Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

POV: OUN

The current 'backgrounder' on OUN is little more than a hit job. In the crudest possible way, it gives readers the choice of concluding that OUN was either politically like Mussolini's Fascists or Hitler's Nazis. This almost sounds like exaggeration or hyperbole, but that's actually what the text actually says. FFS people, that's completely irresponsible. While the rest of the article has stronger and weaker parts, the basic background about OUN is indefensible as written.

I suggest at minimum that ALL the text in the OUN background section be replaced with more general text from the actual Wikipedia OUN page where the issue is, I'm sure, discussed a bit more balancedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.5.144 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help with the rewriting then, there's a lot of crap on these articles that needs to be weeded out, but we need something to replace it with rather than just deleting. If we delete the obviously biased garbage, someone will just revert it and we'll go in circles.--Львівське (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you won't remove properly sourced material. Unfortunately, you may like it or not, but this is how OUN is characterized by scholars, sometimes even more directly as a fascist movement - e.g. a fascist party supported by Germany.[[1]], Like the Italian and other European fascist movements, the OUN in the 1930s included leaders who sympathized with Nazi Germany and who believed that Adolf Hitler would aid them for ideological reasons[[2]]. The information about OUN being influenced by Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's nazism is also included on the wikipedia OUN page. I think the short info about OUN's ideology (integral nationalism and foreign influences) is crucial and shouldn't be removed/replaced. --Hedviberit (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote much of the OUN stuff and the OUN's links to fascism seem to be well-established. Here it is in Orest Subtelny's book (last paragraph).Faustian (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

latest changes to the article

I think the better explanation of smaller number of victims in Galicia, as compared to Volhynia would be pacifying influence of the Catholic religion, as both Galician Ukrainians and Poles were mostly Catholic. The current explanation in the article "the Poles in Galicia were stronger" is debatable. The Polish-Ukrainian war of 1918-1919 was mostly fought in Galicia. Also OUN was always much more strongly present in Galicia (as compared to Volhynia) before the war. And yet, most terrible events happened in Volhynia, not in Galicia. It indicates that in Volhynia there were some other factors besides the Nationalist ideology. Perhaps some militant peasants have never even heard of OUN and were just imagining themselves some "historical heroes". I am amazed at how many such people live even today. It pertains to people in different countries, unfortunately including Poland as well. If you do not believe - read comments people write about the movie "With Fire and Sword". Instead of thanking God we live now in peace, such people are saying it is a pitty nowadays they cannot lift a sword and charge a crowd of enemies, cutting them like cabbage! No doubt many individuals in Volhynia were imagining themselves to be "noble haydamakas fighting a noble war against the century-old enemy". User:Vox Veritatae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.8.34 (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text based on Snyder

The Snyder book is searchable on Amazon: [3]. While the text added to the article is in the book (in fact, it's taken almost verbatim - thus constituting a copy vio) what's left out is the context of the paragraph and some key passages in the Snyder book. Basically the Polish government in Exile entertained the possibility that, after Hitler's attack on Stalin, the Second World War would end in a similar way as the First World War - with mutual exhaustion of Germany and Soviet Union. In this case they believed that fighting between some Ukrainians and Poles was likely to break out and that this was something that Polish forces should prepare for, since they wished to reestablish pre WWII borders. The "armed occupation" part obviously refers to the fact that this imagined state of affairs would require an increased military presence in those regions of pre war Poland where this was more likely. At the same time, the book states, the Polish Government in Exile supported the idea of an independent Ukraine although they wanted it to be established on pre-war Soviet territory. The text further states that this idea of possible war with some Ukrainians in the event of Russian and German exhaustion became stronger after 1943 due to the collaboration of some Ukrainians with the Nazis.

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

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

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

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

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

OUN-B plans were preemptive - based on the understanding that Poland would try to retake the territory. As Snyder noted on page 168, "the preemptive strikes against Poles envisioned by the OUN-B were not military operations but ethnic cleansing." Your phrase "they just wanted to massacre as many civilians as possible to ethnically cleanse the territory" is just one POV among many. Although there is no doubt that they wanted to ethnically cleanse the territory, and no doubt that they murdered 10,000s of people in brutal ways, there is considerable controversy among historians whether the murders were themselves an OUN-B goal with respect to the ethnic cleansing, whether they were done on the initiative of the local OUN commanders, etc. The idea that the OUN simply wanted to murder for the enjoyment of it or whatever and that national reasons were merely an excuse has been discredited as the fantasy of Polish nationalists: [4]. Faustian (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't like the word "occupation" simply because it seems to be implying that the Poles would be "occupying" politically foreign territory whereas it was pre-war Polish territory (and in this context sort of implicitly equivocates it with "Nazi occupation"). I don't know ... "presence"? "control"? Both of these would make the "swift" grammatically incorrect. Looking it up on the Thesaurus [5] maybe something like "swiftly achieved military control"? "military administration"?radek (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Szawlowski as Recommended Reading

He has been discussed on this talk page twice already - here: [6] and here: [7]. Summary: the man is not a historian, but a lawyer. In his works, he makes claims such as barbarity was a Ukrainian cultural tradition, and that Ukrainians were worse than Soviets, who were worse than Germans. he words of Polish historian Rafal Wnuk [8], "The most serious allegations are made by R. Szawlowski. He claims that all Ukrainians inhabiting ethnically-mixed territories are responsible for ethnic crimes against Poles. He considers these crimes crueler than those committed by Germans or Soviets." Szawlowki's work disparages actual historians while praising obvious propagandists such as Wiktor Poliszczuk. It would be inapropriate to draw readers' attention to Szawlowski as a recommended reading for further information. If we go down that road, we might as well throw in some Ukrainian nationalist sources too. There are surely sources that serve as better recommended reading. Specifically, I'm replacing Szawlowski's work as recommended reading with Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations, described by him as "the first scholarly treatment in English of the totality of Polish-Ukrainian ethnic cleansing between 1943 and 1947" (pg. 9).Faustian (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Background Material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By worst violence he meant in reference to the events of 2-3 November 1938. The author is clearly a reliable source here is his CV: [9] and this review was apparently published by Harvard.Faustian (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your opinion. With all due respect, I prefer what reliable sources say to your opinion. According to the passage excerpted above, such events were common between 1934-1938. The passage states a screaming Ukrainian woman was thrown by a Polish mob into a burning Ukrainian store. A Ukrainian seminary was burned, a precious icon destroyed, other icons defiled, Ukrainian (seminarians?) beaten, two of whom died. Ukrainian university students were brutally attacked by Polish mobs while police watched and then arrested the Ukrainians. This is just what happened in 3 days in November 1938 - and such incidents were going on for 4 years. It's more like how blacks were treated in the American South in the 1930's, than how Corsicans were treated in France. As for "fabrications" - I don't believe that Jeffrey Burds [10] engages in fabrication, do you? Faustian (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Removing Sourced Information?

The same editor Poeticbent, who falsely changed Orest Subtelny's description of hundreds of Orthodox Churches converted or destroyed to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches "[11] (this was proven here: [12]) has now decided to remove sourced material, taken from a book about the OUN and UPA published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. This book has previously been online but apparently no longer is. As far as I know, wikiepdia policy doesn't demand that all works must be online to be relaible sources. I will ask this editor to stop blanking the page please. If he has constructive grammatical changes to make, he shouldn't mix them with the blanking. When I have time I go back and re-add the other changes he makes after removing his blanking, but not always.Faustian (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I provided the link to show how you falsified what Subtleny wrote. Here is what you did: [13]. You changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches" to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches", with Subtleny as the source. Here is Subtleny's book: [14]. Third paragraph states "the authorites ransferred about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." So, clearly you falsified what Subtleny wrote in your disruptive edit.

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

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

Reorganization

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

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

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

Orders

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. My understanding is that zgładzeni is translated as "destroyed" rather than "killed." Basically he was calling for the ethnic cleansing - liquidation - of the Polish population in Galicia. He did not clearly call for their deaths, rather their disappearance. Liquidate can mean either putting an end to/abolishing or killing [16]. The order can be understood either as "the killing of Poles is necessary" or "the abolishment of Poles is necessary." Obviously some commanders did the latter. If the order had used the words zabyt, ubyt, morduwat, narznac, etc. it would have been much more clear. I wish someone could come up with the original order in Ukrainian so this could be clarified further. The bottom line, however, is that we have to rely on the interpretations of the primary sources by secondary sources rather than conduct our own research. Use the conclusions of Motyka or Filar, and add direct quotes only insofar as they support those historians' conclusions.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, "zgladzeni" equals "killed", or perhaps more accurate is the word "slayed". I suppose every Pole will understand "zgladzeni" as killed with no possibility to self defence.

--83.2.224.25 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let us stick to the topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Information

While details about, say the borders of the West Ukrainian Republic are obviously irrelevent on this article, information about Polish policies and the Ukrainian reaction to them are very relevent in terms of helping to explain what happened later. This is not just my opinion, it is stated by a reliable source [17] "Ukrainian anti-Polish feelings did not develop in a vacuum, and no account of the process of escalation towards ethnic cleansing is complete without paying close attention to the interwar period..." This is also rather implicit in Snyder's acount and why he included that ominous quote by the young Volhynian about decorating the pillar with the Pole and the tree with his wife. I find it ironic that you, loosmark, choose to delete this information while at the same time you try to include the information about the German desruction of Warsaw in the article about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. There loosmark wrote [18]: "It was one of the biggest crimes against the Poles plus the capital was completely devastated by the Nazi bandits. It is therefore useful to explain why many Polish people felt they cannot longer live in the same country with Germans anymore. You know to prevent the casual reader of the article thinking these expulsion came "out the blue". Loosmark (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with him. Let's be consistant here, to prevent the casual reader fromthinking that the masacres happened "out of the blue." I will note that loosmark did not remove the information about the OUN-B hateful totalitarian ideology that I placed in the article, nor the OUN-B's participation in the murder of Jews that I also included in this article. He just removed the information about the bad things that Poles did.Faustian (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting parallels: Germans devastate Warsaw, brutaly killing over 100.000 civilians and what did the Poles do? They expeled them. Poles don't give all the rights to the Ukrainian minority, close schools etc. What did the Ukrainian do? Massacre 10.000s innocent civilians. Completely absurd to compare the 2 things. Also please note that on the expulsion of Germans article we only wanted to insert a single sentence and there were big dramas all over. Loosmark (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But the argument you gave involved understanding why it happened - to know that it didn't happen "out of the blue." I am not suggesting that the massacres were justified. I am explaining why that happened. And this stuff explains it. As said by a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A good question is what should be regarded as the main cause of the massacres - the policies of the Polish government in the 1930s, Nazi and Soviet policies in the 1940s, or insane policies of the OUN. I personally would choose the third one, as I find it difficult to grasp the link between closing of Ukrainian schools and mass slaugter of newborn children and their mothers. Please note that killed were numerous ethnic Ukraininians who did not want to cooperate with the Banderists. On a side note - Polish researchers created a list of 500 brave Ukrainians who helped their Polish neighbors, risking their own lives.Tymek (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tymek. If the closing of schools would be a plausable reason for huge scale mass-massacres then the world would be full of such events. No, the reality of the matter is that was the first excuse they could think of, had the school not been closed they would have just found something else. Loosmark (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing is to reach some kind of agreement here. I am hoping that we will come to a conclusion, without losing our cool. I have a personal request to Loosmark and Pawel - Faustian has shown himself to be a reliable editor, and it should be appreciated by Polish users. So no personal attacks, please, as they lead to no good. Tymek (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tymek on this one.--Jacurek (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the OUN - specifically its extremist Banderist faction -had more to do with it than destroying churches. IT channeleld the anger into a murderous direction. This is why I placed the section about Polish government policies as a subsection of "Radicalization of Ukrainian Society and the Rise of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists." It helps explain how the main factor behind the massacres - the OUN-Bandera becoming popular and strong enough to do what it did - was possible. This simply follows what reliable sources tell us about the underlying causes. If you want to know how and why the massacres occurred, you have to know the story about how the OUN became popular and how it got into a position to do what it did. Polish persecution of Ukrainians in the 1930s is an important part of that story. Soviets wiping out moderate Ukrainian politicians who would have opposed Bandera, or presented an alternative to his movement, is another part of that story. Germany employing Bandera's men as policemen, giving them training and weapons, is another part of that story. All three of these factors are included in this article, quite correctly I think. This article has 9 paragraphs about the massacres in Galicia and Volyn. One paragraph devoted to the scene in Poland in the 1930s does not seem excesive. More could be added, but this seems reasonable.Faustian (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938.

Many editors seem to be aware of the complexity of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Ukraine in the mid 1930s and in 1943 and Poland in 1947,

"The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone.

Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938.

Polish members of the 'En-De' ('National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization) attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitories in Warsaw, unhindered by Polish police who stood by watching the brutal violence, and who waited until the end of the riots to arrest Ukrainian students for disturbing the peace.

Several Ukrainian institutes were attacked, with the subsequent "destruction of everything that falls into the hands of the aggressors." A Ukrainian shop was destroyed when Polish "nationalist fanatics" set fire to the interior and then hurled a screaming young Ukrainian woman into the flames. The worst violence occurred at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, located a mere 200 meters from the central office of the Polish state police.

In the Polish crowd's iconoclastic rage, irreparable damage was done to the interior of the Ukrainian church, where icons were defiled and a priceless portrait of St. Peter destroyed. The seminary was ravaged as the angry Polish crowd systematically broke apart furniture and hurled the pieces through broken windows to the streets below. In all, at least eight Ukrainians were hospitalized with serious injuries, and two were killed. Consistent with its usual policy, the official Polish press remained mysteriously silent about such incidents. And wherever possible, the Polish police confiscated and suppressed Ukrainian underground newspapers and publications where the incidents were discussed."

as quoted by Jeffrey Burds, Northeastern see (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/comment13.htm) Bobanni (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There werent any pogroms in 1934-38. In 1930 was pacification action. --Paweł5586 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there were no "pogroms". As I have already written somewhere else even in today's modern countries like Germany or France there are cases of ethnical intolerance and violence and sometimes people get killed just because of their nationality. Loosmark (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review wp:OR

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means thatWikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Bobanni (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And what original research that did i bring up? Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark gave his opinion, which he has the right to do, that there were no pogroms. The reliable source states differently, but loosmark has the right to express his disagreement. THe article ought to, of course, reflect reliable sources rather than editror opinions. As for the analogy with Germany, I don't recall, in two days, a screaming Turkish woman being thrown into s burning store byu German mobs, a Turkish seminary being destroyed by another mob which killed 2 people, and a Turkish dormitory being assaulted by yet another German mob while the police stood by and watch. And in 1934-1938 there were many such cases in Poland against Ukrainians. Faustian (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[19] [20] Loosmark (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd link clearly says "there were no indications that the blaze was the result of a racist attack" --Львівське (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, feel free to create a new article Anti-Ukrainian pogroms in Poland, 1934-1938, with a link to it in this article, marked For more information, see:. But please do not mix topics and do not put everything in already overstretched article. I have no doubt that there was discrimination against Ukrainians in the Second Polish Republic, but the number of victims of policies of Polish government was next to nothing. I am pretty sure that in 1934 - 1938, terrorists of OUN killed more Polish civilians. Anyway, a new article is the only solution here. Tymek (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no pogroms, the correct title of such an article should be Polish-Ukrainian relationships 1934-38. Loosmark (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps expand the History of Ukrainian minority in Poland, which is already linked. Tymek (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There were numerous encounters between the Polish and Ukrainian populations in the period leading up to "the" ethnic cleansing, and there were numerous occasions where Ukrainians were killed in these scurmishes, and the actions reported in the Western press. The whole process was one of conflict escalation whose roots can be found in the fact that the long promised Ukrainian autonomy was not delivered by the Polish government which at that time had transformed itself into a dictatorship. Indeed just the opposite happened. Just this weekend I ran across a number of articles published in the "Manchester Guardian" which wrote about the escalation of conflict in the 1930's analysing and discussing the situation that lead to the conflict.

As the article stands right now, it seems that suddenly, right out of the blue, after the issue of a decree by the OUN and because of this decree, widespread massacres commenced. No. It was a continued escalation where two sides were unable to come to a compromise that lead to these actions becoming so bitter. As a result everyone suffered. I will see about locating the articles and typing some out.Bandurist (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mentioning those events, but if you wish to describe them further, a new, separate article is the best solution. Here, we are dealing with mass slaughter of Polish population of Volhynia, not with Polish - Ukrainian relationships in the 1930s. They are good for a background, and a mention is necessary. Still, I find it weird when some of you here compare a burned Ukrainian store to 100 000 murdered civilians. Tymek (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the article is long enough that the level of description of events in the 1930's is not excessive. It's only one paragraph - compared to nine paragraphs and pictures of the massacres. Se the article about the Armenian Genocide - two entire sections devoted to description of the Ottoman empire in the 19th century and the disssolution of the Empire. The burning store was used as an example that stood for many such events, just as numerous examples of Poles beheaded etc. within the main part of the article stand for many such events also.Faustian (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One more remark on the discriminatory policies of Polish government in the 1930s, and their connection to the massacres. We should all bear in mind that Polish rule of Volhynia ended in September 1939. All Polish policemen, soldiers, civil servants, osadniks were sent to Siberia, or killed in Katyn. Therefore, those whom some Ukrainians regarded as oppressors, disappeared from Volhynia forever. After German invasion, in 1941 and most of 1942, nothing major happened between Poles and Ukrainians in that area, with occasional violence. The massacres began on a large scale in summer 1943, four years after Polish rule had ended. All Polish police were by then dead, what remained of Polish population of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were mostly poor peasants, many of them poorer than the Ukrainians. The structure of Home Army did not exist there until late 1943, also due to the fact that almost all Polish males capable of organizing those units had been sent to Siberia. Should those peasants and their children be regarded responsible for mistakes of Polish rule four years earlier? Perhaps some see a link there, I do not. Tymek (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Burds explicitly and Snyder implictly make that link. Of course practically all of the Polish victims were innocent of the persecution against Ukrainians. This probably should be included in the article. Just as most of the Ukrainians west of the new Polish border, killed by Polish forces, were innocent of the Volyn massacres. Hatred, unfortunately, is often collective.Faustian (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure, which new border do you have in mind? Loosmark (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didnt find any information about "anti Ukrainian" pogroms in 1934-1938 in Motyka's books, Torzecki also. It is nationalist propaganda trying to excuse UPA genocide. I found many informations about very good Polish-Ukrainian relatons beetwen communities. There were many mixed marriage, shared celebrating Christmas and Easter ect. Here are some stories of witnesses in Polish. One example: Współżycie mieszkańców wsi, bez względu na narodowość i wyznanie, układało się poprawnie. Była to swoista symbioza dwóch narodowości i dwóch religii. W rozmowach towarzyskich posługiwano się obu językami. Obchodzono wzajemnie święta obu wyznań. Istniała daleko posunięta wzajemna tolerancja językowa i wyznaniowa.

It means: Co-existing of country inhabitants, no matter of the nationality and faith, were correct. It is a specific symbiosis between two nationalities and two religions. We used both languages to speak between Polish and Ukrainian. We together celebrated Christmas nad Easter. An advanced mutual linguistic and religious tolerance existed. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Burds is hardly "nationaliast propoganda." Moreover he cited the words of the Papal Nuncio - is that "nationalist propaganda" also? Here is a book by Anna Reid - Ukrainian nationalist? - [21]. Read the excerpt from the New York Herald Tribune on the bottom of the page, and tell me how wonderful relations were before the war. Faustian (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Organization

Before, after the lead, the article had followed chronological order of events preceding the massacres and then the massacres. Now some changes have been made without an explanation of why they were demed necesary. We now have the background pushed to the back (and mixed up - the Polish policies of the 1930's have been placed before background information of the 1920's). Typically background belongs in chronological order - see Rwandan Genocide where a disucssion of the civil war and catalysts precede the massacres. Of Armenian Genocide where two sections, one a discussion of events from the late 19th century and a second about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, precede a description of the Armenian genocide itself. In addition to placing the background at the end of the article, the logical organization within the background section has also been removed. All of those reasons basically showed how the OUN was able to do what it did. Now they are listed as seperate events, seemingly unconnected with each other and only to the massacres. I am restoring their proper place.Faustian (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to simply move things around but everything was so mixed up that I ended up merely restoring the last version, by loosmark, and will have to go back to add the grammar or other changes.Faustian (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to know how to write well, so please let me take care of the article's structure. First, do not lose track of the broader picture. Squabbles by prewar nationalists are one thing, but committed atrocities are quite another. That’s why the section Responsibility has been expanded and moved down to deal with excessive details of the Polish-Ukrainian past with proper weight. Some of the edits which attempted to paint that sort of thing with carefully selected words have been placed at the bottom. Nothing was omitted from the article. However, please keep in mind that the victims cannot be made responsible for their own murderous death. --Poeticbent talk 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the format of other mass murders such as the Armenian Genocide which logically show the events preceding the massacres, then the massacres, and then the aftermath. Please refrain from personal attacks, and please do not try to take possession of the article by unilaterally completely altering its structure. We already have an example of you falsifying information, being uncivil, etc. here: [22]. Please refrain from such behavior. Thank you.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of some articles about massacres. Note that each article includes information about the background and preceding leading up to the killings, them the murders, and then the aftermath and other stuff. The Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, Lwów pogrom (1918, etc.Faustian (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You remind me of another Wikipedian who made my life a living hell until he finally went away one day. I already said, your edits are thoughtless and sloppy. You have no talent for writing. Meanwhile, everybody is taking a stab at this article and so, it needs a revamp once in a while. Out of courtesy, I won’t call you a liar for your numbing reinsertions of bad links as references, so please extend the same courtesy to me and google yourself the information you delete. Since you brought up the examples, look at Rwandan Genocide again. The actual massacres are much closer to the beginning... and for a good reason. --Poeticbent talk 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks, followed by yet another false statement. In the article Rwandan Genocide , there are five sections preceding the one about the genocide itself. If you continue to change the order to one that is not chronological, which is different from many other articles on various other massacres, your change of order will be reverted. If you choose to embed other info into your disruptive edit, unfortunately that might also be collatoral damage. Perhaps you can make the good edits first, and then do your disruption, so that only your disruption will be reverted. But the choice is yours. Faustian (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I consider this hopeless exchange finished, editorial bullying notwithstanding. This is the last time I’m acknowledging Faustian's attitude problems with a personal reply. Article Rwandan Genocide has 19 sections – the Genocide section is number 5. The article Armenian Genocide has 16 section – the Genocide particulars are under sections 1, 2 and 3, and so on. There’s no need to whitewash what happened in Volhynia with a barrage or peripheral info placed up front. And don't threaten me with collateral damage, because you're not a soldier, OK? --Poeticbent talk 16:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you refuse to discuss your changes that make this article different from so many other ones. The Armenian Genocide has sixteen sections. The section on the genocide itelf is the third section, following the prelude [23] (with 3 subsections including life under Ottoman rule, reform implementation of the 1860's etc.) and the dissolution of the empire sections [24]. As you correctly state, out of the 19 sections about Rwanda the actual genocide begins in section 5. The current version of this article has 11 sections. The massacres are the second one. This is completely in line with other articles and is logical. Before we describe the massacres, we write what led up to them. All info is sourced to reliable sources, and indeed one of those reliable sources hiomself stated that the events did not occur in a vaccum and the background is necessary in order to understand.

You assume bad faith and falsely accuse me of whitewashing the massacres. This is out of line. I am the person who wrote and added to the background section, the information about how the UPA learned to kill Polish civilians by helping the Germans to kill Jews. That is hardly the act of someone wishing to "whitewash" what happened in Volhynia.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Before my reorganization
Article length: 40,513 characters
1. Lead: 2,732 characters
2. Politicized whitewash: 12,267 characters
3. The article subject description: 20,991 characters
4. Closing statements: 4,523 characters

After
Article length: 40,513 characters
1. Lead: 1,864 characters
2. Introduction of the subject: 3,103 characters
3. The article subject description: 17,433 characters
3. Historical discourse after the fact: 18,047 characters

--Poeticbent talk 04:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad to hear that you describe reliably sources background infromation as "politicized whitewash."Faustian (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Everything is a matter of proper perspective (which you lack, having no talent for writing), so let me explain it to you. If you insert, at the beginning of the article, kilobytes of text written decades after the fact "pointing fingers", and you don't say what actually happened, that's "whitewash". But, if you put that text after the article subject, than the "kilobytes" become a historical discourse. Its all after the fact, not before. --Poeticbent talk 05:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again you are uncivil. What happened is in the lead, and there is moreover a picture of slaughtered people at the top of the article. No whitewash. As I have already written, I was the person who added the material about UPA members learning how to slaughter Poles by ehlping the Nazis murder Jews. So your accusation that I am somehow "whitewashing" UPA crimes is patently false. Indeed, you began moving the events preceding the massacres out of chronological order and into the back of the article only when some information about what Poles did was placed there. The reason it was placed there was because a reliable source explictly stated that these acts were a contributing factor. Someone else seems to want to be whitewashing here.Faustian (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni's edits

Bobanni in case you have missed it, this is an article about the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. The Wisła action has nothing to do with the Massacres of Poles and it has its own article here Operation Wisła. I therefore ask you to remove the text you have added to the article. Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Both deal with ethnic cleansing = Operation Wisla according to many realiable sources was seen as retaliation to the Massacres. So there is a link between both articles - hence the "main" tag. Bobanni (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not connection between the two things. The events in Volhynia were mass scale massacres of innocent women and children for the sole purpose of ethnical cleansing. Loosmark (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I brief section about reprisals against Ukrainians in Poland (with a link to the Operation Vistula) article would seem to be be appropriate. I agree that Bobanni's version can be trimmed a lot, to one paragraph, because it is peripheral. But I'm not sure it deserves complete removal. There is certainly a connection between the expulsion of Ukrainians from southeastern Poland and the Volyn massacres. Look at page 194 of Snyder's Reconstruction book: [25]. At the request of the Soviets, "on September 1945 Polish authorities ordered three infantry divisions to deport remaining Ukrainians to the Soviet Union. The ranks of two of these three divisions included Poles from Volhynia, some of whom exacted personal revenge for the slaughter of 1943. Polish soldiers killed hundreds of Ukrainian civilians as they forced about twenty-three thousand of them to evacuate the country in late 1945...one example must stand for dozens of others. At Pluto's orders, Polish soldiers murdered the civilian inhabitants of Zawadka Morochowska on 25 January 1946. Soldiers killed 56 people, mostly women, childrena nd the aged. They burned people alive, mutilated faces with bayonets, disemboweled the living."Faustian (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wisła operation wasn't ethnical cleansing in the classical meaning. It was undertaken by the communists because the Ukrainians resisted the communist authorities. There is no connection between the two events as the communists simply wanted to get rid of elements which could be dangerous for them. For example the whole operation started on 28 March 1947 hours after the communist general Karol Świerczewski was assasinated. Loosmark (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Snyder disagrees: [26] Page 197: "It does not follow, however, that resettling the entire Ukrainian population was only considered in the context of the war with the UPA...Resttlement was designed to ensure that Ukrainian communities could never agian arise in Poland, that postwar Poland would be, in the terms postwar Communists inherited from interwarnationalists, a "national state."Faustian (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that disagrees with what i wrote; yes the communists decided to make ethnically homogeneous state but they did not do that to punish Ukrainians for their crimes in Volhynia, frankly they didn't care about that, they simply wanted to maintain maximum control on society and the UPA was seen as sth which challenged their authority. Loosmark (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Wisla was a final chapter of that sad period, but I think discussion about it, and all possible edits should be carried out on the proper talk page. I cannot resist a remark. While Polish government apologized for this shameful resettlement of Ukrainians, current Ukrainian government hails such people as Shukhevych as heroes, with official celebrations and monuments dedicated to them. Tymek (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion - double memory

This article on a major inter-ethnic conflict suffers from what Jeffery Burd describes as:

"The task of reconciliation of these disparate memories is not only daunting, but in fact guarantees that the historian's motives will be impugned no matter how diligent the research, or how conscientious his or her efforts to be fair. And when we refocus our attention to multiethnic zones like Galicia, the struggle for totality becomes even more daunting, as we move from "double memory" to ethnically distinct multiple memories of shared events."

With this article representing the Polish "memory" and aggresive deletion by many editors of the Ukrainian "memory" thereby impacting the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Bobanni (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is topic about Massacres of Poles not about operation Vistula! Stop playing games. Nobody in operation Vistula had died. People in Jaworzno camp died because of typhus.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Bobanni. I think that because the relevant background information is included, the nuetral. If this article was based purely on Polish sources and included only the massacres and nothing else, than indeed it would be only a "Polish memory." However, we have info by Snyder, Burds, etc. and the picture seems to be more or less complete.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag keeps getting removed. The comments relate to "I don't think so" without any real discussion. Some discussion takes place in Operation Wisla article. Much of the article relates to historic stereotypes common to many conflicts ethnic conflicts. Please leave both tags in place until dispute is resolved. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

From POV discussion in Wikipedia

Information suppression

In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent or conceal the full range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Some examples of how editors can accidentally or deliberately misrepresent a subject:

• Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
  • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but under-representing (even deleting) opposing views in order to make an opinion appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.
  • Making one's own opinion look superior by omitting points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POV's (strawman tactics), or not presenting the other as best it can be.
  • Finding fault with some opposing evidence (usually the easiest to attack, and often not a neutral assessment), and using that (again as a strawman) to dismiss or ignore other (often stronger) evidence.
  • Selectively citing a source or ignoring important caveats and limitations, in order to make a source appear to support a view or conclusion that is more extreme than the plain reading of the source implies. (Ie, trying to make a source say more than it actually says)
• Variable or double standards, eg:
  • Citing lower quality evidence for one side but rejecting credible opposing evidence as inadequate.
  • Minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question or that support alternative views.
• Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions either have no substance, or nothing to defend themselves with, and using this as a reason to under-represent it:
  • Generalizing an opinion held by "some" or "many" as if it is held by "all" (or "all credible") sources, while treating an opposing view as not being held by anyone credible.
  • Ignoring an opposing view, question or discussion point on the basis that those upholding it are claimed to be misinformed.
  • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
  • Ignoring or deleting views, research or information from sources which would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms. (This may be done on spurious grounds such as not being "valid enough")
  • Concealing or misrepresenting (or non-neutrally representing) relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to judge their value.

Science and objective, verifiable sources often conflict with subjective and unverifiable claims derived from religion and pseudoscience. It is to be expected that Wikipedia articles will give extra space in articles to POVs based on verifiable science while limiting the amount of space devoted to unverifiable POVs that are based on subjective belief systems.

In summary, credible sources often cover many points of view, and even recognized credible sources can be cited in a non-neutral way. So verifiability and proper citation are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview.

Bobanni (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But this is not relevant here. Also, please next time, just link to the page you're referring to rather cut and pasting a huge swath of text here.radek (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prometheism - Polish support for Ukrainian independence

The article should in the background (briefly) Prometheism, the Polish policy of supporting the cause of Ukrainian independence and weakening the SU in the 1920s. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting the Background and Preceding Events After the Massacres?

I would appreciate feedback from other editors on this. The version prior to the editors changes began with the lead describingt he massacres, thenthe events building up to the massacres (basically the story of how the murderous Bandera fation of the OUN got into a position to commit them), thent he massacres, followed by other information.

As I had mentioned, this order followed the precedent of other articles on similar topics. The Armenian Genocide has sixteen sections. The section on the genocide itelf is the third section, following the prelude section [27] (with 3 subsections including life under Ottoman rule, reform implementation of the 1860's etc.) and the dissolution of the empire sections [28]. Out of the 19 sections about Rwanda the actual genocide begins in section 5. The current version of this article has 11 sections. The massacres are the second one. This is completely in line with other articles and is logical. Before we describe the massacres, we write what led up to them. All info is sourced to reliable sources, and indeed one of those reliable sources himself stated that the events did not occur in a vaccum and the background is necessary in order to understand.

Any comments about the order?Faustian (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored the order. The new images even fit better in this order. Any comments?Faustian (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on reorganization

Ok I think there's two related issues here:

• Organization - Whether the sub sections "Radicalization of Ukrainian Society", "Polish-Ukrainian relations before World War II", "Policies conducted by the Soviet Union (1939–1941)", "Policies conducted by Nazi Germany (1941–1943)" (or their renamed equivalents) belong in the Background section or in the Responsibility section.
• Appropriate length of the background section relative to the rest of the article. Of course, moving the "Policies" and "Radicalization" subsections from Responsibility to Background - this is why these two issues are related - makes the background section too big.

In it s current version [29] the background section seems too long. In the last version before the re-organization of the article [30] (by Pawel5586) one could argue the Background section is too skimpy with a lot of the important context information down below in the Responsibilities section.

Of course Wikipedia has no set policy on this, but other similar articles can be used as a sort of rule of thumb. I looked at Armenian Genocide and Rwandan Genocide and did a character count for each (w/o spaces since then things like number of subsections would have an impact). I calculated what percentage of the article main body (i.e. excluding the lede, the "See Alsos", references and things like "timeline" and "films about") is taken up by what is the background section.

For Rwandan Genocide: I take the two sections "Civil War" and "Preparations for the Genocide" to be the Background section. The rest of the main text goes from the section "Facts" to the end of the section "Resistance to the Rwandan genocide" (I did not include the time line). The background is then 3011 characters (w/o spaces) and rest of the main article text is 34580 characters. The background section is thus 8% of the overall main article text.

For Armenian Genocide: I took "Prelude" and "Dissolution of the Empire" as the background sections. For rest I went from "Armenian Genocide, 1915–1917 period" to end of Art sub section in the Commemoration section (including the list of films would make the background section smaller %). The background is 7970 characters. Rest of text is 47815 characters. So the background section is thus about 14% of the overall main article text.

Ok, doing the same thing for the two version of the article. Pawel's last version [[31]] of the article has the background section at about 8% of the article. The current version has background as 32% (1/3) of the article.

Based on this, I think the currently the background section is way too long, though the 8% previously is probably too skimpy. So length argues for the old version, chronology argues for the newer version, since most of the stuff that was moved from the "Responsibility" section happened before the massacres.

Ideally, IMO, we would like to preserve the present structure for the sake of chronology, but shorten the background section to about 15% of the main article body. This would involve removing some stuff, rewording, and also deciding if any of the moved material can go back into the responsibility section.

Yes, this is where the tedious nitty gritty work comes in.radek (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll start getting to work on that.Faustian (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent blanket reverts at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

User Faustian (talk · contribs) – who is Ukrainian – attempts to WP:OWN the article called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, written about the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Poland during World War II. Many times before already I turned away from this article (which I co-wrote) because of his attitude. The article, created mostly by Polish Wikipedians has been taken over by Faustian in recent past – trying to present the massacres rather as a military conflict – with the tens of thousands of Polish and Jewish genocide victims painted by him as some sort of regular armed forces consisting of actual troops (these are his citations) thus causing their own deaths by defending themselves against the Ukrainian perpetrators. Faustian’s most recent edit war conducted for many days in bad faith (wiping out good refs, reinserting bad links and promoting politicized finger-pointing) goes on, with WP:AN/EW report regardless of his continued blanket reverts. —Poeticbent (via posting script) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No appeal to reason worked so far because of his hidden objective which is to make the Poles responsible for what happened to them. Faustian insists on inserting – ahead of the article’s subject — kilobytes of text (sometimes peripheral and minute) written decades after the fact "pointing fingers" at individuals and veering off the subject of massacres into the Ukrainian independence movement. As a result, what actually happened in Volhynia is being described, via his edit war, towards the end of the article which I attempted to correct. Faustian refuses to accept that the issues of responsibility belong after the article subject – as part of the historical discourse taking place decades later. —Poeticbent (via posting script) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are the ones trying to own the article, reverting and contesting cited information. He's just trying to make the article better and without its original Polish bias.--Львівське (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually only Poeticbent is engaged in doing this on this article. The accusations by him against me are false. This section is a request for comment on the order of the article, not a forum for personal attacks. Suffice to say that I am the editor who created this section of the article: [32] outlining Ukrainian involvement in the murder of Volhynia's Jews and how the Ukrinians committing this crime learned how to massacre the Poles later. This is hardly the work of someone attempting to whitewash Ukrainian actions. But I will say no more on that - it's not the subject of the RFC.

As I had mentioned in the previous section on the talk page, the order follows the precedent of other articles on similar topics. The Armenian Genocide has sixteen sections. The section on the genocide itelf is the third section, following the prelude section [33] (with 3 subsections including life under Ottoman rule, reform implementation of the 1860's etc.) and the dissolution of the empire sections [34]. Out of the 19 sections about Rwanda the actual genocide begins in section 5. The current version of this article has 11 sections. The massacres are the second one. This is completely in line with other articles and is logical. Before we describe the massacres, we write what led up to them and what made them possible. The version that Poeticbent keeps reverting includes all the factors that made the massacres possible, taken from reliable sources. Indeed one of those reliable sources himself stated that the events did not occur in a vaccum and the background is necessary in order to understand.Faustian (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RFCs are supposed to be neutral. Poeticbent, I am highly disappointed in your tone and attitude here - you are obviously pro-Polish and anti-Ukrainian. I am a Polish editor myself, and I see both sides at fault, but as a Polish editor, I would like to implore YOU to take a deep breath and cool down. I hope that the Ukrainian editors can do the same thing; in any case, this RfC statement needs to be revised to be less partisan. Briefly - I see both sides (Polish and Ukrainian editors) edit warring here, using emotional language and biased nationalistic sources. This needs attention from neutral editors, and those Polish and Ukrainian editors who can manage to stay as neutral as possible. As far as I see it, the editors who has been editing this recently (Poeticbent, Faustian, Lviske) fail at that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where any of my edits have failed being nuetral? I will make any necessary changes to fix them.Faustian (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring and you are exchanging personal attacks with Poeticbent. I don't have time to analyze content edits in more detail, but edit warring and personal attacks on both sides are a good indication that neither party is neutral and reasonable. Please cool down as well, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is an inaccurate statement. "Personal attacks on both sides" is inaccurate. He has claimed that I have vbeen "lying through my teeth", can't write, etc. etc. Look at how he worded his RFC. I have stated that he has falsified information; this is a fact and I provided the diffs and the links to the googlebooks site that proves that what I said was not an attack but a factual description. As for edit warring, my warring consisted of restoring the previous version of the article and asking for discussion before making the massive and controversial changes. I did so without violating 3RR, unlike the other party. Please do not equalize the two parties here or claim that I am not nuetral or reasonable.Faustian (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being neutral? BS --Львівське (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (via RfC): It is wikipedia's policy to be NPOV. Since I have hardly any idea about the basics of this case, I can truly speak from that perspective. I have read the discussion and the claims, and what I notice is a conflict doing on, as well as a persistent disagreement. In such cases, NPOV means this: both sides should be included, in a sense of "Whereas some believe that< source >..., others say that< source >..." - this is usually the most reasonable way to deal with any conflicts in a reporting, and uninvolved fashion. (That, by the way, is why I refrain from writing about any issue that I might be emotionally involved with. If I had a say, I would advise that neither those who identify as Polish nor those who identify as Ukrainian should majorly contribute to this.) Seb az86556 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that editors who have strong emotions about this topic should probably be very careful in editing it in order to make sure they're doing so in a NPOV way, I don't think the suggestion that Polish or Ukrainian editors should not contribute to this article is very constructive. Polish and Ukrainian editors are most likely the only ones with the sufficient background knowledge, access to sources, ability to read them and knowledge as to how to find new ones which are all necessary for writing a good article (also, I think Eastern Europeans have had enough of having their history written by semi-clueless and condescending Western European writers). If everyone tries to approach the subject in a mature, calm manner then I think it's possible to cooperate here. Whatever one's nationality/ethnicity.radek (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note my wording: "Identify as". There's a difference. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (via RfC): I am a bit disappointed that participants in this discussion identify each other as belonging to different national groups rather than just being wikipedians. The mere mentioning by some, that they co-wrote the article suggests that it is the author of the RfC that is trying to OWN the article. By just reading the introduction it becomes clear that the article is indeed one-sided and biased. There is a detalied description of atrocities commited by Ukrainians but not a word about 20,000 Ukrainians killed by Poles at the same time.[35] Take a look at the German article for a balanced representation of events. Let different views supported by sources be expressed. This is a very complex and contentious issue. I suggest using talk more often to voice concerns and try things there before posting and revert-warring in the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  It begins there, but lets not forget the arguments that ensued after the pro-polish editors here persistently pushed remove or hide the information about the historical background that lead to the attacks. These "blanket reverts" have been mostly combating this these biases, or putting sections in the correct order (re: chronologically)--Львівське (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  This article has its specific topic and of course does not cover all the historical Polish-Ukrainian relations. On the other hand, most of things have their reasons and especially in such a contentious topic it is important to explain the background of the tragic events. The Polish- Ukrainian tensions that originated already in the beginning of the 20th century, escalated over the following years, and culminated in the Volhynia slaughter. Other events followed, as the fights in Eastern Galicia, the post-war fights in the Bieszczady (which deserves its own article, too), and the final Operation Wisła. Nevertheless, let's not forget that this article has a very specific topic of its own. --Lysy^talk 08:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone and all

I've sequestered myself in a valiant attempt to just work on some content for a while, however, we seem to be in another which ethnic group is more evil to whom quagmire and I felt compelled to finally participate. I would view myself as both pro-Polish and pro-Ukrainian (if one were seeking to apply labels, might as well get that one out of the way), ergo neutral, here. I'll try to make some time to take a look through in more detail over the next few days/week. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  17:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that folks need to calm down and discuss. Please, no attacks on other editors writing style or stuff about "propaganda".radek (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your opinion. Please see my comments in the previous section.Faustian (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look over it - since I've been absent from this article for awhile, please give me some time to catch up with the most recent changes.radek (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your engagement here is highly appreciated. Thank you for taking your time, as an uninvolved person, your input and comments are very welcome. Tymek (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

double memory?

I think the last sentence, "The historical records of both Polish and Ukrainian sources are often based on historical stereotypes making it difficult to determine an accurate picture of what happened.[7]" is good and should be used in the intro, but that's it. Otherwise it looks redundant to me, and out of place.

Indeed, seams superfluous and too generic. I'll move the last sentence to the intro and remove the rest as you suggest. --Lysy^talk 08:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's too vague, generic, and seems to be "undermining" the rest of the article. We know: who-what-when-where-why-how. The given source is a fragment of Danylo Shumuk's "Life sentence: memoirs of a Ukrainian political prisoner", 1984. And it is rather free interpretation of the linked text. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedviberit (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now there is "double memory" section at the end of the article and redundant "double memory" sentence at the beginning. "Polish historian Piotr Wrobel has used the phrase "double memory" to identify the phenomenon of distinct and often contradictory accounts of divergent ethnic groups who share the same history." "Double memory" seems to be universal phenomenon, there is no need to write about it here IMO, there are plenty of articles where such section could be included too, but it isn't.--Hedviberit (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

agreed. I see no reason for it other than a sentence describing the divide historically.--Львівське (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, despite the apparent consensus to remove the section, Bobani keeps restoring it. What can we do ? :( --Lysy^talk 04:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How can there be consensus if Bobanni disagrees. see

"Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer. That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal restrictions."

Burd's concept of double-memory is a central theme in his commentary - why such an urgency to remove it? Bobanni (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is about an event, not the phenomenon of 'double memory'. It doesn't justify it's own section. I agree it should be stated, but within the article.--Львівське (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon of different points of view, call it a double memory, is typical and common for all the historic research, and not anything unique to this particular article. Probably it would be appropriate to discuss it in an article about modern research methodologies, where historians have to find the facts and at the same time describe and explain the discrepancies between different povs. --Lysy^talk 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are non-Polish and non-Ukrainian historians' analysis regarding the massacres in Volhynia. The problem of incompatibile ethnic memories is nothing new, and because of that many different sources are being used. In my understanding, Burds wanted to stress the need for a wider perspective: The wider picture of the history of Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict in Galicia enables us to avoid putting too much emphasis on isolated events (like the Volhynia terror of 1943 or terror of 1947). He praises Snyder - Snyder has offered a far more sensitive and nuanced version than the respective victimologies served up by nationalist historians and associated diasporas. Snyder’s work is an especially important corrective for what have generally been chauvinistic and partial accounts; and critiques him - needless to say, in Ukrainian accounts, the foundations of the wartime enmity began to form years before (Events Occurring During the Rule of the Second Polish Republic), Snyder chose to begin his record of the process of ethnic cleansing in Galicia with the March 1943 Ukrainian attacks on ethnic Poles in Volhynia. This is what happened according to Burds: Angry over perceived past Polish wrongs and eager in the wake of the German defeat at Stalingrad to capitalize on the German occupation to solidify postwar Ukrainian claims in Galicia, Ukrainian nationalist units launched in March 1943 a brutal and violent ethnic cleansing campaign, murdering tens of thousands of Polish men, women, and children, destroying Polish settlements, seizing Polish lands and redistributing them among their own. The goal was to utilize terror as a weapon to drive out the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Poles who remained in Ukraine. Something about 'double memory ' could be stated in the section about reconcilation, after this sentence: The question of official acknowledgment of the ethnic cleansing remains a matter of a discussion between Polish and Ukrainian historians and political leaders. --Hedviberit (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Be wary when using primary sources....much of the time the recollection isn't accurate.--Львівське (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide as template

Seeing as this article is a FA, just want to point out that we should probably be trying to emulate it's form to get ours up to par.--Львівське (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename Article (neutral title)

Lets change name of article - Genocide of Poles done by ukrainian nationalists.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your vandalism and harm to this article has not gone unnoticed. --Львівське (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the title to a more neutral: The massacre of Volhynia (1942-1943). There wern't only the Poles who were massacred, there were 20,000 Ukrainian victims of AK. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose changing the article name to Genocide on Poles in Volhynia. Loosmark (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no government in the world (including the Polish one) has labelled it a genocide this title would be just POV-pushing. Using the Armenian genocide as a template wseems like a good idea, though.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal to rename article Ukrainian-Polish ethnic conflict (Second World War) Bobanni (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be too broad and vague, conflicts happened not only in Volyhnia. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming this article to Ukrainian-Polish conflict would be like renaming the Holocaust to German-Jewish conflict. Loosmark (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unless the article was entirely re-tooled to document all conflict between the two sides. Personally, "Volhynian Massacres" or something along those lines works.--Львівське (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is about as neutral as you can get while at the same time respecting the need for accuracy in the title. I think the above discussion illustrates this. This is an unnecessary proposal. Stick with current title.radek (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current title is biased and the proposal to rename it is a sound one. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What's biased about it? There were reprisals and defense organized by Poles, but that's covered in the article. The title is supported by reliable sources. Quoting the (sketchy) 20,000 number is out of context. It's as if we tried to rename Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930) to something like Response to Ukrainian terrorism in the Second Polish Republic. It doesn't reflect the nature of the subject. Yes, "massacre" here (and "pacification" there) are strong terms - and there's always a need to balance using strong terms (and strong does not equal POV) with the need to reflect what the article is about and what reliable sources use.radek (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is biased? The title suggests that in this tragedy nobody suffered, but the Poles. And that is not true. Poles had the largest number of victims there and it should be reflected in the article, but unfortunately they were not the only ones. The title should reflect that. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first let me say that I think I've tried very hard to be collaborative and neutral about this. For what it's worth generally I agree with Faustian's view of things. Stupid, repressive Polish interwar policy and discrimination (+ other factors, like Soviet and Nazi "divide and conquer" policies) led to the radicalization of Ukrainian society which gave OUN-Bandera support and radicalized otherwise moderate people and this eventually led to the massacres that are the subject of this article. But this still means that; the massacres DID happen. They WERE brutal. And they DID target Poles. Yes, there was a counter-response by Polish self defense units. But that's not what this article is about - though it is very clearly a part of the article. Like I said, I think I've tried to be cooperative and understanding about this - but the idea to rename this article in the proposed fashion is very clearly an attempt to whitewash the nature of what happened and to put the murderers on the same level as their victims. You want to provide background, analysis, etc. for why what happened happened, that's fine - of course using reliable sources. But, and it's about reliable sources again, this is very much a "massacre of Poles in Volhynia" (and other regions) in reliable sources, and how it is commonly thought of and hence that is the proper article title here.radek (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This "whitewash" word is getting thrown around too loosely, IMO. Personally, I think if using "ethnic cleansing" then Poles were specifically the only ones officially targeted by the OUN-B (re: Mykola Lebed), so yes that works. If talking about genocide or massacres, then it should be all encompassing of those were were killed in said massacres. 98.5% of Volhynian Jews died, does that not say something?--Львівське (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If a particular word is accurate then it will be used. The fact that 98.5% of Volhynian Jews died probably deserves its own article, especially since they died not just during this "action" but during the larger time period of German occupation of the Ukraine. You want to write that article, I'll be happy to contribute to it. But that is a different article.radek (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're proposing is that this article is about the suffering of the Poles and killings of other civilians is not important at all? This is NOT the way to compromise. And whitewashing remark was very insensitive. Nobody is trying to say that UPA's actions were justified or that they were the only victims. Ukrainian women and children massacred by AK in reprisal killings have to be remembered too. This article is not a shrine but a description of tragic history and should be neutral and balanced with respect to ALL victims, not just the chosen ones. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold on there. Where have I said that "killings of other civilians is not important at all"??? Nowhere. I said that the murder of Volhynian Jews deserves its own article. How can you accuse me of being insensitive when you're putting words in my mouth and pretending I said something offensive when I clearly haven't. Please don't do that again, as it is pretty insulting.radek (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you wrote: to put the murderers on the same level as their victims. I don't see anyone even trying to justify the UPA's actions. Or you meant Ukrainian women and children massacred by AK as "murderers on the same level as their victims"? Other people suffered too and it should be reflected in the title. The are no chosen people here... --Hillock65 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But it was the UPA which initiated the massacres, and they did target Poles (as well as Ukrainians who were judged not to be hostile enough to Poles). In response to the massacres Poles organized self defense units and defended themselves. It's probably true, or at least possible, that the defense spilled into revenge in some cases. But overall, this IS like blaming the Tutsi for having defended themselves against the Hutus. The title for the article is appropriate for what it is about.radek (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Poles were the biggest target but Volhynian Jews & Ukrainians were also subject to the massacres. The title should state when the massacres took place, not single out one party over others. Also, though I'm not opposed to "genocide" or "massacre", as they both apply, "ethnic cleansing" describes the situation best.--Львівське (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the Ukrainians who were killed by UPA during this time (and there were many) were killed because they were unwilling to go along with the killing of Poles (they were "moderates" where in this context that word means "unwilling to kill"). The Jews who were killed at this time were killed because the Holocaust was going on at the same time as this massacre. So you have two different mass killings going on simultaneously but for different reasons. UPA-Bandera (and some collaborators) were busy killing Poles, while the German Nazis (and some collaborators) were busy killing Jews - but that does not mean that the two were part of the same operation and phenomenon (and so deserve the same article) - unless you're going to argue that the massacres in Volhynia carried out by Ukrainian extreme-nationalists were also targeting Jews (the old "Lachy and Zydzi" Cossack cry, I guess). If you want to write an article about the massacres of Jews in Volhynia during this time period, again, I will try to help out.radek (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets come up with a neutral title and put it to a survey. I think Volhynian Massacre is acceptable. --Hillock65 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. If the article is to be on the massacres committed as part of the ethnic cleansing operation, then it should encompass all. If it is to be solely on the ethnic cleansing operation to remove poles and establish an ethnically homogeneous state, then yes poles should be in the title. It's a matter of what this article is about. I don't think the Jews killed need their own article, it mostly fits into this article itself when giving details. So yeah, here are my two suggestions: Volhynian Massacres or Ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia--Львівське (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Only OUN-UPA made ethnic cleansing - genocide. UPA killed also Ukrainians who helped Poles, Czechs, Jews. It should be one section about it. And one section about polish revange. According to polish-ukrainians conferences it was 2-3 thousands Ukrainians victims. Polish main command forbided the revenge, Ukrainian command ordered ethnic cleansin.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Paweł5586, it's also interesting to note how ukrainian nationalistic editors attacked this article: first minor changes and deletions, then bigger and bigger changes now they even want to change the title, it's sickening. Loosmark (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Or is it not sickening that Polish editors want to WP:OWN the article and maintain ostensible biases.--Львівське (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to include sections about Ukrainians killed by UPA and Ukrainians killed by Poles, as well as Jews, Czechs etc. also killed then obviously the title shouldn't be Massacres of Poles in Volhynia but Volhynia Massacres. In this case, obviously, the lead ought to make clear that Poles were the main victims. With respect to Pawel's claimed 2-3 thousand Ukrainian victims, I suspect this reflects a particular Polish POV. Snyder claims 20,000 Ukrainian victims. Scroll down to pg. 175 in his book [36]: "in the eastern half of the prewar Lublin region, village after village was destroyed by both sides in late 1943. Polish partisans of the Peasant Battalions matched the UPA atrocity for atrocity." Other references to numbers : 15,000-20,000 Ukrainians killed [37]; 20,000 killed [38], etc. But renaming the article to reflect this seems like a good idea to me. I wouldn't do it until we have input from others, though. Faustian (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure renaming the article seems a great idea to you but the title is good as it is. Btw what exactly has the prewar Lublin region to do with Volhynia? Loosmark (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the title sounds good to you, but it gives undue weight to one side killed, and almost makes it sound like these were random massacres, and not tied to a centralized ethnic cleansing operation. --Львівське (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

From the information I added to the lead that Pawel reverted, Snyder states that 106,000 Poles+Ukrainians were killed in the time period of the first attacks to when the UPA was defeated and out of Volyn by the Soviets (1943-47). He makes no mention of speicics for either sides in this article, but the difference between the 60-80,000 that Poles claim to 106,000 speaks for itself.

If we look at the Yugoslav Wars article, it encompasses the entire conflict. There is no Massacres of Bosnians in Yugoslavia article, and rightly so. It needs to be established whether this article will encompass the Polish-Ukrainian conflict during WW2, or specifically the OUN-UPA's ethnic cleansing operation. If the latter (and I assume that's the direction to go) then although it needs to be pointed out that Poles died the most and given their due weight, but the article can't just focus on "the massacres" and ignore the entire operation they were part of, and all its factors. Yes there were massacres, but the goal of the OUN wasn't to kill each and every Pole, massacring everyone, but rather remove all Polish influence from the region as it was perceived to be a hindrance to statehood.--Львівське (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there were massacres, but the goal of the OUN wasn't to kill each and every Pole, massacring everyone, but rather remove all Polish influence from the region as it was perceived to be a hindrance to statehoo. Wow, lets praise the OUN and its fantastic goal not to kill each and every Pole but only to brutaly massacre over 60,000 women, children etc. Of course you also don't have a clue about the Yugoslav wars, there is an article on the Bosnian Genocide. Loosmark (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did I praise them for not killing all? Don't distort my words. It's too simplistic to refer to what happened simply as "massacres". Would you define the holocaust as simply a series of massacres? And yes, the article is called "Bosnian Genocide", not "Massacres of Bosniaks in Yugoslavia". This article isn't about a genocide, though, nor is it simply about "massacres", but the operations aimed and removing all Poles occupying the territory of Volhynia by whatever means necessary.--Львівське (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Total victims of Polish revenge is 15-20 thousands. Total means Volhynia (1943-1945) + Eastern Galicia (1944-1945) + current Polish (1944-1947). It is confirmed by all Polish and some Ukrainian historians (source). In Volhynia polish revenge victims is not bigger than 2-3 thousands (according to Grzegorz Motyka).

This topic is about depolonization of Volhynia - province which belongs to Poland since XIV century. And about ethnic cleansing of Poles done by OUN-UPA on other lands too. Other thigns like polish revenge, other nations victims are only background to main topic. Please respect that.--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's about UPA actions in other lands too than its about Ukrainian victims in those other lands - 15-20 thousand total. I understand that a lot of info ought to be in the background but surgically removing Polish crimes when events were interlocking and frequently retaliatory becomes a form of dishonesty when it leads to a false impression (that UPA crimes came out of nowhere, or that only UPA committed crimes). I'm not sure what the fact that Volynia "belonged ot Poland since XIV century" (which btw is inaccurate) has to do with anything here. Why did you bring it up?Faustian (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be about other lands, just what happened in Volhynia.--Львівське (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. But then this is the appropriate title for the article.radek (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But if that's the case we have to remove the East Galicia section, too. Which doesn't seem right.Faustian (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic Cleansing of Poles in Volhynia" would be appropriate, then. No? --Львівське (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So you agree this article should be about the ethnic cleansing and not simply "the massacres"? Also, while I agree the gist of the article should be about the removal of poles, Jews were also killed as part of it, as were Ukrainians who opposed. The article should have a background of events to explain why it happened, as well as a subsequent information on the "aftermath" including return fire, etc. to round the article out--Львівське (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lvivske, why do you keep on writing Poles without using the capital letter? Tymek (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? On this page, I can count 9 instances where I capitalized it and 4 where I didn't. Do you really want an answer?--Львівське (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is there a reason ? --Lysy^talk 10:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for changing the name of this article; the current name seems good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the title has been discussed many times, and the current title is the best outcome. I don't see any reason for changing it to anything, like "genocide", as this is still a matter of POV. The article is specifically, about the massacre of Poles in Volhynia. --Lysy^talk 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The unfortunate fact that some keep glossing over is that not only Poles were massacred in Volhynia at that time. Massacres of Jews and Ukrainians should be reflected in the title as well. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The UPA action was specifically directed against the Poles. Most of the non-Polish victims were murdered in other territories and in other periods. The article is not about all people killed by Ukrainians anywhere but about the UPA-organized anti-Polish campaign in Volyn. --Lysy^talk 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to change the name. The slaughter of Jews, carried out by the Nazis and their Ukrainian allies, took place in 1941 - 1942, and it deserves a separate article, which I hope will one day be created by honest Ukrainian users. This article treats about massacres of Poles, and any attempt to dilute it with other topics is frankly speaking unacceptable. Or perhaps we should merge Holocaust, Bombing of Dresden, and Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in one giant article. There is a consensus among not only Polish, but also Western scholars, that Ukrainian units carried out a brutal genocide of ethnic minorities of current western Ukraine, in which Poles were main victims. Tymek (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Holocaust is about Holocaust. It's not "Genocide of Jews in Germany" and intentionally ignoring all the other minorities that were also targeted as part of the program by the Nazis. And this article isn't about genocide, that's just twisting words. It was an ethnic cleansing, of which massacres were a part of. Even after the massacres stopped the UPA still pushed to remove Poles from Volhynia up until 1947. Or are you saying we should make this article solely about 1943?--Львівське (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The most neutral title, would be the name of the ethnic cleansing operation by the OUN. Did they have an official name for it? (like Operation Vistula?)--Львівське (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Massacres of Jews and Ukrainians

This is in response to Hillock's comment at the end of last section - I'm just starting a new section cuz the last one's getting messy quick.

Basically, the question is were the Jews who were murdered during this time killed as part of the UPA organized massacres or were they murdered by the Nazis as part of the Holocaust? I think there might be some argument there for changing the title if it was UPA. But if it was part of the Holocaust then it deserves a separate article as it covers a different topic.

Likewise the defense and possible revenge by Poles belongs in this article, but the massacres were started as massacres of Poles (and of Ukrainians who did not wish to kill Poles).

The attempt to call this "Massacres in Volhynia" is an attempt to dilute the horrific nature of these massacres - and yes, their uniqueness - amidst all kinds of other bad things that were going on at the time (which of course they were).

Finally, the article is about what it says it is - massacres of Poles in Volhynia. The proposal appears to be to expand the article to something else, and then on that basis justify renaming it. But the proper thing to do in that case, again, is to create new articles not change the title and scope of this one.radek (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning other victims of massacres can dilute the article. First it was "putting murderers and victims on the same level", now "diluting the horrific nature". As of now the title says: be prepared to read about the massacre of Poles only, everybody else killed are not important. That is not true and is not right. Mentioning that there were also victims other than Poles is indeed adding to the truthful depiction of these horrific crimes, not diluting them. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As of now the title says: be prepared to read about the massacre of Poles only, everybody else killed are not important. Nice try but the title of the article says what the article is about - the Massacres Poles of in Volhynia. Of course it would be the dearest dream of Ukrainian natiolistic editors here to change the title to muddie the waters and it seems that for this purpose every silly argument is good. Loosmark (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I personally feel that the reprisals against the Ukrainians should be included here, because they are directly related. Without the ethnic cleansing you would have no reprisals etc. There is no need for a separate article and indeed, you will not find a separate article, or a book or an article dealing with just the reprisals anywhere. Bandurist (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the more than 1,600 people -- practically the entire Jewish population of Jedwabne, near Lomza in northeastern Poland that were massacred in 1941 is slightly "out of scope" as to time and place restricted by this article - yet horrific and unique that they were killed by their neighbours. If we compartmentize history we distort history. Bobanni (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, I'm not following you. The pogrom of Jedwabne has its own article. Are you suggesting that both articles should be merged or what ? --Lysy^talk 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, if you feel there is something else to add to the Jedwabne Massacre article, please do, but not here. Otherwise, do not mix different events. Tymek (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am specifically concerned about a high number of Ukrainian victims. Judging by the sources it appears that almost a quarter of all victims were Ukrainian civilians and glossing over it and pretending as if they are unimportant because there were more Poles killed than Ukrainians is not right. No one is denying that the massacres were directed against the Poles, but the Polish AK committed revenge massacres in return too. Pretending this didn't happen and tucking the truth somewhere away is not the way. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hillock, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Numbers on AK reprisals, Polish collaboration with German police, and all other attacks on Ukrainians should be put in their own article about Poland vs. Ukraine during WW2. This article should be about the ethnic cleansing program instituted by the OUN-UPA and who they killed as a result of it.--Львівське (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not leave this article as it is, and create an article about the Massacres of Ukrainians in Volhynia. Ostap 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no intentional operation to kill Ukrainians in Volhynia. This is a byproduct of the program against Poles.--Львівське (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How about Polish-Ukrainian relationships 1939-1947 ? Starting with the "liberation" of West Ukraine by the Red Army in September 1939, and ending with Operation "Wisła". That would be a challenge, but would give an opportunity to describe the issue in the broader context. We would however take care not to allow the article to be dominated by redundant descriptions of the Volyn massacre and Operation Wisła, which both already have articles of their own. What do you say ? --Lysy^talk 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as this is referring to a new article and not the renaming of this one, I think it'd be a good idea - though a bit of work.radek (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a new article to hold all the spill off. As far as this article goes, death of Ukrainians and Jews by UPA as they conducted the 'cleansing' should be included in say a 1 of 2 paragraph sub section. Small, but expanding on the operation as a whole.--Львівське (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this title Polish-Ukrainian relationships 1939-1947 make sense for the new article, or should we rather think of something else. Also, it would be good to agree on and defend the factual quality of the article against any pov-pushers from either "side". So, no rhetoric, no detailed descriptions of individual events, but a general article with the chronology of the Polish-Ukrainian relations (military and political), well based in reliable sources. In fact it would be good to limit the sources to published research, and avoid any nationalistic publications. What do you say, can we do it ? --Lysy^talk 12:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Would "conflict" be more appropriate than 'relationships'? Even 'relations' might be better--Львівське (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Many Ukrainians povs in article

In Wołyń Voivodeship some policies resulted in suppressing the Ukrainian language, culture and religion,[23] and the antagonism escalated.[24] Although around 68% of the voivodeship's population spoke Ukrainian as their first language (see table), nevertheless practically all government and administrative positions, including the police, were assigned to Poles.

This is not true, read about Henryk Józewski - As voivode of Wołyń, where Ukrainians formed the majority of the population, Józewski concentrated on improving relations between the Polish government and Poland's Ukrainian minority. He advocated a broad autonomy for Ukrainian self-governance, promoted Ukrainians to administrative posts, and sought to ensure their fair representation in the government. His administration included many former activists of the Ukrainian People's Republic. Józewski fostered Ukrainian and Polish-Ukrainian organizations. In education, he supported the teaching of the Ukrainian language and argued for the introduction of Ukrainian as the local official language. He declared that the Ukrainian national movement must choose between Poland and the Soviet Union. He opposed Soviet influences over Poland's Ukrainians and criticized certain Ukrainian organizations that he viewed as too Soviet-dependent or too extremist (e.g. Prosvita). After the 1935 death of Piłsudski, who had also favored finding peaceful solutions to the minorities problem, Józewski's influence waned, particularly as the National Democrats — much less open to treating with the minorities — gained sway in Polish politics. Józewski faced growing criticism from some quarters for allegedly being too Ukrainophile. Finally, in 1938, he was moved to the office of voivode of Łódź Voivodeship, which had essentially no Ukrainian population.

This section must be re written.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But here's the reality, "...the Polish government, which had one of the poorest minority rights records of any European state. Several Ukrainian, German and Belarusian parties had been banned by the Polish authorities. As Ukrainian schools were closed and nationalist activists suffering increased political repression, the Ukrainian nationalist movement was radicalized, and increasingly turned to terrorism and violence in order to achieve their political goals.”
Rudling, Per Anders(2006)'Historical representation of the wartime accounts of the activities of the OUN-UPA (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists—Ukrainian Insurgent Army)',East European Jewish Affairs,36:2,166 --Львівське (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not that simple, either way. While Józewski attempted to improve the Polish-Ukrainian relations in Volyn, the situation changed quickly in the end of 1930s. Anyway, you are right, that the section should be changed, as currently it seems to serve the apologetic purposes only. Whatever the Polish polices were in the late 1930s, it does not justify the slaughter of the civilian population in Volyn. --Lysy^talk 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That section cites information that a reliable source (Burds) explicitly describes as an underlying cause for the massacres that ought to be known for the massacres to be understood. You are correct that Josewksi's policies - which were opposed by the OUN-B btw - were pro-Ukrainian. These pro-Ukrainian policies were obviously reversed starting in 1935.Faustian (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was the other way around. Snyder writes: The nationalist response was terrorism. When the communists feared that they were losing Ukrainian public opinion to Piłsudski, they purged their own ranks of national deviationists, to move away from any suspicion of accommodation with Warsaw. When the nationalists feared the same thing, they made the center position untenable by forcing a choice between Polish power and Ukrainian identity. Knowing that Piłsudski's policies appealed to centrist Ukrainian parties, the OUN undertook a policy apparently designed to radicalise Ukrainian Public opinion. In July 1930, Ukrainian nationalists began sabotage actions in Galicia, destroying Polish properties and home throughout the region in hundreds of terrorists actions In September Piłsudski ordered the pacification of Galicia, sending a thousand policemen to search 450 villages for nationalist agitators. They found weapons (1,287 rifles, 566 revolvers, 31 grenades) and explosive materials (99.8 kilograms), but Galician Ukrainians interpreted intrusive searches in political terms. For many pacifications were the defining experience of Polish state power. By provoking the pacifications, the OUN succeeded in crippling Piłsudski's minority policy in Galicia. By publicizing the pacifications abroad, Ukrainian nationalists reduced the room for maneuver of Polish politicians who favoured concessions. The debate over pacifications led the Polish government to reveal documents demonstrating that Germany had financially supported Ukrainian political parties in Poland. Sketches From a Secret War: A Polish Artist's Mission to Liberate Soviet Ukraine, Timothy Snyder, Yale University Press , 2005, p. 75-76, http://books.google.com/ Hedviberit (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There were two Polish approaches towards Ukrainians: Pilsudski's and Dmowski's. The OUN worked to undermine Pilsudski's approach. The passage above shows how this was done. However Dmowski preceded the OUN.Faustian (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He was moved in 1938, so Faustian I dont really understant what are u talking about. I got more informations from Władysław Filar book - Volhynia events 1939 - 1943.

He was removed in 1938 but right after Pilsudski's death his power in Volyn was undermined by Warsaw and the province was basically run by anti-Ukrainian Poles. Read Snyder's biography of Jozewski for more details. Moreover Jozewski was governor in Volyn. The Polish adminsitration in Galicia, where the hateful OUN-B had its base, was always anti-Ukrainian. Most of the UPA officers came to Volyn from Galicia wherre they had endured anti-Ukrainian pogroms throughout the 30's. Faustian (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record: I think you are exaggerating with the "anti-Ukrainian pogroms throughout the 30's". Were there really many pogroms ? --Lysy^talk 06:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A RS states that: [39]. "The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone. Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938." Widesprwad seems to indicate many.Faustian (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear, I objected many and throughout the 30's. But now reading that ND, the ruling party, was "a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization" is start to wonder whether Burds is a RS indeed. Have you read any publication of his ? was it decent ? --Lysy^talk 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is a specialist on those events. Here is his impressive CV: [40]. Read this interesting article by him about the role of women in UPA: [41]. Check out the section "Rebel death squads" - Burds is hardly an apologist for UPA. His characterization of the ND btw seems pretty accurate. The people going around beating UKrinians were referred to as Endeks.Faustian (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the endeks, after the assassination of Narutowicz, were practically ruling Poland until WW2, and were a major political party, not "a militant organization". Maybe he confused it with Falanga. And "post-Soviet Poland and Ukraine are both dominated by internal nationalist efforts to reclaim their own histories" ? Really! :( --Lysy^talk 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And how do you like this: "In Snyder's scenario, the slaughter of ethnic Poles in Volhynia drove Polish reprisals against ethnic Ukrainians in Poland. By the end of 1944, there were hundreds of thousands of dead, hundreds of destroyed settlements--products of ethnic violence which markedly expanded the casualties of the war in the east. The seeming inability of ethnic Poles and ethnic Ukrainians to live together peacefully drove state policy after the war. By autumn 1944, Stalin had ordered the forced deportation of all ethnic Poles from western Ukraine, in a formal trade for all ethnic Ukrainians from southeastern Poland." or that Galicia was "awarded to Poland, herself newly independent from Russia". This guy should make a career as a wikipedia editor, he is so careless with words ;) But indeed, he seems to have an excellent academic record, which makes me even more disappointed :( --Lysy^talk 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being the ruling party, the Endeks had militant thugs going around beating Ukrainians (and Jews) and vandalizing property. This isn't very controversial. I don't see your other quotes as that unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of dead" is a high estimate but other sources give such an estimate. Inability of Ukrainians and Poles to live together peacefully seems to have driven state policy after the war. Galicia was indeed after World War I awarded to Poland, itself (at least a good part of it) newly independent from Russia. What's the problem with those quotes?Faustian (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's the nuances, visible to a Pole, suggesting that he may have a ... slightly Russian POV (sic!). Maybe he's not even aware of it ;) --Lysy^talk 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a little messed up here with the information provided. The National Democrats did not rule Poland in the 1930s, as the camp of Dmowski was hated by the people of Pilsudski. Tymek (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit sloppy. They weren't the ruling party but likely the most popular party and to a large extent they set Polish internal policies and behaved with impunity.Faustian (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They were de facto ruling Poland. Most of the government originated from that option. --Lysy^talk 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting rather off topic here and I'll continue in Faustian's talk page. I'm certainly not in a position to dismiss him as a RS, and I'm not willing to. He meets all the formal criteria for a RS, well, maybe not in a book review (which is hardly peer reviewed and hardly a research output) but as an academic author, certainly yes. --Lysy^talk 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Industry:

• Cities (number of companies): 1928: 126 Polish, 42 Ukrainian. 1937: 115 Polish, 83 Ukrainian. So Ukrainian + 41, Polish - 13.
• Village (number of companies): 1928: 613 Polish, 422 Ukrainian, 1937: 709 Polish, 732 Ukrainian. Ukrainian + 310! There is many more data: about trade, schools. I dont see any discrimination. Of course i agree with 1930 pacification was bad answer for nationalist provocation--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just your original research.Faustian (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I like to read late 1930s Polish newspapers, scans of which can be found on the internet. Many publications in their articles openly criticized Jozewski for Ukrainizing Volhynia. Jozewski well understood blind hatred of members of OUN, who did not hesitate to kill even the moderate Ukrainians (Wiktor Poliszczuk, regarded as unreliable by many, wrote a very well-referenced article on it, but it is in Polish, here [42]). His wish was to stop OUN activists from Eastern Galicia from infiltrating Volhynia, and he succeeded to do so with his moderate policies until 1938. He supported Ukrainian schools, and introduced many Ukrainians to the local administration, such as Patriarch Mstyslav (Stepan Skrypnyk), former adiutant of Petliura and deputy mayor of Rowne/Rivne and MP to the Polish Parliament. During the war, after Nazi invasion, the Germans did not stop OUN activists, who sew the seed of hatred among the Volhynians. Tymek (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. There was a 3-way struggle for Ukrainians' loyalty in Volyn between pro-Polish Petliurites, the OUN coming in from Galicia and the Communists coming in from the Ukrainian SSR. The first group largely depended on the Polish government for support. This support was ended after Pilsudski died. The Communists were to a certain extent discredited during the time of the Famine but were utterly discredited during the Soviet annexation of Volyn. The OUN was left, and in a bloody way the Banderist wing o the OUN destroyed/absorbed the OUN-M and remaining Petliurites (whose Taras Bulba Borovets was the founder of the original UPA).Faustian (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just your original research.. Dont you believe? I can scan this page. You will see it. --Paweł5586 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking a fact and drawing a conclusion "no discrimination" is original research.Faustian (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there was discrimination of Ukrainian minority of Poland in the interbellum. As one Polish historian wrote, Polish government in the 1930s demanded for Czechoslovakian Poles far more than Warsaw offered to the Ukrainians. The question is how severe the discrimination was, and we can try to describe it in the separate article. I would say that it was not as bad as some Ukrainians now claim, and not as good as some Poles describe it. Also, we can take it for granted that the situation of Ukrainians in Poland was better than in Soviet Union. How about Ukrainian minority in Romania in the interbellum? Tymek (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

would say that it was not as bad as some Ukrainians now claim I totally agree, bad Ukrainians life conditions during II RP its nationalist excuse for genocide on Polish. UPA forced Ukrainians to belive that all Ukrainians made genocide not only them. Not true, genocide was made only by UPA and other nationalists groups not by Ukrainian minority. Thats why UPA propaganda is trying disrupt polish-ukrainian relations telling many lies.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Ukrainian cooperation

Here's an interesting piece of news from August 3, 2009 on recent Polish-Ukrainian cooperation http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=88793&cat_id=35317 : During the meeting, sides mentioned that the creation of unique publication “Poland and Ukraine in 1930-40s of the twentieth century. The unknown documents from the special services’ archives” is a result of close cooperation of many years between the Security Service of Ukraine and the Institute of National Remembrance of the Republic of Poland. 7 volumes of joint series were published within 1995-2009, preparation of the eight volume “The Great Terror in Ukraine: Polish Operation in 1937-1938” is finishing. Several volumes will be published soon, in particular about the activity of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in Poland in 1939-1950s. --Lysy^talk 06:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo - again

Pawel, is it that you want "Polish victims" in there rather than just "victims"? If Lysy could look it up in the book then I think it's fine if the nationality is added (provided it's in the source).radek (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to look it up in the next couple of days as I'm away. Probably next week. --Lysy^talk 10:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

At Lipniki were killed 179 people, 4 Jews, 1 Russian, rest of them were Polish. So Polish victims is better.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if that's the case and those 5 are depicted, then Polish victims is inaccurate.--Львівське (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is about Polish victims, to state it in the picture is a tad redundant.--Львівське (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, I've just verified it, here is the original caption from Siemaszko&Siemaszko book in full (in Polish): "Fot. 12. Kolonia Lipniki (gm. Berezne, pow. Kostopol). Zwłoki zamordowanych Polaków podczas napadu UPA na kolonię 26 marca 1943 r. Fot. Sarnowski. Zdjęcia 12.-17. zawdzięczamy p. Henrykowi Słowińskiemu.", my translation would be - Corpses of Poles murdered during the UPA raid on the colony on 26 March 1943.

Polish-Ukrainian relations 1939-1947

What should be included in this new article ? --Lysy^talk 11:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Background - the usual, including short information about post-WWI situation, strive for independence of both nations, Ukrainian criminal and terrorist actions, Polish policies in West Ukraine, Bereza Kartuska (Ukrainian aspects), Polish anti-Ukrainian pogroms, Ukrainian espionage for German Abwehr in Poland
• 1939 - Ukrainian soldiers in Polish forces, German/Soviet invasion, Ukrainian desertions, Ukrainian assaults on Polish forces and civilians in September 1939.
• 1939/1940 - Ukrainian attacks on Polish colonists and cooperation with Soviets in deportations of Poles.
• Ukrainian-German anti-Polish cooperation in occupied Poland.
• Nachtigall and Roland
• Lviv; including Ukrainian involvement in the murder of Polish professors
• OUN-B/OUN-M and UPA
• Ukrainian and Polish Schutzmannschaftsbataillons
• Polish - Ukrainian good relationships between ordinary inhabitants: Many mixed marriages, Ukrainian help to Polish during UPA massacres - Source.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Volynian slaughter
• East Galicia
• Ukrainian guards in German concentration and deathcamps in Poland
• SS Galizien
• Zamość deportations and uprising
• West Galicia 1943-1944 fights (Lublin and Chełm region)
• Ukrainian involvement in suppression of Warsaw Uprising (alleged ?)
• Polish and Ukrainian plans for Western Ukraine
• Polish/Ukrainian collaboration with NKVD
• Polish support for UNA in Italy
• UPA in Poland 1945-1947
• Operation "Wisła"
• Fate of Ukrainians deported in Operation "Wisła"
• Fate of Poles in Ukraine
• Aftermath - Polish and Ukrainian historiography of the period, modern cooperation of Polish and Ukrainian historians

This article is a great idea, instead of adding unrelevant information here, this all can be included there. I would say that users Faustian and Lysy (if they will) should take care of it, with help of all of us. Tymek (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this can be only successful if it has the support of both Ukrainian and Polish editors, who would commit to create and then defend the quality article, build on consensus from the scratch. Otherwise, we would only create another revert-war battleground. I can try to start drafting it in my sandbox but first I'd need to see who's onboard. --Lysy^talk 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in, assuming I have time. I'm trying to track down other regions where UPA fought Poles, which naturally would be relevant here. I'll try to find some other suggested readings for here as well, and compile some notes.--Львівське (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no hurry. :) My time is limited, too (and my command of English is very basic). --Lysy^talk 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While writing the article, we should not forget individual persons, such as recipient of Virtuti Militari, general Pavlo Shandruk, voivode Henryk Jozewski, Patriarch Mstyslav (Stepan Skrypnyk), also Iwan Babij, Ukrainian pedagogue and principal of Ukrainian high school in Lwow, who was murdered by the OUN in 1934. Also, there is a number of prominent Ukrainian politicians, who were members of the Polish Parliament in the interbellum. Polish Wikipedia has a whole list of them [43], and some of them were very prominent and influential in the interbellum - Stepan Vytvytskyi, Mychajlo Haluszczynskyj (Marshall Deputy of the Senate), and probably the most important, Vasyl Mudry and Wolodymyr Zahajkewycz, both Marshall Deputies of the Sejm. As you see, the Ukrainians were well-represented in Polish Parliament in the interbellum, with 9 legal parties and 1 illegal (OUN). Tymek (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, but much of these happened before 1939. I think we need to define the scope of the article, otherwise we'd have to go bacK to 17th century. I think that September 1, 1939 and the start of WW2 is a good census ? Then another, equally difficult article could focus on the interbellum. --Lysy^talk 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Make sure to link it from Polish-Ukrainian relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be titled Polish-Ukrainian relations 1918 - 1947, with the background describing World War One, and Austrian/Russian/German policies towards both nations. The year 1918 is important here, as after WW1, both countries emerged on the map of Europe. Tymek (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, we only wanted to cover WW2, and 1918-1947 seems quite ambitious. We have to balance between the scope and the level of details we wish to present. Or maybe we should start a Poland-Ukraine wikiproject ? But I'm not sure we have the potential for that. Can we create a list of related articles to see how much is missing ? Here is what we have so far: category:Poland–Ukraine relations --Lysy^talk 05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few of us here, both Poles and Ukrainians, to undertake this ambitious project. Tymek (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

• Bandera's brothers

In 1941, two brothers of Ukrainian leader Stepan Bandera were murdered while imprisoned in Auschwitz by Polish kapos[35]

Bandera's brothers were killed by Polish Volksdeutsche.

"Stefan Bandera found himself at Sachsenhausen; two of his brothers were later beaten to death in Auschwitz by Polish (Volks-deutch) kapos." - Timothy Snyder, "The cause of Ukrainian and Polish ethnic cleansing", Past&Present - A journal of historical studies nr 179, page 207. Snyder's source: Borys Vitoshyns'kyi, Ukrainian-Polish relations in german prisons and concentration camps, in Mikhailo Marunczak "In the struggle for a Ukrainian state" (Winnipeg 1990), 160-2; Oleksa Vintoniak "About Auswitz and how Vasyl' Bandera Perished"), ibid. 301, 305-6.

• OUN collaboration with Nazis

The Polish Government in Exile, which wanted the region returned to Poland, planned for a swift armed takeover of the territory as part of its overall plan for a future anti-Nazi uprising. This view was strengthened by some Ukrainian nationalists' collaboration with the Nazis, so that by 1943 no understanding between the Polish government's Home Army and OUN was possible. Both factions of the OUN collaborated with the Nazis. Maybe it should be changed to: was strenghtened by OUN collaboration with the Nazis.--Hedviberit (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support making both changes. The first one is I think pertinent and reffed to a source we're relying on quite heavily anyway. I do think it notable that it wasn't the Polish resistance or anyone like that who killed them but rather Volksdeutsche. For the second, the "some nationalists" part was basically to compromise. Replacing that with "OUN" is better though it glosses over a lot of context.radek (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A "Polish Volksdeutsche" is simply a Polish citizen of German ethnicity, were Bandera's brothers Polish, too ? So in this case Poles were killed by Poles ? Or Ukrainians by Germans ? --Lysy^talk 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary problems

What is the difference between collaborate and rebel? Bobanni (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One is to work with, the other is to work against--Львівське (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Galicia ?

Why is Eastern Galicia here ? The Volyn massacres and the fights in Eastern Galicia were of course closely related but practically all the historians treat them as separate events. Including Eastern Galicia in the article about the events in Volyn can be obviously confusing for uninitiated readers. --Lysy^talk 06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be topic about Estern Galicia / Estern Lesser Poland. Category Massacrres ... on Vohynia contains villages from Estern Lesser Poland.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much like Snyder's approach, where he differentiates between the slaughter (in Volyn) and the subsequent home war (mostly in Galicia). Maybe we should have two separate articles as these are different events. --Lysy^talk 07:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Or three: one main - Geonocide on Polish made by ukrainian nationalists, with link to Volhynia and to new one article Galicia. In one main should be explain reasons of genocide (removing Polish from lands which UPA wanted to be Ukrainian, poor situation of ukrainian peasants who wanted more land for better existence so they joined to massacres), marks of genocide source, Szawłowski, double memory, commemorate of Polish and Ukrainian victims, controversy about memorials of Bandera, Szuchewycz, Klaczowski at Ukraine.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's anything that would warrant a separate article on the genocide, it would seem rather redundant. I would however suggest to remove the Eastern Galicia section to Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Eastern Galicia in 1944 --Lysy^talk 08:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather should be Massacres of Poles in Eastern Galicia/Lesser Poland. Attacking innocent villages cant be named as conflict. At currrent Poland we can talk about conflict - UPA vs MO, AK, NSZ, LWP. --Paweł5586 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Events in Eastern Galicia were direct result of continuation of ethnic cleansing. To understand what happened, reader have to know all the background informations included here (Massacres of Poles in Volhynia). Article about "Polish-Ukrainian conflict" will put Galician massacres completely out of the context. Maybe changing the title of the article or the section about Galicia would help. Or just leave it as it is. --Hedviberit (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Title should be "and Galicia" (not only Eastern in late 1944 massacres comes to Middle-West Galicia).--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, everything is a consequence of something else but this does not mean that everything should be included in a single article. The events in Volyn and Galicia were different, one of the differences is that while in 1943 the victims were mostly the Poles, in 1944 both UPA and AK carried out their ethnic cleansing operations. Volhynia was a slaughter, and Galicia was a civil war. --Lysy^talk 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The attacks on Poles in Galicia were a part of the large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing (including both Galicia and Volhynia). --Hedviberit (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Events of Eastern Galicia were an extension of the Volhynian Slaughter. Please note that the main wave of massacres began in mid-1943, starting from northeast Volhynia, then moving towards south-west. By early and mid - 1945, the slaughter ended up in the area of Bieszczady. In Eastern Galicia Polish presence was stronger, and Polish units were swollen by refugees from Volhynia. Mark Mazower writes about it in his book "Hitler's Empire", I will find the citations and add them. Mazower also cites directives of the UIA, which clearly urge the Ukrainians not only to murder all Poles, but also to destroy all material traces of Polish presence, including trees. Tymek (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Władysław Siemaszko - Historian?

No source lists Władysław Siemaszko training in history - His books are based on his own experiences and those of his collegues. Does this qualify him as a historian? Bobanni (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. Ilyushin in his recent book has a chapter on historiography, where he describes Siemaszko as historians (unlike Poliszczuk who is presented as a publicist). The book by Siemaszko has an advantage, that it is and outcome of a very detailed research, and a disadvantage that it is based on Polish sources only. If you're looking for a more synthetic approach, other books will be better. I particularly recommend Snyders "Reconstruction" for that. --Lysy^talk 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then is Siemaszko an unreliable source or a biased source? Bobanni (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither.radek (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He is reliable but biased, belonging to the Polish historical tradition that represents the traditional Polish national view: [44]. Władysław Siemaszko is also a veteran of the 27th Home Army Infantry Division (Poland) which according to Snyder murdered Ukrainian civilians (although there is no evidence as far as I know that he personally murdered Ukrainian civilians). To make an anology, if a Ukrainian UPA veteran later became a legitimate historian and published pro-Ukrainian works in Ukraine, he would be the Ukrainian version of Siemaszko. I would view Siemaszko with considerable caution.Faustian (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "unrepresentative of the whole" is probably a better adjective here than "biased". I would concur though that for exceptional claims we'd want to find other sources to back up any claims rather than use Siemaszko by himself. radek (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've only seen Snyder say that the 2th AK Div fought UPA (like here [45]), not that they killed civilians. It's possible that some of the soldiers who passed through that division who later joined/led other units might have done this. Is this in Reconstruction of Nations?radek (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pg. 174: [46]. He doesn't directly state it but it's very clearly implied. Both Siemaszko and Filar - two of the main examples of the Polish traditional historical schhol - belonged to this unit. How would you feel about a Ukrainian historical school writing about these events whose propnents are mostly UPA veterans?Faustian (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, implying it and stating it are two different things (and sometimes it's not "imply" but "infer") but I'll take your word for it. I'd actually be ok with UPA veterans historians as long as it was solid historical research recognized as such by other, including "unaligned", historians.radek (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is possible he is indeed biased, but that is not uncommon for most people we cite (personally in such topics I tend to assume any historian whose nationality/ethnicity is related to the conflict is biased - and let's face it, we - the editors - are rarely different). What would be best is to find a source (or more than one) that is both reliable and describes him as biased, then we can qualify some of his statements. This, of course, applies not only to him but others. Till we have a reliable source criticizing him, per BLP and other policies, we cannot really claim he is biased in the text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a member of a military unit (applies ot both Siemaszko and Filar) involved with very nasty (on both sides) fighting against UPA, a military unit that killed civilians, is going much farther in terms of potential for bias than merely belonging to an ethnicity. Here is what Rafal Wnuk [47] had to say about the school of Polish historiography that Siemaszko and Filar, both veterans of the AK Volynian unit, belonged to: "The second group consists of researchers who approve of one, often national or sometimes state, perspective ("mono-perspective"). These include defenders of "Polish reasons," or traditionalists, and their counterpart on the "Ukrainian side of the fence", Eugeniusz Misilo." "According to the mono-perspectivists of Polish nationality, this genocide began in September 1939 and ended in 1947.49 They consider all Poles who were killed by Ukrainians to be victims of genocide, regardless of the situation in which they were killed. As a result, soldiers killed by communist rebels in September 1939, victims of common criminals, AK soldiers who died in battles with the UPA, Poles serving in "istriebitielnych" battalions (supporting police forces of NKVD) in the years 1944-45, members of the Secret Police (Urzad Bezpieczenstwa) killed in action, any militia, and soldiers of the Polish Army are also considered victims of genocide. In the assessment of the period 1944-47 we come up against paradoxes. A member of the Secret Police or militia killed by the Polish Underground is treated as a collaborator with the occupant. The killing of a similar person by the UPA, however, is treated as a "Ukrainian Nationalist crime."5

So bias seems clear.Faustian (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We should be avoiding primary sources altogether if you ask me.--Львівське (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Semantics meant to discredit Siemaszko somehow won't change anything of course, especially that his main research is devoid of any interpretative overview which can be seen as biased. This is a commonly known fact. --Poeticbent talk 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Polish wikipedic entry of Siemaszko's biography it does not state that he is a historian. His daughter is a professional historian, but he is not. His training is in law. Bandurist (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Lysy's comment/explanation above.radek (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Poles murdered in Volyn under first Soviet occupation.

According to Ihor Ilyushin,(p. 53) many Poles were being killed in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by Ukrainian peasants already before the German occupation. E.g. 53 houses burned and many inhabitants killed in Polish colony Jakubowce. These events of course do not count for the Volhynian massacre, but demonstrates the attitude of Ukrainians to their Polish neighbours. --Lysy^talk 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, the Soviets stood while Ukrainians assaulted Poles as their primary target, not Jews. Several thousand people died in the first days of the occupation, mostly Poles killed by their Ukrainian neighbours. The Soviets used class-based incitements to encourage Ukrainians to commit violence against Polish landowners and capitalists. Petersen, Understanding ethnic violence, Cambridge University Press. [48] p. 118. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedviberit (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidents of Ukrainians assaulting Poles occurred as soon as the Soviet invasion in '39. This was described by my grandfather in his published memories (but note that he also described other Ukrainians helping him - a Polish Army officer - evade the mobs...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

What has to be done to removed the neutrality tag from the article ? --Lysy^talk 16:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There still no consensus in some matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedviberit (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we list them ? --Lysy^talk 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work is required... for example the lead states:

• and conducted mainly by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) together with other Ukrainian groups and local Ukrainian peasants

while the body of the text states:

• [decisions to massacre] were primarily attributable to the extremist Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and not by other Ukrainian political or military groups.

Extraordinary claims ("local Ukrainian peasants") of neighbor slaughtering neighbor require solid sources. For an article on such an emotional topic, the biggest issue here is the lack of citations. An article like this needs a citation for every bit of narrative which makes any contention about who did what to whom. Hope this helps. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Objection to attempts to show a parity between AK and UPA

Some editors argue that we should compromise by trying to say that both sides committed attrocities. Yes, this is true, but also misleading - it's like likening Allied war crimes during WWII with Nazi war crimes during WWII (PS. Am I the only one shocked at this red link? Nazi war crimes redirects to a stub I created some time ago... and German war crimes is hardly an adequate treatment of the subject.

If you disagree, let's try to measure it, perhaps we'll learn something new. Per our article, the number of Poles who died in Volhynia is ~80,000. Per article on Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939), in 1931 Wołyń Voivodeship had the population of ~2,080,000 and based on historical demographics of Poland article, we can estimate that by 1939 the population has grown by 7-8%, so let's factor some war time loses and say that in 1942 it was ~2,200,000. 68% Ukrainian and 17% Poles (I'd like to draw those numbers to the attention of some of our more emotional Polish colleagues... Poles were a MINORITY at Kresy) gives us ~1,500,000 Ukrainians and ~375,000 Poles.

From my own research and article on AK, roughly, in the years 1942-1943 AK numbered ~200,000-400,000 people, let's call it ~300,000.

Could interested editors provide numbers w/refs for.

• the number of Ukrainians murdered by AK
• estimate of UPA membership

I would like us to compare the following statistics:

• total number of victims by nationality
• total number of victims to total number of membership in an

organization committing the crimes

• total number of victims to total number of ethnic inhabitants of that

region before the war

If what the parity supporters say is true, and AK was as murderous as UPA, the numbers should show us a rough parity.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say one thing the idea that the AK was as murderous as UPA is completely out of this world. There is also a fundamental difference in that the AK was fighting the Nazis (and did that basically from 1939) while UPA collaborated with them and then concentrated on ethnical cleansing by means of brutal murders of innocent civilians. Loosmark (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a particular topic, it is not about "Hey, they murdered, too." The AK also fought Lithuanians they labeled as Nazis, so let's not get into:

• one side fought evil, one side was evil or
• comparisons or equatings of evil, alleged or otherwise.

Such "compromises" and equatings never end well. Less is more in this case. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Poles collaborated with Nazis and UPA fought Nazis. I agree with Vecrumba, less is more. Let's not get into a pissing match on this one, there's no point.--Львівське (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Lvivske, what the hey are you talking about here?!? I thought we were working towards a serious and civil discussion here and then you burst in here with this provocative nonsense, despite the fact that you've already been reported once (and got off partly because you promised to behave civility).radek (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Care to be specific? I'm simply agreeing with Vecruma here that such comparisons or measuring who was "worse" is useless. What's your angle here?--Львівське (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about "Poles collaborated with Nazis" - in addition to being false, also appears as an attempt to provoke some editors. You can agree with Vecrumba (I partly do) and still remain civil.radek (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

False?? Let's not start whitewashing historical events again, okay? The above proposal is desiring to use OR in order to make one side "better" than the other. There was no provocation, merely a corollary (ie. A is to B as B is to A). Try to stay impartial. --Львівське (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, false. Last time I spoke up in your support because I thought you changed your attitude and approach to editing Wikipedia.radek (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of it is false? This is getting ridiculous. If you're going to sit there and pretend up is down and left is right, then we have nothing to discuss. I could care less how my 'attitude' is perceived by a group of 3 rogue editors, I just want to bring balance and impartiality to this article, as should every one here. --Львівське (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be parity between UPA-North (Volyn) and AK. However when looking at numbers for Galicia and Poland there does appear to be rough parity.Faustian (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the number of Ukrainians killed specifically by AK in Volhynia? Grzegorz Motyka claims that 2,000-3,000 Ukrainians were killed in Volhynia alone, and 10,000 – 20,000 in total (Volhynia+other territories).Hedviberit (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very plausable - the figures I have seen were 15,000-20,000. Snyder wrote 10,000 Polish civilians killed in Galicia and that the number of Polish and Ukrainian civilians killed in the territoy of modern Poland (west of Volynia) was about equal. In comparison, 12,000-18,000 Ukrainian civilians killed outside of Volynia. So outside of Volynia the UPA and AK (or other Polish armed forces) were very comparable, in terms of the killing of civilians. Keep in mind that UPA was divided into 3 administrative structures (UPA-North in Volynia, UPA-South in Galicia and the Crpathians, and UPA-West).Faustian (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Double memory

Jeffrey Burds of Northeastern University writes in a commentary on Timothy Snyder's, “‘To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All’: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943-1947”: "Polish historian Piotr Wróbel has used the phrase “double memory” to identify the phenomenon of distinct and often contradictory accounts of divergent ethnic groups who share the same history. How, for instance, is one to reconcile the memories of Poles and Jews when remembering wartime Poland? Wringing his hands at the seemingly irreconcilable divergencies between ethnically defined accounts of shared events, Wrobel recently wrote with despair: “Are we destined to remain forever entombed within these two diametrically opposed visions of the Second World War? Each ethnic memory is so different from the other that at times it is difficult to believe that they portray the same events.” The historical records of both Polish and Ukrainian sources are often based on historical stereotypes making it difficult to determine an accurate picture of what happened.

Now a question. What is the purpose of inserting a comment by Mr Burds to the article? Or perhaps we shall add this comment to all articles about Polish - Ukrainian relations during the war, including Action Vistula? Please note that this article is not about speculations among historians, but about a mass murder of civilians. Tymek (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read Burd's commentary you would see that he discusses the Ukrainian-Polish conflict during and after World War II. Burd further comments:

"In his superb analysis of the complexity of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Ukraine in 1943 and Poland in 1947, Snyder has offered a far more sensitive and nuanced version than the respective victimologies served up by nationalist historians and associated diasporas. I highly recommend Snyder’s article be read side-by-side with an extraordinary memoir which was published in late 1999. Waldemar Lotnik was a young ethnic Pole in Volhynia who chronicles with amazing clarity and insight his flight from Ukrainian terror in 1943, and his return for vengeance as a soldier in a Polish nationalist partisan unit in 1944-1945. Though he was a Polish partisan, Lotnik made it clear that atrocities could be attributed equally to both sides, ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Polish:

“The ethnic Ukrainians responded by wiping out an entire Polish colony, setting fire to the houses, killing those inhabitants unable to flee and raping the women who fell into their hands, no matter how old or young. This had been the pattern of their behaviour east of the Bug River, where tens of thousands of Poles had been either expelled or murdered. We retaliated by attacking an even bigger Ukrainian village and . . . killed women and children. Some of our men were so filled with hatred after losing whole generations of their family in the Ukrainian attacks that they swore they would take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. . . . This was how the fighting escalated. Each time more people were killed, more houses burnt, more women raped.” "

Bobanni (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bobanni, please open any encyclopedia you find, be it Encarta or Britannica, and tell me if you see there sentences formed like this one How, for instance, is one to reconcile the memories of Poles and Jews when remembering wartime Poland? This is not encyclopedic, we are not writing a newspaper article or a blog. As for Waldermar Lotnik, and his recollections, we can surely add this to the article, I have no objections to it. Note what Lotnik says - their actions were a bloody answer to what the Ukrainians had initiated. Tymek (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How does "dubious" suddenly become "un-encyclopaedic" - collaboration is difficult if you keep changing you reasons. I am quoting reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy - Wikipedia is not Encarta or Britannica. 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is both dubious and unencyclopedic. Also, there is no mention of the Volhynian Genocide. This text is a loose speculation on the Polish - - Jewish - Ukrainian relationships during the war, and if it is supposed to describe anything specific, it should be added to the Operation Vistula article, not here. Please do not be a child and remove it. Tymek (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have your facts confused

1) There is nothing inaccurate (or dubious) about the information presented.

2) Wikipedia is not a written encyclopedia

3) Burds describes "memory" of each ethnic group as somewhat biased and focusses on Snyder's talent at getting a bigger picture.

4) Burd's article lays the groundwork for the ethnic cleansing in Volhynia and ethnic cleansing of Operation Wisla.

5) I do not understand your reference to "child" - what is that suppose to mean?

Bobanni (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this given its own section in the article anyway? Why not add it to the "Reconciliation" section? Honestly I don't see why its in the article anyway. Ostap 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the first part of your comment, the section long rather off topic quote doesn't belong in either article. I am going to remove it from the other. Ostap 03:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian idependence?

On June 30, 1941, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the OUN, under the leadership of Stepan Bandera declared an independent Ukrainian State in Lviv. Is this information needed at the beginning of the section about radicalization of Ukrainian society?Hedviberit (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, in my opinion.Faustian (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Remove it. Actually the whole "Radicalization of Ukrainian Society" section is a bit strange and in my opinion should be refactored. --Lysy^talk 05:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources?

lwow.home.pl/wolyn.html is a private personal Polish website - hardly a reliable source. Should be deleted. Bobanni (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's a realible source. Loosmark (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RS. --Львівське (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the WP:RS, the page in question seems very realible. Loosmark (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Righteous

I've added an item (in Polish) to the bibliography - "Sprawiedliwi Ukraińcy" from a recent IPN Bulletin. Currently the article does not mention that many Ukrainians attempted to rescue their Polish neighbours from the massacre, usually risking their own lives. --Lysy^talk 16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of 500 names of those brave Ukrainians, who risked certain death from the hands of murderous UIA's Sluzhba Bezbeky. Tymek (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be section about it. Its is proof that OUN-UPA didnt represent Ukrainians. The second proof is fact that many Ukrainians were killed by UPA and OUN-SB.--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Suicides

Some reports mention Poles committing suicides or killing their children to avoid the tortures. This is probably beyond any research now but I wonder if there are any estimates of the number of Poles who committed suicide ? --Lysy^talk 08:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen any. The best stats I've ever saw are in SUZUN page, for example.--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More inflated figures by questionable sources (?)

The newest additions are all by a group of Polish scholars none of whom seem to be reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. The books mentioned are not published by universities or by a respected academic institutions such as the Institute of Remembrance but by Nortom publishers in Wroclaw. The publishing house gets praised on this anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalist blog: [49] and in addition to the work included now also includes stuff by noted propagandists Prus, Polszczuk and Korman. I see no difference between this stuff and stuff published by Bandera's organization. Yet figures from these questionable sources have been placed in this article's lead. Comments from others?Faustian (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot comment about these figures but I would also be very suspicious about the books, especially if they are published by the likes of Nortom. We should be very careful with selection of sources for this article and I'd rather stick to books witten by respected historians, where possible, and of course none of them would publish a book at Nortom, which is mainly a Polish nationalistic propaganda outlet. For the same reason I would avoid books published by Ukrainian diaspora or by Russian or Ukrainian authors clearly influenced by Soviet ideology. Can we get any credentials on these Polish authors ? Are they affiliated with any major university ? --Lysy^talk 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User Lysy, please abide by the rules of Wikipedia while editing this article, or any other article by this matter. Obviously, none of us knows who you are and what you do in real life, and so, we don’t know what the word "respected" means to you either. If you’re concerned about reliability of Polish sources already linked by other editors, start a thread at Wikipedia: Reliable sources but please, do not remove them unilaterally, using suspicious edit summaries and a barrage of value judgments in defense of your actions. --Poeticbent talk 14:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see diffrence between Siekiera and stuff published by Bandera's organization. Bandera's organisations made genocie on Polish and try avoid responsibility. They are lying. Polish source are based on recolections published in Karta Center. This are reliable source and have nothing similar to nationalist. --Paweł5586 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, please remove the discussion about the # of victims from the article's lead to the relevant section. The lead serves as a summary of the article, not an introduction. As for the reliability of the sources, the highest quality are of course peer reviewed academic publications and for the sake of the quality of this already difficult and pov-loaded article, I would suggest we attempt to cite sources based on modern methodology of professional historical research. With all the respect for their useful and undeniably tedious work, what is the professional background of these authors ? --Lysy^talk 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this does not belong in the lede section. Ostap 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It can be in proper section.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Old skeletons

I’d like to comment mostly on Faustian's attitude at this stage since he has never addressed my concerns expressed about the suspicious nature of several Ukrainian sources he fiercely defended earlier. I see a double-standard here and a lot of bad will on his part that makes our discussion impossible to continue into the future, until we get some answers. – Why is the information contained in several dead links to UPA no longer available at the Ukrainian source? Why are these pages discontinued by the Ukrainian portal? – This is about more than just one piece of information: the dead link to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/16.pdf is referenced five times; there’s also the dead link to http://www.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/11.pdf implying even more deleted links at the source, between the numbers /upa/11.pdf and /upa/16.pdf. Meanwhile, the portal in question is still active: http://www.history.org.ua/, as if nothing happened. The removed links were removed by the webmaster on purpose, but for a reason which is unknown to us. – These are nagging questions, inspiring more doubt about Faustian's approach to referencing and the information he promotes? Why has it been discontinued at the source? Why did the Ukrainian portal remove it from its database? Perhaps, because what was quoted from those few deleted pages revolved around political propaganda? In contrast, the books by Polish authors and the information drawn from them in the lead, provide little more than just bare numbers. These numbers are of course necessary, for as long as the scope of the article exceeds one voivodeship. --Poeticbent talk 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to your claim that the book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is no longer online because the infromation is currently deemed incorrect? I do not "promote" any information, I merely relay what reliable sources say. When doing so I cetainly pull no punches with respect to Ukrainians - the section abou thte OUN's role in the murdder of the Jews and how they leanred their lesson to apply it to the Poles was written by me, based on Snyder. I do demand reliable sources in accordance with wikipedia policy, however. This would mean something published by a university or academic institute by recognized historians. The Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is a reliable source. What you are putting in this article's lead is not.Faustian (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Still it would be good to get a proper citation of source, including the author's name, year, publisher etc. --Lysy^talk 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is the kind of stuff that really makes me sick, especially that it can go on indefinitely no matter what I say. The Ukrainian webpages (above) whitewashing the roles of UPA might have never been there in the first place, but out of sheer courtesy, I speak of them as merely removed by the portal. For what I know, the whole stunt with the Academy of Sciences speaking sounds dubious, and if those pdfs' ever existed, it might as well have been an internet hoax devised by some disgruntled Ukrainian nationalist. Anybody (especially under the cover of anonymity) can produce a webpage and call it the Academy of Sciences of whatever. That's the power of the internet. But first, the material must remain available for us to be able to judge for ourselves. --Poeticbent talk 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source has to be available on-line. When it was online for several months after having been added, nobody complaiend. But now that it is offline, "conveniently" it becomes a problem.Faustian (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hey guys, no need to quarrel. Relax and be happy.

Oh, and by the way: try http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/Oun/11.pdf and http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/Upa/16.pdf *lol*Benda2 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources are online again.Thanks.Faustian (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And the author of Chapter 5 is the Kiev-based historian Ігор Ільюшин (Ihor Ilyushin). A brief bio is here: "The author, Doctor of History, Professor, Head of the Department for Foreign Cooperation of Kyiv Slavic University, will be present. Organized by Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Publishing House". Here is Ilyushin working together with Motyka: [50]. Basically a book chapter published by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences written by Ilyushin is clearly a reliable source. I hope this settles it.Faustian (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is under a 1RR rule

See the above posting at Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia#Please observe the 1RR on this article. (One revert per editor per 24-hour period). Admins are allowed to use blocks to enforce this restriction. I also encourage editors to be cautious about revert warring on related articles such as Chodaczkow Wielki massacre. Though 3RR still applies to that article, the behavior there is already setting off some alarm bells. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another source

Yuri Tys-Krokhmaliuk's UPA warfare in Ukraine. Like the Nortom stuff put into this article, the author is not a historian and the book isn't published by an academic source. However, like the work of Henryk Komański and Szczepan Siekierka, UPA warfare in Ukraine is referenced by legitimate historians. His work appears in the work of Jeffrey Burds, Orest Subtleny (who actually lists this book as "recommended reading") and even Tadeusz Piotrowski (seen here). Paul Robert Magocsi, in Ukraine: a History, published by the University of toronto Press, 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.

Now, I had previously been very conservative with with book. I only used it if the info from this book was specifically corroborated with info from reliable sources. However if we are going to use a different standard with Polish-related articles we ought to include additional info from this book. On page 262-264 we have the following information:

"It is a matter of historical fact that at the second conference of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, held in April 1943, a far-sighted declaration was adopted, calling for the liquidation of all fronts save the Soviet and German. Collaborations against the common enemies was the keynote. On the basis of this action of the OUN, an understanding was reached with the Hungarians and the Rumanians, and a closer collaboration among the non-Russian peoples of the USSR was effected. But the Poles refused to engage in any parleys. To the contrary, they demanded the capitulation of the UPA and its subordination under the Polish command. In addition, they demanded that the Ukrainians recognize all Western Ukrainianlands as rightly belonging to a future Polish state..."

"Establishing their base in ethnic Ukrainian territory bordering on the lands of the Buh river, now populated mainly by Poles, the Polish partisans began a ruthless "liquidation" of the Ukrainians there and also in Volhynia. Individual Ukrainians were assassinated; ordinary Ukrainians were killed at random. Whereas the Ukrainians living in the cities were defenceless, the Uktrainians in the villages spontaneously formed armed groups to fight back against the Polish terrorist groups. This state of affairs eventually involved the UPA..."

"In February 1944 the Poles organized the 27th infantry division numbering 6,000 partisans. The Poles succeeded in clearing their base of operations of the Ukrainian population and German police detachments...the UPA command, knowing the designs of the Poles on the areas of Polisia and Volhynia, took steps to prevent the Poles from extending their base of operations. Within the territory of its operations the UPA cleared the villages and woods of Poles. The Polish settlers on those territories had been brought in by the Polish government prior to 1939 in order to "dilute" the Ukrainian ethnic territory; they were not indigenous to these lands. During the war these chauvinistic Polish elements were actively engaged in combatting the native Ukrainians. On the one hand, these Poles provided ready recruits for Nazi-sponsored Polish auxilliary police to replace the Ukrainian auxilliary police that had deserted en masse to the UPA. On the other hand, many Poles registered as Volksdeautsche and thus could conduct anti-Ukrainian activities even more effectively. Also, in those areas where the Soviet partisans operated, the Poles furnished their own "Red" groups in support of the Russians, hoping that such collaboration would help the Polish cause. Soviet sources reveal that in these areas Poles constituted from 40 to 90 percent of the Red partisan groups. At a meeting organized by eneral Kovpak, the Soviet partisan leader, the Polish representatives declared that 'in the struggle against Hitlerism and Ukrainian antionalism their (the Poles') road is that of the Red Army and the Soviet Union... (cited from V.Klokov's Fatherland published in Kiev in 1954").

"This was one of the reasons why the UPA, after its first warning went unheeded, formally demanded that all the Poles quit the UKrainian territory voluntarily, setting a deadline for their departure. When the Poles ignored the warning, they were set upon by the UPA."

Preferably this article will only rely on books written by historians and/or published by academic presses. But it seems several Polish editors disagree with following this policy, ading the work of Henryk Komański and Szczepan Siekierka. In which case, all of this info above ought to be included in this article too. In fact, I can find dozens of similar things written in Ukrainian sources, which are comparable to Nortom. This would at least balance the article, if we are going to include Henryk Komański and Szczepan Siekierka's work and that of other Nortom writers..Faustian (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is blackmail. UPA nationalists historians trying to excuse their crimes. Komanski and Siekierka are on victims side. They dont lie.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Siekarka on Ukrainians victims side? We don't know if he was personally involved, however according to his wikipedia page he was a member of Polish self-defence units in Volyn which as Snyder pointed out murderd Ukrainian civilians in revenge attacks. Anyways this is besides the point. The book above has the exact same qualifications as Siekierka's book, so it ought to be treated equally.Faustian (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments and I am sure - You know nothing about massacres. There was a big diffrence beetwen self-defence and UIA. UIA had started genocide on Poles and self-defence was trying to stop them. Thats why they were called self-defence. UIA was attacking side and butchered about 60 thousands civilians. UIA attacks were organised, prepered and suported by high command of UIA. Polish revenge - only 2 thousands victims (in war conditions) and made by diffrent group of Poles - Shutzmans, self-defence, private peoples who saw mutilated bodies of their family. You cant accuse Poles of Volhynia events - responsibility is only on OUN-UIA side. And remember - several thousands Ukrainias have died for support Poles, killed by SB-OUN and UIA. In these circumstances Ukrainian nationalists historians are not reliable trying to excuse UIA crimes--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pawel: Your thesis is not valid. To argue that the Ukrainians suddenly started a genocide, ignoring pertinent facts in order to give an inaccurate and distorted view of this historic episode between the Poles and Ukrainians, does little service to understanding the underlying causes of the conflict and future resolutions. The fact that such a tragedy took place is evident, however it did not, and could not happen suddenly, without provocation. It was a chain of continuous actions and reactions, which resulted in a gradual escalation of conflict between the two sides. Blame cannot fall on one party exclusively. It reminds me of the school boy who complains that a dog bit him, right out of the blue, without provocation, neglecting the fact that he was harrasing the dog with a stick before the event happened.

Your attitudes and edits, IMHO, are written in a style of continued escalation, and need to be re-evaluated by yourself personally. If your aim is to antagonize editors, continue the conflict and escalate the problem, then you should really should not be here. Your Polish patriotism is admired. I gives you energy to pursue such endevopurs as editing such articles however, blind patriotism can interfere with reliable scholarship. Bandurist (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainians didnt started genocide - OUN-UIA did. Its big diffrence. There werent any provocations any other reasons except one. OUN-UIA wanted Volhynia and Galicia for "independed Ukraine" - so to removed Polish demands to the land they decided to removed Poles, like Germans Jews ealier (fot another reason). The Second world war was coming to the end, UIA command suspected Polish-Ukrainian war for territory. Thats why they made ethnic cleansing - genocide. No Poles no problem. After that they started made up stories to excuse their crimes - first that all Ukrainians were against Poles, second: II R. of Poland was so bad to Ukrainians, that they had to expell Poles, and more. You read this lies for years thats why you dont believe in the truth. Sorry for my words, they are hard and bitter, but the truth arent easy.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

Ukrainian policemen who deserted from German service were replaced by the Nazis with Polish policemen who then proceeded to avenge crimes againt Poles by committing atrocities against Ukrainians. German policy involved the murder of the family of every Ukrainian police officer deserting and the destruction of the village of any Ukainian police officer deserting with his weapons. These retaliations were carried out using newly recruited Polish policemen, fueling the cycle of killings between the communities. In the words of an OUN-Bandera leader, the German administration "uses Polaks in its destructive actions. In response we destroy them unmercifully." [38] - It seems that Poles joined auxilary Police after the massacres had started and directly because of UPA attacks; this fragment does not belong in 'prelude', maybe it could be moved to the section about 'German involvement'.

Snyder writes: The UPA killed about 7 thousand of unarmed men, women and children in the first days of the attacks in late march and early April 1943. Through April and throughout Volhynia, UPA soldiers surounded colonies and villages, burnt houses, shot or forced back inside those who tried to escape.

Then he writes about 'vengeful collaboration': Poles who had survived the first round of attacks were unspairing in their revenge. They had seen their houses burned and their families killed, often in the most horrifying ways.. The Germans recruited about 1,200 Polish policemen in April 1943 to replace the Ukrainian deserters. Polish motives were local and personal: to defend themselves or take revenge.

And about Ukrainian police: That said, the auxilary police remained heavily Ukrainian despite the desertions of March and April, and Ukrainian policemen in the German service continued the pacifications of villages (often Polish) suspected of sheltering Soviet partisants.

From:Timothy Snyder, The causes of Polish and Ukrainian Ethnic Cleansing, Past&Present, A Journal of Historical Studies,nr 179, 2003, p.220-224

fueling the cycle of killings between the communities - Is that an exact quote?--Hedviberit (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, a summary of what is found on page 173 here.Faustian (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kuty

It isnt Szumski region but Szumsk community (in Polish gmina), Krzemieniec county. This village had two names: Kuty and Kąty. Second name is more often used. And I am laughing around Snyder, he is repeating nationalists lies about cooperating with Gestapo:) A poor villagers in deep province are big help for gestapo:) Second thing is that - Kąty wasnt liquidated. Self defence rejected assault. 67 Poles were butchered but only this people who didnt hide behind defence line. The next day Germans came from Szumsk and they helped the Polish population with the escape. Entire road to Szumsk German soldiers escorted Poles. Probably thats why nationalists made up cooperation as excuse.--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian POV pushing

ok this is completely crazy [[51]]. Loosmark (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is information taken from a reliable source, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. The author of this chapter of a 300+ page book dedicated to UPA and the OUN is Ihor Ilyushin, a member of the Academy of Sciences, respected historian who has presented a conference together with Motyka. He contrasts quite favorably with some of the soures that Polish nationalists try to use here (Korman, Prus, etc.). The info is referenced with a link and even a page number. You can check the info yourself if you doubt it. Other than Wikipedia:I just don't like it what is your problem? You can read about the author here. Judging by your reaction it seems that Ukrainian nationalists brought up on fairytales that UPA never killed any civilians may not be the first people to learn something new from this article. BTW there is a whole lot of detailed info about Polish massacres of civilians, linked and mixed in with the Ukrainian massacres of Poles, in the book chapter. It m ay be that Huta Pienicka was the response to a wave of attacks on Ukrainian villages that had left hundreds of Ukrainian civilians dead, for instance. More will come...and I hope you do not feel that Poles own this article. Faustian (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One source is not enough for such claim, present other sources preferably non-Ukrainian. Loosmark (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian...please... other Poles attempted to enter German service (?!)...White Eagle what !? etc, etc. This so much nationalistic B.S. based on one Ukrainian source. Faustian please.... I don't want to argue with you.--Jacurek (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is far from nationalistic, as in addition tot he info it confirms various atrocities committed by Ukrainians. The author's bio tells us it is a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To support such as extraordinary claim you need to present more than just one source. Also, could you provide the exact translation of the relevant text? Loosmark (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with that edit, the first one being that it appears to be provocative. More specifically, 1) The name "Legion of Death" is most likely a mistranslation of the Polish "Legion Smierci" which could be also translated as "Legion of the Dead" (i.e. reflecting the fact that its members were ready to die in their fight). Either way, I don't think the names are notable and I'd want to see corroboration from other sources - whom were these units subordinate too? Were they anything more than just a few peasants getting together? 2) Some of the chronology is off - Poles joined the police force AFTER the massacres started as a matter of self defense. The part about "in those roles tried to sew distrust towards Ukrainians by the Germans" is unencyclopedic language and very POV, even if backed by a source. Can we have the relevant passage from the source and a good translation into English? 3) It's useful to keep in mind that this is, after all, an article on the massacres, not about everything that happened before hand. Some of it is of course relevant and we've already compromised on including stuff about how the Polish GiE viewed the situation and such - this seems to be pushing things even further and threatens to disrupt the shaky compromise in place.radek (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you tag info taken from a massive work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, by a historian from that group tasked specifically to research UPA and OUN, as "dubious" when you have not for instance taged a bunch of inflated numbers provided by a non-histirian published by Nortom as dubious. The work is quite comprehensive and involved extensive searches into state archives. It meets teh highest standards. See here: [52]. The information I placed into the article is here: [53]. Just scroll down to the last paragraph on page 238. With respect to forming Polish underground groups it includes reports from the OUN and corroborating reports from the German authorities. Both are quoted. Bottom of page 239 includes info about Polish police. You are correct that they joined en masse following the Ukrainian desertion but they were present earlier. This is confirmed in several German reports. One dated September 9 1942 (2nd paragraph page 240) described 2 trends among Poles: a large movement towards serving the Germans in various administrative organs and also a hope that after the war a large Poland will be reformed. (recall that the Ukrainian police deserted in early 1943). Next paragpragh cites writings by Bayer who had been involved in the German administration of Lviv and later Volyn, who described the Poles of Volyn as eager servants of German rule who at caused harm to the Ukrainian civilian population while at the same time ruining the "good name" of the Germans in the eyes of the same population.Faustian (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This lies must be removed--Paweł5586 (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid reason to remove referenced information.Faustian (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't access the PDF because when i try to i get a message from Google that the page is blacklisted because there was report of malware on it. Loosmark (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I and others have had no problem opening it. I saved the file at home and can e-mail it to you if you wish.Faustian (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 **Civility Alert**

Calling someone a POV Pusher as in the title of this section is uncivil. see WP:POVPUSH. Please adjust your edits accordingly. Bobanni (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If the guy has a scholarly source there should be no dispute on it's veracity or wheether it is acceptable for the article. The whitewashing by Poles here is ridiculous, and it's always the same characters (Loos, Pavel & co.). Faust doesn't need to provide multiple sources to appease you like you're an authority, he has one very good one and if you don't like it, the onus is on you to find contradictory scholarly sources.--Львівське (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

15,000?

Polish self-defence organization took part in revenge massacres of Ukrainian civilians. In early 1944 the Ukrainian villages of Prykhorile, Mentke, Sakhryn, Shykhoviche, Terebin were destroyed. Seventy percent of the estimated 1,5000 victims were Ukrainian women and children.[66]

Shouldn't it be 1,500? 2. Where on the page 264 is this info? 3. It does not belong to the 'Volhynia' section, those villages are from different region – Sahryn and Terebin are from Lublin county, I presume Prykhorile, Mentke, Shykhoviche are from there too. Motyka writes about Polish retaliatory actions in Lublin county in march 1944 (edited: a mistake).--Hedviberit (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 1,500. We'll get to that in a moment. First, Page 264 included info about the formation of the Polish self-defence forces. Pg. 266, 4th paragraph, described how by the summer and fall of 1943 a lot of the Ukrainian civilian population in Volyn, that had nothing to do with anti-Polish acts, was already suffering at the hands of pro-AK Polish partisan groups. Among the evidence was a letter dated August 26 1943 to local Polish commander Bombinsky criticzing the burning of neighboring Ukrainian villages, killing any Ukrainian that crosses their path, and robbing Ukrainians' goods. Pg. 269, third paragraph, states that although the Polish leadership forbid local commanders from collectively punishing the Ukrainian population, it contradicted itself by allowing punitive raids and it even allowed preventative raids - destroying Ukrainian settlements where UPA might form. Same page, further down, describes how a unit of Polish communist partisans numbering 800 soldiers near the Tsumanski forests destroyed all Ukrainian villages and UPA units in its path. Pg. 270-271 described fighting between UPA and AK, some of which involved the destruction of Ukrainian villages (such as one near Lutsk). Page 272 described several Ukrainian village destroyed, citing the Ukrainian eyewitness Tsaruk and the Polish Siemaszko.

Page 275 includes info about all of the destroyed villages, on the first paragrpagm which I'll translate. "The united Polish forces during these actions (actually several of them) destroyed Ukrainian villages: Pryhorile, Mentke, Sahrin, Shykhovichi, Terebin, Stryzhenets, and others in which 1,500 Ukrainians were shot or murdered. Around 70% of the victims were women and children. Only in Sahryn on the noght of 9-10 of March at a minimum 200 Ukrainians died. Overall until June 1944 around 150 Ukrainian villages were burned down, in which lived 15,000 people." Next paragraph: "bloody also were the revenge actions of Ukrainian and German military formations."

Perhabs 15,000 is the number of victims for whole Galician region (Western and Eastern) -/+ Volhynia, otherwise, it contradicts other sources - for example Motyka's 10,000 - 20,000 Ukrainian victims (including 2,000-3,000 in Volhynia). It would also mean that max. 3,000-5,000 Ukrainians were killed after June 1944. What does it mean "the united Polish forces"? I don't see anything about Polish self-defense units.--Hedviberit (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1,500 people murdered of whom 70% were women and children. A bunch of villages with population of 15,000 destroyed (presumably most of the people escaped rather than were killed). Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.Faustian (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pg. 281 states that Ukrainian volunteers who had been mobilized for the Galician division burned down the Polish villages of Budka Neznaniwksa and Pavliv due to the Polish residents' rebellion and their refusal to leave the territory.

Pg. 282 in Sambir region the Polish authorities released letters addressed tot he Ukrainian population: "To the UKrainian population of Eastern Little Poland. Ukrainians! The attacks of your bands on the peaceful Polish population and its murder in a criminal way have made living togethe impossible and forces us to retaliate. We order the Ukrainian population to leave allareas where Poles live within 48 hours. Those who do not obey will be punished with death. Signed by coommander of Polish revenge battalions Jarema."

This article will be incomplete without mentioning the full context of the actions. While obviously the OUN-B initiated the slaughter in early 1943 subsequently the murders by both sides were of a retaliatory nature. A lot of innocent Ukrainians were murdered by Polish self-defence bands based in places such Huta Pieniacka prior to that village's destruction.20:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The massacres in Lublin county (march) happened after the Huta Pieniacka massacre (february). Anyway, it does not belong to the 'Volhynia' section.The chronology must be preserved, and the territory must be taken into account. Motyka estimates the number of Ukrainians killed in retaliatory actions in Volhynia at max. 2,000 - 3,000 (I think this info should be included), while the number of killed Poles at 50,000 - 60,000. Moreover, Motyka writes that in July 1944, at a congress of the Ukrainian Central Council of Liberation, Roman Shukhevych himself admitted that the action of liquidation of the Volhynian Poles took place. [54] "the murders by both sides were of a retaliatory nature" - certainly not in Volhynia.--Hedviberit (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They were after summer 1943, when the first massacres of Ukrainian civilians in Volyn took place, as cited above.Faustian (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As to Volhynia, we know that altogether in spring and summer 1943, 40,000 Poles were killed, that leaves us with 10,000-20,000 Poles killed after the summer, and 2,000 – 3,000 Ukrainian victims. Snyder writes: The final wave of attacks fell on 25 December 1943, when Roman Catholic Poles were concentrated in flammable wooden churches.[55]

The ethnic cleansing was later continued in Galicia: Unlike in the case of Volhynia, where Polish villages were usually destroyed and their inhabitants murdered without warning, in east Galicia Poles were sometimes given the choice of fleeing or being killed.[56]Those massacres you inserted took place in march 1944 in Lublin county, I'm going to move them to the Eastern Galicia section for now.Hedviberit(talk) 02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.Faustian (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

These are Ukrainian lies, Huta self-defence units defend village against UIA. They have no chance to attack anyone, becouse Germans supports Ukrainians, and UIA was good armed. Self defence units has no many weapons and was out-numbered. Total Ukrainian victims at Volhynia are 2-3 thousands, total in conflict 10-20 th - according to Ukrainian-Polish seminaries. --Paweł5586 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being abusive just because you don't like certain information.Faustian (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Paweł5586, please avoid abusive words such as lies etc., these are not lies, just different or Ukrainian nationalistic POV.--Jacurek (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a POV but cited facts. Which of those was POV?Faustian (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is lie - A lot of innocent Ukrainians were murdered by Polish self-defence bands based in places such Huta Pieniacka prior to that village's destruction. Its nationalistic POV and excuse for crime in Huta. --Paweł5586 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being abusive. Estimated 20,000 Ukrainian civilians died. Huta P. was known staging area for Polisbh and Soviet partisans. An no, this does not excuse killing innocents in Huta.Faustian (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

20,000? riiight. estimated by whom? Loosmark (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

10-20 th. Ukrainian civilians beetwen 1943-1947 died. As Motyka said - closer to 10 th. But only small part of this number perished in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Most of them in current Poland - Pawłokoma, Sahryn, Piskorowice, and Polish Army (LWP) pacifications. At Volhynia died 2-3 thousands, number at Eastern Galicia 1943-1944 is unknown but it cant be a lot. As I said before self-defence was to weak to attack UPA, and any assault at Ukrainian village would be suicide becouse of UPA revenge. Main target of self-defence was - to survived.--Paweł5586 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That must be why in 1943 a Polish self-defence commander got a letter from the Polish undergrond authorities criticizing him for "the burning of neighboring Ukrainian villages, killing any Ukrainian that crosses their path, and robbing Ukrainians' goods". Or why Yale university Timonthy Snyder stated that the Polish 27th Home Army Infantry Division (Poland), made up in large part of Poles who had been Nazi policemen, killed ethnic Ukrainians whom it encountered on Ukrainian roads. Here is the proof, from a book published by Yale, first paragraph.Faustian (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, the google books link you provide does not state what you claim it states about the 27th AK - it might be in there but the link doesn't show it.radek (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All I can see is Home Army formed the 27th Infantry Division (Volhynia), 6558 strong, tasked to engage the UPA and then the Wehrmacht. So nothing about Nazi policemen (and note that regular policemen weren't the same as "Nazi policemen" which would've been the Gestapo) or indiscriminate killing of ethnic Ukrainians - just that they fought UPA.radek (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the 27th Home Army Infantry Division didn't come into being until 1944, after the massacres had started (although some units that came into its ranks had been active independently before).radek (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the policemen, you (or Snyder - if we can get a link) are probably referring to this: pl:Batalion Policyjny nr 107. Key phrases: Od czasu, gdy wiosną 1943 zdezerterowali ukraińscy partyzanci, Niemcy zaczęli zwiększać ilość polskiej policji na Wołyniu. - "After the Winter of 1943 when Ukrainians deserted (the German police batallion) and joined the partisans (UPA), the Germans began recruiting a greater number of Poles for the police in Volhynnia", and W styczniu 1944 po rozbrojeniu podoficerów i oficerów niemieckich przeszedł w całości w szeregi oddziałów Armii Krajowej. - "In June of 1944, after disarming it's non-commissioned and commissioned German officers, (the batallion) as a whole deserted into the ranks of the AK". So the Poles did exactly the same thing the Ukrainians did earlier - joined the German police, then deserted with weapons.radek (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and also like OUN policemen the Volhynian Poles in German service were involved in murdering civilians while working for the Germans.Faustian (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - do the sources say that? All that reliable sources state is that after the massacres broke out some Poles joined the German police and then quickly deserted in order to get weapons for self defense. And still, nowhere so far does it say that the 27th Volhynian killed civilians - rather that they thought UPA. We are also dealing with the simple difference in scope here; 2000-3000 Ukrainians killed by Polish self defense units in retaliation and defense vs. 60,000 Poles killed in an act of genocide.radek (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's from Snyder:The embattled Ukrainian Borderland Home Army formed the 27th infantry division (Volhynia), 6558 strong, tasked to engage the UPA and then the Wehrmacht.65 The Volhynian Division, the Home Army's largest, drew its strength from the Polish self-defence units formed to defend civilians against the UPA, and from former Polish policemen who left the German service. Absent the UPA's ethnic cleansing, the division would never have arisen. Although the Polish government ordered that civilians not be harmed, in the field Polish partisans burned Ukrainian villages and killed Ukrainians found on the roads in Volhynia... A Pole from Zofijowka colony, in the same part of Volhynia, joined the German police with 11 others after the general slaughter of 11-12 July 1943. As he recalled "it was about getting weapons". Snyder writes about 1,200 Volhynian Poles who joined German police.--Hedviberit (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Iljuszyn as source

Iljuszyn was in Poland at conference. Motyka got some serious charges to Iljuszyn book - first Iljuszyn blame Polish side for massacres began, second badly recognized targets of both sides - Polish mainly was defending, UPA was trying to kill all Poles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the info that according to Ukrainian historian Ilyiushin Poles began the massacres belongs in the article.Faustian (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This incidentally seems to confirm the what I had posted from another book, that the OUN claimed the Poles started killing Ukrainian civilians and that (according to OUN's logic) clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself.Faustian (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Iliuszyn napisał bowiem, że terror rozpoczął się na Lubelszczyźnie wiosną 1943 roku, podczas gdy, jak zauważył dr Motyka, wówczas ofiary mordów na Wołyniu są już liczone w tysiącach, natomiast na Lubelszczyźnie dochodziło do pojedynczych zbrodni, których ofiarą padło łącznie kilkadziesiąt osób. Oprócz tego mordy dokonane na Lubelszczyźnie, nie były z góry zaplanowaną akcją, w przeciwieństwie do planowej i systematycznej eksterminacji na Wołyniu i w Galicji Wschodniej.--Hedviberit (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This claim proves you are not interested in the true but for excuse ukrainian nationalists for their crimes. You are biased. Nationalist started ethnic cleansing becouse they wanted land for Ukraine. --Paweł5586 (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I in no way excused or condoned the murder of innocent civilians. This is your third personal attack against me.Faustian (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So why you always dont belive in crimes, dont see difrence beetwen ethnic cleansing and revenge, always trying to add some informations about excuses - cooperation with Gestapo or other things. All sources about crimes are not reliable.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop spreading falsehoods. Murder whether for revenge or ethnic cleansing is equally evil. Am I correct in assuming that killing women and children out of revenge is more acceptable for you then doing so for the purpose of ethnic cleansing? This is suggested when you criticize me for "dont see difrence beetwen ethnic cleansing and revenge". Could you clarify that please? I created an entire section of Ukrainian participation in the murder of 200,000 Volhynian Jews and have clarified and fixed info about other Ukrainian crimes. Your problem with me seems to stem from the fact that I insist on using only reliable sources when writing about these crimes (versus Polish nationalist books written by, in many cases, people who had been fighting Ukrainians and participating in Polish armed formations that were involved in murdering Ukrainian civilians) and on including background context to the crimes. You seem to be pushing the Polish nationalist POV that the crimes in Volhynia and surrounding regions were one-sided and that Polish policies had nothing to do with the crimes. Why else would you object to my including information taken from a Yale historian that Poles joined German police, killed Ukrainian civilians and thus contributed to the cycle of revenge and hatred between the two communities - obviously relevent info for understanding these tragic events. Faustian (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the cleansing of Poles started in march or even earlier. In February 1943 - Oun initiated the policy of killing polish civilians as a means of resolving the Polish question in Ukraine. In the first days of massacres UPA killed 7,000 Polish people and didn't spare women and children - there was no crimes of Polish policemen at that time. Ukrainian policemen were killing Polish civilians long before Polish started killing Ukrainian - and this is not seen as contributing to the situation. Do you think that if Poles didn't start taking revenge, the action of ethnic cleansing wouldn't have been continued? The fact that the murders were perpetrated with utmost cruelty and victims of UPA were tortured can be explained by need to take revenge, the fact that Poles were killed can be not. I wouldn't call what happened in Volhynia a cycle of violence, there is clearly no parity between the numbers of victims on both sides --Hedviberit (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Becouse Snyder's information is reapeted from oun propaganda. Answer questions, who started massacres, who was extremely cruel, who gave orders to kill civilians, who organized it. Poles defend themselves, and Polish comman never gave orders to kill civilians, forbid it. Polish total victims are up to 100,000 more than Ukrainians. Its a big diffrence beetwen that. I respect Ukrainians victims, I know about it more than you. But you didnt recognize reasons of genocide. I am concerning about it. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The section that I made large contributions to here demonstrates my "recognition" for the reasons for the massacres. By avoiding placing any blame for the Polish side (be it government policies in the 1930's that inflamed the local population or Polish participation in German police units that killed Ukrainian civilians) it is you who do not recognize all of the causes for this tragedy. You have admitted elsewhere that your Polish family is from Volhynia. Perhaps this may explain your passion and one-sidedness on this article. Which is your right of couse; just please don't push your POV into the article. Faustian (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to blame on the Polish side as the huge scale mass murder of innocent civilians (women and children) by the Ukrainian nationalist can't be explained or excused in any way. Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors. Next thing, the Poles had absolutely no reason to participate in the German police killing Ukrainian civilians, Volhynia was Polish before the war and apart from that Poles hated the Germans very much for the 1939 attack and on the brutality that followed. On the other hand the Ukrainians wanted to ethnically cleanse the territory because they wanted to get Volhynia for themselves. And yes after the nationalist butchers slaughter countless innocent civilians some smaller number of Poles probably joined the German police to get the arms to protect the civilians against those bandits. But you now trying claiming that it was the Poles who first joined the German police to kill Ukrainians which inflamed the local population" is downright pathetic and lame. Loosmark (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After your abusive topic headline alleging my "POV-pushing" now more abuse and incivility. I neve claimed the Polish police working for the Germns struck first, I merely repeated the fact described by Yale historian Snyder that when the Poles joined the German police afterwards and in that role slaughtered Ukrainian civilians, things got worse. "Nothing to blame on the Polish side." and "can't be explianed in any way." Really? So when a reliable source mentions that various persecutory acts against Ukrainians in the 1930's contributed ot what happened in the 1940's do we ignore that according to you? Faustian (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "things got worse"? Thousands, thousands and thousands of Polish civilians, mainly women and children got slaughtered, how could things go any worse than that? And what were the Poles, apart from trying to stop the massacres, supposed to do? Distrubute leaflets saying "oh please stop killing us"? Loosmark (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for a general discussion on the article's subject. Googlebooks has the relevent opasage by Yale historian Timothy Snyder here: [57] showing how revenge attacks on Ukrainian civilians fuelled more hatred and resulted in more deaths.15:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing i see when i click on the your link is a Book overview. Loosmark (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost all Polish colonists deported?

The article about Janowa Dolina seems to contradict the statement in this article that almost all of the Polish colonists to Volyn that "almost all were forcibly expelled by the Soviets to Siberia" long before the massacres. While it states that hundreds were deproted from Janowa Dolina, it also states that hundreds remained (and were subseaquently murdered by UPA).Faustian (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I found only that at 10th February 1940, 90% of osadniks from Eastern Poland (Kresy) were deported (44,000). The majority of left osadniks were resettled in the next 3 waves of deportations.[58] pg 13

Alleged osadniks were deported too, more here [59] It is possible some Osadniks weren't deported, it is also possible that abandoned houses in Janowa Dolina were subsequently inhabited ("inherited") by local people.--Hedviberit (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of the Soviets, including intellectuals and Polish officers murdered by the NKVD in the Katyn massacre, among other places.

I couldn't find this statement in the Snyder's work[60]. Since the statement is not supported by the source, I removed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Katyn massacre - references are not necessery for these statements. This is obviuos.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement was that "Several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of the Soviets, including intellectuals and Polish officers murdered by the NKVD in the Katyn massacre, among other places." Snyder tells nothing about "several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of the Soviets", and he mentions Katyn only briefly. I see no reason to not include Katyn, however, I don't understand how 22,436 executed Poles became "Several hundred thousand".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now, several hundred thousand. Estimates of total Polish victims during second World War at the hands of the Soviets equals 150 thousand. Source - investigation by Polish Instytute of National Rembrance, in Polish: Historycy IPN zaznaczają, że do podanej liczby należy dodać co najmniej 150 tys. osób, które poniosły śmierć z rąk Sowietów od 1939 r. do początku lat 50., kiedy miały miejsce ostatnie wywózki. It means: IPN Historians included to total number (6 mln), 150 thousands people who died at Soviet hands from 1939 to 1950, where the last expells (to Siberia) took place. When Soviet killed Poles?

• During Invasion of Poland (1939)
• During occupation Poland 1939-1941, and at Sibieria 1941-1950 - Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–1946)
• During "liberation" in 1944 in Poland--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not discuss the number of killed Poles here. My point was that the cited source tells nothing about "several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of the Soviets", and provides no details of Katyn massacre. Therefore it cannot serve as a support of the statement I removed. Feel free to add new sources and new wording. In addition, there is a big difference between 150,000 died during 1939-50 and "several hundred thousands" died in 1939-40 (the article tells about that period). --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Any questions I should floor?

...on this topic or other ukr/pol related questions? I'm studying under Dr. Jerzy Borzecki for the next few months, author of 'The Soviet-Polish Peace of 1921 and the Creation of Interwar Europe', and he was advised by Timothy Snyder while at Yale. Seems like a great person to help settle some disputes on this topic, don'tcha think?--Львівське (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If dr Borzecki wants to help out, that would be great. Tymek (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

False title

The title has been discussed, without any result. Either this article should be renamed or split.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree a neutral title should be used, but what are you suggesting by split?--Львівське (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The name doesn't really encompasс the whole tragedy and basically reflects a particular POV. The title Massacres of Poles in Volhynia is a translation of what Polish Nationalists are using. It was first introduce by Edward Prus who is one of the contributors to Radio Radio Maryja, which recently was labeled as a hate radio station by Western European journalists.

Are you sure it isn't about the term "volhynian slaughter"(rzeź wołyńska)?--Hedviberit (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

English authors use other terms such as

• Depolonisation of Western Ukraine
• Polish Ethnic cleansing
• Anti-Polish ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.
• Volyn Tragedy.

--Bandurist (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Edward Prus isn't any contributor to anything, because he died December 31, 2007.
• What is the opinion of the "Western European journalist" about some Western Ukrainian media?Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples (esp. for "depolonisation of Western Ukraine" and "Volyn tragedy")? "Depolonisation of Western Ukraine" is a vast term (it includes: deportations of Poles to the Soviet Union, population exchange after WWII).

I don't think the term "massacres" is a particular POV. There are many wikipedia articles, where the term "massacre" is used in a title (e.g Pawlokoma massacre). The given description of the killings (Snyder, Davis, Ferguson) also supports the usage of this term.--Hedviberit (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the scope of the article is much broader than the Volyn massacre alone. I think we should first agree on what fits into the article and what does not and only then consider the title. As for the "massacre" it's been dicuseed here zillion times and I think it's a good compromise between Polish ("slaugher", "genocide") and Ukrainian ("action", "depolonisation") POVs. --Lysy^talk 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the article covers also areas outside Volhynia.Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The word Massacre is inappropriate for an encyclopedia title. There are 10 titles using the word Massacre. Some are for Rock bands. 2 are for Polish history titles dealing with Ukrainians. --Bandurist (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Let's use "Pogrom" instead. A popular word here.Xx236 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Pawłokoma massacre was written on November the 13, 2007.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. There are more than 80 titles using the word "massacre"[61] (all of those articles are about mass murders) --Hedviberit (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The proper name for topic is:

• The ethnic cleansing of Poles from Volhynia and Galicia

--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper title is whatever reliable sources most widely use.--Staberinde (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Prus uses the word "rzezie" (the Polish plural of "rzeź" - "slaughter") a few times (pages: 247, 260, 279, 306). He doesn't use the term "Volhynian massacre"/"Volhynian slaughter" at all. He doesn't use the word "massacre(s)"/"slaughter" in the titles of chapters or sections. He uses the word "rzezie" rather in general meaning, substituting terms like: "brutal killings", "mass murders". On the page 306, he quotes T. Bor-Komorowski's report in which the term "slaughter" is used: "Rzeź Polaków rozszerza się po południk Lwowa...". The term "massacre" was first used to describe the ethnic cleansing operations by Edward Prus in 1985 in his book "Heroes under the sign of the Trident"[2] - Is this your original research or was it taken from some article?

Other authors using the term "massacres":

• Serhii Plokhy[62]: Another example of research on dealing with the history of the war is Timothy Snyder's book The Reconstruction of Nations. It discusses, among other things, the Volhynian massacres of 1943-4 as an example of ethnic cleansing and an outcome of the brutalization of society initiated by the Holocaust.

• David R. Marples[63]: Armstrong's magisterial book is a detailed discussion of the Volhynia massacres of 1943...Timothy Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations offers a fairly detailed account of the massacres of Poles in Volhynia by the UPA in 1943.

• George Sanford[64]: Chmielnicki's rebellion of 1948, the massacres of Poles in the West Ukraine during the second World War and a guilty conscience about the deportation of 130,000 Ukrainians from south-eastern to northern and western Poland in 1947 mingle uneasily with perceptions of Ukrainian nationalism's germanophil tendencies and very belated liberation from the Great Russian brother's embrace.--Hedviberit (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The most common and most widely used Polish term is Volhynian Slaughter. Whenever the massacres are described in Polish papers, this term is almost always used, whether it is Gazeta Wyborcza [65], Rzeczpospolita [66], or Wprost (it uses the term Volhynian Massacre) [67]. BTW, there is a very interesting article by Timothy Snyder, translated into Polish, and published in Tygodnik Powszechny - here [68]. Tymek (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A relevent quote from that article: "Ci dowódcy OUN-B na Wołyniu przystąpili do "czystek" na Polakach z własnej inicjatywy, najwyraźniej bez rozkazu od kierownictwa organizacji."Faustian (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Snyder writes about Szuchewicz and Wołoszyn as those OUN-B commanders who started cleansing of Poles without an order from OUN-B leadership. By the cleansing of Poles Szuchewicz wanted to elevate his position in OUN-B. And in fact he (together with his accomplices/allies) took the place of Lebed on the congress of OUN-B in end of April 1943. Similar is the case of Wołoszyn – in spring 1943 he was already second in command after Szuchewicz and responsible for supervision of local Sluzba Bespeky units. In the beginning of summer 1943, when his units managed to cleanse almost all the Volhynian Poles, he became member of the highest political authorities of the OUN-B.--Hedviberit (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, the quote cited by you is relevant, and as much as I would agree that OUN-B Volhynia commanders probably began the slaughter on their own, we have to remember that leaders of OUN-B never condemned them, what is more, they condoned the slaughter and as a result, it spread across today's Western Ukraine. Without UIA and OUN-B, it would have ended after a few months, with few casualties. Tymek (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:First use of term

See: Historiography of the Volyn tragedy. The next significant study was published in the mid 1980's by Edward Prus - "Heroes under the sign of the Trident"[4] (1985) which employed a journalistic and propagandistic style. Prus was the first to introduce the terms and concepts such as the Ukrainian "slaughter" Polish: rzeź of Poles. He compares the anti-Polish actions in Volyn and Galicia without the use of academic citations. According to a Ukrainian historian R. Hryckiw, Prus's work has no scientific merit. The use of a journalistic style, falsification and manipulation only reflect the state at which Polish historiography had reached in the last years of the communist Poland.

From Грицьків, Роман - Польська Історіографія Українсько-Польського збройного конфлікту часів Другої Світової війни by Roman Hrytskiv, published in the collection Українсько-Польський конфлікт під час другої світової війни Book 2 Lviv 2003. --Bandurist (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously you don't regard Prus as reliable source and neither do I, nor most editors here. So who cares what he wrote? Why did you even include him in the Historiography article since his work obviously doesn't satisfy the "History" part of "Historiorgraphy"? And yes Hryckiw says that Prus' work has no scientific merit. And he's right. And we all agree. But then why do you turn around and take him seriously? Is that last sentence from Hryckiw too or did you make it up? Just dump Prus, nobody seems to want him here except as some kind of a straw man.radek (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct but sadly Pawel5586 keeps defendingh im and trying to use works linked to him.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So it is "slaughter" (rzeź). 'Prus' book does have 75 bibliographic citations. But I agree that his publications should be treated with caution.

Timothy Snyder [69] using the term "slaughter":

• The UPA offered Ukrainians in mixed villages and towns material inducements to join in the slaughter of their neighbours. (p. 170)
• During the general slaughter of Poles it was an easy recruiting task. (p. 172)
• Consider an order from the UPA high command to its soldiers, issued after the slaughter in Volhynia, and during the cleansing of Galicia... (p. 176)
• Poles resettled from Volhynia and Galicia remember the slaughter by Ukrainian partisans of 1943 and 1944. To be sure, the barbaric mass murders of Polish civilians by the UPA... (p. 204)
• Recall too the tens of thousands of Ukrainian peasants who profited from the slaughter of Poles in Volhynia... (p. 207)
• It is thus odd to discuss "the tragedy of the Ukrainians of Poland" without mentioning the slaughter in Volhynia. (p.332)
• We will find that the Volhynian Holocaust of 1942 trained the young men who begun the slaughter of Poles in 1943. (p.8)
• This links the holocaust of the Jews and the slaughter of the Poles, since it explains the presence of thousands Ukrainians in Volhynia with experience in genocide. (p.162) --Hedviberit (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you provide a source for the Snyder book in English? I think it would be easier to find than one for Hrytskiv or Prus. Still, I'm sure that anybody who publishes phrases like "Volhynian Holocaust of 1942" had better have something to back it up, otherwise they would certainly know that they would be laughed out of academia. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The preview is available on Amazon. Please try searching for "slaughter" or "1942" (it will be the last result); the page numbers in "search results" seem not to reflect the actual numbering. The phrase "Volhynian holocaust of 1942" is about destruction of Volhynian Jews.Hedviberit (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, Amazon wanted a membership which I didn't have yet.

What the link does not do, however, is explain statements like "it explains the presence of thousands Ukrainians in Volhynia with experience in genocide". What does that mean? Why would you say something like that? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

From Snyder: Ukrainians learned the techniques of mass-murder from Germans. This is why UPA ethnic cleansing was striking in its efficiency, and why Volhynian Poles in 1943 were nearly as helpless as Volhynian Jews in 1942. It is one reason why the campaign against Poles began in Volhynia rather than Galicia, since in Volhynia the Ukrainian police played a greater role in the Final solution.(here is this statement) p.162 Thousands of Ukrainian policemen deserted and joined UPA.--Hedviberit (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bandurist, isn't Hrytskiv a historian involved in UPA and its history? If he is the one, why should we regard him as reliable, and Prus as unreliable? Could you please provide more information on who Hrytskiv is? Tymek (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because Hrytskiv is actually a young historian, working in a recognised Institute who continues to be a historian publishing in accredited scholarly publishing houses whereas Edward Prus was not a historian but a controversial Polish politologist whose works have often been criticized for significant bias, and who during WWII and in the period after Prus was associated with the NKVD and later the Polish Secret Service as an expert and consultant in Ukrainian affairs. Prus also became associated with the contraversial Radio Maryja and most of his publications were printed by the controversial anti-semitic, anti-German and anti-Ukrainian Nortom publishing house. --Bandurist (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

E. Prus was a historian and wasnt asscociated with NKVD. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he was not a historian. Was his degree in history? Was he a history professor? Were his books published by history departments or institutes? According to the Polish wikipedia page he "Był również żołnierzem Istrebitielnego Batalionu - formacji pomocniczej przy NKWD" - "He was also a soldier of an Istrebitielnego Battalion - the formation that was subordinate to the NKVD ". This fact about Prus was referenced to Grzegorz Motyka himself.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was, he had habilitation in history and later he become a professor politology. Source. First read about person not only form biased sources then accuse. About his membership in IB forces. It was self-defenese units against UPA not spies.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that he was not a historian and that during the war he fought in an armed unit subordinated to the NKVD.Faustian (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

lol he had habilitation in history, its obvious that he is a historian. Stop playing games--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that he has no degree in history but that the communist-era university gave this former soldier for a NKVD-subodinated paramilitaryunit an honor for his anti-Ukrainian work.Faustian (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you have no idea about degrees and Istrebieteilnyje Bataliony units.--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack, what a surprise. Also not surprising is Prus' active participation in NKVD-supervised Destruction (which is what Istrebieteilniye means) Battalions. Faustian (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is a reference to Bohdan Osadchuk referring to Prus as a KGB agent. (Osadchuk's Polish wiki page is much longer). So, a reliable source referring to Prus as a KGB agent. Unsurprising given that Prus was a paramilitary in a NKVD-supported armed force, finished law school under the Stalinist regime soon afterward, etc.Faustian (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A smart change of subject discussion. I have just prove that E. Prus was a historian (you denied that fact). For me he is not reliable too, but Osadczuk was a UPA member, so he is at Prus' level reliability.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI Hrytskiw's information is here.Faustian (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the article he now has defended his Candidate of Science dissertation Тема кандидатської дисертації: Польська історіографія українського визвольного руху 1940х – 1950х рр. on Polish Historiography of the Ukrainian Liberation movement of the 1940=50's which is equivalenyt to a a western Doctorate (PhD). It is hard to find a more qualified specialist. --Bandurist (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"habilitation" in Poland is like PhD+ (more or less equivalent to getting tenure at a university AFTER you got your PhD) - so Prus obviously has a PhD, at least according to the source provided by Pawel. His specialty was: "doktor habilitowany nauk humanistycznych w zakresie historii" (PhD Habilitated in Humanities with specialization in History") - so yes, he has a PhD + tenure, in History. In the source that Pawel provides there is no indication as to *when* Prus got his PhD and when he got his habilitation (basically, post 1989 - it's more or less 100% kosher, before 1989, there's always some question if it wasn't for political reasons - in which case it's good to have outside *Western* sources which validate him). Polish Wikipedia DOES SAY that he served in a NKVD unit (more precisely, in a NKVD "support unit") and this information is sourced to Motyka who I think all here agree is a reliable source. But it would be nice to get an actual quote/passage from the relevant Motyka book to verify that.

Come on people - I know that all of you, deep down in your heart of hearts know this isn't easy. Prus DOES have a PhD in History but he DID serve in a NKVD affiliated unit and he (most likely) DID get his PhD because he chose to write on a topic which was convenient for the communist regime in Soviet Union and Poland. It's a mix, though mostly unfavorable to Prus. There's probably genuine scholarship in his work. There's also probably a helluva lot of propaganda.

If I had the run of this, I would only use him for non-controversial claims and for controversial claims I would make sure that there'd be other corroborating sources.

But this works both ways and requires some frankness and honesty. So is Hrytskiv involved with UPA? Was Osadchuk a UPA member? In all honesty I don't know for sure but I do think we should be consistent and fair when dealing with these sources (my guess is that the situation with Osadchuk is more like the situation with Siemaszko rather than like Prus).radek (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Prus' Ph.D. is not in history but in politology. His habilitation is in history. My impression of habilitation is that it can be considered a sort of post-doctoral repsecialization. The habilitation was obtained in 1986 (see here) for his anti-Ukrainian work. Osadczuk is a professor of history at the Berlin Free University, one of the elite German univerisites. He is not in the same league as Prus. Osadczuk was not a member of UPA - he was a university student in Berlin during the war (at least, according to his Polish wiki page). I would consider Osadczuk's claim that Prus was a KGB agent to be credible. Prus, after all, served in an NKVD-subordinated military formation, then immediately afterward started his successful career in Stalin-occupied Warsaw (obtainign his first university degree in 1946 in Warsaw). Prus' work consists of attacks against not only UPA but other Ukrainian organizations or figures whom the Communists sought to discredit - his vicious attacks against Andrey Sheptytsky (which naturally is published by Nortom) just one example.Faustian (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

lol:) Osadczuk got Master's degree in 1944 in Berlin so its look like worse than Prus. Nazi university! He claims themself that he maintained contacts with representatives of both the "underground Ukrainian - the UPA and the Polish - AL! Armia Ludowa was a communist guerilla who made several atrocities, even on Poles. There is no neccesery to mention about UPA, everyone knows UPA's crimes. He got Doctorate on Ukrainian Free University, private higher education institution, probably most countries of the world dont honour this uniwersity titles. --Paweł5586 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian Free University is fully accredited. Private universities in the West are not bad - Yale and Harvard are two examples of private universities. If Osadczuk's doctorate wasn't fully accredited then he wouldn't be a history professor at the prestigious Berlin Free University, now would he. This is really silly.Faustian (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Osadczuk was awarded the prestigious Polish state award, the Order of White Eagle for his work in Ukrainian-Polish relations. Reliable source - YES! Bobanni (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont compare UFE with Yale nad Harvard:) Only Germany and Ukraine honour UFE titles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I know a number of professors in Canadian Universities with Doctorates from UFU and also a coupe in Australia. --Bandurist (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Such as this guy who taught at Harvard with his doctorate from UFU, and who currently teaches at the University of Pennsylvania (an Ivy League school).Faustian (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

POV dispute at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

This article from the title to the article is written from a Polish nationalist perspective. Attempts to balance it by adding additional material either relating to background or to Polish ethnic cleansing in Operation Vistula have been abruptly deleted. Just adding references that some historians find the "memory" of these events by either side to be radically different is pruned from this article. Hence the POV tag. Bobanni (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please! The background section is 100 miles long for God's sake. Compare, per Faustian's suggestion, the length of the background section here to similar articles on other massacres. There's all kinds of stuff in here about bad Polish policy in the interwar period. And what does Operation Vistula have to do with the background to these massacres? It happened AFTERWARDS. And the article isn't about that Operation. And in fact the Operation IS mentioned. The title is what the article is about.

I suggest asking for a Third Opinion because at this point I'm pretty sure that as long this article even exists you're always going to make some kind of spurious objection.radek (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni could you name 1 nationalist Polish source from this article? Siemaszko, Motyka, Piotrowski? They are not nationalists. Problem is that most Ukrainian sources are basing on OUN-UPA reports, completely untrue. They are not reliable. I do not find reliable Ukrainian source about Volhynia massacre, Iljuszyn is close but also made many mistakes. --Paweł5586 (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course Siemaszko and Piotrowski are nationalists. Read Piotrowski's bibliography: he bases his book on Poliszcuk and Prus which is as bad as basing something on UPA reports, except in a different direction. Siemaszko, while a legitmiate and reliable source, certainly has a nationalistic POV one must be aware of.

From the review of "Poland’s Holocaust":UCSB - However, as mentioned above, original analysis is hard to come by in this book – most of the chapters are chock full of facts, tables, and long excerpts from other works and personal narratives.  That does not mean that it does not make for a good read though, Poland’s Holocaust flows well and engages the reader, making up for its lack of analysis with a wealth of interesting and useful primary and secondary sources. In fact, the book is worth reading simply for bringing together so many diverse and poignant sources. This is why I find this book helpful. Works by those authors are also listed in the bibliography of Motyka's "Ukraińska partyzantka". It all depends on context.--Hedviberit (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agrere with Radek, for the same reasons he states, that Vistula does not belong in the background section. As sentence or two in a postcript section (and a link to the article in "see also") would seem to suffice.Faustian (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your Orginal Research. There is no reliable source recognized Siemaszko or Piotrowski as nationalists. You think that becouse in other side are historians from Ukraine who were involved in Ukrainian nationalism. you think that both side are biased. Not true polish historians have no reason to be biased. Becouse ukrainian nationalists is the side who made genocide on Poles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wnuk describes Siemaszko as one-sided representing the Polish POV here. It is not OR to point out that Piotrowski's work is based on authors whom eliable sources do describe as chauvinistic, nationaliitc, parascientific, etc.Faustian (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Poliszczuk and Prus are in Motyka's bibliography too. Does it change your opinion of him? --Hedviberit (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between having a few citations (even Prus might have a correct fact now and tghen, buried inthe rubbish) and basically repeating someone's opinions and stories. Motyka's attitude towards Prus and Poliszczuk is described in Wnuk's work - it is "nonscientific" and of little value.Faustian (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree. Piotrowski's book got decent reviews and is published by academic publishing company. He gathered informations from a lot of different (sometimes representing contrasting views) sources; his work isn't based only on two authors. Although I understand your attitude toward him (e.g. his style of writing may appear a little biased from time to time), I believe that as editors we should use only scholars' opinions to critique authors of publications. --Hedviberit (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Piotrowski is a sociologist by profession and training, not a historian. He references many authors in his book but is critical of those whose views don't match Prus or Poliszczuk. Reviews seem to be mixed. This review here states "However, as mentioned above, original analysis is hard to come by in this book – most of the chapters are chock full of facts, tables, and long excerpts from other works and personal narratives. That does not mean that it does not make for a good read though, Poland’s Holocaust flows well and engages the reader, making up for its lack of analysis with a wealth of interesting and useful primary and secondary sources." This implies that Piotrowski merely copies claims by Poliszczuk or Prus (among others). My concern is that we rightly reject claims by Prus himself but then slip them in through the "back door" by quoting Piotrowski quoting Prus. A look at the editorial reviews on Amazon shows that the positive reviews are by "Polish Library News", "Polish American Journal", "News of Poland", "Sarmatian Review". Only the Sarmatian Review is a historical source. Reading through Piotrowski's book, several quotes stand out. For example, referring to atempts by the Ukrainian civilians leaders to prevent forced deportation of some Ukrainian laborers from Germany back to the Soviet Union, Piotrwoski write "in their efforts to bolster their position and to reinfroce their ranks, Ukrainian Nationalists even tried to prevent the 2 million worn-out Ukrainian forced laborers from returning to their fatherland from Nazi Germany." (page 234, second-last paragraph). On page 239 Piotrowski actually writes that Ukrainians did not want independence, citing as proof the fact that the majority of them voted for moderate legal political parties (such as UNDO), forgetting that independence was part of UNDO's platform and that its cooperation with Poland was merely tactical. With all this in mind, although I would certainly not equate Piotrowsky with Prus or Poliszczuk - would dismiss him as a mere propagandist - I would view his works quite carefully (such as checking his reference for a particular statement in is book) and in cases where he contradicts what actual historians say would go with historians' opinions rather than Piotrowski's claims. Faustian (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another "gem" from Piotrowski, taken from [this essay: "Nevertheless, it is also fair to say that, in the words of Jan Tomasz Gross:

"... despite all of this and more, the material, spiritual and political life of all the national minorities in interwar Poland was richer and more complex than ever before or after. This guy is seriously biased.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have certainly many friends among Polish nationalists since today, because you criticize J.T. Gross. The text was published in 1988 and I remeber a similar statement from "Dzvin" of that time. Piotrovski was unfair to quote the statement years later.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the connection between massacres in Volhynia nad Operation Vistula? The wish to "balance"? Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wnuk's article

• The quoted article describes situation around 2003. Many books have been published since that year.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Massacres of Poles in Volhynia" doesn't quote Wnuk at all.Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wnuk writes about a Ukrainian historian Jaroslaw Hrycak, how is he spelled internationally? He should be quoted in the article. Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Yaroslav Hrytsak, not mentioned in this Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanisław Żurek

Who is Stanisław Żurek? Nortom is a radical, non-academic publisher. SUmmarizing - Żurek's opinions are overrepresented in the article.Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) pl:Rzeź wołyńska doesn't quote Żurek.Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Zurek, but a description of his brochure is here. "Autor ukazał zbrodniczą działalność nacjonalistów ukraińskich w Bieszczadach w latach 1939-1948. Ta piękna kraina - od czasów piastowskich należąca do Polski - obficie spłynęła krwią jej mieszkańców w latach II wojny światowej, a nawet po jej zakończeniu. Stanisław Żurek wiele lat zbierał dokumenty i materiały na temat zbrodni nacjonalistów ukraińskich w tym rejonie, którzy w okrutny sposób wymordowali ponad 1800 Polaków oraz wspólnie z Niemcami prawie wszystkich Żydów. Dopiero przeprowadzona w 1947 roku operacja "Wisła", powstrzymała zbrodnie ludobójstwa w Bieszczadach." Translation: "Author showed the criminal activities of Ukrainian nationalists in the Bieszczady Mountains in 1939-1948. This beautiful land - from Piast times belonging to Poland - the blood flowed freely on its people during World War II, and even after the end of the war. Stanislaw Zurek for many years collected documents and materials on the crimes of Ukrainian nationalists in the area, who are cruelly murdered more than 1,800 Poles and Germans together with almost all the Jews. Only carried out in 1947, Operation "Wisla" stopped the genocide in the Bieszczady Mountains."

Looks like typical Nortom propaganda (incidentally contradicting Timothy Snyder, who claimed that Ukrainians were more victims than aggressors in that region, in contrast to what happened in Volhynia), justifying Operation Vistula. References to this ought to be removed from the article completely.

In this article which is used as a reference for Massacres of Poles in Volhynia Zurek claims that only 2,500 Ukrainian civilians were killed by Poles (actualy historians give ranges of 15,000-20,000) and refers to modern Ukraine as a fascist-influenced state (second-to last sentence). Rather outrageous that this sort of drivel is being used as a source for this article.

I've done an RFC on Nortom here. Once it concludes I'll go ahead and remove Nortom-referenced stuff from the articles.Faustian (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.--Hedviberit (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Grzegorz Motyka says [70] 10 000-20 000 Ukrainian victims in general, in Volhynia rather no more than 2 000-3 000 . Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and in contrast Zurek states "Wszystkie ofiary po stronie ukraińskiej poniesione z rąk polskich wyniosły około 7 tysięcy osób (OUN-UPA i ludności cywilnej), w tym było około 2,5 tysiąca ludności cywilnej, ofiar zarówno akcji odwetowych jak i przypadkowych, podczas walk z UPA." Translation - "All of the victims of the Ukrainian side suffered at the hands of Polish amounted to approximately 7 thousand people (OUN-UPA and civilians), this was about 2.5 thousand civilians, both victims of reprisals or accidental [so Ukrainian women were accidentally raped and murdered? - Faustian], during the battle with the UPA." He doesn't specify "in Volyn only." (indeed the previous paragraph mentions the Chelm region). Typical Nortom-type stuff.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I support removal of such sources. Having read one or two commentaries by Żurek I have no doubts that he has a clear agenda. --Lysy^talk 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dopiero przeprowadzona w 1947 roku operacja "Wisła", powstrzymała zbrodnie ludobójstwa w Bieszczadach - that's enough right there to discredit Zurek as a source.radek (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It just makes no sense to include poorly sourced or materials from inflamatory sources. It discredits the work done by proper scholars, and ultimately discredits the work done in Wikipedia. If something actually happened, it will be reported in scholarly sources sooner or later, usually slightly later, but not much because they have an onus of checking the sources carefully before making accusations. However there are the guys that want to esculate the situation for the benefit of whom??? --Bandurist (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)--Bandurist (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, we have reached a consensus not to use him as a RS. Both Polish and Ukrainian editors seem to support it. --Lysy^talk 19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove him, then.Faustian (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.radek (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the Nortom's estimates were removed from the article, there is no sense in even mentioning this source.--Hedviberit (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that not all Nortom material is marked as being Nortom, however almost everything published by Nortom is from Wrocslav. Bandurist (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you mean "Wroclaw", as in the city? Or is there a publisher by that name?radek (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Radek :) --Lysy^talk 09:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many publishers in Wrocław.Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox?

Think adding a military operation or war infobox would be good for this? It was one military unit against a country, and some of their military units as well.--Львівське (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia/Archive 6
Location {{{place}}}

or

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia/Archive 6

No. It was ethnic cleansing of civilians.--Hedviberit (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

...by a military group--Львівське (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think infobox civilian attack would be more suitable. Although all information are already provided in the text...--Hedviberit (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That might work. I know it's in the text, I just like infoboxes (look clean, give most important info right away)--Львівське (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)