Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Both sides' genocide?

Although I appreciate the try of adding the other view to the article (see the diff), I seriously doubt there should be an equation mark between Polish authorities trying to limit the number of Ukrainian language schools in the inter-war period and the methodic massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians. While this could be the reason of hathred towards Poles, it can hardly be used as a counter-statement or explanation. I'm thinking of moving the paragraph here for discussion. Could the anon contributor explain his edit here? Halibutt 07:15, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the user above. The article ends with the statement:

The actions of extremist wings on both sides could be legally characterized as genocide.

If the actions of Polish side could legally be characterized as genocide, it is not clear from the article what exactly actions. Article speaks about limiting of Ukrainian institutions. This is not genocide, which is a deliberate and mass murder of civilians. If there is any information of * comparable scale genocide of Ukrainians by Polish government, please add this to the article (preferably with sources). Otherwise, the text has to be modified. I could do that myself, but maybe other editors could do this better. Irpen 22:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Details on UPA atrocities

I dared to revert completely the edit by user:SereneShark. The reasons are the following. First of all, this edit duplicated the whole article at the bottom. Second, it included the following text:

Typical action of UPA against Polish civilians consisted of surrounding a Polish village so that there would be no possibility of escape, followed by mass murder of every ethnic Pole present in the settlement,including children. Mass murder committed by UPA was often done with unnecessary violence and cruelty.

ATTENTION:DRASTIC SIGHT. Photo of Polish children tortured and murdered by UPA

Please note that the infamous photo above was incorrectly credited to the UPA. It has been shown to have been a photo of the murder of gypsy children by their mother back in 1926 (if I remember correctly) What was ascribed to be barbed wire are really creases in the photo. Another example of disinformation regarding the actions of the UPA Bandurist (talk) 23

03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can neither confirm or deny the accuracy of this info. However, obviously, this is a rather hard stuff. It might have happened but I am sure the accounts are disputed. In such case, this can only be in the article when cited, for example as follows:

"(name of the author) in his book (name of the book) describes the witness accounts of the massacre of the village (name of the village). According to these interviews, the entire Polish population of the village, including children, was murdered by UPA guerrillas"

Again, I don't know the details of these stories, but such info can only be in WP in the form proposed above or similar because we have a problem of lack of commonly accepted sources. So, the article needs to make perfectly clear which authors' view are presented. Please, no flames. -Irpen 05:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen: thanks for removing my duplication: this was a mistake done by lack of experience with wikipedia. As for removing other things: check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Poles_in_Volhynia.

Look at the number of casualties- this IS hard stuff ,yes. Also there is this photo (which I have took from different source) with information when and where this has happened. PS: I really need to learn more about wikipedia. :( Ps. I generally made the edit to quickly and without enough thought, but the problem is this: the present page described UPA neutrally as 'just a guerilla organisation'. It would be as to describe Adolph Hitler as "nationalistically oriented political leader", Holocaust as "certain acts of violence against Jews that were commited", and Nazis as "nationalists" - technically it would be true, but in the end it would create a false impression. It's similiar with UPA- its euphemistically called "nationalist", but look at the ethnic cleansing done by it - tens of thousands of civilian victims- in reality it was a fascist organisation which wanted to create a mono-ethnic state. -Serene Shark

I do not object to the info about atrocities included in the article as I said earlier. What I said, is that such controversial text should be precisely referenced. Generally, I am of the opinion, that if narrower articles already exist in WP (like the Massacre of Poles in Volhynia you mentioned) it is better to keep the controversial issues within them rather than spread them with thin layer over many articles. This would localize discussions and conflicts and help achieving the compromise version closely based on established facts. However, it is possible to have more info about atrocities in this article too. I just think it should be in the form suggested in my previous entry above. I don't try to defend, deny or confirm these massacres. I just want them to be presented properly. Please don't consider me as some kind of "Holocaust denier". Regards, -Irpen 03:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Shark, I'm no expert, but I think the character of UPA was more complex than your description. There were the Mel’nykivtsi and Banderivtsi factions, for one thing. And I believe UPA had a number of Jews serving, especially as doctors. —Michael Z. 2005-06-28 07:23 Z

The UIA (Ukrainian: UPA) is indeed a very controversial organization, as mentioned above several times. The truth is that it is viewed entirely differently from Poland on one hand, from Russia an Eastern Ukraine on another hand and from Western Ukraine and by Ukrainian Nationalists on yet another hand. If one looks at the articles in Ukrainian and Polish wikis (both linked to this article), it is hard to believe those are articles about one an the same organization.

We should not judge, which view is more "objective". And we can't even say which one is more "true" because none of these articles lie. The issue here, is that since there is no single view agreed upon, and the parties dispute almost everything, the article needs to be clear with references in every fact or analysis it presents. Instead of "all Polish population was massacred" it should simply say, "according to...". I already gave an example in an earlier post at this talk page. Let's try to avoid confrontation. It is not at all my goal to have the atrocities covered up. -Irpen June 28, 2005 19:11 (UTC)

MichaelZ: yes, you are partly right.

1)There were two "UPA" organisations, one of them created by Melnyk other by Bandera. The first were mostly Orthodox, the latter Greek-Catholic, the first were more moderate, the other fascist. Bandera's UPA has absorbed the Melnyk's UPA, so when writing to "UPA", I'm reffering to the first.

2) About Jewish doctors- it's not proof of anything- for these Jewish doctors, it could be simple a matter of saving their lifes. For example remember that many Jews work for the Nazis (Sonderkommando), but it does't actually mean or change anything.

3)What is my problem with the present article: "The UPA strove to remove Poles from areas that it regarded as indigenously Ukrainian. In the opinion of some historians, the goal pursued by the Ukrainian guerrillas was to destroy the Polish ethnic community in these areas. Some estimates have put the Polish death toll as high as 100,000"

- it is written in such way that there is no place with direct description and attribution of the deed. Words "remove" and "in opinon of some historians(...)was to destroy" are used, and then "some estimates (...) put the Polish death toll as high as 100.000". For me it's indirect to the point of containing a certain amount of semi-denial.

I think it should be written directly "UPA did X". Example: ""The UPA strove to remove Poles from areas that it regarded as indigenously Ukrainian and started to murder Polish civilian population. Some estimates have put the Polish death toll as high as 100,000". IMO "In the opinion of some historians, the goal pursued by the Ukrainian guerrillas was to destroy the Polish ethnic community in these areas." is fairly senseless, because it concentrates on opinion on something abstract (goals of UPA),instead on facts and on what actually has happened physically.

"The UIA (Ukrainian: UPA) is indeed a very controversial organization, as mentioned above several times. The truth is that it is viewed entirely differently from Poland on one hand, from Russia an Eastern Ukraine on another hand and from Western Ukraine and by Ukrainian Nationalists on yet another hand. If one looks at the articles in Ukrainian and Polish wikis (both linked to this article), it is hard to believe those are articles about one an the same organization."

I know it is confusing, but say this in short and direct way: the Ukrainian Nationalists (especially from diaspora) are side which is telling the least truth,they are THE liars and deniers in this whole situation . I know that saying this simply and directly is probably not very credible, I have found this paper which IMO generally describes the sitation well: http://www.univie.ac.at/spacesofidentity/_Vol_5_1/_HTML/Himka.html -SereneShark

Dear SereneShark, I think your attack is a little misplaced here. First of all both Michael and myself are on record in WP opposing the extremist views from all sides of all isles. Besides, nobody is trying to prove you wrong because you are right, at least on basic things. I can tell you more, I have very little sympathy towards UPA and OUN as organization while I certainly have no feeling of vengeance to most veterans of the most sides of those conflicts. The reference you gave is very useful and from a respected scholar, so I placed it in the article itself, as you may see. You are free to compile a paragraph for the article from that paper and include other referenced info about UPA atrocities into the article. I would have liked to do it myself, but I have a limited amount of time and I have committed myself to several other articles higher on my priorities list.

You may note that recently the article said about "both sides (PL and UA)" being guilty of genocide. I removed the accusations of PL in genocide myself. Please read my entry at this page above one more time about suggestions on how to write aboiut the attocities in this article or in the "Massacre in Vohlynia". Best regards, --Irpen July 9, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Few comments from Poland. I looked through the history of the article. When coming to the Polish-Ukrainian relations I think that only one thing can be said: they cannot be described simply. I can see Irpen’s point of view that the topic shouldn’t be exaggerated only focused on well cited facts. I don’t intend to whitewash UPA, but I also would consider the situation of Ukraine in that times. The world’s history looks different after WWII. Today we see UPA as an extremely nationalistic group. Did the Ukrainians see it in the same light before or during WWII? The Massacre in Vohlynia shows huge cruelty. Were all UPA’s members and actions as cruel? I’m sure that Irpen will agree on every well cited example, but I also understand that calling UPA and supporting it people fascists, whose main goal was to exterminate all Polish people with enormous cruelty, will only unnecessary put all Ukrainian people in a bad light. I wish some members of UPA had chosen different means of fight for Ukraine’s independence, but we should also remember, how desperate people could have had become after the Great Famine, feeling hopeless in their fight for an independent country. From my knowledge about the WWII, I can only say that the extreme circumstances caused by one people to another often turned otherwise good people into animals. There are no exceptions from the rule in any nation. We know a lot about history of Jews, so collaboration of Jews was easily explained in the talk above. Do we know enough about the Ukrainian members of UPA, to simply call them fascists and murderers? I understand that the number 100,000 says a lot and everyone can see it in the article, but I also know some Ukrainian Greek-Catholic minorities from Polish Carpathian Mountains and I know how much they suffered from the Polish communist government in the name of the fights with UPA. It’s really easy to misjudge, it’s much more difficult to provide remedy. I would welcome more information in the article about the army but not without information about the reasons and causes for establishing it in the first place. I also wouldn’t compare the UPA to fascists, I simply cannot believe that the Ukrainians as Hitler dreamt about ruling the world. --SylwiaS 23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I’ve just read the article on Polish Wiki. Even there UPA is described as a nationalist but not fascist. There is also a link to a larger article about Ukrainian’s victims of UPA and many protests of the Ukrainian community against UPA actions. There are many examples given, all very cruel, but still, as I am not familiar with their sources, I wouldn’t add them here. If any of you can read in Polish or use a translator, here’s the link [1] I cannot find a fault in the article, still, as it’s author criticize both the Ukrainian and Polish historians, we have to assume that there are many different opinions on that issue. On the other hand I think it would be good to write in the article here about the number of UPA partisans, it’s structure and the attitude of the Ukrainians people to UPA. --SylwiaS 02:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Irpen: "Dear SereneShark, I think your attack is a little misplaced here. First of all both Michael and myself are on record in WP opposing the extremist views from all sides of all isles" - IMO I was't attacking any of you, I was just trying to show the things in correct perspective. I do understand that different sources give completely different image of this subject and I understand your position.

Sylwia: "but I also understand that calling UPA and supporting it people fascists, whose main goal was to exterminate all Polish people with enormous cruelty, will only unnecessary put all Ukrainian people in a bad light." - what do you mean by 'bad light'? The truth is that they have commited genocide against civilian population and that's the truth, you speak about it like saying truth about it was something wrong.

The truth is simple: Ukraine's "heroes" butchered (often tortured,not just killed) tens of thousands of civilians,women and children among them. These are historical facts.

"I wish some members of UPA had chosen different means of fight for Ukraine’s independence, but we should also remember, how desperate people could have had become after the Great Famine"- Sylwia, I hope you are aware that UPA comitted the mass murder on territories on which there was no Great Famine! Actually, the Ukrainians living under Polish rule in the 30s were saved from Great Famine,facing moderate Polish opression instead of all-out Soviet terror.

" but I also know some Ukrainian Greek-Catholic minorities from Polish Carpathian Mountains and I know how much they suffered from the Polish communist government in the name of the fights with UPA." - Does it somehow change or justify the actions of UPA which happened BEFORE that?

"It’s really easy to misjudge, it’s much more difficult to provide remedy. " Easy to misjudge what? How can one 'misjudge' genocide of tens of thousands of civilian victims?

As for difficulty with providing "remedy"- I think it's quite obvious: in case of genocide, it's a well-established method to condemn the murderers and remember the victims, unless there are other options I'm unaware of,which you'd like to provide.

"I also wouldn’t compare the UPA to fascists, I simply cannot believe that the Ukrainians as Hitler dreamt about ruling the world." - but Sylwia, UPA were fascists- Hitler wanted "Germany clean of Jews", UPA wanted "Ukraine clean of Poles". Both used the same method-genocide. One does not need want to rule the world to be a fascist- look for Croatian Ustashe for example.

-SereneShark

By SereneShark: "The truth is simple: Ukraine's "heroes" butchered (often tortured,not just killed) tens of thousands of civilians,women and children among them." What do you mean by 'Ukraine's "heroes"'? Are you implying that UPA is not to this day very controversial in Ukraine? Is the UPA officially regarded and saluted as heroes by Ukraine? (Dynamok)

You are right, Sylwia, that the issue is complex and that this should be kept in mind all the time working on the article. That's why I added a {{Controversial}} tag to the talk page. The issue is so controversial, that even in today's Ukraine the 80+ y old UPA veterans (who first of all need medical help) don't get state benefits of WW2 veterans because of the opposition to this move within UA itself. I said many times above that I do not object to having the info on any UPA's crimes in the article. I just said that I insist on exact references, and not just in the ref list in the end, but within the text. 'According to "name of the book" by...' or something more styllistically pleasant but on the same level of precision.

It is not the encyclopedia's job to apply labels. Besides, to call UPA fascist is an utter nonsense by any stretch. Fascism has some elements of Socialism and state control. UPA was nationalist indeed, and if one is eager to place it somewhere in the political spectrum it would be anticommunist first of all. I can see how it could be call a nazi organization by some but that's also a big oversimplification. It's too early for now to discuss the political issues at this page yet because we are just discussing the mode of presentation.

I also agree with you when you say about the range of opinions. That's precisely my point. When there is a range of opinions, the article should clearly say, whose opinion it presents in every conclusion, and wikipedia is not interested in the editors' own conclusions. SereneShark is correct saying, that some things are not just opinions, but "truth". Very well, if this is referenced to an established scholar, the article would be no less convinsing to a reader than if it were saying certain things without attribution. The difference with the wiki-coverage of the Holocaust is that the mainstream scholarship of the latter is well developed and there are certain things on which most of the scholars agree.

I found the reference given by SereneShark interesting and moved it from talk to the article itself. I hope this alone, in addition to this discussion and my removal of accusation of Poland in genocide from the article, shows that I am not trying to whitewash UPA. In fact, I would have liked a lot to modify much of the article in UA-wiki because now it is just a praise to "khorobri voyaky". However, this is harder than it may seem and I prefer to stick to en-wiki because there is a better chanse to achieve neutrallity in this medium.

SereneShark, please modify the article as you see fit and give references in the text. That's all I am asking. There is no point to argue how bad UPA was at this page because nobody disagrees with your accusing it in attrocities. Regards, --Irpen 04:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

SerenShark, yes, I’m aware that Great Famine happened in Soviet Russia, but it only shows, why the Ukrainian nationalists sought establishing their country rather in the Polish part. Please, remember that while the Nazis lived in their own free country, the Ukrainians did not. Either the nationalists in pre-war Poland or the communists in post-war Poland wanted a homogeneous country and still they were not fascists. Nazis didn’t want only Germany free of Jews, they wanted all the world free of Jews.

As far as the facts go, we know only that up to 100,000 people died. The rest we don’t know. Some say that there died up to 500,000 people, others say that these are communist’s myths. We don’t know, how big was the role of German soldiers and Soviet partisans. In the Massacre of Poles in Vohlynia article is an information about 15,000-30,000 Ukrainians killed by Polish Home Army, while the article I linked before says about 4,000 victims of Polish Home Army and 36,000 Ukrainian victims of UPA. Moreover, we still don’t know if UPA ever gave an order to start the massacres.

No, situation of Ukrainians in post-war Poland doesn’t justify UPA’s actions at all, and I was not going to justify them in any way. Anyhow, simple sentences like Ukraine's "heroes" butchered (often tortured, not just killed) tens of thousands of civilians, women and children among them. were for years repeated by Polish communist government only to justify the operation “Wisła”. Big efforts were made to build prejudice towards Ukrainians living in Poland and show them as particularly cruel people. Because of that, no real investigation of UPA’s actions was ever made and the historians only now try to find the truth. Instead, we were offered many ‘proofs’ faked by communists. So, when you want to say things describing UPA’s particular actions without providing, who and when said that, we cannot really know, if it’s truth. I want to say it again. No action of one nation against another (especially civils) can be justified. In this case neither the Vohlynia massacre nor the operation “Wisła”. However, simple facts without further, balanced and well sourced explanation can often be used to misinterpretation of the whole situation. I hope I clarified my meaning. I want to second Irpen in encouraging you to further edits. Also I want to add that with an exception of the fascists term, which we simply use very carefully here, I understand your opinion. I do think that it was unnecessary cruelty. Actually, even if it was less cruel, I would still see it like that. But it’s an encyclopaedia, so my POV is not enough. --SylwiaS 07:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A good NPOV source I'd recommend is Davies 'God's playground', available both in Polish and English. Its content would definetly be useful for expantion of this article. Davies describes UPA and OUN and other organisations in Chapter 19 Independence (p. 508-510 Polish ed.) with references: W.Napier, Ukrainians in Poland: an historical background, "International Affairs" XI (1932), p. 391-421; M.Feliński The Ukrainians in Poland, London, 1931; E.Rewiuk Polish attrocities in Ukraine, New York, 1931, W.Szota Zarys rozwoju OUN i UPA, "Wojskowy Przegląd Historyczny", VIII (1963), p.163-218 and in Chapter 23 People's Republic of Poland (p. 692-693 Polish ed) with references W walce ze zbrojnym podziemiem, M. Turlejska, Warszawa 1972; A.B. Szczęśniak, W.Szopa, Droga do nikąd: działanośc OUN i ich likwidacja w Polsce, Warszawa 1973. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Question

An army formed on October 14, 1942, but was fighting against everybody. How did they procure weapons? What was their maximum strength? Why would anybody join this army it’s seems as lose-lose scenario to me. Unless they were allied to some of them for some time? --Cigor 16:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

When they were fighting the Nazis, they would use Soviet weapons, when they were fighting the Soviets, they'd use western weapons.... pretty simple.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The UPA fought...

I replaced

the Polish Armia Krajowa, the Soviet Red Army, and the German Wehrmacht

by the correct cronological order

the German Wehrmacht, the Polish Armia Krajowa, and the Soviet Red Army

The phrase

although the OUN was allied with the Germans until June 30, 1941.

is removed. It was misleading. UPA formed on October 14, 1942. It had nothing to do to what happend before June 30, 1941. This stuff belongs to the article on Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. --AndriyK 14:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As per an anon user below, the chronological order is misleading and the original order has to be restored. To say that whatever happend with OUN before '42 has no relation to UPA is an utter nonsence. UPA was created as the military branch of OUN. It's like sayin that Fatah is unrelated to PLO or Sinn Féin to IRA. In what I agree with you, is that saying that OUN and Germans were "Allies" is misleading. Being "Allies" involves much more than the temporary cooperation they had. What if the Germans ended up being smart enough to use anti-Soviet and anti-Polish sentiment of Ukrainian nationalists to a larger effect instead of becoming just another power to brutalize Ukrainians, and even in a harsher form, is a different but unrelated question. --Irpen 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

UPA: What they were after

Hi everybody, I highly appreciate this sophisticated discussion since it´s subject is still largely neglected in other parts of Europe. I would like to add some comments: - I would not change the order of UPA´s enemies chronologically; stressing the actual order of animosity would be more appropriate, for the German Wehrmacht definitely was not their enemy Nr. One; indeed, it was Armia Krajowa in the first place tightly followed by the Soviet forces (be it the partisan units or the Red Army); UPA´s attacks against German forces depended on the actual development as UPA had to treat Germans as a side most likely to revert the geopolitical situation against Polish and Soviet interests - definitely, UPA was not an anti-fascist force but that doesn´t tell anything about their moral profile, the same way it does not tell anything about the Soviet side which fought the Germans fiercely - it is a mistake to utilize the term "fascists" as a moral weapon; UPA was indeed inspired by filofascist thoughts of some pre-war Ukrainian intellectuals but that does not equate them with Hitler; ethnic clensing is not a trademark of fascism (see fascist Italy); without trying to diminish the moral scape of the Volhynian massacres I still must insist that the genocide of the Polish element was not an integral part of OUN´s pre-war goals, it rather followed from the critical disagreements between the Polish underground representatives and their Ukrainian nationalist counterparts concerning the post-war borders; the UPA´s ethnic cleansing was rather a "pragmatic" step generated by the political stalemate (unsigned by anon)

This is entirely correct. It is, generally, complicated to label UPA anything, as I said too earlier at this talk. We should just stick to facts (when they are not disputed) and give competing versions for the disputed ones. --Irpen 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's very difficult to measure the "actual order of animosity". It depends on what sources you are using. The chronological order is more clear and less controvercial. --AndriyK 18:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, but even if we keep the chronological order, you can't remove from the article the fact of prior collaboration of elements of OUN with Germans. You can't really say that this is irrelevant for this article. Yes, this is UPA and not OUN article and details may be ommitted but the very fact of the existence of the prior cooperation should be noted. --Irpen 20:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have any information about cooperation of UPA with Nazis confirmed by reliybale sources, then please citethe source and add the information. Otherwise this information irrelevant. --AndriyK 21:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Especially that the cooperation with Germans, although to a lesser scale, was continued until the very end of their presence in Poland. Note the accounts of arms supply to the UPA during the massacre of Volhynia. Of course, in most cases the attrocities made by the UPA could only please the Germans so they had no incentive to intervene. But in many cases the cooperation was more active than a simple indifference on behalf of the Krauts. Halibutt 21:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is completely new for me. Could you please give the reference to the source? Thanks. --AndriyK 21:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Andriy, I just want to understand. Are you denying the very existance of the collaboration of elements of OUN with Germans as a whole or you are saying that such a cooperation, if existed, is irrelevant for UPA because UPA is not OUN. In the latter case, your argument is kind of far fetched, similar to saying that actions of PLO and Fatah are unrelated. --Irpen 22:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Something to consider

I would like to thank all the contributors for keeping this heated issue as a debate only and would also ask some of them to try to give points of view of different historicians (yes, I still insist on the word "different"). Also another point to account for: rememeber that Ukrainian history was so falsified in the post-war soviet history textbooks that the whole generation of people were educated without any idea of the real facts that took place in 1940-1950s. Also it is very possible that many archive documents which exposed Polish and Soviet massacres against Ukrainian people were also destroyed by both sides, and the history again was changed to depict UIA as simply killers of innocent people. user:VerbaVolantScriptaManent

I agree with you but these are general statements. The only thing I want to underline is that substantial changes to controversial articles should be discussed at talk rather than persistentrly inserted and reinserted like some editors did in the past. In short, Be_bold#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21 --Irpen 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd think some changes should be made to this article:

1) " Some estimates have put the Polish death toll as high as 100,000 (see Massacre of Poles in Volhynia for more details) and many historians, particularly in Poland, use the term genocide or ethnic cleansing."- IMO this sentence is making the impression that the Polish historians ("particularly in Poland") are somehow biased to call the mass murder commited by UPA "ethnic cleansing or genocide" and that historians in other countries disagree,while in reality nobody really cares about these things outside Poland and Ukraine.

2)I think it should be openly called genocide, basing on the fact that it was mass murder of civilians basing on ethnic criteria. Here is the United Nations resolution giving definition of genocide: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

I think that the mass murder commited by UPA fits the definition.

3)Some kind of mention should be done on UPA ideology, on it's views about other nationalities and on nationality, with short comparison with Nazi and Fascist ideologies.

SereneShark 24 December 2005

A challenging topic

Moved from User talk:Ukrained:

Hi. Regarding this edit, where you requested references, believe me, you do not want to do it, it's a Pandora's box. The issue of UPA is extremely delicate among Poles and there are heaps of research, both credible and completely fantastic. What I'm going to do is to try to rephrase the sentence a little and remove the citation tag. I would like to sincerely suggest that you do not readd it. If this is still bothering you, the much better way will be to discuss it in the article's talk page. It is probably the most difficult issue, I have encountered so far on English wiki and I'm not sure how this should be handled, especially with the anonymous trolls around. Peace. --_Lysy^talk 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this topic is extremely difficult. It is so easy to find true or fabricated examples of how cruel the UPA, AK, Soviets, Nazis and who not, were in Western Ukraine. It is also extremely emotional especially for those, whose families perished. --_Lysy^talk 20:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lysy. Sorry for delaying my answer. Now to the topic. As for the first my tag (about Poles attitude), it was purely a matter of principle. I DO believe that sentence is correct (except of the POV phrase on tortures). Cause I've been to Poland like many Ukrainians. However not all readers of WP have. So, i believe such passages should be referenced to public opinion polls if possible. I won't oppose either keeping or tagging that passage. But can we downgrade the emotion advantage of the phrase?

As for the second passage (regardless of UPA itself): I think it's biased and uncompleted. I REALLY don't know if pre-war Polish govt was commiting any atrocities. But I believe the war-time Polish insurgents were. Don't you think that is the most possible explanation for UPA? However, I don't have references for this so far. So, If you and some Ukraine-related editors insist, OK. I'll look for sources to prove my vision and contact the article's talk.

As you can see, I'm the last one to open Pandora boxes (whatever you meant by that). However, let us all remember that unbalanced encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia at all. If just looking like unbalanced, it's another attraction for vandals. That's where the real Pandora box is (not in my cautious summarized edits :). Regards, Ukrained 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Conserning the interwar time, I have never seen any serious writing implying the atrocities against Ukrainians in the, however nationalist Second Polish Republic. Cultural suppression and assimilation? Yes, but no atrocities. Therefore, I removed the "fact" template user:Ukrained added. It is up to a challenger to give refs that claim atrocities, not the other way around.

I've seen mentions of brutality during the suppression of Ukrainian struggle for self-determination as well as description of the mauradeering by the Polish army during the Polish invasion into Ukraine in an attempt to install a puppet government in Kiev that soon followed but this was at the very onset of the Polish own independence. Nothing like that I've seen applied to the later times. --Irpen 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A few comments to the recent edits.

Firstly, concerning the "Among Poles, UPA is often being associated with cruelty ...".

In this sentence, I'm not saying that there were tortures involved, I'm only saying that many Poles do think so (and I do).

I agree that it would be better to support this claim with some research survey results but it might be difficult to find one. The opinion is so widespread in Poland that it's considered practically evident and I don't think anyone would be researching this, knowing the only possible outcome. Go ahead and try to downgrade the emotional load of the phrase (although myself, I find it pretty neutral).

As for the interwar time, it is known that the Polish government had the policy of Polonisation of Western Ukraine (its intensity also changed with time) and other areas, including Western Belrus, Vilnius region etc. All this was however peanuts compared to what happened at the same time in the Soviet part and later during the war. Practically, there was no violence even in the most difficult period of the 1930s. (a reasonable book I could recommend on this is "Polityka państwa polskiego wobec zagadnienia ukraińskiego w latach 1930-1939" by Robert Potocki, in Polish alas). You are however very right that Polish AK also committed horrific crimes on Ukrainian peasants and civilians, even if their scale was disputably smaller for whatever reason. I'll try to find some solid references for this, probably in a week or two. I'm however not sure if this fits the UPA article right. Thanks for being considerate. --_Lysy^talk 22:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to delete this unreliable link at all: http://www.kki.krakow.pl/piojar/polemiki/rubiez/wirtuoz/wirtuoz.html Polish User:Molobo dug it in and he's OK with deletion. You see, the "neutralizing" comment attached to that link doesn't really give us much. The page is permanently attacked by anonymous POV-pushers, so readers may think that comment is added by just another vandal from other side - and ignore it. People? Ukrained 16:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Misleading information (500 thousand victims) not appropriate for encyclopedic article. --Lysy^talk 17:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ukrained 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

UPA the truth story

Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA): A fascist Ukrainian military and terrorist organization formed from Bandera's right-wing "revolutionary" faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN, it was known as UNO in Ukrainian). OUN itself was founded in 1929, as a terrorist organization to promote the cause of Ukrainian nationalism by any possible means, including: diversion, sabotage, terrorism, clandestine assassinations (in 1936 it assassinated Poland's Minister of Internal Affairs B. Pieracki), and cooperation with the German secret intelligence (both before and during the German aggressions on Poland and Soviet Union). The overwhelming majority of UPA's members also belonged to OUN, and both of these organizations were very strongly interconnected. UPA's main powerbase lay in the Ukrainian regions that until 1939 were still under Polish rule, with Ukrainian C atholics forming the bulk of the organization's members (a number of pro-Ukrainian Rusins from Trans-Carpathian Rus and eastern Polish Carpathians also joined UPA, in fact they were the formation's only non-Ukrainian members); attempts were made to recruit new members from among the Ukrainians of the Orthodox religious denomination in order to materialize an all-Ukrainian independence movement. Shortly before the outbrake of war in 1939, OUN established the clandestine Ukrainian Military Organization which served as a forerunner of UPA. Members of OUN launched numerous attacks on Polish soldiers and civilians in September of 1939, commiting their first gruesome atrocities in their bloody campaign to eradicate the Slavs from Ukraine.

The abbreviation UPA itself stands for "Ukrainska Powstancza Armia" (literally meaning: Ukrainian Raising Army, however, usually translated as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army). It was a fiercely pro-German and anti-Communist armed formation of the OUN, whose leader was Stepan Bandera (1908-1959). UPA, as well as OUN, conducted its activities in support of Germany and against Poland and Soviet Union. Its chief aim was the establishment of an "independent Ukraine" under the protege of Nazi Germany. It mainly operated in north-western Ukraine and parts of south-eastern Poland. The first terrorist UPA detachment was formed on 14/10/1942, in the north-western Ukrainian region of Volhynia. The greatest organizational development of UPA (in headquarters, staffs, and detachments) took place in the second half of 1943, when numerous thousands of Ukrainian policemen voluntarily enlisted in its ranks. In September of 1943, the General Headquarters of UPA were founded in the vicinity of Lviv. The General Headquarters of UPA consisted of six sections (organizational-mobilizational, reconnaissance, economic, training, propaganda, and political-educational). R. Szuchewycz (alias "Taras Czuprynka") was nominated as UPA's Commander-in-Chief.

Four operational groups were subordinated to UPA's General Headquarters near Lviv, and these were as follows: Operational Group "North" (encompassed north-western Ukrainian regions of Volhynia and Polesie), Operational Group "West" (encompassed north-western Ukrainian region of Galicia, as well as Trans-Carpathian Rus and south-eastern Poland), and still undergoing the development stage (in 1943), Operational Group "South" (encompassed southern Ukraine), and Operational Group "East" (encompassed north-central and eastern Ukraine). Every operational group was subdivided into military districts, which in turn were composed of tactical sectors. By early 1944, both Operational Group "North" and Operational Group "South" contained two military districts, whereas, Operational Group "West" was made up of six military districts (I have no data on the number of such military districts in the Operational Group "East"). Each operational group, military district, and tactical sector had its own commander and headquarters. All military districts also had their own NCO training schools. UPA predominantly consisted of second-rate (on German standards) infantry which served "security" (read mass murder) functions for the German administration / occupation apparatus. Those members of the OUN who did not join UPA, served as its auxiliary militia, called upon in times of need or emergency to support regular UPA detachments. UPA unquestionably served the German administration as loyal para-military levies that permanently tied their faith to that of Third Reich. Largely thanks to UPA/OUN, the General Governorship's District of Galicia was made into a Nazi-UPA condominium.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.221.228 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2. March 2005 (CEST)

There is a lot of crap in the above passages, I hope no one decides to make it to the article --Compay 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the disputed paragraph is too weighty of a statement to include based only on a magazine source notwithstanding its miniscule scale. Ksenon 03:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was some anon troll who tried to add stuff to article with edit summaries in Polish, refusing to speak other than in Polish, etc. I am glad he decided to post it to talk rather than to the text in his last attempts. No one is adding this garbage anywhere to the mainspace. --Irpen 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

UPA Versus Germans

I have tried to add a lot of info about UPA warfare versus Germans but it does not show up on the main page (it only does when I open up the edits section). I"ve also tried to reorganize the restof the information. I'm relatively new at wikipedia and am wondering why most of that stuff doesn't show up. regards Faustian 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The "new UPA page": moved to Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/ Sandbox abakharev 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A vandal

Is constantly removing sourced information about recent developments in Poland and Ukraine and adding a unsourced image. --Molobo 11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the offensive image unsourced, it is improperly captioned. Tarnopol is not even in Wolyn, and indeed Tarnopol region was not even a scene of heavy UPA activity, which was mostly concentrated in Volyn and in the Carpathian mountains. There is no proof that this image portrayed the work of UPA, rather than of some non-UPA sadists, NKVD, etc. Even the caption doesn't say UPA did it, but blames "Ukrainians". I removed the image and will restore the sourced information about recent developments in Poland. Faustian 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for this Polish vandal I feel sorry that a person coming from my country beheaves in this way. I think he should be blocked as he continues to reappear and vandalise pages on constant basis. --Molobo 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The phot has been shown recently by Polish scholars to be a hoax. Originally it was 4 children slain by a mother who was a ethnic Gypsy in 1924. One needs to be very careful when touching such politically charged aspects. --Bandurist 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Przeprosiny

Dlaczego Prezydent Juszczenko nie odwiedził grobów nie i złożył hołdu tym swoim rodakom, ofiarom „walki UPA” z "komunistyczną władzą". Ciekawe dlaczego? Dlaczego koło miłośników OUN-UPA – nie upomina się o te ofiary ukraińskiego nacjonalizmu i nie chce postawić pomników swoim Radakom Ukraińcom? Dlaczego nacjonalistów i nacjonalistycznych pogrobowców nienawidzą na Wschodniej Ukrainie? Podobno dlatego, że wschodni Ukraińcy są wytworem „komunistycznej propagandy” a może prawda o "wyzwolicielach z UPA " jest całkowicie inna ?. 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please, use English, on this English wikipedia. Not all the editors working on this page are fluent in Polish language. The next time I will delete all the non-English comments from this page. I guess your criticism of the modern Ukrainian government belongs to Politics of Ukraine not here. abakharev 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wolyn1943.jpg

I asked the question about the sources for the image on Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board#Image:Wolyn1943.jpg. User:Halibutt found the source of the image (thanks!), but both User:Halibutt and User:Molobo evaluate the source as been a highly partisan, sensationalist, non-academic. Quite possible the description of the image is true, but it could also be a propaganda work. It seems that the image was outright deleted from Polish Wiki (see pl:Grafika:Wolyn1943.jpg). I guess they have reasons to do this. I think that it is against the WP:V policy to use such a strong image that may be falsified or misrepresented. I propose not to include the image in the article, but put the reference to the book into the reference section of the article (indicating that it might be partisan).

Any other suggestions?

I propose after 1-2 days discussion take a straw poll on the matter and if a clear consensus either way will be obtained (with e.g. 75% of margin), then consider the consensus as binding and its violations as vandalism. abakharev 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it seems that the picture has never been published in the Polish wiki, so no wonder it's not there (check the log). Then, I never said the source the pic is taken from is partisan, I merely pointed to the fact that one of the authors to use it in his publication might not be as impartial as some modern, non-related historians are, but this was just a personal remark. Which however doesn't mean that his book (merely a collection of photos, BTW) is highly partisan, sensationalist, non-academic. Hardly any collection of photos is non-partisan, academic and neutral, as the editor has to make the choice himself - and reflects his own idea of what fits in there and what does not. By comparison, in collections of photos related to the Holocaust they do not publish pictures of smiling and cheering inmates of the concentration camps even though there are also zillions of such pics. Lastly, I simply quoted the link to one of the places where this pic was published and one of the possible sources. I can't say whether this was exactly the source. //Halibutt 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The other author who gives this photo here gives it as photo from Władysław Siemaszko, who in an interview here[1](titled btw "Without forgivness") claims cruealty is a "natural" Ukrainian trait, and that Ukrainians have no history, national identity and delight in torturing people. These are highly nationalistic and prejudiced people. Their statements and materials can't be viewed as credible. --Molobo 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the picture was added there by the author of the web-page, not by the person interviewed by the journalist of the Angora, from where the interview was reprinted. And Angora would not add such drastic picture as they are rather a paper for families.

Read again. Siemaszko clearly writes that those who committed the atrocities were natural born killers as they loved to kill new-born children, kill people with scythes, axes, rip people with horses and torture them, not of the entire Ukrainian nation. He also claimed that the Ukrainians were not so long before (the Volhynian Massacre) a peasant nation, without a proper elite and history or self-identification. (...) And already in the 1920s the Ukrainian nationalists vowed for ethnic cleansing and purging Russians, Jews, Poles and Czechs from Ukraine. So, in short, your Polish seems to be a tad rusty as what you wrote above is not what Siemaszko said. From the context it is absolutely clear that he refers to the Ukrainian nationalists to commit the atrocities, not to Ukrainians as such.

But even if, how would that influence the photo itself? If the I was kidnapped by the UFO monthly published a picture of the World Trade Center would it mean that the centre never existed? //Halibutt 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the picture was added there by the author of the web-page, not by the person interviewed by the journalist of the Angora, from where the interview was reprinted. I wasn't refering to Angora. I was refering to second site that gave source of this photo and which claimed it was from Siemaszko. Here is what Siemaszko states: Home Army killed only 800 Ukrainians and only of that civilians were below 100. Siemaszko clearly writes that those who committed the atrocities were natural born killers as they loved to kill new-born children, kill people with scythes, axes, rip people with horses and torture them, not of the entire Ukrainian nation. Here is exact statement : S:Mało tego, już na kilka lat przed bitwą pod Grunwaldem Rusini służący w wojsku litewskim zamordowali w Łucku 4 tysiące Polaków! Q:Czym tłumaczyć tak wielkie okrucieństwo? Przecież bardzo wielu mordów dokonano za pomocą kos, pił, kaci spływali krwią ofiar. S: To ich wrodzona cecha. Rozbijali niemowlęta o ścianę, używali wideł, siekier, rozrywali ludzi końmi. Lubowali się w torturach. To był naród chłopski, bez własnej elity, historii, a nawet świadomości. Jeszcze do 1918 roku większość Ukraińców nazywała się Rusinami lub "tutejszymi". SThat's not all, already a few years before Grunwald Rusins serving in Lithuanian army murdered in Łuck 4 thousand Poles Q:How to explain this great cruealty. Many murderes were made with saw, scythe's and executioners were washed with blood of victims. S:It's their inborn trait. They crushed infants against walls, used axes, torned apart people with horses. They liked torture. This was peasant nation, without elites, history and even consciounses. Till 1918 most Ukrainians called themselfs Rusins or "locals" End of statement. Siemaszko makes no distinction in this statement between nationalists and Ukrainian nation.He makes in fact no mention of nationalists in this statement, while mentioning Ukrainians several times. It's also clear that he is a very POVish person. I can't view him as credible source regarding these events.

If the I was kidnapped by the UFO'' No. This wrong comparision. A right one would be "I have a photo of UFO". Clearly the photo shown by both autors must have a neutral and objective source. Those two authors represent a ultranationalist view of history and can't be accepted as credible source of information regarding the authenticity of the photo. --Molobo 19:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the context, but he seems to be describing the deeds of a certain military unit or units which took part in the Battle of Grunwald, which took place in 1410. —Michael Z. 2006-05-24 00:51 Z

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Survey. What to do with the Image:Wolyn1943.jpg?

Since there is no more ideas proposed. I think it is time for a poll. If the poll will show clear consensus (more than 75% support), I suggest to handle violation of the consensus as the vandalism. abakharev 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

Results of the Poll: 82% Support, 18% Oppose. Please do not modify the section below.

I think there is a clear consnesus not to include the picture into this article. Thus, the inclusion will be handled as Vandalism. The results of the poll are not applicable to other articles specifically dealing with the massacres of Poles. abakharev 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Because of the very strong nature of the image and the non-academic character of the sources provided, I propose not to include the image to the article. Instead provide the reference to the original book, stated as the source of the image. abakharev 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

The poll finishes on 12:20 31 May 2006 (UTC) - 7 days.

Support

1. As the nominator abakharev 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Not only is the image offensive, it is also unsourced. Furthermore, the image's caption clearly states that it was the work of "Ukrainians" - NOT NECESSARILY UPA (it could have been the work of policemen or unaffiliated bandits). Moreover, the caption is incorrect, because Tarnopol is not in Wolyn. Even if all of those problems weren't there, a more appropriate place for that photo would be the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article. Faustian 12:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Aye. --Kocoum 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support non-inclusion. I would like the issue to be decided narrowly and vote only on inclusion of this image to this article, not in general, in Wikipedia. A separate discussion is needed on the usability of the image to Massacre of Poles in Volhynia article about which I have not formed an opinion yet. (That the Massacre article should be renamed to something less drammatic, I am sure though.) --Irpen 16:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support non-inclusion per Faustian and Irpen. The image does not illustrate the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article. If the voting was for the illustration for the Massacre of Poles in Volhynia article however, I would vote to keep it. --Lysy^talk 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per everyone above. Ukrained 09:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support removal as per my earlier objections. Anyway one of the sources says that this was done by SS-Galicien with the "help" of UPA, so the source are contradicting each other now.--Molobo 11:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support --Yakudza 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. heqs 12:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Several UPA victim memorials [2] were based on the picture of the image. Although it is a controversial picture, it has obviously had other implications and thus is important in its presentation. --Kuban Cossack 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

   Err...the guy above isn't exactly NPOV Faustian 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

   The guy is also a little bit trollish (like here) and hooliganistic :( This isn't a personal attack, but a mere truth repetitiously admitted even by Russians). As for his link, it refers to a fringely partisan site aimed to promote anti-Ukrainian election-related issues. That's why I think his vote shouldn't be counted. Ukrained 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, this is the same guy that refers to anthems of SSRs as historical sources as well. heqs 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

   But then, who of us is ... ? --Lysy^talk 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

2. I'm still not convinced that the rationale for this poll is really serious. Sure, the pic is strong, but it is well-known and often used as an example of UPA's actions. I wouldn't oppose moving it to the specific article on ethnic cleansing in Volhynia. //Halibutt 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. For now I'll point out that there is a related discussion about the image, giving some references and such, here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

UPA ideology

Just wanted to let you all know that I have significantly added information to the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists article that outlines that organization's (and thus UPA's) ideology. Faustian 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inline references

I'm not sure about the inline references in this article. None of them gives specific page numbers. Shall we move the to the "general" section ? --Lysy^talk 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of them do have specific page numbers, which are visible in the edit screen but not when one views the article. Also, I think it is useful to keep them where they are, so that we know the specific sources for some of the statements. Faustian 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed. However some refs, like Toynbee or Krokhmaluk do not give specific pages, therefore are not easily verifiable and not very useful for inline references. --Lysy^talk 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian victims of UPA

I have often read about UPA killing Ukrainians (e.g. those on Vohlyn which tried to protect their Polish neighbours). Does anyone have any estimates on number of victims of this terror? Szopen 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have not heard that, but will try to look this up and post, if I find anything, here.--Riurik ^(discuss) 04:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Terror tactics - terrorist organization?

I don't know, so maybe let's discuss. --HanzoHattori 17:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

UIA was a military organization, rather than a terrorist one. It used Terror among other tactics in their resistance struggle. This by itself does not qualigy it as a TO. OUN in 30s might have been indeed a TO since political terror was its major activity. But not UIA. --Irpen 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One should be extremely careful with such terms. It would be easier to stick to commonly-accepted international terms rather than press-like forms. UIA was a terrorist organization. UIA was a military organization. UIA was a political entity. There's no contradiction in that. However, what's to some an example of terrorism, to others is a just fight for freedom and so on. That's why the diplomats invented the idea of sovereignty and legitimacy of power. If one is a sovereign on some territory, all actions in accordance with the local law are acceptable. Hence, say, Polish partisans robbing a German bank or assaulting a nur fur Deutsche cafe in Warsaw are called partisans, while ETA guys doing the very same thing in Madrid are called terrorists.

Now then, was UIA a representative of some sovereign in where it operated? Was it the legitimate force? //Halibutt 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And so are the Palestinian PLO, or Hamas. Everyone agrees UPA killed (at least) tens of thousands of civilians to induce "terror" - I think that's A LOT more than the death toll of all the Palestinian organizations altogether (and Wikipedia calls them terrorists even if they "fight for national liberation" and UN gave them right to do it "by all means"). I think that's also, say, several times more than, say, al-Qaeda worldwide, including the 9-11 attacks and the war in Iraq. Or maybe it should be looked upon from the genocide side, instead of terrorism? --HanzoHattori 09:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? There was recently an argument about whether Holodomor is genocide or not, and the conclusion was (and has been) that at the present time the international consensus among mainstream scholars is lacking, so Holodomor was not genocide. Same applies here. The consesus among scholars is that UIA has certainly killed people, and that it was a partsan organization fighting both Germans, Poles and the Communist Soviet Union. Also there is a qualitative difference between being a terrorist organization and an insurgent army.--Riurik ^(discuss) 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, though I wouldn't call the difference 'qualitative'. //Halibutt 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be also against labelling UIA as a terrorist organisation for it so much depends on the point of view. Also it would be a bit anachronistic as terrorism has another meaning then and today. So "terror tactics" - yes, but "terrorist organisation" - no. --Lysy^talk 18:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Rurik and Halibutt, I'd suggest a look through academic works: does majority refer to UIA as terrorist org. or not?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think I'm going to actually pipe in here as I am Ukrainian myself. To my understanding, the entire goal of participating with the German Facist administration was to infiltrate it in order to secure an independent nation - not to delve into facism itself. Frankly, from what I've seen from this talk page, it appears as if Poles are furious regarding one action of the Ukrainians against themselves. Were there crimes against Poles by the UPA? Yes. However, there were equally as many crimes against Ukrainians by the Poles who were attempting, understandably, to hold onto what they viewed as their land. More importantly, many members of the UPA were citizens who were simply trying to get by so to speak. The Polish view of the organization, which is vastly incorrect, is that they were a bunch of armed thugs. However, in reality, the UPA had no official membership - many joined and left this organzation as its popularity increased or waned. Some physically fought for the UPA, while the great majority acted as spies, while even more simply operated a cooperative amongst themselves in order to surive in those hard times. Carnegiehill 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What Is The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) Fighting For?

An interesting link presenting the political aim of UPA

What Is The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) Fighting For?

UPA and Jews

While UPA was ruthless in the prosecution of its goals, and probably was involved in killing Jews it identified as Communists, it seems to have been positive towards Jews not deemed a threat. In this, it was similar to Mussolini's fascists [3] [4]. I have included info about Jewish participation in UPA and UPA's rescue of Jews; I suppose if someone else can find it they may add balance by providing accounts of Jews identified as communists and persecuted by UPA (if such things happened; I suspect they might have). Hopefully Soviet propoganda will not be the sole source of such claims. Faustian 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend. I met quite a few real people who were anti-Semitic in general and befriended Jews in the twists of real life. From one such person I've heard: "I am not an Anti-Semite. I always admited that as there exist some bad Ukrainians, there also exist some good Jews". Another phrase I've heard is "I hate the Yids but I have nothing against the Jews".

Of course the UPA won't kill Jews left and right based on the Hitler-like racist policies. But note that UPA was driven by ultra-nationalist ideology, being an armed wing of OUN. Even now, you can find some quite strong stuff at pro-UPA web-sites or in the speaches of modern politicans who attempt to associate themselves with the UPA and OUN heritage. Their ethnic hatred is based not on the racial theories but their nationalism. Nationalists tend to be intolerant, be it Ukrainian, Russian or Polish ones. Please do not attempt to present the Ukrainian nationalists as some sort of exception who exemplified tolerance and judophilia. --Irpen 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have Subtelny's book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny cites the figure of 60,000 Poles killed by UPA, mentions the Jews killed by pogroms committed by UNR forces in 1919-1920, yet conspicuously does not mention UPA as killing Jews. He is not a revisionist. As for anecdotes - such comments don't imply genocidal intentions. One hears similar things from some Irish-americans about their black neighbors, for example.

It seems to me that UPA only opposed Jews to the extent that they were seen (often falsely) as allied to Bolshevism, and not opposed to Jews per se. The quotes that you provided linking Jews and Bolshevism, made at the time of the OUN's alliance with Germany, support this assertion. The OUN was not Judophilic, but nor was it particularly antisemitic. An analogy might be seen in the relationship between Mussolini's fascists and Italy's Jews [5]. The OUN probably would have been willing to sacrifice Western Ukraine's Jews for the sake of independence in alliance with the Germans (as the quote you provided strongly suggests) if doing so was necessary to achieve their aims. Fortunately, unlike the Ustashe they never took on the role of Germany's subordinate and UPA's subsequent war with Germany removed any motivation for playing such a role.

It is difficult to draw conclusions based in objective evidence - Soviet historians on UPA have a long record of dishonesty (for example, blaming UPA for collaboration with Zionists in one propoganda book published in Kiev, entitled "Anatomy of Treason"), and Ukrainian sources would be motivated to whitewash undesirable aspects. But I strongly suspect that accusations of UPA's antisemitism among Western, Jewish scholars rely Soviet or anti-UPA Polish) materials as their sources. I find the actual testimony of Jewish veterans from UPA or from Jews whose lives were saved by UPA quite compelling. Faustian 04:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will add that even this source that you provided War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora about the Ukrainian diaspora's avoidance of painful aspects of Ukraine's history, such as the massacre of Poles in Volyn, pre-war antisemitism, participation of Ukrainian police in the Holocaust, etc. conspicuously avoided making any claims that UPA itself was ever involved in anti-Jewish crimes. Had the author believed that UPA did, he surely would have included that in this article. Faustian 05:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Subtelny is no doubt a respected historian but not the only respected scholar who wrote on the subject. We cannot afford subjecting ourselves to the ridicule here by seriously claiming the Western scholarship was infested by the Soviet propaganda and reject mainstream sources based on such claims. Such claims were made in the past to revise histories and not only in Wikipedia. This is not a serious argument. The question of Ukrainian nationalists being guilty of war crimes is a painful one indeed. It is difficult to ascribe the responsibilities and the reasons of what happened and assign the guilt for the Ukrainian aggravation to the Polish interwar pacification, Bolshevik Sovietization and German Nazism that all ravaged western Ukraine in the 20th century. It is also difficult to separate which specific unit of Ukrainian nationalists is complicit in which particular crime. The situation was fluid and many fighters and even groups committed different actions under the different umbrellaa. The connection between UPA and anti-Jewish violence is not invented by the Wikipedians. It is considered well established within a framework of mainstream scholarship and we should not go at any length here trying to white-wash the sad pages of the Ukrainian history. The histories of the Polish Home Army, Soviet partisans, the UPA and even most regular armed formations have some skeletons in the closets, all dreadful to their own extent. --Irpen 06:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and have no problem with the current version of the article. I think that something needed to be said about UPA and western Ukraine's Jewish community and the current version does so quite objectively and not one-sidedly. Thank you for your contribution. Faustian 13:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm making some minor changes to the wording of this section to reflect the fact that hisotrians are divided over whether or not UPA engaged in atrocities against Jews. Few legitimate historians deny the link between UPA and anti-Polish atrocities; with resopect to Jews the evidence is mixed. The phrase that I am changing ("some historians minimize or deny..") implies that it is an established fact that atrocites against Jews happened and that, for example, Subtelny denies this fact. I'm putting in a more realistic statement. Faustian 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Several allegations I'd like to get answer to

• only a low-scale and occasional fighting with the Germans (without any actual proof in German, Soviet or Polish documents for a large-scale battles mentioned in the article)
• often co-operation with all the German formations, including SS and Police forces
• killing about 40,000 ethnic Ukrainians (this including, but not limited to, the Communists)

--HanzoHattori 01:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well-respected historians such as Subtrelny or Magosci confirm UPA's struggle against the Germans, as do German sources referenced in the article. As for the allegations - submit proof of, for example, the killing of 40,000 ethnic Ukrainians, the cooperation between "all the German formations", etc. One can make all sorts of allegations without evidence. Faustian 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? So... "In May and July 1944, two more attempts by the Germans to capture Carpathian mountain passes were repulsed. The latter victory involved the defeat of two German divisions supported by artillery. On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers." Well, which ones? Divisional numbers, please. --HanzoHattori 13:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have access to original German archives. Those details were taken from a book by Krokhmaliuk about UPA operations that was cited in Subtelny as a source for further readings. Those details are supported by Magosci, whose book on Ukrainian history states "for nearly a year the UPA - whose numbers by then may have been close to 100,000 - fought several pitched battles against both the retreating Germans and the advancing Soviets for control of the Carpathian passes."

From the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by the University of Toronto, "During 1943 the UPA staged some successful ambushes and battles against the Germans, establishing its control of the countryside in Volhynia and leaving only the towns in German hands. At the same time it cleared some of the region of Soviet partisans and expanded its power southward and eastward. In 1944 it fought its largest engagements with German and Soviet forces. Retreating German units were frequently ambushed for their weapons and supplies. German attempts to secure areas of the Carpathian Mountains in the summer of 1944 led to several pitched battles with the UPA-West."

Such details are in line with the claim of German commanders on the Eastern front during their debriefing by American authorities that "the Ukrainian Nationalist movement formed the strongest partisan movement in the East, with the exception of the Russian Communists," which can be found on page 111 of the book Russian Combat Methods in World War II. published in Washington, D.C. by the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

So with all due respect I will consider those facts as more important than the accusations made by someone who has also claimed that UPA killed 40,000 ethnic Ukrainians or that they only engaged in "low scale or occasional fighting" with the Germans. Faustian 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, your ref is based on the original Enc. Ukr. by Kubiyovych who cannot be called neutral, especially in respect with organizations tainted in collaboration with Nazis. I use Enc. Ukr. myself as a reference for specific facts but as soon as they start opinionizing, this is not an acceptable source. --Irpen 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That reference involved a discussion of facts. Magosci and Subtelny, respected and objective historians, chose to agree with those facts, so that specific reference seems legitimate. Also I believe that you overstate Kubiyovich's influence on the modern Encyclopedia which is the basis of the on-line version [6]:

"...The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine is the most comprehensive work in the English language on Ukraine, its history, people, geography, economy, and cultural heritage. This site was created and is updated/maintained by a team of scholars and editors from the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) (University of Alberta/University of Toronto). Hundreds of specialists from around the world have contributed and continue to contribute to the Encyclopedia.

This site is an expanded and updated version of the five-volume edition (1984-93) of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine that was prepared by the CIUS in cooperation with the Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies and the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSh) in Western Europe under the direction of Professor Volodymyr Kubijovyc (editor in-chief in 1978-1985) and Professor Danylo Husar Struk (editor in-chief in 1985-1999), and published by the University of Toronto Press. The current Encyclopedia team consists of Roman Senkus, Managing Editor, Dr. Marko R. Stech, Project Manager, Andrij Makuch, Senior Manuscript Editor, Mark Andryczyk, Editorial Assistant, and a team of subject editors..."

So, in summary the modern/on-line version of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine seems to be a legitimate source. Since those facts were repeated by Magosci and conform to the statement by the debriefed German commanders they don't seem to be problematic. regards Faustian 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Magocsi, in Ukraine: a History, spends 40 pages (685–725) describing and briefly evaluating scores of sources for further reading. The evaluations are not in-depth, but he does at least mention the weak points of some. He starts the section by saying that "English-language readers are fortunate to have" Kubijovyc's two encyclopedias. He starts the paragraph about WWII Ukrainian military organizations with Tys-Krokhmaliuk (1972). These seem to be highly-recommended sources. Subtelny also starts his reading list with Kubijovyc at nos. 1 and 2.

Nevertheless, nothing is perfect. This is the first I've heard about Kubijovyc being tainted on some issues, and I'd be interested to read an objective evaluation. Do you have any references describing the failings, Irpen? —Michael Z. 2006-12-14 21:32 Z

Fortunately his biography has a wikipedia entry. He is controversial because he played an important historical political role and, like Hrushevsky, was not a pure academic. Faustian 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, his activities in the war can explain personal criticism of him, but are there any critiques of his academic work? What opinions do the encyclopedias express which are questioned? —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 00:38 Z

Michael, Kubiyovych throughout his career was attached to the Ukrainian nationalist groups, first within the Polish-controlled Ukrainian territory and in the end with different organization run by diaspora with varying degree of radicality. Suffice is to read his encyclopedia to see an extremely strong Ukrainophile bias. You can read his very article about UPA in early history of the uk:Wiki version where it was originally pasted.[7] There is no single word about the mass-murder of the Polish population. This is very well documented in various sources and although the "Massacre of Poles in Volhynia" needs NPOVing (as well as the title change) the horrific events indeed took place.

K's article on UPA is a typical representation of Kubiyovych's work. All the facts and numbers that are there are reliable and usable. Much relevant material is selectively missing and interpretations is totally tainted by the Ukrainian nationalist views and are totally unusable. I am not sure in which way he is praised by Magocsi but from what I have seen, Kubiyovych have done an immence amount of work systemizing and putting together a great deal of info complete with facts, dates, numbers. This is where his work is usable. Further editions of Enc Ukr are all based on Kubiyovych. My view is that we can and should use it but only to reference specific facts. No more, no less. --Irpen 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the patient explanation. —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 05:18 Z

I think I asked you for the names of alleged units. A division is a quite large formation (and easily tracable) - there should be enough specialist in the German military history on the Wikipedia to confirm or reject these claims. --HanzoHattori 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: Since you admit that all of K's facts and numbers are reliable and usable, then you shouldn't have a problem when he gives the facts of Germans and UPA engaging in pitched battles over Carpathian mountain passes. I have a lot of respect for you as a researcher but will choose a historian such as Magosci's judgment concerning the accuracy of facts, over yours.

Hanzohattori: I, too, would be interested in the names of the specific divisions defeated by UPA. I don't have access to any German archives, so hopefully someone can find them. Even if those names are not found, the fact that legitimate historians have accepted the existence of those aspects of UPA's struggle means that they can be considered to have happened. Furthermore, you have made some bold claims yourself that, unlike the case of UPA's struggle against the Germans, have not been supported by any evidence or claims by legitimate historians. Where is your evidence of 40,000 Ukrainians murdered by UPA, as you claimed? It seems you are asking information of others without making any effort to support claims that you provide. Faustian 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's talk page, not article, and it's not my "some bold claims" but (to quote myself) "allegations" I cited for discussion. Source: this magazine (paper edition of current issue [8]). Author claims, among other things, that the alleged large-scale fighting was invented by pro-UPA authors without any trace in for example German documents. Here in the article it's stated as a fact, even if no one can identify the "German divisions". Also the quoted German commanders were clearly mistaken, as the Polish resistance was for sure much stronger than UPA's 100,000. --HanzoHattori 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your explanations. Do you know anything about the author who had made those claims that you repeated? I have seen quotes by German officials about the German struggles with Ukrainian "bandits" that I can provide in a couple of days. As for the quote by the German commanders - with all due respect I think they know more about which of their enemies was stronger than you do. Perhaps the quoted German commanders were considering only guerrilla forces in rural areas, and did not take the heroes of the Warsaw uprising into account. At its height UPA controlled huge areas of territory in Volyn and the Carpathians, fielded cavalry and artillery, and defeated a few German divisions. They were also able to hold off Soviet forces for awhile. Perhaps that is why the German commanders said what they did.Faustian 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There were hundreds of thousands members of AK and other groups (peasant-only Bataliony Chłopskie, for example - 175,000 according to Wiki), and by the summer of 1944 masses of unorganised peasants were hunting for a German stragglers and deserters as well (quite similiar as the Ukrainian peasants were assaulting Polish soldiers in 1939). And you still can't identify even one German division which was supposedly "defeated" (right now western historians say Soviet Partisans inflicted only 15-20,000 German casualties altogether - this is like one division). --HanzoHattori 21:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse defeating a formation with hunting down and killing each one of its members—it can simply mean preventing it from taking an objective. By mid-1944, how many German divisions were at full strength, anyway?  —Michael Z. 2006-12-17 16:57 Z

As I said, I don't have access to German archives. The sources I do have acces to are legitimate and support the scope of UPA's struggle against Germany. The counterclaim that you present is based on a thus-far unknown author from a popular "military secrets" magazine. And sorry, but with respect to comparisons of UPA, AK or other Polish groups, and Soviet partisans I would give more importance to the opinions of the German commanders regarding who was a more powerful enemy, than you. Faustian 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also: "two German divisions supported by artillery" - a German army division was equiped with integral artillery by default - If any, it was a large(?) police units. Also, as it's controversional, I'd like to know not only the Ukrainian historian sources, but also their sources - and by the sources I don't mean "the UPA veterans told me so." "Bach-zaleski" was Bach-Zalewski. --HanzoHattori 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors our jobs are not to second-guess what historians tell us. Provided that the historians are recognized and legitimate (and Orest Subtelny and Magosci certainly meet those criteria) their judgment regarding sources should be accepted. If you can find other historians (rather than, for example, propagandists or tabloids) that disagree with the facts presented, or original archival data, then by all means include that information as well in order to balance the article. Faustian 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So, where's the original archival data?

Don't know, and not my responsibility. Subtelny's or Magosci's endorsement is good enough.Faustian 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As i said, any German army division had artillery, except maybe paratroopers. In the case of police, only if combat so-called "police" divisions, like the 3rd of Waffen-SS ("Polizei"). Or did he mean a support from an artillery division (or its subunit)? Or by a "division", a Kampfgruppe?

The source stated two divisions without specifying what kind of divisions they were. That is why the wiki article doesn't not specify them as army or police divisions.Faustian 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Two German divisions supported by artillery" is very strange - also, WHAT "divisions"? Look, every one has a number of name.

Well, do some archival research into it if you are not satisfied by the work already done by historians. Find out which divisions were operating in the Carpathians at the time and place specified in the article; it would be a great addition to the article Faustian 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Veterans will tell you various things - you mentioned Warsaw, there will be "Tiger tanks" in every second story (there were no Tigers there). Official historians - as I said, Soviet historians wrote, repeatedly, the the SovPs killed or wounded "million Germans" - while actually, dozens times less (not including local auxiliary troops, this of course including ethnic Ukrainian units).

Wikipedia reflects the work of legitimate historians, whose judgment determines the credibility of veterans' accounts. Faustian 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can't identify these "divisions" and won't provide the original (non-Ukr) sources (historians should provide the original sources in their works, so no problems here?), I'll change into "allegedly" and "units". --HanzoHattori 11:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, our job is not to second-guess the conclusions or the way of deriving conclusions of legitimate historians. There is no reason to replace "divisions" with "units" when the source stated "divisions", just because you and I don't have access to the archives. Likewise, no reason to use "alleged" just because you, personally, feel that you are better judge of a source than are Subtleny or Magosci. If there is one, find a legitimate historian that supports your counterclaim, reference his work, and then add that information to balance the article. As far as I am aware, there is little info specifying which particular UPA units were involved in which atrocities. I suppose UPA should be the "alleged" perpetrators of all of those crimes as well?

As for the figures of millions of Germans killed by Soviets - this is well known and widely accepted by legitimate historians such as Norman Davies. Faustian 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By the Soviet Army on the Eastern Front, more than 3 million out of 5.5 million killed in the war. But not by the Soviet Partisans. Actually, Polish forest partisans killed only "at least 1,000" German soldiers in a direct combat (not by bombing trains and stuff) in more than 100 "large engagements" from late 1942 until the general uprising in 1944. This was in the official paper from the Polish government, because they decided on a facts (and a "confirmed kills"), not some folklore mythology. The urban guerillas killed more, especially in Warsaw, which was the hub of the resistance (I don't remember the exact German figures now, but it was several hundred German servicemen and administration workers monthly in 1943). But they were saying Warsaw was half of the troubles in the whole country. Soviet historians would tell you the SPs "liquitated" 500,000 Germans "in Belorus alone", which is quite laughable especially since the German leader estimated their own losses as up to 50,000 in all of "Russia" at his trial after war. So, in these sources you cite, were there ANY original German/Polish/Soviet/Allied sources, or ANY names of alleged large German units, or just the former Nationalist Organization members?

As for the which "specific units" were engaged in atrocities, there's no such problem as for the German units - all the SS and police were part of a "criminal organization" by default (because were declared as such). The Waffen-SS frontline units including, and this really didn't matter if these particualar guys did nothing wrong, they still were part of a criminal organization. And because they were ordered to do so by their top leadership, and obeyed, I would say all of the Volhynia UPA organization at least. It's not like some local commander or a rogue warlord or undiscisciplined troops, it was a (criminal) policy. --HanzoHattori 21:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The low numbers of Germans killed by Polish partisans may explain why the German commanders in their debriefing state that UPA (and not Polish resistance) was the second most powerful partisan force in the East.

You keep trying to avoid or ignore the fact that as wikipedia editors we report what historians tell us, not make our own conclusions. The fact that some Soviet historians may have shown poor judgement (or, their work was constrained by political factors) is an entirely different issue than the information supported by Subtelny or Magosci. It is irrelevent. What IS relevent is that, apparently, the same source that claimed UPA to not have engaged in fighting against the Germans also claimed that UPA killed 40,000 Ukrainian civilians (an allegation that you have still not addressed). This speaks poorly for that source's credibility. If you can find a legitimate historian that supports your view, then regardless of where he got his info, put his claims in and reference them to provide balance in the article. Your (or mine) personal second-guessing doesn't belong.

And btw, while atrocities by UPA against the Polish civilian population were widespread, nobody has (yet?) found direct orders to commit those crimes by UPA's leadership. With respect to your comments about all SS units being "criminal" because the SS was declared a criminal organization, this discussion probably belongs on the [[14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galizien (1st Ukrainian)

|Galicia Division]] talk page. The following legal document issued by the Canadian government addresses the issue [9]. To summarize, by declaring the SS a criminal organization the Nuremberg Tribunal did not condemn each individuak or unit within the SS as criminals. The Tribunal placed certain conditions on considering members of organizations such as the SS "criminals", and according to the Canadian courts the Galician Division met the exclusionary criteria.Faustian 04:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New York Times Dispatch

An anonymous likely vandal has inadvertantly posted an interesting dispatch from the New York times. While that dispatch contains obvious errors by the reporter, usually when repeated what he has heard from Polish fighters, (i.e., references to a "Colonel Banderowce"), it does seem like an accurate and valuable portrayal of the struggle against UPA, so I am inclined not to simply remove it. I've kept it in the footnotes but any suggestions about how to integrate it into the article would be appreciated. Faustian 18:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

Anybody neutral how know how to think see that this article is POV. Evidence of that are "great battles" in which are never writen names of enemy division, brigades and similar. Sources in the best thinking are obscure books where is writen american propaganda from cold war (example source 2 and 5). Must funny are CIA sources like Frank Wisner when anybody who understand something about this "army" know that it has been after 1945 financed from CIA. Similar to that is position of Viktor Yushchenko who is married Kateryna Yushchenko which is child of Ukrainian Insurgent Army members. After giving all this argument I will be interested to see how they will be defeated so that POV can be deleted. Rjecina 2:43, 6 Juli 2007 (UTC)

Could you specifically list your concerns so that they can be addressed ? E.g. what are your specific problems with source 2 ? --Lysy^talk 07:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources 2&5 comment is a pov itself and implausible at that. Also notice that CIA was not created until 1947 and to my knowledge such a link was never suggested by any historians on the subject. I second Lysy's request.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not look fow sources because there is no need. In this article is writen: "During the latter phase of its struggle, UPA obtained help from the CIA and British intelligence, although the operation was betrayed by Kim Philby." Only question which I ask is what year is this latter phase of strugle ? From my information ("obscure books") this phase has started in 1946. In the end I do not question that fight against germans and soviets in 1943 - 45 has been independent of outside forces, but after that.... About CIA my only comment is that I am not interested in old names (before 1947 it has been OSS ?) Rjecina 18:41, 7 Juli 2007 (UTC)

All right. What do you consider incorrect in the article, then ? --Lysy^talk 19:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrainian: Українська Повстанська Армія, Ukrayins’ka Povstans’ka Armiya, UPA) was an independent Ukrainian guerrilla". This are first words in article. Incorrect is word independent. More true word will be something like:

"The Ukrainian Insurgent Army was guerrilla Ukrainian guerrilla movement"

You can write that they have been independent Ukrainian guerrilla until 1945, but after that when they have started to recieve USA help they have lost independence. I hope that you will agree with that ? Changes similar to that are needed. Last point is question if is possible to write in article that surviving members of army has escaped (or tried) to USA and other western countries where they have recieved with open arms (with last word I maybe push my luck to far..)--Rjecina 19:40, 7 Juli 2007 (UTC)

So anybody receiving aid from anyone can not be considered "independent?" (Incidentally, CIA aid was largely inconsequential due to Philby's betrayal. Very little found its way to UPA.) Faustian 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an interesting point. What is the meaning of the "independent" word in this context ? Is it needed ? --Lysy^talk 22:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Rjecina's independent/dependent distinction. It is just fact-picking. As a whole, UPA acted independently of outside world. It was never a proxy for western agencies. An example of proxy is Hizballah (Iran). UPA was never in such a position vis-a-vis U.S. I think the pov-tag should be removed.--Riurik^(discuss) 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, I would remove the "independent" word, as UPA was of course controlled by OUN. --Lysy^talk 19:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, by OUN.--Riurik^(discuss) 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Relations of Ukrainian Insurgent Army with USA have been similar to relations of Solidarity (Poland) with USA. Simple speaking they have recieved level of help enough great so that they can "work", or enough small so that Soviet Union will be not answer with something similar in USA important friendly state (see for example situation in Italy 1948). This has been typical cold war stuff. --Rjecina 04:31, 9 Juli 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is Soviet propaganda of course, but the article should rather focus on facts. It would be interesting to include a statement on the capitalist imperialist support, provided we have a source confirming this. --Lysy^talk 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been seeing 1 list in which are been writen US operations and where is Ukraine, but I do not know now where it is so I will give this sources for my claims that this article is wrong:

• http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=783112002
• http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node75.html
• http://www.ukemonde.com/mayday/partisan.html (life of Lebed. Look data for 1944-1949)
• http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/gehlen2-a.htm

There is many sources about connection of Ukrainian Insurgent Army if person want to look ! --Rjecina 15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The second source is a Stalinist one, but otherwise nothing contradicts the fact that western aid to UPA was largely inconsequential. Faustian 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now your answer is personal thinking

No, it is generally understood fact that CIA aid to UPA was not much use, thanks to among other things the betrayal of Soviet agents within the western agencies purporting to aid UPA.

because I do not understand how this:"Under Operation Sunrise, some 5,000 anti-communist East Europeans and Russians were trained in Germany in 1946, under the command of General Sikes and SS General Burckhardt. They supported insurgencies in areas such as Ukraine, which were not suppressed by the Soviets until 1956." is largely inconsequential (source number 4) !? --Rjecina 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to add this on the same website that you cited[10]:

"But by the mid-1950s it became increasingly apparent that many of the assets of the Gehlen Organization were in fact controlled by Soviet intelligence. Dozens of operations, hundreds of agents, thousands of innocent civilians had been betrayed, many at the cost of their life."

Which is what I have been saying, that the aid was not helpful (it was, indeed, rather detrimental, as the Soviets were tipped off to most parachute drops, leading to the loss of UPA soldiers). As for the number of 5,000 personnel trained, the website does not state how many - if any - of those 5,000 actually returned deep behind Soviet lines to parts of eastern Europe, including Ukraine.Faustian 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Subtelny's book 'Ukraine: a History' (full reference is in the article) includes: pg. 474: "Compared to other underground movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, the UPA was unique in that it had practically no foreign support." The only reference to CIA aid was on one sentance on page 490, " In this final stage,the UPA and the OUN underground, which had in the meantime established loose, sporadic links with the British and American secret servies, concentrated on anti-Soviet propaganda and sabotage." Magosci doesn't even mention the CIA or British intelligence. Faustian 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

NKVD committing crimes in UPA's name

I have no time to add this stuff now, but the head of the SBU (the KGB's successor in Ukraine) has stated that they will open up archives showing the NKVD's dressing up as UPA and committing atrocities (it's ont he Ukrainian-language BBC site [11].Faustian (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I got this in the mail yesterday but they didn't give me a URL.

Чекисты издевались над украинцами под видом ОУН-УПА "ОБОЗРЕВАТЕЛЬ"

Министерство государственной безопасности под видом ОУН-УПА издевалось над простым населением Западной Украины.

Соответствующие документы нашла Служба безопасности Украины. Материалы свидетельствуют о противоправных действиях, которые совершали против населения западных областей специальные группы МГБ и МВД. Они занимались ликвидацией подпольных подразделений Организации украинских националистов и ее вооруженных формирований, пишет УНИАН.

Об этом сообщил руководитель Отраслевого государственного архива СБУ Сергей Богунов. ГЛАВНЫЕ НОВОСТИ

Согласно архивным данным, указанные группы во время выполнения заданий выдавали себя за одно из подразделений ОУН-УПА и действовали от его имени.

До конца 1945 года органами внутренних дел и Госбезопасности УССР использовалось 150 указанных спецгрупп, в состав которых входило 1800 человек.

По словам Богунова, обобщенных данных относительно деятельности этих формирований нет, поскольку большинство материалов уничтожено в 1990 году. В документах архива СБУ есть лишь отдельные сведения по этому вопросу. По состоянию на 1 июля 1945 года указанными спецгруппами были ликвидированы 1980 участников подполья и захвачены живыми 1142 человека. В то же время сохранившиеся архивные материалы свидетельствуют, что спецгруппы совершали преступления против обычных местных жителей.

Как сообщил советник временно исполняющего обязанности председателя СБУ Валентина Наливайченко Анатолий Мудров, в 1937-1938 годах были осуждены почти 200 тыс. человек, из которых к высшей мере наказания привлечены более 120 тыс. человек.

В тот период были арестованы 95 тыс. бывших кулаков, 109 тыс. «бывших людей», то есть бывших помещиков, дворян, более 2 тыс. военнослужащих, более 1 тыс. сотрудников НКВД, около 11 тыс. членов КПСС. Среди указанного количества арестованных, 133 тыс. человек были украинцы, около 20 тыс. - русские.

СБУ изучает документы, касающиеся карательных методов КГБ бывшего СССР против представителей интеллигенции 60-х годов. Bandurist 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the direct link for incorporating this material into the article--Riurik^(discuss) 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Medals

From pl wiki: [12], [13]. Seem worthy of importing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Riurik^(discuss) 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd choice of wording

"The UPA strove to remove Poles from areas that it regarded as indigenously Ukrainian and often succeeded. Often such methods involved large-scale terrorism. Some estimates have put the Polish death toll between 35,000 and 60,000 in Volhynia alone with Ukrainian figures being smaller. Many historians use the term genocide or ethnic cleansing to denote the events; some estimates of all Polish dead in Ukraine run as high as 100,000 or even 500,000. Many more Poles left the area because of the UPA terror. No accurate figure on the number of losses on either side is agreed upon, nor are estimates tendered by either side without their detractors"

<- I think that this wording is somewhat misleading, it does't directly state that UPA conducted mass murder of civilians. M80 PL (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It also does not mention or acknowledge the soldiers of the NKVD posing as members of the UPA performing terrorist actions in this part of the world. Bandurist (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"soldiers of the NKVD" - statement look same as soldiers of the OGPU afer 1943. Still were no credible NPOV documents were provided about mentioned by you info - only fairy-tales be brave "povstanets" which also defeated a numerous of Wermacht divisions. Instead factually proved ethnical cleaning by UPA and OUN [14]Jo0doe (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bandurist, if there is some kind of evidence for the NKVD posing as members of the UPA, then it should be mentioned.

At the same time, one thing should be made clear: this whole "NKVD posing" issue is mostly an atttempt to whitewash UPA, even if it is partly true.

Basically:

1) the bulk of the mass murders happened in Volhynia when it was under German control, with Ukrainian and Polish guerillas in the forests. How on earth could NKVD murder tens of thousands of civilians far behind the German lines, without simply getting caught by Poles/Germans/Ukrainians?

2) Many of the Polish survivors have identified their Ukrainian neighbours among the murderers, many have been saved by some of their Ukrainian neighbours who helped them hide. How on earth could a local Ukrainian peasant save somebody if these would be NKVD raids?

Jo0doe: I don't know if the "NKVD posing" stories are exatly fairy tales - it is possible, although even if it's possible, it does't change much, it would only mean that UPA is responsible for let's say 95% of the murders attributed to it.

BTW, coming back to the wording, I think it is written in a somewhat confusing manner, instead of stating the simple facts and naming it "mass murder". ( it's less clear if word "genocide" could be applied) M80 PL (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to NKVD posing as UPA, this is generally ackonwledged as fact. See Wilson, A. (2005). Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World. New Haven: Yale University Press, page 15. See also this article by Dr. Taras Kuzio, the man who wrote the Ukraine entry in Britannica: [15]. "After 1939, NKVD units in western Ukraine committed wholesale atrocities against civilians (a mass grave containing more than 200 NKVD victims, including children, was uncovered in a western Ukrainian monastery this month). Investigation of Soviet archives by Ukrainian historians in the 1990s found evidence that the NKVD dressed in UPA uniforms and committed atrocities against civilians in order to turn the local population against nationalist groups. The commission headed by Mr. Kulchytskyi found evidence of unpleasant actions undertaken by both nationalist and "Chekist," i.e., NKVD, forces, but only veterans of the former will be investigated."

Basically three forces were responsible for the massacres of civilians. UPA, non-UPA collaborators (police working for Germans), and NKVD. It is also possible that Ukrainian villagers unaffiliated with UPA turned on their Polish neighbors.

The percentage of those killed by UPA (60%? 80%) is unknown.

With respect to the term "mass murder" - it's quite a POV term and thus inappropriate. Perhaps massacre would be better, or simply killing. The current wording seems fine. The article on Jedwabne pogrom for example does not use the term "mass murder", and nowhere is trhe word "murder" used in the body of the article on the Khmelnytsky Uprising in refwerence to the killing of 10,000s or 100,000s of Jews and Poles.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Faustian, my point was not at all about using the term "mass murder" vs "massacre" or vs "killing", I think that the current wording is poor because it does't directly state what happened.

"The UPA strove to remove Poles from areas that it regarded as indigenously Ukrainian and often succeeded. Often such methods involved large-scale terrorism."

<- IMO it's quite indirect and imprecise. I was thinking about something along the lines of "The UPA strove to remove Poles from areas that it regarded as indigenously Ukrainian and started to conduct mass killings of Polish civilians as a method of achieving that goal".M80 PL (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the fact what after 1943 there was an MVD and MGB – it’s clear to state when mentioned an NKVD – it’s a fairy-tails. Regarding “generally ackonwledged as fact” and “Investigation of Soviet archives by Ukrainian historians” – it’s more look like whitewashers efforts with self-referencing data as archival source. Even until now, no one can present a copies of 1944-50 documents with orders for “NKVD posing as UPA”, latest SBU finding prove such – documents from criminal trials against former member of MVD which committed a crimes against soviet people [16] cited by Internet tabloids as “NKVD's dressing up as UPA and committing atrocities”. Often such “historians” mentioned self-defense units “yastrebki” composed from armed local peasants “as NKVD posing as UPA”.

Actually works by two respected scholars, Andrew Wilson of Oxford and Orest Subtelny oftheUniversity of Toronto, both state that NKVD dressed as UPA and massacred civilians. No need to put quotes around their credentials or accuse them of being tabloid journalists.Faustian (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Does they refered to archival sorces or it's same story as "Gold of Hetman Polubotko" Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors our job is not to do original archival research but to reoprt what others say. In this case, two highly regarded, legitimate scholars have stated that NKVD dressed as UPA and slaughtered civilians. Whether you or I second-guess these scholars' work is irrelevent. The sources that they have chosen are also irrelevent. With all due respect professor Subtelny's or Andrew Wilson's ability to discern what is or is not a credible source is probably better than yours.Faustian (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s more look like demagogical approach. So, we should decide – what is “dressing of UPA”?

Let me use your approach – “NKVD posing as UPA” and “NKVD dressed as UPA and slaughtered civilians” -speaks badly for your overall credibility. 2-nd – Does “committed crimes against civilians” by “NKVD posing as UPA” was promoted or punished by Authorities? Does it was specially ordered by governing Authorities as “improper” cited by me Klym Savur order? Jo0doe (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So if we carefully studied the book issued after “commission headed by Mr. Kulchytskyi” – e.g. [17] we can found an 1943 order of first OUN-SD- UPA commander – D.Klyachkivskiy (“Klym Savur”) were stated – “go across the Syan or prepare to die”.

The actual quote was a warning given to Polish villages before UPA attacks, "you have 48 hours to leave beyond the Sian or the Zbruch, otherwise - death" This is not your only innacuracy.Faustian (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• "go across the Syan or prepare to die” and "you have 48 hours to leave beyond the Sian or the Zbruch, otherwise - death" so significant innacuracy.Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with English usage, but when you put something in quotes this indicates direct words. Your quote was obviously innacurate and somewhat misleading. This speaks badly for your overall credibility.Faustian (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also there a lot of documental facts were in 1944 Polish population treat “NKVD” and Red Army as protectors from “OUN-UPA friends”.

This fact would seem to legitimize UPA attacks on Polish villages (though not their conduct, i.e. the criminal killing of civilians), if those villages were serving as bases for NKVD.Faustian (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why they not killing only NKVD - it's more look like indult.Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not condone the slaughter of civilians.Faustian (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also should be noted what “police working for Germans” consist mostly from OUN(B) member (under nominal German command) till summer 1943 and later from OUN(M) and rest “Dirlenwager” like creatures (also there some amount of Poles involved). Soviet partisan also reported in 1943 what “OUN members slaughter Poles with axes and knifes ”.

• I assume here no objection? Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I am a propogandist for UPA. I am merely trying to be objective.

Incidentally, one of the sources you provided [18] stated "Ó ìàñîâèõ âèíèùóâàëüíèõ àêö³ÿõ áðàëè

ó÷àñòü öèâ³ëüí³ ç êîñàìè ³ ñîêèðàìè." (translation: "Civilians with scythes and axes took part in mass destructive acts", referring to Ukrainian villagers. This suggests that the brutal killings described were often not the work of UPA themselves but of Ukrainian villagers turning on their neighbors. It seems every death of Polish civilians has been attributed by Soviets to UPA, when it may not have been the case.Faustian (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

“often not the work of UPA themselves” – so who call for “48 hours”? Also well known the extremely bad situation with fire-arms in OUN at spring 1943. Regarding Soviet –they prefer to call numerous nationalists (OUN(B), OUN(M) bulbashy, etc.etc ) as “Ukrainian german-nationalists” – or later – OUN members – brave UPA was not known “for Soviet” together with other numerous “Ukrainian Armies” created within 1941-44 under Nazi and on controlled by Nazi territories.

These are your unreferenced claims and speculations, as typical. The fact is that the artuicle clearly stated that civilians (not UPA) armed with scythes and axes engaged in mass actions. You are just making excuses. The quote about 48 hours in no way contradicts that fact.Faustian (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Specially for you - "бойова здатність цього нового війська – невелика. Сяку-таку зброю має кожна десята людина. Решта без зброї. Нема фахових командирів, ні часу на вишкіл." - Mr. Borovets

"мало кулеметів, немає автоматів і гармат, у військовому відношенні вони слабка сила" "розрізнене, недисципліноване і ще гірше озброєне військо" - Soviet " Практикували проведення вулицями населених пунктів озброєних вилами, косами в сокирами селян, глузливо виставляючи їх як вояків..." - German (August 1943) - so we've 3 agains 1 spoken about themselves. Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding “mass grave containing more than 200 NKVD victims, including children, was uncovered in a western Ukrainian monastery this month” (2005 or 2006)– none will cared about carefully expertise of remains – and taking into account the time lasting between “uncovering” and “returning to earth” can be easily imagine what someone would like the hide of real story and simply put every remains found to “NKVD victims”. Jo0doe (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it an attempt to whitewash history if one mentions involvement of NKVD/MVD in murder, and references this statement? Isn't it simply including all the facts? No sane person can deny that UPA killed Poles, but I don't think it is unreasonable to mention what was done by others. As for M80 concern about clarity, if a sentence can be made more straightforward and comprehensible to a reader, why not? I support well-written articles, and we should be able to arrive at a more clear statement that adheres to the neutral point of view policy.--Riurik^(discuss) 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Riurik, I did't express myself clearly. What I wanted to say was that the "NKVD posing" thing is being used as whitewash, by making claims which can be summarised as "UPA killed no Poles, it was *ALL* NKVD's work". The fact of "NKVD posing" could and should be mentioned, but in a way which will not fuel additional whitewashing. As for "No sane person can deny that UPA killed Poles" - I'm afraid that it's still is being denied by many [Diaspora/Western] Ukrainians, just like some other negative facts about UPA and OUN.M80 PL (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly states that UPA killed large numbers of civilians, so the widely accepted fact that NKVD dressed as civilians and killed civilians, put in this article, is clearly not used as a whitewash in this article. You are rihgt in that it may be used for this purposes among diaspora propagandists. But fortunately this in\s not the case here.Faustian (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See Apples_and_oranges- it's what we've here with facts. Jo0doe (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

History mentioned what ethnical cleaning of Poles begins in late 1942 and significantly widened at spring 1943 at areas (not only) were first commander of OUN-SD- UPA Klyachkivskii has governing power. So they continued until Red Army 1944 coming since they "remedy" the situation. What kind of NKVD exist under German and OUN steered territories? Probably "SB" ? Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Header

"army formed on October 14, 1942 in Volhynia" -should be stated what army formed on biasing of OUN-SD military departments at spring-summer 1943.[19] Date of October 14, 1942 adopted as official date of UPA formation for propaganda proposes in May, 30 1947 at UGVR meeting. [20] [21]

"Its leaders were Roman Shukhevych and Stepan Bandera." The founder of OUN military formation intended to be operational was D.Klyachkivski – it's happens on 3-d Congress of OUN (B) at 17-21 1943 (at that time Bandera was against Ukrainian military as he assume what time is not coming). The main military opponent was proclaimed as Poles and soviet partisans (but not Germans).Skeleton of the OUN-SD – UPA were formed from OUN (B) members of German "shuma" (auxiliary police force under German command) – claimed as from 4 to 5 thousand of "shuma" moved to forest in May-April 1943. [22] [23] [24]

"The UPA was unique among practically all resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe in that it had no significant foreign support." – well known what UPA was mainly armed throug Germans stockpiles in late 1943-1944. [25] And since 1945 they received a support from foreign intellegencies services.

" UPA's struggle against Germany"

"conducted hundreds of raids on German police stations and military convoys" – german sources does not prove such – e.g. hundreds of raids – but "battle for egg and chiken" was quite commons – but no German Wermacht members was even wouneded – so, assumed, they fought with "hiwi" and German allies. [26] [27] "In the region of Zhytomyr, for example, Ukrainian UIA fighters were estimated by the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% of the farmland" – I assume he mentioned all kind of "forest bandits" and mentioned such before summer 1943 – since Zhytomyr was liberated (first time) by Red Army November 12 1943. - see WWII history for exact info and also [28]

attempted to destroy UPA-North in Volyn during Operation "BB" (Bandenbekampfung). He was chosen specifically by Himmler to destroy UPA in this operation – Post WWII OUN(B) propaganda claims – oparation was agains all "forest bandits" and main target was soviet partizans. - see WWII history for exact info and also [29]

"The Carpathian mountains saw some of the heaviest fighting between UPA and German forces in late 1943 and early 1944, as the UPA struggled to maintain control over several of the mountain passes." – look like Sydir Kovpak raid claimed as UPA. -see WWII history for exact info. and also [30]

"In November 1943, UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air force, in a battle over control of UPA-held territory" – German sourses does not mentioned such. see see WWII history for exact info and [31]

"In May and July 1944, two more attempts by the Germans to capture Carpathian mountain passes were repulsed." – Probably they foght for Goverla? – Same stile propaganda claims- see WWII history for exact info and [32]

"The latter victory involved the defeat of two German divisions supported by artillery. On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers" – or Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive -see see WWII history for exact info and [33]

as also?

2 квітня 1944-го Клячківський через абверкоманду групи армій «Північна Україна» передав пропозицію щодо координування боротьби з совєтським військом, надання повстанцями розвідувальної інформації, просив передати 20 польових і 10 зенітних гармат, 500 автоматів, 250 тисяч набоїв, 10 тисяч гранат.

"UPA tried to avoid clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military because many of them were ethnic Ukrainians and were seen as a source of recruits into UPA." - once again post war propaganda claim – the archival sources refereing action of UPA as raiding forces action in favour of German - e.g. destruction of railways, communications, stockpiles, action agains heads of military units, small units, target indicating etc. [34]

"In November 1944, Khrushchev launched the first of several large-scale Soviet assaults on UPA throughout western Ukraine, involving at least 20 NKVD combat divisions supported by artillery and armored units." once again post war propaganda claim – see [35] about total number of NKVD divisions, time of creation – disbandment and place of dislocation – so such namber can be limited to 2-3 (if any) (32? and 25? NKVD division responcible for railways secure).

" An estimated 500,000 Ukrainians were sent to the North between 1946 and 1949" so archival data mentioned – 182543 persons of "bandits and their family" [www.uvkr.com.ua/ua/visnyk/visnyk2005/april2005/komar.html ]member for 1944-1952 from all Ukrainian SRR territory – so hardly to say what all of them was Ukrainian. Moreover – not only North, but East and Asia (Kazakhsatan).

UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews Should be mentioned what UPA was created when Western Ukraine was almost "jude-frei" with active support and personal participation of "shuma" – e .g. OUN (B), OUN (M) and "bulbashy" at German auxilary police. - see JadWaShem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo0doe (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the claimed "innaccuracies" in the description of UPA's fight against Germans are well-referenced.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But only from "Toronto editors" - what about BundesArchive or even own OUN documents (excluding propaganda leaflets - what about III Special Congress OUN in August 1943) and even WWII history? Jo0doe (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it speaks to your credibility when you dismiss scholars such as Orest Subtelny and Magosci, two of the widely acknowledged experts on Ukrainian history, as mere "Toronto editors." As for using original archives, please consult [36] for wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Only facts given - no more - also look at WP:PSTS Primary sources and WP:SOAP - e.g. Propaganda. Also WP:RS - However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

Also who that gays to which well-referred “UPA's struggle against Germany” N3 and N4 -James K. Anderson and Krokhmaluk, Y.? Does they scholars? Jo0doe (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. - e.g.[37] Jo0doe (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything in the article contradicts what you have found in a legitmate source, please point out that contradiction. So far, you have largely offered your own unreferenced claims or made grossly innacurate characterizations of sources (e.g., referring to Subtelny and Magosci as mere "Toronto editors"). Please provide referenced information that specifically contradicts the information from the curent article, ideally using, as wikipedia policy prefers (WP:PSTS), legitimate secondary sources. With respect to Anderson and Khrokhmaluk, Anderson writes on military affairs in several journals (I believe this [38] is one of his articles) and is an editor of VFW magazine. I took information from Anderson's article out of Michael Logusz's book about the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian). With respect to Krokhmaluk, he is used as a source by both Subtelny and Magosci, each of whom recommends this book as a source for further reading. Any information used from Krokhaliuk was merely further elaboration of information referenced from either Magosci or Subtleny. Again, as per wikipedia policy, we let the scholars decide the legitimacy of sources, not judge them ourselves.Faustian (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So references provided. As far as I can see Subtelny and Magosci based their scholar-works on modern magazines articles. So nice to heard - I newer knew reputable historian which use such practice - so here the fact of my "referring to Subtelny and Magosci as mere "Toronto editors". Thank you for proval my factual statements Jo0doe (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC) So can I put a relevat tag on this article - e.g. WP:SOAP?

Your "references" for the most part were too unspecific to be on any use; it's merely a link to a large work. Soerry, but given your proven difficulty in even quoting correctly, you will have to provide more specific information than that. Provide quotes supporting your statements, rather than a link to the large work. I do not have time to read an entire book to look for a quote that probably isn't there. Your history of innaccurate claims shown on this talk page (misquotations, etc.) means that your claims that somewhere in X work a respected historian such as Subtelny is contradicted shouldn't be taken at face value. Your continued denigration of Subtelny's work by second-guessing his ability to choose sources (based on "modern magazine articles" - proof of this wild claim of yours? If that is as far as you can se, I suggest that your vision be examined) speaks to your credibility and level of scholarship.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Demagogy as is - isn't? Jo0doe (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What a poor comeback. Do you mean that you are not prepared to give specific references to back up your claims? In that case why are you here? Bandurist (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

see in topic above - "Incidentally, one of the sources you provided" - and " do not have time to read an entire book" - so - use Ctrl+F to find what you dont like to see Jo0doe (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yopu are the one making the claims, so the burdern of proof is on you to back them up. Moreover, in the rare instances when you have tried to do so, you were shown to have been innaccurate (i.e., the quotes and subsequent conversation). So excuse me for not taking your word for it when you contradict several respectable scholars and then refer vaguely to a very long document.Faustian (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So - sources I provided,- you even find a time to translate a citation, but on that your interest decline. Since most your affort later was to "claim my innacuracy in citation " ("die" / "death" for Poles) rather then provide relevant objections from several (means two - one know for Polubotko Gold and one unknown for me) respectable scholars. So history is not a thing as short version of Universe for redneck woodcutter. Jo0doe (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Other things to consider

1) The Poliska Sich lead by Taras Bulba-Boretz which was formed in Volyn in my readings is sometimes called UPA, (sometimes the first UPA), sometimes UPA North and sometimes not called UPA at all. What can be written to clear this up.

2) If the Poliska Sich was a seperate body from the UPA led by Shukhevych, then the ethnic cleansing section in Volyn should be moved to that section.

3) Much of the success in the tactics used by the UPA are due to the fact that much of the leadership had military training (mainly from Polish and German sources and later Soviet sources). e.g. Shukhevych had Officer training from the Poles and later Comando training when the Nachtigall Battallion was formed. Shukhevych when he commanded the 201 Battalion also learned the tactics the Germans deployed for fighting Partisans. This education should be noted. Soviet sources have a tendency of painting the UPA as bandits (probably because of the similarity with the word Banderivtsi). The fact that many had fromal military training, and in some cases officer training and the fact that they fought in military uniform attests to the fact that they were a military formation. Something I find lacking in the artiicle.

4) A campaign of misinformation and distortion has accompanied the UPA by the people who have written much of the history. A section (or possibly a seperate article) would be beneficial in which each of these distortions and disinformatioon could be addressed rather than having this infrmation constantly being brought up. Bandurist (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulba-Borobetz was affiliated with Petliura, he was a democratic socialist, anti-OUN, and had made many accusations against UPA about UPA's killing of civilians (sorry I don't have the references and don't have time to seek them out). I doubt that his organization was responsible for actions against Poles. Your other points are good ones and indeed do need to be included in the article. I will help if/when I have time, but will be quite busy during the holiday week and will probably limit myself to "putting out fires" and making minor corrections.Faustian (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

see here full and excact verion [39] rather thenpost war OUN(B) claims so UPA by borovets even renamed at summer 1943 by him in order to be mistreated with brave OUN(B) - UPA under Klyachkivskii - so that brave sloughter of Poles and Ukrainians (OUN(M), and other even OUN(B) was avarded with highest Order of Merit by OUN(B) - UPA at 1952 19- 52-му Дмитра Клячківского постановою Української головної визвольної ради нагороджено Золотим Хрестом Заслуги ОУН. [40]Jo0doe (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

SB - (UPA security service

Why not to add - we've a good work on this area - [41] and about the founder - http://www.dt.ua/3000/3150/54958 Jo0doe (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't respond to your other recent comments on the talk page because I don't understand them but your suggestions above seem reasonable and most of your recent edits to the article also seemed good. I may llok at them more closely and/or some minor changes when I have more time.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Which UPA

The section:

By late 1943 and early 1944, UPA controlled much of the territory in Volyn outside of the major cities, and was able to organize basic services for the villagers such as schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers. In the region of Zhytomyr (which was liberated from Nazi by Red Army in November 1943-January 1944, some strong group ofSoviet partisan moved there by February -March 1943 [5] ) , for example, Ukrainian UIA fighters were estimated by the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% of the farmland.[2].

Should go into the article about the Polissian Sich (which initially was also called UPA) rather than here. It hasn't got anything to do directly with the UPA in Galcia.

• Probably you need to read this book first [42], otherwise you will be informed what since July 1943 there was only one UPA – OUN(B) at Ukraine since UPA – (B-B) was renamed to UNRA and actually disbanded by Borovets by his order from October 5, 1943.Jo0doe (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really terrible writing:

Also - German General-Kommissar Leyser  - see Reichskommissar about him - He spoke Definitely not about UIA – OUN(B) – since it does not exist at time when he was an German General-Kommissar of Ukraine.  This speaks badly for Faustian overall credibility, isn't?Jo0doe (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Assaults on German units was rare, and, in general there no even one case of wounding of German police and Wermacht servicemen" – report by German SD and Secret police as of June 30 1943 about Ukarainian fighters activity. [6]

Not only is the spelling attrocious, and the facts incorrect - I just don't understand exactlly what this editor is trying to say.
“As wikipedia editors our jobs are not to second-guess what historians tell us Provided that the historians are recognized and their judgment regarding sources should be accepted.” Said to us highly credible Faustian.Jo0doe (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This section should also be moved to the Polissian Sich as it is not related to the Galicia UPA.

In June 1943 German SS and police forces under the command of General von dem Bach-Zalewski, seen as an expert in fighting against guerrillas, attempted to destroy UPA-North in Volyn during Operation "BB" (Bandenbekampfung). He was chosen specifically by Himmler to destroy UPA in this operation.[3] During Operation "BB" Bach-Zalewski had under his command 10 battalions of motorized SS troops, 10,000 German and Polish police, 2 regiments of the Hungarian army, and three battalions of Cossacks organized from among Soviet POWs.[4] By August, this operation proved to be a military failure. During this struggle, on August 19-20 UPA captured the military center of Kamin Koshyrsky, defeating several German battalions and capturing large quantities of arms and ammunition.[4] General Bach-Zaleski was relieved of his command and replaced by General Prutzmann. Ultimately the German forces failed to destroy UPA or to establish control over the Volyn countryside.

What does this mean?

“As wikipedia editors our jobs are not to second-guess what historians tell us Provided that the historians are recognized and their judgment regarding sources should be accepted.” Said to us highly credible Faustian.Jo0doe (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

German asses UPA action against "The Third Reich interest" in spring 1944 as:

Who is butchering this article?

“As wikipedia editors our jobs are not to second-guess what historians tell us Provided that the historians are recognized and their judgment regarding sources should be accepted.” Said to us highly credible Faustian.Jo0doe (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The section about Sydir Kovpak should be moved to the Polissian Sich as it had no impact on the UPA in Galicia.

UPA's struggle against Soviet forces began when they encountered Soviet partisans in late 1942 and early 1943. In early 1943, the famous Communist partisan leader Sydir Kovpak established himself in Ukraine and in the summer of 1943, well-armed with supplies delivered to secret airfields and with several thousand soldiers (only one third of whom were ethnic Ukrainians),[6] launched a raid deep into the Carpathians. Attacks by the German air force and military forced Kovpak to break up his force into smaller units, which were mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains.[citation needed] In 1944, famous Soviet intelligence agent Nikolai Kuznetsov was captured and executed by UPA members, after unwittingly entering their camp while wearing a Wehrmacht officer uniform.[7]

Any comments or thoughts? Bandurist (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The writer clearly has a very poor grasp of the English language. However as long as the info he provides is referenced it should be integrated into the article.Faustian (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking more closely and reading the source [43] that he get some info from, it is clear that he quotes selectively. For example he quotes Koch as saying that UPA was inactive vs. the Germans. The full story (which may be too much detail for the article) was that this occurred during a lull in the fighting, after the Germans had inflicting significant casualties on UPA in heavy fighting (despite being unable to destroy them) and as the Red Army was approaching. He doesn't mention those facts, just the quote. This seems rather dishonest. The source BTW includes a lot of information and time permitting there is much to include int he article. The editor who brought it here, however, may not be the most credible person to do that.Faustian (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, as far as I can see, Faustian is a person in charge to assess the credibility of WP editors.

Actually you have demonstarted your credibility here. I was merely making an obsevation.Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I also do the same - and also demonstrate your credibility.Jo0doe (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So let me cite your words “As wikipedia editors our jobs are not to second-guess what historians tell us Provided that the historians are recognized and their judgment regarding sources should be accepted. If you can find other historians (rather than, for example, propagandists or tabloids) that disagree with the facts presented, or original archival data, then by all means include that information as well in order to balance the article.” But what we can see now, most ever credible Faustian allegedly claims “For example he quotes Koch as saying that UPA was inactive vs. the Germans. The full story (which may be too much detail for the article) was that this occurred during a lull in the fighting, after the Germans had inflicting significant casualties on UPA in heavy fighting (despite being unable to destroy them)” “This speaks badly for your overall credibility” (TM Faustian). – So, as far as “The writer clearly has a very poor grasp of the English language” I kindly ask you to translate chapter name at which mentioned Erich Koch words cited i.e. “Протинімецький фронт ОУН і УПА».

Your poor grasp of the English language is obvious. So much so that some of your comments and edits make little sense. This is an English-language wikipedia. It is not our fault if we have trouble understanding some of what you write. You have already deliberately misquoted a source despite putting quotations on it, and have selectively quoted also. The source itself is legitimate, but you have demonstrated an inability or deliberate refusal to use that source honestly. Instead you use it to push your POV. As for the translation - "Anti-German Front of the OUN and UPA".Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I quoted selectively German sources. So what objection? Jo0doe (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, in order to once again prove to WP society your highest possible credibility, I ask you to provide a prove of your statement “Germans had inflicting significant casualties on UPA”, based on same chapter.

My multiple edits over the last couple of years speak to my credibility. Just as your recent behavior attests to yours. I suggest that you read the chapter, it's right there.Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just ask you to provide German prove of what you wrought - e.g. “Germans had inflicting significant casualties on UPA”, since instead to do so you make an additional demagogy wording-

I assume "you have demonstrated an inability or deliberate refusal to use that source honestly"Jo0doe (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover I kindly ask you to translate few words from UPA Instruction “Борьба та діяльність ОУН під час війни» as also few words from Y.Stetsko report letter to S.Bendera stamped June, 25 1941. [ http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf] p.63 in order to be included in para UPA and the destruction of Western Ukraine's Polish community and UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews. Jo0doe (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since 1941 was significantly before UPA, those comments are of marginal relevence, though they serve your POV-pushing. A cursory summary seems sufficient, a more detailed one belongs on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists page.Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's seems what you simply don`t like a facts which are differ from Moagochi and Subtelny.Jo0doe (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Latest reverts by Faustian of WP:PSTS - primary sources vanishes and definitely can be treated as WP:VAN - Blanking in order to whitewash a history - WP:NOTCENSORED.

No, I merely removed your selective quotations. A source stated that after heavy fighting, UPA experienced casualties and their fighting against the Germans decreased significantly; the Soviet Army was also approaching so UPA were mulling a ceasefire. At that moment, Koch noted that UPA anti-German activity had ceased. You conveniently forgot that earlier part and just included Koch's quote about little anti-German activity from UPA, in order to push your POV that the UPA weren't really fighting the Germans. Not censoring doesn't mean that we include every citation taken out of context that someone can try to put in in order to bolster their NPOV.Faustian (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide a reference of "after heavy fighting" based on mentioned source - no more (Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). - scholar?)

Jo0doe (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The source which you provided [44] - an excellent one btw, your misuse of it notwithstanding - described heavy fighting between UPA. You took one quote from that chapter, from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little activity from UPA. From the same source, page 187, mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. You just pulled a quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. It's a rather dishonest use of a source, don't you think?Faustian (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples

“ meant to mislead - the quotes referred to specific instances and/or locations not the overall situation - 20:55, 21 December 2007 Faustian – removal of RSHA report as of June 30 1943 about Ukrainian national paramilitary units activity. – WP:OR and WP:NOTCENSORED.
21:12, 21 December 2007 Faustian (Talk | contribs) (24,902 bytes) (→UPA's struggle against Germany -Remove misleading quote - this occurred during the weeks when the sides were negotiating a ceasefire; this is written right after the quote in the source, page 197) (undo) WP:VAN – “negotiating a ceasefire” and “occurred during the weeks” no such facts given in mentioned source.

The source quite clearly stated that. Just read it.Faustian (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• please cite the "a ceasefire" word I can't find - as far as I knew ceasefire and collaboration - it's two different things.Jo0doe (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover terms of “negotiating a ceasefire” Faustian use to whitewash a OUN(B) and SD collaboration deal which also explained on page 195 in same source – moreover a “minutes from meeting” – Mr.Hrynyokh (OUN(B) spoken: “про ворожість до німців не може бути ніякої мови, що підтверджує історія. Українській народ і бендерівські групи ясно показали, що вони можуть досягти своєї самостійності тільки при допомозі найбільшої нації Європи.Усвідомлюючи це, український народ став вже на боці німців у Першій світовій війні, пізніше шукав і знайшов собі підтримку в Німеччині, вчився для німецької мети, і нарешті, як в польсько-німецькій, так і в російсько-німецькій війні зробив свій внесок для Німеччини... – вже у нелегальній роботі строго передбачалося – не діяти проти Німеччини,але готуватися до вирішальної боротьби проти росіян.» Quite specific «Negotiating a ceasefire”.
Merging well referenced primary source of data - In Abwehr report from November 13 1943 number of UPA was estimated as 20 000 fighters with unreferenced propaganda figures given as “some streamlining”

Actually other figures were from Subtelny and/or Magosci. You have already dismissed Orest Subtelny as a mere "Toronto editor". I will add the reference.

• I can't find refernces to "One German estimate" - only my reference - and why you don't like to state the exact name of source ? Jo0doe (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover your 20,000 figure referred to a specific period of time (November 1943) while that part of the article did not focus on a specific time frame. SO probably your figure needs to be removed unless we create a section in which we try to identify, month-to-month, UPA's census.Faustian (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really like you informal logic - why to have small NPOV source factual data better to have big without any referenceJo0doe (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

and achieve a desired version i.e. - One German estimate stated that UPA had up to 100,000 soldiers (other estimates are as low as 20,000 and as high as 200,000)” Same story with other well referenced primary source of data – e.g. MVD report on total number of deported “As high as 182,543 of "bandits and their family members" was deported between 1944 and 1952 from Ukraine to North, East and Asia “ merged with cold-war propaganda claims by Subtely – 500,000 nevertheless what Subtely mentioned different period e.g 1946-1949.
“Right” version of history for brave gays ? Jo0doe (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we know your apporach to facts given by well regarded academics such as Orest Subtelny when they don't match your NPOV. They are "cold-war propaganda claims." That speaks to your credibility.Faustian (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I assume what 6 not regarded academics which work I've cited does not match your credibility criteria ? Jo0doe (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

- Jo0doe (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC

After such claims, I'm not sure what credibility there remains.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we are all better off if we simply integrate the info into an article if it is sourced and valid and correct the Jo0Doe's English. His own credibility matters little. It is his sources that matter. I find his sources valid even though his interpretation is one-sided. I deal with his edits to Holodomor in exactly same way. The sources he brings in are excellent. As for his attacks on credibility of other editors, those are best ignored. Articles' content is all that matters in the end of the day. --Irpen 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Credibility of whom? I don't want your labels, since I prove my claims, instead of youm so assuming the WP policy every editor has same credibility - the sources which he used. So here we remain on Flat_Earth conception - Magochi&Subtelny - Bible&Levite - and no more, exempt anything which inline with Magochi&Subtelny. Jo0doe (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in general. The single document that he is using in his edits on this article indeed seems like a good source. However, the problem is that he frequently quotes selectively from this source, taking bits of information out of context in order to paint an innacurate picture that supports his POV, as I've described above in my response. Doing so negatively impacts the article content.Faustian (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I "frequently quotes selectively from this source" since I qoute predominantly German and OUN - as Soviet can be accused for propaganda - which objection- please note. P.S. History is a colorful multidimensional puzzle – as more time passed, as less puzzle pieces remain in human hands. So right now you have aggregated copies of few of them with similar colors and type (e.g. white and black and cube and pyramid) and you definitely trust what all the rest has a same colors and geometry . I can examine and touch much more of such pieces (e.g. real archival version of papers and different types and time of scholars works) - so I can see a complexity of whole story,- but in any case not a whole picture. So, I try to provide an exact additional info which omitted rather then put any extrapolation, opinion or sought – just facts and nothing more. I agree what it significantly differ from pieces you have – but they incomparable as they has a different nature, purpose and origins. P.S.P.S. I assume, Faustian, you agree with my “allegedly statement” what in 1988 still was a cold-war?

Jo0doe (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent progress

UPA conducted hundreds of raids on German police stations and military convoys. - UPA conducted hundreds of raids on German warehouses, German Authority representatives, police stations and military convoys.

One German – Abwehr

The UPA was formed in late 1942 – formation begins in early 1943

for three reasons: - four reasons – missed “to handle separatist Poles action on assumed as Ukrainian lands (or a different wording – but poles should mentioned anyway – as they (together) with soviet partisan has mentioned a “capable to handling” fears – instead of powerful German - fighting with them can not give any military success due the irrelevance of forces.

“Ukrainian UPA soldiers were estimated by the German General-Kommissar Leyser” does not match the time of UPA creation and his acting in Generalbezirk Shitomir – e.g. (1942 – 1942) – so it can be UPA (B-B) and Soviet Partisans but definitely not UPA – (OUN(B) and even OUN-SD military detachment – since they can be (if any by the time) at Generalbezirk Wolhynien-Podolien. Anyway correct spelling – Generalkommissare Ernst Leyser

Any other then “Krohmaliuk” scholar sources widely available – but they don’t mention any Divisions – If it really deserve to “complete” picture – in order to preserve WP policy – other sources should be mentioned instead of mention such as solid fact.

The UPA's activities are seen as a response to the policies and actions of the inter-war Polish government… No scholar references added to prove such link existence. It seems like the citing the German explanation of reasons for “jude-frei” policy.

Sluzhba Bezpeky ("Security Services") – they mostly engaged in solving Poles and Communist “questions” rather then in Holocaust matters. But instead of “Some combatants” should be mentioned what from 4-5 thousand German auxiliary police Ukrainian by nationality and linked with OUN(B) (instead of OUN(M) which remain till 1944 at German service) joined the UPA in march- spring 1943 as also soldiers and commander of shuma battalions – both of them was engaged in Holocaust actions.

Jews of the USSR - cant seen “of the USSR” addition – was simple Jews, Kremlin Jews, Politruk-Jews, Bolshevik –Jews etc, but not .. of the USSR”

Instead of words from OUN (B) propaganda leaflet would be scholarly to cite wording of “Борьба та діяльність ОУН під час війни» Instruction.

“Soviet occupation of Ukraine” weird POV wording – as Ukrainian SRR is a part of USSR – how it can occupy themselves? Also should be mentioned the facts what UPA was almost unknown to USSR society – since all Ukrainian nationalist movements has a complex wording label “Український буржуазний націоналізм” and in UPA case – “benderivtsy” – which in general public vision can be treat as reflects the story as UPA was UPA – OUN(B).

Maps of Reichskommissariat Ukraine and Das Generalgouvernement 1943 and 1944 badly needed. Jo0doe (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union occupied Ukrainian lands "liberated" from Poland. Completely illegally at least 1939-41 (and brutally too). --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Defacto, when RKKA starting military action agains Poland troops e.g. September 17 1939, Poland already was occupied by German and German forces already reached Brest-Litowsk. Also acquire in 1921 Western Ukrainian territory not a widely recognized deal. Since UPA rized after 1943 (Teheran) - what is it for? Jo0doe (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC) During the summer of 1943, the Germans are estimated to have lost over 3,000 men killed or wounded while UPA lost 1237 killed or wounded

it's own UPA - not German - data ( propaganda leaflets) I assume you agree what claims like "80 UPA defeated 240 German, 7 wounded from UPA side" it's more belongs to Rambo movies rather then to real life Jo0doe (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, those estimates were included in a legitimate source [45], written by historians from the Institute of Ukrainian History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Incidentally, you are the one who brought this source to our attention. The historians who provided this figure didn't state their reservations about it. Indeed, they described (page 187) the source of those figures, Shankovsky, positively as a "well-known historian". I suppose you feel that you are a more competent judge of a primary source's worth than the historians at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences? As wiki editors we prefer secondary sources over primary ones: WP:PSTS and report what the secondary sources tell us. As for your claimed Rambo story - which page of the document included those specific figures (since you put that in quatation marks, you are claiming that this was actually written inthe book)? Or have you gone from twisting the truth by telling only part of the story to completely just making things up.

I understand that you prefer to pick and choose selectively those pieces of information that match your POV and ignore those that do not, as is well documented on this discussion board [46]. But that's not going to happen here.Faustian (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• So - you agree with my vision what it is not "Germans are estimated" - but Shankovsky - so regarding the rest - I simly knew the factual base for such figures -but it does not matter - so proposed wording - post war estimation of German and UPA loses are ... . Also UPA (B-B) should be noted date of creation - Order from late November 1941 (nominal) Rename to UNRA - begining of July 1943 - disbunding - 5 October 1943. Jo0doe (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know whether or not Shankovsky based his estimate on information gathered after the war? Unless we know this, his statement shouldn't be qualified in such a way.Faustian (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics! As regarding to the figures – it’s from other printed source, but you can find similar situation on p.197 – 80 against 200 and remaining 170 after several hours of battle retreated – looks like German (if it was really them) command staff was unable to count and assess what someone who pushed them are more than twice weaker. But no casualty at all from UPA unit…Jo0doe (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope this can be usefull for you: Тоді ж, у квітні 1943 р., командування збройними відділами ОУН (СД) видало наказ, який закріплював за ними назву УПА. Командуючим новоствореною УПА призначено Клима Савура (Дмитра Клячківського), шефом військового штабу - полковника Гончаренка, начальником оперативного відділу - полковника М. Омелюсіка

мобілізаційні акції (УПА) супроводжувались інколи й провокаціями, дезінформацією. Відомо було: німці палять села, в яких побували озброєні повстанці. З тим, щоб прискорити каральні дії окупантів і привернути на свій бік місцевих жителів, бойовики ОУН Бандери нерідко відкрито дефілювали зі зброєю по селах.

Т. Бульба-Боровець 20 липня 1943 р. перейменовує свої збройні загони в Українську народно-революційну армію (УНРА), на чолі якої стояла Політична рада з 6 осіб.

Так, за даними командира партизанського з'єднання В. А. Бегми, що надійшли до УШПР, у липні 1943 р. бульбівці знищили ландвіртів Демідівського та Вербівського районів. У відповідь на це німці спалили обидва райцентри, провели великі операції проти повстанців, причому в деяких селах знищили поліцейські дільниці, а в ході каральних акцій застосували бомбардувальну авіацію.

18 серпня, командуючий УПА Клим Савур видав наказ про роззброєння УНРА, який і був виконаний. Після цього УНРА фактично припинила існування. Восени 1943 р. подібна доля спіткала військові відділи ОУН Мельника. Проголосивши лінію на боротьбу проти більшовизму похідними групами й залишаючись при цьому на фундаменті толерантності до окупантів, провідники ОУН (М) прирекли себе на повну ізоляцію, а потім і ліквідацію як збройної сили. Роззброєні бандерівцями відділи ОУН (М) частково поповнили УПА, а деякі стали базою для утвореного німцями на Волині 31-го карального загону СС чисельністю 600 чоловік, на рахунку якого серед інших спалене село Підгайці з його мешканцями.

У липні відбулося 35 сутичок, у серпні - 24, у вересні - 15; втрати повстанців становили 1237 бійців і старшин, ворожі втрати склали 3000 чоловік.- Історія Українського війська. - 2-е вид., допов. - К.: Панорама, 1991. - С. 38-40.Jo0doe (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that you claimed the source stated "80 UPA defeated 240 German, 7 wounded from UPA side". In reality, it described a firefight in which (page 197) 80 UPA attacked (ambushed?) 200 Germans. After several hours, the Germans retreated after suffering a total of 30 killed and wounded. The source did not state that UPA did not have any casualties, it simply didn't mention the number of casualties. Your (or mine) opinion about how realistic this battle's casualty figures are is irrelevent. The important thing is that the historians seemed to have felt that it was credible. As for how realistic the figures are; I don't see them as being unrealistic. Presumably the UPA had put themselves in a position where they could inflict more casualties than recieve them, and Germans, eventually realizing this, retreated. But that's just my opinion which doesn't matter. Faustian (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably you missed - it’s from other printed source - so another usefull info to improve the picture: About – so- called annihilated “NKVD” battalion - Поблизу с. Сюлько-Божикув того ж Підгаєцького району вояки УПА після гарматно-мінометної підготовки піддали автоматно-кулеметному обстрілу 1-й батальйон зв'язку 1331-го стрілецького полку, що прямував на фронт. Внаслідок раптовості нападу та інтенсивності вогню батальйон зазнав значних втрат і був розпорошений. Лише окремі бійці наступного дня почали збиратися в районному центрі. About NKVD posed as UPA Спеціальним рішенням Наркомату оборони СРСР семи західним областям України було надано право на тимчасове звільнення від призову до Червоної армії 30 тисяч чоловік, які мали стати бійцями винищувальних батальйонів. Сталінська верхівка свідомо переводила боротьбу з УПА в площину громадянської, братовбивчої війни. Всього по УРСР було створено 776 винищувальних батальйонів чисельністю 69315 чоловік і 17930 груп сприяння (116297 чоловік). За час з 10 січня до 23 лютого 1945 р. до органів радянської влади з'явилося більше 22 тисяч учасників підпільного руху, взято в полон близько 26 тисяч, знищено 11 тисяч. About 20 NKVD division Весною 1944 р. на територію Волинської, Рівненської, Львівської, Тернопільської, Станіславської та Чернівецької областей прибуло кілька стрілецьких дивізій НКВС, 15 бригад, 3 піхотні та один кавалерійський полки загальною чисельністю 26304 чоловік. Невдовзі проти УПА було кинуто один танковий батальйон 2-ї мотострілецької дивізії (22 танки) і 5 бронепоїздів (з 7700 чоловік особового складу).

UPA loses against Soviet - Всього з 19 лютого по 20 вересня 1944 р. втрати УПА становили 13442 чоловік вбитими та 7457 полоненими. Уакті передачі справ НКВС новопризначеному наркому НКВС УРСР Т. Строкачу відзначалося, що з лютого 1944 р. до 1 січня 1946 р. було здійснено: чекістсько-військових операцій - 39773; вбито бандитів - 110785; заарештовано учасників ОУН - 8370; заарештовано активних повстанців - 15969; з'явилося з повинною бандитів - 50058.57 Втрати ОУН і УПА та їх прихильників лише за період з літа 1944 до кінця 1946 рр. склали 56,6 тисяч вбитими і 108,5 тисяч полоненими та заарештованими.

Not only to outside Ukraine but also within borders Насильницьке переміщення цілих сіл із західноукраїнських земель тривало до 1949 р. включно й загалом охопило 50457 сім'ї (143141 чоловік). Jo0doe (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)