Talk:Massacre of Lviv professors

RfC: Is Inclusion of a phrase acceptable

This was added to the article: "According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government." This statement was based on the following source: І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 I.K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. pg. 323. In that source the author, a professor at Kiev's National University, writes: "Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." (verify through googltranslate).

Some editors object because they feel that the information is false. IS it acceptable per policy to include it? Is it wrong to remove it because some editors strongly feel it is false?Faustian (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I had previous history of contact with some people involved in this and have Polish-German origin you shouldn't treat me't treat me as an editor who was requested here, since I could easily be accused of bias. But still I have some questions that I believe are needed:

• The pdf in question is unreadable to me. I can use googletranslate which gives some interesting further information if it is correct, but is a very messy translation... One editor mention that source of this information is based on memoirs of Ukrainian nationalist claims. Is this correct?
• From what I could read from googletranslate(so it might be very badly translated) the author in this publication defends OUN as performing "anti-colonial" struggle. As far I remember they were involved in Holocaust and murder of Poles? He also spends an amount of space to claiming Jews are murdering Palestinians,since they believe in mission from God-(again all of this is based on google translation-which isn't perfect to put it mildly)? I also spotted a sentence when he wrote about along the lines of "understandable reaction to Jews by Ukrainians in WW2" Is this is correct or is googletranslate translating wrongly? He also does spend time defending(well looking at the messy google translation anyway, so I could interpret it wrongly) a well known Nazi Oberlander who advocated removal of Jews and Poles before the war but supported Ukrainian national movement in WW2. If those sentences are indeed true, than I guess it speaks poorly about neutrality of the publication-it seems a bit politicised and not that very reliable...
• Since it is primarily about OUN this is not a good source of knowledge about completely different topic. As others noticed extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and sources. This doesn't seem to be such a source.

Finally- sources of information about the murder that I have available speak clearly that the victims were not invovled in politics at any way, including possible Soviet cooperation. Anyway-those are just my remarks, don't treat them as definite, and of course another party needs to respond which isn't connected to the debate here at all. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "anti-colonial struggle" and committing murder/atrocities against civilians are not mutually exclusive. The fact that the source claims the OUN's struggle was anticolonial does not detract from the source's credibility. In that context the source compares the atrocities committed by the OUN to those committed by Algerians against French civilians, Africans against other Africans and European civilians, and Jews against Palestinians and Europeans (probably British). This comparison is about a paragraph or two long in a long chapter. The source also details OUN's unsavory antisemitism and calls to exterminate Jews and others; it seems rather nuetral. The article is about OUN and the OUN members are the ones said to have identified the Polish victims as people who cooperated with the Soviets, thus this topic is very relevent to this article. As for other sources "you have available" - by all means include them too, if they are reliable. This question is about this source only.Faustian (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait, so you are saying the article in effect mentions Jews as colonisers of Ukraine or the country as their colony(again I don't know cyrilic nor Ukrainian, and base my knowledge on messy googletranslation and your statements) since it mentions the activities(which involved murder of Jews) as "anti-colonial"? Sorry Faustian but that doesn't speak very neutral to me, and neither does the attempt to compare Holocaust with Jewish-Palestinian conflict.This seems to be very biased and politicised source if what you are writing is true.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it does not state that Jews were "colonizers" nor does it mention them as such. It simply compares the the violent, civilian-killing activities of the OUN with the violent, civilian-killing activities of Africans, Algerians, etc. This is done as an aside in about a paragraph or two of a very lengthy article. Why are you focused on it? Does the author's comparison, in your opinion, render him unable to separate fact from fiction or lead him to lie about the Polish professors? Is that what you are claiming? I note that you are also Polish. My impression from this issue is that these victims are seen among Poles as "sinless martyrs" and that facts indicating a more complex situation are triggering all sorts of nationalistic feelings. This is why I am interested in the opinions of non-involved people on this topic, not only from a history perspective but also from a policy perspective. So far only one non-Pole has entered this conversation, and his opinion was to keep this information in the article. Faustian (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it does not state that Jews were "colonizers""

• Why does he then mention killing them as "anti-colonial struggle"?. Combined with sentences about "understandable" attitude towards Jews, comapring Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Holocaust this indicates anything but a reliable source. It seems the author goes to a certain effort to defend OUN in his writing. Thus trying to rationalise murder of innocent victims with "soviet cooperation" just as murder of Jews as "anti-colonial struggle".
• I note that you are also Polish."So far only one non-Pole has entered this conversation, and his opinion was to keep this information in the article""impression from this issue is that these victims are seen among Poles as "sinless martyrs""

Sorry but ethnically based attacks and applying views to a whole ethnic group are very offensive and I hope they won't be found on Wikipedia. It seems you can't distinguish nationality with a persons arguments-which speaks hardly about your neutrality in the matter.For the record I am Polish-German.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you quote the author explictly stating that killing Jews was an anti-colonial struggle? Could you state where the author explictly states that the Holocaust was an "anti-colonial struggle?" He does none of those things. It seems you are building a straw man in order to try to discredit this source. And no, when I state that only Poles object to this information being in the article it is not an "ethnically based attack." There is an unfortunate pattern on Eastern European history articles where some people tend to lose objectivity in defence of their "nation." This seems to fit the pattern. If there were a situation in which information about Ukrainians resulted in the protest of only Ukrainians the same sort of comment would be just as appropriate. And it wouldn't be an "ethnically based attack."Faustian (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Participation of OUN in Massacre of Lwów professors

In the night of July 3/4, 1941, between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. several units composed of the SS, police and field gendarmerie under the command of SS officers rushed into private homes of the professors of the higher academic institutions and arrested all men above 18 years of age found in their houses. ZYGMUNT ALBERT THE MURDER OF LWÓW PROFESSORS BY GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN JULY 1941

and

http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/grytsakj/formuv/r5.html
Звичайно, це не знімає питання про участь окремих українців у воєнних злочинах проти інших національностей, зокрема проти поляків. Але й тут попри спаведливі звинувачення можна зустріти перебільшення і навіть явні видумки. У першу чергу це стосується міфів про причетність українських націоналістів до розстрілу групи польських професорів у Львові (липень 1941 р.) та про участь дивізії СС "Галичина" у придушенні Варшавського повстання. Щодо першої акції, то вона була брутальною реалізацію тези Гітлера, що на одній землі не може і не повині існуватидвох панів – німців і поляків – і тому польську інтеліґенцію належить винищити. Львівський розстріл належить до того ж ряду подій, щой розправа з краківськими професорами у листопаді 1939 р. Документальні матеріали і спогади свідків доводять видуманність тези, що вбивство львівських професоорів здійснили українці (невиясненним, однак, залишається питання, чи українські студенти були причетні до складання списку страчених, і, якщо так, то чи робили це вони з власної ініціативи а чи на вимогу ґестапо) [34] [34] Kazn profesorow lwowskich. Lipiec 1941. Studia oraz relacje i dokumenty zebrane i opracowane przez Zygmunta Alberta, Wroclaw, 1989. -- Yakudza 09:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Blanking the piece of the article is rarely a way to go (it may be correct sometimes but not usually). Add an alternative view and/or say what's wrong with this one if you think so. There is plenty of the writing that say to the contrary. Check refs in the Himka's article I posted at talk:Lviv. "There has been almost no attempt on the part of the Ukrainian diaspora to confront the issue of war criminality in a less defensive and more soul-searching manner." --Irpen 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken this phrase out of article since she has a no relations to murder professor. This appropriately in article about OUN, Nachtigal or histories Lviv. I did not rely on on publications the Ukrainian diaspora, but on title of the polish historian Zygmunta Alberta. The Reference to this article with site http://www.lwow.home.pl/ was brought earlier, and text was written on its base in Wikipedia. The Fragment on ukrainian is also founded on article Zygmunta Alberta. His author, not representative diaspora, but liberal ukrainian historian Grytsak. --Yakudza 07:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you made a good case to challenge the piece. I think we should place the "factual dispute" tag on the article for now and wait a bit for responces and refs that support the current version. If there is none, we'll remove the piece and the tag. I will place a tag right now. Deleting at once from such a controvercial topic is a bad idea. See Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21 --Irpen 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it quite hard to understand Yakudza's English, but I'll try. As to the Ukrainian complicity in the crimes of summer of 1941 - there are zillions of documents on them. As to the case of this particular crime, such complicity is indeed mentioned only briefly in the article by Wacław Szybalski. However, it is mentioned in the collection of documents by Zygmunt Albert, as well as by Lanckorońska in her memoirs (both in her description of situation in Lwów itself and later in Stanisławów). The biography of Boy-Żeleński also mentions it (though briefly) and it's partially available online (in Polish). I really don't know how one can prove that there was no complicity and that the Ukrainian units were not there. Especially that it is quite well-established fact that the OUN collaborated with the Abwehr even before the war and that many Ukrainians (including the chiefs of OUN themselves) initially saw the Germans as liberators and tried to aid them any way they could. Of course, with time such tactics proved to be but a dream of independent Ukraine, but still the collaboration was quite strong, even until the end of WWII (mostly by Melnykist faction). Halibutt 09:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all biting the newbies who are making a good-faith effort and especially criticising their English (as well as anyone else's) is rather rude. To the issue, I standrartized Yakudza's ref and moved it to ref list where it belongs. He brought up an academic work where the participation of Ukrainian nationalists in this particular massacre is challenged (not overall existence of collaboration). Still, a number of books that claim to the contrary warrants mention of Ukrainian participation. On the other hand, I would add a word, that these accounts are not universally agreed upon (unless, of course, we have sufficient grounds to discredit the text by Hrytsak). --Irpen 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You got me wrong, I was not biting a newbie and it was not my intention to critisize his English. I was merely explaining myself in case I got some of his comments wrong. As to the rest of your comment - totally agreed. Halibutt 00:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Роланд" і "Нахтіґаль", складених з членів ОУН-б (Hrytsak). Xx236 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Jewish inhabitants of the city were shot on the spot

Not "most". Xx236 14:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

composed of the SS, police and field gendarmerie under the command of SS officers

Rather not SS. Xx236 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wolisch or Walisch?

Xx236 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the online sources cite his name as Wolisch. The pre-war business registry suggests that he might've been either Chaim Wolisch who owned a fabric store at Wałowa 2 street or Adolf Wolisch who had a clothing store at Skarbkowska 5. Check for instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]...

On the other hand this source states that his name was Walisch and that he owned the "Beier i Ska" shop, not listed in the 1929 registry. Halibutt 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian point of view

Government commission for researching OUN-UPA's activity was created in Ukraine. Official report of Ukrainian historians mentions the case: it is said that there was an investigation about the massacre in Hamburg in 1966 and it was proved that brigadenfuhrer Schoengart had been responsible for the crime.

Moreover, this is confirmed by Zygmunt Albert in his article "Murder of Lwow professors" (the external link):

"Many Poles still think that the professors were massacred by the Ukrainians. If this were so, the Hamburg prosecutor would not have admitted after the war that it was done by his fellow countrymen - the Germans. When Helena Krukowska lodged a complaint at the Ludwigsburg Court concerning the murder of her husband Wlodzimierz and other professors, Prosecutor Below replied that those guilty of the murder were: Himmler, Frank, Schöngarth, SS-Standartenführer Heim and probably SS-Hauptscharführer Horst Waldenburger, but they were no longer alive and the remaining guilty individuals were still being sought. The prosecutor admitted that only the firing squad consisted of Ukrainians dressed in SS uniforms".

Hans Krüger

In Polish Wikipedia there are two persons with this surname and it seems, that the link in the article points to the wrong man. (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kr%C3%BCger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.20.3.6 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. It seems there are two separate people. I made a Hans_Krüger disambiguation page to distinguish between the politician and the soldier. Now someone needs to write a page for Hans_Krüger (soldier). Dark Formal (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

image

The image should not be in this article. Please stop adding it. Thanks, Ostap 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And the reason why it shouldn't be is? Loosmark (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I go add images of graves with "death to Jews" in Polish written on them in The Holocaust in Poland article? If you have an image of the memorial please add it, not one that has been vandalized by some unknown fanatic. Ostap 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is wikipedia's policy in regards to images of vandalised memorials and there is also a difference between a grave and a memorial. In Poland the "unknown fanatics" who vandalise important memorials tend to get caught and become known. Loosmark (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, you know how much I respect you and your opinions but I have to side with Ostap here, especially after reading his second comment. Some stupid vandals did that and it is not worth having this on this page. There are also no relations to what the German Nazis did then and to the idiots who vandalized the plaque with the graffiti. At least this is my opinion about it. Thanks guys.--Jacurek (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

<--One reason to not include the image is just to err on the side of caution. The inscription was made by "unknown vandals", and who knows, maybe it was even a provocation made by outside parties? I think that Ostap is also right - we don't know who vandalized the image and it could've very well been some wacko extremist, not representative of anything in particular except their own idiocy. Poland's has crazy extremists too, as does every country in the world.radek (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've my doubts that it was just a random extremist vandal but OK i won't insist on that image. Maybe somebody will upload a non vandalized image of the memorial later. Loosmark (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest ensuring that the image has a proper description / categories on Commons. Perhaps there is a category that can be linked somehow? Unless there is a need to illustrate notable modern vandalism of the relevant monument(s), there is probably no pressing need to have the image here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems most people agreed this image doesn't belong here. Is that still the general consensus? Should it be removed?Faustian (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why??? What was the reasoning (whatever it was)???

This is a strange article. It talks about all the killing, but doesn't even attempt to go into the reason (whatever it may have been) of WHY the killings occurred. The article is useless without this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.184.172 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation with Soviets

Other than anti-Soviet feelings, I'm not sure what is so outrageous about the referenced phrase "Ukrainian scholar I.K Patrylyak states that out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government." OUN were murdering Ukrainians and their families who cooperated with the Soviets, too. Cooperation doesn't necessarily mean working for the NKVD or being a fanatic communist (although the victim Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński might sort of qualify), it also means being part of Soviet councils - which in my opinion probably means, if the Soviets sponsored a faculty senate in the reorganized university, being a delegate in it would be considered cooperation with the Soviet regime. UPA were killing people in villages and their families, who happened to be mayors of villages, memebers of village soviets or councils, etc. under Soviet rule. Patrilyak's statement seems to fit the pattern; it cetainly doesn't seem strange that the OUN would give the Germans a list of people to kill based on cooperation with the Soviet authorities/administration.Faustian (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding to my comment - I think some of the people trying to remove this information do so because they do not want all the victims to be portrayed as Communists if they were not. This is a legitimate concern and I am open to any wording that would make this clear and the description more accurate.Faustian (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does a not "clarify" a thing. You are not trying to portray the murdered professor as Communists, you are trying to do is something much more worse. You tried to portray the professors murdered by the Nazis as people who betrayed their own country and became collaborationist. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I reported what a respected source said. It is entirely your choice to view anybody who worked for a Soviet-sponsored organization as a "collaborationist."Faustian (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My choice of view!? Listen dude stop f*cking with me. You inserted into the article the "facts" that they were "collaborating actively with the Soviet authorities" and that they "met with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet Polish government". YOU accused them of highest possible collaborationist attitude. The victims of the Nazi massacre. Remove that nonsense out of the article. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reporting the content of a cited text does not amount to making accusations or portraying people in one light or another. If that is what is said in the text, it is valid for inclusion. If you have reliable source which takes a different point of view, that would also be valid for inclusion. And curb your language please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a referenced fact that they were chosen for their cooperation with the Soviet system. The source states "Важливим є також той факт, що розстріляні у Львові професори належали до групи польської інте-лігенції, яка протягом 1940–1941 рр. активно співпрацювала з радянським режимом. Вони були членами радянських творчих спілок, депутатами рад, делегатами польської громадськості Львова, що у вересні 1940 р. відвідували Сталіна і вели з ним переговори про можливість створення прорадянського польського уряду4 (на противагу еміграційному урядові в Лондоні). Тому вбиті у Львові польські професори цілком могли трактуватися оунівцями, як "приклонники большевицько-московського імперіалізму". Адже зі 160 професорів-поляків, які мешкали у Львові на червень 1941 р., для знищення вибрали лише тих, хто "засвітився" на співпраці зі сталінським режимом. " Translation: Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." This is the link: http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Patr/12.pdf]. The book is K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. You may choose to believe or not believe certain facts, but on wikipedia we just report them.Faustian (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just somebody makes some claim it does not mean is it fact. There are no "facts" here other than you trying to present a claim in a pdf as a fact. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to sit down and make my way through the Cyrillic but then decided I don't have the time. However, the question does appear to be whether Patrylyak is presenting his own academic view or if he is simply describing how the OUN saw the situation or describing the views of people like Kalba. These are different things.radek (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You can save yourself some time with googletranslate. The result is clumsy but you get a good impression. At any rate, the author clearly presents this information (what he sees) as a fact. He states that these professors cooperated with the Soviet authorities in some way and that this was why they were chosen. I already posted the exact translation above (2 comments up).Faustian (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jo0Doe's concerns

• I think someone tried to remove the misquoted scholar text - so a full text of Patrilyak suggest [6] - pages 221-223

so Patrilyak text - In May 1941 at a meeting in Krakow the leadership of Bandera's OUN faction adopted the program “Struggle and action for OUN during the war” (Ukrainian: ”Боротьба й діяльність ОУН під час війни») which outlined the plans for activities at the onset of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and the western territories of the Ukrainian SSR. Section G of that document –“Orders for first days of the state living organization” Ukrainian: “Вказівки на перші дні організації державного життя» outline activity of the Bandera followers during summer 1941 In subsection of “Policy Minority” ordered: “Moskali, Poles, Jews are hostile for us ” and thus them must be “… exterminated in fight, especially those who which would resist the regime: deport them to their own lands, importantly: destroy their intelligentsia that may not be allowed into positions of power" … "so-called Polish peasants must be assimilated"… Jews must be isolated, removed from governmental positions, those who are deemed necessary may only work with an overseer... Jews' assimilation is not possible. and Patrilyak suggest such instruction as orders to extermination of ethnical minorities - Poles and Jews - becouse they Poles and Jews. Also he add information which actually added to article - in addition to be a Poles they also interract with Soviet Authorities. And at page 324 He conclude that the personnel of the Nachtigall_Battalion have all reason to murder them - becouse they are 1) Poles 2) Intelligentsia and as a last - they interract with regime. That's the full scholar text - so - addition a part of the text without a context need to be fixed to proper representation of the scholar text. P.S. Same text appeared here [7] at page 62-64 - and notable to include as separate section - may be name "Bandera's OUN and Nachtigal participation" would be intact. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The above is an example of original research. The author you base that on discussed the incident directly. And in that discussion he contradicts your claim. The full quote from page 323: "Важливим є також той факт, що розстріляні у Львові професори належали до групи польської інте-лігенції, яка протягом 1940–1941 рр. активно співпрацювала з радянським режимом. Вони були членами радянських творчих спілок, депутатами рад, делегатами польської громадськості Львова, що у вересні 1940 р. відвідували Сталіна і вели з ним переговори про можливість створення прорадянського польського уряду4 (на противагу еміграційному урядові в Лондоні). Тому вбиті у Львові польські професори цілком могли трактуватися оунівцями, як "приклонники большевицько-московського імперіалізму". Адже зі 160 професорів-поляків, які мешкали у Львові на червень 1941 р., для знищення вибрали лише тих, хто "засвітився" на співпраці зі сталінським режимом. Ві- домо також, що лідери бандерівської Організації в 1941 році прагнули запозичити від гітлерівців "досвідрозв'язання єврейської проблеми" (про це яскраво свідчать протоколи 1-ї конференції ОУН(Б) у липні 1941 року) *, але реально організованого та дієвого карально-репресивного апарату бандерівці не мали. Поодинокі відділи української народної міліції залучалися до антиєврейських акцій, але вони виконували тільки допоміжні функції при німецьких спецзагонах. Наприклад, Я. Стецько у своєму листі-звіті до Бандери від 25 червня 1941 р. відкрито писав: "Робимо міліцію, що поможе жидів усувати" 5. Можна з великою долею впевненості стверджувати, що окремі члени ОУН таки брали участь у винищувальних акціях, а також підбурювали до цього звичайних обивателів, розповсюджуючи листівки з такими недвозначними зверненнями: "Народе! Знай! Москва, Мадяри, Жидова – це все твої вороги. Нищ їх. Знай! Твоїм проводом є Провід українських націоналістів ОУН. Вождем є Степан Бандера. Твоєю ціллю є Соборна Самос- тійна Українська Держава. Твій шлях – шлях Української Національної Революції. Шлях збройної боротьби. Шлях ОУН" 6. Тож теоретично бійці ДУН мали цілком достатньо ідеологічних підстав для знищення польських науковців. Однак ще більше підстав для їхньої ліквідації мали німецькі спецгрупи, що керувалися наказами шефа нацистської поліції безпеки та служби безпеки, обергруппенфюрера СС Р.Гейдріха від 2 червня та 1 липня 1941 р. в яких наголошувалося на необхідності знищувати комуністичних функціонерів, комісарів, євреїв– держслужбовців, пропагандистів, а також польську інтелігенцію7." The admitedly clumsy googletranslation: ""What is important is the fact that shot in Lviv professors belonged to a group of Polish-lihentsiyi interests, which during 1940-1941 he actively cooperated with the Soviet regime. They were members of the Soviet artistic unions, members of councils and delegates of the Polish city public that September 1940 Stalin visited and conducted talks with him about the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish uryadu4 (as opposed to government in exile in London). Therefore murdered in Lviv Polish professors might well be interpreted insurgents as "pryklonnyky Bolshevik Moscow imperialism." Because of the 160 professors -Poles who lived in Ukraine in June 1941, chose to destroy only those "light up" in cooperation with the Stalinist regime. Bi-It is known also that the leaders of Bandera in 1941 sought to borrow from the Nazis' Jewish dosvidrozv'yazannya problem "(as the record clearly the 1 st Conference of OUN (B) in July 1941) *, but actually organized and effective punitive and repressive apparatus had Banderas. Single Ukrainian folk police departments involved in anti-Jewish actions, but they performed only auxiliary function in German Riot. For example, J. Stetsko in his letter report to Bandera from June 25, 1941 Open wrote: "Do the police that will help eliminate the Jews" 5. It is fairly confident to say that some members of the OUN did involved in destructive actions, and strove to the ordinary inhabitants, distributing leaflets with the following unambiguous appeal: "People! Know! Moscow, Hungarians, Jew - all your enemies. Nysch them. Know! Wires led thee is of Ukrainian Nationalists OUN. Is a leader Stepan Bandera. By Your goal is to be constantly Cathedral Samos-Ukrainian state. Your path - the path of the Ukrainian National Revolution. The path of armed struggle. OUN Way "6. So theoretically fighters Tung had enough of ideological reasons for the destruction of Polish scientists. But even more reason for their elimination had the German spetshrupy that followed the orders of the chief Nazi security police and security services, SS Obergruppenfuhrer R. Heydrich on June 2 and July 1, 1941 which stressed the need to destroy the communist functionaries, the commissioners of Jewish officials, propagandists, and Polish intelihentsiyu7." The chapter then goes on (I'm not going to cut and paste the whole thing here) to debunk various claims about Nachtigal's involvement. Any third party ought to read it, here is the link: [8]. If you can't read Ukrainian, use googletranslate. The result is clumsy but you'll get an idea and you will clearly see how Jo0doe misrepresents Patrilyak's work.

Basically, Patrilyak's chapter describes how the murder of the Polish intelligenstia would match the OUN's goals. Then Patrilyak states that doing so meets the German goals even better. The source then goes into detail about how the OUN didn't or couldn't do it and debunks claims to the contrary. Jo0Doe refers only to the first part of Patrilyak's chapter in order to create the false picture that Patrilyak's work supports the idea that Ukrainians were the perpetrators of the massacre. As usual Jo0doe totally falsifies what the source actually says, by quoting just a part of it in order to create the false impression that the source says the opposite of what it actually says.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Faustian, this claim that proffesors were Soviet collaborators and that was the reason they were murdered has to be removed because is TOTALY inaccurate.--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the recently added section about collaboration

Sandstein advised me to try to discuss matters on the talk page trying to establish a consensus. I think we should try that. So I have the following questions and I hope Faustian will be able to shed some light on this issues:

1) What are the credentials of the author of the book? There is no wikipedia page about him, establishing his bibliography would be helpful.

2) What sources does he use for the claims added by Faustian? Particularly, are there any photos of the alleged talks to form a collaborationist government, or written records of the talks in Soviet archives, or a testimony of the Polish or Soviet participants in these talk?

3) Why are there no other sources about these high level talks?

4) After occupying the Eastern part of Poland in 1939, Stalin annexed the territories to the Soviet Union. Why would Stalin want to form a pro-Soviet Polish government? To govern what exactly?

5) Why were a large number of close relatives of the professors murdered as well (wives, sons, daughters) as well as other personal who did not high enough positions (such as for example nurses etc.) J.kunikowski (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement does not use the term collaboration, but cooperation. I suggest you read what is written, much more carefully. The source is published by Kiev University, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. THe first part of the book cited is here as a pdf: [9]. Here is proof that the author, Ivan Kazimirovich Patrilyak (suggesting partial Polish descent?) is a professor of history at Kiev University: [10]. Faustian (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian please provide other scholarly sources for this bizarre and never heard of before claim. Extraordinary claims need many different sources not just one PDF. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the claim bizarre? Because you think it is? Here is a quote from the wikipedia article of one of the victims, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński. "After the outbreak of World War II, Boy-Żeleński moved to Soviet-occupied Lwów, where he stayed with his wife's brother-in-law. In Lviv, Boy joined the Soviet-led University as the head of the Department of French Literature. Criticized by many for his public and frequent collaboration with the Soviet occupation forces, he maintained contacts with many prominent professors and artists, who found themselves in the city after the Polish Defensive War. He also took part in creating the Communist propaganda newspaper Czerwony Sztandar (Red Banner) and became one of the prominent members of the Society of Polish Writers." Are these also bizarre claims?Faustian (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More is here, on the wikipedia article: [11]. "The Soviets sought to recruit Polish left-wing intellectuals who were willing to cooperate.[69][74][75][76] Soon after the Soviet invasion, the Writers' Association of Soviet Ukraine created a local chapter in Lwów; there was a Polish-language theater and radio station.[74] Polish cultural activities in Minsk and Wilno were less organized.[74][76] These activities were strictly controlled by the Soviet authorities, which saw to it that these activities portrayed the new Soviet regime in a positive light and vilified the former Polish government.[74]

he Soviet propaganda-motivated support for Polish-language cultural activities, however, clashed with the official policy of Russification. The Soviets at first intended to phase out the Polish language and so banned Polish from schools,[67] street signs,[77] and other aspects of life. This policy was, however, reversed at times—first before the elections in October 1939;[77] and later, after the German conquest of France. By the late spring of 1940, Stalin, anticipating possible future conflict with the Third Reich, decided that the Poles might yet be useful to him[citation needed]. In the autumn of 1940, the Poles of Lwów observed the 85th anniversary of Adam Mickiewicz's death.[78] Soon, however, Stalin decided to re-implement the Russification policies.[75] He reversed his decision again, however, when a need arose for Polish-language pro-Soviet propaganda following the German invasion of the Soviet Union; as a result Stalin permitted the creation of Polish forces in the East and later decided to create a communist People's Republic of Poland.[74][75]"

Many Polish writers collaborated with the Soviets, writing anti-Polish,[76][unreliable source?] pro-Soviet propaganda.[74][75][76] They included Jerzy Borejsza, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński, Kazimierz Brandys, Janina Broniewska, Jan Brzoza, Teodor Bujnicki, Leon Chwistek, Zuzanna Ginczanka, Halina Górska, Mieczysław Jastrun, Stefan Jędrychowski, Stanisław Jerzy Lec, Tadeusz Łopalewski, Juliusz Kleiner, Jan Kott, Jalu Kurek, Karol Kuryluk, Leopold Lewin, Anatol Mikułko, Jerzy Pański, Leon Pasternak, Julian Przyboś, Jerzy Putrament, Jerzy Rawicz, Adolf Rudnicki, Włodzimierz Słobodnik, Włodzimierz Sokorski, Elżbieta Szemplińska, Anatol Stern, Julian Stryjkowski, Lucjan Szenwald, Leopold Tyrmand, Wanda Wasilewska, Stanisław Wasilewski, Adam Ważyk, Aleksander Weintraub and Bruno Winawer.[74][75][76]" Faustian (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian could you please restrain from posting so much text about not directly related issues? Thanks. Now regarding your previous comment ok point taken it's "cooperation" not collaboration (although frankly i don't much of a difference). Is there a list of bibliography by that author somewhere? Can you translate the pdf you link above and what are the sources for the Polish-Soviet talks? J.kunikowski (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I only posted all that to show that the idea of Polish intellectuals cooperating with the Soviets was not some wierd unheard-of event that you claimed it was.Faustian (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide other reliable sources that confirm that the professors executed in the "Lvov massacre" were specifically chosen by the Nazis because of their alleged cooperation's with the Soviet occupying forces. Since you brought this claim forward, you need to back it up with satisfactory sources. So far none of the scholarly work on the subject I'm familiar with confirms your claim. Also, please do not remove the "dispute tag" until this dispute is over.--Jacurek (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So one source is not enough if you do not like it? Also, your tag is not about dispute it is about nuetrality. How is that information not nuetral? A Ukrainian historian claimed that. He really did claim that. There is a ref and even a link proving that he claimed it. The fact that he claimed it is true and nuetral. The source is reliable - info about the author and his academic background have been provided. As for corroborating evidence, I don't know if this is a reliable source but one of the victims, who was released, stated that his interrogator accused him of working with the Bolsheviks: [12] "I found myself in a room where there were two officers, a younger one who arrested me and another one of a higher rank, a large, portly man. He immediately shouted at me: "You dog, you are a German and have betrayed your German country. You served the Bolsheviks! Why didn't you, when it was possible, depart with all the other Germans to the West? " I began to explain, at first quietly and then louder, as the officer raised his voice, that although I was of German descent I considered myself a Pole. Secondly, even had I intended to go West, the Soviet authorities would not have permitted it because of my high social position as University Professor and well-known clinician - they considered me indispensable. I was then asked to explain the meaning of the visiting cards of British consuls found in my possession. I replied that I was married to a titled English lady and we were often visited by British consuls. He grew quieter, and apparently impressed he said: "I'll have to speak to my boss, we shall see what can yet be done for you" and hurriedly left the room." Faustian (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One source would be O.K. if the claim was not extraordinary. By inserting this claim into the article you have turned the victims of the massacre into anti-Polish collaborators who were punished for doing that by the Nazis and their Ukrainian cooperators. This claims changes the whole prospective of the events and it is VERY VERY serious allegation therefore you need to back it up with some better sources. One PDF article in Ukrainian language in far less from being satisfactory. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The "one pdf article in Ukrainian language" (is something wrong with articles converted to pdf and placed online?) was written by a professor at Kiev's National University and published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He is a specialist on this subject. Hereis the beginning of the book cited: [[13]. The article does not describe these people as collaborators, but as people who were seen by those who reported on them as workng for the Soviet system in various roles. In many of these roles they are no more collabortors than is anyone who worked in Communist Poland and who belonged to trade organizations, etc, during communist times. As I wrote earlier, it would be good to make clear that these victims were not necessarily traitors or communists. I object, however, to simply erasing information from reliable sources just because someone doesn't like it, or mislabeling the information as "not nuetral" because someone doesn't like it.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"He is a specialist on the subject" Which subject is that exactly? From what I can see the book is not about the Nazis and their crimes but rather the OUN which wasn't involved in the massacre. Secondly you still haven't stated what is the source for the claim that these professors were talks with Stalin(!) to form a pro-Soviet Polish government. Also you still haven't explain why would Stalin, after annexing the Eastern part of Poland to Soviet Union, wanted to form a Polish government and with members of Polish intelligentsia, which were usually seen as class enemies, to boot. This is such a bizarre claim that it needs to be properly addressed, sourced and explained. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"As I wrote earlier, it would be good to make clear that these victims were not necessarily traitors or communists." What kind of absurd statement is that? They were NOT traitors or communists. Would you like somebody writes about you: "Faustian is not necessary a thief". J.kunikowski (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Becaause one of the victims was openly accused of being a traitor or communist. Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński: "After the outbreak of World War II, Boy-Żeleński moved to Soviet-occupied Lwów, where he stayed with his wife's brother-in-law. In Lviv, Boy joined the Soviet-led University as the head of the Department of French Literature. Criticized by many for his public and frequent collaboration with the Soviet occupation forces, he maintained contacts with many prominent professors and artists, who found themselves in the city after the Polish Defensive War. He also took part in creating the Communist propaganda newspaper Czerwony Sztandar (Red Banner) and became one of the prominent members of the Society of Polish Writers."

Also, If you read the article you will see that not every victim was said to have flown to Moscow to meet with Stalin or to participate in the formation of a pro-soviet Polish government. This was one of three criteria for being placed on the list of those to be killed, the three criteria being "members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government." Haven't you read the article?Faustian (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that the Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński article has a grand total of zero sources. Please stop copying tons of text from other wiki articles and provide sources. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if this heavy claim that the professors were chosen for the execution because they were Soviet collaborators is not backed by other scholarly sources it has to be removed. You can not "dig out" some bizarre speculation of one guy and present that as a fact. Please take your time Faustian and research other scholarly material on the subject.--Jacurek (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line seems to be that you are saying that you want to remove info if you don't like it, against wikipedia rules which do not state that more than one clearly reliable source is necessary for information.Faustian (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This claim that the professors were murdered because they were Soviet collaborators is new to anyone familiar with the subject. Again, you need to provide VERY good sources for this revolutionary claim in order to be included in this article. To my knowledge, serious sources backing up your claim do not exist. I can’t find anything that would confirm that. I can’t read the PDF material you provided because it is not in English or in latin alphabet. PLEASE provide scholarly sources that CLEARLY state that THE PROFESSORS WERE CHOSEN FOR THE EXECUTION BECAUSE THEY WERE SOVIET COLLABORATORS, otherwise this claim has to be removed. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot read it, cut and paste the material into "googletranslate". The result is somewhat clumsy but you can still understand generally what is said. Are you reading what the article and what I say here? Nobody is calling them collaborators. So why do you insist that this is what is claimed? I agree that the word "collaborators" should not be used, and it isn't. Instead of referring to the victims as collaborators, the source states they were chosen because they cooperated with the new Soviet regime in one of various possible ways.Faustian (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing here: it's true that Boy-Zelenski cooperated or collaborated with the Soviets. It's true that he was among those killed in this massacre. But, as it turns out he wasn't actually one of the people on the list prepared (supposedly by OUN affiliated students) for execution; he was arrested by chance while visiting somebody else. So he's not really a good example of "they were executed because they cooperated with the Soviets" thesis. Additionally, at least a couple of those executed had previously been imprisoned by NKVD and barely escaped with their lives when the Soviets left the city. Rencki was one. So it's more or less impossible to say that these people where arrested and executed because of prior collaboration with Soviets, although some of them may have done so. If you look through some of the names, the only commonalities that jump out at you is that 1) lots of them were doctors or somehow affiliated with the schools of medicine, and 2) many - but not all - of them had taken an active part in the fighting for Lwow in 1918, which is probably the main reason they were targeted.radek (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! Can you find a ref for that so we can out it in, in addition to the information already contained in the section? It's important to note that the article states that they were alleged to have cooperated with the Soviets based on what the Ukrainian students said. It could very well be that the students based their allegations on the fact that those guys fought against Ukrainians in 1918, that those professors were negative towards Ukrainian students or supported anti-Ukrainian policies (I remember reading that somewhere, but couldn't find the references so I didn't put it into the article). It seems to make intuitive sense that their way of getting back at those professors was to in some cases falsely, in some cases not, identify them to the Germans as people cooperating with the Soviets. Those last sentences are my specualtion. On the other hand, there does not seem to be anything odd about those people cooperating with the Soviets in the way they are accused of doing. Cooperation doesn't only mean working for the NKVD. It could also mean, for example, being a delegate (such as a member of a faculty senate) with a Soviet organization (such as the Soviet-reorganized University). There does not seem anything strange about people living their lives under the Soviet government and engaging in that sort of cooperation.Faustian (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Boy-Zelenski was arrested by accident is in the Zygmunt Albert source already used in the article. The source also gives the information that the standing order to the arrest squads was to take in everyone on the proscribed list and any males over the age of 18 that were found within their company. BZ was visiting Jan Grek, who apparently was on the list, and was picked up as a result.

The fact about Rencki being formerly imprisoned by NKVD was off the top of my head but it shouldn't be hard to find a source to verify it.

The thing about a lot of these people being associated with the medical professions and having fought in 1918 was just some quick original research on my part, based on a quick look through the biographies of many of them on Polish Wiki. I actually don't know why it appears doctors and such were targeted so disproportionally and it seems like there should be some reason for it. Digging around in the sources may give an answer.

Falsely or "semi-falsely" denouncing people to the Nazis seems like a plausible explanation; it's generally how things work under totalitarian regimes.

The thing about the delegation and the supposed Polish Soviet Republic appears to refer to Kazimierz Bartel, the former Polish PM, who was SUMMONED to Moscow by Stalin and offered a post along those lines. But he refused.

Quite a number of other professors who "cooperated" with the Soviets by continuing to work at the universities were NOT arrested or executed. You bring up being a member of faculty senate under Soviets - the prime example here would of course be Stefan Banach, who was not arrested and executed (he survived the war by being a feeder of lice but that wasn't until later). So why Bartel or others but not Banach?radek (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What you write makes sense. It seems logical that the Nazis asked students (and the students who would cooperate with them would be OUN members) who was working with the Soviets and the students gave them the names of those people who not only cooperated with the Soviets but who were also seen as enemies by the nationalists, for whatever reason, while leaving others alone. Although Bartel refused to join Stalin, his trip to Moscow would undoubtedly have led to sufficient suspicion to have been placed on the hit-list. Now if all that can be sourced...Faustian (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Boy-Zelenski thing can be sourced with Albert.

Albert also says "Należy wątpić w spotkanie Bartla ze Stalinem, ale istotnie wyjeżdżał on do Moskwy, jak oświadczyła mi Bartlowa, w sprawie tłumaczenia na język rosyjski dzieła Perspektywa malarska. Oczywiście, że mógł dziwić wyjazd w takiej sprawie aż do Moskwy, skoro można było ją załatwić na miejscu we Lwowie" Translation: "It is doubtful if Bartel actually met Stalin although he did indeed travel to Moscow. According to Bartel's wife this was in regard to a translation of (his) book "Painter's perspective" into Russian. It's possible though that such a trip was viewed with suspicion because an issue like that could have been settled in Lwow".

The webpage of the Bartel foundation states: "W 1940 został wraz z kilkoma innymi politykami i profesorami wezwany do Moskwy, gdzie zaproponowano mu miejsce w Radzie Najwyższej ZSRR. Bartel propozycję tę odrzucił. " Translation: In 1940 (Bartel) along with several other (Polish) politicians and professors was summoned to Moscow where he was offered a position in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Bartel rejected the offer".

This web page [14] of the Bulletin of the Silesian Polytechnic states that the Nazis also offered Bartel some kind of collaborationist political position, and killed him only after he refused that too. I'll try to find something more on Rencki later.radek (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing their work at the University is not "actively cooperating with the Soviets". If the Nazis + OUN justified the murders that way then wikipedia has to make it clear these were bogus accusations made by butchers and killers. If you look at the list of murdered people there are 3 wives, 9 sons and 1 grandson of professors among the murdered which further dismantles the cooperation theories. J.kunikowski (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose eveyone has their own interpretation of what it means to cooperate with the Soviets. You are right about the family members - the murderers also killed the loved ones of those who were accused of cooperating with the Soviet authorities during Soviet rule.Faustian (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah everyone have their own interpretation, the question is why should wikipedia go with the interpretation of the killers and murderers. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is not an interpretion of a killer or murderer to cite a source that states that the victims were alleged to have cooperated with the Soviet regime. If the source stated they definitely were collaboratos and Bolsheviks or something like that then yes, that would be wrong. But it doesn't state that at all. Faustian (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian would you please make up your mind? Now you claim that the source says they were "alleged to have cooperated" while yesterday you translated the source as follows:

"Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in oppostion to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be intereprested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction."

Now according to your above translation of the source, the source claims that they have actively worked with the Soviets, visited Stalin(!), and even went so far as conducting talks to create a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London.

Faustian stop playing games and tell us does the source actually say. Does the source says the professors were alleged to cooperate with the Soviets by the Nazis (or OUN) or does the sources claims these things as facts which happened. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to read the word "or."Faustian (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your answer!? So I will ask you again: does the source say that they were alleged to cooperate as you claim today or does the source present these things as facts as you claimed yesterday? J.kunikowski (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The allegation, or interpretation, was that they supported "Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism" in the nationalist jargon. But the fact, according to the source, is that they cooperated with the Soviet regime in various ways. The latter is not an allegation but a fact. I tried to word it in the article to compromise with you guys but that was incorrect. Thanks for helping to clarify it.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So you making things up was done to compromise with us. okay right. Now, could you please tell us what evidence does the source provide for these "facts"? J.kunikowski (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Try to be civil. Yes, I was motivated enough to try to work in a friendly spirit of compromise that I made a mistake - I accept that and have now changed it. You have already been warned about your incivility. As for your second sentence - I don't have to judge or look for the source's evidence for those facts. In fact that sort of thing is discouraged on wikipedia. Even if I did look into the source's sources, per wikipedia policy against original research, my search would have no place on wikipedia. The fact that the source states that is all that the victims, in various ways cooperated with the Soviet authorities, is necessary for its inclusion in the article. Do you understand?Faustian (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do no make bogus accusations of incivility. Thank you. You provided opposing interpretation of the source which is your fault (the "i was trying to compromise" claim is funny). I have not asked you to judge the source's evidence, I simply asked you what evidence does the source present for these as you call them "facts". A claim based on no evidence is not a fact it is simply a claim. As for the inclusion in the article, I see you have still not familiarized yourself with the exceptional claims require exceptional sources policy (note the plural). I suggest you stop violating that policy or propose a change to it. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion about the facts described by Patrilyak and your interesting interpretation of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." You first need to prove that this claim is "exceptional," which doesn't seem to be the case. I suppose one can argue that since this is one claim, it requires one source. Why don't we file an RFC to see what people who aren't Poles think? The only non-Pole who came here agreed that the information belongs in the article. Perhaps we should get more opinions to settle this dispute?Faustian (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Which "facts" described by Patrilyak are you talking about? I have seen no description whatsoever, if I have missed it please do no hesitate to present it. The professors entering the talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet government in opposition to the legitimate Polish government is not exceptional claim? That's a normal claim for you? I mean seriously man. As for the editors here, I am opposed to any talks about the nationality, for me there are no Poles, Ukrainians, Americans or Chinese. There are only good editors and less good editors. I am not sure what is a RFC and I have no idea how to do that but if you want to file it no problem from my part. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the translation of Patrilyak's words:"Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepreted by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." I will file the RFC when I have time.Faustian (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for just copying the text once again, it is really helpful. J.kunikowski (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• But it’s clear to see that the origin of claims about mythical “pro-soviet Polish government in 1940” originated from source cited under footnote 4 - Кальба М. Ми присягали Україні. ДУН 1941–1943. – Львів, 1999. –С. 117 – - “memoirs of the Myroslav Kal’ba – mentioned here [15] as Schutzmann Myroslav Kal’ba - one of the Nachtigal and later 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion member – so again – scholar text with examples of the Banderas OUN accusations was simply ‎given out of context of the scholar conclusions – given at page 363-364 (you can copy-paste sentence-by sentence to google translate to comprehend general idea - Actually google translate suggest a mess of words [16]

HTML version of text [17]). Thank you P.S. Story is similar to Stella Krentzbach affairs [18] Jo0doe (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice example of using original research to argue against a reliable secondary source's conclusion.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Faustian, this claim that proffesors were Soviet collaborators and that was the reason they were murdered has to be removed because is TOTALY inaccurate.--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no claim that the professors were "Soviet collaborators." If there was, then it should be removed. But there isn't, so no removal necessary. Would it make you happy to add the words "Soviet collaborators", and then remove them? I was kidding, but how many times do you need to read that there are no such words in the article?Faustian (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point Faustian…anyway..by inserting this claim that their murder was a punishment for the alleged collaboration with the Soviets is very inaccurate and can't be here because it falsifies history. These professors were murdered not because they were Soviet collaborators but because of the Nazi Germany's aim to eliminate Polish intelligentsia.--Jacurek (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be obvious that Polish-Soviet collaborating intelligentsia would be of a more pressing concern to Germans than those who didn't collaborate with Germany's largest enemy? Let's use some common sense here--Львівське (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious. Most of the murdered professors did not engage in any political activity whatsoever. Please back this revisionist claim that the reason for the murder was collaboration with the Soviets. AGAIN: To my knowledge there are NO scholarly work that confirm that claim. ONE questionable source few people can read because is in Cyrillic is not satisfactory for this exceptional claim. As it was said many times before: exceptional claims require exceptional sources so far no sources were provided.--Jacurek (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no collaboration mentioned. Jeez. Being murdered as a result of being identified as someone cooperating with the Soviet authorities and being murdered as part of a generally policy of extermination of the Polish intelligentsia are not mutually exclusive. Cooperation with Soviet rule could be an explanation why these particular academics were killed while others weren't. BTW, despite all this arguing against a clearly referenced fact based on an obviously reliable source, why hasn't anyone added detailed information about the German policy towards the Polish intelligentsia here? It would be quite appropriate for the background section.Faustian (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the dishonest tactic of constantly trying to summarize the debate as you defending a "fact" while people who disagree with you are arguing against a "fact". J.kunikowski (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Stalin told the German ambassador Friedrich von der Schulenberg, that there was no place for an 'independent residual Poland' as a buffer state" – from

[19] [20] The Rise and Fall of the Third Reichpage 565

Source Z archiwów sowieckich, t. 1: Polscy jeńcy w ZSRR 1939-1941, oprac. i tłum. W. Materski, Warszawa 1992; - also does not suggest any Pro-Soviet Poland Government –

Russian sources http://militera.lib.ru/docs/da/dvp/23(1)/index.html (page 597) – noted about Sikorski London Government “more reasonable” attitude to USSR - Польша «раз и навсегда отбрасывает» «политику Пилсудского и Бека и ставит своей задачей установить дружеские отношения с СССР » Beria suggestion to create a Poland division (Berling) in NOvember 1940 also was postponed personally by Stalin – in afraid to harm Nazi-Soviet relations [21] – So it’s clear example of the OUN(b) accusation given at scholar text - but not a fact as suggested. Also recent source p.59 [22] – suggest similar to Patrilyak pp 363-4 conclusion about Bandera’s OUN participation. Ukrainian sources (- published Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) sources also silent about "Pro-Soviet Poland Government in 1940-41”. Jo0doe (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this claim that the professors where murdered because of the alleged collaboration with the Soviets is not backed by any scholarly works and it is historically inaccurate. Please feel free to remove that information.Thanks--64.180.43.61 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To Jo0doe: thanks for providing the sources. It is clear that the Nazi murder of professors simply followed classical Nazi policy of elimination of the Slavic intelligentsia.

To user above: I would remove it however I don't know what are the rules for removal on wikipedia, when I tried to remove it before I was told there is need for "consensus" for this. (I don't understand why can somebody add suspect information without consensus but for removal I need consensus??). J.kunikowski (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. We have a couple of Poles agreeing to that. The reference is to a scholarly work. Sorry if certain facts upset you, but not liking something is not a criterion for its exclusion.Faustian (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop addressing users as "couple of Poles". I don't address you by your nationality. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

About political activity, a source if somebody is interested

This source[23] mentions that the victims had no political acvitity to speak of, and no special relations with Soviet rule. Większość profesorów w ogóle nie udzielała się politycznie, ani społecznie. Profesorowie Franciszek Groer, Witold Nowicki, Stanisław Ostrowski i Rudolf Weigl, nie mówiąc już o prof. Bartlu, byli zdecydowanie tolerancyjni i dalecy od wszelkiego nacjonalizmu, nie wiązali się też w jakiś szczególny sposób z władzą sowiecką. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I added this info to the article. It's from a newspaper and written by a historian. I doubt it's on the same level as a book published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of sciences and written by a foremost specialist on the topic (OUN), but it certainly meets criteria for inclusion.Faustian (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt it's on the same level as a book published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of sciences"

The publication you mentioned has serious problems. Mentioning murder of Jews as "anti-colonial" struggle for instance(if google translator is correct of course) or attitude to Jews by OUN "understandable". It seems to be a highly politicised publication.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except he doesn't do that. And objecting to an author's opinion on page 355 does not mean he lied on page 320 (I made up the page numbers).Faustian (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In this edit you made the newspaper article have precedence over the scholarly work bythe Institute of Histroy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. I could have written that the Poles "claim" also, but didn't - I kept it nuetral. You should do the same. Let's see what happens through RFC.Faustian (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Except he doesn't do that".Except he does:according to googletranslator:

Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification їнshould be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle

• no surprise that the young insurgents

quite sincerely hated the Jews So Googletranslator has wrong translation? As to your "scholarly work"-there are serious doubts about its credibility. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for translation.

Faustian I request you translate us the following text find on page 334:

Така "інформація", як уже зазначалося, падала на благо-датний ґрунт з двох причин: по-перше, через те, що в міжвоєнній польській Речі Посполитій антисемі-тизм був мало не державною ідеологією, по-друге, у зв'язку з тим, що євреї традиційно складали значну частину серед службовців НКВС, а єврейська мо-лодь, відчувши, що її нарешті не переслідують на державному рівні, після вересня 1939 року активно включилася в радянське політичне та соціальне життя.

Thank you. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Alo, alo Faustian are you there? What does в міжвоєнній польській Речі Посполитій антисемі-тизм був мало не державною ідеологією mean? J.kunikowski (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)