Talk:Tadeusz Hołówko

"his favourable stance towards the Ukrainian problem"

I just read what Ukrainian sources write about this "friend of Ukrainian nation". While they may be POV sources, they cite specific facts and quotes in the Polish press about or even written by this "friend of Ukrainians".

For one, the source sites the contemporary Polish press that TH was a fierce opponent of any formalization of the Ukrainian autonomy. He opposed the creation of the Ukrainian University in Galicia, as both the strive for political autonomy or even Ukrainian education would impede the end goals, the complete "unification" of the people, e.g. absorption of the Ukrainians under the Polish control into the Polish nation.

Article in "Slovo Polske" (Słowo Polskie - Piotrus). (Sorry for possibly incorrect translation/tramsliteration of the paper's name). October 5, 1931:

"Peace to his sole, Holowko was absolutely against any autonomy thoughts, wherever they came from. More than that. He was against the creation of the Ukrainian university anywhere in Galicia. He, and for very good reasons, considered that in the current state of affairs, when the painful for us problem is yet always presented as the political one, giving to the Ukrainian population any kind of autonomy or University is only to preseerve and aggregate this political issue, and by this, separatism, and as such to make the realization of the program impossible..."

Next:

Newspaper "Nashpud" (sorry again) (doesn't really sounds Polish; but you write below it's a Jewish nespaper, so maybe this is a Jewish word? - Piotrus) wrote after TH's murder. Date seems to be October 2, 1931 but not 100% assured in the text:

"His government activity consisted in conducting negotiations... His main task were negotiations with UA politicians to convinse them to recall from Geneva their complaints on Pacification."

This "friend of Ukrainian nation" also wrote earlier that the Soviet power in the Dnieper Ukraine is the most beneficial for Polish "solution of the Ukrainian problem" because any other (eg. Ukrainian) authority would have likely started the territorial dispute with the Polish government. As such, as the Polish-Jewish newspaper wrote, he obstructed, not faciliated as the article suggests by calling him a proponent of Prometheism, any possibility of the partition of the USSR into the series of independent states.

"In 1929, Holowko was the head of the Eastern Dept of the Polish ministry of the Foreign affairs during preparation of the "Litvinov pact" with the Bolshevist Russia. Giving a public speach, devoted to the publication of that treaty in Warsaw Holowko, as the Jewish-Polish newspaper "Our Pseglond" (probably 'Nasz Przegląd' - Piotrus) (not sure I transliterated/translated the paper's title back properly), candidly noted that from the POV of the Polish state interests the Sovet government is the most beneficial for the Polish solution of the Ukrainian problem. because any other government would start the territorial disputes with the Polish government. As such, concluded "Our Pseglond" TH totally ruined the fantastic prospects of the partition of the USSR into the series of new independent states.

In another publication TH himself wrote about the Ukrainians' using the terrorist methodes to liberate themselves from the "Polish occupation" that the Polish occupation does not and cannot exist as the land was connected to the PL culture for 600 years which saved it from the Tatar and Muscovite yokes "only thanks to the bloody strugle led by the Polish people". And it is impossible to be called "occupiers" the nation which constitutes "50% of the land's population". This number (50%) is also notewrothy. It was far from factual but TH saw it achievable as he supported the colonization of the ethnic Ukrainian lands by Polish settlers aimed at achieving 50%/50% parity in the population.

(article in Gazeta Polska published in two weeks after TH's death) (seems like a major Polish newspaper then - pl:Gazeta Polska (dziennik) - Piotrus)

Sources:

• Petro Mirchuk. "Нарис історії ОУН. Перший том: 1920-1939." LCCN 76-244029 Section "ВБИВСТВО ПОЛЬСЬКОГО ПОСЛА ТАДЕУША ГОЛУФКА" in V ЧАСТИНА: РОЗДІЛ 2
• Zynoviy Knysh. "В СУТІНКАХ ЗРАДИ (Убивство Тадеуша Голуфка на тлі зради Романа Барановського)", LCCN 2002-618275

--Irpen 06:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange, as far as I know Hołówko was the one to propose to create it anyway, as the authorities didn't want to create it in Lvov while he proposed to create it in Stanisławów... Or am I wrong here? //Halibutt 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

While interesting, I think that the more verifiable and reliable English academic sources (Orest Subtelny and Timothy Snyder) are the ones we should base our article on. PS. As you say, the sources you cite above 'may be POV sources'; considering that Petro Mirchuk book was published in 1968 and Zynoviy Knysh in 1975 I'd be very cautious about what those Soviet authors may say and how it was connected with reality.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I cite not the interpretation of the non-academic sources, but quotes from the Polish press written by TD himself. I can provide newspapers' titles and dates but I can only see the Ukrainian names of the Polish papers. You will have to find the exact titles in Polish yourself. --Irpen 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me remain sceptic and consider that Soviet era authors were not above inventing sources or completly misreading them, if it suited them. Consider, for example, weighting on one hand your Soviet sources which cite "the contemporary Polish press that TH was a fierce opponet of any formalization of the Ukrainian autonomy" and on the other hand research done by Timothy Snyder who writes that Hołówko's instructions for regional governements were for Ukrainians to receive "complete equal rights, de jure and de facto." Bottom line is that Soviet sources are not reliable, please come up with English sources, and note that I tried to back up all controversial claims with English sources, and use Polish ones for minor details.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Both authors are diaspora historians and not Soviet ones. They cite dates and names of Polish papers. If anyone is interested to go to the library to check for paper copies this would settle it. --Irpen 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Diaspora... but published where? And by whom? Were they academic works published by independent universities? Mirchuk looks respectable, but I can't find info about that other author, and if he published this book in Ukrainian only, I have doubts about its neutrality and academic standing (if you publish proper academic texts in US, you do so in English). Further, correct me if I am wrong, but Orest Subtelny is an American-Ukrainian; thus one could say he would display some pro-Ukrainian POV, yet he mentions Hołówki in quite positive terms: highly respected... urged moderation and flexibility in dealing with minorities and a well-known proponent of Polish/Ukrainian compromise. PS. One more academic reference, published by Amber R. Ricke, Florida State University, addresses views of Hołówko (pdf: "many of the federalists, like TH, were willing to grant East Galicia to the Ukrainians. Of course you can try to blame him for "remaining adamant at keeping Lwów in Poland" (remind me what how was the population of Lwów distributed in the interwar period?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I repeat that I base by challenge to this article not on the writings of these author's but on the writings of TD himself that appeared in Polish newspapers. If you claim the quotes false, the way to go is to check the library for paper copies. If anyone is interested, I will give exact dates and paper titles. --Irpen 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do, but considering we have not found anything about that in English language sources, which seem to be quite contrary, I do not think that challenge has strong grounds to stand upon. Please also tell me exactly which pages of the books above contain which claims, I will see if I can get them from my library and bring to a Ukrainian-speaking collegue for translation (unless you'd be willing to translate larger parts of them?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Both books in Ukrainian are available online. I added above the url links to the appropriate sections. I will add names of the newspapers and dates separately. Also, I will probably make mistakes in reverse transliteration from Ukrainian back to the Latin script.

I repeat that everything I am saying is supported not by the Ukrainian nationalist writer's opinions but the citations from the articles in the Polish press. Unless the quotes are false or decievingly taken out of context, I don't see how this can be impeached. --Irpen 07:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I added quotes and refs above. All quotes to Polish press cited through Mirchuk. --Irpen 06:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the translations. I added what I think are proper Polish titles into your translation of titles above, I hope you don't mind. Nonetheless I would like to point out that it this means that Mirchuk research is not based on works and articles of Hołówko (as I assumed from your previous comments), but on newspaper articles about him. Such articles, while a valuable research tool, are to be approached with caution, as more then academic publication they can have a significant slant, or simply contain mistakes. Both Słowo Polskie and 'Nashpud' don't look like major publications; they can be local, and one may wonder if they would report truthfully; Gazeta Polska, a major Sanacja newspaper, would also have a significant bias of its own. While valuable, I would be careful from using them as sources, if they contradict other academic research. Let me give you another example: this article quotes obituary in an (unspecified) opposition journal "Słowo Pomorskie" which admitted "Deputy Hołowko was our dedicated enemy. Polish national camp had in him a faithfull opponent. Yet at his grave we admit that he begun to realize the errors of policies, which the first brigade [sanacja] directed at the Ukrainians, and which he activly supported." Honestly, I find this quote strange: so was he pro- or against- Ukrainians? Natioanlist camp seems to mean endecja, but we know that they were much more anti-minority then sanacja... so who was this journal from? Ukrainians? There were few in Pomorze... It's hard to answer that without digging more and learning who was the faction that Słowo Pomorskie supported, and who was the author of the article. This is why I prefer to avoid our interpretations of such journals stance, and prefer we rely on widely respected quotes from Subetlny's or Snyder's works, as they are respected academics who surely did more research than we - and I'd also suspect who are more neutral than we. What is Mirchuk interpretation of Hołówko's stance in his own words? Since he seems to be some sort of academic, I'd think it would be worthwile to know what is his stance on that. PS. One more example of 'neutrality' and accuracy of journals: the source I mentioned above notes other journals who wrote about 'diabolical plans of anti-Polish enemies of Polish independence', accused Germans (or Soviets) of directly sponsoring his assassination, portray Ukranian nationalist in quite derogative terms and write peans about nobility and genius of Hołówko... In other words, I can select quotes from those journals to build both the cases that Hołowko was a saint working form Polish-Ukrainian friendship and anti-minority pro-Polish domination ruthless monster. Thus having looked at conflicting POVs of newspapers, we have to move forward and look at views of academics - and those seem to support the version that Hołówko worked for Polish-Ukrianian cooperation much more then against it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, just note that some of the newspaper's quotes are not about Holowko but by Holowko himself. The statement about the positiveness for Poland of the Soviet power in the rest of Ukraine was written by Holowko. The statement about leadin Polish role is saving Ukrainians that makes "occupation" inapplicable and the statement about 50/50 distribution of population belongs to Holowko. These are referred to articles written by him and not about him. --Irpen 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In the first case it's a newpaper discussing his speach. That can be a misinterpretation, and even if it is not it (and other articles you bring) have been ommitted by Snyder and Subtelny. As for some of the statements you bring, I don't see them as that controversial: surely, for example, in the midsts of Holodomor and faced with Ukrainian's refugees coming to Poland (per Snyder ref's), one could wonder why some Ukrainians turn to resistance instead of working with Poland? And if he got some numbers wrong, so what? It's human to err, we are not discussing his mathematical skills. And anyway, I already noted that as per WP:RS, newspapers, contemporary or not, are less reliable than modern English academic research, and thus no matter if they claim that Hołówko was a saint or devil, or landed on the Moon of Green Cheese, if this contradicts more reliable sources (Snyder, Subtelny), we should avoid using them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, for the Wikipedia article I give little weight to Mirchuk's or Knysh's own interpretations of the role of Holowko or OUN. These two authors have a significant Ukrainian nationalist background and, as such, their writings, as far as their own views are concerned bear little weight to be included in the articles. However, they, especially Mirchuk, quote extensively the Poland's press and these quotes are direct quotes and not anyone's opinions on the matter. If Holowko indeed worked on Litvinov pact and stated that Soviet rule in Ukraine is beneficial for Poland and Mirchuk gives the exact ref where Holowko said so, this info is usable, unlike Mirchuk's own opinions. Similarly, if Mirchuk cites Holowko's own article published in PL newspaper where Holowko goes at length speaking how much Ukrainians are indebted to Poles and, besides, makes a false claim that population in the Polish occupied area was 50/50 (we know from academic sources that it was never 50/50) this info also bears some weight. In no sentence I sourced my objections to Mirchuk or Knysh themselves, only to other sources cited through Mirchuk. As such, this info is useful and usable unless we can show that the quotes are false. --Irpen 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, the problem is that we have conflicting newspaper sources. The academic ones are relativly clear, showing him as proponent of Polish-Ukrianinian compromise. Then we have some newspapers putting that into doubt - and others which confirm that. I have to ask if we can trust those newspapers which present a view not backed by modern academic sources, which seem to agree he was a compromise supporter? Consider what could we learn about, let's say, George Bush, or Polish-Ukranian relations, by reading some selected newspapers after invasion of Iraq or some trouble around the Polish cementery in Lwów... fringe publications would publish all kind of false or at least very POVed information, and considering that our newspapers contradict academic research I'd be careful with major changes in the article based on the newspapers. Again, my bottom line is that while the above information are great for some academic research, so far our most reliable publications (Subtelny, Snyder) do not support them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We are going in circles, Piotrus. These are not selectively picked newspapers that write about Holowko. These are newspapers article either written by Holowko himself or the ones that quote him. Please do not force me to repeat this for the fifth time. Unless I see new questions, no response to the old and answered ones will be coming. --Irpen 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we are going in circles. I see no reason to contininue this original research and interpreation of few journals that contain information that may be interpreted as contrary to our current English modern academic references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And I see no reason to pretend that everything is all right with the article which makes claims contrary to the own words of its subject properly cited to the his quotes. This is both the factual and NPOV dispute. Article tagged as such. Feel free to stop by in any library to show that the quotes are false. --Irpen 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when 'his own words' are quoted out of context, as excerpts from popular press translated twice and published in a source that you admited yourself is POVed. If we had no contrary sources, that would be valid, but per WP:RS if we have modern English academic research that contradicts those "quotes" I tend to assume that the academics got it right, their stance should be presented in the paper, and the marginal, non-English, POVed source with some dubious quotes and your interpretations of them should not. PS. That's not my stance, that's following key policies of Wikipedia (WP:RS, WP:V). Feel free to campaign to change them, until then, please stop asserting this article is POV on the basis of such unreliabe minority sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Mirchuk certainly held negative views of Hołówko. From [http://epa.oszk.hu/00400/00476/00004/pdf/10.pdf#search=%22petro%20mirchuk%22 GÁBOR LAGZI The Ukrainian Radical National Movement in Inter-War Poland – the Case of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)]: "In the aftermath of pacification, OUN members assassinated Tadeusz Hołówko, the deputy leader of BBWR, the ruling government bloc, and the specialist in minority issues in August 1931. Prominent OUN activists blamed Hołówko, who at that time was working in the Ministry of Interior as the director of the Department for Minorities, for the pacification and the colonization of Eastern Galicia. In addition, this Polish politician, wrote the OUN hagiographist Petro Mirchuk, “poisoned the Ukrainian society’s life with the idea of conciliation”.27 This murder slowed down the reconciliation process between the Polish government and the legal Ukrainian parties (mainly UNDO)." Source 27 is Petro Mirchuk: Narys istoriji Orhanizatsiji Ukrajin’skych Natsionalistiv. Pershyj tom 1920–1939. München-London-New York, 1968. 94. That source also describes Mirchuk as an 'Ukrainian nationalist historian'. Poisoned with the idea of conciliation?? Seems very much like something Vasyl Bilas and Dmytro Danylyshyn would agree with... and certainly not something a reputable neutral scientist would write.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I wrote earlier that IMO Mirchuk is indeed a nationalist author. Note, however, and I repeated it for dozen times, that not a single statement in the aritcle is referred to Mirchuk but to the Polish press, including to Holowko's own writing, quoted through Mirchuk. Mirchuk's own opinions are of little value here. Please go or ask someone to go to the library to show that Mirchuk falsified quotes. Until then, please stop leading me in circles. I have other things to do that to repeat and rephrase things that were already explained. --Irpen 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The only writing of Hołówko that Mirchiuk quotes is the part he quotes from Gazeta Polska. The only disputable part there is his 50%/50% number, but beyond that I fail to see how that particular fragment would support your thesis that he was not a prominent support of the P/U problem. I have asked a friend to look into 'Słowo Polskie' from 5 October, but the Litvinov treaty requires more specific quote - I can hardly ask him to read through all 'Nasz Przegląd' from 1929 (presumably), could you give specific citation for the paper? For both cases, pages would be nice.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Killed by organization

How one can be killed by organization ? Probably better NPOV will be to use "killed by two members of organization". OUN did not take responsbility for this and even posted a note on 1931-08-31 that it's not good to blame entire movement for wrongdoings of individuals. --TAG 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I clarified that in the lead. I don't think that it's a significant difference, and it's the phrasing used by both Subtelny and Snyder, IIRC, but is more informative, so I think it's a good idea. The OUN note is interesting, could you translate it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)