Talk:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

1939 events[edit]

Was this the organization that rose against Poland during the Polish September Campaign, or were there others Ukrainian anti-Polish organizations at that time? Perhaps some pro-communist?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a "Communist Party of Western Ukraine" - a NKVD backed structure that praised Soviets entering Halychyna. But it was hardly "Ukrainian" - only formally. Not sure about "September Campaign", never heard of :( Ukrained 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Ohio[edit]

This piece of text was added anonymously and later removed. Is there any truth in this? Petri Krohn 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Ohio was an assassination program which the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps (CIC), U.S. Naval Intelligence, and U.S. Air Force Intelligence carried out through the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) during and after World War II. Control of OUN later passed to the CIA.

The source for the quote is namebase.org [1] The text refers to an article published in the Win Magazine (War Resisters League) in September 1975 on Operation Ohio.
Another reference: [2] Petri Krohn 07:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty well documented that the CIA and MI6/SIS attempted to support/make use of nationalist resistance groups in the Soviet Union after WW2. Here's one hit from google books: [3] Most of these operations were complete failures. Apparently most of the Western files on this stuff are still sealed, probably because a lot of it would prove to be very embarassing, and most of the info is from KGB archives since the USSR dissolved. Some good books to check are:
  • Peter Grose, Operation Rollback: America’s Secret War Behind the Iron Curtain (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2000)
  • Tom Bower, The Red Web: MI6 and the KGB Master Coup (London: Aurum Press, 1989)
cheers, heqs 01:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SUM promotion[edit]

The following poorly-written promo text has been added:

СУМ (Spilka Ukraïns'koï Molodi), or simply UYA (Ukrainian Youth Association), is the more predominantly nationalistic of the Ukrainian Youth Groups. It was established as a division of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) as a counter the Soviet pacification in Ukrainian after the rise of the bolshevik socialists. Its objective was to teach the Ukrainian youth of their true heritage, and to privately denounce the Russian communist tenets that were being forced upon them. It operated secretly under the authority of its founder, Mykola Pavlushkov and his associate, Serhij Yefremov. The Association was organized in groups of five (p'iatok) so as to keep from drawing attention to the undergound group. Should any member be caught, under this system, he would only be able to divulge the identities of the four other members in his group of five. Its motto, God and Ukraine (Boh e Ukraina) is a testament to the beliefs of the members of this organization, as well as its noble dedication to a greater good beyond themselves.
Today, the UYA operates both in Ukraine as well as what is known as the diaspora, which refers to countries outside of the motherland that have accepted Ukrainian immigrants. The UYA exists in Argentina, Canada, the United States, Germany, Australia, The United Kingdom, and other countries.

As one of the SUM members in Ukraine, I can assure anybody that this text is both underdeveloped and irrelevant here. If needed, feel free to make a separate NPOV article on SUM. Or rather SUMs since this organization in Ukraine is split in at least three parts. Given that, providing an external link to only one of the SUMs would be a real POV-pushing. So I just deleted it.

Instead, nobody cared :( to mention SUM-SVU trial or several other organizations more closely linked to OUN. Ukrained 09:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just moved it as it had been added to Scouting in Ukraine, and doesn't really apply there. No offense meant. Chris 01:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense were supposed either :). I was talking merely of a possible perception, not of your intentions anyway. Thanks for that contribution anyway. I'll make a separate article someday and get all needed ext links for it. Best wishes, Ukrained 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Totally disputable[edit]

    • The article does not say any word about ethnic cleansing of the Poles and the Jews by the OUN and UPA. It does not say any word about collaboration of OUN with the Nazi Germany. --Russianname 05:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article discusses these things. I recommend you reread it.Faustian 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-war guerrilla warfare[edit]

Excerpt from the book Blowback - America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy by Christopher Simpson (Collier / Macmillan, 1988) in chapter Guerrillas for World War III on page 148:

Wikipedia does not seem to have any information on this insurgency. -- Petri Krohn 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist organization?[edit]

I am surprised that the article doesn't address the argument that OUN was a terrorist organization. Granted, it is on "Words to avoid" list, however that Manual of Style guideline only stresses the need for verification. OUN has been called a terrorist organization by reliable scholars, ex. Timothy Snyder ([4]), Jerzy Jan Lerski ([5]), Tadeusz Piotrowski ([6]), Stanley G. Payne ([7]),. Notably even Orest Subtelny in his famous Ukraine:A History uses this adjective in relation to OUN ([8]). That said, I know it may be a controversial issue, and so I would like to ask for input here. Can we add the adjective 'terrorist' to lead and/or main body?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army states that the British have classified it as a terrorist organization, not that it is a terrorist organization. Perhaps something can be written about many historians considering the OUN to have been a terrorist organization. However, that being said, the organization survived in the diasopra and was definitely no longer a terrorist organization then.Faustian (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Good points. My knowledge of it is constrainted to the Polish front; an organization that was involved with violent resistance, including assassinations and later massacres should not be described simply as "a Ukrainian political movement" - but this needs to be treated with tact so the article remains neutral and reliable. Would you like to adjust the lead and article to reflect that issue?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

One should first read the article on Terrorism to get some background as to when it is appropriate to use the term. Bandurist (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on its lessons here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, OUN in the post WWII period cannot be described as a terrorist organization because it was not involved in any such behaviour. During WWII its leadership was very careful to make sure participants in UPA etc wore uniforms are specifically targeted military objects. They constantly spoke and wrote about military education, whether it be from Polish, German or Soviet sources. There is a difference between a combatant fighting aagainst another soldier and a person committing a crime against the civilian population. The matter becomes somewhat obscure when OUN in the 1930's began a program of assassinations of Polish and Soviet functionaries. Here the definition becomes somewhat obscure and we begin to split hairs.
On the one side you have actions that could be classified as terrorism. On the other hand these acts were premeditated, and calculated against specific targets and had specific parameters. Also they were on Ukrainian ethnic territory, not in a foreign country.
The fact that it was on ones own soil has a specific meaning because it is then classified as defence and not an attack.
In any case, it is a matter for further debate in order to refine the definition.
Obviously, for an occupier, it is all classified as terrorism, but there is a fine line when it is your own territory you are defending.
On the other hand you have state sponsored assassinations which were committed by the Soviets against Petlura, Konovaletz, Bandera, Rebet and others where the assassin was known, where they confessed, or defected etc. Is that not terrorism - state sponsored terrorism doing a criminal act on foreign soil?
The one great difference between the Poles and Russians was that the Polish government did not (and could not) condone state sponsored murder. It was never an option for them because of the high moral stand they took which was probably rooted in their Roman Catholic Faith. It would have been so much easier to pop off Shukhevych and all the others, but they did not do this. In fact they did not officially execute any Ukrainian Nationalists in that period. The Russians however, did not have those qualms. Murder was known as "mokriye diela". It wasn't discussed because of its seriousness, however it did take place and was common.Bandurist (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the pre-WWII, WWII and post-WWII OUN was quite different. The territories it operated in had mixed Polish-Ukrainian population; some can be called 'ethnic Ukrainian', but others not - for example, Bronisław Pieracki was assassinated in Warsaw, which I am sure you will agree is not a Ukrainian territory. So while OUN power base was certainly in ethnic Ukrainian territory, its actions were not limited to it. We should expand on non-assassinations - what else did the OUN do? And I wonder what was the official Polish government description of OUN. With regards to WWII, the infamous massacres of Poles in Volhynia come to mind. Did the post-WWII OUN express any apologies for that? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

More questions on lead[edit]

I compared the Polish and this version of the article and I have several comments:

  1. Polish version does not call it a terrorist organization; it however calls it a 'political and military nationalistic organization'. Would this be a more accurate description than the current 'political organization'? Category:Nationalist parties seems applicable here.
  2. Polish version mentions in the lead it was 'anti-Polish, anti-Soviet and anti-communist'. The current version only mentions it was 'against the Polish authorities'. Should something be corrected here?
  3. Polish version has a logo - should we import it?
  4. Polish version has a section on organizational structure - seems badly needed here

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The OUN existed in the diaspora for over 50 years as a purely political, not military organization (after rejecting its fascist pre-war ideology and adopting a democratic one, while still being fiercely anti-communist) and currently exists as such in Ukraine. The logo is not of the OUN but of its succesor in Ukraine, the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, which is one of the parties making up Yushchenko's Our Ukraine bloc.Faustian (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OUN and the Soviets[edit]

Two questions: 1) did the OUN operate against the Soviets? This aspect seems to be mostly missing from the article. 2) Were the anti-Polish activities of OUN supported (secretly) by the Soviets? I read some Polish sources which argued that Soviet intelligence manipulated OUN into such actions, hoping that driving a wedge between Ukrainians and Poles will bring the Ukrainians closer to the Soviets.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

persecutions[edit]

"In 1936 and 1937, the Poles used claims of OUN involvement to justify mass trials and executions of Ukrainians, particularly youths."


numbers, sources?

This part is rather controversial, thus it would have been nice if you elaborated on it.

There were no mass executions, this will be removed.Faustian (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Melnyk Andrii.jpg[edit]

The image File:Melnyk Andrii.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

REdirects[edit]

What's the point of link to oun-m in the article, if it redirects to oun again? Szopen (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this organisation ever referred to as "UNO"?[edit]

Currently Ukrainian Nationalist Organisation is a redirect to here, linked from UNO (disambiguation). Some websites [9][10] support that this may be the case. A few [11] suggest there may have been a parallel organisation in Canada known as UNO.

Currently UNO is not mentioned in the article, in which case the link from UNO (disambiguation) is not sustainable and will need to be removed.

I am aware that articles such as this can be sensitive so I am cautious to go ahead and edit them considering I am not familiar with their content. Can someone confirm whether this organisation is or was ever called UNO and whether it should be disambiguated as such? If it should be, can you also update the article so that such a link is supported?

Thank you, --MegaSloth (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian organization which you refer to is called "Ukrainska Natsional'ne Obiednennia", (UNO in Ukrainian) which translates as Ukrainian National Federation (UNF in English). It was established after a visit by Yevhen Konovalets in the 1930's with former Sich Riflemen taking on prominent positions within the organization. Alignment after WWII was primarilly with the Melnyk faction, but political activism in the organization in the organization has been very tepid, especially with the recent induction of many ethnic Ukrainians from Ukraine. the former Yugoslavia and Poland. It is more a stronger supporter of sports and to a lesser degree arts. Bandurist (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that has clarified what the Canadian organisation is. Does this mean that OUN is never referred to as UNO? --MegaSloth (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversial?=[edit]

Only participation Theodor Oberländer, Roman Shukhevych and the Nachtigall Battalion in the Lviv civilian massacre are controverisal. Facts are from yadwashem site and from Motyka book. There is nothing controversial in it. OUN supporters killed many Jews, this are facts.--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily in Lviv at the beginning of the war. See here}: "The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has declassified documents, proving that OUN [the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists is not connected with the anti-Jewish action in Lviv in 1941.
According to an UNIAN correspondent, SBU archive representative, candidate of historical sciences Oleksander Ishchuk showed the declassified documents, which provide an objective basis to state that OUN is not connected with violent actions against the civil population of Lviv in July 1941.
In particular, according to O.Ishchuk, the declassified documents of SBU indicate that on July 4-7 of 1941, representatives of Gestapo, who arrived in Lviv, turned to Ukrainian circles with demand to carry out a three-day massacre of Jews. “The OUN leadership, having got to know about that, informed its members that it was a German provocation in order to compromise Ukrainians with massacres”, the document reads.
“The SBU documents confirm that OUN members were trying to avoid taking part in actions against the Jewish population in Lviv, there were no official instructions on this issue”, O.Ishchuk stressed.
At the same time, the historian pointed out that none of the Soviet criminal cases, brought against OUN-UPA members, and kept in the SBU archive, has ever mentioned murdering civil population.
The scientist stressed that thanks to declassifying the documents, now historians have grounds to state that the OUN leadership refused to take part in Jewish massacres in Lviv in 1941."Faustian (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
See John-Paul Himka comment regarding SBU "document" [12]. While SBU is not scholar institution - see instead
  • І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN)

p.232 OUN(b) militia participation in the extermination ofr Jews. At Lwiw OUN(b) militia joined the SS 2 July 1941

  • ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0
p 261 (OUN(B) Крайовий провід ОУН(б) на матірних українських землях) call to exterminate Russians Poles ,Jews and - date 1 July 1941
  • [www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/2.pdf] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, p.63
  • [13] Dr. Franziska Bruder Radicalization of the Ukrainian Nationalist Policy in the context of the Holocaust

There is nothing controversial in it. OUN-B supporters killed many Jews, this are facts - per Paweł5586Jo0doe (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that different scholars disagree mean that there is some sort of controversy. It is pure OR to state that one scholar is correct and another is not. We just report what the state of affairs is. Obviously OUN police participated in ghetto clearing and the final solution in Volyn, but with respect to the actions in Lviv there is disagreement.Faustian (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but SBU is not reliable source. Are they historians? No. They are government security agency. They could prepare documents. Ukrainian pages arent reliable too. See photos on yadwashem pages. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you read the article, it stated SBU archive representative, candidate of historical sciences Oleksander Ishchuk.... And "At the same time, the historian pointed out that none of the Soviet criminal cases, brought against OUN-UPA members, and kept in the SBU archive, has ever mentioned murdering civil population." We don't just pick information that is convenient for our POV, we report what is out there. And there is disagreement amongst historians about what happened in Lviv.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
So there is only one historian mentioned. I have changed article a little, it should be ok now, but Birczanin reverted. My version is ok?--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be in the same section as antisemitism. I'll make some adjustments. Keep in mind that whent here is disagreement among hisotrians we do not write, based on one of the competing POVs, "The OUN did this..." but instead write "Some historians claim the OUN did this...while others disagree." Also, the SBU historian exonerates the OUN in general in the Lviv massacres, not just Nachtigall. Himka disagrees with the SBU historian, stating that although Nachtigall did not massacre Jews evidence suggests that other OUN people did, although even he does not explicitly declare that the OUN did. Faustian (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
May be your not familiar with Ukrainian scientific practice – so a note – “public hearing” – it’s not a scientific conference. On “public hearing” all participants are “public” – regardless of their rank on it. While again SBU is nor scholar nor scientific institution per Ukrainian Legislation Scholar source deemed as such in Ukraine if published after endorsement by the Scholar Council (Наукова Рада) - an that is clearly indicate at the book. Like for instance - І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 endorsed by Scholar Council Of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Hitorical Section of the Shevchenko University.

In which scholar source O.Ishchuk gives his opposing to Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Hitorical Section of the Shevchenko University view. Please specify name and page. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Pavel you should just note to Faustian - No place for original research. Please behave. It should be exist a WP:RS which clearly state "Controversial" othervice it would be OR - while comparsion the claims of the unknown media person with publications comes from National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine prepared by dozens of PH.D and published in history and Dr. Franziska Bruder (she got a plenty works on topics) - it's really not match WP:UNDUE nor WP:RS - there no matter to dicuss. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Your link to the national academy of sciences article doesn't work.Faustian (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay the book by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is here. On page 63 it states that the Polish professors killed were specifically chosen from a group that met with Stalin and wanted to form a Polish Soviet government in oppostion tot he Polish government in exile in London. So of the 160 Polish prfessors in Lviv, only those 38 who collaborated with Stalin were killed. Speaking of Jews, you were as usual quoting selectively from the source. On page 63 the authors conclude that the OUN did not have an active organized punishment-repressive apparatus and that although individual groups of Ukrainian police participated in anti-Jewish actions (the OUN leadership itself openly admitted to this), they only played a supportive role within German organs. Individual members of the OUN took part in anti-Jewish actions in Lviv, and OUN leaflets encouraged anti-Jewish actions among the general population. But the book on page 63 did NOT attribute large-scale pogroms in Lviv to OUN units or militias. Therefore the sentence in the article "Some historians, such as Yad Vashem, have claimed that militas under the OUN's command were involved in the massacre of 6,000 Jews in Lviv soon after that city's fall to German forces,[29][30][31]. although this claim is controversial and disputed by other historians (see The Lviv pogroms controversy (1941))" is accurate. Please be honest when you claim things based on sources. And please stop forcing other editors to waste their time disproving your false claims. Faustian (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To summarize: you argued against the phrase in the article that "Some historians, such as Yad Vashem, have claimed that militas under the OUN's command were involved in the massacre of 6,000 Jews in Lviv soon after that city's fall to German forces,[29][30][31]. although this claim is controversial and disputed by other historians (see The Lviv pogroms controversy (1941))." You did so by claiming that the document by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences contradicts what is written, adding that that document "comes from National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine prepared by dozens of PH.D and published in history." Fortunately I am able to read Ukrainian and the information from that document contradicts your claim. This is exactly the sort of behavior that got you blocked for a year in the first place, and I suspect permantly banned from Russian wikipedia also.Faustian (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - individual groups of Ukrainian police participated in anti-Jewish actions (the OUN leadership itself openly admitted to this), they only played a supportive role within German organs. Individual members of the OUN took part in anti-Jewish actions in Lviv, and OUN leaflets encouraged anti-Jewish actions among the general population . While no such exact text regarding Polish professors - translation is incorrect. Thanks. Could you provide a link to WP:RS which indicate this claim is controversial? Three sources by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences sources clearly indicates OUN-B militia participated in anti-Jewish actions. Please do not wate your time on mistranslation - google did translation much more precisely.Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
And here you go cherrypicking my own quotes. Here is the translation: "the OUN did not have an active organized punishment-repressive apparatus' and that although individual groups of Ukrainian police participated in anti-Jewish actions (the OUN leadership itself openly admitted to this), they only played a supportive role within German organs. Individual members of the OUN took part in anti-Jewish actions in Lviv, and OUN leaflets encouraged anti-Jewish actions among the general population. But the book on page 63 did NOT attribute large-scale pogroms in Lviv to OUN units or militias. Point out where OUN militias were mentioned? They weren't. So the source does not state what you claim it does. Now please don't force other editors to waste their time tracking down your dishonest use of sources.23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have one more source, but in Polish - Jarosław Hrycak (Ukrainian historian). He also write about massacres by OUN police and more - source. Could you understand it Faustian? I think it can be used as source.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly a good source. Thank you! We ought to focus specifically on OUN's participation, not only on that of the police forces. Many of the police, but not all, were OUN members but if the source doesn't explictly mention them then refering to actions by police in general in this article would be inapropriate. Although it provides a "mixed" view of OUN participation in the murder of Jews. From the article: "W uchwałach programowych podjętych na II (Krakowskim) Wielkim Zgromadzeniu OUN-B (kwiecień 1941) potępiono pogromy antyżydowskie, ponieważ odciągały one uwagę Ukraińców od prawdziwego wroga – reżimu bolszewickiego.

Ale równocześnie stwierdzono, że Żydzi są jego najbardziej oddanym sprzymierzeńcem i awangardą moskiewskiego imperializmu na Ukrainie." Translated: "In the resolutions adopted on the second program (Krakowski) Grand Assembly of the OUN-B (April 1941) condemned anti-Jewish pogroms, since they distracted attention from the real enemy of the Ukrainians - the Bolshevik regime. But at the same time, it was found that the Jews were the most devoted ally of imperialism and Moscow's avant-garde in Ukraine." That pretty much captures the essence of the OUN's attitude towards Jews and mirrors what John-Paul Himka concluded. Interestingly, our friend JoeDoe just repeated the last part of that in his one-sided presentation of the OUN.

Further in that article "Jak w praktyce OUN-B rozstrzygała kwestię swoich programowych rozbieżności w stosunku do Żydów i pogromów antyżydowskich? Źródła i historiografia przynoszą sprzeczne świadectwa. Polscy historycy twierdzą, że banderowcy współpracowali z Einsatzgruppen, w szczególności dostarczając listy proskrypcyjne i uczestnicząc w mordowaniu Żydów. Zachodni historycy (zarówno ukraińscy, jak i żydowscy) zwracają uwagę na doniesienia źródeł niemieckich, że banderowcy na centralnej i wschodniej Ukrainie wydawali Żydom fałszywe paszporty i tym samym ratowali im życie. Organizatorzy aktu 30 czerwca 1941 roku zrzucają odpowiedzialność za pogromy antyżydowskie w Galicji na „szumowiny” korzystające z tymczasowego chaosu. Osobiście ostrzegali oni członków OUN-B, by nie dali się sprowokować do żadnych akcji antyżydowskich i antypolskich. Według ich świadectw, członek OUN-B Iwan Rawłyk, który przejął kierownictwo lokalnej policji, twardą ręką zwalczał pogromy we Lwowie. Wraz z rodziną został stracony przez gestapo, między innymi za odmowę podjęcia współpracy na odcinku antypolskim i antyżydowskim." Translated: "How, in practice, did the OUN-B program to adjudicate the issue of discrepancies in their attitudes toward Jews and anti-Jewish pogroms? Sources and Historiography bring conflicting testimony. Polish historians claim that Bandera cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen, in particular by providing a proskrypcyjne (?) and participating in the murder of Jews. Western historians (both Ukrainian and Jewish) draw attention to the German source reported that the Bandera on the central and eastern Ukraine issued false passports to Jews and thus saved their lives. Organizers Act 30, 1941 shifted the responsibility for anti-Jewish pogroms in Galicia onto the "scum" in the temporary chaos. Personally, they warned members of the OUN-B, so as not to let themselves be provoked into taking part in any anti-Jewish and anti-Polish acts. According to their documents, a member of the OUN-B, Ivan Rawłyk, who took over management of the local police, fought against the Lviv pogroms. He and his family were executed by the Gestapo, inter alia, for refusing to cooperate on anti-Polish and anti-Jewish acts."
Basically this source seems to confirm that the OUN's attitude towards the Jews was ambivalent.14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Better situation explained at І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 yes OUN-B really don't want to spend time on pogroms they plan to exterminate all Jews (see www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/2.pdf] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, p.63 but luckyly does not have ' organized punishment-repressive apparatus' - thus last getto was in Dubno even in late 1943 (so - also exterminated by "Ukrainian" militia - see Weisberg, Moshe, "Life and Death of Dubno Ghetto 1946). Please use Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences works. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider this poorly cited Motyka book you keep putting in all of your edits a legit source, but instead a smokescreen since you don't even cite page numbers and it's not in english. The 'yadwashem site' is hardly credible.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OUN-B logo instead OUN[edit]

Guess why adopted in 1941 logo given instead of official OUN logo? Article need to be split - legal OUN and OUN-B appeared in April 1941. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Would be nice if the editors which twice [14] [15] hasreverted well sourced OUN logo explain how Organization in 1932 able to use logo created in 1941 for OUN-R. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrycak[edit]

How about this:

However, the remaining local Jews, who for many Ukrainians in Galicia were considered to be the Bolshevik helpers and associates of the NKVD. Germany forced them to clean up dead bodies. The whole operation was accompanied by violence and beatings, in which participated also by local Ukrainians. Says the Jewish alone in Lviv at the beginning of July 1941 during a three-day pogrom killed between two and six thousand Jews. In late July and August 1941, the Ukrainian police, the so-called "days Petlura, even killed about five thousand Jews in Lvov, mostly representatives of the intelligentsia. In the early days of German occupation, and state the same sources, the anti-Jewish pogroms took place in fifty eight cities and towns of western Ukraine, killing them twenty-four thousand Jews.

So participation OUN police in killing Jews is clear now?--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this info is important and belongs somewhere on wikipedia, but not in the OUN article. Is more about police than OUN. The OUN may not have controlled all the police in July 1941 (they eventually did later, in Volyn); if these crimes were thr work of the OUN I'm sure Hrycak would have said so.Faustian (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Per .К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 OUN-B controlled own militia (no ther militia was - only OUN-B) well into mid September 1941.

Even given a report by OUN-B from 22 July 1941 (see also ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0 ) - about "milita" activity "Звіт другову Стецькові від ОУН на МУЗ"- report noted "discruptions of Hungarians" which released Jews and Poles and even protect them from OUN-B militiaJo0doe (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know you can quote selectively to support your POV.Faustian (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Plase prove your insertion by providing "full citation" (if such exist). Source [16] also used text from ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0) - see at page p.37 - Our militia is now arresting together with the Germans numerous Jews. Before their liquidation the Jews are defending themselves with all kinds of methods, mainly with money. I was unable to find any documents or citation at ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0 which prove any existance of OUN-B intend to not to exterminate Jews,Poles Russians. Can you? Please specify a page number. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You do realize you are asking to prove a negative. "I was unable to find any documents or citation at ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0 which prove any existance of OUN-B intend to not to exterminate Jews,Poles Russians. Can you?"Faustian (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
So can you provide a page number(s) and citation from mentioned above sources which can confirm OUN-B 1941 efforts to save/protects/treat equially Jews, Poles, and Russians. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Faustian look into yadwashem pages: Members of Einsatzgruppe C, German soldiers, and Ukrainian nationalists and rabble began to murder Jews. Ukrainian nationalist means OUN. Next source: Encouraged by German forces to begin violent actions against the Jewish population in Lvov, Ukrainian nationalists massacred about 4,000 Jews in early July 1941. Third source: The pogroms were organized by Ukrainian nationalist circles with German encouragement.

So not only militia took part in massacres. It seems to me, that in this case the situation is clear. We have many sources, even pictures.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yadwashem is one source, right? It's already in the article. Himka considers Yadvashem to be mistaken.Faustian (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to add at least 3 (three) sources Ін-т історії України НАН України . Could you indicate a Himka consideration that the Dr. Franziska Bruder The International Institute for Holocaust Research No. 12 -June 2008 p.37 ISSN 1565-8643 [17] has be to be mistaken - page number and name of source please. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hrycak link doesn't work. Nor could I find any other copies of this paper on the Web. What exactly did Hrycak write and in what context? Did he say that OUN condemned ALL Jewish pogroms in history? Only one pogrom? Several? What did this OUN condemnation actually say and where and when was it issued?

24.5.186.1 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Ostap Bender

Link doesn't work anynore, it's been taken down. but the relevant stuff is posted on this talk page under the heading controversial. Hrrycak wrote, ""W uchwałach programowych podjętych na II (Krakowskim) Wielkim Zgromadzeniu OUN-B (kwiecień 1941) potępiono pogromy antyżydowskie, ponieważ odciągały one uwagę Ukraińców od prawdziwego wroga – reżimu bolszewickiego." I'm restoring it.Faustian (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you specify a page at [18] where appeared a text which "condemned anti-Jewish pogroms" - I can't find claim which can be deemed as such. Noone from known to me scholar, including Friedman, gives a similar assesment of the Second General Congress of OUN-B. Can you suggest a more details for source (page number, publisher, a year of issue). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
See my comments above. We base info on secondary not primary sources. Publish your interpretation, and we'll use it. Otherwise defer to Hrycak's claims. Hyrycak wrote: "Ale równocześnie stwierdzono, że Żydzi są jego najbardziej oddanym sprzymierzeńcem i awangardą moskiewskiego imperializmu na Ukrainie." Translated: "In the resolutions adopted on the second program (Krakowski) Grand Assembly of the OUN-B (April 1941) condemned anti-Jewish pogroms, since they distracted attention from the real enemy of the Ukrainians - the Bolshevik regime. But at the same time, it was found that the Jews were the most devoted ally of imperialism and Moscow's avant-garde in Ukraine."Faustian (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you suggest me a page number and publisher and year of issue of Hrycak text. I already note above a Philip Friedman. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation. at Yivo annual of Jewish social science Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1959 p 265 - start from ...make it amply clear, that adopting the Nazi political platform and lot of other scholar sources with clearly indicated page number( for instance - see [19] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, pp.62-63) by Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) , publisher which suggest similar assesment of the point 17 at Grand Assembly of the OUN-B (April 1941). Seems to me Hrycak was simply misquoted- [20] Ідеологія і практика українського націоналізму в 30-х роках пригадує нацизм і, передусім, італійський фашизм. . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The quote I provided was his, word for word. So he was not misquoted. Your quote doesn't contradict this - "the ideology and practice of Ukrainian nationalism in the 1930's reminds one of Nazism and above all Italian fascism." You as usual quote selectively. Hrycak notes "Насправді Бандера не мав безпосереднього зв'язку з винищенням поляків на Волині в 1943 році, за що його часто осуджують. Я не кажу, що якщо б він був тоді в Україні, то не дійшло б до різні на Волині, але Бандера не був безпосередньо причетний ані до творення УПА в 1942 році, ані до її діяльності." (saying he had nothing to do with the murder of Poles, although if he had been in Ukraine it might have still happened). Furthermore, "Бандера хотів саме такого націоналізму: з одного боку - ксенофобського, агресивного, радикального, а з іншого - романтичного, героїчного, красивого. Його головною ідеєю була національна революція, національний здвиг." Translated: Bandera wanted a nationalism that was not only xenophobic, aggressive and radical but also romantic, heroic and beautiful. He compares Bandera to the Russian narodniks, more than to the Nazis. "Позиція Бандери була близька до російських народовців." But you conveniently ignored that, didn't quote it do you? It's interesting how you take a balanced article and just pick out the specific bits of info that serve your POV. Faustian (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I just ask for page number and year of issue for Hrytsak. Also for sentence Бандера не мав безпосереднього зв'язку з винищенням поляків google suggest - he have not direct relation to the murder of Poles. His indirect relation described well at Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, pp.62-63) by Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.Thanks P.S. Just a page and yearJo0doe (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No page or year for website interview. Text is transcribed here. Sorry that you don't like info that doesn't match your POV.Faustian (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you to follow WP:V, WP:RS,WP:CITE policy before use of the website interview. It would be nice if you fix artilce in accordance to above mentioned sources - to follow the scholar [21] assesment of the event described - see anti-Semitism took one of the key places in UNO program documentations. " April 1941, on the UNO Congress in Krakow, struggling Jews was practically legalized: “Jews are the support for Bolshevist regime in Ukraine, and therefore Ukrainian Nationalists’ Organization fights Jews…”. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New section suggestion[edit]

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine publications present a dozens of scholar texts which describe the sources which Bandera's OUN used for funding. Indeed intresting to note that the so called "Бойовий фонд ОУН" (Military fund of OUN) at large extend from 1940 composed from the Jews - victim of the Holocaust belonging - gold, dimonds, jewellery and intresting to note - a stamps collections. "Military fund" was not captured by Soviets and was "evacuated" through Vienna in 1944. A section "OUN funding" would be intact. Suggestions?Jo0doe (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. For verification purposes please use only sources available on-line or published by western institutions - we can't check offline writings available only in Kiev.Faustian (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you specify me restiction at WP:V - regarding National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine publications available at Parliament library? Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Guess still unable to find Toynbee, T.R.V. (1954). Survey of International Affairs: Hitler's Europe 1939-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. (page # missing). From you past edits [22]Jo0doe (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If you choose to insert info from sources that can only be verified by going to the library of the Ukrainian parliament then expect your edits to be removed.Faustian (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I second that --Львівське (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I hope your opinions will be intresting for some usersJo0doe (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ehy don't you post relevant scans to your Flikr page!--Galassi (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To the Gallows[edit]

"The OUN was willing to support Nazi antisemitic policies if doing so would help their cause. A slogan put forth by the Bandera group and recorded in the July 16, 1941 Einsatzgruppen report stated: "Long live Ukraine without Jews, Poles and Germans; Poles behind the river San, Germans to Berlin, and Jews to the gallows"." All available web material points back to Wikipedia. Does anyone have access to the actual slogan?.--Galassi (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Friedman work, and referenced to it. I'll doublecheck whenever I see that book again but I don't own it. The article shouldn't be just a collection of antisemtic quotes, one is enough to illustrate the OUN's attitude. But there are plenty from the period in 1941 when the OUN was particularly interested in forging an alliance with the Germans (Himka's article online has some also). Faustian (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've access to actual leaflet - it stored in same collection as this one [23]. If it will be usefull I'll upload it to WP - but it's August 1942 leafletJo0doe (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, although the info is sourced to a secondary source so the primary one is unnecesary.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's only few line from the an A3 size leaflet - for educational proposes it's would be relevant to present all document, I suggestJo0doe (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine[edit]

Source published in 2004 (for Parliament Commission) [24] [25] got nice text to describe OUN after WWII - see pp.471-472 for OUN-B Jo0doe (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Life long adherence to theXenophobia of the OUN-B described at p.472. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
U don't see such a phrase there.--Galassi (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheptytsky vs. OUN[edit]

Interesting article about this very decent man, will be incorporated when I have more time (unless someone else wants to): [26]. It doesn't surprise me.... Faustian (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Rudling citations[edit]

While Rudling's work is reliable and ought to be cited, Rudling has also been described as not completely objective and indeed has been described as a "radical revisionist": [27]. The lengthy footnotes and quotations comprising several paragraphs, from Rudling's work, seem to be excessive, given that he is not completely objective. His claims seem to be be given undue weight here and should be trimmed down considerably.Faustian (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed on weight; his name definitely throws up a flag when I see it used in articles. --Львівське (говорити) 03:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There is more Rudling text here than there is about the OUN's prewar activities.Faustian (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you suggest happen? I don't want to revert or blank or anything like that at the moment, him and I have been going back and forth on the Svoboda article so I don't want it to be some multi-article edit war -Львівське (говорити) 05:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps he can trim down or summarize what Rudling stated? OR quote a sentence per note and leave it in the ref section, rather than have a seperate note section devoted to mostly Rudling quotations.Faustian (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The separate note section on Rudling is a bit too much, I agree. For the stuff that's cited inline - which parts specifically? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to remove that entire notes section. Take whatever info is relevant to this topic (many details, such as how Svoboda was formed, are not) and incorporate it into the body of the article. A sentence or two direct quote, no more, embedded in the ref section is fine.Faustian (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I could theoretically remove all the notes added to support the few new sentences that cite two Rudling and one Shekhovtsov papers. However, this article is currently faulted for citing too few sources, and I'd argue it needs more academic sources, not less. I have more sources on the OUN and could add them over the next few days. Regarding Kuzio's piece, it's not published in a peer review journal… and to be fair to both Rudling and Shekhovtsov, both have written on extreme-right Russian nationalism, from the Soviet period through to today. -Darouet (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kuzio's piece is not a reliable source for an article (other than as a description of Taras Kuzio's opinion), I linked to it here for discussion purposes. I would remove all the notes, and place most of the info into the article's body. The Svoboda stuff does not belong in the lede though it can be briefly mentioned in the body. When referencing the statements, including a sentence or direct quote within the ref is fine. Also be careful of Rudling, as he is not very objective (I will demonstrate this later). It is safer to stick to verifiable facts that Rudling provides in reliable sources, rather than Rudling's opinions.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
We need actual academic sources, not websites, for this article, and material written in the last 15 years would be a plus. Also, if the beginning of the article states that the OUN is and organization that was founded… it should describe who the current members of the OUN are. Svoboda, the Congress, etc. all trace their heritage back to the OUN, sometimes proudly. That should definitely be in the intro. I'm surprised you haven't written about it yet here. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that one sentence about Svoboda claiming to trace their heritage to the OUN is sufficient for the lede. The article is about OUN, not Svoboda.Faustian (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I added one sentence in the first paragraph linking to the modern parties because the article begins, "The OUN is… -Darouet (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Examples of Rudling "Objectivity"[edit]

Here: [28], an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes:

"Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp, took personal oaths to Adolf Hitler, and units of which partook in war crimes"

  • The Division like the entire Waffen SS was under Himmler's command. His involvement with the Division was almost nil. He approved it being formed, and reviewed it a couple of times during the war. Bringing him up is simply inflammatory.
  • The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." [29] The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities.
  • "Took personal oaths to Adolf Hitler" all Waffen-SS units did this. The Galciian one was differentiated from other Waffen SS units: [30]. German Waffen SS oath: "I swear to you Adolf Hitler, as Leader and Chancellor of the Reich, loyalty and valor. I vow to you and all those you place over me obedience until death, so help me God." Galician Oath: "I swear by God this holy oath, that in the struggle against Bolshevism I will give the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler, absolute obedience, and if it be his will, as a fearless soldier, I will always be prepared to lay down my life for this oath."

"In 1943-44, the UPA murdered around 100,000 Polish nationals and thousands of Jews in Volhynia and Galicia."

  • This is the maximum estimate in the range. Consensus among sources is 40,000-60,000 in Volhynia and 25,000-40,000 in Galicia (this is covored extensively in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). If an apologist for UPA stated that it killed "about 65,000 Poles" (the lowest estimate) he would rightly be accused of bias.Faustian (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Faustian, I don't really know what you're getting at. You are arguing that Rudling's academic and peer reviewed journal articles are biased, because what appear to be his comments - below a newspaper article online a few years ago - are not 100% consistent with an interview he gave for a different newspaper, and with a website you've linked that also includes an oath to Adolf Hitler? What does this have to do with anything? -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am providing evidence showing that Rudling himself is biased, so his works ought to be used and viewed carefully.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Faustian, academics publish reviews of one another's work all the time, sometimes very critical, in which they warn of bias or mistakes in scholarship. Do you know of any such critiques of Rudling's work, or do you just have links to random websites? -Darouet (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
D, why do you have an issue with these sources being "random websites" but when an academic like Kuzio provides his assessment of Rudling it's also just his 'opinion'. Not everything needs to be in journals, you know. --Львівське (говорити) 16:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that Rudling, himself merely a recent graduate and a current postgrad, has yet attained the academic stature to attract peer-reviewed critiques. What you casually dismiss as "random websites" is actually proof of Rudling being wrong and/or dishonest. He is a man who in comments at a major Canadian newspaper claimed that officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" (with the obvious an strong implication that they were participants in the Holocaust!) while in an interview stated ""Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." I wonder why you dismiss this as merely being "not 100% consistent." Falsely claiming that someone was training inside a concentration camp during the Holocaust is a very serious accusation, one that should not be dismissed lightly.Faustian (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I respect and am interested in Kuzio's opinion, as much as I respect and am interested in his publications, though from a professional and editorial perspective I recognize the difference between them. You do too, right Львівське? Publications are peer reviewed: when Kuzio publishes, he prepares his manuscript carefully and accordingly. His manuscript is then vetted and corrected by both editors and anonymous academics, and Kuzio himself improves his manuscript in the process.
Of course I wasn't at the conference Kuzio refers to, so I can't evaluate his impressions of the tone. Nevertheless, in general I agree with certain points he makes: that attention to western Ukrainian nationalism doesn't excuse southern/eastern Ukrainian or Russian nationalism. That remembering Nazi collaboration and crimes should also cause us to remember Soviet crimes. That the persecution of minorities isn't a fault only of western Ukrainian nationalists.
But I'm skeptical of any implication - and I'm not sure Kuzio means to imply this - that Rudling or Shekhovtsov are apologists for the USSR, Russia, or Putin. Their papers are very critical, and actually they accuse the Party of Regions of promoting extreme-right forces for electoral purposes. They also don't shy away from describing Soviet persecution. But again, I'm basing this off of their published pieces… I don't know their personal opinions. And Faustian, I'm not going to cite comments below a newspaper article that are attributed to Rudling for the same reason: these aren't scholarly publications, they were prepared as such, they weren't reviewed as such, and I'm not even wholly confident of attribution. Trying to cast doubt on the scholarship of important historians without using scholarly publications is a hopeless and unhelpful enterprise. -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're really concerned about Rudling or Shekhovtsov's reliability, why don't you take his credentials, and the links you have found, to the reliable source noticeboard? I'd be happy to try to make sure the article PDFs get made available, somehow, if that'd be helpful… and the book Rudling published in, with Wodak and Richardson as editors, is partially available online. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I just posted something there, mentioning you both so that you'll get a notice of the thread. -Darouet (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

CIA support[edit]

The sentence: "During the Cold War, the OUN was covertly supported by western intelligence agencies, including the CIA" is cited to Rudling. Can we get the actual text from the source?

AFAIK, the CIA got hold of a couple of OUN associated figures like Lebed and gave them sanctuary in return for intel. I'm not aware however of any direct - if covert - support for UPA. I guess it'd be sort of like saying that because the CIA snagged up some German scientists like Von Braun that means they supported neo-Nazis in West Germany. Which of course they didn't. The sentence looks like a big wide stretch of original research. But let's see what Rudling says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the OUN/UPA did have material support from the CIA --Львівське (говорити) 05:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, details? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I have the text from the Rudling paper, and Rudling cites a number of other sources. -Darouet (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rudling, Per Anders. “The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right: The Case of VO Svoboda.” In Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, Eds. Ruth Wodak and John E. Richardson. Routledge, New York, 2013, p.230:
"During the Cold War, US, West German, and British intelligence utilized various OUN wings in ideological warfare and covert actions against the Soviet Union (Breitman and Goda, 2010: 73– 98; Breitman, Goda, Naftali and Wolfe, 2005). Funded by the CIA, which sponsored Lebed’s immigration to the United States and protected him from prosecution for war crimes, OUN(z) activists formed the core of the Proloh Research and Publishing Association, a pro-nationalist semiacademic publisher. The United States was repelled by the radicalism of the OUN(b), by far the largest Ukrainian émigré political party, and did not support their aim of a violent, possibly nuclear, confrontation with the Soviet Union, aiming at its breakup into a galaxy of successor states. The aim of rolling back Soviet communism did not translate into US support for the establishment of an authoritarian, nuclear Ukraine under OUN rule. As committed totalitarians, the OUN(b) cooperated mostly with Franco’s Spain, Chiang Kai- Shek’s Taiwan and with other eastern European far-right émigré groups, including former ministers of Tiso’s Slovakia, the successors of the Ustasha, the Romanian Legionnaires, and former Nazis.
"The OUN wings disagreed on strategy and ideology but shared a commitment to the manufacture of a historical past based on victimization and heroism. The émigrés developed an entire literature that denied the OUN’s fascism, its collaboration with Nazi Germany, and its participation in atrocities, instead presenting the organization as composed of democrats and pluralists who had rescued Jews during the Holocaust. The diaspora narrative was contradictory, combining celebrations of the supposedly anti-Nazi resistance struggle of the OUN-UPA with celebrations of the Waffen - SS Galizien, a Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by Heinrich Himmler in 1943 (Rudling, 2011a, 2011c, 2012a)."
I hope that helps, Volunteer Marek. -Darouet (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist organisation[edit]

https://www.academia.edu/454566/Terrorists_or_National_Heroes_Politics_of_the_OUN_and_the_UPA_In_Ukraine Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Banderists[edit]

Would someone make a page called Banderist/s redirecting here--74.57.167.219 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism[edit]

This article states: "Antisemitism was an attribute OUN shared with other agrarian radical right-wing Eastern European organizations". However that is a very biased statement. Antisemitism was allover also among the communists and other left-wing parties, in the Ukraine and abroad. Don't ask me why (that warrants a study of it's own) but it was. So it would be nice if this article would be changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.23.138 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

OUN and antisemitism[edit]

The section is relatively long comparing to limited nimber of Jewish victims of OUN. There is no "OUN and antipolonism" section. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)