Talk:Lviv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archives


[edit] New Version

Ok, I replaced the article with a new version. I hope it's acceptable to all. I'm sorry if I forgot about anything, feel free to correct me. However, since many people are somehow fragile when it comes to L'viv/Lwów/Lvov/Lemberg, please try to be delicate. Let's be civilized and not start edit wars, ok?

As to the most important parts still needing attention: I collected lots of info, some of it is available through the web. The links are as follows (Note: it's unsorted and partially in Polish):

Sources needed to finish this article:

The parts still needing attention are:

[edit] Interbellum

[edit] 20th century

[edit] Independent Ukraine and Contemporary L'viv

should both of them be merged?


Independent Ukraine Today Lviv is still considered to be one of the main centres of Ukrainian culture and much of the political class in Kyiv originates from Lviv.

This is in the article. Is there anything to back this up? Are any of the important politicans from Kyiv or in the Verkhovna Rada from Lviv? I'm not aware of many high-profile ones. Even Yushchenko is from Ternopil, isn't he? I think it's Medvedchuk's brother or brother-in-law is the head of the tax agency in Lviv. That's at least one powerful person. Matthias5 22:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Business and Industry

I know that there was a bus factory during the soviet period. I think it was operational until a few years ago. Its name was something like L'vivavtobus. I think that recently the contract to build buses was awarded to a firm in Dnipropetrovsk. Of course some people see this as favoratism towards the Kuchma's cronies. As for the rest of industry in Lviv, I'm not aware of much. Matthias5 22:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no info on the subject

[edit] Transport

There's an extensive marshrutka system now. Plus there are 9 trams. I could probably dig up a map of the routes of each tramline. Matthias5 22:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) I can do the tramways since I know the history of tramways in Galicia pretty well

[edit] Government

The municipal site is not very informative on the topic. Anyone?

Please post your suggestions. Halibutt 23:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] L'viv -> Lviv

Lviv is by far more used in English than L'viv. Drbug 10:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe no one fought this change. I vehemently protest the name of Lviv, we should not propogate mistakes, Lviv is a misnomer. Lviv is used more often then L'viv because people are using an erroneuos name. The name of the city is L'viv, not Lviv, just as St. Petersburg is not Leningrad. Lviv certainly has less of a "right" to be the name of the city then Lvov, Lwow or Lemberg. It's not even Russian, where does Lviv come from??? To back this up I'll cite sources:
  • UNESCO calls it L'viv[2]
  • The American Heritage Dictionary calls it L'viv[3]
  • The official gov't portal of the Ukraine calls it L'viv[4]
  • NY Times, Merriam Webster Atlas call it L'viv [5]
  • Merriam Webster dictionary calls it L'viv[6]
  • MSN Encarta calls it L'viv[7]
  • Britannica is inconsistent, but in other (newer) articles such as this article about Przemysl, it properly calls the city L'viv.[8]

Just to be completely honest I have no idea why Ukrainian place names often have apostrophes, I would just as soon get rid of them, but it's not my call since they do have them.--Milicz 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The apostrophies are there because in ukrainian language many consonants may be softened and apostrophy shows that softening. The difference between L and L' is something like between "L" in words laugh and lure. Many other names have also soft sounds in it.

[edit] derivation of L'viv

When I lived in Lviv, I heard the following from multiple sources. Some sources think that L'viv derives from the genitive case of Lev. Accordingly, the city should be translated to English as [city] of Lev or Lev's. What do you think? Matthias5 22:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


In modern ukrainian genitive case of Lev is Leviv, so it wouln'd be really correct. And also - we do not translate China as "The centre empire" and Thailand as "Free land". So leave L'viv to be L'viv.

[edit] Львов

Along with the complex history of the city, I'd like to refer to post-WWII state. It was a Soviet city, and official language of the Union of Socialist Soviet Rebpublics was Russian language. Ukrainian was just a second official state language in terrirory of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As a consequence, in most documents Russian spelling is used.

This all means that Russian spelling is not any more meaningless that Polish and German spellings. Any exclusion of Russian spelling with German and Polish preserved are non-NPOV. Therefore, we should either remove them all, or keep them all, including Russian one. Through Wikipedia practices, the latter is preferable. Therefore, I restore it.

Drbug 16:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's wrong! Ukraine was part of Soviet Union and official language of Ukrain was Ukraiunian! Today L'viv is ukrainian sity, so you should respect it. (I know that for some russians it's too difficult) Gutsul 7 Oct 2005

Makes sense! Space Cadet 00:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Leopolitans section. Is it necessary?

I do not mean to touch any raw nerves but does an article about the city of the scale of Lviv need such a section? Such section is appropriate for smaller and relatively obscure cities whose famous people may help "put it on the map" of the world or of the region at least. Lviv already is very well on the map and it is obvious that a city of this scale and with this history had to produce lots of famous people. While a separate Famous Leopolitans article may be useful with a link to it from Lviv at "see also" section, this section in Lviv harms the article by diluting it. I simply would like to hear opinions of those involved with an article. Thanks! Irpen 03:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

In my oppinion, such sections are necessary. They work not only for small towns, but for big cities as well. In addition, most university articles (even on the most famous ones) mention the notable alumni, eventhough it would be fair to assume that the number of famous people of Oxford, Cambridge or Sorbonne would be quite high and those do not need more advertisment. Halibutt 20:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Having this section in some of the other big cities articles by itself is no proof that it's a good idea. Certainly not a majority of big cities have this section. The analogy with Universities does not strictly apply. The University is an institution whose main purpose is to prepare people with what's necessary to achieve in life and become notable. So, the information about the success of alumni of the university is encyclopedic.
However, if there is any need for the list of all notable people who happen to be born or lived in a city of the scale of Lviv, why wouldn't such a need be served by a separate article Famous Leopolitans with the link in Lviv article? This list for Lviv, if properly assembled, would end up in hundreds or thousands. It is already comparable in length with the rest of the article. Additionally it serves as a battleground for the editors who are tempted to use it to advance their point about the city being more part of one preferable heritage.
I say, let's make a separate article Famous Leopolitans which would make Lviv article more concentrated and reader friendly. BTW, similar section was removed from Kiev article recently with the consensus of the concerned editors. I hope my position did not offend anyone. Irpen 21:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that was simply my point of view. Many such cities have a separate list of notable people and I find such lists really nice and useful. Your argument about future students who would like to know something on notable alumni can be used for cities as well, especially that the artists or politicians' tell much more about the past of such cities than the mere historical note. On the other hand the article is already quite long. Fortunately your assumption that the list might be a grain of salt that could spark disputes between nationalists is wrong so far. At least I didn't see any such problems here, which makes me think that the list is fine (and I must say that I'm quite happy with it).
Perhaps if the article exceeded the 32kB deadline we could move the list to a separate article and live a few names here? I don't know, such a solution would be equally good to me. Perhaps we should wait and let the others express their views. Halibutt
Regarding similar lists for other cities in the form of separate articles, such lists are sometimes nice to look at just out of sheer curiosity. I see a familiar name in the list and think something like: "Wow, and him too. Cool! Wow and this one! Cool! etc." So, having such lists as separate articles are just "nice" but having good city articles is really important. So, we should decide whether to keep the section or not based on whether it's helpful or not for the article about the city. The most significant figures in city history should be mentioned within the text flow. Some people, like Prince Danylo, Prince Lev, King Casimir, Fyodorov (book printing promoter), Boguslawski, Ossolinski and others are already in the text or will be there with future enhancements of the article (I will write about Fyodorov, if no one else does it before me). As for the people who are notable and so happen to be born or lived in Lvov, but their notability has to do with other things than their role in the city history, I have my doubts their list helps the Lviv article rather than hurts it. In similar list in Kiev article, before it was deleted, there was. for example, Milla Jovovich (born there), no doubt a notable person. But why should she be in the Kiev article I simply don't know. Born there, so what? I can't judge for most of the famous Leopolitans currently in the list because I haven't heard of most of them (which of course doesn't mean much). If we create an article with a list of them, with more and more added, this article would satisfy those who would be curious to see such list of people notable in totally different areas but united by being related to Lviv/Lvov/Lwow/Lemberg.
It is a completely different thing for a list of famous alumni in the University article not because it is helpful for prospective students but because providing people with resources that will make them notable is the main mission of the university. The city has no similar mission of producing people as well as any other particular mission per se. The city is just the city. The list of notable Leopolitans is bound to be incomplete and, except of the small fraction of them, their notability has more to do with other things than their just being Leopolitans. Of course the situation is different for small and relatively obscure towns and villages, but not for Lviv.
OK, let's wait and see what other editors have to say. This topic is too new to draw any conclusions. Irpen
In the meantime, we could do a general cleanup of the article, move the not-yet-existent sections to talk page, add more pics, sort the sections and perhaps request peer review? What do you think? I'll start the work on it right away. What do you say? Halibutt
I would be glad to help with what I can, but I can't really do much because I know much less about Lviv than what's already there. I will try to make some edits on what I know, but to contribute significantly, I would need to research the topic. Hopefully, the research of other editors, who know more about Lviv to begin with, will be more productive than mine. Irpen 01:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other editors, please comment on the discussion above to which I would like only to add that currently the list is already almost 25% of the article length and with some effort could be doubled or trippled with names no less notable than those already there. If compiled rigorously, I am sure there would be thousands of names. I say, let's move it to a separate Famous Leopolitans article but no one but user:Halibutt responded so far. Or am I the only one who thinks the list is out of place? Then simply respond that you object. Or is this a minor issue and I am just wasting everyone's time? Than I am sorry. -Irpen 02:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would support mentioning perhaps a half-dozen most prominent names in a short paragraph, and referring to the whole list in a separate article. I agree that long lists can take a bit of the wind out of an article. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 05:55 Z

Rather than purging the natinonalities, clearly relevant, why not spin them all off (with the nationalities) to a separate list article and add a see also link here? --Irpen 08:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the list, I support Michael's proposal, to keep only a short list in the article, and the more extensive one in a spearate page. However this might lead to confusion as to who is prominent enough to be shortlisted and who is not. As to the nationalities, I'm for purging them, since its main use would be to feed nationalisms of any kind, anyway. Nationalities of indiviuals are often disputed, and whether a person spoke one or another language does not seem important, as Lviv was historically a multinational town. We do not need to prove that it was "more" Polish, or Jewish, or Ukrainian etc. Do we ? --Lysytalk 11:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Do I gather that you are saying that we should not mention people's nationalities because it offends your particular politics? Sorry, but (in general) I disagree. I'm not going to fight it here, but in parts of the world where nationalities figure this prominently, I think they should be given. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] World War II

Dear Irpen,

  1. It's possible that some ukrainians took parn in ethnic cleansing, but you can't generalyze it for whole Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.
  2. What do you mean under Ukrainization in L'viv after 1944? Is it settling of native russians in this region?
  3. L'viv was major centre of Ukrainian culture befor Second World War.

Regards, --Gutsul

  1. It is not just "possible" that Ukrainians took part in ethnic cleansing. It is considered established. Ask our Polish friends (Halibutt, how come you didn't say anything to this q. yet?). Now, the most prominent Ukrainian nationalist organizations in the area were OUN and UPA, its later formed armed wing. However, while it could very well be that the thugs who were killing Poles and Jews earlier joined UPA in '42, at the original time of the cleansing in Lviv they were connected with OUN. Now, mentioning OUN should not imply that ethnic cleansing was all they were doing, therefore I replaced "[[OUN|Ukrainian collaborators]]" by "Ukrainian coolaborators (see also [[OUN]])". That OUN has to be mentioned in connection with murders of the Poles and Jews is beyond doubt. I repeat that the mention does not imply that all of OUN was involved or that this was the main or the only goal of OUN.
  2. I checked in the literature and found out that I was mistaken. There was no post-war Ukrainization of the area. I removed that.
  3. This is also correct and I did not deny that.

I will explained other edits I did to the article at the bottom. --Irpen 02:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

These accusations are founded on opinion Simon Wiesenthal. Previous his accusations Ukrainians turned out to be insolvent (Deschênes Commission). --Yakudza 00:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Yakudza, it is not "Wiesenthal's opinions" that accuses the OUN and the UPA, it the conclusion of most mainstream historians that these groups carried out ethnic cleansing. Prof. Dr. John-Paul Himka, one of the more prominant historians of the Ukraine, wrote "The opening of Soviet archives makes it intellectually more difficult for the diaspora to remain in denial concerning war crimes perpetrated by Ukrainian militia and police in German service and Ukrainian nationalist units. A major study of the destruction of the Jews in Eastern Galicia documents the participation of Ukrainian police in the execution of Jews.[45] There has also appeared a monograph specifically devoted to the Belarusian and Ukrainian police which provides a more detailed account of their criminal activities.[46] UPA’s atrocities against civilians have been documented in riveting archivally based studies by Jeffrey Burds.... During the war OUN leader Yaroslav Stetsko expressed his support for German-style eliminationist anti-Semitism" [9]. And what does the Deschênes Commission have to do with anything? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Article of prof. Himka has publicistic nature. This not scientific article. However prof. Himka nowhere speaks of participation ukrainian nationalist in Holocaust. He speaks "A major study of the destruction of the Jews in Eastern Galicia documents the participation of Ukrainian police in the execution of Jews." Ukrainian police is not nationalist. The Ukrainian nationalist traditionally name OUN and UPA. If were a clean data that Ukrainian nationalists organized a massive pogrom, he their has brought. "The mass murder of Poles in Volhynia by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)" and murder of Ukrainians in Volhynia by the Armia Krajova has a no relations event in Lviv. The mass murders of political prisoners by the NKVD in Lvov are still frequently confused with the anti-Jewish pogroms of the local population and with the liquidations perpetrated by the SD. [10] -- Yakudza 08:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Indeed, we should not generalize and always cite the context. However, the ethnic cleansing did happen and it was organized not by separate civilians but by one organization. And this should also be noted.
  2. Perhaps he meant the fact that there were less than 10% of Ukrainians there before the war and a huge majority from 1950's on?
  3. Of course it was, just like it was a centre of other minorities living there, including the German, Jewish, Hungarian, Armenian... there was also a Roma communitty strongly connected to the city of Lwów (or rather its' borough of Stryjskie Przedmieście) and even a Scottish cultural society had its seat there (yup! descendants of 17th century immigrants from Scotland)... Halibutt 06:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. I am glad we agree on some things too. I am also against generalizing and the context is that animousity of Ukrainians towards Poles was caused by historical conflicts in which Poles often had an upper hand, particularly in the interwar time (we all know the details). However, Polish interwar policy towards Ukrainians in the Polish controlled territory mostly amounted to cultural suppression and not to ethnic cleansing. I said so myself in UPA article.
  2. partly this, but also that Soviet policies in Ukraine followed the trend: Ukrainization first (to take a firmer hold), than Russification, once the full control is established. Since Soviets got the Western UA later, the times of this policies shifted. Same with Bukovyna, where the first goal was to suppress Romanian resistance and only after that suppress Ukrainian self-determination. In both areas treatment of Ukrainians in the interwar period (by Poland and Romania, respectively) was pretty harsh and there were lots of bad feelings, that helped escalate situation. However, by the end of the war, there was no need for the Soviets to worry about controll of the area, so Ukrainization was unnecessary. Nevertheless, the fact is that despite large influx of the Russian speaking migrants from other areas of the SU, the Ukrainians became an overwhelming majority in Lviv, which means that even more came from the local rural areas. That was added to the article but was reverted repeatedly as part of several wholesale reverts.
  3. obvious.

--Irpen 07:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet times and WWII

Вся моя жизнь во Львове так или иначе связана с улицей генерала Чупрынки (ранее — Пушкина, ещё ранее — Потоцкого). До войны здесь жили зажиточные поляки. Немцы выгнали поляков и превратили район в «нур фюр Дойче». После войны дома заселили русские в разнообразной форменной одежде (к ним принадлежал и мой отец), а также специалисты, присланные со всего Союза. Напомню, что в послевоенные годы въезд во Львов строго регламентировался. В 50-е и даже 60-е годы, которые хорошо помню, украинского населения здесь практически не было и, естественно, все общались по-русски. С конца 60-х — начала 70-х годов прошлого века украинский язык начал не быстро, но уверенно осваивать улицу. Так длилось лет двадцать, в 1991 году произошёл резкий скачок, в одночасье сделавший украинский общепринятым языком. Подавляющее большинство русских без особых проблем перешли на украинский язык, что вполне соответствовало сложившейся к тому времени структуре населения

http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/487/45964/ Ilya K 15:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rough translation for those of us who are unfamiliar with Slavic languages:
All of my life in Lvov was, this way or another, tied to the General Chuprynka Street (formerly - Pushkin's Street, even earlier - Potocki's Street). Until the war mostly Poles lived here. The Germans expelled them and turned the street into a Nur fur Deutsche area. After the war the house was settled by Russians in workers' suits (among them was my own father), as well as various specialists, sent there from all around the USSR. It is to be noted that in the post-war years settlement in Lvov was allowed only under special permits. In the 1950's and 1960's, the years I remember well, there was ractically no Ukrainian population here and most of the people used Russian in everyday speech. At the end of the 1960's and the beginning of 1970's, the Ukrainian language started to slowly but steadily conquer the streets. Then in 1991, 20 years afterwards, there came a huge jump which made Ukrainian the most prominent language. Huge majority of Russian speakers switched to Ukrainian with no problems, which fully reflects the structure of the population.
Now on to my comments: firstly, the story of the street mentioned is somehow special since the most notable expulsion of Poles (roughly 70% of pre-war population of the town) were carried out by the Soviets, not by the Germans. As to Lvov being a centre of Ukrainian life prior to WWII - that's true. However, it's also true for other minorities living in the city, including Jews, Germans, Scots (the only active centre of Scottish Anglican church in Poland back then), Russians and many, many more. Halibutt 18:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The author of the article in "Mirror weekly" means that Germans expelled Poles from the neighbourhood of Potocki-street in downtown (not the whole population of the city). It may be not true. The author did not live at that time. It would be nice if somebody had more reliable information.--AndriyK 18:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I understood. And, to be frank, it seems credible as Germans created Nur fur Deutsche zones in almost every major city in Poland. Halibutt 03:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, nobody commented on part of the passage that Pushkin street was renamed to Chuprynka's (not even to the historical Potocki's name). What was wrong with either of the former names, BTW? And what was wrong with Peace St. in Lviv to rename it to "Stepan Bandera Avenue", rather a controvercial figure to put in mildly. OK, could not help mentioning but this debate is for Ukrainization article. Back to the edits to the article:

  • phrase "Nazis turned on their Soviet ally". The POV that the SU and Nazi DE relationship could be called "Allies" is a valid one but not universally accepted. True, the SU and DE together partioned much of the Eastern Europe, but whether it means that they were allies in full sense was discussed at talk:Allies of World War II article and it was agreed not to use this term in the end. "Broke non-aggression pact" correctly describes the facts without using a terminology that is not yet agreed upon
  • Mentioning OUN in connection with ethnic cleansing is explained above. I repeat that it does not mean that ethnic cleansing was a single goal of OUN or that this was the only thing they were doing. But they were involved, read OUN article, argue there first.
  • "Nazis Occupation was replaced by the Soviet one"... Please note that Lviv became part of the SU before the Nazi advance. Initial partition of Poland by SU and DE was indeed an occupation. However, driving Nazis out in '44 was a different event. The article still does not use the term "liberation" for obvious reasons. "Axis forces were driven out" is a correct and neutral description of facts.
  • Original "In spite of the furious Russification policy of the Soviet Union, the city became a major centre of Ukrainian culture..." sounds pretty strange. How could this happen? I elaborated on that. I think the new version isn't contoversial.

I think that's about it for my recent edit. Now, may I ask you to also take a look at the discussion above of the proposal to spin off the Famous Leopolitans section to a Famous Leopolitans article. It just makes the article clumsy IMO, but if it is just me, we can keep it of course. Please do read a discussion above though. Thanks and I hope there will be no wholesale unexplained reverts. --Irpen 02:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Roman Serbian article

  • I do not think that the link to the publication about Nazy Criminals of Ukrainian ethinicity residing in Canada is relevant to the article about Lviv city. If it is here only to make a point to the discussion, maybe we should move it here? Please explain the relevance of the link. abakharev 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I say cut it, it isn't relevant to this article, and is a pretty biased piece anyway, written based on the author's "experience in public relations". --Goodoldpolonius2 01:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
OK This title about "Lviv pogroms"?

It might be relevant abakharev 06:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is a rather controversial figure and his works are not very much accepted in the mainstream, maybe because he raises the issues that make even scholars uncomfortable, but also, possibly, because he is considered by some an "appologits historian". I do not subscribe to any labels attached to him, I am just presenting a situation that we need some scepticism in accepting his conclusions. See for example Evacuation of East Prussia and other WP links to WP article about him. There is an interesting, but long discussion at talk:Evacuation of East Prussia. If you can't read it all, earch for "zayas" string at the talk. --Irpen 07:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pogrom

User:Irpen has called in group of support User:Ghirlandajo, which absolutely incompetent in historie of Lviv, and uses Wiki for propaganda russian imperializm (see User talk:Ghirlandajo). Mention of OUN is false and explained me in talk and in brought by me reference. No given confirming participation OUN in pogrom. The Necessary adduction of the article (the section World War II) in POV. (user:Yakudza forgot to sign. --Irpen)

Please avoid inflamatory section names and/or edit summaries.
Just to make sure I understand your point correctly, are you saying OUN has no relation to ethnic cleansing at all or that it's just that pogroms in Lviv have no relation to OUN? A good review if the current situation in Ukrainian historical thought is "War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora" available online. --04:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Although OUN is best known for its actions against Polish civilians in 1943, there seems to be hundreds of documents to support its complicity in actions of 1941 as well. The IPN so far did not investigate the Lwów pogroms of 1941. However, it did investigate the murder of Lwów professors carried out by the Germans with the help of Ukrainian units. It is obvious that, although neither the Vovka unit (formed as early as 1937!) nor the Nachtigall Battallion were subordinate directly to OUN, they were formed of OUN members by the OUN itself. The latter unit was formed before the WWII broke out of volunteers recruited in Poland by the OUN itself, examined by the OUN command in Kraków, trained in secret OUN training camps in Poland and only then sent to Germany for further training. Nachtigall entered Lwów as part of the German front guard, on June 30, 1941, that is even before the Wehrmacht reached the city. There are numerous accounts to support the thesis that it did take part in the massacres of Poles and Jews, including the Massacre of Lwów professors. However, the matter is disputed by Ukrainian historians (most notably Myroslav Kalba, a veteran of the unit and the only person so far to write a monography on it). Anyway, the matter still needs more investigation. Halibutt 06:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Not exist given about participation OUN in Massacre of Lwów professors
"In the night of July 3/4, 1941, between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. several units composed of the SS, police and field gendarmerie under the command of SS officers rushed into private homes of the professors of the higher academic institutions and arrested all men above 18 years of age found in their houses."
ZYGMUNT ALBERT THE MURDER OF LWÓW PROFESSORS BY GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN JULY 1941-- Yakudza 10:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for change. I wrote above in answer User:Goodoldpolonius2. However prof. Himka nowhere speaks of participation ukrainian nationalist in Holocaust. He speaks "A major study of the destruction of the Jews in Eastern Galicia documents the participation of Ukrainian police in the execution of Jews." Ukrainian police is not nationalist. The Ukrainian nationalist traditionally name OUN and UPA. If were a clean data that Ukrainian nationalists organized a massive pogrom, he their has brought. Prof. Himka does not bring such data. "The mass murder of Poles in Volhynia by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)" and murder of Ukrainians in Volhynia by the Armia Krajowa has a no relations event in Lviv. Ethnic cleansing in Volhynia certainly occurred at participation of some subdivisions UPA. "The mass murders of political prisoners by the NKVD in Lvov are still frequently confused with the anti-Jewish pogroms of the local population and with the liquidations perpetrated by the SD." Alfred M de Zayas -- Yakudza 07:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is crazy, someone has now changed the pogroms to being "alleged pogroms" -- what basis is there for this? The only argument I have seen on this page is whether the OUN is involved (and the evidence against is dubious), but no source doubts that there were Ukranian pogroms in Lviv that killed thousands of Jews. There is even a movie of the pogroms. This is totally unacceptable. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the alleged pogrom of alleged Jews in what is alleged to be a city called Lvov or Lviv in what is alleged to be a country, allegedly called Ukraine, during what is alleged to have been World War II. Or the Great Patriotic War, depending on who is doing the alleging. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If somebody can povide the referencies confirming relation of the collaborants to OUN, please do so. Otherwise you cannot assert this in the article. Please remamber the Verifiability Policy of Wikipedia. Most of collaborants did not have any definite political orientation (nationalist or other). If in Lviv it was different, it should be confirmed by reliable sources.--AndriyK 22:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I cited my sources. Also, I have a bulletin of the 2003 IPN-organized conference on the 1943 genocide of Poles and in the foreword the fact that the Nachtigal battalion was formed by and of OUN members is mentioned. Halibutt 11:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Concerning Nachtigall, they were indeed Ukrainian nationalists related to one of the branches of OUN. But I did not see any evidence for participation of Nachtigall in Pogroms. All, what I know, they fighted Red Army being a part of Wehrmacht. Are there any sources confirming their participation in Pogroms? I think, it is higly unlikely. If they were related to Holocaust, they would not hold public talks and publish articles in journals in USA in 1960 [11].--AndriyK 20:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It is clearly mentioned in Albert, Zygmunt (1989). Kaźń profesorów lwowskich - lipiec 1941 - collection of documents. Wrocław, University of Wrocław Press. ISBN 8322903510. and Szewalski, Robert (1993). Politechnika Lwowska 1844-1945. Wrocław, Wrocław University of Technology Press. ISBN 8370850588., as well as countless online sources ([12], [13], [14], [15]... to name but a few). One of the above sources quotes that one of Ukrainian historians disputed the Nachtigal's complicity, though. Halibutt 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is a paragraph from the ZYGMUNT ALBERT THE MURDER OF LWÓW PROFESSORS BY GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN JULY 1941:
Many Poles still think that the professors were massacred by the Ukrainians. If this were so, the Hamburg prosecutor would not have admitted after the war that it was done by his fellow countrymen - the Germans. When Helena Krukowska lodged a complaint at the Ludwigsburg Court concerning the murder of her husband Wlodzimierz and other professors, Prosecutor Below replied that those guilty of the murder were: Himmler, F rank, Schöngarth, SS-Standartenführer Heim and probably SS-Hauptscharführer Horst Waldenburger, but they were no longer alive and the remaining guilty individuals were still being sought. The prosecutor admitted that only the firing squad consisted of Ukrainians dressed in SS uniforms.
"Ukrainians dressed in SS uniforms" could not be Nachtigall soldiers: Nachtigall was a part of Wehrmacht, not SS.--AndriyK 09:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is a citation of one of your sources: Akcja Wisła
1941 r. do Lwowa wkroczył ukraiński batalion „Nachtigall”, dowodzony przez Romana Szuchewicza, współpracownika Bandery. Po zajęciu Lwowa banderowcy ogłosili publicznie (przez lwowską rozgłośnię radiową) niepodległość Ukrainy. W deklaracji tej wyrażona była też chęć współpracy z Rzeszą Niemiecką, dzięki której Ukraina osiągnęła wolność. Na czele nowego rządu miał stanąć bliski współpracownik Bandery, Jarosław Stećko (który jednocześnie był jednym z przywódców batalionu „Nachtigall”). Banderowcy byli na tyle pewni sukcesu, że o uznanie niepodległej Ukrainy poprosili oficjalnie rządy kilku państw, w tym Włoch, Rumunii, Węgier, Słowacji i Japonii, a nawet Watykanu8. Prawdopodobnie liczyli na to, że stawiając Niemców przed faktem dokonanym, zapewnią sobie ich poparcie. Chcieli też prawdopodobnie wyprzedzić zamiary swoich przeciwników z OUN Melnyka. Cokolwiek jednak było ich zamiarem, faktem jest, że Niemcy wrazili wobec nich całkowitą dezaprobatę. Zażądali odwołania deklaracji niepodległości, po czym aresztowali przywódców rewolucjonistów. Stefana Banderę i Jarosława Stećko osadzono w obozie koncentracyjnym w Sachsenhausen9. Rządy Stećki trwały 12 dni. Część aresztowanych banderowców zostało zgładzonych w niemieckich więzieniach

Where are Pogroms? where are Polish professors? Could you please cite only related sources? --AndriyK 10:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


As to Nachtigal - it was a part of both the Wehrmacht and the Abwehr. In the latter case it could've worn any uniforms they were given.
As to the source - indeed, I must've missed this one. But here you go with others (English translation below).
[16] W inwazji na ZSRR Oberlaender występował jako przedstawiciel Abwehr II. Do tej grupy wchodziła też 6-osobowa "delegacja " OUN-B, posiadająca gotową listę profesorów, którzy mieli być zamordowani. Grupa przeszła San k. Radymna i wkroczyła do Lwowa w nocy z 29 na 30 czerwca 1941 r. Przez następne kilka dni Ukraińcy z Nachtigal dokonywali masakry ludności żydowskiej.
During the invasion of USSR, Oberlaender was acting as an Abwehr II officer. Among his group was a 6-people strong delegation of OUN-B, which had a prepared list of professors that were to be murdered. The group crossed the San river near Radymno and entered Lwów overnight of July 29th and 30th. For the next few days the Ukrainians of Nachtigal were massacring the Jewish population
This refers to an internet forum. Not a creadible source. --AndriyK 13:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[17] „Nachtigall” został przydzielony wraz z dywersyjnym I batalionem „Brandenburg” do Pierwszej Górskiej Dywizji generała – porucznika Richtera von Lanza. „Nachtigall” postępował w forpoczcie dywizji mając dla niej oczyszczać drogę w marszu na Lwów. Batalion wkroczył do Lwowa nad ranem 30 czerwca 1941 r., Szuchewycz został przyjęty przez metropolitę Andrieja Szeptyckiego. Kalba zaprzecza stanowczo tezie, że batalion wziął udział w mordowaniu żydowskiej i polskiej ludności Lwowa czemu zaprzeczają polscy historycy, sprawa ta czeka na dogłębną analizę.
Nachtigall was attached along with the 1st Brandenburg Battalion of diversion to the German 1st Mountain Division under Lt.Gen. Richter von Lanz. Nachtigall formed the front guard of that division and was to pave the way for it to reach Lwów. Battalion entered Lwów in the early morning of July 30th of 1941, and Shukhevych met with Andriy Sheptytski. Kalba [Myroslav Kalba, a platoon commander and the author to prepare a monography of the battalion - Halibutt] fiercely declines that the battalion took part in murdering of Polish and Jewish inhabitants of Lwów. His version is however declined by Polish historians, the matter needs further analisis.
The author reffers to "Polish historians", but does not call the names. The list of literature at the end cites mostly Communist-time sources. The author admits that "the matter needs further analisis".--AndriyK 13:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[18] 4 lipca br. wrocławscy lwowiacy i kresowianie zebrali się przy Pomniku Pomordowanych Profesorów Lwowskich w 1941 r. przez niemiecko-ukraiński batalion „Nachtigall", aby - jak co roku w rocznicę ich tragicznej śmierci - oddać im hołd pamięci. Podniosłą uroczystość zorganizował Zarząd Główny TMLiKPW wspólnie z Politechniką Wrocławską.
On July 4 the Lvovians of Wrocław and other people of Kresy gathered at the Monument to the Murdered Professors of Lwów to commemorate, as every year on anniversary of their tragic deaths, the murdered by German-Ukrainian Nachtigall battalion. The feast was organized by the Main Office of TMLiKPW [Society of Fans of Lwów and South-Eastern Kresy - Halibutt] and the Wrocław University of Technology
This is not a scientific publication. This states merely what Polish people believe.--AndriyK 13:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[19] Nachtigall Battalion (Ukrainian Nationalists allied with Nazis) torture and execute 51 professors and 100 Polish students in Lwów after Soviets leave. In the first few days of July, Nachtigall and the SS will murder 3,000 Poles and 6,000 Jews
[20] Równocześnie z oddziałami niemieckimi do miasta wkroczył ukraiński batalion SS "Nachtigall pod dowództwem Theodora Oberlaendera. który to batalion brał udział w wydarzeniach opisywanych poniżej.
Together with German units, an Ukrainian SS battalion Nachtigall under Theodora Oberlaendera entered Lwów and took part in the belowmentioned deeds [here comes an explanation of what you can expect - Halibutt]
[21] Batalion "Nachtigall" wchodził w skład Legionu Ukraińskiego, utworzonego przez hitlerowców z ukraińskich nacjonalistów. Batalion był ubrany w mundury niemieckie. W okresie poprzedzającym wojnę z ZSRR był specjalnie szkolony do zadań sabotażu i dywersji w Neuhammer. Szkolenia te nadzorował osobiście profesor niemieckiego uniwersytetu im. Karola IV w Pradze, dziekan wydziału nauk politycznych, porucznik Abwehry - Teodor Oberlaender.Po zajęciu Lwowa przez Niemców nastąpił szczególnie okrutny pogrom ludności, szczególnie żydowskiej. Obok grupy Oberlaendera brały w nich udział jednostki Sicherheistdienstu, tzw. Einsatzkommanda, dowodzone przez personel gestapo, SD i policji kryminalnej. Na terenie Lwowa działały - niezależnie od siebie - dwie grupy: jednostki Abwehry, wspomagane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich z batalionu Nachigall, formacje Sicherheistdienstu wpomagane przez milicję ukraińską i oddziały Wehrmachtu. Milicja ukraińska występująca po cywilnemu, jedynie z żółto-niebieskimi opaskami na ramionach -stanowiła organ terroru samozwańczego rzadu Stećki, powołanego do życia dekretem wodza Organizacji Ukraińskich Nacjonalistów, Stepana Bandery.
Nachtigall battalion was a part of the Ukrainian legion, formed by the Nazis of Ukrainian nationalists. It was dressed in German uniforms. Before the outbreak of war against USSR it was trained in sabotage in Neuhammer. The training was personally supervised by professor of the German Charles University in Prague, deacon of political sciences department and a lieutenant of Abwehr Teodor Oberlaender. After Lwów was seized by the Germans, a particularily bloody pogrom of local inhabitants, mostly Jewish, ensued. Apart from Oberlaender's group, other units took part in it, including . Einsatzkommandos of the Sicherheistdienst, commanded by Gestapo, units of SD and Kripo. In Lwów there were two completely separate groups: units of Abwehr supported by Ukrainian nationalists of Nachtigall, and formations of Sicherheistdienst aided by Ukrainian militia and Wehrmacht. The Ukrainian militia, dressed in civillian clothes with only yellow and blue armbands, was an organ of terror of the self-proclaimed government of Stecko, created with a decree of the chief of OUN, Stepan Bandera
[22] Wkraczające wojska niemieckie masowo mordują Żydów, ocenia się, że w lecie 1941 roku zginęło ich około 44 tysiące. Z Niemcami wkraczają na (cień Małopolski Wschodniej dwa bataliony ochotników ukraińskich Nachtigall i Roland. Wyróżniły się one masowymi mordami dokonanymi na ludności polskiej i żydowskiej (Nachtigall wymordował np. w dniach 1-7 lipca 1941 roku ponad 3 tysiące osób tylko w samym Lwowie. Po przejściu Wehrmachtu akcję terrorystyczną w stosunku do Żydów, a następnie też do Polaków kontynuuje pomocnicza policja ukraińska.
The advancing German forces organize mass murders of Jews. It is estimated that in the Summer of 1941 44,000 were killed. Together with the Germans two battalions of Ukrainian volunteers enter Eastern Lesser Poland: Nachtigall and Roland. They were particularily infamous for mass murders of Polish and Jewish civilians (Nachtigall murdered over 3,000 people in Lwów between 1st and 7th of July alone). After the Wehrmacht moved on, the terrorist action against Jews, and then also Poles, was continued by auxiliary Ukrainian police force.
[23]When the German army left the Krzemieniec front, detachments of the SS made up of Germans and Ukrainians (the infamous Nachtigall Brigade) entered the town. They carried out mass executions that included the professors and students who had escaped Soviet death, but for whom there was no sympathy even as former NKVD prisoners.
[24] W trakcie uroczystości pojawiła się kontrowersja dotycząca roli nacjonalistów ukraińskich w wydarzeniach 1941 r. Prezes NCA, witając przedstawicieli nauki ukraińskiej, zinterpretował ich obecność jako intencję włączenia obchodów rocznicy mordu wuleckiego do tradycji obecnych uczelni Lwowa. Prof. T. Cieszyński z Wrocławia, przypominając udział batalionu "Nachtigall" w egzekucji profesorów, w żarliwych słowach argumentował, że prawdziwe pojednanie narodów należy budować, ujawniając całą prawdę o trudnej przeszłości.
During the commemoration, a controversy appeared as to the role of Ukrainian nationalists in the accomplishments of 1941. The head of NCA, greeting the representatives of Ukrainian science, interpreted their appearance as an intention of incorporating the commemoration of Wulka hills murder into the tradition of modern universities of Lviv. Professor T. Cieszyński of Wrocław reminded of the participation of Nachtigall battalion in the execution, argued, that true reconciliation can be built only if all of truth of difficult past is unveiled.
Need more? Just say a word and I will translate more. Halibutt 11:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
All the cited sources just confirm what Zygmunt Albert wrote: "Many Poles still think that the professors were massacred by the Ukrainians." There are inough sources stating that this point of view is likelly wrong. (Even the sources you listed here state that "the matter needs further analisis").
Here is one more source
Версію про причетність “Нахтігалю” до вбивства львівських учених 1959 року почала поширювати радянська пропаганда. Професор Василь Косик, автор дослідження “Україна і Німеччина” доводить, що висунуті звинувачення мали ще одне конкретне пояснення. Вони були спрямовані на професора Т. Оберлендера, міністра у справах вигнаних, репатрійованих і переслідуваних під час війни німців в уряді Конрада Аденауера. Лейтенант Т. Оберлендер у червні-липні 1941 р. був зв’язковим офіцером батальйону “Нахтігаль”, що й використали для кампанії дискредитації. Німецький трибунал не знайшов підстав для визнання вини Т. Оберлендера в інкримінованих йому злочинах. Але інформація про “злочин українців” набула розголосу й досі її використовують в ураїнофобській публіцистиці, передовсім польській.
The version of participation of Nachtigall to the murder of Polish scientists was spred by Soviet propaganda since 1959. Prof. Vasyl Kosyk, the author of the study "Ukraine and Germany" proves that accusations had specific explanation. They were directed against Prof. T. Oberländer, the Minister on expatriated, repatriated and persecuted duirng the war Germans in the governmant of Conrad Adenauer. Leutenant T. Oberländer was a messenger of Nachtigall in June-July 1941. This was used in the discreditation campaign. The German tribunal did not found any graund for avowal of guil of T. Oberländer. But, the information about "the crime of Ukrainians" was spread and is still used by ukrainophobic pulicism, espcialy in Poland.
What we have now:
    • some authors indeed relate the Pogroms and the murder of Polish professors to Ukrainian nationalists
    • other authors disagree
    • the version of Nachtigall participation in crimes against humanity was spread by Soviet propaganda
    • it is not a surprise that historians of Communist Poland were agree with their Soviet colleagues therefore this version was spread in Poland as well.
    • There were no legal prosecution against "Nachtigall" servicemen related to the crimes in Lviv in June-July 1941.
    • German state prosecution charged Germans (not related to "Nachtigall") for the crimes.
Is there any reason to assert anything else except that the matter is stil sublect to discussion?
One could write even more clear: "Althow there is no facts concerning participation of "Nachtigall" in crimes against humanity, some authors still continue to repeat the old gossip spread by Soviet propaganda in 1959." --AndriyK 14:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes and no. You are completely wrong as to commie propaganda. The Commies were more than happy to publicize numerous attrocities committed by Ukrainian units during WWII, but this does not make them less real. Take note that the whole murder of Lwów professors and pogroms of Lwów were banned by the commie cenzorship of Poland and there were no books published on it back then. Just like on the history of Lwów, Wilno or other areas annexed by the USSR. Also take note that I'm using modern sources, and not books by Ukrainophobes (Ukraino-eaters, as we say in Polish) such as Edward Prus.
As to other notes, since the matter is disputed, mostly between Polish and Ukrainian historians, one can't say that it's not. One could equally say that "though there are countless accounts to prove that the Nachtigall battalion was involved in mass murder of inhabitants of Lwów, the matter is disputed by some Ukrainian historians, mostly the veterans of the battalion themselves". Would it be equally right? Yes. Would it be NPOV? Nope.
I'll search for original sources from the 1940's as soon as I get home, but I doubt these will convince you. As to the FRG courts - I initially thought you were joking... Just take a look at the long, long list of Nazi war criminals that were never extradited nor tried for their crimes and yet lived their peaceful lives in Western Germany after the war. Is it a proof that they were innocent? Heinz Reinefarth anyone? Erich von dem Bach? Maria Aichele, Elisabeth Baessler, Fanny Eleonore Baur, Jane Bernigau, Berta Bommer, Heinz Auerswald, Werner Catel... zillions of swines, big and small. Halibutt 15:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Commies were more than happy to publicize numerous attrocities committed by Ukrainian units during WWII. Therefore it looks very strange that they did not do this in Nuremberg Trial (see pages starting from p. 490). It looks more than strange that the surviver, Prof. Groer, spoke only about Germans and did not mention any Ukrainians. It looks like Soviets discovered crimes commited by Nachtigall servicemen only in late 1950-s. Why not earlier?

I did not see "countless accounts to prove that the Nachtigall battalion was involved in mass murder", all what you've showed me, are countless accounts to prove that many Polish people think so. In fact, not only Ukrainian historians dispute the issue. The name Zygmunt Albert does not sound like Ukrainian. And Łukasz Dykowski admitted that "the matter needs further analysis". Are they both Ukrainian?

There are Ukrainian historians that criticise OUN for many things they did, but still deny participation of Nachtigall servicemen in murder of Polish professors (if you read Ukrainian, I can give you referencies. I don't have time to translate, I'm sorry).

You may distrust the FRG courts, but many former Nachtigall servicemen emigrated to the USA. Morover they declared publically their relation to Nachtigall, but no one was prosecuted. Doesn't it look strange, if your version is true?--AndriyK 17:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Lack of trials in the US is not a proof either - just take a look at the long list of Nazi war criminals who found reffuge in the US after the war. Some were even officially cleansed of all responsibility. I understand the natural notion to distrust anything that was said during the Soviet times, but remember that Coprenicus' theories were also taught in Commie schools, which doesn't mean that the earth is flat.
As to the sources I provided (WP:CITE style, not the quotations) two of them mention the complicity of Nachtigall in the pogrom. However, you're right that they only mention street executions and plunder, not the complicity in murder of professors. TRhe biography of Boy-Żeleński also mentions that there are accounts to prove either way here and that the matter should yet be resolved by historians. BTW, I do read Ukrainian. Halibutt 06:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is not only that it was said during the Soviet time. The point is why Soviets have hidden this information from Nuremberg Tribunal, if it were true? Or why Prof. Groer did not mention any Ukrainians if they were there? Why some Polish historian deny or doubt the perticipation of Nachtigall in murder of civilians? There are to many questions to be answered before one believes this vertion.--AndriyK 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And why did they try to blame the Germans for Katyn? Or why didn't they accuse von dem Bach or Reinefarth for the massacres during the Warsaw Uprising? As to other questions - I might ask why do so many Ukrainians try to conceal Ukrainian complicity in the massacres of 1941 and deny the obvious facts? (grain of salt here please).
Andriy, while I do understand your doubts, I think that you're missing the point here. We don't have to make the readers believe either version. We should simply report that there is a controversy and that many people support either version. Halibutt 18:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In the case of Katyn, everything is clear. Soviets commited a crime, and they tried to make somebody else responsible for it. Just a normal logic of all criminals. The same for Ukrainians who commited crimes in Volhynia. But I do not see any reasons for Soviets to hide any crimes of Ukrainian nationalists. What is the reason for Polish historians to advocate Ukrainian nationalists?
I agree, both versions should be present. And they are alredy there, aren't they?--AndriyK 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess it depends. However, I'm neither a specialist in the matter nor did I read most of the books I quote here. I can only assume certain things, so I will refrain from commenting on other sources. As to Karolina Lanckorońska, whose memoirs I did read, she believes that the Ukrainians in German uniforms took part in the massacres because she saw them herself. But of course, one might follow Irpen's logic and say that she can't be true since she was there personally and as such cannot be objective... As to Stanisław Sterkowicz's biography of Boy-Żeleński, which I did read, though I admit it was quite some time ago and I did not focus on the Polish-Ukrainian relations too much back then, he bases his Nachtigall story on the relation of Jacek Wilczur, a witness of the July 1941 massacres. For instance, the guy recalled that the Ukrainian unit was called Ptasznicy (Birders) for the emblem of a bird painted on their cars. This encyclopedia does not give any sources at all, neither does the holocaust chronicle, [25], [26] or the Wiesenthal's centre, which, I admit, is often one-sided or wrong in its views.
As to Katyn, unfortunately not everything is clear as the Russian archives are still closed. Back to Lwów - generally understand your views, but they still seem too USSR-oriented for me. The Soviets are not speaking of Ukrainian crimes - it's fishy. They are speaking about Ukrainian crimes - it's fishy as well. While I understand that their ways were at most times strange, I doubt we should treat the Soviet propaganda's behaviour as a proof of anything. Also, note that during and after the WWII the Soviets treated various Polish resistance organizations - Armia Krajowa included - as either collaborationist or simply criminal. Yet, they did not publicize their crimes abroad, not even in the cases where the crimes indeed did happen. The propaganda at home was strong, yet you won't see any mention of the NOW or WiN in the minutes of the post-war war criminals' trials. Why? Only devil knows, I guess. Halibutt 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Concerning Katyn, I ment the behaviour of Soviets/Russians is clear: the committed the crime,tried to accuse somebody else and noe keep the information secret.
Concerning "Ukrainians in German uniforms", it could be another unit, different from Nachtigall. There was police, fromed from local population. There were collaborators served in SS troops. Where some of them OUN members? I do not see any proof. At least, what I know from my relatives (I am from central Ukraine), collaborator in our region did not have any ceratin political orientation. Some very specific streaks of this persons rather than their political orientation played the key role.
In contrast to other three sources, the encyclopedia you cited does reffer to court decisions. One cannot ignore the court decitions, even if one distrust them. In such a way one can distrust everithing, including all witnesses.
I do not consider Soviet propaganda's behaviour as a proof of disproof. But there is court decision stating "geheimdienstliche Fälschungen".
There are indeed a lot of authors assertin (or alleging?) that Nachtigall did commited crimes agains civil population. We cannot ignore this. But there are the authors saying the opposite. And there are several(!) court decissions confirming the second point of view. We cannot ignore this either. I do not see any other solution, as just to state that there are different POV and the question is subject to discussions.--AndriyK 22:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Righteous Among the Nations in Lviv

Here is some info in Urainian [27].--AndriyK 16:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Israel has formally recognized 1,881 Ukrainians as Righteous Among Nations. A few in English: [28]. It would be good to mention that there were those who tried to help the Jews in the Lviv (do we have details on this?), but it is not right to delete or minimize the thousands killed in the pogroms. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Link about Andrei Sheptyts'kyi in english [29]--Yakudza 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The nobel position taken by Metropolitan Sheptytsky as well as some other people is not under any doubt. The issue is whether OUN or part of it was complicit in pogroms. My most recent edit does not link "[[OUN|Ukraianian collaborators]]. Instead, it says "Ukrainian collaborators (see also [[OUN]]". The connection is there, but this does not imply that collaboratos and nationalist is one and the same in every respect. --Irpen 17:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1944 Reoccupation or Liberation

I do not see a problem with the term Liberation since it is quite common in non-political western military history. Like here [30] At the beginning of September 1942 there were still around 65,000 Jews in the ghetto, among them around 15,000 "illegals". Some Jews hid in the sewers of Lviv and with help from local Poles survived until liberation. The heavily guarded ghetto was surrounded by barbed wire... --Kuban Cossack 16:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Some use both: [31]

July 22: Lvov Liberated; 110,000 Jews Dead

After battles on the outskirts of the city, the Red Army occupied Lvov on July 22, 1944. A large majority of the 110,000 Jews who had inhabited this city before the war had long since been murdered. A few Jewish prisoners from the Janowska camp, whom the Germans had employed and considered "crucial," were murdered as the Soviets drew closer in June 1944. A very small number were transferred to the West. Manhunts for concealed Jews in Lvov lasted until the very last days of the German occupation. The Ukrainian population caused many deaths by denouncing Jews and turning them over to the Germans. After the city was liberated, survivors who had concealed themselves on the "Aryan" side or in forest hideouts began to return; Ukrainian nationalists murdered several of them after the liberation. --Kuban Cossack 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that other internet sites do not strive for NPOV, whereas we do. And the term "liberation" is highly POV, as POV as it gets. One could say that it was the Germans who liberated that town from the Soviets in 1941, who in turn liberated the town from the Poles in 1939, who in turn liberated the town from Austria-Hungary. Unless there is some serious reason to push the "liberation" version, I'd stick to more neutral wording. Halibutt 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Liberation from Nazis" is factual and more specific than more POVish just "liberation". --Irpen 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not if you ask those Ukrainians who supported Nazis. It's not that easy. You're promoting Soviet POV by using such wording. --Lysytalk 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If you ask anyone who supported Nazis, I beleive they will all disagree. But this is not an ultra-right-pedia. As such, we should stick towards the mainstream view that kicking out Nazis qualifies for liberation. --Irpen 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not more than earlier Germans kicking out the Soviets does. Unless you believe that the Soviets "liberated" everyone, including Berlin, of course. Such claims seem especially silly for Lviv, where most of the population was Polish :-) --Lysytalk 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Moreover I would actually allow the term occupied to be used for the 1939 Soviet intrusion, although judging from the festive photographs that I have seen the term does not seem to fit. Annex, is quite crude as well, when used in conjunction with mentioning the Molotov-Ribbetrop pact. 1944 however is pure liberation, particulary from the Jewish perspective which I have cited. --Kuban Cossack 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest using some more neutral term, then we would not have to wonder what it was from Jewish, Polish or Ukrainian perspective. --Lysytalk 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Many would disagree that Lviv somehow became more free after the Soviets arrived. Since the use of this term is controversial and being actively discussed, with several editors disagreeing, Kuban Kazak, please don't keep reverting to it. —Michael Z. 2006-03-06 17:08 Z
Nevertheless it did become free from the nazis, that is a referenced fact, and the term liberated the city from the axis occupiers is accpetable. Moreover de facto the city was part of the USSR, as recoginised by Chamberlain's statement on the 1939 intrusion into Western Ukraine and Belarus, combined the postwar recoginition to its 1939 owener, in that respect the Soviet Union did free its city from a foreign power. For the Ukrainian POV, this is also true since the Red Army thereby restored the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian SSR, the forerunner to modern Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is one point of view. Another is that the Soviet advance represented the loss of the last Ukrainian lands previously free from Bolshevik domination. The treatment of Ukrainian culture and institutions by the Soviets in 1939 and after 1944 helps support this view. I don't think either can be considered neutral, nor represented as such without any discussion or comment in the text. —Michael Z. 2006-03-06 19:01 Z
That can well be true for the 1939 intrusion. Although judging for the Polish-interwar policies towards the national minorities, and as correctely stated above, the city was called Lwow by the majority of its population even on the eve of 22 of July 1944, it is wise to assume that Ukrainian institutions in Lviv would not have been so much damaged due to the low amount of Ukrainian population in the city. --Kuban Cossack 19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd support the usage of the term liberation only if we were to accept it in all articles, regardless of who liberated whom, from what and for whatever reason. Otherwise, the "liberation from the Nazi occupation" could as well be called "replacement of Nazi occupation with the Soviet one" or simply a "takeover". I still fail to understand what is the advantage of calling the Soviet occupation of that city liberation. Halibutt 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But the term is used by many western military historians. Besides if Britain entered WWII due to Germany invading and occupying Western Poland, it recognised the Soviet annexation of Eastern Poland. Chamberlain was noted to say: That Russia had every right to the lands that were hers as confirmed by the Curzon line, taken away from her in 1921. Hence Britain recongnises the de facto 1939 Soviet-German line. Hence all of the lands to east of that are Soviet. Hence Red Army, pushing the Germans west would have liberated its own land from a foreign occupier. Concerning anything west of that line...that is a different story. --Kuban Cossack 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That Russia had every right to the lands that were hers as confirmed by the Curzon line, taken away from her in 1921

Interesting-the sentence would suggest that he didn't reckognise Ukraine as independent entity from Russia. Your statement btw seems to make Russia Equal to Soviet Union. Quite a POV statement it seems. Btw-the final Curzon line included Lviv as part of Poland if you are going to use that argument. --Molobo 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In the first half of the 20th century it was like that, USSR was populary referred to as Russia in the same way Kyiv is referred to as Kiev today. As for the Curzon line, there were two versions of it, and the 1939 border between USSR and Germany was not identical to the Curzon line, but was based loosely on it. --Kuban Cossack 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre logic. In fact there were even more versions of the Curzon line and all of the original versions (that is the ones Poland agreed to in 1920) did not include any territories disputed between Western Ukraine and Poland. The border proposed by lord Curzon went along the Bug river to the area of northern Volhynia, while the area itself (together with the city of Lwów itself) was by no means considered Russian back then and was not included in the western proposals. It was not until 1944 that such a line was established and proposed as a new Curzon line.
Accoriding to the map on the article there were two versions concerning the city of Lwow, first one with it on the right, second on the left. The second one was called alternative--Kuban Cossack 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, Russia in its history held the city of Lwów twice: once during the brief occupation of the town during the WWI and then during the WWII. It was as Russian as New York or Cape Town are. Halibutt 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't bring OT into the conversation. --Kuban Cossack 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation

Since some users insist on using the term "liberation"-would anybody be interested in how "liberated" Poles were ? Especially Home Army soldiers who assisted Red Army in taking of Lviv ? I can find quotes about how they were treated by Soviet forces. Anybody interested? --Molobo 22:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please seize the "German occupation was replaced with the Soviet one" thingy. Soviet occupation was in '39 and even then by the same token one might consider that the "Polish occupation of Western Ukraine was replaced with a Soviet one." At least for Ukrainians, who kind of had it in the Second Polish Republic, it was largely the case. Besiders, the territories were attached to the Soviet Ukraine not to Russian SFSR. While Poland in its time simply ignored its obligation to grant Ukrainians an autonomy among many other international obligations it also ignored.
However, by the time of Barbarossa Western Ukraine was the part of the Ukr SSR and Soviet Army liberated the Ukrainian terriotry from the Nazis who invaded it. So, please cool it off. --Irpen 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah then Irpen should we then add that German Reich liberated Baltic States from Soviets ? As to However, by the time of Barbarossa Western Ukraine was the part of the Ukr SSR, well Nazi's also had their administration over areas they took over from countries they took over, so that doesn't seem a strong point. --Molobo 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well regardless of how one looks at it there are official documents confirming the entry of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. Signed by leaders of those Baltic states, but don't bring OT into a discussion which is being focussed on the city of Lvov. Also the German Reich's occupation was not recongnised by any non-axis power, and all land that Geramany occupied after 22 June 1941 was in all western sources cited as Soviet. --Kuban Cossack 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it me or is there really noone willing to accept some compromise solution here? I believe that this article should be tagged {{NPOV}} as long as the POV vocabulary is there. Either we agree to allow all states to "liberate" their neighbours in wikipedia (Nazi Germany included), or we stick to NPOV vocabulary. Or perhaps there is some other option? Halibutt 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you proposing the global purge of the term liberated from all articles? Even, for example, from Operation Tempest and its subarticles such as Warsaw Uprising? Also, articles of other times could use some de-liberation if we adopt the rule History of Poznań, Duchy of Warsaw, etc. --Irpen 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. People were indeed liberated from concentration camps, set free from the Soviet GULags, the Soviets liberated Pskov in 1943 and so on. However, if there are disputable cases - and this is definitely one of those - then, for the sake of NPOV, we should stick to neutral wording, without praising one side too much. You wouldn't call the Soviet capture of Prague in 1968 a liberation and the case of Lwów is roughly similar. Halibutt 11:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't mix salt and sugar, Lvov, like Pskov were Soviet cities, recognised by several world powers (like Britain). The 1968 intrusion into Prague was invasion, and that is said even in Soviet Sources, (albeint in the manner of helping the abused by capitalist propaganda Czechs to retain their freedom) still, Prague was a city in an independentely recognised, by the USSR, country. Lvov was a Soviet city, occupied in 1941-44 by Nazi Germany. --Kuban Cossack 11:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


BTW, as to the "international obligations ignored" thingie. The Conference of Ambassadors and then the League of Nation granted the area to Poland for a period of 25 years, after which time there was to be a plebiscite there. The plebiscite was to be organized in... you guessed it, in 1947. No wonder why Poland did not organize it then. Halibutt 11:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
And how does that fit with the fact that the Polish goverment in August 1945 signed a border treaty where the Soviet Union would have ceded Belostok and Peremyshl to Poland in exchange for Poland recognising the lands east of the border as Soviet. The line was demacrated as well. --Kuban Cossack 11:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And how does that fit with the fact that the Polish goverment in August 1945 signed a border treaty where the Soviet Union would have ceded Belostok and Peremyshl to Poland in exchange for Poland recognising the lands east of the border as Soviet Be precise-which government ? The one in exile or the one brought by NKVD ? --Molobo 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Lvov was a Soviet city, occupied in 1941-44 by Nazi Germany Please name the treaty signed with Polish government in the period 1941-1944 which acknowledged that Lviv is part of Soviet Union. --Molobo 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a vote

I might ask that a similar Gdansk/Danzig vote might help to resolve the despute for the lands in question. My proposal if we adopt the following standard:

  1. 1939-USSR intruded (not invaded) into Poland, waliking across undefended borders to share its spoils of the German invasion of Poland
  2. As this was clearely recognised by several powers (like Chamberlain's statement) we consider those lands Soviet from then on
  3. 1941-44 All Soviet lands, including those in part 2; were invaded by Nazi Germany and they occupied them during that time.
  4. 1943-44 Red Army liberates all Soviet territory (inc. #2) from the Nazi Germany.
  5. 1944 onwards, wether Soviet Union liberates or occupies other countries in Poland or Bulgaria or whatever I could not really care, but to be consistent the phrase (subject to modifications) In 1944-45 Red Army liberated N-city however the Communist authorities and the NKVD who followed in the footstepts did this and that, which caused the some of the people to see it as this and that...etc. can be used by some of the more nationally-conscious wikipedians. Although really this does not fit into the disputed territory
  6. 1945 Upon the Soviet-Polish treaty the recognised at Yalta border is demacrated and Poland recieves conscessions in form of Belostok and Peremyshl. Those lands prior to that were Soviet.

So in fact this is the picture:

  • pre-1939 - Polish
  • post-1939 - Soviet
  • 1941-1944 - Soviet, but occupied by Nazi Germany
  • 1944 Soviet, liberated from Nazi Germany
  • post 1944 Soviet (- Belostok and Peremyshl)

--Kuban Cossack 11:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


#1939-USSR intruded (not invaded) into Poland, waliking across undefended borders to share its spoils of the German invasion of Poland Why not invaded ? It engaged in several military battles with Polish forces who decided to defend Polish territory.

As this was clearely recognised by several powers (like Chamberlain's statement) we consider those lands Soviet from then on Please name treaties signed by several powers (well besides Nazis obviously) that confirm they consider those lands to be legally Soviet. My proposal:

  • post-1939 - Soviet Occupation
  • 1941-1944 - Soviet occupation replaced by occupiation by Nazi Germany
  • 1944 Nazi occupation replaced by Soviet one.

--Molobo 11:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

August 1945, Soviet-Polish treaty which recognised the eastern bordrs on their de facto state; Yalta and Potsdam agreements. --Kuban Cossack 11:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

August 1945, Soviet-Polish treaty Sorry but you were talking about the period of 1941-1944, not 1945. Let me repeat: Lvov was a Soviet city, occupied in 1941-44 by Nazi Germany Please name the treaty signed with Polish government in the period 1941-1944 which acknowledged that Lviv is part of Soviet Union. --Molobo 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Treaty was worded that Poland accepted the defacto state of the border with minor adjustments (Belostok, Peremyshl). There was not even a mention about the 1921 border. In 1941-44 there was no Poland. --Kuban Cossack 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1941-44 there was no Poland Poland was occupied, but Polish government existed in exile and even dealt with Soviet Union. So you are incorrect. Now please present any treaty from 1941-1944 signed by that government that reckognises Lviv as Soviet territory. --Molobo 13:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. On September 17, 1939 the Soviet Union militarily invaded Poland, in line with the Soviet-Nazi Alliance. After a series of battles, its army was able to capture a large part of Poland.
  2. This was clearly recognized by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but that's about it.
  3. All lands under Soviet control, including the part of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union, were in turn invaded by Nazi Germany
  4. Until 1944 the Red Army liberated much of Soviet territory and also reoccupied much of Poland
Halibutt 14:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area code

We have 7-digit tel nombers in Lviv now. So area code got shorter. Now +38032 --ZAVR 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

User:Harrisonmarks posted a reference to the "War of L'Viv" under the location section. As the title (and similar terms with other spellings of Lviv ... Lviv, L'vov, etc.) show not a single hit, I've pulled it until someone can come up with some evidence backing up what was stated. --DMG413 01:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban kazak's reference and "liberation" of Lviv

Let's compare what is written in Ukrainian

Коли його рідне місто 'увійшло до складу Радянського Союзу' , Лема "репатріювали" до Польщі в 1946-му, де він оселився в Кракові. [32].

and what in Russian

После того, как в 1944 году Львов был освобожден советскими войсками, Лем продолжил обучение в медицинском институте. В 1946 году Станислав Лем переехал в Краков, где он также изучал медицину.[33]

So simply: he just "moved" to Krakow after the city was "liberated". And all other Poles of Lviv suddenly decided to move. Now I am sure, the Russian service of BBC is the most neutral source in the world! :-))) --AndriyK 11:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct and the Ukrainian BBC has a lot to work on by desvidomising its editors. As the english version seems to also share the Russian one [34] --Kuban Cossack 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Funny but even the poles seem not to mind that combination [35] --Kuban Cossack 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Even your source suggest that "liberation" may be not a reight word

Nazis begin the exhumation and burning of corpses on occupied-Soviet territory threatened with liberation (or 're-occupation' ) by the Red Army, to obliterate evidence of their genocide and mass murder.

But read it at BBC site [36], not in Google cash.--AndriyK 12:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reoccupation of what? Its own land? That is bs straight on. --Kuban Cossack 12:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am a Pole and I do mind. Also note that the author of that page uses the term in relation to the Polish liberation of the city, not the Soviet capture of it.
Firstly, I'm against the usage of the term liberation in any context but the most obvious (concentration camps, prisons, people taken hostage), as it is never NPOV. The alternative is to call every switch of ownership a liberation. The Ukrainians tried to liberate Lviv in 1918, but they failed and the city was liberated by the Poles. Then it was liberated by the Soviets in the course of their collaboration with the Nazis, but was liberated by the Germans in 1941. Finally the Poles and the Soviets liberated the city again in 1945. It was not until 1991 that the Ukrainians liberated it. Bad idea, isn't it.
Secondly, apparently the good old Soviet ways are still alive. In Poland after 1956 the censorship office finally allowed some people to publish their war-time diaries - of course heavily edited and slightly shortened by the censors. Thus all such memoirs started with In 1943 I found myself in Siberia, where I joined the army. Not a single word on how the hell did the person get there. A similar phenomenon applied to post-war ethnic cleansing. A huge number of people all of a sudden found themselves in Wrocław, Kraków or Łódź. Finally, there was also a shorthand phrase that was used in official curricula (under Communist rule one had to prepare such shortened life stories every now and then, much like people in the west prepared their CVs) which ran along the lines of I spent the war in the USSR. In 1956 I found myself in... or I spent the war in the USSR. In 1946 I settled in.... //Halibutt 13:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Kuban Cossack, while I agree that Soviet Russia has every right to its own imperial past and you are free to praise it, we're by no means bound by what Russia considers its own. I trace some double standards in your words here. While you most probably wouldn't call Warsaw a "German own territory", you still call other parts of Poland captured by the Hitler's ally a "Soviet own" land. Were the areas seized by Germany after 1941 also theirs? And how about Hungary in 1956? //Halibutt 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have compleately reworded the heading (and expand it). Read it know if you like it, purge the NPOV tag. --Kuban Cossack 13:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you meant this edit then I'm amazed. Really, good going. The edit (which was instantly reverted BTW) lacks the verb in the first sentence about the Home Army and perhaps a separate sentence on the wartime and post-war expulsion of most of the inhabitants (numbers/ways of expulsion and so on), but I believe the WWII military part is now described both correctly and neutrally. Kudos! //Halibutt 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case I would like to close the dispute, I am purging the NPOV tag. --Kuban Cossack 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Too bad Irpen reverted you... And too bad he didn't take a look at this talk page. //Halibutt 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the term "liberation" in the context of driving out the Nazi regime is now being discussed at the talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper please see there and discuss there insetad of revert warring or discussiong the same thing at multiple places.

There is another typical problem I see here with an excessive historic details in the broad topic articles, such as article on country or city history (more details may go in the latter of course). As I said multiple times, any article maybe thrown out of balance by the information, even referenced, but too narrow or too detailed for a particular context. All facts, especially the controvercial ones, need to be put in the article of just appropriate breadth and such articles should be linked from the wider articles than duplicated there. In this particular area we can easily find the info, including the atrocities in the Ukrainian-Polish War, nationalist policies of the 2nd Polish Republic in the interbellum, Soviet purges and deportations following the takeover, repression against AK by the Soviets or the anti-Jewish and anti-Polish massacres by the Ukrainians, complicity of Ukrainians in collaboration with Nazis against Jews, Poles and Soviets, complicity of the AK in collaboration with Nazis against the Soviet partisans (see talk:Wilno Uprising) and other such info about the events that did happen. If someone puts such stuff all around WP no matter how broad or narrow the article topics are, this would be killing articles one by one. Some passionate Soviet hater will add the details of the Soviet policies towards the Poles and Ukrainians, than some Polish hater would respond with the info unfavorable to the Poles and someone else would respond to the info that makes Ukrainians uncomfortable. Perhaps Jews were the only group that pretty much suffered in the area under any power. There are narrow articles just for events such as Lwów Ghetto, Massacre of Lwów professors, Massacre of Poles in Volhynia and others that could all use some NPOVing and some renaming.

The city article would just go nuts if we keep dumping the info into it instead of referring to the proper articles and the side reader will have no clue what the hell this all is about. This is the article about the city. Keep it as such. I think, my revert was too deep though. I will try to restore the amount of info which seems just right to me and not too detailed. Please continue the editing with this in mind.

As for "liberation", this is a separate issue. Let's discuss it at a separate talk. No one is using liberation for '39 anyway. Liberation from Nazis is a different matter because the term is widely used in the mainstream. Please see the discussion at Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper. --Irpen 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No offenses meant to anyone but we don't really need to repeat the same thing twice, once under "World War II" and then under "Soviet period" As the Red Army was nearing the city in 1944, on July 21 the local commander of the Home Army ordered all his forces to commence the Operation Tempest. An armed uprising was started and after 4 days of city fights the city was captured by the Poles, with support by the advancing Soviet tank brigade[2]. After that the civil and military authorities were summoned for a meeting with Red Army commanders and arrested by the NKVD. The remaining forces of Colonel Władysław Filipkowski were either forcibly conscripted to the Red Army, sent to Gulag or returned to the underground[2] [3]

In July 1944 the Polish partisans of the Armia Krajowa in what is called the Lwów Uprising, a part of Operation Tempest. The city was taken in four days, when the Red Army entered it, which coincided with the finale of the Lvov-Sandomierz Operation. Since the main tank battle for the city took place well south of the city centre, most buildings, churches and other historical monuments were preserved. After that the Polish civil and military authorities were summoned for a meeting with Red Army commanders and arrested by the NKVD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.76.33.109 (talk • contribs).

Thanks! This is exactly what I am tryng to do now. Give me a minute. Halibutt, please no "too bad this or too bad that". I was writing at the talk page when you restored the duplication claiming it's NPOV. --Irpen 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And in connection to what I am trying to convince others about choosing appropriate articles for the material, shouldn't the pogroms section be moved into a separate article with only summary here? If someone can write a really short summary (I might at some point), such a spin-off would be very desireable. The History articles should be organized chronologically with whatever happenend integrated in chronological text flow. We can create as many narrower articles (and link them from the broader ones) as we want.

Another suggestion would be to spin the entire history into the History of Lviv article like was done in Kiev (which now has a History of Kiev article with just a short summary in Kiev that I wrote). This would require someone writing a summary. Volunteers anyone? Whoever, myself including, does that, please write such summary based on the current version that passed through a multiple edit wars rather than from scratch or (worse) a personal POV. This would actually encourage editors to contribute more on other aspects of the city, like culture, infrastructure, public transportation, etc.

One more time, I would like to reiterate that choosing the article for the material is almost as importnat as to present the facts correctly. Any article maybe thrown off-balance by a detailed elaboration on some topic that is close to a particular editor's heart. Such separation would reduce edit warring, create more encyclopedic articles (including those narrower ones) and would make everyone happy, including myself and my usual opponent(s). For a recent examples see mine and Piotrus' spinning off the material from the History of Poland (1939-1945) which could still use much improvement (see its talk). --Irpen 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm restoring the NPOV tag then until the matter is solved. Contrary to what Irpen states above, this is about a problem with NPOV in this article, not some other articles. //Halibutt 02:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Creation of History of Lviv is certainly not a bad idea, but I do agree with Halibutt that the matter of what belongs in this article and what in subarticles needs to be further debated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no disagreement that this needs discussed. However, Halibutt, yet again is attacking me for no reason. The only context I support the term "liberation" is "from the Nazi". Nowhere I said that for the events of '39 partitioning of Poland (unlike Piotrus' opponet user:Number 6, whoever sock that is). In my edit to which Halibutt reacted in his usually friendly manner I replaced the phrase:

"Following the Soviet takeover the members of Polish resistance were either forcibly conscripted to the Soviet controlled Polish People's Army or imprisoned. "

by a more general statement:

"As in the previous takeover the Soviet authorities quickly turned hostile to the city's Poles (including the members of the Polish anti-fascist resistance)."

This, IMO, is exactly the amount of detail needed for the city article. Also note that even the former phrase was originally mine. The one preferred by Halibutt was even more strangely written:

After that the civil and military authorities were summoned for a meeting with Red Army commanders and arrested by the NKVD. The remaining forces of Colonel Władysław Filipkowski were either forcibly conscripted to the Red Army, sent to Gulag or returned to the underground.

No question about the factual accuracy but that's certainly wrong for the city article. There are articles on Soviet repressions against Poels, there is an AK article and others for that. --Irpen 04:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Irpen, you are mistaken. I added the tag specifically because you decided to throw the consensus out of the window and restore the ridiculous liberation thingie. I'm not trying to make this article say that in 1944 the city was occupied by the Soviets for the second time, even though it would be perfectly right. I thought that perhaps if we agreed to something in between occupation and liberation that would be NPOV. However, as you're insisting on liberation at all costs - and apparently against pretty everyone here - I added the tag back. BTW, your recent liberation spree, apparently aimed at creating more conflicts in wikipedia, is somehow disturbing. I'm more and more tempted to follow your ways and add the liberation of Kiev in 1941, liberation of Pskov and other Soviet cities to respective articles. Why not after all? //Halibutt 12:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As Irpen mentioned, this discussion is mirrored at the Battle of the Lower Dnieper talk page. I've suggested "reclaim" there.--tufkaa 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, as for the "spree" pls don't bring the OT issues. I never ever used liberation for any events other than 42-45, never for '39, never for '19-'20, although some see it such. I only use it as liberation from Nazis. Please move it to the Dnieper Battle article. As for this one, I am amazed that you tagged the whole article over a single word and, at the same time, dared to remove much more in detail elaborated tag at Wilno Uprising. Anyway, as far as this article conserned, would you be satisfied by replacing the global tag by a "dubious" template near the liberation word? That is until the issue is resovled at the other talk page. --Irpen 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag there because it was frivolous, and based on a single comment in a book detailing a completely different area and different units than those to take part in that uprising. Here it's different as the matter is indeed disputed - and not only by me apparently. Before we replace the tag with anything, I'd like to know what is your proposal. As POV pushing is apparently ok with you, I'm planning to change the historical section to reflect the Soviet occupation of the city in 1944. Perhaps I'll even add a word on two on the 1941 liberation from the Soviet yoke, I hope that'd be ok with you. Or perhaps we could still find some compromise wording as we already did with Kuban Kazak? //Halibutt 09:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention that the wiki definition of Liberation might be somehow helpful here. Liberation (...) is often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom". If Lwów was indeed liberated by the Soviets, then I believe we should rewrite the definition. How about Liberation (...) is often understood as "to be freed from not having freedom to not having freedom"? //Halibutt 10:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "liberation from the Nazi"

If a prisoner is moved from jail A to jail B, would it be correct to say that the prisoner was liberated from jail A? I don't think so. Why should we term the replacement of the Nazi dictatorship by the communist one as "liberation"? If one follows Irpen's logic, then Nazi occupation of Lviv should be called "liberation from communist dictatorship". Ridiculous, isn't it?--AndriyK 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really as Nazism has been confirmed as a dictatorship by the Nurenberg tribunual, which also confirmed Lvov as a Soviet city. It is you who is being rediculous. Lvov was liberated by the Red Army, who liberated its own city. --Kuban Cossack 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the ownership of Lvov was not confirmed by Nuremberg trials. It was confirmed by Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and then by the Yalta agreement, but not the Nuremburg trials. //Halibutt 12:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It was confirmed by the Polish-Soviet border treaty in August, 1945 which amogst other points agreed to cede Bialystok and Pzemyshl to Poland. Those were the terms of the treaty. Thereby by that point the Polish government must have fully recognised the 1939 line as its eastern frontier. --Kuban Cossack 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

...which was also somewhat altered to the Polish favor, btw. --Irpen 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) "Polish-Soviet" means exactly "Soviet-Soviet". Stalin nominated the "Poles" and dictated any detail of the "Poland". I have just read "The Soviet soldier didn't liberate us, because he wasn't free". ~(Marai?) Xx236 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Soviet soldiers not free? What? My freind, first of all learn English to clearely give your thoughts and then begin trolling on talk pages. --Kuban Cossack 10:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet soldiers weren't free. It's rather obvious from outside. They were mentally, legally and practically terrorised by the system. Have you read Marai's description of "liberation" of Budapest? Xx236 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask shanovny pan Andriyko, do you consider replacement of German Nazi occupation in the rest of Ukraine or AAMOF in Belarus and Russia to be liberation or occupation by Soviet Army? --Imprevu

Ukrainians were very active organizing uprisings in Soviet camps, so they rather voted for "non liberated". Xx236 07:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What Ukrainians? The ones which used to kill their own citizens? How you call those kind of prisoners, that's right, criminals. I believe they have a national holiday today in Lviv. Happy Victory Day to all leopolitans! --(Imprevu 16:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Imprevu don't bother feeding this person who goes great lengths to combine the most random facts together, the English is bad enough to read. As for victory day, then I concur, particulary people like Kovpak, Kuznetsov and Medvedev. --Kuban Cossack 18:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean those people, who made more tahn 5 million starve 1932-1933? "random facts",really. Xx236 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the famine of 1932-33 have to do with Red Army soldiers, yes random facts and IRRELEVANT!--Kuban Cossack 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lvov was liberated by the Red Army, who liberated its own city

The first steps of the Liberators were - mass arrestations and expulsions.[citation needed] Xx236 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes me think that you were there to witness it all happening. --Kuban Cossack 12:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand it as a compliment. I try to understand the history of Lviv. Do you really believe that I invent? I don't have to, almost any possible crime or error has been done by the Soviets, why to invent? Xx236 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-war repressions

The article is biased, it doesn't mention Soviet repressions against Ukrainian nationalists. Xx236 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything is biased to you as long as it does not match your POV. The point of wiki is NPOV, stop trolling on talk pages of the articles. --Kuban Cossack 13:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet reprisals to UPA activities afflicted about 500 000 people, of them 150 000 died. I don't know how many victims were there in Lviv.

Some people lack any arguments, they prefer ad personam attacs. Xx236 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviets were equal opportunity repressionists against any nationalists. Western Ukrainian nationalists, what were they fighting for? They got their country reunited, rest of the Soviet Ukrainians didn't support them, they already went thru this in 20'th. I guess, it just makes them simply anti-Soviet. Soviets are not an aliens who invaded Ukraine or Russia. They were Ukrainians and Russians in majority...How do you think, they should had reacted toward collaborator of the enemy they've just defeated? "Lets discuss your independence". The whole notion of the soviet over national mentality was not invented by Stalin, it was used and abused by him.-- Imprevu 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So you mean that nationalism is bad and internationalism O.K.? Does it make internationalistic genocides acceptable? Why do many Russian nationalists present the international tradition of the SU as Russian nationalistic? Are they missinformed or they describe rather the Soviet past?

The world is nationalistic, including Communist China and Cuba. I don't think that genocides are acceptable to create "New Men".

I'm not a fan of the UPA, but is the murder of 150 000 acceptable retaliation? Poland took away veteran rights of the members of isstrebitelny batalioni of NKVD.

I reject all Soviet crimes, not only the ones by Stalin. Xx236 06:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


And KC, what's with that flag? I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you have innocent motives. But is that necessary to have in your face attitude in the community which pride itself for working together. What's the profound cultural or national importance you see in the symbol which became associated with another nationalist movement of "patriots". Is that who you wanted to be associated with or are? History? Symbol of Imperial Romanovs Russia. History? Symbol of Pogroms. History? Symbol of prison of nations with russian guard on top of them. All of your common sense and claims of fairness become a suspect of selfish internal motives. Do the right thing, drop it.-- Imprevu 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking subjects

  • Brweaking of surrender condition, the murder of the POWs ("Katyn").
  • Polish Underground under the Soviets
  • Polish Underground under the Nazis

The mass deportations 1940-1941 and the murder of the prisoners in Summer 1941 are common knowledge. "Citation needed" is ideological manifestation (you liars insult Stalin and NKVD) rather than editor work. Xx236 07:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The city became one of the most important centres of science and culture of Poland.

Facts needed about the culture of all nations. Xx236 07:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re disputed words

If words are disputed, it's better to use {{dubious}} right next to the offending word than use {{POV}}. Telex 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I removed Halibutt's tag yet again. If this is all about "liberation", he is welcome to take a look at talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper (and archives) and even say a word or two there rather than spread this discussion to the multitutde of talk pages. If it is about some other words, he is welcome to mark them. If the article is globally tarnished, the common sense demands a clear and concise explanation of the tag added to a talk page by an unsatisfied editor. --Irpen 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of issues. One of them is presenting the expulsion of Poles from their land as liberation, but as can be seen above this article is far from perfect and this is not the only issue that should be solved. It's not a problem of a single word, it's a wider thing. //Halibutt 05:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please tag the word as "Disputed". As for the rest, care to elaborate. I started a section for you below. Until then, I am removing the tag. --Irpen 05:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and calling editors who contribute content to Wikipedia as "Vandlals" in the edit summaries does not add credibility, to your action. --Irpen 05:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I consider removing a proper tag, in part added due to your POV pushing, a vandalism. I'm sorry if that offends you and I'm sorry if you don't see that. //Halibutt 06:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A "proper" tag is the one explained. As long as you keep tagging and not bother to explain your grivances at talk, your tag isn't proper. I hope your feeling sorry will prevent you from name calling for some time. --Irpen 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So what the heck am I doing here? //Halibutt 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

Ok, since I've been asked to present a list of issues that need NPOVing before the tag is taken out, then here it is again (most are discussed above). The three most important currently are:

  1. Liberation. If the city was liberated by the Soviets in 1944, then so was Paris in 1940, Minsk and Smolensk in 1941 and so was Stalingrad the following year
  2. The article does not mention the ethnic cleansing prominently enough. The fact that a thousand year old history of the place was purged after the war is quite notable, isn't it.
  3. The mention of the Soviet and Ukrainian terror needs to be reworded as well.

//Halibutt 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'd add a {{POV-section}} tag to where it belongs, but I have no doubt it would be reverted by Irpen as well... (in good faith, as all his reverts are done in good faith I believe) //Halibutt 06:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
1.There is a thorough ongoing discussion of the applicability of the term at talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper. The basic point is mainstream usage. No respected scholar uses "liberation" for Nazi occupation of 40-41. OTOH, "liberation" is used for Soviet army's driving Nazis out even within Poland itsef,[37] not just Ukraine (like here) or Belarus.
2 and 3, please care to elaborate or edit directly in the article for us to see what you mean. --Irpen 06:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream usage is a weasel term. Mainstream usage of what? Is Russians liberating Berlin in 1945 any more mainstream than Russians occupying Lwów in 1944? Because it's definitely not NPOV, as has been pointed out a zillion times above. As to other issues - I already stated that there is no need to waste my time on editing articles which would most likely be reverted by Irpen as soon as they appear. It happened a zillion times before and it's kind of hard for me to assume good faith after all of that. //Halibutt 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, mainstream isn't weasel. Encyclopedias should first of all represent mainstream. Your view that respected authors right non-neutral books doesn't hold water. No respected scholar can afford POV-pushing in his works. I don't mean to say that all authors always use "liberated". Hence, we should not always use it as well. But we should be allowed to use it along with the other terms and no one can roam the articles others wrote to purge liberate by occupy and vice versa. Here is the source for Lviv in addition to the source above on Poland.[38] Now, please expand the article's lacking sections and leave the word alone. --Irpen 07:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Seems to be a strong overstatement, the Stalin's regime was certainly much softer than the Hitler's one. It so happened that a number of my grandmother's relatives (cousins, second nieces, etc.) were Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius Jews. They could probably confirm my statement if any of them survived the Nazi occupation (there were I believe around twenty of them).
2-3, yes, please suggest your editing on talk and see it is agreeable for all the involved editors
On my talk page, you have mentioned some sort of a consensus with User:Kuban kazak. I like all sorts of compromises and consensuses. Do you mean the edit [39]? abakharev 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the Soviet union did not send people to its death camps on an ethnic basis, rather on social basis. Which however does not make the liberation thingie any more sensible. If the city was indeed liberated, then how come almost entire population was expelled afterwards? I pointed out a hundred times here and there that the very term liberation is POV as hell as there'd always be someone to dispute it in any but the most obvious cases (concentration camps, prisons and so on). And Irpen's suggestion that we should follow what's written by respected authors does not help us here, as there'd always be an author calling it a liberation while others would call it occupation or taking ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]...). Contrary to what Irpen suggests, liberation is neither a synonym to occupation nor to taking. It is a word on its own, with lots of emotional and historical value. If we are to use it here in such a bizarre meaning, then we should consistently also allow its usage in other situations (see above). Of course, we could fight a revert war over whose author is more respected or whose author is better, but this would make little sense to me.
Authors are by definition POVed, as it is their interpretation of facts that is presented in their books, not just mere facts themselves. Mere facts are found in historical tables, where only dates are presented. I have a book by a respected author who mentions that the Russian soldiers who entered Lwów in 1944 behaved like cattle and calls them the new Huns. Should we add it to the article as well? Nyah, gentlemen. Wikipedia is a different thing, as it does not have a single author and nobody owns any article. Because of that we should either stick to NPOV vocabulary or present both views. In this case presenting both views makes little sense (in the effect of what was seen as liberation by the Soviet authorities, hundreds of thousands of Poles were imprisoned in Gulags or expelled from their city, which was then annexed by the Soviet Union sounds a tad bizarre, doesn't it), but would still be better than what we have now.
As to the version by Kuban Kazak, I mean specifically this edit, not sure if it's the same you linked. //Halibutt 07:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


To Irpen: does WP policies say that Wikipedia "should first of all represent mainstream"? If you think that the policy should be changed, please try to do it following the corresponding guidelines. Pushing your POV with edit waring and persistance is not the best way.--AndriyK 08:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To Alex Bakharev: the view which of two regimes was softer or harder may differ strongly from family to family. Millions of people survived Stalin repressions in 1930s but became victims of Nazis, on the other hand, other millions survived Nazi occupation but died in 1946 famine or in post-war labor camps. I do not think it's our job here to decide which of two regimes was softer. It is much more important to find a neutral wording and use it to describe facts. Wikipedia is a unique place were people of different ethnicities, cultures and political orientations can meet each other to find mutuiral understanding and describe our common history neutrally and unbiased. It's a pity that there are people who use Wikipedia for propaganda.--AndriyK 08:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For your information, 1946 famine was not a deliberate one unlike 33, and as you are aware postwar USSR was much more liberal than pre-war Germany. --Kuban Cossack 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't in Western Ukraine:

"Soviet reprisals to UPA activities afflicted about 500 000 people, of them 150 000 died". The Nazis, the bad they were, didn't kill 150 000 before the war. Xx236 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop putting nonsense onto talkpages, Nazis killed 6 million Jews plus 26,6 million Soviet people, as well as many more others. Once again I ask you to either clearely state what is it that you want the article to see otherwise please end this trolling. --Kuban Cossack 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the one point of view comes across as NPOV should be based on fairness or fact or both?- Imprevu 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC) "Nonsense" and "trolling" means everything "Kuban kazak" doesn't like. Stop trolling, because I have enoughy.

During two famines about 10 million died before WWII. The question who killed 26,6 million isn't so simple:

  • Stalin was coresponsible for the WWII.
  • Stalin exterminated Red Army officers.
  • Millions of Soviet citizens collaborated with the Nazis, see RONA, Khatyn, ROA.

See Vladimir Voynovitch [48] Xx236 08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Millions? Collaborateors got half a million at most. Stalin (actually it was Yezhov) exterminated offcers BEFORE the war in 1930s. --Kuban Cossack 18:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, had our good father Stalin known of the purges, he would never allow them to happen. These were just errors of the lower cadre of the communist authorities, Stalin was innocent. Right... //Halibutt 20:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste space for OT comments. Thanks, --Irpen 20:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Don't waste the place for OT comments. Thanks. Xx236 06:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Collaborateors got half a million" Source, source!!!! Xx236 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, let's try some more constructive approach. There are some Russian wikipedians here who strongly support the version, in which a part of Poland has been liberated by the Soviet Union. Apparently a compromise solution is impossible to reach as thir side prefers the "our POV is the only version possible" approach - at least that's what I concluded after taking part in the discussion and after having been offended several times in a row for proposing some compromise solution (others who tried to reach it were offended as well).
So why not make the statement clear, label it properly and settle the issue? For instance: After four days of the city fights (...) the city was seized by the Soviet Union, in what was seen by the Soviet Soldiers as a liberation? Alternatively we'd have to mention that the city was also "liberated" from its owners and its inhabitants, which I bet would incite even more heated reaction of our Russian friends. What do you say? //Halibutt 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not you try to do this and we will all see how it looks? I bet it would make a great improvement to the article. Looking forward to it, --Irpen 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I already did - and was reverted on sight and insulted several times. Then Kuban Kazak did it, but was also reverted - though not insulted. So no, Irpen, I won't waste my time only to see you revert my version as soon as it appears there. //Halibutt 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I never revert any of your good faith edits (which are also plentyfull as I was always pleased to admit). When you troll[49] or WP:POINT[50], your edits are treated differently and not just by myself. --Irpen 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See? It all depends on your interpretation of what suits your POV and what doesn't, and not on actual facts. It makes no sense to make edits to article you monitor as regardless of sources one would be reverted on sight if only his edits do not conform your POV. Sorry, but I don't have time for that. //Halibutt 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that "seized" is almost as POV in one direction as "liberated" in another. More neutral words are "took", "captured", "gained control of"; in some circumstances, "retook" and "recaptured" might be considered, but in this case those might themselves be bones of contention, for obvious reasons. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt has this feature of repeatedly bringing up things already refuted. Typical one is to cite irrelevant Volgograd/Battle of Stalingrad to justify other name's Polonization, most despite other cities, unlike Stalingrad, were never actually renamed (see eg talk:Battle of Wilno). This is another strawman he keeps bringing up from talk page to talk page, that I somehow, support liberate when it relates to the Russian forces and oppose it elsewhere. This was explained too. In the context of the 20th century liberate is usable only in when speaking of driving out the Nazi forces. Thus, "liberation from Nazis" is a full term and, just liberation would implicitly imply the same in the WW2 context. OTOH, I never used "liberation" in the context of, say, 1939 occupation, despite it was a Russian advance or in the PUW context, even when it was a Ukrainian advance (will give some thought to the latter issue). I also explained the reason why the L term is applicable in this particular context (WW2). It is because it is a term widely used in the mainstream literature on the subject, including most respected books and encyclopedias, such as Britannica and Columbia. Halibutt's contention that the most respected sources are not NPOV while he is cannot be taken seriously. Britannica has an NPOV policy clearly and any respected historian who writes non-neutrally would immediately undermine his credibility within the academic community. If Halibutt wants to continue going around in circles, I request he brings up some new points at last. --Irpen 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you Irpen, but you got it all wrong. I did listen to your arguments, I did understand them and I did consider them - and yet I don't agree with them. May I? For you, from your own point of view, the term is completely acceptable and neutral. From my perspective it is not, as it is definitely loaded with positive emotions towards the ones to "liberate". Also take note of your own disregard of the sources when I found a source calling the Polish take-over of a Russian-held town with the L word. So, it seems you're proposing double standards here. The USSR could liberate anyone they please, but only the USSR. //Halibutt 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I can find sources that call '39 "a liberation of Belarusians and Ukrainians" similarly to what whoever called the Polish advance in 1920. I don't use liberation for '39 still because such view is not accepted in the majority of the respected sources unlike '43-45 is. For a similar reason I rejected your usage of this term for 1920. So, USSR could liberate in 1943-45 as per most respected literature and others also could and did liberate from Nazis in the WW2. Part of Europe was liberated by the Allies. I simply stick to the terminology used widely in respected literature. Please seize putting things in my mouth. --Irpen 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So, the term is POV when applied to Poland in 1920, but it's NPOV when applied to USSR in 1945... and there is no double standards there. I see... //Halibutt 03:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you read anyone but your own entries. The term is NPOV not only to USSR but to others as well who were liberating the territories from Nazi occupation. Say, Allies liberated France. --Irpen 03:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So, was Poland as "free" after the Soviets "liberated it" as, say France? Also, I'd like to point you to a wise comment by your fellow Ghirlandajo: here. Nothing to add really. //Halibutt 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I am all for expunging strong words from the article titles. Show us a good example and propose a rename of Khatyn massacre to Khatyn incident and we will discuss the rest. As for the usage of the strong words in the article texts, this all depends on not what you or I think about who was freer or which killing qualifies for execution, which for massacre and which for Genocide. We simply check what's the opinion of the majority of the mainstream literature. In the case in question, liberation qualifies because it is used not in one or two and not in Sovier or Russian but in most Western sources. I will not be responding to your pestering on this anymore. Your tactic of tiring your opponents in endless debates is tiresome and works only up to a point. --Irpen 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, note, that what matters is not what I or you think whether PL was not free and FR was. The point is that liberation from Nazis is used. --Irpen 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem to be fixed and I'd like to do that. Whether you consider it tiring, or call me names as you do is irrelevant here. This needs to be solved. As a sign of good will I followed your advice and, although I wouldn't support such a move, I proposed the article you mention to be moved (check Talk:Khatyn massacre). Now the ball's on your court. //Halibutt 09:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I responded there at Talk:Khatyn_massacre#Discussion. I hope we can achieve some mutually acceptable rule regarding this. --Irpen 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, silly me. Of course I was talking about Katyn as well as Khatyn, but my typo caused the confusion. Still, I thoroughly support ridding both titles from the inflammatory word, while the usage of the word within texts should be allowed. Please see Talk:Khatyn_massacre#Discussion for a full discussion. --Irpen 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: you support the L word specifically because it is used by some sources. At the same time you consider other terms used by the majority of sources on another topic to be inflamatory? Strange reasoning, I must say. //Halibutt 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I consider the terms used widely in the majority of sources acceptable. --Irpen 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the word "liberation" should not be used as main characterizer regarding this occurrence. My opinion is based on the expectation that if a town is liberated, it means that the liberators leave the local population in power, to decide for themselves what and how to govern their town. Such is the meaning of liberation: those who are liberated, are free after it, being unfree before. For these reasons, a much more neutral word should be chosen as the main characterizer of the event, and liberation is to be mentioned possibly just once, wording it like "the new controllers of Lviv called this as liberation of Lviv, and some historiography has repeated that term". Shilkanni 09:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin's regime was certainly much softer than the Hitler's one

Stalin let millions people starve before the war, probably more than the number of Holocaust victims was, so generally Stalin's regime wasn't "certainly" much softer. If we discuss 1944 in Lviv, it was softer for certain groups, the same for certain ones, and harsher for other ones. It wasn't "liberation" for all.

In Western Ukraine Red Army was welcome in 1939, Wehrmacht in 1941 and Red Army in 1944. Any of those dates started also a new period of underground activities. Xx236 07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the area remained as part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

"remained" is here radical Soviet point of view. The Polish/Soviet(Ukrainian) border was defined in Soviet-Communist Polish treaty. Why should be defined something existing before. Xx236 08:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because otherwise it couldn't have been "liberated" by the Red Army? //Halibutt 07:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many thousands were killed[citation needed].

I believe it was 2-5 thousands. Is it "many"? Xx236 11:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish version

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w see panorama of Lwów. Add this foto?

Upload it to commons. --Kuban Cossack 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • bad one. I'll gather in commons good set of lviv's foto soon. --ZAVR 14:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

{{RFMF}}

[edit] History of Lviv article

Lviv's history sections were moved from Lviv to History of Lviv. When making the new History section for Lviv, I essentially cut out the main sentences from each history section. Please edit it mercilessly as my primary concern was to create the History of Lviv (was there a specific reason why this article did not exist previously?). --Riurik (discuss) 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly support your action. The History section was rich enough to warrant the article on its own. Now, please note, that the History section of this article will be edited from now on independently from the History of Lviv article, especially as new editors come by. Someone should take it upon herslef to monitor that they remain in agreement with each other. I am trying to do that with Kiev/History of Kiev and Ukraine/History of Ukraine pairs. --Irpen 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Good call, I hope however that the history section for Lviv will not expand beyond two moderate size paragraphs (if that much).--Riurik (discuss) 02:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This is a important city for Austrian, Polish and Jewish history too and formed part of the relevant countries territory. To banish the relevant names into "See other names" where they are thrown in among the English, Serbian and Spanish names is very odd and contrary to established Wikipedia policy. Refdoc 09:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: name changes

I moved name variations under History of Lviv where it seems to be more appropriate. Also the IPA transcription was inserted, but please check for accuracy. I hope this solution is acceptable to everyone, and we can all further develop the (pick one) Leopolis/Lwow/לעמבערג/Lemberg/Lvov/Lviv article.--Riurik (discuss) 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree on your remark. Besides the city is in Ukraine where only Ukrainian is the official language. Should Russian become a state language then it can go up as well, but until then it is a time waste. See how Kaliningrad and Vilnius are formatted. --Kuban Cossack 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Boy, total removal seems pretty extreme to me. We almost always include historically important names in city articles. I would say that Lvov is still more common in English than Lviv, and that in historical contexts Lemberg is very well-known in the English-speaking world as a name of this city. I will point out that the times this has really been fought out (e.g. Gdańsk), this has, to my recollection, never been the conclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. The city is well known in many historical narratives under different names. The present format uses: i) current most common name version in English, ii) a phonetic transcription, and iii) a link to other names. The city's historical names were all moved under History of Lviv. This was to ensure total inclusion. Prior to this, this article was subject to lots of editing which often focused on name inclusions and exclusion at the cost of further developing the article.--Riurik (discuss) 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm "absolutely right", but you reject my conclusion?
I'm not going to fight over this, but I am going to seek another opinion. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is what you are absolutely right: "You are absolutely right that the city is well known in many historical narratives under different names." This is why these historical names are listed on the main article History of Lviv. However, we disagree about which name is more common: in your opinion, Lvov is more common in English, I happen to think that the answer is Lviv. I look forward to a fruitful discussion on this topic. Best regards, --Riurik (discuss) 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was quite wrong to take the names out of the article on the city. 1) there are established Wikipedia policies on name changes - Gdansk was the one example most rules were established upon 2) People who look for Lemberg or Lwow need to know at the very first moment of ending on thsi page that they are in the right place. 3) the rules within the historical section are simple - the relevant name for the particular period or circumstance is used - Lwow when it is a Polish town, Lemberg for the Austrian period etc. This is really nothing new and should not be discussed over and again on every new article. Refdoc 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical names were not deleted, banished or totally removed. They were placed in the article about the city's history, where they are appropriate. The most common English name is listed on the page with IPA transcription and a link to other names; a search for Lwow and Lemberg redirects here. Please lets not cast moral judgments (e.g. wrong or not). The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) will be adhered.--Riurik (discuss) 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policiy you quoted. The correct application is the one with the relevant names in the first line or a similar section underneath in the actual article, not a secondary one. Relevant names are those of historical periods or of significant ethnic minorities - Yiddish, German, Polish are the main candidates here, I presume. Refdoc 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that other names should appear in lead section or other names section of main article per Refdoc and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Chondrite 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Armenian Cathedral

When I search for images, I get pictures of two different cathedrals. Which one is the "famous" one? One looks Uniate and is pretty tall while the other one looks Armenian. Is one Armenian Catholic and the other Armenian Orthodox? What are their names? Thanks.--Eupator 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say; perhaps if you could provide links to the specific pictures you have in mind, someone may be able to answer.--Riurik (discuss) 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Does the tall one by any chance look anything like this
Enlarge
, that's the bell tower and bishops palace.

[edit] Roman Catholic Church links here?

There's a link here to this article, regarding contentious property issues with the Orthodox Church, but I can't figure out why. Anyone know? -- Kendrick7 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

as someone who lived in Lviv for a few years I can explain. It's a rather complex issue and the property issues are only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. After WWII when Soviets occupied Western Ukraine one of their primary goals was to destroy the Ukrainian Church. Not only was it a part of their war against religion, they saw it as an important element of Ukrainian national identity, which protected the locals from getting russified as it was happening in the rest of Ukraine. So instead of simply persecuting the Church, confiscating its property and so on, Soviets transfered it to the Russian Orthodox Church, using it as a tool of russification. After the collapse of communism Russian Orthodox actually had more parishes in Ukraine then in Russia and didn't want to give them back to the rightful owner.
but this is only a small part. The main problem is a conflict of civilizations: Russians consider Ukraine to be their "canonical territory" (in a broad sense) and Ukrainians to be nothing more then Russians "degenerated" by exposure to European civilization. Thus Russians consider the very existance of the Ukrainian Church an affront. --212.76.33.73 11:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not see why one needs to go in detail about politics, remember that wikipedia is not for debates, but if you insist then at least you can explain why does the Moscow Patriarchy actually condemns the Synod of Lvov, and why did during Soviet times canonical law on Western Parishes was relaxed to allow them to shave beards and conduct liturgy in Ukrainian rather than Church Slavonic? Also about rightful owner, how about the fact that a good share of those churches was built prior to the unia, and in addition I would like to ask you wether the violance that was used to "return" those churches in 1989-1993 was in any way Christian or "civilised" (wrt to your remarks about so called European civilisations)? As for Russians then please do not assume for other people on what they think and think for yourself, wrt to that I do not consider any person degenerate, considering that my wife is from Western Ukraine...Нечего умного сказать, помолчи and there are thousands of forums for Polemics. --Kuban Cossack 12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applying the same standards to all contributors of Wikipedia

Riurik,

I read your comment below: "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Lviv. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. --Riurik"

Please explain your recent deletion of my link on the Lviv article while leaving there the link to the "Tourist Information and Travel Guide" which offiers an even wider spectrum of commercial services compared to my website link which you have persistently deleted.

I ask for consistency and applying the same standards to all the users, in line with the general concept of the Internet community.

I would appreciate your comments very much.

Vladyslav

Wikipedia is not Wikitravel, it is not a place for giving links that bear little relevance to the city, but focus on all of the travel details. No offence, but there is a "relevancy" measure that we apply. --Kuban Cossack 12:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Cossack, thanks for your opinion. You are 100% right about this not being a Wikitravel. However, I would still like to hear why some travel links on Wikipedia are left there, and some are deleted the minute they are put there. Like the "Lviv Tourist Information and Travel Guide" link on the Lviv page which is all about commercial travel services? I have nothing agains those people, except why would mine get deleted and a very similar link left? Did you bother to open that link to see what the website is about. would still like to hear your opion. THanks

My is not opinion, there is an official wiki policy on which External links are useful and which are not. I mean wrt to relevance of Moscow which link would be more useful: [51] or [52]. In the end people read encyclopedias not as travel guides (at least I do so). Which is why there are no lonely planet links on any of the cities in wiki. I do understand that some of the links of Lvov are irrelevant, I might just get round to cleaning up the mess... ()--Kuban Cossack 18:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Vladyslav, I am sorry for what could have appeared as inconsistent application of standards. That was not my intention. At this time, I removed the above mentioned link and a couple of others. In doing so, I relied on guidelines as outlined here. I hope that you will continue editing on wikipedia. Also consider registering, which will allow you to track your contributions. Finally, if you have not visited it so far, you may be interested in Ukraine related portal. --Riurik (discuss) 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/v/i/Talk%7ELviv_ee93.html"