they thought was a best way to preempt this ("ethnically cleans the Poles from the region, including murdering lots of civilians, while we still have the chance since the Germans will look the other way").radek (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be a section about the OUN-B's ideology in the background section, with a redirect to the main page about the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. I will try to work on tht later today if someone else doesn't do so first. A lot of the other background information (about Polish policies, Soviet and German policies) included in the article are important because they explain how the OUN, originally a fringe organization, grew in popularity and was then able to take over a large segment of western Ukrainian society. Without the OUN-B's dominance, it is likely that the massacres would not have occurred or would have been much smaller in scale. It is obvious that the OUN-B's program called for the ethnic cleansing of majorty-Ukrainian inhabited territories. As for the thinking about murdering lots of civilians - there seems little doubt that this was the thinking of many of the local commanders in Volyn. However it is a matter of contention whether this was the goal of the OUN-B itself.Faustian (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about something like this, replacing the present text up to the word "Nevertheless". Note that parts of it are based on Snyder but I rephrased. Also I tried to incorporate Faustian's concern about who was responsible (local commanders vs. HQ - the part in the parentheses is there for clarification and is not necessary). I've also tried to balance the need to explain a "reason" with a descriptive account of what was about to happen, so as not to give an impression that the "reason" is an "excuse". Please comment:

After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, both the Polish government in Exile and Ukrainian Nationalists of the OUN-B considered the possibility that in the event of mutual military exhaustion of Germany and the Soviet Union, the region would become a scene of conflict between Poles and Ukrainians. The Polish Government in Exile, which wanted the region returned to Poland, planned for such a possibility as part of its overall plan for a future anti-Nazi uprising. This view was strengthened by some Ukrainian nationalists' collaboration with the Nazis, so that by 1943 no understanding between the Home Army and OUN was possible. On the other hand, OUN-B came to believe that it had to move fast while Germans still controlled the area to preempt future Polish efforts at re-establishing Poland's pre-war borders. The result was that at least local OUN-B commanders in Volyn and Galicia (if not the OUN-B leadership itself) decided that an ethnic cleansing of Poles from the area, through terror and murder, was necessary.

radek (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add something about the fact the the Polish government planned for a 'military action. Otherwise it seems perfect to me. What do you think about the following:

After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, both the Polish government in Exile and the Ukrainian Nationalists of the OUN-B considered the possibility that in the event of mutual military exhaustion of Germany and the Soviet Union, the region would become a scene of conflict between Poles and Ukrainians. The Polish Government in Exile, which wanted the region returned to Poland, planned for a swift armed occupation (if the word "occupation" seems POV-ish I'm open to a synonym) of the territory as part of its overall plan for a future anti-Nazi uprising. This view was strengthened by some Ukrainian nationalists' collaboration with the Nazis, so that by 1943 no understanding between the Polish government's Home Army and OUN was possible. On the other hand, the OUN-B came to believe that it had to move fast while the Germans still controlled the area in order to preempt future Polish efforts at re-establishing Poland's pre-war borders. The result was that the local OUN-B commanders in Volyn and Galicia (if not the OUN-B leadership itself) decided that an ethnic cleansing of Poles from the area, through terror and murder, was necessary.

Faustian (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the word "occupation" simply because it seems to be implying that the Poles would be "occupying" politically foreign territory whereas it was pre-war Polish territory (and in this context sort of implicitly equivocates it with "Nazi occupation"). I don't know ... "presence"? "control"? Both of these would make the "swift" grammatically incorrect. Looking it up on the Thesaurus maybe something like "swiftly achieved military control"? "military administration"?radek (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the "through terror and murder" part redundant? Ie; "Germany decided that war with the Poles, through shooting and bombing, was necessary". It kind of goes without saying. --Львівске (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If I murder somebody and keep it a secret no one else is terrorized. But if I go all Godfather on them and murder them so that everyone knows then everyone will be terrified of me - which might be a goal in and of itself. BTW, I've been in a dispute with a user who was trying to remove refs from the article based precisely on the fact that shooting civilians and bombing civilians is not the same thing (the refs said "strafing" not "bombing"). Misplaced Pages can get a little pedantic sometimes but it's also good to be precise.radek (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the methods used in Volyn (beheading people, etc.) went beyond "ethnic cleansing" and can be viewed as horrible enough to warrant explicit description. I'm not pushing to have this phrase in, but I don't object to other editors wanting it in; it seems appropriate.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, with the proper referencing or notability. --Львівске (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Szawlowski as Recommended Reading

He has been discussed on this talk page twice already - here: and here: . Summary: the man is not a historian, but a lawyer. In his works, he makes claims such as barbarity was a Ukrainian cultural tradition, and that Ukrainians were worse than Soviets, who were worse than Germans. he words of Polish historian Rafal Wnuk , "The most serious allegations are made by R. Szawlowski. He claims that all Ukrainians inhabiting ethnically-mixed territories are responsible for ethnic crimes against Poles. He considers these crimes crueler than those committed by Germans or Soviets." Szawlowki's work disparages actual historians while praising obvious propagandists such as Wiktor Poliszczuk. It would be inapropriate to draw readers' attention to Szawlowski as a recommended reading for further information. If we go down that road, we might as well throw in some Ukrainian nationalist sources too. There are surely sources that serve as better recommended reading. Specifically, I'm replacing Szawlowski's work as recommended reading with Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations, described by him as "the first scholarly treatment in English of the totality of Polish-Ukrainian ethnic cleansing between 1943 and 1947" (pg. 9).Faustian (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this deletion, he seems to have researched the events in detail. Loosmark (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

His level of research seems to be irrelevent if it is done in the service of propaganda. Particularly with respect to controversial topics, we ought to very careful about the sources we use and apply the highest standards. A man who concludes the Soviets were worse than Germans, and that Ukrainians were worse than both Soviets and Germans, a man who is a lawyer and not even a historian, whose works contain a lot of attacks on legitimate historians, falls far below that standard.Faustian (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

According to source presented above he did not say that the Ukrainians were worse than both the Soviets and the Germans but rather He considers these crimes crueler than those committed by Germans or Soviets. Yes it can be argued that what he wrote is wrong but frankly if you read the describtions of the crimes in Volhynia by some people who managed to escape, it is completely sickening. Loosmark (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What was done is indeed sickening, yet this does not justify using a non-reliable source as recommended reading.Faustian (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All one-sided, biased nationalist propaganda needs to be removed. All of it. It's the major problem with both this and the UPA article and if deleting this guy is a step in the right direction then it needs to be done now and kept out forever.--Львівске (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lvivskie try to understand Polish point of view. For Polish UPA are killers. About 150 thousands victims - this is huge number. Events from the past will not justify genocide.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pawel, understand that the article must maintain a neutral point of view.--Львівске (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Szawlowski as recommended reading in the article, did you already take it out (I'm fine with taking him out of any recommended reading section - I dislike these section generally anyway)? He is mentioned as having written a foreword to a book that is used as a source but my understanding here is that the actual article that is being used as ref was written by other researchers. I don't think that this disqualifies the use of the book as a source - particularly since sometimes in these kinds of volumes it's the publisher that decides on the forward writer and the contributors don't have a say or opinion on that - though if you want to remove the mention of his forward from the citation that's fine.radek (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with Snyder's book.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Background Material

Describes violent Polish anti-Ukrainian "pogroms" in the 1930's:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/comment13.htm

Ought to be briefly integrated into the article.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop making things up, there were no pogroms. The situation of the Ukrainian minority in Poland between the wars wasn't perfect but the situation was similar in all multiethnical countries in Europe at the time. Loosmark (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone. Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938. Polish members of the 'En-De' ('National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization) attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitories in Warsaw, unhindered by Polish police who stood by watching the brutal violence, and who waited until the end of the riots to arrest Ukrainian students for disturbing the peace. Several Ukrainian institutes were attacked, with the subsequent "destruction of everything that falls into the hands of the aggressors." A Ukrainian shop was destroyed when Polish "nationalist fanatics" set fire to the interior and then hurled a screaming young Ukrainian woman into the flames. The worst violence occurred at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, located a mere 200 meters from the central office of the Polish state police. In the Polish crowd's iconoclastic rage, irreparable damage was done to the interior of the Ukrainian church, where icons were defiled and a priceless portrait of St. Peter destroyed. The seminary was ravaged as the angry Polish crowd systematically broke apart furniture and hurled the pieces through broken windows to the streets below. In all, at least eight Ukrainians were hospitalized with serious injuries, and two were killed. Consistent with its usual policy, the official Polish press remained mysteriously silent about such incidents. And wherever possible, the Polish police confiscated and suppressed Ukrainian underground newspapers and publications where the incidents were discussed."

The author makes clear that this was one of many such incidents.Faustian (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The author also uses the word "genocide" to refer to the events discussed in this article. The author also describes this incident as "the worst violence". "Pogrom" is an unfortunate choice of words here (as is perhaps "genocide").radek (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

By worst violence he meant in reference to the events of 2-3 November 1938. The author is clearly a reliable source here is his CV: and this review was apparently published by Harvard.Faustian (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should also include the information in the article that the Ukrainian terrorists murdered the Polish minister of interior in June 1934. Loosmark (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The assassination of Holowko is already in the article. I hope you're not suggesting that assassinating the interior minister in 1934 justifies throwing a screaming Ukrainian woman into a fire in 1938. I hope you're not using OUN-B logic.Faustian (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course not I'm not suggesting anything like that. But it is not clear what conclusion to draw from a murder of 1 Ukrainian woman. Loosmark (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the conclusion is anything that makes the Poles look bad should be censored --Львівске (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No the conclusion is that a murder of 1 woman, however terrible that is, cannot be a proof that a whole country was doing anti-Ukrainian crimes. Few years ago a couple of foreigners (Turks if i recall correctly) were burned in a building in Germany. does that mean the modern Germany is an anti-Turkish state and that Turks should do ethnical cleansing in Germany by murdering 100.000s civilians as the Ukrainians did in Wołyn? nope, such idea is completely mad and ludicrous. Loosmark (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the source was clear in using the example of that woman to highlight what Ukrainians were going through for several years. There were many such incidents. It stated that this was only one example. No, there was no mass murder of Ukrainians. They were merely treated somewhat like blacks in the American South prior to the 1950's (the occasional lynching, etc., to put them in their place). This is not, as you claimed, "similar in all multiethnical countries in Europe at the time" although the incident described was reminiscent of Kristallnacht (also prompted by an assassination, btw), though on a much more limited scale. The source described these events as contributing to the later massacres in Volyn.Faustian (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainians were not treated as blacks, neither were they burnt alive, ok? Stop with these pathetic fabrications. They were not given the rights as the monirities have today but such were the times and neither were the Irish and Welsh in UK, the Corse in France, the Catalans and Basque and France etc etc etc etc given any rights. The blacks in the US were treated 1000 or 2000 times worse. Loosmark (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. With all due respect, I prefer what reliable sources say to your opinion. According to the passage excerpted above, such events were common between 1934-1938. The passage states a screaming Ukrainian woman was thrown by a Polish mob into a burning Ukrainian store. A Ukrainian seminary was burned, a precious icon destroyed, other icons defiled, Ukrainian (seminarians?) beaten, two of whom died. Ukrainian university students were brutally attacked by Polish mobs while police watched and then arrested the Ukrainians. This is just what happened in 3 days in November 1938 - and such incidents were going on for 4 years. It's more like how blacks were treated in the American South in the 1930's, than how Corsicans were treated in France. As for "fabrications" - I don't believe that Jeffrey Burds engages in fabrication, do you? Faustian (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that your comparing the situation of black people with those of the Ukrainians in Poland is a manipulation because these two situations were completely different. It is true that Ukrainian minority were not given cultural rights as they should have been from today's perspective but my claim is that almost nobody was giving adequate rights to minorities at the time in Europe. Anyway the situation of black people in American was bad beyond imaginable. Loosmark (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

About 100 blacks were killed by lynchings in the 1930's. Blacks were denied educational opportunities, their votes were suppressed, etc. The Ukrainian situation was not the same, but roughly comparable. The number of victims of violence was probably similar, thousands of schools were shut, university education was limited (wealthier Ukrainians sent their kids to university in Vienna, but what did poorer ones do?), votes suppressed, churches destroyed or forcinbly converted, etc. Another example, I heard from someone - he remembered as a child in the 1930's how his grandfather was dragged out of the house by a Polish policeman and forced to lick the policeman's boots in front of the family and neighbors. The constant humiliation, lack of rights, threats of violence, occasional (though not mass) killings, explains the anger that led the hateful ideology of the OUN to become more popular within Ukrainian society (remember, OUN was a tiny fringe whom most Ukrainians really disliked in the 1920's). It is not an excuse for mass murder in the 1940's, but that latter events cannot be understood without knowing about the former. And I doubt that such treratment was the norm in the 1930's in Europe.16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Faust. Seriously, to say the situation with the Blacks in America was thousands times worse is ignorant. To pretend that nothing happened and it was just common "minority rights" of the day, is down right ugly. If you highlight the tension between the sides and the fact that majority of hte population in Volyn was Ukrainian...this a recipe for disaster. The "causes" section really should be made clear. Hopefully that can be accomplished, in spite of Loosmark's propaganda.--Львівске (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a recipe for disaster, in fact there was no reason why that should lead to a giant scale mass murders and massacres for the purpose of ethnical cleansing. Loosmark (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Information?

The same editor Poeticbent, who falsely changed Orest Subtelny's description of hundreds of Orthodox Churches converted or destroyed to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches " (this was proven here: ) has now decided to remove sourced material, taken from a book about the OUN and UPA published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. This book has previously been online but apparently no longer is. As far as I know, wikiepdia policy doesn't demand that all works must be online to be relaible sources. I will ask this editor to stop blanking the page please. If he has constructive grammatical changes to make, he shouldn't mix them with the blanking. When I have time I go back and re-add the other changes he makes after removing his blanking, but not always.Faustian (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying through your teeth about what I wrote based on cited reference, and stop calling a few unsupported crummy sentences you defend – without a working link for months – a “sourced information”. Sourced to whom… if there’s no page at the source? Your latest edits prove that you have no knowledge of what constitutes proper referencing. You reverted everything I did in a bout of blind ignorance without reading any of the external links made available to you. That’s foolish. And also, do not call me names unless you’re an underage bully who thinks that verbal attacks are going to make you look bigger somehow. --Poeticbent talk 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need to have a working online link to source something properly. Just a reference, and legitimacy that this source is real. Hopefully an admin picks up on your trolling. I find it extremely ironic you are part of the "anti vandalism taskforce" and say you prefer to use the talk page vs. edit wars on your user page, what, is this some kind of cover?--Львівске (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I provided the link to show how you falsified what Subtleny wrote. Here is what you did: . You changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches" to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches", with Subtleny as the source. Here is Subtleny's book: . Third paragraph states "the authorites ransferred about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." So, clearly you falsified what Subtleny wrote in your disruptive edit.

Now you are falsely claiming that sourced information is " a few unsupported crummy sentences you defend – without a working link for months – a “sourced information”. Sourced to whom… if there’s no page at the source". The book was once available online, now it is not. So what? The link worked for months prior to not working, and nobody challenged it then. It is referenced as: "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 5, p. 285. Kiev, Ukraine: Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine". Page 285. So, yet another falsehood by you. Then you complain that I call you names. I wrote, above, Polish nationalist in parentheses with a question mark. It was not a definite statement, but a speculation based on the pattern of your disruptions. If a Ukrainian editor did the same sort of stuff (falsifying information to minimize Ukrainian crimes, removing sourced information that says anything positive about someone in conflict with Ukrainians, etc.) I would have a similar hypothesis and would say so. So? Yet here you are, talking about "lying through your teeth", "blind ignorance", "foolish", "underage bully" etc. Try to be civil. please.Faustian (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "blind reversion" when you mix some gramamtical improvements with a bunch of blanking and/or falsehoods, I revert the whole thing. I then, when I have time, make an effort to go back and readd the legitimate stuff you mixed in, as I did here: . If I don't always have time to do so, or miss something, the best way to avoid this problem is to not mix it in with the blanking of sourced info in the same edit.Faustian (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized the background section and will clean it up tomorrow (will probably not go back to the computer later today). Needed clarifications: 2 Polish approaches to the "Ukrainian problem". Dmowski wanted assimilation and persecution of Ukrainian culture, Pilsudski wanted to support Ukrainian identity but channel it in a way that made it loyal to the Polish state. The OUN sabotouged Pilsudski's plans by killing moderate Ukrainophile Poles and Ukrainians who cooperated with them. (ironic that the Polish nationalist chauvinist Dmowski and the OUN were basically working against the same team). Snyder and others explain this well. It need not be explained in great detail on this article, but a brief summary would be useful. If noone gets to it by tomorrow, I'll do what I can.Faustian (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be split into 3 sections: before, during, and after. All background and prelude in one, all that happened during, and it's legacy, reconciliation, and historical part in the 3rd.--Львівске (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, this is an interesting and factual observation. OUN activists were very keen in the 1930s on deterioration of the Polish - Ukrainian conflict. Their tactics was very clever - they destroyed rail or telegraph lines, also killed local police, sometimes just local Polish civilians. After these acts, they anxiously awaited Polish reprisals, because it was the only way for them to turn otherwise peaceful Ukrainian villagers against Polish rule. Tymek (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Orders

Nevertheless, there is no documentation proving that UPA-OUN made a general decision to exterminate Poles in Volyn Thats not true. Follow the source: Antypolskie akcje na Wołyniu, przeprowadzane z całą bezwzględnością, miały na celu zniszczenie ludności polskiej. Prowadzone były zgodnie z dyrektywami kierownictwa OUN-SD w sposób zorganizowany, i miały charakter ludobójstwa. W tajnej dyrektywie terytorialnego dowództwa UPA - "Piwnycz", podpisanej przez "Kłyma Sawura" (Roman Dmytro Klaczkiwśkyj) czytamy: "(...) powinniśmy przeprowadzić wielka akcję likwidacji polskiego elementu. Przy odejściu wojsk niemieckich należy wykorzystać ten dogodny moment dla zlikwidowania całej ludności męskiej w wieku od 16 do 60 lat(...) Tej walki nie możemy przegrać, i za każdą cenę trzeba osłabić polskie siły. Leśne wsie oraz wioski położone obok leśnych masywów powinny zniknąć z powierzchni ziemi".
Faustian is good in Polish he can better translate Klaczkowskij order: "we should carry large action of the liquidation of the Polish element. At walking away of German armies one should use this convenient moment for liquidating the entire male population in the century from 16 up to 60 years (...) we cannot lose this fight, and at all costs it is necessary to weaken Polish forces. Woody villages and villages put next to forest massifs should disappear from the face of the earth" Source: SBU Archive Volhynia province, d. number 11315, volume. l, part. H, p.16.
Can u help me with new text prepartion for this paragraph?--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My Polish is probably worse than your English, but I will try to trasnlate it: "In the secret directive of the territorial leadership of UPA - North (which means that the decision was limited to UPA - North and was not, at least according to this source, a general decision to exterminate Poles by UPA/OUN) signed by Klym Sawur (Roman Dmytro Klachkivsky) "...we ought to undertake a large-scale act of liquidation of the Polish element. Upon the withdrawla of the German army we should use this convenient moment to liquidate the entire Polish element from ages 16 to 60 years old (...) we cannot lose this struggle, and we must weaken Polish power at all costs. With respect to the last sentence, I don't understand the words "oraz", "wioski". Instead of "woody" probably "forested" or "in the forest". Perhaps it should read "villages inthe forest and next to forest massifs 9what do they mean by that?) should disappear from the face of the Earth.

Which source quoted the SBU archives? It would be interesting to read more.Faustian (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Władysław Filar, Antypolskie akcje nacjonalistów ukraińskich from Przed Akcją Wisła był Wołyń, Warsaw, 1997. This order is also reapated in Filar's new book: Volhynia events 1939-1944 (2009). Note is leading to SBU archieve.

Next very important order was made by Szuchewycz: W związku z sukcesami wojsk sowieckich konieczne jest przyspieszenie likwidacji Polaków, muszą zostać całkowicie zgładzeni, ich wioski spalone (...) ludność polską należy zniszczyć. * Opis: Fragment rozkazu z 1944 r. Szuchewycza do OUN. This order can be found in Motyka's book Ukrainian guerrilla warfare 1942 - 1960. It means: In relation to successes of Soviet armies precipitating the liquidation of Poles is necessary, they must entirely be killed, their villages burned (...) we should destroy the Polish population. * Description: Fragment of the order from 1944 r. Szuchewycza to OUN. This order concerned Galicia, Wolhynia was cleaned from Polish already (only very strong Self-defence centres stayed).--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My understanding is that zgładzeni is translated as "destroyed" rather than "killed." Basically he was calling for the ethnic cleansing - liquidation - of the Polish population in Galicia. He did not clearly call for their deaths, rather their disappearance. Liquidate can mean either putting an end to/abolishing or killing . The order can be understood either as "the killing of Poles is necessary" or "the abolishment of Poles is necessary." Obviously some commanders did the latter. If the order had used the words zabyt, ubyt, morduwat, narznac, etc. it would have been much more clear. I wish someone could come up with the original order in Ukrainian so this could be clarified further. The bottom line, however, is that we have to rely on the interpretations of the primary sources by secondary sources rather than conduct our own research. Use the conclusions of Motyka or Filar, and add direct quotes only insofar as they support those historians' conclusions.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let us stick to the topic

Let me just remind that the article is on the Volhynian Genocide of Poles, not about Polish - Ukrainian relations of that time. Surely, we need a background, but there is no need to elaborate on such issues as borders of the Western Ukrainian Republic, or Polish - Ukrainian War, as they have their own articles and interested users can check these topics there. Tymek (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Loosmark (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What a load of crap - If you are going to write a historic article - and consider yourself as a subject-matter expert you need context. This all happened in war-time. A number of major earth-shaking events took place. Polish-Ukrainian relations were in a horrid state. These events were taking place in an area that in fifty years changed counties multiple times - Russian-Austrian-Hungarian-Ukrainian-Polish-royalist-communist-nazism. Suffered to multiple wars. By restricting context the basic article is reduced to stereotypes. “Innocent Poles were killed by sadistic Ukrainians” Not history - Bobanni (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they were referring more to the earlier context - the details of the Polish-Ukrainian war. A sentance or two stating that the Poles won, Ukrainians lost and were resentful seems to be sufficient. Describing how it is that the ones most responsible for the massacres - the Bandera faction of the OUN - got into a position to implement those acts is a different story. For this reason the events of the 1930's and early 1940's are much more relevant and necessary and should not be trimmed.Faustian (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, please, control yourself. If you keep on answering in this way, you will be ignored, as this is not polite. I wrote clearly that we need a background, but this background is slowly growing bigger than the topic of the article itself. I agree with Faustian, all things about the OUN and Bandera are good, but there is no need to elaborate on Polish - Ukrainian war and borders of Western Ukrainian Republic. Or perhaps you are suggesting that a lost war is a good excuse for mass slaughter of civilians, 25 years later. Tymek (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you poles keep insisting on censoring history to slant the article, then you guys are the ones who will be ignored. A small summary detailing what happened and how it affected the massacre is entirely relevant. --Львівске (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I should refuse to talk to a hateful person like you, but for the last time I will repeat myself. An introduction and background are relevant, this is a sure thing. But augmenting them with topics not related to the article, is completely unnecessary. Most of these topics have their own articles. Tymek (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: