Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Archive 01 | Archive 02 | Archive 03 | Archive 04 | | Archive 05

Selectively Citing Koch

I've fixed the disruptive editor's/troll's Cherry picking information from secondary sources. In the Hostilities section: [1] he took one quote from chapter 14 [2], from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served his POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, the secondary source 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. After this intense fighting succeeded, UPA's activity level vs. the Germans decliend significantly. 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. The particular editor pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. Any further disruptions to this section by the vandal/clown will be removed, as usual.Faustian (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great – you omit conclusion about anti-Nazi activity of OUNappeared at 2 sections of Ukrainian National Academy of Science work – at p.180, p.199. See p.191 “But we should to acknowledge that the negotiations between Nazis and OUN/UPA continued.” So you again put other in misconception (or if use your civil habit – you cheat them) and represent UNAS conclusions as it were an editor one. Taking into account your experience in psychology – it’s really silly step to accuse someone for own action (intresting to note but OUN also adopt similar practice) Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions are put in the article, your claim that I ommitted them is false. What a surprise. The article states: "UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets (as well as Soviet partisans), did not focus all of its efforts against the Germans. Indeed, it considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović, [39] UPA held back against the Germans in order to better prepare itself for and engage in the struggle against the Communists. Because of this, although UPA managed to limit German activities to a certain extent, it failed to prevent the Germans from deporting approximately 500,000 people from Western Ukrainian regions and from economically exploiting Western Ukraine. [40]" This is what the source actually states, and is not cherry-picked. Why do you revert that paragraph?Faustian (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you comprehand what conclusion located not at the middle of the chapter - but in final words'. So why you remove a conclusion -

• In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants.

[ --Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry picking as usual. That Chapter's summary on page 199 [3] includes all that you left out: that the anti-German struggle was, for UPA, temporary and did not occupy the primary priority - the struggle against the Bolsheviks was UPA's main concern. This meant that the struggle against the Germans took on the role of "self-defence of the Ukrainian people", considering the Nazis to be temporary occupiers of UKraine. The military actions of UPA did not play a strategic role in the conflict between Germany and the USSR, and only, to a certain extent, limited the actions of the German occupation authorities in terms of their economic exploitation of Volyn and Polissia, the material basis of the Ukrainian liberation struggle.

Again I see a light at the end of tunnel – but past practice reflect it as temporary event.

So does my text contradict with what you are mentioned above with Article chapter related to Anti-German activities of UPA? So why not to follow this idea in the article? Or at Least a Koch statements? As far as I can see - not--Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify something here. Do you or do you not consider Cherry picking to be an acceptable way to present information from a source?Faustian (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I’ve no practice with what you are spoken about. Look like you familiar with it – so please consider WP rules before made any decision. I hope you don’t forget – “academic conclusion”Jo0doe (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See the top of this section. And see the conclusion, which you cherry pick from as well:

I hope you comprehand what conclusion located not at the middle of the chapter - but in final words'. So why you remove a conclusion -

• In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants.

[ --Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry picking as usual. That Chapter's summary on page 199 [4] includes all that you left out: that the anti-German struggle was, for UPA, temporary and did not occupy the primary priority - the struggle against the Bolsheviks was UPA's main concern. This meant that the struggle against the Germans took on the role of "self-defence of the Ukrainian people", considering the Nazis to be temporary occupiers of UKraine. The military actions of UPA did not play a strategic role in the conflict between Germany and the USSR, and only, to a certain extent, limited the actions of the German occupation authorities in terms of their economic exploitation of Volyn and Polissia, the material basis of the Ukrainian liberation struggle. Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So I ask you to answer this question directly: Do you or do you not consider Cherry picking to be an acceptable way to present information from a source?Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I’ve no practice with what you are spoken about.

Thanks for confirming that you are a liar. See the top of this section for evidence of your cherry-picking. Your lie notwithstanding, you still haven't answered the question.Faustian (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Look like you familiar with it – so please consider WP rules before made any decision. I hope you don’t forget – “academic conclusion”. Do you or do you not consider that Koch statement contradict with "In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory "--Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is no contradiction, which is why I have included the Koch quote in the article. Do you dishonestly imply that I am trying to leave it out? The problem is not the Koch quote but your cherry-picking and selective citation from the source by trying to present the Koch quote while ignoring the other information from that source. So I ask you again, Do you or do you not consider Cherry picking to be an acceptable way to present information from a source?Faustian (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I’ve include in the article data which strictly inline with conclusion

Wrong. You selected (correct word: cherry-picked) data that mathced your cherry-picked version of the conclusion, as is clearly demonstrated in this conversation.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

and represent almost all party info about events (unfortunately I was unable to find any report from Polish side about UPA anti-German activity). I also include L.Shankovskyy data.

Sure, after adding editorializiation not found in the the original source. The original cited passage referred to him as "noted historian", you ignore that and instead write, "former UPA fighter." bfore anything taken from Shankovsky. Maybe you will be consistant, and on the Holodomor article editorialize any citation from Kulchytsky by stating "former COmmunist Party idealogue"?Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I ignore detailed myths by Shankovskyy and Krochmalyuk– per WP:UNDUE recommendation and other RS source data about HSSPF RuЯland-Mitte and HSSPF RuЯland-Sьd– as similar to the fact that no trace of Flat Earth conception at Earth article exist.

Actually added quite a bit from Krokhmaliuk into the article. For example, here you are adding a lot of info from Krokhmaliuk into the article: [5]. Some examples of what you added from Krokhmaliuk into the article:

"As a rule the UPA did not attack units of the Wehrmacht, knowing that they were fighting against Russian Communism. Likewise, the frontline forces of the German army did not take any part in manhunts and operation against the UPA, sometimes even refusing to assist the German security and police forces against UPA."

"According to the UPA/OUN, the initial stage of “BB” (Bandenbekempfung) operation under the command of Sturbahnfuehrer SS General Platle and later under General Hintzler against the UPA produced no results whatsoever. This catastrophic development was the subject of several discussions by Himmler's staff that resulted in the sending to Ukraine of General von dem Bach-Zalewski, responsible only to Hitler himself. "

"According to post war OUN/UPA estimates, General Prutzmann, von dem Bach-Zalewski's successor as commander of the "BB" did not introduce any new methods in combating the UPA. The UPA-North grew steadily, and the Germans, apart from terrorizing the civilian population, were virtually limited to defensive actions."

Rather hypocritical to complain about Krokhmaliuk stuff in the article when you yourself added much of it. Were you mistaken? Should we remove what you added?Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why actually you remove Fedorov info about UPA– which actually was active in anti-German action at Wolynia – and his and other Soviet partisan activities easily traced through Nazi archives, while UPA/OUN-B not P.S. About Cherry Picking – ask yourself about Burds, Subtelnyy etc “citation” habit Jo0doe (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course you cherry picked from Burds as well - adding all of those examples of UPA atrocities described by Burds while ignoring the Soviet crimes mentioned by Burds in the same article. Here it is: [6]. And then you revert warred against inclusion of data taken from Burds (250,000 deported by Soviets)that didn't match your POV. So Burds is another example of your cherry-picking.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects this reality - UPA considered the Germans to be a secondary enemy (the SOviets the primary one) and thus focussed more of its efforts against the Soviets, limiting its anti-German actions to defending itself and Ukrainian peasants from the German occupying authorities but not interfering with German anti-Soviet combat. So of course UPA wouldn't didn't play a role in the liberation (i.e., Soviet establishment of control) over western Ukraine. Nothing controversial in that, and it's already reflected in the article which states:

So here it’s against the facts – the correct wording would be –

• UPA considered the Germans to be a tertiary enemy (Poles and the SOviets the primary one). In order to match historical facts – as far as may be you don’t know but in July 30 1941 Soviet denounce the Soviet-German agreements and recognize the Poland territory and Government in London. So , legally Soviet liberated from Nazi occupation the territory of one of Ally – which in August 1945 officially transferred to USSR – because Poland got former German territory.

So article should reflect historical facts instead of inspirations.--Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets (as well as Soviet partisans), did not focus all of its efforts against the Germans. Indeed, it considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović, [39] UPA held back against the Germans in order to better prepare itself for and engage in the struggle against the Communists. Because of this, although UPA managed to limit German activities to a certain extent, it failed to prevent the Germans from deporting approximately 500,000 people from Western Ukrainian regions and from economically exploiting Western Ukraine.

However, in the interests of being collaborative, I have no problem with adding that UPA did not play a role in the reestablishment of Soviet control over UKrainian territory.Faustian (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not distort what the actually academic source say about propagandistic claims of OUN/UPA about Anti-German activities at p.180.

Actually that is already included in the article (last paragraph of this section:[7]). If you had bothered tio read it before reverting and edit warring, you wouldn't have made the comment above.Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So per war time period any actions against Ally forces are considered as collaboration – in addition to clear collaboration which lasted from early 1944 till almost end of war – so in article given a wrong emphasis to “self-defense” of people which lasted at limited areas of Wolhynien und Podolien Gbsrk (No trace known at Galicia) – which lasted 5-6 months vs more then a 12 months collaboration with Nazi So again proposals of article structure - see Russian WP version of article - see every forces which UPA acted against noted,. But should be added from English

• Arms of UPA
• UPA and “Final solution”

And given a separate chapter

• UPA Structure

1943 Spring– August

August 1943- February 1944

February 1944- Autumn 1944/ winter 1945

1945 structure.

Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, continue making disruptive edits and continue to be reverted. If it helps, perhaps you will make your proposed changes/new sections on the talk page first. As for using the propagandistic joke of the Russian UPA wikipedia page as your model - thanks for sharing your opinion.Faustian (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad to note but group of editors and IP address with Ukrainian Diaspora origin extensively exploit the en:WP to represent a Blank spot of own history. It’s really interesting to see how editor called Diasporical Blank spot historical facts “a nasty”.Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's as sad as it is funny to see that on the Russian wikipedia we see the identical pattern of revert-warring of the article [8] and nasty arguments on the talk page: [9]. What's it like, Jo0doe, to spend your life causing unpleasantness?Faustian (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Same editors origin is'nt And same historical illitaracy - a strange--Jo0doe (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I could understand it , I may actually laugh, but ...... ?????? Bandurist (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New reading about OUN-B/UPA

Berkhoff, K.C. 'Was There a Religious Revival in Soviet Ukraine under the Nazi Regime?' in: Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 78, nr. 3, pp. 536-567 , 2000. Berkhoff, K.C. 'The ‘Russian’ Prisoners of War in Nazi-Ruled Ukraine as Victims of Genocidal Massacre' in: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 15 (2001), nr. 1, pp. 1-32 . Berkhoff, K.C. 'Ukraine under Nazi Rule (1941-1944): Sources and Finding Aids [part 1 & part 2]' in: Jahrbьcher fьr Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 45, nr. 1 & nr. 2, pp. 85-103, 273-309 , 1997. Berkhoff, K.C. and M. Carynnyk 'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys' in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 23 (1999), nr. 3/4, pp. 149-184 . Jo0doe (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

cdvr.org.ua -propaganda source

If look at propose of cdvr formation we can found that this public organization created to "promote positive image of OUN-UPA" and expect to use propaganda for that proposes. Thus please use cdvr work at cdvr article. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Even better, why don't you use Jo0doe work in troll article? Thank you. Faustian (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack as usualJo0doe (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Says the same clown/troll who compared other editors to Nazi collaborators.Faustian (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A diff pleaseJo0doe (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

UPA and SB dressed as Soviet Partisans, Red Army and NKVD to commit atrocities.

• DYK that UPA dressed as Soviet Partisans, Red Army and NKVD to commit atrocities against civil populations -

Is it better than your dressing in a clown suit? Faustian (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

see book

• Політичний терор і тероризм в Україні XIX - XX ст. : історичні нариси Інститут історії України НАН України, 2002 issbn 9660000251

pages 757-758 with pictures of UPA and SB in soviet uniform and description of "freedom fighting"

• Does it not a good reason to visit a library for a first timeJo0doe (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent "news"

• "Opponents" of the UPA

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian), Ukrainian National Army, Ukrainian Liberation Army, Ukrainische Hilfspolizei, Schutzmannschaften

• Indeed intresting to see about UPA activities at Austria and German land in 1944-45. UPA fighting agains Shukhevich battalion - :))
• Indeed intresting to see another 1988 Subtelnyy and L. Shankovskyy 1952 citation from Karol.

DYK

• [10]

In dealing with the SD the Tribunal includes Amts III, VI, and VII of the RSHA and all other members of the SD, including all local representatives and agents, honorary or otherwise, whether they were technically members of the SS or not.

The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those members of the Gestapo and SD holding the positions enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes. The basis for this finding is the participation of the organisation in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to hold the positions enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st December, 1939.

• In light what 5,6 regiments of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia was under SD command.
• In light of the UPA and Galicien volontiers cooperation at in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war
• In light that the Shukhevich battalion was under SD wile german anti-partizans actions was classified as war crimes .
• In light that UPA was supplied SD by information (mean agents)
• In light that Abwehr agents was transferred to SD in 1944 (Bandera. Stetsko, Hrynyokh, Shukevich etc)Jo0doe (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the original research above, whatever it means.Faustian (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A Jews about UPA and it "constituded elements"

Published not in Ukrainian Quarterly Galicia survivors - why not add to a relavant chapter to balance Subtelnyy 1988 vision

Here is a typical story of the action as told by survivors: “At eleven a.m. three strong knocks were heard at my door. “Who is there?” An immediate answer came, “The Gestapo.” I opened the door and four people entered. A German in an SS uniform with a skull and cross-bones on his cap, a Ukrainian policeman in his black uniform, and two Ukrainian civilians. The German was armed with a Parabellum pistol and the policeman had a rifle. Both civilians held thick sticks.

On May 3, 1946, testimony was presented in Munich by a resident of Stryj, Shmuel Zeliger (file number: Munich archives, testimonies, 191/76). He related: “On a frightfully cold night in January 1942, Ukrainian gendarmes and policemen invaded the homes of the poor people (in Stryj), and rounded up about 800 people. Several hundred were also brought from Zydaczow, Mikolajow, Zurawno, Chodorow, Bolechow, Dolina, Bobrka, and Skole. They were all loaded on village wagons and transported to the mountains. Many froze along the way. Almost all of the children froze. The rest were left in abandoned farmers' cottages. The strong ones fled and returned to Stryj. The rest of them, that is more than 80% of them, died of cold and hunger.

The Ukrainian nationalist bands policy was the murdering of Jews. So, for example, when Bandera's people got information about Rozia Adler hiding in the village of Hoszow, they requested that she be handed over. After robbing her, she was murdered. This happened in early summer of 1944. In the winter, Ukrainian nationalists had already started attacks on the Polish population, by killing a family of seven at Polanice village. They finally set fire to all Polish houses in the neighboring villages. Whole families were burned alive. Several families of Poles were murdered in Bolechow proper, although not in great numbers.

• Notorious collaborators and German citizens as well as the Volksdeutsche fled weeks earlier. Most Ukrainian policemen joined the Bandera forces.

Jo0doe (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Source, please?Faustian (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Likely the same source the Polish trolls on the Ukraine.com forums get this crap from--Lvivske (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for sharing you opinion about Holocaust survivors rememberence.Faustian - so the book is here [11] Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

EhJJ (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Thanks for your offer! There seem to be many issues under contention. Hoe specific should we get?Faustian (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to summarize the issues as succinctly as possible. If it is not possible to resolve (or at least make progress) on this dispute, then further steps of the dispute resolution process may take place, namely to involve users from the WikiProject European history and/or WikiProject Military History (EhJJ)^TALK 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Jo0doe (talk) 08

03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)):

• To follow reccomendations [12] [13] in article text (identify a source and author)

• Exclude WP:QS (cdvr.org, p.242 Krochmalyuk and Krochmalyuk at all, infoukes O14-USSR). Do not ref XXX through XXX more then one time. To provide a referenced information - like for UPA in 1949-56 etc. Use scholar (historians) works instead of "Ukrainian Quarterly",SBU, CIA etc for facts, figures and dates. Fairly provide all involved party opinions - not OUN-B OUNs, Soviets, Germans, Poles (see WP:UNDUE for more). Do not "play" with sources text (like Despite the stated opinions... ). Use text in appropriate place (do not put 1947 in 1942)

One issue at a time, please, and we can begin the discussion. Want to start with Krokhmaliuk's work?Faustian (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've provide a general issue of the article. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Great that you've provided a "general issue of article." However, because opinions may be different on each specific case, you ought to define what you would like to discuss specifically. You've identified seven issues above. So which issue specifically would you like the third opinion on?Faustian (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's one simple issue to follow the WP reccomendations and rules. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We both agree on that. The question is who is following them and who isn't. Can we decide on a single, specific issue involving the rules that you would like a third opinion on or are you not interested in getting a third opinion?Faustian (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by EhJJ

....

This seems to be beyond the scope of WP:Third opinion, but I'll leave the request there, and the info above, in case another editor can provide some insight. My recommendation at this point would be to split each problem into it's own sub-section. The four I counted are:

1. Exclude WP:QS
2. Fairly provide all sides, per WP:UNDUE
3. Avoid weasel words
4. Correct errors of improper citation

Good luck! (EhJJ)^TALK 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you refused the third opinion by breaking up your general argument into specific points to be discussed.Faustian (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by your comment and how is it useful to building or improving the encyclopedic content in this article? If you want another third opinion on a more specific issue ask for one. The opinion offered seems to include many helpful and useful suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we have two options:

1. Discuss specific issues of this article.
2. Discuss whether to follow the Wikipedia guidelines.

The second option is ridiculous. Obviously we need to follow the guidelines! So, what specific part of this article is in contravention? How can we improve the article, one part at a time? I will be glad to provide a third opinion, but you need to tell me: on what? (EhJJ)^TALK 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not so ridiculous as you noted - see a long talk page about ridiculous - not evryone fairly ready to follow it. As it can be noted in the discussion -it taked more then year to identify propaganda poster as propaganda poster. The specific issue all originated from guidelines follow. If there no titanic effort from "Freedom-Fighter" proponents to include QS and not WP:V source and misuse or remove "wrong" scholars citations - there no problem at all. But if we trace this more than year story - no intent was implemented. It's pitty itself. But as far as WP:reliability is a MUST - we should step forward in general approach. Othervice - we'll have another dozens of talk page about what was major achivements of such formaton- the killing of 100+ K civilians or 1864 persons of NKVD staff?Jo0doe (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. So let's start with the issue of sources:

• Do you consider Jeffrey Burds' work to be a reliable source? Here is his home page [14] and his CV: [15]. His work, cited in the article, is available on-line in English: [16]. A particular editor has aproblem with Burds' work and figures that he includes in the article. In my opinion, we don't judge reliable sources, we just report what they say.

After "maskirovka units" and assesment which that specific work gain on scholar conference - questionable. But pitty - I'm not oppose to include this specific author and his claims from resently self published work in russian[17]. I just simply would like to: 1) not to present historical exclusively his own vision - represent all known scholar data. 2)I oppose to use his own vision regrarding second half of 1944 in the section described 1943 events.Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So you personally question Burds' Eng;sh-language work but find his Russian-language acceptable. What about the third opinion?Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you expirienced difficulties with my text comprahanding?Jo0doe (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• How about Paul Robert Magocsi and Orest Subtleny? I use them as reliable sources, another editor disagrees.

Indeed both of them represent North Ukrainian Diaspora approach - but - it's not true that I' disagree - I just would like to have in article correct representation of what actually appeared in their work and to indicate thier names in the article before the claims - so the reader will be confident in assessment - which opinion he read. While as regards 100000 of 1996 Magoci work - I was unable to find similar figure in his 2007 work - as far as this figure was widelly criticised by scholar community (including also Orest Subtleny!) I really don't see the nessesity to include in article range 10-100 which has no sence. Anyway I don't oppose to that figure - I just would like to mentioned clear the year and Author. That's allJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Author is mentioned in the reference. There is even a wikilink to the author's biography. The article will be a cumbersome mess if before every other statement it's added "according to Mgosci..." or even better, as you used to add, "according to North American Ukrainian Magosci...". It is redundant; that's what the note is for.Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see only one figure from Magocy. While could you prove your alleged claims about my recent edits with diff - thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Much more controversial Yuri Krokhmaliuk's UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823. Do we use it, and if so, how? Krokhmaliuk is not an academic and his work was originally published by the UPA veterans themselves. Clearly it should be considered WP:SPS and we should be careful about its use. Now let's look at the policy regarding the use of such a source:
• Yuri Krokhmaliuk's - a member of Military Commityy of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian) (військова управа дивізії СС "Галичина")- may be this "issue" (and not only this) caused that he was going to Argentina and not directly to Canada, US or Australia"Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So you are accusing the author of being a war crimnal because he lived in Argentina before coming to the USA? Is that your argument?Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No I simply mentioned irrelevancy of "Jewish elements" author in WP article not about Nazi propanda. As regard to engeeneer Yuriy Krochmalyuck with joined the SS-Galicia with 6 or 7 SS-regiment . I don't care about Nazi collaboratorsJo0doe (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Many Ukrainians emigrated to Argentina. Between 3-500,000. Jo0doe is being completely asinine in his statements.--Lvivske (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean many Galicians? I hope you know what there a special Law appeared at US and Canada on SS criminals - thats why actually many of them was allowed only than such measures were lifted Jo0doe (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean many Ukrainians. Galicians is a broader term; Ukrainians have a heavy population in Argentina/Brazil, this is a fact. What's your deal?--Lvivske (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

Yes, it is.

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

This may be problematic. The book doesn't include information about the mass murder committed by the subject against Polish civilians.

Book is collection of nationalistic propaganda - word "Jewish elements" is self evident. Story about how UPA killed Viktor_Lutze, defeated several SS and Waffen-SS division by batallion size formation, fully destroyed Sydir_Kovpak unit and dozens of NKVD divisions (despite only 1 (one) deployed), typhus lice spreaded by NKVD beggars and lot of similar funny stuff.Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. it does not involve claims about third parties;

I"m not sure how this would apply in this case.

1. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

No, it does not.

• Yes - a lot of "history" about Russian oppressed freedom loving Ukrainians,

The source sn't used for that info but for info about the topic of this article - UPA.Faustian (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

Of the source? No.

• scholar conference held recently noted what this specific book appeared in the 1972 serve as indulge for Vietnam war defeats - as UPA posed as formation which was able to resist to "Soviet super power" - so OUN sponsors from Radio Free Europe (RFE), Radio Liberty (RL) (originally Radio Liberation from Bolshevism) and the Institute fir the Study of the USSR clarly visibleJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

It certainly is not.

Chapter

1. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

Yes, it has been. Paul Robert Magocsi, in Ukraine: a History, spends 40 pages (685–725) describing and briefly evaluating scores of sources for further reading. He starts the paragraph about WWII Ukrainian military organizations with Tys-Krokhmaliuk (1972).

My approach is to use Krokhmaliuk's work conservatively - to match it to something written by Subtelny or Magocsi and flesh in the details with Krokhmaliuk's work. *(i.e., Magosci, citing Krokhmaliuk I believe, mentioned that UPA engaged in pitched battles with the retreating Germans over Carpathian passes. I used Krokhmaliuk's work to add some details about those battles; Subtleny mentioned warfare in Volhynia and I used Krokhmaluiuk's account for that also). In cases where Krokhmaliuk contradicts a reliable source, I suggest we go with the RS. But otherweise K.'s work seems useful. What is your opinion?

And thank you for your time! Faustian (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• See facts above - QS with nationalistic propaganda can be used in the article about itself - if it deserve it. There lot of recent scholar work dealed specifically with article subject based on archival data - not on SS apocrypha.Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Look like editors prefer to engage in word sport - instead of intent to have a WP as reliable source or discuss sometingJo0doe (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-Write

Would anyone be opposed to me rewriting the entire article from scratch in the near future? If anything, just to clean out the biased statements and keep everything sourced and accurate.--Lvivske (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! I was going to do something similar but am much too busy in RL to take on such a project now. I'll check on your progress.Faustian (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing loads of research papers right now, but I'm thinking maybe after March 20th when I get some actual free time on my hands.--Lvivske (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Something I had suggested earlier but never got around to doing - because the article is so huge, it might make sense to split int into two articles. One would be purely about UPa and would describe its organization, history of its creation, membership, weapons, etc. The second article could be called "Ukrainian nationalist resistance during and after World War II" and would include all of the info about the battles etc not only by UPA but also by the Polessian Sich. Each of those articles would be much shorter than this one. Faustian (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. What would be a good article to model the UPA and other one after for style? I'm thinking UPA w/ USMC article, not sure for the latter...--Lvivske (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking, in general, of an analogy with the articles Polish–Ukrainian War and Ukrainian Galician Army (although the latter article, unlike the proposed UPA article, doesn't include info about its creation and how it was organized).Faustian (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Music

Would it be worth while having a section on UPA music? Is there a documented history of Ukrainian song and music dedicated to the UPA? Personally, I have boxes of UPA records, just wondering how prevalent a topic this is--Lvivske (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some such material, but it has not been subjected to scholarly study. Sifting for authentic material in the fakeloric UPA-pop is not easy.--Galassi (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Ukraine liberated by the Red Army" is clear biased statement

Yes? No? Liberation implies "individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will" according to wiki. This does not illustrate the truth of the situation at all; it's either an annexation or a military occupation--Lvivske (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is commonsensical and commonly-accepted definition. UPA contributed to the same liberation, regardless of its relationships with USSR.Galassi (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To liberate: " to free; to release from restraint or bondage" Liberty: " the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force". The Red Army brought neither. It was a military occupation that annexed a disputed territory.--Lvivske (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Liberated its own "legal" (and MULTIETHNIC btw) pre-War territory from Nazi-German bondage. That is a cold, if sad (for a few), fact. --Galassi (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References to liberation are more controversial with respect to territory that was pre-war Poland (or, for that matter, with respect to Soviet liberationof the Baltics.) Dictionary.com states [18] (Definition #2):

"to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government."

So technically liberation works as a term. Although perhaps a more nuetral but equally correct one can be used instead.Faustian (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Even still, Soviets were a "foreign oppressive government", and "Nazi's were seen as liberators", so I just don't think it even works in this context. I still contend that re-occupation, annexation, incorporation all work better.--Lvivske (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Soviet was NOT a "foreign oppressive government" but a local and native one, even if some saw it differently. The idea of "Nazis as liberators" didn't last very long, and was definitely out of fashion by 1943.--Galassi (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How were a Moscow Bolshevik government, run by Georgians and many Jews..."local and native"???--Lvivske (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you are one ot THOSE. I thouhgt so... Thanks for the confession (this also explains your statement re "inflated jewish casualties"). FYI, Jews in the Soviet Gov't were eliminated by 1938. One was kept (Kaganovich). Ãlso: keep it in you mind: all claims that "Moscow Bolshevik government, run by Georgians and many Jews" are part of a Moscow/MAUP plot to make Ukrainians look like idiots. Because no intelligent Ukrainian would believe such crap.Galassi (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame I never got to drink the soviet kool-aid like yourself...--Lvivske (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this is about more than a dictionary definition and labelling the discussion as such is simply misleading. Now, aside from the fact that liberation is simply how it is referred to by nearly all academic sources and encyclopaedias (maybe not Ontario based ones), this process is viewed as such in Ukraine (maybe not in rural Lviv). We have parades, holidays, countless monuments, museums, and even government websites ([19][20][21]) on this for a reason. Millions of Ukrainians fought in Red Army, did they re-occupy themselves? Does the slim minority that fought against them and is now in the Diaspora change that, or should Ukraine determine whether Ukraine was liberated? --Tavrian 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, Dictionary.com states [22] (Definition #2): "to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government."

Emphasizing the word "or", technically speaking both the German conquest of Ukraine and Soviet reconquest of Ukraine could be considered "liberation" as in each case the Ukrainian nation or territory was freed from the control of a foreign or oppressive government. Presumably, liberation in this article about UPA refers to territory taken over by the Soviet army in western Ukraine (where UPA operated, for the most part) not Kiev or Kharkiv. While in this context "liberation" is technically correct, neither the Poles nor the Ukrainians living there probably felt themselves to be liberated by the Soviets. Incidentally, the article about Estonia in World War II does not refer to the Soviet return to Estonia as "liberation." I auggest we use a more nuetral term (establish control?).Faustian (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you find "incidental" about that? Estonia had nothing similar with the USSR, who simply came in and annexed them. The Russian Duma even recognized this as occupation sometime in the early 90s. So the Estonian response, on Wikipedia and in real life is quite logical. And although it is hard to say that Western Ukraine was liberated in 1939 that doesn't make the two cases similar. Ukrainians were joined into one entity for the first time in history in 1939 and liberated from Nazis (who would have killed every last Slav after the Jews) by their own, local army in 1944. But either way the edit ([23]) that we are debating is referring to all of Ukraine. The makes it liberation. --Tavrian 03:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are referring to all of Ukraine, then liberation does not apply to all cases. This deals with the interim Nazi controlled territory. As Faustian has said, the dictionary definition of the word can be ambiguous in this context, and not fully give an accurate POV on the situation. When dealing with civil conflicts, to label any side as a "liberator" misconstrues the dynamics of the conflict itself.--Lvivske (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the word "liberation" is used in reference to Soviet forces in two olaces of the article. Tyhe liberation of Kiev and the liberation of all territories of Ukraine. I have no problem with leaving liberation in with reference to Kiev. In the latter case, while yes liberation is correct "establish control over" or "drive the Germans out of" or something similar is equally correct and less contentious.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Bobanni's current edit and defining it as "re-established control"--Lvivske (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Credit Faustian - I do not like to waste a good idea,Bobanni (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "re-established control" is the best way to describe it to, can't get more neutral then that! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The new version is not ‘‘unneutral’’; but I think it is hiding the commonly used term on the topic and is just simply less informative. I don't oppose it, but what I do oppose is countering all historiography on the topic with a dictionary definition and people without arguments voicing their valued opinion. Now, although "liberate" is the accepted term of western scholars when describing not only Ukraine but even Poland, I think I can offer a compromise (no self respecting historian would write "the Red Army re-established control of Lviv on July 1944").

The current version reads:

After the Red Army re-established control of Ukraine, the UPA avoided clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military fearing their offensive action would annihilate them.

I think it is unnecessary to attempt to describe the phenomenon that is the Soviets ridding a territory of the Nazis or even to describe the Soviet presence on given territory. The context of the sentence only requires that we say that UPA did want to face regular Soviet units in battle. So I propose:

As the Red Army approached western Ukraine, the UPA avoided clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military fearing their offensive action would annihilate them.

Regards, Tavrian 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, how is Germany vs USSR a civil conflict? --Tavrian 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

UPA vs. Red Army is a civil conflict, don't be a smartass--Lvivske (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But we're not trying to say that the Red Army liberated the Western Ukraine from UPA, are we? --Tavrian 18:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; and this new suggestion works as well. I say roll with it.--Lvivske (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tavrian's compromise sounds good to me.Faustian (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No self-respecting historian? see the following from google

The Decision to Stay in Russia -- Mariental Massacre Even though the Red Army re-established control over the region, the Red grain commissars who survived the onslaught by the villagers kept a low profile. ... www.mariental-louis.com/decision.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages TDS; Passports, Visas, Travel Documents

Forcing the Germans out of Lithuania by 1944, the Red Army re-established control, and Sovietization continued with the arrival of communist party leaders ... www.traveldocs.com/lt/history.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages Antonenko explains long history of Georgian conflict - The Daily ... When the Red Army re-established control, the open conflict was swept under the rug, but tensions remained. Nonetheless, “tremendous reconciliation” between ... www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/16/21818/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Russia Profile - Antonenko explains long history of Georgian conflict When the Red Army re-established control, the open conflict was swept under the rug, but tensions remained. Nonetheless, “tremendous reconciliation” between ... www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1224176562 - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Bobanni (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I can vouch for Antonenko being an expert in the field of Georgia-Russia relations. (PS: I deleted the double pasting that happened, hope thats alright)--Lvivske (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You google searched "Red Army re-established control" ([24]), found 3 results, and those are your historians? Three links from the whole internet that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and are written by no one. Great find.

And the whole point of my edit was to change the meaning (what's wrong with the English?). I thought that it was unnecessary to attempt to describe the phenomenon that is the Soviets ridding Ukrainian territory of the Nazis or even to describe the Soviet presence on given territory. Why? Because there is already an established term for that - liberation. It is established because it is by and large how the majority of the population of the Ukraine sees it and because it is very common usage in sources on the topic. Read even western literature on Ukraine in 1943/44 (forget about Russian/Ukrainian literature). Even Canadian works, from the depths of Alberta, they'll either call it liberation or nothing at all. And just in case someone's here to shout "communist propaganda" take a look at my favourite example: Antony Beevor(!), "A writer at war" (2005) p 267. --Tavrian 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you're saying that we shouldn't try to invent a bicycle with new terms here, you're right Bobanni. We should use terms that are established used in this context. If you know one other than liberation, I'd love to hear it. --Tavrian 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1 - Meanings of words get lost in translation, if we're writing in english we should use proper english terms to describe the situation 2 - Ukrainian public opinion doesn't make it a historical fact 3 - We have already found other established words other than liberation... 4 - I've done some preliminary searching in some journal databases and am finding "liberation" used exclusively to describe Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union, no descriptions of such for when they joined... 5 - It seems to me that the only ones describing it as liberation are the soviet authorities themselves...--Lvivske (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So what's wrong with Tavrian's version? Why not use that. It is accurate and neutral.Faustian (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have no objections to that one. You guys can sort this new mess out yourselves ;-) --Lvivske (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's break it down:

• List of sources that refer to Red Army activity in Ukraine (43/44) as re-establishing control:
  • 1
  • 2
• List of reputable (even famous) english sources that refer to Red Army activity in Ukraine (43/44) as liberation:
  • Antony Beevor(!), "A writer at war" (2005)
  • John Erickson "The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War With Germany‎" (1999)
  • David Glantz, Aleksander A. Maslov "Fallen Soviet generals" (1998)
  • David Glantz "The Battle for L'vov, July 1944" (2002)
  • David Glantz "The Battle for the Ukraine" (korsun-Shevchenkivski) (2003) - actually all works by David Glantz, probably the best known english language historian (who probably wrote the most material too) when it comes to the Eastern Front.
  • Leonid D. Grenkevich "The Soviet partisan movement" (1999)
  • Also note how they're all published recently, after everyone knew full well of the Soviet terrors. --Tavrian 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And to address your comment:

• "Meanings of words get lost in translation" - are the above sources not in English?
• "Ukrainian public opinion doesn't make it a historical fact" - it makes it a common usage term.
• "have already found other established words other than liberation..." lol, what are those? "re-established control" and its three internet links?
• "I've done some preliminary searching in some journal databases and am finding "liberation" used exclusively to describe Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union, no descriptions of such for when they joined..." - this comment just puzzles me. For one, what journals? Two, who's talking about Ukraine joining the Soviet Union? And three, did you even read what I wrote? Did you see me quoting the CPSU or western historians?
• "seems to me that the only ones describing it as liberation are the soviet authorities themselves" - I guess I have to use Bobanni's tactic to get this through to you ([25]). --Tavrian 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus for Tavrian's version, why not go with that:

As the Red Army approached western Ukraine, the UPA avoided clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military fearing their offensive action would annihilate them.

Faustian (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the problem with this version is that Bobanni feels my changing the meaning of the sentence (and God awful grammar) was unwarranted. So let's discuss terms that should define Soviet presence in Ukraine (1943/44). --Tavrian 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "liberation" would be appropriate for areas east of the 1939 border. For areas west of that border, valid arguments can be made for both "liberation" and "occupation" (same as for Baltics, Poland, etc.). Which is why, to avoid controversy, I support the nuetral version (since UPA operated primarily in areas west of the 1939 border, mention of Soviet troops with regards to UPA have to do with that territory). Bobanni has the right to his opinion, and it does not seem unreasonable. However in this case consensus seems to be for the nuetral version so even if he cannot be convinced we should go with it.Faustian (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

just want to point out that the Ukrainian Liberation Army fought on the German side, so conflict there if using liberation for the opposition.--Lvivske (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If I have to tell you what's wrong with that I think you should reconsider taking part in discussions like this. (P.S. care to fill in that List of sources I outlined nicely for you so we can continue?) --Tavrian 23:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, it's a perfect example of how the word "liberation" is used by both sides in many wars, and how it would be biased to use it in a complex, objective article like this. Example, would it be accurate to say "The Red Army liberated Ukraine from the Ukrainian Liberation Army?" It would be a confusing statement...

PS: Continue what?--Lvivske (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a perfect example of why uses wikipedia uses internal links and footnotes. Confusing grammatically or not, if someone wants to find out what the Ukrainian Liberation Army is they can click on it. Similarly if a reader wanted to find out which sources refer to Soviet liberation of Ukraine they can click on the little blue number. And it becomes difficult for me to argue my point Lvivske, if you won't read what I write. It is irrelevant what both sides of many wars call themselves what matters is academic consensus and the local interpretation. P.S. Continue the discussion of terms that should define Soviet presence in Ukraine (1943/44). --Tavrian 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

local interpretation is ambiguous, and the term was used by locals on both sides. As for your sources, how do you suggest I get my hands on those works? Have a particular database in mind?--Lvivske (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Try a library lol. However you can view most of David Glantz's works on google books. --Tavrian 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pfft, libraries are things of the past.... That said, I'm in a library right now...no time to read this stuff now but I'll get around to it shortly--Lvivske (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No significant foreign support?

Is the following correct? The sources do not seem very authorative, and other sources describe support from m16 and cia. In addition it had German support before it became anti-nazi.

"Among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique in that it had no 
significant foreign support.
Its growth and strength were a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed   
among the people of Western Ukraine"93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This was taken from Orest Subtelny's Ukrainian history book. The point is significant foreign support. The CIA aid, compromised by the double agent Kim Philby, was not significant.Faustian (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany

I have added this category, which reflects the content of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Today views about UPA

The intro says: the majority of the Soviet (eastern) Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been primarily collaborators with the Germans. But the article does not say if they changed there opinion. Are there some polls about that in cerculation? Demonstrations like these ones in 2007seem to sugest there are still Ukrainians who see OUN/UPA to have been primarily collaborators with the Germans. Some views of today opinions about UPA would make this a better article I think. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Woman fighters in UPA?

There where female Soviet partisans operating in Ukraine during World War II, where there also female UPA partisans?
Could be a good expansion of Women in the military. Now it looks there that the Red Army was much more emancipated then it's counterparts. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This book says there where... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

Due to the article's incredible length I had earlier (a few months ago) proposed to split the article: [26] The UPA would retain information about formation, organization, weapons, etc. along woth brief summaries of battles, the massacres of Poles, etc. A separate article, titled "Ukrainian nationalist resistance during and after World War II" would merge this article's invormation about UPA's various battles against Nazis and Soviets with information involving Taras Bulba Borovet's resistance movement as well (this article would, of course, retain a summary of these actions). The article about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia already exists, but there would be a link to it in the summary contained on this article. The model for this split would be to have a situartion roughly comparable to that of the Polish–Ukrainian War and the Ukrainian Galician Army.

When I proposed this a few months ago nobody objected but I thought I'd ask again because considerable time has passed. I am busy now but am hoping to start work on this in a week or two, barring any serious objections.Faustian (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would massacre of Poles stay but actions with Nazis and Soviets go to another article? Just wondering where the distinction is made--Львівске (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Both would stay as summaries and there would be links to the new article about Ukrainian nationalist resistance and to the established article about massacre of Poles in Volyn, respectively.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd like to get the article as sorted and light-weight as possible, will be easier to do the full sweep bias/credibility check afterwards - then I want to finally get down to handling more of the organization and military aspects of it when I have time.--Львівске (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

UPA and Poles Section

Some comments concerning mine and others' edits. It seems that chronologically this section ought to be (and is) a brief summary of the ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volyn with a link to the main article on that topic. These events mostly occurred in the summer of 1943 and lasted through 1944. The events in Poland itself were different - as Timothy Snyder points out, the UPA there consisted of overwhelmingly of local Ukrainians who had nothing to do with the events in Volyn. While the Polish communist government attempted to link the massacres in Volyn with its own ethnic cleansing (Operation Vistula) these events and locations ougth to be kept distinct in the article, as they are now. Given that this section is not about Ukrainians and Poles in general but about the ethnic cleansing (mostly occurring in 1943-1944) specifically, the title of this section ought to reflect this.

I don't object to having a picture in this section, provided that the picture is accurate and appropriate. Given that this section is a brief summary, more pictures than one would seem to be adding undue weight to this aspect of what UPA did. I also don't object to a single sentence describing some of the brutal nature of the killing of Poles. The existance of such acts is well documented in reliable sources (not just Polish or Soviet propaganda) and it would seem, to me, to be appropriate to briefly describe them.Faustian (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not exaggerated, or given undue weight. As it was, "cutting with knives, killing, murdering, disemboweling, etc." why not add punching, kicking, yelling, elbowing, scratching...and any other verb you can think of. Killing is killing, and if there were methods of note then include them.--Львівске (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that briefly highlighting the brutal nature of the attacks is important although more than a sentence of this stuff is certainly excessive and doesn't add anything to the article.Faustian (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be cited, though. The link it refs to is dead. I personally think the wording is way off and maybe not the best, most neutral way of putting things. If the Poles want to put such graphic details in, have a credible verifiable source we can cite. --Львівске (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder's books describe this stuff in a lot of detail.Faustian (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is it available?--Львівске (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Googlebooks has excerpts here: [27]. There is some interesting stuff about brutal Polish reprisals also. Timothy Snyder has written some great books about Ukrainian-Polish relations, and biographies involving fascinating but not too widely known figures in 20th century Ukrainian history: [28] and [29].Faustian (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Ihor Iljuszyn (in Polish and Ukrainian) book about UPA brutal murders of Poles and Ukrainians. Read Grzegorz Motyka book, or Witalij Masłowśkyj here summary. There are many OUN-UPA lies about this genocide. My family survived thanks to Ukrainian neighbour who helped to escaped before UPA assault. But so many Polish were killed.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we talk about the Polish lies, then? It's a two way street --Львівске (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that a section ("Historiography"?) about UPA's portrayal in the various histrorical traditions, which would include among othr things Ukrainian cover-ups of the massacres as well as Polish nationalist and Communist exaggeration of them, would be a great idea.Faustian (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, since that is all news to me. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would help keep things in perspective. I think we should remember to state in the text who claims what, whenever possible. example: "Russian authorities claim the UPA massacred a million innocent Jews and collaborated with Hitler himself" (just making something up there) rather than just taking their 'factoid' and stating it in the article as if universally true.--Львівске (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda photos

Since I'm in a revert war with Pawel over this, we should discuss it further

They come from here: http://www.starwon.com.au/~korey/Wolyn%2043.htm

Is this a credible source by any means? I mean I see Polish propagandists posting these same pics all over Ukrainian websites in a smear campaign, I find it hard to believe wikipedia would allow them to use them here. Are these legit pictures? Propaganda? Without proper credibility, it could be holocaust victims with a new title, no? Such graphic pictures need to be absolutely verified to be in an article like this.--Львівске (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The second image on that website is a well-known hoax. It is of gypsy children murdered in 1923 by their mentally ill mother. This tragedy has been exploited by Polish nationalists and presented as a crime of UPA: [30]. Does the picture being placed here exist on website other than that one? I don't think that we ought to take pictures from websites that post garbage.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is the proof that it is a "well-known hoax"? Loosmark (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He provided a link to the debunking in his post...--Львівске (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok i read that, the linked page says that it was a good faith error rather than deliberate "exploitation by Polish nationalists" as Faustian claims. Loosmark (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the licensing and all we have to go by. The burden of legitimacy is on Pawel here. Below is the licensing summary for the image:

File information

Description	[[Kolonia Lipniki (gm. Berezne, pow. Kostopol). Zwłoki zamordowanych Polaków podczas napadu UPA na kolonię 26 marca 1943 r. Fot. Sarnowski.Zdjęcia dzięki uprzejmości p. Henryka Słowińskiego. Fotografia z książki Ewy i Władysława Siemaszków pt. "Ludobójstwo" tom 2, str. 1294.]]  Template:Country data Краткое описание.
Source	http://www.starwon.com.au/~korey/Wolyn%2043.htm
Date	1943
Author	Władysława Siemaszków, Ludobójstwo, page 1294, from Henryk Słowiński collection
Permission (Reusing this file)	See below.

--Львівске (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The desciption needs to be changed and corrected, otherwise theis stuff will just continue to be reposted over and over again. ҃҃--Bandurist (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP UPA propaganda, there are many sources with this photo. This pictures are true evidence of UPA crimes. I saw it in many books in Poland. There is one true OUN-UPA mourdered about 150 thousands polish cywilians and it cant be any excuse. I am not deleting your informations about UPA fights, despite it is propaganda (Motyka writes about it: UPA had killed 10 German soldiers so lies it was 100) so I demand that u would stop deleting true about Polish genocide. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because polish propagandists publish it, doesn't make it not propaganda!--Львівске (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And one more things AK actions wasnt similiar, Polish soldiers wasnt so cruel as UPA. And it was revenge. But i am not removing that text. --Paweł5586 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You don't honestly believe this garbage do you?--Львівске (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can scream garbage as much as you want but AK's objective was to fight the Nazis, they never planned any ethnical cleansing unlike those "heros" who were massacring women and children. Loosmark (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is garbage to say that AK terrorists did nothing while the UPA are monsters. Nobody is innocent in war, not even the benevolent Pole.--Львівске (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I request you appologise and withdraw the accusation that the AK were terrorists otherwise I will be forced to report you. Loosmark (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They are called terrorists on their own wiki page by the Soviets, will you report facts too? Get over yourself--Львівске (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, stop with the mutual accusations. THAT particular picture is NOT of UPA's killings. I'm not sure it could be called a "hoax" since I think in some sources it was attributed to UPA in good faith (or more precisely without bothering too much to check sources) but it's actually a picture of, if I remember correctly, children killed by a Gypsy mother who went crazy during a famine (possibly Holodomor). I'm also pretty sure that the true origin photograph was revealed by Polish researchers and that it was first publicized in the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita (or, Rzepa) - so there's neither "Polish propaganda" nor Ukrainian attempts at hiding unpleasant fact here. I don't know about the other pics, but I would be inclined to not include them unless independent confirmation of their nature can be found. I hope that when the shoe is on the other foot (sketchy sources on something or other that Poles supposedly did) other editors would likewise err on the side of caution.radek (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

+1--Львівске (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the "+1" supposed to mean, but here's the Rzepa article: [31]radek (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand I think the Lipniki pictures are authentic.radek (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at this photos, the new polish site of Association Commemorating Victims of the Crime of Ukrainian nationalists - source. Pictures are sortes by provinces. Stop telling about UPA as heroes. There is nothing heroic in killing innocent children and woman. These crimes have no excuse. Redgards to you all, specially to Lvivskie. I hope you rethink some things about UPA--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I could care less about your smear site. The UPA were heroes, you're not going to change things with your doublespeak. --Львівске (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

UPA cruelly murdered about 150 thousands innocent people. This is indisputable fact. Thats all. If u want belive they are heroes, your choice. --Paweł5586 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve coverage of UPA cruelty. Still it looks like the Rzecz Pospolita article cited by Radek is credible and the particular image is a fabrication. As we do not include fabrications in the articles please do not include the image unless the Rzecz Pospolita article arguments are refuted in a very credible source Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Propagandists and Jews

From this source: [32], originally published in the Ukrainian Quarterly:

"Jews participated in the UPA as well as other anti-communist and anti-Nazi units. The Soviet propagandists complained,

During the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945, many Zionists were members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army (UPRA). For example, the Zionist Haim Sigal, alias Sigalenko, was a chieftain and 'Bulba's' right-hand man. . . . A number of Zionists such as Margosh, Maximovich, 'Kun' and others were officers in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army."

Faustian (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

now the UPA is even a Jewish friendly organisation? what's next? Loosmark (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say it was nuetral than friendly. You didn't know about the Jews in UPA? Or that 3 members of the OUN's central leadership had Jewish wives? Here is some more: [33]. An excellent and unbiased article about the OUN and Jews is here: [34].Faustian (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It really did vary from location to location.--Львівске (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

LMAO

This is an unbelievable edit: [35]. Apart from the fact that the article does not talk about the 1940s, I find it hilarious that Faustian believes that what Romerstein presents as a bunch of Soviet propaganda claims about anti-Soviet Ukrainian insurgents and Zionists are taken as evidence of some tangible reality when the author of the cited article refers to them as propaganda. The author doesn't claim anything like what you are propounding–that

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

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

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

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