Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reason to put tag

I’ve provided NPOV source which cited here selectively used to gain a clear target:

  • to prove summoned by post WWII OUN (B) myth about fierce and large scale fighting between UPA and German Wehrmacht together with the Nazi German SS (even Roman Shukhevych in 1944 does not state this) and thus hide collaboration of UPA and Nazi in 1944
  • to the lower the scale of UPA participation the Genocide of Polish community (it was only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44) and “justify” barbaric children slaughtering for “action like closing Ukrainian language schools etc.” ,
  • to hide what UPA formed on base of Nazi controlled Ukrainian Auxiliary Police shutzmanshaft – main draught force of Holocaust in Ukraine and Belarus (up to 1/4 UPA number and more than half on initial stage) and from 1944 –from SS Galizien and rest Nazi “national” units,
  • to hide SB (part of UPA) actions against Poles, Ukrainians and other “non-wanted elements”.

Statement from books by OUN (B) members/lovers published by some murky presses - like - Ukrainian guerrilla army (must by Volhynian and Galician Ukrainian nationalistic military formation) – because it never represent nor fight for Ukraine in a whole. Same quality “among the Ukrainian people” – not stated what “Ukrainian people” limited to few (4-5 out of 24 Current) western Ukrainian regions population (pre 1939 – Poland territories) etc etc. Until clean up and propaganda facts removal -it's not a WP article - it's more an OUN(B) leaflet Jo0doe (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to sort through your English, but I'll try to address your points:
  • 1. All statements about UPA warfare vs. Germans are referenced by legitimate sources. We've been over this before with you: just because you don't like a source doesn't mean that it is illegitimate.
  • 2. Your second point is simply false. Genocide vs. Poles was not as you claim "the only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-1944. An entire section is devoted to UPA's massacres of the Polish community. As for a brief description of the Polish persecution of western Ukrainians prior to the war - it is a fact and there is nothing wrong with providing context. This is not justification for the massacres.
  • 3. The fact that deserters from police made up a large part of UPA initially should indeed be included in the article. The lack of this information doesn't take away from the article's neutrality.
  • 4. Again, massacres of Poles is covered in the article.

Sources come largely from books published by the University of Toronto by well respected historians as well as the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, not "some murky presses." You have a point that UPA's popularity was limited largely to western Ukraine and that will be changed in the article.

So, your tag is basically groundless and will be removed.Faustian (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing few word but many issues remains. factual accuracy disputed
Header

  • Ukrainian guerrilla army – missed Western (I saw you already fixed one instance). Army – too much for such military formation - probably you forgot what UPA is always used together.

Issue not resolved - please see National Army of Democratic Kampuchea or IRA as example Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • During its existence, the UPA fought a large variety of military forces… – you posed in one row self-called “army” (in fact guerrillas movement) and real armies and military institution. Inconsistent wording.
It works in the English language.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you - it English WP and not OUN (B) online magazine "Povstanets"Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • including the German Wehrmacht, the Nazi German SS, Wehrmacht – was on frontline while UPA has not any frontline since it conduct partisan’s tactic. Allegedly claim about - the Nazi German SS please give a ref, I’ll give you a ref when UPA together with SS (Galizien) conduct “actions” against Polish population (not AK – simply Poles). Also here pushed German to front of story – while widely known what UPA actions against German’s was only a “self-defense” and main enemies was “bolshevizm” and “poles separatizm” – since aim was “Ukraine on Ukrainian soil”.
UPA fighting SS is referenced in the article's body. The lead (beginning of the article) is a mere summary. Putting the struggle against the Germans first follows chronological order.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It’s not referenced – only allegedly stated “he had under his command 10 battalions of motorized SS troops” but does not mentioned what UPA clashes with. Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's referenced that Bach-Zalewski with the 10 SS battalions under his command battled UPA.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
But cited “had under his command 10 battalions of motorized SS troops”

“Had” and “battled” – does it same words. Also BB – could you provide any other references to prove Tys- Krokhmalyuk myths?Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • the Polish Armia Krajowa – should be added “and polish population” regardless the sex and age – since those of them who lived on “Ukrainian soil” proclaimed as “enemies of Ukrainian statehood”
They weren't "fighting" civilians. However I added the massacres into the lead of the article.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
here I agree with you - UPA slaughtering them – please look at [1]
p 248. what the reasons – no schools no churches – simply wiped earth Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone missed soviet partisans.
I've added this.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And also , on my opinion, would be better to give all this list accordingly to significance of actions and chronology or– e.g. 1) Polish military and paramilitary formation 2) soviet partisans, NKVD units (which send to act against Nazi in 1943-44), SMERSH, small Soviet Red Army auxiliary units, Nazi and Allies auxiliary police and SD formatin, Nazi administration, and retreated units of Wehrmacht.
Chronological order makes sense. The article on World War II doesn't start with the Eastern front and end with the fight against France, simply because the Soviet fighting was most intense. It follows the order of events from the beginning to the end. The UPA article shouldn't be made chronologically incoherent to satisfy your POV.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So - they started from Polish population and soviet partizan - see Polska-Ukraina: trudnepytania. O.9.MaterialyIX X mijdzynarodowego seminarium historycznego “Stosunkipolsko-ukraiaeskie w latach IIwojny swiatowej”.—Warszawa,6—10 listopada 2001.—Warszawa,2002.—455s and also see p.164 [2] about UPA leader objectives.

Body

  • Section “History of creation” missed –were you can put “The date of October 14, 1942 …” since it does not match the “UPA's struggle against Germany”.
Other references state that UPA started with battles against Germans.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Other references – please state – I already provided you several SD reports what on “UPA front” is Phony war exclude some minor actions against hiwis – but on Poles – significant activity.Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue not resolved

  • Order of sections should be accordingly to proposed above – 1)Poles 2)Soviet and 3)German.
See comments above. It seems silly to put events outside chronological order.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You once again push your POV but facts agains - see above why

See above. You seek to put fight against Soviets before fight against Germans, the opposite of chronological order.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I seek to put Poles first, than Soviet partisans – it deserved separate topics. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews - I really guess what is it for here – since by the time of UPA was more or less established Jews was almost exterminated – it must be mentioned. But also must be mentioned a fact what UPA at large extend composed from responsible for Holocaust action military formation and persons – i.e. members of the Auxiliary Police, SD formations , SS etc.
Mention these things in the article if you provide legitimate sources. The section is important because one-sided Soviet fairytale of UPA being Jew killers is false.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA being Jew killers - because they composed from " Jew slaughters" and commanded by commanded by Jew&Poles slaughters.
Another of your unreferenced claims, and not even about UPA itself. Referenced facts show Jews within UPA and UPA saving Jewish families - Friedman, P. "Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12, pp. 259–96, 1958–59. Those are facts. So far, you only have unproven assertions that some UPA members may have killed Jews prior to joining UPA.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Visit [3] for more details about my “unproven assertions that some UPA members” (1/4 of UPA actually). Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • “ they had no official policy regarding the Jews what-so-ever” – it’s clear disinformation since they have, and almost same as Nazi –extermination as is (once again do not omit facts [4] p.63 )
UPA is not OUN. By the time UPA was created OUN was at war with Nazis their stance towards Jews changed accordingly. Emphasizing such quotes is like placing Soviet pro-German quotes around the time of Molotov-Ribentrop in order to dilute the anti-German Soviet struggle.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your logical approach it definitely interesting. See article “It was the military branch of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.” "Self-defence of people" (самооборона народу) till begining it's is not war even only till March 1944. Mentioned Instruction still valid. Otherwice - why mentioned "had declared that the "Jews of the USSR [are] ..."? Probably -it's whitewashing and hiding of real story"Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that you consider it whitewashing when referenced facts prove that UPA rescued Jewish families and that UPA included Jewish personnel. Your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary is good evidence why this section belongs in the article.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your “credibility” but facts remain as is – and as far as I can see – you definitely don’t like to see them in the article – regardless the importance of it.Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“UPA's struggle against Germany

  • The UPA was formed in late 1942 - ??? (see header date)

: Issue not resolved Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • “Polish question” missed – see Ruban and Shukhevych positions

: Issue not resolved Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • UPA soldiers were estimated by the German” - once again, if mentioned “Ukrainian partisans” or as for that case a “forest bandits” – it does not referred exclusively to UPA – I assume you would be agreed with the fact what soviet partisans inflicts significantly more casualties to Nazi instead of UPA and other OUN formation, despite that they was significant less in number. Moreover the time when Leyser was in Generalbezirk Shitomir – there no UPA (OUN(B) since it was 1942.
Issue not resolved - please see what Leyser mentioned in his late 1942 reports

- while he was in Generalbezirk Shitomir - citation from Bundesarchive «В зоне ответственности «Житомир» деятельность банд также весьма сильна…» Bundesarchive R 58/222, Bl. 45-46 “ нападений или в борьбе с бандитами» Bundesarchive R6/687 Bl.9 – there no UPA – only bandits - so your "military journal" prove what military and history - it is not the same thing Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I talking about what ordinary military journal it’s not WP:PSTS for this article – better deserved a historical journal.Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • attempted to destroy UPA-North in Volyn – really exclusively for UPA- Volyn which now (June 1943) intensively handle the “Polish question”?
  • He was chosen specifically by Himmler to destroy UPA in this operation. – “As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication”. Not pass – sorry – also other facts against this pushed-up “history” – since General von dem Bach-Zalewski is a general commander of operations (as it was also in 1942 and winter 1943).
Referenced from a military journal.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved Please provide WP:V source - othervice look at General von dem Bach-Zalewski article (if you have not access to books on which it based) -

Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Source is provided inthe article.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By August, this operation proved to be a military failure – ref pls.WP:V
  • Issue not resolved
  • Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press – “some murky presses” does not match a dozens of WP corner-stone Rules.
Well, the reference states that the goal was to wipe put UPA and they did not wipe out UPA. Is this success or failure?Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed previously in these talk pages, with you. How conveniently you have forgotten.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved You unable to prove the credibility of this source - as still an issue - Vantage Press - it's not academic publishing, Krokhmaluk, Y - not a historian. Other sources (German, OUN, Soviet) does not prove his myths Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So rather than reread the discussion you continue making your claims. Okay, I will do your work for you. From the discussion: "Magocsi, in Ukraine: a History, spends 40 pages (685–725) describing and briefly evaluating scores of sources for further reading. The evaluations are not in-depth, but he does at least mention the weak points of some...He starts the paragraph about WWII Ukrainian military organizations with Tys-Krokhmaliuk (1972)". And "With respect to Krokhmaluk, he is used as a source by both Subtelny and Magosci, each of whom recommends this book as a source for further reading. Any information used from Krokhaliuk was merely further elaboration of information referenced from either Magosci or Subtleny. Again, as per wikipedia policy, we let the scholars decide the legitimacy of sources, not judge them ourselves" Since Krkhm,aliuk is good for respected scholars such as Subtelny and Magosci, he's good enough for wikipedia, particularly when the details taken from Krokhmaliuk are limited to elaboration of what is already written by Magosci and Subtelny.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting demagogy – but WP does not speak about credibility of sources used by scholars itself. Thus, regardless Tys- Krokhmalyuk usage, it does not speak about his own work credibility - see WP:PSTS for better explanation.Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • General Bach-Zaleski was relieved of his command and replaced by General Prutzmann. – Please explain a link between UPA and that fact.
It's relevent that he was relieved of his command and replaed after failing to wipe out UPA.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved - it`s your OR - ref pls.WP:V
See above.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
But you provide Tys- Krokhmalyuk and not Subtelny nor Magosci refs. Why you omit this “high respected scholars?” Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Carpathian mountains saw some of the heaviest fighting between UPA and German forces in late 1943 and early 1944 – WP:V ref pls.
  • defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air force, - WP:V ref pls.
Added.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved - see Krokhmaluk, Y. case.
See above. Magosci summarises the same thing.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
But you provide Tys- Krokhmalyuk and not Subtelny nor Magosci refs. Why you omit this “high respected scholars?” Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality disputed
You’ve mentioned here a Toronto’s historian Subtelny – his works criticized by many Ukrainian mainstream historians for facts inaccuracies and nationalistic approach – i.e. NPOV does not preserve.

Any reference for your claims of his works being "criticized by many mainstream Ukrainian historians?" And if so, who is right, your alleged "mainstream Ukrainian historians" or Subtelny. I guess whoever, according to you, whoever matches your POV. Subtelny's record speaks for itself: [5].Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved - also what exact mentioned in "^ Subtelny, p. 474 " - western Ukrainian people or as it was before your editing ? Use Google - with "мифы Субтельный" or look at Kulchystkii opinion [6] "Субтельный не учебник писал, и многого он не знал." Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the Russian wikipedia page, Stanislav Kulchytsky is a Soviet historian whose specialty was not western Ukraine but the history of industrialization in Soviet Ukraine. A member of the Communist Party for 30 years, and until 1991 was a member of the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. This lifelong communist after 1991 began to study OUN-UPA. Should I follow your example and use as a source, important members of the OUN?
  • You already did this - Tys- Krokhmalyuk – isn’t one of Poles slaughters?Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Back to my point, why in your opinion is Kulchtsky correct and Subtelny wrong? Because the former matches your POV?Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear sample –“only one third of whom were ethnic Ukrainians” – data on exact number of Kovpak division is widelly available – but “nationality” not and ever never exist.

I can’t see your replay on tern Ukrainian people case. I spoke about facts accuracy and NPOV rather than correct / wrong issue. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So according to you, when a highly regarded historian such as Subtelny claims something but you disagree, he is wrong and you are right. You are a better judge of such matters than Subtelny. Sorry, wikipedia doesn't work that way.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"highly regarded historian" - his "highly" limited to Toronto and some marginal in Ukraine - many of his "facts" was dismissed by historians. Also please see about WP:NPOV for such kind statements Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Orest Subtelny obtained his Ph.D. in history from Harvard and his works are published by the University of Toronto. He has written the entry on Ukraine in Encarta Encyclopedia and on Cossacks in the World Book Encyclopedia, and has given lectures at Columbia University. You only demonstrate your own bias when you dismiss him as as highly regarded in "Toronto and some marginal in Ukraine". Actually he is probably of higher stature than Kulchytsky.
  • Thank you for your “witch hunting” effort - please debunker yourself – 50-s already passed. West it’s a really Free World if even idiot can be a president of country with nuclear missiles, so that is the case. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, it says a lot about you and your objectivity that to disparage Subtelny you quote a member of the Ideological Commission of the Communist Party of Ukraine.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your “witch hunting” effort - please debunker yourself – 50-s already passed. West it’s a really Free World if even idiot can be a president of country with nuclear missiles, so that is the case. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


  • whitewashing of history and OUN(B) propaganda pushing – i.e. “because many of them were ethnic Ukrainians”
    , school teachers and postal workers attempting to establish Soviet control over Ukraine after the front line had passed (which Ukraine and how defenseless “school teachers and postal workers” establishing “Soviet control over Ukraine” (Which Ukraine, Also).
Will add western.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved - "add western" it's OR without it - falsification and OUN propaganda Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your unreferenced claim.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can’t see your replay on term Ukrainian people case. I spoke about facts accuracy and NPOV rather than correct / wrong issue. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“estimates of Ukrainians deported from 1944 to 1952 range from 182,543[10] to 500,000” – you twist exact data with estimation – to condom last.

referenced estimates do indeed vary. I know that you only want to include estimates that match your POV and seek to disregard others.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved 182,543 - this figure IS NOT estimation - it's EXACT figure on deported from all Ukraine - if you need figures for Western Ukraine with UPA cases -

it's triple-time less compared to "highly regarded historian estimation" - 50457 families (143141 persons) [7] Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One legitimate source says one thing, another source says another. So we include all the figures.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There no “other” figures for that. But mixing the estimation and exact archival data (statistics) speaks badly about you credibility. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“The UPA encouraged the removal” – means extermination

UPA encouraged removal and committed massacres. That's what the article says. What's your problem with that?Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the killings of Polish civilians – missed “mass and brutal without distinguishing sex and age”.

We try to use nuetral language on wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You try to whitewash, hide and downsample the facts. Since it was not "killing" but “mass and brutal without distinguishing sex and age"
Those are your claims. And you have proven your objectivity here.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Polish side also engaged in acts of brutality and vengeance – missed “pay-back”

Look up the word "vengeance" in a dictionary. "Pay-back" is a slang term, not encyclopedic.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Missed from “February such actions conducted in cooperation with SS – Galizien regiment”

Unreferenced claim.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, see [8] p.281, p.283 p.284 p.285Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Include that info in the article, then.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


“The UPA's activities are seen as a response” – OUN propaganda claims, facts are - poles were guilty because they were poles on “Ukrainian soil”.

Your unreferenced claim.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • see above mentioned pages UPA orders citedJo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Include referenced claims in the article. And try to translate them honestly this time, unlike during the discussion previously.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean FACTS? Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“where minorities would be tolerated provided their acceptance of the overall Ukrainian domination” – post war OUN(B) propaganda claims
“One can conclude that the relationship between UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews was complex and not one-sided.” UPA SB has a different opinion for this matters.

Well, add this info also then if referenced. We have referenced facts that UPA saved Jews and that UPA included Jewish personnel. If UPA also killed Jews, these facts all together make the relationship not one-sided.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA saved Jews - Your unreferenced claim. Fact what they used as medical personnel (counted by fingers on one hand) does not describe the situation in general Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
UPA saving Jewish families was also referenced and sicussed in the article.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“Soviet occupation of Ukraine” - OUN propaganda claim. Does not recognized by most of mainstream historians.

  • Issue not resolved Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

UPA was officially mentioned only in negative terms – unreferenced claims – never heard/read about UPA before 1989.

So you never heard about UPA prior to 1989? Soviets didn't mention UPA in negative terms?Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue not resolved someone's OR or unreferensed claims . UPA - never - only "OUNovtsy" and "Ukrainian Nationalists" and rarely "Benderovtsy"Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So who were they referring to?Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
They not mentioned UPA – facts. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“This, in turn, led to opposition from the Ukrainian veterans of the Soviet Army, and disapproval from the Russian government too” – you still forgot to mention majority of Ukrainian people (means not only Western).

Unreferenced claim, as usual, by you.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Use Google before typing POV. [9] Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the article provides data from a survey about states that only 33% of Ukrainians disapprove of reconciliation between UPA veterans and Red Army veterans - the same percentage that approve of doing so. Another 15% didn't care, and 19% weren't sure. So you twist such results to state that a majority of Ukrainian people oppose UPA.
This is a good example of your biased misreading of information. Thanks for providing it.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It’s pity what you don’t know the current population distribution of Ukraine – please visit www.ukrstat.gov.ua So – if you multiply western *33 and Eastern * 33 – you will be get really interesting figures. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Untill this issues will be resolved tags should be thereJo0doe (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your biased opinion. The opinion of someone who has claimed that the "only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44" was killing Polish civilians.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Factual, proved by mainstream historians works - instead "Toronto's" editors" and "Krokhmalyuk Apocrypha" Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for showing us that according to you the former member of the commission of Ideology of the Ukrainian COmmunist Party is a "mainstream historian" while a Harvard Ph.D. in history who has written entries for Encarta and Worldbook Encyclopedias and whose books are published by the University of Toronto Press is a "Toronto editor". Do you have any credibility left?Faustian (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But you provide Tys- Krokhmalyuk and not Subtelny nor Magosci refs. Why you omit this “high respected scholars?”

West it’s a really Free World if even idiot can be a president of country with nuclear missiles, so that is the case. Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't have time to address all of this now, but will in the next few days. In the mean time, much of it (such as your comments on Krokhmaluk) has already been addressed in this talk section and you should read it so we don't replay old arguments.Faustian (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Krokhmalyuk - I've not any factual based reply still not exist. Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it disputed by anyone that the UPA actions against Poles in Volhynia were ethnic cleansing ? The current wording "some historians use the term genocide or ethnic cleansing" seems rather artificially apologetic. I think everyone agrees that the purpose of UPA was to drive Poles out of Volhynia ? --Lysytalk 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Polish government ?

I'd like to remove this section:

The UPA's activities are seen as a response to the policies and actions of the inter-war Polish government, which severely limited the number of Ukrainian institutions, and which actively encouraged the settlement of Ukrainian ethnic regions with Poles through colonization efforts. The anti-Ukrainian measures of the Polish government included cultural suppression, such as closing Ukrainian language schools and shutting down Ukrainian churches, quotas on entrance to Polish Educational institutions and internment of Ukrainian cultural and political figures.

it's clearly apologetic and not needed discussion. This is better discussed in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article, not here. Also, it was not as simple as that. During the Volhynia massacre, the territory was under German occupation and administration, not Polish, so what kind of "response" to Polish government could that be. Also, can anyone consider murdering civilians a response to "closing Ukrainian language schools and shutting down Ukrainian churches" ? I suggest to remove this discussion from that article and keep it in the "Massacres of Poles in Volhynia", where it belongs. --Lysytalk 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of brief summary of the anti-Ukrainian persecutions of the 1930's to provide context to the massacres. Describing the causes of the crimes is not the same as making excuses for them.Faustian (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's look like Holocaust c at Nazi-timeJo0doe (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion. The The Holocaust article contains a section on origins. It is logical to briefly describe the background to the massacres.Faustian (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not" background" - its justifing , even it's not mentioned in any war-time OUN(B) documents. Also see reasons to add one more tag [OR] above Jo0doe (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, your opinion that background equals justification. The opinion of a quite nonneutral person.Faustian (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Faustian, come again, how can "closing Ukrainian language schools and shutting down Ukrainian churches" be used to explain murdering civilians ? The purpose of UPA's action was to exterminate the Poles from Volhynia, not some "response to the policies of Polish government". Even UPA stated that in their orders. Killing people could be response to killing not to "quotas on entrance to Polish Educational institutions". How would you call someone, who does not know better but to respond in such a way ? --Lysytalk 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph may indeed be trimmed somewhat. However the massacres were a response, and caused by resentment towards, the various repressions of the 1930's and settlement of those lands by Polish colonists. This doesn't justify the massacres, and IMO readers will not think that closing schools and settling areas are justification for massacring civilians. But supplying some sort of context is appropriate.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Faustian. Of course the background goes deeper than that, and has its roots in both Polish and Ukrainian nationalisms of WW1 era, but there's no room to discuss this in this article. It's very unfortunate indeed that Poland was rules by nationalists for much of the interwar period. It's also unfortunate that some Ukrainians thought that killing civilians was a good way towards Ukraine's independence. And of course the Polish Home Army was not all saints either. Anyway, the purpose of this particular article is not to picture UPA as all positive or all negative army. --Lysytalk 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%.Faustian (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You can't get a direct replay from Faustian - as whitewash is a main object current version and push UPA "as anti-Nazi fighters" . He even not use this version.[10] Jo0doe (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My body of work on wikipedia speaks for my objectivity, just as yours demonstrates your POV-pushing.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please, you're both getting personal here ... --Lysytalk 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just describing facts about this guy's approach. It's personal, but important to have these facts shown so that we know whom we are dealing with when he makes edits, claims, etc. Some examples from this discussion section:
  • 1. He wrote that UPA commander stated – "go across the Syan or prepare to die" (his quotes) when the reality was: "you have 48 hours to leave beyond the Sian or the Zbruch, otherwise - death" Similar meaning, but not quite.
Thank you, for exact citation. But what’s wrong in my? Also you probably forgot what in order “to leave beyond the Sian or the Zbruch” all Poles must obtain relevant Nazi IDs – can they do this ? Silly question! It’s look like adopt a Gleiwitz incident for justifying the September Campaign," - OUN (B) demagogy as is.Jo0doe (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced claim.Faustian (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 2. He claimed: Soviet partisan also reported in 1943 what "OUN members slaughter Poles with axes and knifes". I couldn't find that in his source, but I found "Civilians with scythes and axes took part in mass destructive acts", referring to Ukrainian villagers, suggesting that the brutal killings described were often not the work of UPA themselves but of Ukrainian villagers turning on their neighbors. Clearly different from what Jo0doe claimed.
See [11] p 250 for details. Oops – “axes missed” – does I limit my facts to only online factual data base? “Clearly different” - ? Really ?- Anyway – does such changed a history. OUN (B) demagogy as is.
So you admit that you embellish stories by adding details to them. And even here you write a half-truth (which, sorry, is a lie). The full story from that page describes the very tragic situation of UPA soldiers killing Polish villagers. They told those they were about to murder, "we are doing this to do for our villages and our families, whom you burned down." When the Poles begged for their lives and proclaimed their innocence of those crimes, their murderers responded, "Or children our elderly, were they guilty, that you threw them alive into fire?"Faustian (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 3. Numerous references to the scholars Orest Subtelny and Paul MAgosci as "Toronto editors".
Does they do not edit their works before publishing in Toronto. Also you can’t provide WP:V ref for Ta MagosciJo0doe (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What a poor rebuttal.Faustian (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 4. When making an edit to the article, he took one quote from chapter 14 [12], from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served Jo0does's POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. But he just pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. A good example of his dishonest use of sources.
You mean he (Koch) not do this? I read this document (Koch report) in full – there “no tanks and airplanes” for UPA – it’s Shankovskyy wild imagination – you note what it (Shankovskyy origin) mentioned there – and their quality described at p 186 (at bottom of the page). Also regarding all battles – it’s UPA origin – no German nor Soviet nor AK mentioned such. And oops – most credible man missed summary of OUN actions against German on p 199 at same chapter. “A good example of his dishonest use of sources.“ – is’nt?Jo0doe (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't try to change the subject onto Koch's report. We are discussing your selective quotation from the article whose link you provided, not your personal archival research. Moreover, Shankovsky is not mentioned on the bottom of page 186. On page 187, however, he is described in positive terms as a "well-known historian."Faustian (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 5. He wrote: "this, in turn, led to opposition from the Ukrainian veterans of the Soviet Army, and disapproval from the Russian government too – you still forgot to mention majority of Ukrainian people (means not only Western)". When I challenged him to provide a reference, he gave a link to a Russian-language BBC article that provided data from a survey about stated that only 33% of Ukrainians disapprove of reconciliation between UPA veterans and Red Army veterans - the same percentage that approve of doing so. Another 15% didn't care, and 19% weren't sure. Clearly, the reality was that a minority was opposed to reconciliation, an equal minority supported, and a larger group either didn't care or weren't sure. But he twisted such results to state that a majority of Ukrainian people oppose UPA.
It’s pity what you don’t know the current population distribution of Ukraine – please visit www.ukrstat.gov.ua So – if you multiply western *33 and Eastern * 33 – you will be get really interesting figures.Jo0doe (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The article [13] mentioned that the survey involved "inhabitants of Ukraine". I thought that you understood Russian?Faustian (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt more examples will be added as Jo0doe continues to demonstrate his "honesty". I guess it is personal, but necessary so that we know to be vigilant when this guy makes claims and edits.Faustian (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pity, but I’ll not mirror your “efforts” with “western Ukrainian people” and rest your “credible edits" (means manipulations).Jo0doe (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation "BB"

The "UPA's struggle against Germany" section states that Bach-Zalewski had 10,000 German and Polish police under his command. No Ukrainian police ? And what and how many Polish police ? --Lysytalk 20:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. I suspect that Polish police were used by the Germans when combatting Ukrainians and Ukrainian police were used against Poles (otherwise, desertions, etc.)Faustian (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was only one battalion of Polish police (Polnisches Schutzmannschaftsbataillon 202) in Ukraine, which counted about 360 people. So stating "10,000 German and Polish police" seems a bit misguiding. Of course there might have been Poles in other German units, too. I know that many Ukrainian and Polish policemen deserted from German service and joined the partisans (UPA or AK). --Lysytalk 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the page number, page 242. The source did not specify the exact number of Polish and German police invovled.Faustian (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but such wording makes me suspicious about the objectivity of the source, if you know what I mean. --Lysytalk 08:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BB - myth by OUNJo0doe (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe, what do you mean exactly ? --Lysytalk 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops - I mean this aricle version. I already got whole Y.Krokhmalyuk book - so while i finish it - I mention exactly what- anyway see Erich_von_dem_Bach for real story. Jo0doe (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA and SS collaboration

Should I add one more topic to article?

In a top secret memorandum, General-Major Brigadefuhrer Brenner wrote in mid-1944 to SS- Obergruppenfuhrer General Hans Prutzmann — the highest ranking German SS officer in Ukraine and the architect of the so-called “Prutzmann Bureau,” Germany’s stay-behind or “werewolf” networks — that “The UPA has halted all attacks on units of the German army. The UPA systematically sends agents (razvedchiki), mainly young women, into enemy-occupied territory, and the results of the intelligence are communicated to Department 1c of the [German] Army Group” on the southern Front [14]

Also As of June 1945, 10,139 Ukrainian families (26,093 persons) of suspected anti-Soviet rebels had already been deported to Siberia. By the end of 1947, a total of 26,644 “rebel families” — 76,192 persons — had been deported from the seven oblasti of West Ukraine to the Soviet Far East: 18,866 men; 35,152 women; and 22,174 children.

“Rebel death squads”- there a lot of interesting facts acted under “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to her heroes!” slogans. (Poles also

I personally interrogated her. [Initially] she categorically denied any connection with the Gestapo. So then we stripped her naked and with willow-switches we had earlier prepared, each man in my unit beat her until all we had left was one shredded switch. Then she said she would confess. After this [beating], she ‘confirmed’ that she had had a connection with the Gestapo. Then, under my orders, she was dragged 500 meters from the site of the interrogation and shot by [rebel soldier] GLUKHYI.”

Pan`kiv took evident pride in his work, confessing to similarly bloody assassinations of at least sixty ethnic Poles — suspected German or Soviet “collaborators” — during the war.


Soviet investigative files are filled with references to follow-up investigations of brutal reprisals carried out by rebel SB units against women suspected of pro- Soviet sympathies. “In village Diad?kovichi [underground rebel units] murdered Sof`ia PAVLIUK, who heartily welcomed soldiers of the advancing Red Army.” “On the night of 19 September [1944] in the village Bol`shaia-Osneshcha, Kolkovskyi raion the STRESHA band murdered four women, in whose apartments lived Red Army soldiers.” “On the night of 23 September [1944] in village Mikhlin, Senkovichi raion, a rebel unit of four persons killed four women and injured one. [The women] had gotten together to write letters to their husbands and sons [serving] in the Red Army.” Also interesting info about “school teachers and postal workers attempting to establish Soviet control” - available evidence suggests that as many as four of five of victims of rebel violence against suspected “collaborators” were ethnic Ukrainian women, especially young women suspected of sexually fraternizing with men of the Soviet occupation.

In each case, the victim had been beaten to death on the back of the skull with an ax, hammer, or pipe. As a reflection of the macabre ritual interrogation that usually preceded rebel executions of suspected collaborators, one corpse still had more than a meter of noose around her neck.

Mentally sick "freedom fighters" -anyway Jo0doe (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Both Poles and Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis in Eastern Galicia and Western Ukraine. This was partly attributed to the past experience of the Soviet occupation. You are also right about the extreme brutality of the Polish-Ukrainian fights. Usually innocent civilians suffered. Mostly Poles for two reasons: they were a minority on this territory and UPA was stronger than AK. --Lysytalk 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you agree what Poles does not mean AK (except agents) but UPA – means UPA. Also would usefully to state what UPA as also OUN (B) blamed for massacre Nazis and Soviets - immediately after events (even before AK reports about such) – interesting, isn’t? I also got a number of

poles shuma unit - if you like Jo0doe (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Referring to the post about brutality towards women:

What an excellent article [15]! I highly recommend it, and perhaps the role of women in UPA deserves a seperate heading in this wikipedia article. Also, an excellent example of your selective quoting of sources. The article describes how UPA increasiongly relied on women soldiers, even indicating how the NKVD reported entire units of armed women fighting in the forests (incidentally, this implies that while combatting UPA the Soviets killed many women). In order to sow suspicion against women, the article states that the Soviets recruited some of them to spy on and betray UPA leading to the death of capture of hundreds of UPA members. They "recruited them by, according tot he article, "Guilty or innocent, local women faced interrogations that were at the very

least terrifying, but more often brutally violent, and in which the Soviets imparted a sense of “knowing” the arrested woman had actively worked with the underground. If the woman detainee was actually innocent, from the Soviet point of view, no harm was done: a few days later, she would be released, battered but free. And her experience would have the added advantage of intimidating any future collaboration with rebels. But if the woman was guilty, the systematic cycle of sleep- and food-deprivation, isolation (including incarceration in a dark room with executed corpses), brutalization, and intimidation usually broke the prisoner."

"Against a background of wholesale violence and abuse, interrogation and agent recruitment took on numerous subtleties and variations. Soviet police files offer us valuable insights into the complex process of siksotka recruitment, and the factors that motivated ethnic Ukrainian women to betray their former cohort in the nationalist underground. An especially useful case study is the story of the arrest, interrogation, and recruitment of Liudmilla Foia, an ethnic Ukrainian woman who survived repeated rape, beatings, and interrogations for over two months, but was only “turned” when her parents were implicated. Foia’s case is especially revealing because of the virtually unprecedented quality of her files: in the archives appear not only her Soviet police records, but also the records of her subsequent interrogation by the Ukrainian rebel underground, captured two weeks later in a Soviet raid."

About one such Soviet agent:

"Having successfully recruited her own brother for the NKVD, agent Galka’s second assignment powerfully reveals the brutally tragic lives of Soviet siksoty. On 2 November 1944 Galka was ordered to murder her close friend Rusalka, which she did early morning on 11 November in Tseptsevychy forest with a shot from a Soviet-provided pistol. A Soviet spetsgruppa handled disposal of the body. The Soviets intended the murder to open the way for one of their own agents, ideally Galka herself, to step into the position of chief of rebel communications in that sector. That Galka herself should have been forced to carry out the murder was a normal part of Soviet agent recruitment: transforming ardent rebels into faithful agents by forcing them to perpetrate unforgivable acts against their own. With this baptism in blood, agent Galka was both psychologically and physically ready for more complicated operations. This Soviet figurant — Russian for “stage performer” but also an NKVD euphemism for an agent performing in a field operation — was ready to dance.

Unfortunately for the Soviets, and for Galka herself, their plans to infiltrate her into the Kora band with the aim of its eventual liquidation (razlozhenie) were foiled. It seems that even as one Soviet NKVD team was positioning Galka- Linevych to infiltrate the Kora band, another NKVD team was trying to accomplish the same task with their own agent Galka, formerly “Kapustianskaia,” one Anastasia Spitsyna, recruited in late 1944 and sent against the Kora band in December. Less well-prepared for the tasks ahead, Galka-Spitsyna apparently gave herself away almost immediately, and was subsequently detained and interrogated by the rebel SB. The problem was that Soviets had received intelligence from one of their informants that their agent Galka had been unmasked. In an effort to rescue the operation, Galka-Linevych was called back. As a result of her abrupt removal from the field, Galka-Linevych’s cover was blown; she was, in NKVD parlance, rasshifrovana. Rebel reprisals were brutal and immediate. Her brother Aleksei was detained by the rebel SB, interrogated, tortured, and sadistically murdered. Her mother and aunt, who lived in village Tseptsevychy, were assassinated, their corpses desecrated in the normal way vengeance was meted out to family members of traitors. All of the family’s possessions were either destroyed or carried away by a rebel band. Following standard SB practice, the Linevych family name was forever annihilated in that village.

Soviet case files for agent Galka-Linevych end there: with the demoralized and terrified Galka hidden away in a Soviet safe house in Rivne, awaiting her next instructions. A mere eighteen and a half years old, she was already directly responsible for the murder of her best friend, and indirectly responsible for the deaths of her beloved brother, mother, and aunt. But her Soviet controller still had further plans for her, and it was clear from her case files that “she would be used [again]” — literally “used,” budet ispol´zovana — “for operations against the OUN underground.”56

Ostensibly, agent Galka-Spitsyna fared better. The SB commander who interrogated Galka-Spitsyna persuaded her to write a harshly anti-Soviet note to the Vladimiretskyi raion NKVD chief. Attached to the note was a communication from the SB commander to the local NKVD chief indicating that Galka-Spitsyna’s life would be spared. He taunted: “You should not think that Ukrainian insurrectionaries cut off the heads of Russians and others because of their nationality. No. We Ukrainians love the peoples of other nations, but despise your communes and collective farms.”57 Though the NKVD made an active effort to apprehend Galka-Spitsyna, those operations were unsuccessful. The search continued for some months, but the Soviets lost all trace of her."

All this was done specifically in order to provoke the reprisals and atrocities against innocent women and others, such as the ones you described. But all you wrote about is the actions committed in the course of the reprisals, with no background or context. Another example of your dishonest approach to the sources. Thanks. Faustian (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Andrew Wilson's Virtual Politics, Oxoford University Press, claims that the SB was headed by a Soviet mole.Faustian (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Jo0Doe disputed that NKVD dressed as UPA. Well the same source that he provided stated that according ot Soviet archives "On the night of 23 July 1948 the same spetsgruppa [masquerading as rebel bandits] from Podvysots´ke village abducted in the forest a young woman

REPNYTSKA Nina Iakovlevna, born in 1931.

In the forest REPNYTSKA was subjected to tortures.
While interrogating REPNYTSKA, members of the spetsgruppa beat her severely, hung her upside down by her legs, forced a stick into her genitalia, and then one by one raped her.

In a helpless condition, REPNYTSKA was abandoned in the forest, where her husband found her and took her to the hospital, where REPNYTSKA spent an extended period recovering."

The logic?
  • Interesting, but despite “myriad examples” summoned by wild imagination of grant-consumer “Sovietologist” I still matching only one – which widely distributed for propaganda propose.

[16] [17]

Well, this funny. Jo0doe quotes a journal article in its description of UPA torturing women. But after it was shown that the article described NKVD dressing as UPA and committing atrocities, and that the UPA crimes were provoked by and responses to equally brutal Soviet activities, Jo0doe discovers that the author, a historian affiliated with Harvard, is merely a "grant-consuming Sovietologist."
So, Magosci and Subtleny are mere Toronto editors, Burds is a "grant-consuming Sovietologist" with a "wild imagination" no less (see subsequent comments), but a historian who was a member of the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, S. Kulchytsky, is the real authority. I am not stating, of course, that Kulchytsky's work is rendered useless due to his association. He is, after all, affiliated with the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. But I would compare it to the work of current of former OUN member historians doing historical research. Either one needs to arouse some healthy skepticism, especially in comparison to unaffiliated scholars such as Magocsi or Subtleny.Faustian (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyway spetsgruppa is not “masquerading as rebel bandits” despite wild imagination of JB – see the year - 23 July 1948 and remember about so-called UPA demobilization in 1947. Also “most editors” forgot what that “brave soldiers” visit Military Court (Щодо випадків грубого порушення законності в діяльності спецгруп МДБ йдеться і у доповідній військового прокурора військ МВС Українського округу Кошарського (№ 4/001345 від 15.02.1949), ) and join their counterpart somewhere Far East or North. As a full story - as you like. Jo0doe (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Following officially sanctioned procedures, Soviet policemen disguised themselves as rebels, then perpetrated atrocities in their name, hoping in this way to provoke distrust and antagonism between rebel units and the local population. In this context, gender violence was not an end in itself, but a tactical weapon that utilized women’s bodies to fight a wider conflict. Whether they were rapists in Soviet uniforms, petty officials in the local apparatus, or even members of Soviet spetsgruppy perpetrating acts of gender violence under orders, Soviet authorities did themselves play a critical role in the creation of an image of the enemy other that included not just Ukrainian men, but also Ukrainian women and children. The logic of Soviet institution building dictated a definition of the Ukrainian enemy that would justify violence against young and old, male and female.Faustian (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Soviet soldiers were doing, no better than UPA:

"After forty-five years of silence, noted Hungarian child psychologist from Transylvania, Alaine Polcz, revealed in her memoirs first published in 1991 that she had been gang-raped hundreds of times by Soviet soldiers in 1945. In Polcz’s account, Soviet soldiers reserved especially brutal reprisals for women suspected of pro-German collaboration: "The Russians, after first raping them, cut off with knives the breasts of the women who had cohabited with the Germans." This usually followed ritualized scenes of humiliation where the women’s heads were shaved, and then they were marched down local streets humiliated by jeers and insults from their former neighbors."Faustian (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Bravo – test passed. Really interesting soviet agent -Mykhailo received advanced training in sabotage and diversion at a

special espionage school for infiltration agents set up by the Germans in Krakow. After leaving the school, Mykhailo began working in the central command of Ukrainian rebel intelligence from 1940. Returning to Ukraine as an officer in a special sabotage unit attached to the German army in June 1941, Mykhailo was appointed commander-in-chief of the entire SB by the end of the first year of the war. So everyone in OUN (B) was soviet agent – since most of them “received advanced training in sabotage and diversion at a special espionage school for infiltration agents set up by the Germans in Krakow”. You (OUN) always blaimed on somebody else - so you (OUN) have a good German teacher (also Dr.) Also - I answered on your "credibility" above Jo0doe (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked Wilson's book - it was a different Lebed in UPA leadership - Vasyl - who was the Soviet mole, not Mykola (head of SB). Why do you lie about me being member of OUN? None of my grandparents were even members. I guess you can't help but to make things up.Faustian (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, this personal attitude ("you (OUN)", "why do you lie" etc.) is not going to be healthy to either of you. Why don't you both stick to the article and try to avoid making the remarks directed at other editors ? --Lysytalk 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tys-Krokhmaliuk-Yuriy- citation

An excellent book - Volkischer Beobachter of OUN (B)– what a words are: “Jewish elements”, “our western civilization”, “name of Rus was usurped by Muscovite empire”,” elevating Russian to the level of “supermen” “ genocidal practice … Brezhnev and Kosygin”. Really interesting “Ethnic territorial map of 1939”. “Close collaboration between Gestapo and NKVD,… especially at the time the Soviet partisans appeared in Ukraine”. “In November 1943 military delegation of UPA went to Budapest to talk with Szombteli … Rumanian military leaders and representatives of polish underground.” “German army had a little experience in anti-partisan fighting” “Treaty between UPA and Hungarian Army in 1944 … similar treaty with AK. Large scale defection of Soviet troops to the side of UPA. Hundreds upon thousands of Red soldiers… gone over to the side of UPA,” “500000 deported”. “On May 12 German attacked the town of Kolky using few SS Divisions. German were not victories.” “Battle over Polish village of Zasmyky” (UPA against AK and SS ) “Carpathian foothill battle – On November 27 1943 two German division supported by air-force … Ukrainian insurgent numbered 600 men… German command ordered a general retreat … veritable panic amongst the German… Ukrainian insurgent captured a great quantity of arms and ammunition at the cost only 4 dead and 11 wounded.” “Battle near Villages Kamianka and Lypa July 9-16 1943 (but events relied to 1944) Three UPA batallion German concentrated 2 SS division numbering over 30000 men … German crippled by heavy losses, retreated”

“OUN-SB – methods of operation of the security service were and still are highly guarded secret.” Ambush of gen. Lutze Lutze proclaimed that he would liquidate … UPA ..” German entered an ambush area …Losses of Germans were extremely heavy. But Koch never acknowledged the ambush of UPA BB staff – “collaboration between German and Russian against Ukrainians”

Polish front – really interesting reading.

So I think would be reasonable to discuss with someone about one of WP credible editors which used WP for radical nationalism and xenophobic movement propaganda proposes. Also about "highly respected historians"? Jo0doe (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Use this page to discuss the article, please. What about the "highly respected historians"? --Lysytalk 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. My opponent disparages Krokhmaluk and by extension prominant Western experts by quoting, demogogue-style, Krokhmaluk's statements that have nothing to do with what is quoted in this wikipedia article. This article doesn't cite Krokhmaliuk's sociological, cultural, political, or other such statements which is not the central topic of Krokhmaluk's work anyways. It cites his description of events involving UPA. More specifically, this article only cites Krokhmialuk's description of the same events that were described in less detail by recognized historians such as Subtelny and Magosci. So, for example, Magosci in his Ukraine: A History stated "for nearly a year the UPA - whose numbers by then may have been close to 100,000 - fought several pitched battles against both the retreating Germans and the advancing Soviets for control of the Carpathian passes." As was already written in this discussion section, "Magocsi, in Ukraine: a History, spends 40 pages (685–725) describing and briefly evaluating scores of sources for further reading. The evaluations are not in-depth, but he does at least mention the weak points of some...He starts the paragraph about WWII Ukrainian military organizations with Tys-Krokhmaliuk (1972). Robert Paul Magocsi [18] obtained his Ph.D. in History at Princeton and is a professor of history at the University of Toronto as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, with over 450 publications. A respected source who approves of Krokhmaliuk's work.
Krokhmaliuk's accounts of the Carpathian battles were also described in the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by the University of Toronto which stated, about UPA, "In 1944 it fought its largest engagements with German and Soviet forces. Retreating German units were frequently ambushed for their weapons and supplies. German attempts to secure areas of the Carpathian Mountains in the summer of 1944 led to several pitched battles with the UPA-West".
The other information taken from Krokhmaliuk's work, about Operation BB, was included in Subtelny's book on Ukrainian history. As has already been desribed, Orest Subtelny [19] obtained his Ph.D. in history from Harvard and his works are published by the University of Toronto. He has written the entry on Ukraine in Encarta Encyclopedia and on Cossacks in the World Book Encyclopedia, and has given lectures at Columbia University. Subtleny also cites Krokhmaliuk's book and includes it as a source worth reading. Another endorsement from a respected historian.
Krokhmaliuk is cited elsewhere. His book is described as "the Ukrainian diaspora’s definitive military history of the struggle against the Soviets during and after World War II" [20] by Jeffrey Burds, Associate of the Harvard Davis Center for Russian Studies of Northeastern University in Boston (his resume: [21]). Yuri Zhukov at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC cites him as well in his article about UPA written in the journal Small Wars and Insurgencies [22] in which he takes some numbers directly from Krokhmaliuk's book (pg. 443 of the article) Zhukov also, btw, confirmed that NKVD dressed as UPA and committed rapes and murders in western Ukraine.
It should be noted that wikipedia is not about original archival research. Wikipedia articles summarize what is written by respected historians. Which is what Subtelny and Magosci clearly are, as is Burds. All three of them value Krokhmaliuk's work, granting his work legitimacy, at least within the confines of what the previous three cite. Faustian (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Faustian (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Krokhmaliuk, nor had I read his book. My comment however would be that if there is an option to cite a controversial author or a universally recognized and respected one, we should rather be doing the latter. But this is obvious, right ? I have myself removed from wikipedia anti-Ukrainian citations by Polish authors whom I considered not to be objective. --Lysytalk 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However Krokhmaliuk seems to be widely respected among scholars for his work on facts involving UPA. He is cited in several journals and books, which I described above. The controversy is mostly coming from a wikipedia editor whose biases are well documented and who has claimed, for example, "UPA participation the Genocide of Polish community (it was only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44)". Moreover, the only things from Krokhmaliuk's book that are included in this article are elaborations of the same infromation included in the work of nearly universally recognized and respected sources, the books by Subtelny and Magosci. Subtelny and Magosci seem to have summarized what Krokhmaluk wrote in their general histories of Ukraine (the facts match, they cite Krokhmaluk as their source, of course they have include less detail than he does). Krokhmaliuk's works contribution is limited to just those exact events that Subtelny and Magosci summarized, to minimize any controversy. Does this seem reasonable to you?Faustian (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't have an opinion yet. However, I'm a bit suspicious when I see that Krokhmaliuk claims that: UPA tried to avoid clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military because many of them were ethnic Ukrainians and were seen as a source of recruits into UPA, while a Ukrainian historian that I trust, Yaroslav Hrytsak, explains that this was a military tactics of UPA to hide in the forests and wait for the front line to pass, because if they confronted the Soviet front army, UPA would be quickly destroyed. So, I understand that the article quotes the opinion of Krokhmaliuk, but the facts might be different than what he attempted to present. --Lysytalk 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that those two reasons are mutually exclusive.Faustian (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yet the article (after Krokhmaliuk ?) gives only the declared political reason, and is mute about the practical military reason, which might question its credibility. UPA was a military organization. But this is only to illustrate my concerns, that Krokhmaliuk might be biased. A historian should present the events in a possibly most objective way, while it seems that he only gives the "more convenient" version of what happened. I may be wrong, but this is my first impression, after reading the article. It is written as if someone made effort to present UPA in the possibly most positive light. Even when we mention that UPA killed Poles in Volhynia, there is immediately "yes, but ..." follow-up sentence, which is not really related to UPA at all (that AK also killed civilians). So when I read the article, it seems to focus on the positive sides of UPA and minimize/justify/explain any negative aspects. I don't have enough knowledge or sources to correct it now, but that's the impression. --Lysytalk 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the massacres of Poles section should be expanded to include more details about UPA's involvement in this tragedy. I'm also removing the sentence about the numbers of Ukrainians killed in reprisal, as it does indeed change the balance somewhat. However, the background context is important.Faustian (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Hrytsak claims, that the massacre got out of the hands of UPA, which initially did not foresee its scale. Also much of the brutality was not due to UPA directly but because of the Ukrainian peasants who simply wanted to grab the farms of their Polish neighbours. The peasants were relatively primitive and often unarmed, so they used various barbaric tools and methods to murder the Poles. And the Poles did the same, but for different reason. They were a minority and could not dream of driving Ukrainians from the area, they simply defended themselves or executed a revenge with very similar methods. Many of the atrocities were also provoked by the communist partisan units, who sometimes pretended to be UPA or AK. This is all so extremely sad. In the result UPA in Poland is associated primarily with brutal criminals murdering women and children and Nazi collaborators. That's what Poles heard during WW2 and that's what the post-war communist propaganda preached. --Lysytalk 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the atrocities were also provoked by the communist partisan units – OUN/UPA claims. They use same condom for Huta Penyatska case. Jo0doe (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Polish authors confirm the role of Soviet partisan units, too. --Lysytalk 10:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume “modern” based on OUN and German claims – yes, such claims was numerous, but I’ve seen any reasons to do so – to fight against 3 parties instead 2, while they need to fulfill the “plan on German bridges, trains” etc – adopted for them – I can’t see any such plan to provoke already friendly nations? Also quite widely known info about “red partisans” – even some of them was captured by soviet partisans and shooted. See about UPA provocateurs at [23] p.446. However every action of soviet partisans against German provoked a revenge from last which anyway caused the significant victims at neighboring villages – but just the case. Also soviet are not angels and that is was not a green-tourism – but most of violence’s cases was punished – even common death sentence. Also, as for example – at [24] bottom of page 249 top of 250 you can’t find any similar reports from soviet. Jo0doe (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've also checked all the places in the article that use Krokhmaliuk reference, and they all seem to attempt to portray UPA in a positive light. This makes me suspect, that Krokhmaliuk might be biased as an author. Does he write anything about tactical mistakes of UPA, or only about the successes and brilliant victories ? --Lysytalk 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
His book contains more successes than failures, but also includes some failures. Again, to be conservative, I only used two specific episodes from his book because they were elaborations of what Magosci and Subtelny had written. Both were UPA successes. Krokhmaliuk didn't have as much access to information about the post-war struggle against the Soviets - the Soviets were much more effective at defeating UPA than the Germans were - so his greater descriptions of success versus failures is understandable. The book is mostly about UPA's struggles with partisans and Germans (and the beginning of their anti-Soviet struggle), times when other sources also confirm that UPA did well against its adversaries. Faustian (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting discussion – we have strong vision of person about the book which he even not read (see (page # missing).? Which credibility we are spoken. Jo0doe (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:V Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Should we stick with WP or with UKR-Diaspora. Also what about clear falsification by somebody? Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Krokhmaliuk's work is cited and applauded by reliable sources (see the above authors) meets the criteria of a good source. Some of his statements (Muscovites asurped the name of Rus) are not very polite, to put it mildly, but no different than what has been said by respected historians such as Mykhailo Hrushevskyi. No strong evidence to disqualify Krokhmaliuk's book as a questionable source. It's clearly not questionable for Magosci, for Subtelny, for Harvard-afficliated Burd, for Zhukov of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC. Why should it be questionable for wikipedia? Faustian (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I does not condom the book published by Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army nor his authors (since he was not alone, some freindly to OUN/UPA organization assist . Jo0doe (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremist sources Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.Jo0doe (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So should we censor all of Kulchytsky's work because he was a member of the ideological commision of the central committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party? Indeed, should we censor everything written by Soviet historians, because communism was extreme? Of course not. Likewise with Krokhmaliuk's work.Faustian (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
* You've got someting against PR of China? Silly efforts Jo0doe (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed solution

Since WP allow Y.Krokhmaklyuk book “Extremist sources Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist …as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves”. It should be used. But with caution. Extremism of UPA acknowledged as extremist in: World Jewish community (many millions), Russia (~170 millions), Poland (26? (correct me if I’m wrong) millions), most of Ukrainian population (majority in East, Center and South regions) as also by many historians and organization. Not accepted in tiny minorities (compared to above) :majority of Western Ukrainian Dispora ~ 2 million) and majority of Western Ukrainian regions (3-5 millions) and tiny minority of historians (known for POV (anti-communists, anti-Semitic, Russophobia etc. ).

Thus I propose to use Y.Krokhmaklyuk as wider as possible (I’ll forward this book to Lysy) with quotation – accordingly with post war OUN/UPA claims and (to balance the sources) provide own war-time OUN data and relevant to the time reports of Abwehr and SS authorities, AK, soviet partisans, NKVD/MGB with mentioned source in Archive (like 3 August 1946. RGASPI, f. 17, op. 122, d. 137, l. 44. or Bundesarchive R6/687 Bl.9) but with care in order to avoid POV of authors. Because now we’ve a situation when UPA “German crippled by heavy losses, retreated” but Head of SS General-Major Brigadefuhrer Brenner “The UPA has halted all attacks on units of the German army. The UPA systematically sends agents (razvedchiki), mainly young women, into enemy-occupied territory, and the results of the intelligence are communicated to Department 1c of the [German] Army Group” on the southern Front”. Should we trust(put in WP) in “ghost squadrons of UPA fighters which spoiled the karma of 3 SS-divisions – thus they was became week and annihilated later by Soviet tanks Armies”. We should not omit general overview which was significant compared with specific facts (like lLong ive Ukraine without Jews, Poles and Germans; Poles behind the river San, Germans to Berlin, and Jews to the gallows - deffinetelly there is moskali?)- e.g. if in 1941 OUN (B) General Instruction “ UPA Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” What questions remains after in relation to Lvov’s Professors and 1943-1944 genocide of Poles? Dixi. Untill this – tags must be there. Jo0doe (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as stated, Krokhmaliuk's book has met the approval and been used by prominant and highly regarded scholars such as Magosci, Subtelny, the Harvard-affiliated professor of history Burd, and for Zhukov of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC. If it's good enough for these people, it's good enough for wikipedia. As for UPA's extremism - it's certainly no more extreme than communism and nobody excludes works written in the USSR or China etc. although of course we have to be cautious with such material. That's why when I used Krokhmaliuk for the article, I limited it to information that had also been covered by Magosci and Subtelny. I know that you don't like them, but the fact is that they are highly regarded in their field and wikipedia is based on the work of such experts - it's not a place for original archival research but to communicate the consensus of the historical community.Faustian (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read book first. I've no comments on your silly demagogy Jo0doe (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, no answer.Faustian (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OUN(B)-UPA history in brief

– more detailed [25] and [26] [27] [28]

After no answer by Germans on OUN (B) Memorandum from August, 8 1941 about adoption of Ukrainian State and Ukrainian Government which be followed by creation of Ukrainian Army “which join the German army until last will win” and arrests of pro-active OUN(B)&(M) members which started in mid of September, 1941 OUN adopt policy of “tolerance to oppressor” together with build-up an own network within Nazi administration and infiltrating in significant extent into auxiliary police. Second wave of repression an arrests in November- December 1941 lead to farther calming and under grounding of activity.

In April 1942 on 2-d OUN(B) conference was adopted policy of “build-up and development of own forces”, action against own partisan activity, main enemy to fight – Soviet partisans. In July 1942 OUN (B) issued a statement in which main enemy was mentioned “Moscow-jews bolshevism”. Significant effort was given to developing different types of structures, and to calm “before time” population appraisals against Germans. In October-November 1942 in Volynia-Polissya significant effort applied to calm down the appraisal tendencies also provoked by Soviet Partisans. At the beginning of December 1942 near Lemberg conducted “Military conference of OUN(B)” which result was an adopted a speed-up the build-up process for creation of Military forces of OUN(B). Volynia-Polissya was selected as formation. 17-21 February 1943 on III Conference of OUN despite the different propositions about military actions was adopted a vision of Klyachkivskyy and Shukhevych - main enemy soviet partisans and poles, as regarding to German – activity should be conducted in favor of OUN(B) interests and has a direction of self-defense of people.” OUN(B) ordered their member in German auxiliary police to leave with arms their service and move to forests. Between 15/03 and 10/04 1943 4 to 5 thousands of “shuma” moved to forests. At same time OUN(M) and UPA (B-B) does not agreed with sole dictatorship of Bendera and refuse to join their movement. OUN(B) SB forcibly acquired their opponent units into OUN(B)-UPA. Decision to choose an “UPA” name for a movement was adopted as the beginning of spring – initial was “military detachments of OUN-SD”. In soviet partisan report mentioned what “after 20.03.43 OUN(B) submit an order to form Ukrainian national army from policeman, cossacks and local Ukrainians oriented for OUN(B) and UNR.” In 11/04/43 report soviet partisans mentioned about mass murdering (slaughtering) of polish civilians by nationalists. From April OUN(B)-UPA also became more active in their actions against soviet partisans. OUN(B)-UPA SB used tactics of provocation of German to involve more new volunteers. At same time OUN(B)-UPA SB continued forcibly acquiring of UPA (B-B) and OUN (M) units. During May –August UPA continued to improve their structure and increase the number of controlled areas. But Kovpak raid (June- September 1943) show’s what in Galizia there no counterpart for soviet partisans, thus July 15 1943 OUN(B) issued order for urgent creation of UNS (Ukrainian National Self-defense) detachments which engaged in clashes with small partisans units since August 1943. In August 1943. on 3-d Congress of OUN(B)was adopted new strategy “two-fronts fighting” – against “German Imperialism” and “Moscow Bolshevizm”. However as October, 1 1943 tried to establish a contacts with German in order “to fight with same enemy”, and in November-December on regional level (between local UPA units and same level of German command). Since February 1944 soviet partisans reported about cooperative action of UPA and Germans against them. In March this contacts was established on high level and UPA began received a soviet arms and ammunition from German stockpiles. Some towns and areas was given under UPA control and Germans which located in this areas was moved to reinforce front units. Proposals objections additions wellcomed Jo0doe (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, examples of your omissions.
You "conveniently" ignored the statement published by OUN in July 1941, (pg.90), "All work with the occupants (this word was underlined) this is a crime, a national betrayal. There can be no cooperation, that is harmful for Ukraine."
  • *You mean “sometiemes at the beginning of September”? And oops – you missed Gestapo (thus such cooperation exist i before) also it not sourced statement. (instead Memorandum)Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Page 90 In a letter from August 29, 1941 froom Stetsko to Bandera, "Our cooperation with the Germans is dangerous and slippery. We can't practically carry out two politics: one together with Germans, while at the same time undertaking "our OUN work".

  • *Interesting interpretation of mentioned in private letter wording “Our further cooperation with the Germans is dangerous and slippery. We can’t carry out two politics in practice : go together with Germans and in a same time [conducts] our OUN’s” – [conducts] – editors insertion. What words missed/added? Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that, nevertheless, the OUN did not call its members for open warfare against the occupants and instead directed them to set up their organizations everywhere. You lie by omission (this is a fact, not an insult) by repeating from the article that OUN did not take up arms, was quiet while at the same time conveniently ignoring the other information.

"Tolerance to oppressor", as you call it, in the actual context described in the article, meant laying low until the organization could be set up, the police infiltrated, etc. In other words, for groundwork to be created for the resistance.

Does I’ve not mentioned this above?Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, (page 93) stated that the OUN sent its activists to infiltrate the police. The Germans tried to stop this infiltration but did not succeed. And indeed, later on, when the time came, the OUN members who had joined the police, taken advantage of the German training they had received, and then then deserted with their weapons. You twist these facts by saying, in your words, "UPA formed on base of Nazi controlled Ukrainian Auxiliary Police shutzmanshaft – main draught force of Holocaust in Ukraine and Belarus (up to 1/4 UPA number and more than half on initial stage)." Another example of your dishonesty.

  • So 4-5 thousands of shutzmanshaft police in March (out of 20 as in Abwehr reports In November) - does not join the UPA and UPA order from 20/3/1943 – is lie?
That fact is correct. Your statements do this:
Lying by omission
Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. This includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. One may by careful speaking contrive to give correct but only partial answers to questions, thus never actually lying.
(taken from the appropriate Wiki entry)
So when you state the fact that 4-5 thousand Ukrainian police deserted and joined UPA, but do not state that the OUN had been infiltrating the police with its members and that the Germans were opposed to and tried to stop this infiltration, you lie by ommission. You try to deliberately leave another person with a misconception. Clearly you are editting in bad faith.Faustian (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You also "conveniently" left out the mass arrests of OUN members (page 91).
  • Please find with Ctrl+F “and arrests of pro-active OUN(B)&(M) members which started in mid of September” “Second wave of repression an arrests in November- December 1941”Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The work cited stated, page 98, (not referring to a specific time although the chapter covers 1941-1942) "the most active power in the Ukrainian resistence movement was, without a doubt, Bandera's OUN, whose authority in the western Ukrainian lands was constantly growing.
  • Unreferenced claims also – thus – as based on whole chapter – “activity” limited to propaganda.

In same time in farther chapters as “most active” mentioned UPA (B-B). I assume on others facts you’ve no objection.Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe's approach to this and many documents is to selectively pick and choose those facts that support his POV, conveniently ignoring others, to paint a false picture.
It's truly breathtaking - he cannot get his hands on any document without twisting it to support his biased POV. Indeed, often his presentation of material has the opposite meaning of what the author intended.Faustian (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also could you please use your perfect English to translate accurately mentioned exact story instead “a captured UPA member claimed that in these clashes UPA lost 200 fighters while their Soviet enemies lost 2,000”. Also I propose not to use wording “claimed” for official documents figures – instead use “mentioned”, “stated” and give facts (182,543) separate from estimation (500,000). Also please avoid nonsense like “estimated anywhere from 47,800 to 500,000, only 46% of whom were ethnic Ukrainians” – So may I use mentioned at ISBN 9666-02-2238 p.165 data? Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also very important thing which mentioned above: “OUN members who had joined the police, taken advantage of the German training they had received”. I add here the fact what almost all remains of “Ukrainian legion” together with Shukhevych also joined Nazi service – and after some training and by end of March 1942 “fight for freedom of Ukraine” at Belarus. Because the story of their “brave actions” has not significant factual base (only remembrances of few victims which was lucky to survive) I mention only their own data (201 Shuma battalion) - they exterminated more then 2000 of soviet partisans, while own losses – 49 killed and 40 wounded. So taking into account the ratio – it’s clear visible who was this “soviet partisans”.

Well, casualty ratios from Soviet archives of Soviet forces vs. UPA are quite similar - something like 150,000 UPA killed or captured. So by your original research logic who were the 150,000 "UPA" killed or captured?Faustian (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting also what they do it under general command of Erich_von_dem_Bach. So at the spring we’ve 4-5 of shuma police “taked advantage of the German training” (Lember, Vinnitsa, Rivne and elsewhere ghettos and POW-camps) under command of recently returned from Belarus Shukhevych (also together with “soldiers” which was under his). So the future actions and methods against Poles can not be assumed as surprise. Objection? Jo0doe (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

References with page numbers, please.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA and Western Ukraine's Poles

Thanks, Faustian, for expanding the section of the article. I think it now reflects well the current knowledge of the historians. I think we have the problem with the estimate of the number of victims. As for the Ukrainian victims, most Polish historians estimate the number of Ukrainians killed in Polish retaliation actions of AK to be about 2000. On the other hand they estimate the number of all Ukrainian civilians killed by various Polish formation throughout the war in various areas to be 15000-20000. These are of course two different numbers and should not be confused. Do we have any estimates of Ukrainian historians ? --Lysytalk 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Obviously the number was much lower than that of Poles killed by Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Some facts missed – actions started in April. Also not mentioned some Klaychkivskyy order in June for Poles extermination. Missed (or postponed) July actions. OUN(B) war-time claims what this actions was a result of Polish and German collaboration and pay-back act for nazi-poles extermination of Ukrainian villages.
Missed the facts what such activity migrated together with UPA to Galizia and behind the Kurzon line – and conducted accordingly to “balance of force”. Since end of February UPA involve in “anti-polish actions” a regiments of SS-Galizia division – 4 and 5. Brutality was ended after UPA extermination by Soviet and Polish forces. Jo0doe (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But this article is about UPA, not SS-Galizia. Why do you want to include SS Galizia here ? --Lysytalk 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because such mentioned in scholars work – see [29] p.281, p.283 p.284 p.285 and because nominally this units (4 and 5) nominally can not be in SS-Galizia because SS division can have only 3 units – thus that fact predominantly used by OUN(B)/UPA to condom themselves and blame mythical “4-s German regiment” as you can see here [30].

Arguments above are irrelevent. Either they were, or were not, an UPA unit. If they were not, the info better belongs in the Massacre of Poles in Volyn article rather than this one.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also would be good to summarize to section with words: This theme was a long time taboo in USSR and Polands, but some cases was blamed on Germans. Amongst others factors this what caused because collaborationism was a forbidden thematic and nominally Slavic people even more – Soviet and Poland citizens can not commit act same as Nazi. At same time OUN(B)/UPA tried to blame such action to UPA (B-B) and to OUN (M) members or suppress this theme at all (as for example – they prefer not mention Klyachkivskiy – first commander of UPA at all or as such – because most orders of extermination belongs to him).


A total lie. Here is the Encyclopedia of Ukraine article: [31] "in July and August 1943. Klym Savur, the leader of the OUN (B) for northwestern Ukraine, became the commander in chief of the unified UPA". There is an entire entry about him also [32]. Here he is mentioned in a Ukrainian natioanlist youth organization website :[33] "The first general commander of UPA was Dmytro Klachkivskiy (pseudonym Klym Savur), who was the OUN leader in the North-western Ukrainian territories “Okhrim”, and “Bilash” from August of 1943." And here is an article about him on the modern OUN's website: [34]. Yeah, you just keep showing us how "honest" you are.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the other information above, find references and include it. Your history of using referenes dishonestly by leaving out important information is well documented, so they need to be verified.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Even it present time some OUN(B)/UPA and western Ukrainian “historians” tried to justify such genocide through “pre-war Poland policy” “Ukrainians also suffered same from Poles and in same extent” (increasing the victims number), “soviet provocations” etc. Your opinionJo0doe (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just your POV.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Does any of this look FAMILIAR

From User:Mikkalai page


If surgery was like Wikipedia...[1]

Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient's doctor that details the problem.

Surgipedian #1: "Whoa, he's been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a 'claudication' and a 'chronic venous insufficiency' in the left leg", looks at right leg, "and we are asked to do a 'leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam'. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me".

Surgipedian #2: "You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one".

Surgipedian #1: "I looked at the left and it's looking totally normal!"

Surgipedian #2: "The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?"

Surgipedian #3: "No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline 'Assume Good Faith'. #1 was just trying to be constructive!"

Surgipedian #2: "I was only trying to be constructive, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Well, let's just get to back to this guy."

Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: "I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem".

Surgipedian #3: "Yup, you are right. It's something about the veins in the heart being clogged up."

Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!"

Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?"

Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!"

Surgipedian #3: "Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let's get back to the man's heart problem! What should we do?"

Surgipedian #1: "I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something".

Surgipedian #3: "Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it".

Surgipedian #2: "Heh, that is original research, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?"

Surgipedian #2: "Of course!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man's ribs?"

Surgipedian #1: "You need a saw or something."

Surgipedian #3: "A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through".

Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.

Surgipedian #3: "I can't reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then do that thing with the veins!"

Surgipedian #3: "How do you do that?"

Surgipedian #2 "Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think".

Surgipedian #3: "But that is orig..., well let's try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?"

Surgipedian #1, #2: "Support".

Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline "Be Bold!", grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.

Surgeon: "Stop! What in the world are you doing?"

Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open".

Surgeon: "What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone's heart will kill that person?"

Surgipedian #1: "We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?"

Surgeon: "You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?"

Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: "Please, no personal attacks!"

Surgeon: "I will f*&^$%@+! personal attack you if you endanger someones life!"

Surgipedian #3: "We need to call an admin!"

Surgeon: "Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!"

An admin comes by.

Admin: "I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules".

Surgeon: "I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a knife into his heart!"

Admin: "Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review Surgipedia guidelines and rules".

Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.

Surgipedian #3: "Okay, where were we?"

Surgipedian #2: "You were about to cut his heart."

Surgipedian #3: "Yup. I propose that so-called 'surgeon' was just a troll and we should go ahead."

Surgipedian #1 and #2: "Agree".

Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man's heart, who is dead within moments.

Surgipedian #3: "Why did he die?"

Surgipedian #1: "It's his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!"

Bobanni (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting story with a message. The blocked guest was right, and the patient died. The admin was wrong. Now, can you remove it from this talk page back to where it came from ? :-) --Lysytalk 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA's struggle against Germany

Faustian I've added facts from Krokhmalyuk - please fix my references. If you would like I also include there first battle of UPA in May with 2 SS divisions. Unfortunatelly I can't find any info in his book about 26 of July Battle (HURBY) nor MAy 1944 - so I hided them. I'll not replay on you comments to my wording to Lysy - since as I've seen from previous attempt - it's useless. But your "credibility" (if any exist before) is deffinatelly spoiled by your "facts" I also propose to put Soviet Partisan in separate section - since we've a plenty of info. Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the article, because it seems to be much too specific for a general article:

"He was charged with a number of military defeats. The overwhelming German superiority in manpower and arms had proved inadequate in themselves to liquidate UPA-North. As for prominent example, battalion and 2 companies of UPA insurgent armed with light machine guns along with 75-mm cannon and few mortar raided the Kamin Koshyrsky at evening of August 19. Starting operation at dawn they captured all city by 17:00. Amongst captured 20000 round of ammunition, 5 machine guns, 4 “EMPI” over 100 pistols , 16 typewriters, one car, 4 radio receivers and one radio-broadcasting set, 11 horses with saddles, 7 motorcycles 600 centners (as in text) of salt 500 of floor and 800 of sugar leather, uniform and like. German suffered heavy losses: - over 100 dead out of total 147 Policemen, 200 member of Wehrmacht and number of fliers from nearby German Airbase as well as a number of administration. Insurgent losses – only two wounded."

Perhaps a different article can be written about that battle. Number of typewriters captured (among other things) doesn't belong here. I've also unhid information that you hid, just because you claim that you haven't found the page numbers in the book.Faustian (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Details are important to assess the reliability of this data - see WP:vandalism. I stated what Hurba nor MAY BATTLES DOES NOT EXIST at this book. Anderson and YK - self contrary - so I update with latest - (1972 vs 1968) vesion. Jo0doe (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion section is the place for that - place the details in the discussion. Information such as number of typewriters captured does not belong in the article. You are deliberately compromising the article in order to to make your argument. Keep it in the discussion section.
I know that you stated that those battles do not exist in the book. That is your claim. I suggest you look again. If I had the book now I would give you page numbers. But you will have to wait a few hours.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Important data - battalion and 2 companies of UPA insurgent armed with light machine guns along with 75-mm cannon and few mortar raided the Kamin Koshyrsky at evening of August 19. German suffered heavy losses: - over 100 dead out of total 147 Policemen, 200 member of Wehrmacht and number of fliers from nearby German Airbase as well as a number of administration. Insurgent losses – only two wounded." - you deleted and replayesed with falsification - "On August 19-20 UPA captured the military center of Kamin Koshyrsky, defeating several German battalions and capturing large quantities of arms and ammunition".
Page 242, "on August 19-20 the UPA took Kamin Koshyrsky, a fortified military center, capturing huge quantities of arms and munitions. The German garrison, which consisted of a few battalions, was rapidly dispersed and destroyed." My summary that you quoted is accurate. You have a problem with that?Faustian (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your quote was from the testament of an UPA member earlier in the book. The above was Krokhmaliuk's summary of the same event.Faustian (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Also In November 1943, UPA battle groups "Black Forest" and "Makivka" defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air force - that is also falsification since you've mentioned same battle (mentioned above) as 2 different.
What are you talking about?

"On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers" - there no such battle in this book. Any question? Jo0doe (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your claims. As I said, I do not have the book with me now. I'll look at the book myself and reply in several hours.Faustian (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I've just spent almost an hour looking for that in the book, and could not find the battle on July 26, 1944 near Nedilna in which the supply column was captured. I am going to bed. I will reread the book at my leisure, and hopefully will come aross it eventually. In the meantime, I don't oppose hiding that statement.Faustian (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA's struggle against Germany part 2

Or story about how wild imagination became myth and later transformed into lie and propagnda: 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC) this page initially was updated with Wpedian who add a Krokhmaliuk's an author of sentence :”Cooperation of Germans with Soviet partisans”


Some of them do have specific page numbers, which are visible in the edit screen but not when one views the article. Also, I think it is useful to keep them where they are, so that we know the specific sources for some of the statements. 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, p. 242. Thanks, indeed. However some refs, like Toynbee or Krokhmaluk do not give specific pages, therefore are not easily verifiable and not very useful for inline references. --Lysytalk 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Really? So... "In May and July 1944, two more attempts by the Germans to capture Carpathian mountain passes were repulsed. The latter victory involved the defeat of two German divisions supported by artillery. On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers." Well, which ones? Divisional numbers, please. --HanzoHattori 13:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Those details were taken from a book by Krokhmaliuk about UPA operations that was cited in Subtelny as a source for further readings. 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The source stated two divisions without specifying what kind of divisions they were. 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, our job is not to second-guess the conclusions or the way of deriving conclusions of legitimate historians. 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It cites his description of events involving UPA.

Moreover, the only things from Krokhmaliuk's book that are included in this article are elaborations of the same infromation included in the work of nearly universally recognized and respected sources, the books by Subtelny and Magosci.

Well Krokhmaliuk's work is cited and applauded by reliable sources (see the above authors) meets the criteria of a good source.

statement published by OUN in July 1941, (pg.90), "All work with the occupants

I have removed the following from the article, because it seems to be much too specific for a general article:

know that you stated that those battles do not exist in the book. That is your claim. I suggest you look again. If I had the book now I would give you page numbers.

Because the provided by him edits and reverts included a falsification of statements in sources, twist the facts and misuse a data an can be assumes such actions as deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and use as soapbox for OUN (B) (and not OUN (M) and OUN (UNR)) propaganda about brave fights of UPA/OUN(B) against numerous SS-divisions.

No, twisting sources is what you do, as well documented on these talk pages. Claiming that I am a propagandist for OUN (B) as you do repeatedly is absurd - check my edits on the OUN page, I added the information about their fascist ideology and what Sheptytsky said about them being murderers.Faustian (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now edits continued and reflect his deliberate actions to censoring the facts and mislead the visitors through redistributing important data through article.

You mean, putting the data about fighting Germans together, and putting data about fighting Soviets together, instead of putting everything you found into the history section in the beginning of the article? Sorry, there should not be a "history" section with everything you find about UPA vs. Soviets put together, then a separate UPA vs. Germans section, and an UPA vs. Soviets section. Faustian (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Falsifications still lasts. Reasons to hide a details “because it seems to be much too specific for a general article” are quite simple – because it clear show the how false mythical Tys-Krokhmaluyk were only few examples:

Yes, describing how many typewriters or rifles were captured in one battle is too specific for a page about UPA. Feel free to create a new page about that battle, and include that information.Faustian (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • “He was charged with a number of military defeats.” Because it clear false
  • “battalion and 2 companies of UPA insurgent armed with light machine guns along with 75-mm cannon” – UPA never had Germans caliber 75-mm cannon.
  • “Amongst captured 20000 round of ammunition, 5 machine guns, 4 “EMPI” over 100 pistols , 16 typewriters, one car, 4 radio receivers and one radio-broadcasting set, 11 horses with saddles, 7 motorcycles 600 centners (as in text) of salt 500 of floor and 800 of sugar leather, uniform and like”. – sweet dreams of poor western Ukrainian peasants – 80 tons of sugar, 50 tons of flour and 60 tons of salt. As regards to “large quantities of arms and ammunition” mentioned later for this battle –
  • - “20000 round” – it’s only 1 or 2 box depending on caliber and types of ammo,
  • - 4 “EMPI” –so small and no rifles at all very strange – especially in terms of 147 (Polish) Policemen,
  • - “but over 100 pistols” – really interesting figure – look like they defeated predominantly officers or special-units soldiers
  • over 100 dead out of total 147 Policemen, 200 member of Wehrmacht and number of fliers from nearby German Airbase as well as a number of administration. Insurgent losses – only two wounded – described later in book as “defeating several German battalions”– UPA-terminators simply replaced the damaged nuclear fuel-elements. So few words but to much lie – there no Airbase in vicinity of this settlement, there no 200 member of Wehrmacht (since Wehrmach was on the front-line) and there no battalions see more detailed - [35] but with caution since it also POV of author since he is not from KK. Also would be useful soviet POV full of propaganda, but nevertheless interesting for details about KK [36]
You make a lot of accusations but no proof. Your accusations alone are original research.Faustian (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So what we should note about numerous SS divisions defeated by UPA - lie as is Jo0doe (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Krokhmaliuk identified them as SS divisions and also as police units. It could be either one; he was not consistant in his description.Faustian (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA's History & Origins

Interesting, but one of WP editors known for deliberately including reference sources which not inline with WP:V in order to include a falsification data into article and deliberately and continuously dismissed the other editors concerns about reliability of such data through extensive demagogy has provide a right idea – so would be good to add separate section named UPA's Origins which will cover the 1941-42 story with well sourced and accessible facts.

UPA's Origins

  • staring from OUN (B) Memorandum from August, 8 1941 about Ukrainian Army “which join the German army until last will win” and refined with
  • OUN (B) General Instruction “ UPA Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.”
  • followed by unreferenced in source OUN(B) demagogical blames on Ukrainians which cooperated with Gestapo.
  • Ukrainian legion short info will be also relevant – as Shykhyvich and most of it joined the UPA or 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr.1) in spring 1943/

1942

  • April 1942 on 2-d OUN(B) conference was adopted policy of “build-up and development of own forces”, action against own partisan activity, main enemy to fight – Soviet partisans.
  • July 1942 OUN (B) issued a statement in which main enemy was mentioned “Moscow-jews bolshevism”.
  • beginning of December 1942 near Lemberg conducted “Military conference of OUN(B)” which result was an adopted a speed-up the build-up process for creation of Military forces of OUN(B).
Find references for the above and include it.Faustian (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


UPA's History

  • 3-d Conference of OUN Lviv 17-21 Febuary 1943
  • Shuma police units well trained on Jews exterminations (only one example [37] amongst thousands) joined the UPA
If you find a good source for this, it's very important data that belongs in the origins section.Faustian (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Spring 1943 Call for creation of 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr.1) in

Galicia, 4 and 5 regiment of which will be later conduct cooperative actions with UPA at the beginning of 1944 against polish population of Galicia. Also Ukrainian SS-man of encircled and defeated by Soviet Army in July 1944 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr.1) which failed to retreat joined the UPA together with others Galician volunteers, which was not included in this division initially.

  • At 3-d Great Extraordinary Meeting of OUN in august 1943
  • Late 1943- beginning of 1944 cooperation with Germans (initially with Wehrmacht later with SS)
  • 1944 – actions in favor of German army against Small soviet units and local authorities – “shoot behind the corner” tactics
  • 1944-45 extermination of large and middle size units of UPA by NKVD and SMERSH
  • 1945-1946 – wiping out of small units of UPA by NKVD operation
  • 1947-1950 – hide and run tactics of few remains
  • 1950-55 last traces of OUN/UPA wiped out.
Find refernces for the claims above.Faustian (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So more or less active UPA period referred – march 1943 – till 1946 extermination of Poles 1944 – February 1945 – action in favor of Germans, winter 1945/1946 and spring 1946 – end of UPA as military formation. So – 3 year (1,5 under Germans) instead of myth about decade of fight created by someone who failed to handled the fact of 3 decades of partisans in Vietnam and Laos (see last sentence of Introduction). Why so long – till 1956 – even today hard to find 2-3 persons in huge Carpathian forests, so it’s more hard to find if they hided in well camouflaged underground bunker.

Your claims, referenced data indicates otherwise.Faustian (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Few issues queried above in talk page by known for his credibility Wpedian: I’ve not find in pre-Internet Era (USSR and PRP) common usage of Klyachkivskyy as first commander of UPA.

Everybody makes mistakes. Klyachkivsky (Klym Savur) was easily found as first leader of UPA in diaspora literature, not ignored as you said. The problem isn't with your mistakes, but with your pattern of dishonesty.Faustian (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As regarding to military data – see WP:ASF as Plato was a philosopher is a fact as same as MP38/40 has a caliber of 9mm while PPSH and PPS has 7.62,mm and last one has only one type of ammo cartridge while first with 2 of different capacity, same story with MG-34 and MG-42 and PDM and SG-43, there few in number operational SS-divisions in 1943 etc. etc. – and there is a lot of such facts which well known and undisputed amongst persons which more or less interested in such type of story. So the simple word like “division supported with artillery” looks like “men with a head” and in general reflect the credibility of the source. Jo0doe (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC) As such, thay “issues” can not be a themes of discussions.

Your original research.Faustian (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream historians about SS divisions at Ukraine (May 1943-July 1944)

I’ve added non OUN (B)/UPA reference data for Bandenbekampfung (which was mentioned in this article with Grammar mistake since 2006 – thanks to most credible Wpedain) and SS divisions at Ukraine. So if such data will be censored (removed as non relevant to article) by Wpedian of known for deliberately including reference sources which not inline with WP:V in order to include a falsification data into article and deliberately and continuously dismissed the other editors concerns about reliability of such data through extensive demagogy and censoring. I’ll have no option to solve that issue (falsification, censoring etc) accordingly to WP: Policy. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your dishonest use of sources is well documented.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean like "You "conveniently" ignored the statement published by OUN in July 1941, (pg.90), "All work with the occupants (this word was underlined) this is a crime, a national betrayal. There can be no cooperation, that is harmful for Ukraine." or Like this words "So you admit that you embellish stories by adding details to them."?Jo0doe (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Among many others. You quote sources out of context, take pieces of information that support your POV and ignore those that do not to crerate a false impression of what the source you use says. (i.e., lie by ommission)Faustian (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined terms

  • 3-d

mean third

  • OUN(B)

OUN under Bandera

  • OUN(M)

OUN under Melnik

  • Armia Krajowa

AK - polish Nazi-resistance formation Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

Article switches from "army" to "partisan" Bobanni (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, to "military formation" as it really wasJo0doe (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test

[edit] Stats

  • Sentences per paragraphs 17.1
  • Word per sentences 25.5
  • Flesch Reading Ease 19.3
  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12

[edit] Strategy for improvement

Shorten sentences (remove redundant adjectives and break up into shorter sentences)

Smaller paragraphs (Break up into smaller paragraphs)

Bobanni (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Examples of vandalism

Facts Removal

  • “'was a Ukrainian military formation” – mislead visitors since Ukrainian Insurgent Army – it’s not army but military formation like “IRA”, “Machdi Army”, etc.
  • “OUN accepted” – this article about UPA – should be mentioned what UPA intended to be a base for creation of Ukrainian Army in Independent Ukraine under dictatorship of Bandera.
No comment.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Any comments from Bobanni (author of changes)?Jo0doe (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (SS units operated alongside the Nazi Army who were responsible for intelligence, central security, policing action, and the mass extermination), = what a silly explanation – whould be better to give a link on Waffen-SS_divisions
I didn't make that change; perhaps you can explian it better or more clearly.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's Bobbani work. So the facts are Nazi has not any other SS-divisions (Bobanni and you would like to see) exept Waffen-SS_divisions

they also have not any police divisions - as you claim as OR - it's facts which widely known for historians and for evryone which knowlage does not limited on 2 or 3 "editors"Jo0doe (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hiding the facts about miracle OUN (B) SS Generals and divisions using a stupid arguments – vandalism as is. Online source academic cited used in many historical works.
It's a website by an author whose credentials are not known. Let's stick to academic sources for controversial material.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
But you also remove a books about all SS head staff with stupid (for anyone with basic knowlage about SS) argument - "what they are not Waffen-SS" - I can give you a dozens of works about SS - but (I expect) what it still it will be not argument for you.Jo0doe (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Removal the facts about Bandenbekampfung mentioned here as operation BB agains UPA – falsification and vandalism
Any replay?Jo0doe (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What was removed that you object to?Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Twisting and misusing a facts about “NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters” since “dressed” and posed as it’s two different actions. Moreover no data about “NKVD units committed atrocities against civilian population” but exist data on such facts with MGB special groups (but not units) and not to demoralize the civilian population as newspaper claims – but in order to perform a plan on captured OUN/UPA insurgent through fabricating the faked insurgents and units. Existed wording “NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters [54] and committed atrocities in order to demoralize the civilian population.[8]; among these NKVD units were those composed of former UPA members working for the NKVD” is perfect example of manipulation with facts in order to mislead visitors. While removal of full and exact story – it’s vandalism (blanking).

Jo0doe (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The opinion that what you added is the "full and exact story" is your piriginal research and POV. Other sources state "NKVD units" so rather than use original research we state what the sources say. For example, Jeffrey Burd's (Harvard-affiliated historian at Northeastern University in Boston) lengthy article [38] about women in western Ukraine includes descriptions of brutal atrocities committed by UPA against women. You quoted him in these talk pages. So, he can hardly be described as a pro-UPA propagandist. Yet Burd writes:

"Following officially sanctioned procedures, Soviet policemen disguised themselves as rebels, then perpetrated atrocities in their name, hoping in this way to provoke distrust and antagonism between rebel units and the local population. In this context, gender violence was not an end in itself, but a tactical weapon that utilized women’s bodies to fight a wider conflict. Whether they were rapists in Soviet uniforms, petty officials in the local apparatus, or even members of Soviet spetsgruppy perpetrating acts of gender violence under orders, Soviet authorities did themselves play a critical role in the creation of an image of the enemy other that included not just Ukrainian men, but also Ukrainian women and children. The logic of Soviet institution building dictated a definition of the Ukrainian enemy that would justify violence against young and old, male and female."

Now, given Burd's lengthy descriptioon of UPA's atrocities, if he knew that the NKVD spetgruppe units were composed of ex-UPA members, he would have said so. Right?

  • “MGB maskirovka units” “Soviet policemen” – this words reflect the overall quality of such “work” (but does not the facts which well referenced). Why – MGB has not “policemen” instead of MVD, maskirovka units – look like matryushka-balalayka while in documents mentioned “spets-boyivky”. One more note - TsDAHO, f. 1, op. 16, d. 68, ll. 10-17. For the text of the report and discussion of broader operational considerations, see J. Burds, “Agentura,” art. cit.: 129-130. – Interesting how this prominent sovietologist feet 7-pages of report text on 2 together with discussion? That’s why I pasted the information that matched the archival and other types of sources and does not use POV.
Jo0doe (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice example of your original research. I guess Jeffrey Burd is not an authority such as Jo0Doe. Quote academic sources please, wikipedia isn't the place for your original research. If you want, do the original research yourself, get your summary published in a peer reviewed journal, then place the results here with appropriate references to your published work.Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, some were, per your source, so I briefly included that information. As I stated, since this article is about UPA lengthy descripption are inappropriate in this article so placed that info that you added into a new article. Similarly, most concentration camp guards and VLasov's unit were composed of former SOviet soldiers. Yet we don't need lengthy description of concentration camp guard units and VLasov's army within the Soviet army article.

After I posted the hereftofore described passage and others from the same article, you dismissed Burd as a "grant-consuming Sovietologist" and then described his "wild imagination." A good example of your dishonest quotation from sources. You pasted the information that matched your POV, and ignored the rest.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Once again a perfect example of silly demagogy I not oppose the Burd with his wild imagination - but in order to be NPOV we should include WP:PSTS which you removed and provide only POV version of story. While I'm tried to use well sourced data with full citation of related info (exlude propaganda, imagination and demagogy)
Actually your lengthy quotes support your POV. The fact is Soviet policemen, as cited my Burd, dressed as UPA and committed crimes, as did NKVD as per the other source cited (Wilson). Your source told us that some of those NKVD were former UPA. Fine - this info should be included. However based on the literature former UPA were not the only Soviets dressed as UPA who committed crimes against civilians. By writing a lot about the just that one group, you push your POV by adding too much emphasis on them.
Either way, however, it is irrelevent. Because the article is about UPA not NKVD, such detail to the extent that we are talking about doesn't belong here, a sentence summary is enough. Likewise, I didn't include all the details from Burd's article about NKVD pretending to be UPA, either. I summarized everything in a sentence: "NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters [55] and committed atrocities in order to demoralize the civilian population.[8]; among these NKVD units were those composed of former UPA members working for the NKVD [56]. " And I moved the lengthy details that you added where it belonged, in a seperate article. Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway would be good to see from you an explanation
  • if stated September - why you write July ?
  • if stated two SS divisions - you push simply divisions with plenty OR ?

The book stated SS divisions, Then it stated police. And then again, SS divisions. It stated both. The article should follow what the source says. Do you have a problem with accurate representation of what a source says?Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • if fact does not exist in the book - you write it WP and provide reference to not WP:V source ?
  • And in fact what mentioned in Subtelnyy book - Ukrainian people (as you? initially include) or western Ukrainian people (as you finally update) Jo0doe (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who had a problem with "Ukrainian people." Subtelny, I believe, was writing about Western Ukraine and so within that context "western Ukrainian people" seems appropriate. He did not, after state, among all of Ukraine's people or something specific such as that. If you disagree we could change it back.Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also would be good to see an explanation of such edits by you [39] paramilitary forces fought under different cover organizations such as the 'Ukrainian Auxilary Police', the 'Bandera SB' (much feared "Security Services"), Does it mean deliberately including knowing for innacuracies - perfect example Bandera SB (so what about- UPA-SB?) to hide something (like 4-5 thousands of 'Ukrainian Auxilary Police' joined the UPA after OUN-SD command)?Jo0doe (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above weren't my quotations. They were there in the previous version of the article, including your edits. I didn't write the entire article, you know.Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume, before we begin, you definitely need update Waffen-SS_divisions, List_of_German_divisions_in_World_War_II, List of Waffen SS units and provide reference for your new data to Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973) . UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press (Subtelnyy? Magoci?) because previous editors of mentioned page are POV and used nonacademic sources and not mentioned recognized by “mainstream scholars data” (of course you need to remove or hide something already existed) .
There are many wikipedia articles that could use work. But I am, for the moment, concerned about this one.Faustian (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely demagogy can be won only with demagogy, which I want not. 
Moreover I don’t plan to use a falsification of sources and sources falsification. Also would be interesting to know how handled a deliberately falsification.
You do not "falsify" sources by lyiong about what they say. Instead you quote selectively from them, creating false impression through lying by omission. As among many examples you put into the article Koch's comment that UPA being inactive vs. the Germans, while deliberately ignoring details from the same source describing that inactivity as following a period of intense fighting. You seem to feel that this misuse of a source is acceptable, because your specific quote was correct. Sorry, such games are unacceptable.Faustian (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So, you mean what WP accept and prefer falcifications and twisting and misuse a facts? One again I point you what "intense fighting" - based on OUN (B) sources (3 mirracle SS division, mythical Kolki battle ect) while Koch on German - which are most credible since it's not Volkischer Beobachter like Tys-Krochmalyuk. But as far as I can see from your wording mentioned below - history of WWII - thing out of your rest "prefection" - like "credibility" and "thousands of lines I have written on wikipedia"Jo0doe (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to this source: [40]. Your, unhealthy perhaps, obsession with Krokhmaliuk is another matter.
When making an edit to the article, you took one quote from chapter 14 [58], from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served your POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. Thisis the intense fighting. It succeeded in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. You just pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. A good example lying by ommission. Faustian (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Once ( mean 4-6) more, (thus I explain you a this case as of 09:01, 29 January 2008, but you still “dressed as beginner ”). I’ve made full and exact quotation from well referenced WP:V WP:PSTS German source which not included in article (and currently excluded from article) because it reflect how lie of OUN(B) about extensive battle with numerous SS divisions. It’s not a report about current situation with UPA, as you would like to believe (Ukrainian people case) – it’s general report about situation in Reichskommissariat Ukraine for passed time – it’s published and available in WP:PSTS in full. So I don’t want to spend to explain what 2+2=4.

You continue to hide the info what “Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks” it’s OUN(B) info – which extensively mentioned and/or referenced in source. While you don’t like to cite summary of chapter located at p.199 – OUN and UPA struggle on anti-German front does not reach a priority direction in strategy of Ukrainian movement and has a temporary nature… This general orientation limited combat action of UPA against German to forms of “self-defense for people” … And final sentence – “In general, OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front does not has any important role in Ukrainian territory liberation from Nazi occupation.” So – what is an explanation of all your efforts on facts (SS-divisions, generals, etc.) removal rather then I am only seeking to make this article on a controversial topic as nuetral and objective as possible, something that Party 1 seems to be opposed to doing Faustian (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but you’ve removed

Also there no “BB” operation were conducted specially against UPA [1],

Quote the page number in the source where this is stated. Or is this phrase your OR?Faustian (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
and as for term "Bandenbekampfung" history in general - In August 1942, Hitler directed all German state institutions to assist Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS and the German police, in eradicating armed resistance in the newly occupied territories of Eastern Europe and Russia. The directive for "combating banditry" (Bandenbekampfung) became the third component of the Nazi regime's three-part strategy for German national security, with genocide (Endlosung der Judenfrage, or "the Final Solution of the Jewish Question") and slave labor (Erfassung, or "Registration of Persons to Hard Labor") being the better-known others. The absence of “Bandenbekampfung” in Generalbezirk Wolhynien-Podolien reflects the German maps [41] and reports. The above doesn't contradict anything in the article.Faustian (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

without adding this chapter to WP (as you did with NKVD dressed as UPA). German map speak by themselves and cost more then tones of OUN(B) propaganda. So, I assume you don’t like to have this info not in article, nor in WP – because it dismiss OUN(B) lie and propaganda. Once again logic and mathematics as also a well established facts it not OR as you would like to demagogically replay to my info.

Your claims of demogogy are OR.Faustian (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also still, what about Krochmalyuk case – your last sourcing on it dated 28 January? Any explanation on “You "conveniently" ignored the statement published by OUN in July 1941, (pg.90),” Page 90 In a letter from August 29, 1941 froom Stetsko to Bandera,” etc? Or you assume such as Krochmalyuk, also? Jo0doe (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Write in Russian if it helps; I'll probably understand your Russian than your English.Faustian (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn’t not you: Banderivtsi is the colloquial word for members of OUN-M (versus their rivals Melnykivtsi). There was overlap between UPA and OUN-B but they're not the same thingJo0doe (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember writing it, and I doubt that I did, but I don't remember all of the thousands of lines I have written on wikipedia. Assuming a spelling error (Banderivtsi being OUN-B rather than what you wrote, OUN-M) the phrase is correct, however. What's your problem with it?Faustian (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question.Faustian (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • also who add this stupid OR - Such hostilities ended by late spring 1944 due to much of the disputed territory no longer being under German occupation, and to negotiations between UPA and the GermansJo0doe (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not OR as you demogogically claim.Faustian (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Answer for (JoOoe)This article was getting hard to understand for a reader who is not extremely familiar with eastern European history. If you read the changes - most important details were re-arranged in a more organized manner with abbreviations defined when they are first used in the article.

Terms such as "Vandalism" are not helpful - most are readability edit. I do not understand "Propaganda" no new facts were added - none deleted. Reverting edits Bobanni (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See examples above - you mislead a visitors throough POV version of history by OUN (B)Jo0doe (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually your POV-pushing is well documented throughout these talk pages and in my response to your points above.Faustian (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA at military glory

Mr. Credible state Party 1's POV is that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) had minimal conflicts with Germans. In his direct words, "UPA participation the Genocide of Polish community (it was only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44)". This has been refuted in numerous sources statements throughout the article.

Mr. Liar explain: 1. “numerous sources statements throughout the article” – missed words “own UPA” and phrase “but not German nor Soviet nor Polish sources does not reflect large scale military operation of UPA against German (see also map) [42]

Your link does not work. Information about UPA fighting against Germans is found in Magosci's Ukraine: a History (UPA fought pitched battles with Germans and Soviets over Carpathian mountain passes) and from this book written by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences : [43] which stated pg. 188 fall 1943 UPA lost 414, Germans 1500, among others. Do you have secret information that Magosci and the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences are UPA members? Ah, you will say that they based their statements on UPA sources. Well, that's your OR, as is your claim that Magosci and the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians don't know what they are doing, so no place for such claims here.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
For link - please use google and http://www.ushmm.org/ Bandentatigkeit im Bereich des W Bfh. Ukraine vom 21.6.-30.6.43. [Photograph #59475]

Unfortunately, I prefer more academic publications rather then Manga for Canadian wood-cutters.

Okay, thanks for confirming that you consider Magocsi, chair of the Ukrainian Studies Department of the University of Toronto (more biographical details here: [44], "Manga for Canadian woodcutters."Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Does I mentioned Magocsi? It's your POV. See sentence after Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of “Magochi Carpathian mountain passes” reflect what this myth does not included in Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians as also SS-divisions battle of 1944. You again “forgot” about p.199 , and what fought pitched battles referred to sources (you probably cant able see small digits). As regards Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians you accidentally omitted rest data provided by them – in order to have a balanced picture – see p.189. and later.

You are the only one conveniently forgetting pages.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remember me - like your July at p.90?

Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

2. it was only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44 – why? It’s easy – mathematic! We have military formation which (accordingly to current ranking in article)

  • a) UPA allegedly (own claim) inflict losses (which kind of it not stated) of 4,5+ Germans during “intensive” battles of 1943 + ~1 K in “fierce fighting with SS divisions in 1944” – total 5,5 b).
That's a small number compared to the Soviet figures of 500,000 Germans allegedly killed by Soviet partisans in Belorus alone :[45].Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC):
This article about UPA but not about Soviet Partisans. As regards to figures – see what brave OUN fighters while they served in 201 Wehrmacht Division lost 49 killed and 40 wounded only from May till October 1942 from total 650? personnel? And Soviet partisan’s actions in Belorussia well documented in SD (SS) and also in Wehrmacht documents, while UPA – not – really interesting isn’t?Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From the article: "According to German Eastern Front General Ernst Kostring, UPA fighters "fought almost exclusively against German administrative agencies, the German police and the SS in their quest to establish an independent Ukraine controlled by neither Moscow or Germany...In a debriefing before U.S. authorities in 1948, a Committee of former German commanders on the Eastern front claimed that "the Ukrainian Nationalist movement formed the strongest partisan movement in the East, with the exception of the Russian Communists." Interesting, isn't it?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
From the reference - cited in Sodol, Petro R., 1987, UPA: They Fought Hitler and Stalin, New York: Committee for the World Convention and Reunion of Soldiers in the UIA, pg. 58 - I assume it same quality as few SS-divisions at Kolki - WP:V and WP:PSTS - you falsify data too many times to trust you here Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Sodol cited the "Debriefing of General Kostring" by the Department of the Army, 3 November 1948, MSC - 035. You "conveniently" left out this fact in your reply. A wonderful example of your honest approach to material.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, since 2003 America has lost about 4,000 dead in Iraq [46] in four years, a similar number to what Germans lost to UPA in one year. I guess there is no large scale military conflict in Iraq. UPA caused about half as many casualties to the Germans in one year, as Chechens caused the Russians during the first Chechen war in 2.5 years (7,500). No large scale military conflict there, either, right?Faustian (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It’s article about WWII times, or not? Conflict? No – banditry actions against civilians with minor casulties amongst security. Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion. The opinion of someone who considers Magocsi "manga for Canadian woodcutters." How much is it worth?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Furtunately not, since there a lot of WP:PSTS were banditry actions widly mentionedJo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • b) killed and hanged 30 676 soviet citizens amongst them more then 20000 of civilians (only 2590 was more or less armed) and “only” 1864 NKVD-MVD, 687 NKGB-MGB 241 communist party leaders, 205 komsomol leaders. As regards to 3199 - Soviet Army, Border Guards, and NKVD-MVD troops most 75-80% of UPA victims are Soviet Army personnel in 1944 - early 1945,
According to Soviet data. CIA estimated 35,000. Recall the Soviet claim in this article that during one conflict the Soviets lost 11, UPA 2,000 fighters.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
CIA estimates? Like WMD in Iraq? Or like Cuba case in 1959? Despite this explanation of reasons for wasting US state budget funds (they spend a lot on faked army- puppet created by MGB – you can read more about it at same Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians work ). All victims of OUN/UPA for 1945-1953 well filed and documented. Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no answer.Faustian (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

-despite the OUN(B) lie inserted in this article -  “UPA tried to avoid clashes with the regular units of the Soviet military because many of them were ethnic Ukrainians and were seen as a source of recruits into UPA”.
  • c) UPA and Western Ukraine's Poles - range from 100,000 to 500,000 of civilians ( I assume truth
    MBR>laid something behind)

Any comments? Any "murdered ukrainian magazines" in 1920-30 for justify?Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The only justification for murders is in your imagination.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only mine - see Lysy concerrns Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • d) UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews – as far as I know in western Ukraine and occupied territories of Ukraine Jews was exterminated in 1941-1942 and the number was definitely more than 1 million. And, accordingly to survived persons remembrance, such actions was conducted with great assistance of Shuma from western Ukraine (1941 OUN (B) General Instruction “ UPA Fights and activities during the war” – really interesting thing).
I hope you don't think that UPA killed 1 million Jews?Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
See – example why - The Totenkopfverbände was to become one of the elite SS divisions, but from the start they were among the first executors of a policy of systematic extermination.

UPA in large extend formed from directly involved in Holocaust and Soviet POW mass murdering – objection? Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. But your proofs still won't go in the article, cause it will be OR. For that, find a source please. Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We've a plenty of Link at http://www.ushmm.org/ and stories also. I'll not prove - simple provide a fact - so every one can choose a themselvesJo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And – surprise – we’ve 4-5K of OUN members who had joined the police, taken advantage of the German training they had received and later reinforced with rest all kind ofOUN remains from Nazi service.

We were talking about UPA in 1943-1944, and now you make allegations about OUN and police in 1941-1942. "Demogogy as is," right?Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
See OUN origin – for details from whom that military formation was formed.Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevent. Maybe you want to include boy scouts in this article too, since many of them started out there as well?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians assume as not - since they (and not only them) include this fact and mentioned what they was a framework force for UPA at 1943Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So I expect Faustian objection – no – no they collected stamps and grow flowers and prepared to war with Russian communist, while Germans bad-guys does not allow them to serve in Shuma and do it with extremely rage – so only 4-5 K freedom fighters able to , taken advantage of the German training.

Before making claims you should find which particular police units were involved in ant-Jewish activities and then find the number of people from those units who joined UPA. Otherwise it's just your wishful speculation. Good luck.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
See Ukrainian-Nazi collaboration for details. Also you should note the info given in Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians work – what when Ukrainian police deserted from Nazi service – Nazi remains almost without police in many areas. Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, find a source that says that those specific areas that were bereft of police when OUN members deserted, also involved mass killings by police. If you find it in a legitimate source, it certainly belongs in the article. Unlike you I do not ignore "inconvenient" information.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply include data of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume current ranking are wrong – same if the D-day article will be started with defeating of one of the Nazi- collaborators regiment somewhere in France.

If that regiment was the first one engaged in battle in D-Day it should come first.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But we’ve info about mass poles (hundreds or even thousands) extermination for March 1943 and only 18 Germans probably killed by Ukrainian deserters for same time? Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Which conflict began earlier. The desertion or the killings of civilians?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See Massacres of Poles in Volhynia for details - and note what desertion started March 18 till 10 of April - moreover at this time they ot UPA they only deserters. ObjectionJo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection? (Faustian, please don’t put OR or pages numbers requests ( as expected)– I’ve it – as you can see on my already provided sources) Jo0doe (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use civil language - Name calling does only weakens your arguments Bobanni (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobanni, I think you missed several importants terms of discussion - see below:

  • The writer clearly has a very poor grasp of the English language Faustian (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2007
Do you think what I said is wrong? It's simply a fact. I have a poor (indeed, no) grasp of the Chinese language. Is it name calling?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to use such language to assess what for users most important - my facts or my languageJo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My multiple edits over the last couple of years speak to my credibility Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007
  • You lie by omission Faustian (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008

Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another fact, I supported this statement with evidence.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So, I assume, what accordingly to Faustian mathematics skill for WP: 100000-500000 less then 5500 as also 20000 less then 5500. Splendid, moreover I’ve found an interesting info what 10 of soviet woman-snipers killed more then claimed post war for 20000 of brave Ukrainian man – freedom fighters during “period of intensive fighting with Germans” but not Wehrmacht.Jo0doe (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Translate, please.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Use Excel for compartion Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA's war against Germany or partially virgin

Really interesting OR by Bobbani. But what facts we’ve: - OUN (B) it’s not a state to declare a war, while at same time UPA is not an army to commit war. Moreover – things proclaimed by OUN(B) at Third Great Extraordinary Meeting of OUN in august 1943 was spelled as struggle/ warfare (boro`tba) against German Imperialism – pity – no war nor Germany. Moreover – “after extensive and fierce fighting” with German Imperialism during end of August – September 1943, OUN(B)-UPA started a reconciliation process as of 1 of October 1943 (see p.189-192 of Chapter 14). Even more – “As a rule the UPA did not attack units of the Wehrmacht” which was a main armed force (80-90% of combat capability) of Nazi Germany. Really interesting , war but not war, but not with army and not with state – it’s like partially virgin – I see . Regarding ref # 13 http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-08.html A question – does UPA exist in 1941? Does mentioned actions has a mere success? Moreover what about Ukrainian legion in terms of “All functionaries of the Bandera Movement” – as far as I know Shukhevych and Co signed contract with Nazi – and noone from them were not “liquidated” as also many rest (like Klyachkivskyy, Ruban, etc). Oops – I forgot Reichskommissariat Ukraine does not include Ukraine- Mainland – Galicia or if exactly spoken General Government thus such actions was nominated only to territories were OUN(B) has only few representatives, well known to Nazi – since they coming with them. Jo0doe (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bobanni for this [47], you confirmed my concerns – 25-35 K of personnel – less then in 2 SS Waffen-SS_divisions – “large organized body”?

You mean Army as Irish Republican Army ? Or ROA – Russian Liberation Army? – or – definitely relevant example National Army of Democratic Kampuchea – (use Google if you not find info about this at http://www.infoukes.com/history/. Jo0doe (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RfC

A user has requested comment on History and Geography.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFChist list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


[edit] Concerns of others

Bobbani in order to get a exact answers you need to put reasonable questions. Probably you forgot what that is UPA talk page but not OUN – also which kind of “Ukrainian Nationalist” – under Bandera? Under Melnik? Under UNR? Or Skoropadskyy? Only Soviet – really? So how we can call military formation which brutally killed and hanged more then 50K of Polish civilians (children also in great number), 20K of Soviet (mainly Ukrainians); composed- on significant percent -from German –Ukrainian auxiliary police 1941-42 members widely involved in Holocaust Ukrainian territory. Regarding their role in liberation of Ukraine – you can read summary at p.199 [48] – it modern Ukrainian historians statements – not Soviet.

Your statement above is based on your POV that the only liberation could be by Soviet Army. The summary confirms what other sources say, that UPA tried not to interfere with Germans fighting the Soviets and instead focused on the prevention of the exploitation of the Ukrainian people by the Germans. Remember the quote by the German general Ernst Kostring that UPA "fought almost exclusively against German administrative agencies, the German police and the SS in their quest to establish an independent Ukraine controlled by neither Moscow or Germany."Faustian (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I assume, they role understated by Soviet historians – since they mortally wounded talented soviet commander Nikolai Vatutin – which Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Kiev honors undisputable, they provide intelligence data for Nazi during winter-summer soviet offence at Ukraine. Thus they provide significant assistance to Nazi and if they – who knows the fate of 1 Panzer Army may be a different one, Warsaw will be reached earlier and with more powerful soviet army group etc. etc. Any way issues with UPA “Sturbahnfuehrer SS General Platle” and “General Hintzler” definitely need clarification, as also Police Divisions and 7-10 SS divisions which was retreated by brave UPA.

Hintzler was mentioned by Ukrainian Academy of Sciences book [49], page 184: "commasnder of the SS and police brigadenfuehrer SS Hintzler". I suppose that you Jo0doe are a more knowledgable and credible source than the YUkrainian Academy of Sciences?Faustian (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, good you starting to read book before make an WPedia input. So – in order to be correct – the name of SS-Brigadefьhrer und Generalmajor der Polizei is Hintze, Kurt, but interesting what he was a chief in Litauen - Ostland und RuЯland-Nord. So, it’s no surprise for Kentiy (prominent author of this chapter) before he was a prominent communist now he a prominent nationalist – so what will be in the future. Thus he well known for historical mystification in desired direction– so I simply check document which he referred – what exactly mentioned in it. Jo0doe (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your OR, as usual. We are developing a whole pantheum of sources that can't compare to Jo0Doe, according to Jo0Doe. Professors afficilated with Harvard, professors at the University of Toronto, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, none of whom compare to the incredible Jo0Doe.Faustian (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My WP: PSTS [50] :) Jo0doe (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So assume – you state what ethnical cleaning resulted 50-100K of death it’s Polish POV? You need to read more recent documents – for example - Polska-Ukraina: trudnepytania. O.9.MaterialyIX X mijdzynarodowego seminarium historycznego “Stosunkipolsko-ukraiaeskie w latach IIwojny swiatowej”.—Warszawa,6—10 listopada 2001.—Warszawa,2002.—455s

No one is saying that except you. It's your strawman argument.Faustian (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UPA assisted Nazis in the Holocaust - please note what you twist the facts – UPA composed on significant percent from German –Ukrainian auxiliary police 1941-42 members widely involved in Holocaust at Ukrainian territory (and not only) and commanded by persons which were amongst commander of Nazi - collaborationists which accidently stayed in same time and in same place were Holocaust actions executed (Ukraine in 1941, Belarus in 1942) – but there none survive (excluding Nazi and collaborationists) to prove or dismiss the brave story of Ukrainian legion and it commanders.

Typical example of your twisting the facts. UPA did not exist when most Jews were killed. "Demogogy as is."
Correct statement would be, Ukrainian police assisted in Holocaust. Many Ukrainian police deserted and joined UPA; some of whom may have assisted in Holocaust. Now, your numbers (using low UPA estimates) claim that 1/2 initially and 1/4 eventually of UPA members had been deserters from police. So, by your own "facts", 1/2 of early UPA and 1/4 of eventual UPA membership may have assisted in the Holocaust before they joined UPA.
You twist this and state "UPA assisted in Holocaust."
Excellent example of your honesty.Faustian (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably you mismatch http://www.infoukes.com with NPOV, academic and third party reliable sources.Jo0doe (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense, but “well referenced” “facts” in article

“several thousand soldiers (only one third of his men were ethnic Ukrainians)” –several mean 2 or 9? Which one third?

That was cited in Subtelny. You already claim to know more than the UKrainian Academy of Sciences (see previous section) and MAgosci, so it's little wonder you make this claim too.Faustian (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

autumn of 1944, UPA forces enjoyed virtual freedom of movement over an area 160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people and had established a shadow government

So – UPA moved several time across Earth through straight line? Virtual freedom amongst 20 NKVD divisions (200K+ personnel)? Or even against 1 and 9 brigades (28K+) which actually existed?

Your OR. Those facts were from cited sources. Indeed, you are the one who originally introduced this source to us. Interesting, that when the source in question described UPA brutality towards women it was a good source. But when it stated the above it ceased to be a good source. I guess, for you, a source's worth corresponds to how closely it matches your POV.Faustian (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, that information was taken from Zhukov's work.Faustian (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Home to over 10 million people? – estimated population number for western Ukraine for that time approximately no more than 5 million (Holocaust, Nazi deportation, war mobilization, UPA ethnical cleaning, removal a civil population from frontline etc). UHVR – is not “shadow government”.

So – it’s reflect the knowledge level of author about thematic described.

Your OR and POV, as has been proven here, the OR and POV of a very biased and dishonest contributor.Faustian (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also in article exist fights with ghost SS divisions and/or never existed police divisions under command of mythical SS Generals.

Yes, according to you the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences deals with myths (see previous section discussion).Faustian (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Accidentally but mentioned above presumably inserted and referenced by someone who enrich Wpedia with following “facts” On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers

In November 1943, UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air-force, in a battle over control of UPA-held territory.

In May and July 1944, two more attempts by the Germans to capture Carpathian mountain passes were repulsed. The latter victory involved the defeat of two German divisions supported by artillery – all honestly and precisely referenced to Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press.

Interesting but later was found what there no such book was published in 1973. Moreover – there no such fact mentioned in book with same name and same author but published in other publishing house and in other year. Jo0doe (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably I cited it wrong (I have only read to page 200 so far, to confirm) and have not objected to the info being hidden until I confirm. Your pattern of edits, however, confirms your dishonesty rather than propensity for the occasional mistake. Faustian (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

this is boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.157.11 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Where is Volynia

Most articles on Volynia including Wikipedia locate Volynia in western Ukraine. The UPA article need to give the reader who does not know where Volynia an approximate location. Bobanni (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Dear Faustian and Bobbani - your actions described as WP:Vandalism - blanking. I assume it's same story as with Independance 30 of June 1941 - OUN dont like to show full version of Ukrainian Independance - with Great Fuhrer and Fight with Great Germany to final win Jo0doe (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually all referenced info that you added was incorporated into the article by me, not blanked. Otherwise your vandalism is being reverted. Please do not create seperate sections with your generally unreferenced info. We already have a German, and a Soviet section - why the seperate "history" section from which you remove info from the appropriate ones? Please do not try to destroy the article's readibility, you will be reverted for doing so.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You continuously remove and modify to OUN POV many my edits. You remove a lot of well referenced information (WP does not require to put ref on every word). You put everything to one section (Germany) falsify and/or deliberately twist the full story. You selectively omit pages which you simply not like – you prefer to limit UPA story to “UPA war with German” version only by including in it misleading statement and put all story in OUN POV way.
Is that why I put the massacre of Poles into the lead of the article? Dishonesty about me.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No later then 20 of March UPA submit an order “to form Ukrainian national army from policeman, Cossacks and local Ukrainians oriented for OUN(B) and UNR”. Such formation in large extent include a forcible acquire of other then Bandera groups of Ukrainian nationalist. Actually you’ve removed:
I removed info that was unreferenced and thrown into the article not in its place.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • May, 1943 General Command (Головна команда,ГК, військова Влада) of UPA started) their work under command of Klyachkivskiy.
  • In June 1943 established military gendarmerie service of UPA – UPA-SB.
  • In July 1943 in Galicia begins formation of first UNS (Ukrainian National Self-defense) detachment which should oppose to Soviet Partisans, by end of 1943 – beginning of 1944 UNS transformed into UPA units.
  • By August, 18 1943 decree Klyachkivskiy disband Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army and some of their remains forcibly absorbed by UPA, some commanders were killed.
The above claim certainly needs a reference.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In November 1943 adopted new structure of UPA - created Main Military Headquarter and three area (group} commands UPA-West (based on UNS), UPA-North and UPA-South. Tactical units were: brigades, kurins (batallions), sotnya (companies), choty (platoons) and royi (squads). There exist three military schools for low-level command staff. Also established a system of military honors – Cross of different grade.
This, obviously, should have been put into the UPA organization section. Just because you are too lazy to work with the article doesn't mean you can ruin it by placing any information you find in your own section. And then complain about vandalism when it is removed.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

From January –March 1944 UPA in many areas started cooperation with Wehrmacht. In March OUN/UPA representatives negotiated with SS and SD officials.

Unreferenced claim about SS.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not later than beginning of May, 1944 OUN submitted instructions to "switch the struggle, which was conducted against Germans, completely into a struggle against the Soviets."

The above info is in the article already; it is not removed. Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In July 1944 UPA and OUN established Ukrainian General Liberation Council (Українська головна визвольна рада – УГВР). First meeting of UGLC conducted 11-14 of July 1944.
  • In August 1945 UPA units transferred under command of regional centers of OUN. [12] [13]
  • During Great Blockade by MVD troops from January 11 till April 10 1946 UPA in Carpathian region suffered main losses and from this time end it existence as combat unit.” [14]
This was not removed but placed intot he section on UPA vs. Soviets.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At spring 1946 OUN/UPA established contacts with Intelligence services of France, Great Britain and USA. [15]
This was not removed but placed into article about UPA vs. Soviets.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On May 30, 1947 the Main Ukrainian Liberation Council (Головна Визвольна Рада) adopted the date of October 14, 1942 as the official day for celebrating UPA's creation.
Not removed either.Faustian (talk)
  • September 3, 1949 R.Shukhevych issued an order, accordingly with the decision of UGLC, about liquidation of UPA units and headquarters as combat and managing structures. All their personnel should be joining the OUN (B) undergrounds.

all exist in paper version of Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Historical Magazine - already mentioned as ref here. What wrong?

Well, your numerous lies about things being removed when they were not.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly to your vision – this data is vandalism? Please indicate a type? But this modification – “Sixty percent of UPA's membership was from Galicia and 30% from Volhynia and Podolia” from original version

However, accordingly to one of UPA commander data referred to 1944, UPA predominantly composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) from western Ukraine (60% from Galicia and 30% from in Volhynia ad Podillya) [2] So you remove composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) and one of UPA commander data referred to 1944 – thus falsify the data by omission of “non” desirable for POV data.

The article already stated that UPA was composed 60% of peasants. If you want to include welath, why not? It seems trivial, but if you insist, include it. But you want to mention peasants twice. Why?Faustian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also please provide Nuremberg Trial direct info but not POV infoukis. Interpretation (moreover you mentioned it twice – since it’s info existed at first section of article) it' not inline with WP:PSTS policy. Jo0doe (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV structure for Article

About military formation which brutally killed and hanged more then 50K of Polish civilians (children also in great number), 20K of Soviet (mainly Ukrainians); composed- on significant percent -from German –Ukrainian auxiliary police 1941-42 members widely involved in Holocaust Ukrainian territory. Because it will be easy to access and assess the exact info

  • UPA's Background
  • UPA’s History
Section above is reduntant as it is described in the body of the article.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Organization of UPA
  • UPA -SB
  • UPA Commanders
  • UPA’s military capability timeline
Section above is also redundant.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Areas of UPA operational activity
  • UPA and European Jews “final solution”
UPA did not exist when most Jews were killed and so UPA was not involved in the Holocaust. This is your POV-pushing of Soviet myths. UPA did save Jewish families, however. Correct statement would be, Ukrainian police assisted in Holocaust. Many Ukrainian police deserted and joined UPA; some of whom may have assisted in Holocaust. Now, your numbers (using low UPA estimates) claim that 1/2 initially and 1/4 eventually of UPA members had been deserters from police. So, by your own "facts", 1/2 of early UPA and 1/4 of eventual UPA membership may have assisted in the Holocaust before they joined UPA. You twist this and state "UPA assisted in Holocaust."
The Section on Jews is important because it is popular among myth-makers, but it is a minor aspect of UPA's history so its place at the end of the article, following the history, seems appropriate.Faustian (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


  • UPA and Poles Ethnic cleaning
When was the first documented UPA/OUN (not Ukrainian peasants or police, but specifically UPA/OUN) involvement killing of Polish civilians? First UPA attack against Germans was February 7th (at least), though they were preparing for anti-German activity earlier. Polish civilians were being killed in late 1942, but I haven't seen evidence that it was done by UPA. The document by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences [51], pg. 242, states that mass murders began in February-March 1943 and that they began in areas where Taras Bulba-Borovets' UPA/Polissian Sich was operating. Not the OUN-UPA of this article. The same source states that deserting police began killing Polish civilians at the end of MArch and beginning of April. Moreover, the wiki article cites Soviet patisans as stating that nationalist murder of Polish civilians began in April 1943. So the evidence so far tells us that the anti-Polish actions began after UPA's initial clashes with the Germans.Faustian (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not oppose moving this section further up to reflect the chronological order of events, but this should be moved between the German and the Soviet sections for now. Placing crimes by non-UPA into the UPA article just serves your POV.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA actions against soviet partisans
  • UPA actions against Germans and allies
Desertion and anti-German activites came before anti-partisan activites.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA collaboration with German and allies
Cooperation is a NPOV term.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA actions against Soviet Army
  • post WWII UPA actions against Soviet
  • post WWII UPA actions against Poles
  • Aftermath

Faustian and colleagues, please don’t spoil your times on comment to my structure.

Actually some of the proposed changes make sense. However your order is too compromised by your POV. NPOV should follow the chronological order.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect, what would be better if you shall update Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army with WP:V and WP:RS WP:PSTS which I’ve already provide to you 2 month ago. Also I expect what WP articles Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists can see an info from p.63 [52], p.85 (para 3 from Independence Act) [53], about “freedom fighters” origin, policy – “lets facts speaks about themselves”. Would be nice to mention in previously mentioned article and UVO article wording from Memorandum as of August 14 1941 [54].

Go for it. Make those edits, and the articles will be fixed afterward.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you in advance regarding your POV about my “POV” – but I’m simply fact fanatic which always read books till end even if it more 200 pages and without pictures. Jo0doe (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You also find only those facts convenient for your POV-pushing and use them dishonestly. As has been documented on this page. But after all that, the article after it has been fixed following your attempts to ruin it with your POV-pushing, is better than before you arrived, so I suppose you are useful.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask to not split my info.

1.Mentioned military formation has a has a timeline and military capability – it must be easily assessable and accessible – rather then spread over the article. WP – it’s not a quiz. 2. That’s what I’ve spoken 2 month ago, but there should be mention on which based such allegation – because OUN/UPA in most common situation used together (actually there a tiny period of their even nominally separation). Such allegation based on similar WWII principle with SS-units. Ok – “end” would be a “right place” for “Jew-Communist-Bolsheviks” extensively exterminated by “well trained policemen” – However would be logical to mention such info in aftermath – because in modern world rare case when Nazi collaborators posed themselves as “liberators” and “ WWII resistance movement”. 3. Please see UPA-(B-B) section for more – you again not read a book in full. And once again about UPA – there no UPA/OUN(B) before April 1943 and there no ordered by OUN-SD head commanders action against Germans before 17-21 of February Congress you again omit footnote ref of info origin. Moreover – there no “sotnya” in Jan 7 1943 – such large formation appeared several months later. April report mean what action already taken place – thus in April report described situation in March (it mentioned in full version of it). You once again mixed German service deserters with UPA insurgents (actually they became such only when they reached their destination). 4. Same case with Poles – UPA already have some combat ready units (see OUN-SD decision in Dec 1942) – which tried to act against soviet partisan – and have mere success against small units or peashooters behind front-line. Once again – see UPA commanders vision.Jo0doe (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Facts –

  • “Both OUN factions created their own special forces units, named "Roland" and "Nachtigall"”, or Brandenburg-800 battalions? Moreover Roland formed not only with OUN(M) but on great extent from UNR.
  • on June 30, 1941, the OUN-B proclaimed Ukraine's independence in Lviv – missed arrived with Germans and Ukraine under Great Hitler possessions (para 3 of Declaration).
  • “A couple of days later both Bandera and Stetsko were imprisoned and sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp” – mean called to Berlin to resolve “Independence” issue, and mean putted into special block of camp together with rest “useful” for Nazi political leaders, they can able to leave it and correspond with OUN at Ukraine till they was released by Germans. You call this “lie by omission” Isn’t ? Once again facts which OUN (B) omit to lie and propaganda proposes. Jo0doe (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You forgot that two of Bandera's brothers died in the concentration camp.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Death caused by the Treponema pallidum spirochete ? Or they exterminated by camp anti-

Fascist groups as Nazi- collaborationists ? Jo0doe (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merging NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters

This is certainly interesting, but a little strange of a topic for its own encyclopedia article. Someone has requested it be merged with this one, is there a reason why it is at a seperate article? I would think merging it here would be alright. Does anyone else agree? Ostap 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agee with you Ostap – it should be merged – but Faustian will be against – because myth will be ruined.

Also it’s quite complex issue with that numerous “special” units belonged to 4 different Authorities. But they can - and must be - distinct. Also we should note what “NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters” it’s a media summoned issue – actually there few of UPA-units dressed in distinct from normal dress of that time – rest dressed accordingly to available goods (don’t forget – it’s post WWII time). Actually we’ve units formed from surrendered OUN members under control of NKVD – mid 1944- end of 1945, from 1946 they used under MVD and in late 1946 – mid 1947 transferred to MGB. There no actual data of their atrocities against civil population (crime actions – yes but no atrocities) in 1945-46. But then they transferred to MGB – they ordered to be more successful rather than under MVD – so some of boyivky “create” a faked UPA members and groups using an atrocity – but such action was well known as for UPA as for civilians – thus such actions has adverse effect rather then “demoralize”(even in present Ukraine it’s common practice “to fulfill the plan” for MVD) . Moreover since spring 1949 all such group under regional MGB command was liquidated, few remains were well controlled and monitored from central level. Thouse who commit atrocities against civil population - were imprisoned in 1949. But anyway – such group always called special-boyivky. As regards to NKVD, MVD, MGB etc “special-groups” – that’s task force units with low-lag respond time to events, formed mainly from most well trained personnel – but they never “dressed” or “posed” as UPA. Moreover there a quite numerous reports about clashes between special-boyivky and special-groups in 1947-48 – because a lack of coordination between MGB and MVD – since they became “concurrent”. Jo0doe (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which "myth will be ruined?" IMO there is enough info just on UPA so a detailed and lengthy description of NKVD units is inappropriate here; a summary on this page is sufficient. OTOH, the information you provided about the ex-UPA is interesting and not worthy of deletion, so a separate page was created. If consensus is to merge the two, I'm not opposed.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability concern

In relation to the German-Ukrainian nationalists (official Soviet name for OUN/UPA in 1944-49) sources based on [55] [56] Vol.5 – Highly recommend reading about best friends of Ukrainian Independence as of 30 June 1941.

    Бах-Зелевский: Так как число полицейских соединений и соединений  войск

СС было очень незначительно, то основные действия против партизан осуществлялись главным образом подразделениями вооруженных сил.

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

   Бах-Зелевский: В 1943 году я, будучи начальником соединений по борьбе с

партизанами, не имел права непосредственно издавать приказы, так как руководил тогда центральным учреждением. Но в тех местах, где полномочия двух командующих соприкасались, я проводил действия самостоятельно.

Штамер: Вы никогда самостоятельно не проводили операции?

    Бах-Зелевский: Самостоятельно я провел одну операцию в 1943 году.

    Штамер: Каким образом Вы это сделали?

    Бах-Зелевский: Эта операция имела  место  осенью  1943  года  в  районе

Идрица - Полоцк. Сначала я полетел в район группы армий "Центр", обсудил все с генералом Кребсом, тогдашним начальником, затем командующим Северным фронтом, а также с генерал-фельдмаршалом Кюхлером.

(член Трибунала): Вы знаете, сколько служащих вермахта использовалось в какой-либо одной операции против партизан? Какое было максимальное количество войск, используемых когда-либо против партизан?

    Бах-Зелевский: Крупными  были  операции,  в  которых  участвовали  силы

дивизии и больше. Я думаю, что самые крупные силы, участвовавшие в подобной операции, включали в себя три дивизии. ИЗ ОТЧЕТА N 6 О ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ЭЙНЗАТЦГРУПП ПОЛИЦИИ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ И СД В СССР ЗА ПЕРИОД С 1 ПО 31 ОКТЯБРЯ 1941 Г. "Антиеврейские настроения" если и имелись, то лишь у незначительной части населения - националистически настроенных элементов, поддавшихся нацистской пропаганде, или у их платных агентов вроде Бандеры и его сторонников.

Группа Бандеры.

    Сильнейшей группой,  выступающей  за  самостоятельную  Украину,  как  и

прежде, является группа Бандеры, приверженцы которой чрезвычайно активны и фанатизм которых питается отчасти личными причинами, а отчасти глубоким национальным чувством.

    Сторонники Бандеры до начала восточной кампании объединялись во  Львове

и Саноке в небольшие группы и получали краткосрочную подготовку. Они впоследствии снабжались деньгами и пропагандистскими материалами. Под прикрытием выполнения задач по поддержанию порядка, как то: назначение бургомистров, создание милиции, борьба с евреями и коммунистами, велась политическая работа.

So I’ve no farther comments about Faustian and colleagues credibility, honesty and rest – yes – proved – no Objections at all. Jo0doe (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think you've "proven" with your Original Research?Faustian (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Сторонники Бандеры получали краткосрочную подготовку. Они впоследствии снабжались деньгами и пропагандистскими материалами. Под прикрытием выполнения задач по поддержанию порядка борьба с евреями и коммунистами.

Антиеврейские настроения" если и имелись, то лишь у незначительной части населения - националистически настроенных элементов, поддавшихся нацистской пропаганде, или у их платных агентов вроде Бандеры и его сторонников. IMT documents – published numerous times in different language.

“BB operation against specially UPA” - lie or fringe theory - by OUN(B) to avoid attention from their real nature and actions. Why – see Bach Zalevskiy reply.

Please read more carefully what OR exactly mean – all my facts already published, approved by mainstream historians and hundreds millions of Earth population. Jo0doe (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." No original reserch policy: "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
I suggest that you review the section on primary sources, which the above transcript clearly is. Specifically, make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source and Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.. Most of your edits consist of Original Research of selectively using (misusing) primary sources to push your agenda/POV, including your attempts to discredit various secondary sources. Faustian (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So I predominantly used facts and never make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source - simply provide fact which you ommit becouse don't like to have it here becouse they facts published in WP:PSTS provide for visitors more info rather then Toronto editors and brave poles-slaughters. Only facts - please give any "new knowledge" about WWII which I present - citation please. Doest IMT imaterials are new knowledge? Jo0doe (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Try rereading this part. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. So far, almost all of your edits involve primary sources, whether those you find yourself from the archives or ones that you cite through secondary sources but use in ways clearly not intended by the secondary source (for example, your use of Koch's words about UPA being quiet versus the Germans, cited in the book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, while ignoring the other info about battles between UPA and the Germans). So, you rely on primary sources (such as the transcript above) rather than secondary sources. Sure, you generally don't explicitly state your POV, you instead do so through Cherry picking primary source information that meets your POV. This is original research. So your "analytic, interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claim" is that UPA didn't really fight the Germans. You don't base this on any of the secondary sources, instead choosing to cherry pick a bunch of facts, as I've demonstrated already frequently taken out-of-context, and throwing them together in the article. This is original research. If you want, go ahead and do this on your own, draw the conclusions, publish them in a peer-reviewed jounral, and then include the results here. But wikipedia isn't the place for your original research and compilation of selectively chosen facts taken from primary sources by you and thrown together to create the often misleading picture you want to make. If it were, wikipedia articles would be nothing more than battles won by the person with the most access to archival data, rather than summaries of published scholarly works on various topics.
Meanwhile, virtually every secondary source - the bedrock of wikipedia articles - cited in the article is rejected by you. So Magosci's work is according to you "Manga for Canadian woodcutters." The work compiled by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is written by a former communist turned nationalist. Subtelny - a "Toronto editor." Jeffrey Burds - "grant consuming Sovietologist". Etc. etc. Your POV is already quite clear: in your words, UPA are "brave pole-slaughters" "Mentally sick 'freedom fighters'". Faustian (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readability of Article Lead

Bobbani - fill free to use WP power! The following terms need a short in-line explanation in the lead paragraphs:

  • Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

  • SS

SS

  • Armia Krajowa

Armia Krajowa

  • OUN(M)
  • OUN
  • OUN(B)
  • UNR

All above Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

But you should ask Faustian to prove his NPOV and credibility to expand the artilce from only OUN (B) version to NPOV - were should be mentioned what OUN under Konovalats it's political-terrorist organization created under name of UVO under aegis of German military intelligence service from Western Ukrainians to act against Poland and USSR using national- Fascist ideology – extensively acceptable amongst lump’s and some students in pubertal age (hormones you know). After extermination of Konovalets OUN split by two fraction marginal veterans and radical youth – both fights for Nazi favors and funding. Since Bandera fraction was more pro-active – they received more then Melnic’s, but Banderovetss still prefer to exterminate Melnikivets rather then found a consensus – that one of the reasons why they preserved by Nazi in camp for 1941-44 – since he easily can be killed by someone from Melniks groups- thus it will be spoiled all funds spent on it – since radical movement require a charismatic dictator. As regards to UNR – it’ small marginal non-radical fraction from east-Ukraine as of 1918 – dreamers but with great self-assessment – they have been more known at pre 1939 territory. All above it’s WP:PSTS based facts.Jo0doe (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Remember this an English Wikipedia and we cannot assume that the readers are familiar with Eastern European terms. All foreign language terms should be translated into English.

Unfamiliar terms and abbreviations must be explained at their first occurrance in the article.

Explained in separate articles. It's a history which cannot be fit into ~600 pages of Subtelny - only Soviet period published in 6000 page edition Jo0doe (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobanni (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reminder

Its article about military formation which participate in mass murdering and hanging more then 50K of Polish civilians (children also in great number), 20K of Soviet (mainly Ukrainians); formation composed- on significant percent -from German –Ukrainian auxiliary police members (1941-42) widely involved in Holocaust Ukrainian territory; formation absorbed all kind of Nazi-collaborationists which failed to retread with their masters – SS-Galizia, shuma, POW- camp and ghetto guards, Ukrainian Liberation Army remains etc. Formation which strategy underlined in 1941 OUN (B) General Instruction “ UPA Fights and activities during the war” “Enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” Ukrainian commander of a rebel unit based in Rava-Rus?ka raion on Poland’s southeastern border, wrote in an extended report dated 21 August 1944: “Jew-Communist-Bolsheviks …” ? Faustian which kind of liberation – “jude-frei”?Jo0doe (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] something changes over time passed ?

As wikipedia editors our jobs are not to second-guess what historians tell us. Provided that the historians are recognized and legitimate their judgment regarding sources should be accepted. If you can find other historians (rather than, for example, propagandists or tabloids) that disagree with the facts presented, or original archival data, then by all means include that information as well in order to balance the article.

So now I can’t include original archival data – you called this OR all means include that information as well in order to balance the article – also removed by you since you tag it as my POV. What’s wrong? I assume you not agree if someone from UPA sadistically murdered women (mostly young) – it’s not Mentally sick 'freedom fighters'? If Subtelny mentioned “popularity among the Ukrainian people”. But facts are against – could you please explain the reason to use such source as credible?

Moreover “Magoscy, R. (1996). A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.” – does not recognize at Ukraine as History of Ukraine? Should we base article of fringe theories of Canadian Diaspora instead of Ukrainian history?

I would avoid name calling, especially of living scholars. Subtelny and Magosci may have their own POV's but they should not be disparaged by Wikipedia editors. Besides, Subtleny makes no claim about UPA's "popularity among the Ukrainian people. Here is what Subtelny really says:
"In any case, Soviet depiction of its partisan movement as a massive, patriotic rallying of the Ukrainian masses against the Germans is misleading (as is the nationalist treatment of UPA, which makes similar claims). The vast majority of Ukraine's population during the war remained politically uncommitted and was concerned not so much with resistance as with survival.

From Subtelny's, Ukraine: a history, p. 476, University of Toronto Press (2000), ISBN 0802083900.

Please make sure the article does not misquote Subtelny in any way. --Irpen 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment. Subtelny's 1988 edition, page 474, first paragraph: "Compared to other underground movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, the UPA was unique in that it had practically no foreign support. Its growth and strength were, therefore, an indication of the very considerable popular support it enjoyed among most Ukrainians." The quote you provided is on page 476.Faustian (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Irpen for very interesting data provided. So which credibility we can spoke about. Fortunately Canadian “Histories of Ukraine” now can be found at predominantly preliminary schools at Ukraine. However, as regards to Subtelny “history”, - it’s not only “Wikipedia editors disparaged by” – it widely assessed by mainstream Ukrainian historians – and majority of them express deep concern about quality of such publication as historical work in general – but such discussion were concluded before WP creation – so there a few online traces of them available. You also gave a perfect example of “apples and oranges” from Subtelny.

Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes to lead of article

To protect their interests, the Ukrainians started forming resistance groups that grew into a guerrilla army. – OR and POV by Bobbani – could you describe interest, and what are you mean under “Ukrainians”? Ukrainians From Poltava? Chernigiv? Vinnytsya? Chrekasy? Sumy? Zhytomyr etc regions?

partisans continued fighting againstcommunist Poland until 1946. Interesting but “communists” from Poland exterminated by OUN/UPA were predominantly simply non-Ukrainians.

and the Soviet Union until the early 1950s – even until 1953 – but it was MGB UPA – hand made specially for CIA. Actually UPA was ended - as terrorist formation -in spring 1946-1947 – spring, later hard to distinct OUN and UPA and MGB and MVD units. Moreover Shukhevich order by August 1945 – “UPA units transferred under command of regional centers of OUN” it’s factually end’s of UPA as separately generally commanded military formation – now all UPA remains simply were armed bandits. Moreover see p.424 about official (nominal) end of UPA – 3 September 1949.

It was especially strong in the Carpathian Mountain and Volhynia regions. – Date of “strong” expire (spring 1946) missed – mislead and thus POV.

The UPA was unique among practically all resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe in that it had no significant foreign support. Foreign mean what? I agree – it’s really unique movements – UPA declared warfare by end of February 1943 (most other resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe do it from beginning of occupation), decision about struggle with Germans but not Wehrmacht adopted in August, however in October their issue an “Open letter from Ukrainian Nationalist to German Nationalist” and from end of 1943 they begins to get an arms and ammo from Wehrmacht (SD?). However, if we note what Wehrmacht together with Great Hitler was proclaimed by OUN (B) in 1941 as Ukrainian liberators from Jew-Bolshevics, there would be no objection about foreign support – since OUN(B)- kind of “Independent Ukraine” was a home soil of Third Reich- anyway.

Its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the western Ukrainian people – interesting but Subtelnyy mentioned simply Ukrainian people - without Faustian OR. So – they (Ukrainian people) got no choice in 1943-44 – or they joined UPA or UPA-SB joined them with gallows –as deserters or “leftist” see more at p358-376 for SB. Sado-mazo popularity isn’t? .

[edit] Note to Organization of UPA

UPA's command structure overlapped with that of the OUN in a sophisticated and highly centralized way … refs missed, data (when such sophistication exist ) missed – to mislead the visitors – I assume.

UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants or low to moderate means, 20-25% workers, and 15% from the intelligensia (students, urban professionals). The latter group provided a large portion of UPA's military trainers and officer corps.[9] Sixty percent of UPA's membership was from Galicia and 30% from Volhynia and Podolia[11 Very interesting manipulation with facts from 2 different source – Was – UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants , 20-25% workers, and 15% from the intelligensia (students, urban professionals). However, accordingly to one of UPA commander data referred to 1944, UPA predominantly composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) from western Ukraine (60% from Galicia and 30% from in Volhynia ad Podillya). – On my sought such action called falsification and manipulation - to summon a myth about 20-25% workers, and 15% from the intelligentsia. Also Fustian modify “20-25 industrial working class most of them from rural lumber and food industries” into “20-25% workers” which clear falsification since they was not workers in general terms of this word. Interesting, but intelligentsia in UPA was not found by NKVD-MGD at mentioned percent – all of “intelligentsia” belonged to higher command staff of OUN/UPA – but their was a minority.

[edit] Notes UPA's warfare against Germany

A captured German document of November 25, 1941 (Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR) – interesting but only http://www.infoukes.com used such tag – “O14-USSR” for IMT document. Not Faustian nor Bobbanie refuse to provide relevant refs for this info (mean IMT vol number page number) – taking into account well known and proven falsification actions of some of editors – I assume what O14-USSR – has same origin as operation “BB”- diagnose – propaganda pushing and high probability of falsification. Also I can cite

I don't object to removing this quote.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since 1941 was significantly before UPA, those comments are of marginal relevence, though they serve your POV-pushing. A cursory summary seems sufficient, a more detailed one belongs on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists page.Faustian (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Faustian ? What’s up?

Despite the stated opinions of D.Klyachkivskyy and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to the main enemies, the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists which was held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to begin open warfare against the Germans. – Clear falsification by Faustian – because in mentioned source indicated: Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak to prepare and commit wide appraisal against Germans the majority of delegates does not support such proposition and accordingly to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy (future commander of UPA) and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”.

German Eastern Front General Ernst Kostring – he was not Eastern Front General – he was in charge for non-german units on Nazi service since 1944. Thus he did not deal with UPA at all – since he can’t do this somewhere in HQ in Germany.

His efforts were focussed on the eastern front: [57].

“UPA fighters had already attacked a German garrison on February 7th of that year” – Faustian removed “accordingly by post war UPA claims” However – what about - there No UPA/OUN(B) before April 1943…

The secondary source didn't qualify/editorialize what happened in on February 7th. It stated that in the first days of that month OUN started attacking the Germans.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn, outside of the major cities, and was able to organize basic services for the villagers such as schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers. – I assume “Krocjmalyuk 1973” origin, but if we can look at map for late 1943 and early 1944 (mean December 1943 – February 1944) – we can note what territory of Volyn was a battle ground between Germans and Soviets – so “control” of frontline and neighboring areas can be real only by German permission (so actually taken place in some calm areas). However – there no “basic services for the villagers such as schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers” mentioned in captured by Soviet own OUN/UPA documents for that time and recently put in free access by Ukrainian Security Service (SBU).

Another example of your Original Research contradicting secondary sources.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

insurgents were estimated by the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% - In a third time in a row I urge what Generalkommissare Ernst Leyser acted in Generalbezirk Shitomir in 1942 – e.g. before UPA appearance – such info irrelevant to UPA/OUN(B) article.

In June 1943 German SS and police forces under the command of General von dem Bach-Zalewski, seen as an expert in fighting against guerrillas, attempted to destroy UPA-North in Volyn during Operation "BB" (Bandenbekampfung). He was chosen specifically by Himmler to destroy the UPA in this operation – Once more - General von dem Bach-Zalewski does not command any operation against UPA, moreover he never command directly by himself of any operation in Ukraine; there no Operation "BB" ever conducted – however Bandenbekampfung – it’s name of Nazi general strategy – thus usage of such word reflect in that way reflect a stupidity of author. Moreover Faustian remove sentence about BB& Bach-Zalewski myth - He was charged with a number of military defeats. – I assume to hide the clear stupidity of such “well referenced facts”.

“Sturbahnfuehrer SS General Platle and later under General Hintzler” – no such high rank SS officials ever exist. Regarding Faustian concerns - Hintzler was mentioned by Ukrainian Academy of Sciences book [95], page 184: "commasnder of the SS and police brigadenfuehrer SS Hintzler" – there no Generalkommissariat Volinia – Podillya – there was only Generalbezirk Wolhynien-Podolien - which are not the same – moreover ref which provided by Kentiy mentioned – it’s own OUN (B) data. So, again my OR?

Under German occupation, the UPA conducted hundreds of raids on German police stations and military convoys. And later UPA had the following number of clashes with the Germans in mid to late 1943: in July, 35; in August, 24; in September, 15; October-November, 47 Hundreds mean 121? Of course – mathematics and logic it’s OR for Faustian.

Those battles referred to Volyn only. Moreover the source also mentions Bach as the German in charge of fighting UPA - ""E. Koch placed this task on general von Bach..."
Е. Кох покладає це завдання на генерала фон Баха. Розпочавши з масових арештів і катувань інтелігенції (15-16 липня було заарештовано близько 2000 чоловік в Крем'янці, Рівному, Луцьку) та спалення цілих сіл (Малин, Уличів та ін.), карателі Баха, підсилені 50 танками й бронемашинами, 27 літаками, артилерією, 5 бронепоїздами, повели широкомасштабні бойові дії проти загонів УПА. Ось сумна статистика тих боїв: у липні відбулося 35 сутичок, у серпні - 24, у вересні - 15; втрати повстанців становили 1237 бійців і старшин, ворожі втрати склали 3000 чоловік"
Thanks for providing another clear example of how you quote selectively from sources, conveniently ignoring information that disagress with your position. The above example also shows how you misinterpret what you read. This is further reason why it's better to trust secondary sources rather than your personal original reseaerch. Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Faustian – you once again omit SD report "Assaults on German units was rare, and, in general there no even one case of wounding of German police and Wermacht servicemen" – report by German SD and Secret police as of June 30 1943 about Ukarainian fighters activity

Erich Koch about UPA – “like blind kittens” - you dont like that facts?

No, I prefer secondary sources rather than your personal original research. It's wikipedia policy, you know.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes UPA's cooperation with Germany

Interesting but letter “Open letter from Ukrainian Nationalist to German Nationalist” dated October, 1 1943. For example, on January 20th, 200 German soldiers on their way to the Ukrainian village of Pyrohivka were forced to retreat after a several-hours long firefight with a group of 80 UPA soldiers after having lost 30 killed and wounded. – Interesting but I’ve a German report what Ukrainian bandits hanged 4 marauders for mentioned time.Jo0doe (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. Now publish what you found in a peer reviewed journal and we'll use it. Otherwise, the event referenced from a legitimate secondary source (in the example above, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences) takes precedence over your original research.Faustian (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA and the destruction of Western Ukraine's Polish community

Massacres of Polish civilians began on a large scale in February-March 1943, although these early actions occurred in areas under the control of Taras Bulba-Borovets rather than of the OUN

And

Bulba-Borobetz was affiliated with Petliura, he was a democratic socialist, anti-OUN, and had made many accusations against UPA about UPA's killing of civilians (sorry I don't have the references and don't have time to seek them out). I doubt that his organization was responsible for actions against Poles. Faustian (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What’s happened since 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC) , Faustian? Although in August 1943 UPA placed notices in every Polish village What about June and July “notices”?

Polish-Ukrainian hatred was often provoked by Soviet forces, who used Poles as informants and in anti-Ukrainian destructive battalions. In 1943, Faustian? In 1946, Faustian?

The UPA's activities can be seen as a reaction to past

What about official UPA accusations for Poles in April-May 1943?

[edit] UPA's war with Soviets

UPA not army OUN/B not state – which WAR you are about?

UPA's struggle against Soviet forces began when they encountered Soviet partisans in late 1942 and early 1943

Mean since march-april 1943 ?

In early 1943, the famous Communist partisan leader Sydir Kovpak established himself in Ukraine Mean established in 1941 ?

with several thousand soldiers (only one third of his men were ethnic Ukrainians) mean from 1500 to 2600 partisans most of them Ukrainians and from Belarus ? [58]

which were then mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains Kovpak losses – 260 killed and 200 MIA – most from actions of SS-regiments and aviation.

The total number of Soviet partisans in Ukraine is estimated anywhere from 47,800 to 500,000, only 46% of whom were ethnic Ukrainians

The total number of Soviet partisans in Ukraine as of January 1 1944 – approx 50K while most of them were Ukrainians, while total number of soviet partisans behind front-line for January 1 1944 – 250 K or twice more as of January 1 1943 – most of them located in Belarus. (source History of WWII Vol.7 page 301-305, Vol.8 page 156-160).

Soviet forces lost approximately 12,000 "killed or hanged", approximately 6,000 wounded and 2,600 MIA.

What a perfect manipulation – how “Soviet losses” transformed into “Soviet forces lost” – moreover Soviet forces lost 3500 KIA and MIA - 1/4 of mentioned to mislead.

Missed data what since 1946 OUN/UPA dreamed about WWIII…

[edit] Soviet Counterinsurgency Tactics and UPA's Response

The Soviets were ultimately successful in subduing UPA While soviet does not think so.

So Soviets never thought that they subdued UPA? Interesting Original Research.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters[76] and committed atrocities in order to demoralize the civilian population.[77]; among these NKVD units were those composed of former UPA fighters working for the NKVD.


Still there no “committed atrocities in order to demoralize the civilian population” mentioned as a method to defeat UPA – moreover soviet noted such action as popularization of UPA and breeching the Soviet low.

Later (1948), but not initially. Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Areas of UPA activity were depopulated; the estimates of Ukrainians deported from 1944 to 1952 range from 182,543 – Faustian if deported less then 10% of UPA areas population - how can be “Areas of UPA activity were depopulated”? Seems illogical captain?

You don't think that deporting 10% of the population is depopulation? That's your original research.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those suspected of being UPA members underwent extensive torture; some prisoners were burned alive. WP;PSTS Refs pls.

Burds cited Dovzhenko's account.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The many arrested women believed to be affiliating with UPA were subjected to months of torture, deprivation, and rape at the hands of Soviet security – How many – Bilas provide only two documents for two cases in two locations? It’s now called many?

See Burds' article. Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mutilated corpses of captured rebels were frequently put on public display – NPOV refs please (mean non OUN origin).

See Burds' article.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

UPA responded to the Soviet terror – interesting – but cutting noses and ears from Red Army Soldiers registered in April-May 1944 – it’s called “response to the Soviet terror” in 1946-48 ? Faustian – it’s not Red Alert

When committing such acts, UPA fighters generally targeted specifically those people who were seen as cooperating with the Soviet authorities and were expressly forbidden from spreading terror to the general population. This contrasted with the Soviet practice of mass terror. What a perfect propaganda from “maskirovka unit” founder – interesting how it’s correspond with his own data -

This summary was cited from Burds' work.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

available evidence suggests that as many as four of five of victims of rebel violence against suspected “collaborators” were ethnic Ukrainian women, especially young women. Faustian – does such creatures were not mentally sick?

Cire the source and page number, please, before I spend more time chasing this around.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

According to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated and 2,401 were "missing", presumed kidnapped,

Data came from Burds' published article. Wikiepeida choopse's Burds' published work over Jo0Doe's original archival research.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

in Western Ukraine. – really interesting data as compared with Official Soviet figures for the losses inflicted by all types of "Ukrainian nationalists" during the period 1944-1953 referred to 30,676 persons; amongst them were 687 NKGB-MGB personnel, 1,864 NKVD-MVD personnel, 3,199 Soviet Army, Border Guards, and NKVD-MVD troops, 241 communist party leaders, 205 komsomol leaders and 2,590 members of self-defense units. – Reflect credibility of “maskirovka” unit – and collaborators - were ethnic Ukrainian women, especially young women, Faustian?

All my references came from legitimate secondary sources and were well-referenced. Your POV-driven original research while interesting is just that - original archival research.Faustian (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA's relations with Western Ukraine's Jews

Still since Dec, 2007 Faustian forgot about OUN (B) General Instruction “ UPA Fights and activities during the war” “Enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” An thus wording “fact they had no official policy regarding the Jews” is a blatant lie.

Citation and page number, please.Faustian (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Either way, I didn;t write those parts of the article.Faustian (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As such, it did not target Jews who were not seen as a threat to Ukrainian statehood. – see Ukrainian commander of a rebel unit based in Rava-Rus?ka raion on Poland’s southeastern border, wrote in an extended report dated 21 August 1944: “Jew-Communist-Bolsheviks …”

Jew-Bolsheviks would mean those Jews who were also Bolsheviks and thus a threat to Ukrainian Bolsheviks. Non-Jewish Bolsheviks weren't named. You're engaging in demogogy here.Faustian (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That’s why I plan to put relevant tag . Jo0doe (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Statistics

This reference is really high - seems to come from Norman Davies and those who quote him. The assertion is the "destruction of Western Ukraine's Polish community" however no mention is made for the Soviet activities in the invasion of Poland, the later killings by the Nazi, execution of Polish prisoners in Soviet jails when Germany invaded Soviet Union and the advance of Soviets at the later stages of World War II. Didn't this also contribute to the destruction of the Polish community?

Bobanni (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Those actions certainly did contribute also, but since the article is about UPA, UPA's contribution, which was substantial, is the focus of this section. Faustian (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and Censoring

Dear Faustian Bobanni - as far as a can see you still exploit WP as soapbox. Since my numerous attempts still has no results (as I expect) I think what I'll do before any reasonable step (excluding falsification and manipulation with facts) - I simly continue to revert your vandal actions,.Cheers Jo0doe (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And your original research and manipulation of facts will continue to be reverted.Faustian (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military formation vs military organization

I believe that the wrong term is being used here - see wikiarticle Military formation quoted below:

"It is common, at least in US and Commonwealth militaries, to refer to the building blocks of a military as units and formations. Generally, the unit is the smallest independent operating element within a military. It may take on the form of a battalion or a ship. A typical unit is a homogeneous military organization (pure infantry, pure cavalry, all bombers, etc.), and its administrative and command functions are organic (self-contained). Anything smaller than a unit is considered a "sub-unit" or "minor unit"."

Bobanni (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobbanni – I assume your concern – but since OUN –R (SD) (B)– was organization while UPA was a part of it – thus as part of organization it called formation. Jo0doe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian, Russian and Polish references

Since this is an English Wikipedia titles of Ukrainian, Russian and Polish references need to be translated. Bobanni (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One more note

Dear most involved editors – as far as I can see you met a difficulties not only with specific items and facts related to WWII and Soviet history but also with geography and unit of measure. It’s pity to know what person which does not distinct length (km) and square (sq.km) nominate themselves as credible. However I assume that as luck at Ukrainian Studies Department of the University of Toronto. But, luckily Earth has many other scientific Institutions with much more long lasted history and prominent name of historians known to more peoples rather then only half of current Kyiv population as max. Anyway I highly recommend you to read Советская Украина в годы Великой Отечественной Войны Vol 2 (518p) – 1980 and Vol 3 (590p) - 1980 Національні відносини в Україні у ХХ ст. Зб.документів і матеріалів 1994 – 538p. Народная борьба в тылу фашистских оккупантов на Украине 1941-44 Vol 1 and Vol 2 (Kentiy amongst authors). 6 books by Kentiy about UVO/OUN/UPA issued in 1998-2000 and Bilas publications.

However for someone which spoiled many thousand line at WP would be good to read more about Deception - is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true. Very interesting section – Fabricate To make something that in reality is not what it appears to be. Distractions - To get someone's attention from the truth by offering bait or something else more tempting to divert attention away from the object being concealed. Forgery - is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intent to deceive. A false document is a form of verisimilitude that attempts to create in the reader (viewer, audience etc) a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief. That is, it wants to fool the audience briefly into thinking that what is being presented is actually a fact. Jo0doe (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the second paragraph your confession?
Actually, you should reread the policy on secondary versus primary sources - WP:PSTS. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. As I've already observed, your game is to cherry-pick facts from primary sources to dispute what secondary sources say when those secondary sources don't match your biased POV. As long as you engage in this game, those edits should be reverted. Wikipedia policy is to rely on secondary sources.Faustian (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia

Now you are cherry-picking wikipedia's policies. Wonderful. Please do not hide your POV expressed through selective quoting of primary sources by the excuse that what you write are facts.Faustian (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge,
Absolutely.Faustian (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

2+2 = 4 ? Faustian? So what about Subtelny "ukrainian people" origin as also the rest battles and 1973 book?Jo0doe (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC) WP:Sources All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.Jo0doe (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Subtelny's, Magosci's etc. works are not fringe theories. Yours are. A "fringe theorist" doesn't write the entry on Ukraine in the Encarta Encyclopdia (Subtelny did that). As I've already written:
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. So far, almost all of your edits involve primary sources, whether those you find yourself from the archives or ones that you cite through secondary sources but use in ways clearly not intended by the secondary source (for example, your use of Koch's words about UPA being quiet versus the Germans, cited in the book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, while ignoring the other info about battles between UPA and the Germans). So, you rely on primary sources (such as the transcript above) rather than secondary sources. Sure, you generally don't explicitly state your POV, you instead do so through Cherry picking primary source information that meets your POV. This is original research. So your "analytic, interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claim" is that UPA didn't really fight the Germans. You don't base this on any of the secondary sources, instead choosing to cherry pick a bunch of facts, as I've demonstrated already frequently taken out-of-context, and throwing them together in the article. This is original research. If you want, go ahead and do this on your own, draw the conclusions, publish them in a peer-reviewed jounral, and then include the results here. But wikipedia isn't the place for your original research and compilation of selectively chosen facts taken from primary sources by you and thrown together to create the often misleading picture you want to make. If it were, wikipedia articles would be nothing more than battles won by the person with the most access to archival data, rather than summaries of published scholarly works on various topics.
Meanwhile, virtually every secondary source - the bedrock of wikipedia articles - cited in the article is rejected by you. So Magosci's work is according to you "Manga for Canadian woodcutters." The work compiled by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is written by a former communist turned nationalist. Subtelny - a "Toronto editor." Jeffrey Burds - "grant consuming Sovietologist". Etc. etc. Your POV is already quite clear: in your words, UPA are "brave pole-slaughters" "Mentally sick 'freedom fighters'". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs)

Actually, looking over Jo0doe's version ([59]) vs. Faustian's version ([60]) I would say that it's Jo0doe who is quietly blanking some parts of the article by commenting them out. Also, Jo0doe puts in a section "UPA milestones" with a list of selected chronological facts or statements. However, I don't quite see the need for the list in addition to what is already written. It is not clear why those facts are indeed milestones, and is not a violation of WP:SYN. Bottom line, the version by Faustian is superior. --Greggerr (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please STOP reverting spelling mistakes

Spelling is being corrected and then reverted

  • third instead of 3-d

Is there some problem with the spelling that it has been repeatedly reverted. Bobanni (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation needed

Please explain which relation has to UPA's warfare against Germany has mentioned below wording (Faustian – note the name of book - Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army - so distinct OUN and UPA for article propose – as regards to Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 4, p. 181):

A captured German document of November 25, 1941 (Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR) ordered: "It has been ascertained that the Bandera Movement is preparing a revolt in the Reichskommissariat which has as its ultimate aim the establishment of an independent Ukraine. All functionaries of the Bandera Movement must be arrested at once and, after thorough interrogation, are to be liquidated..."[

although UPA fighters had already attacked a German garrison on February 7th of that year.[17] Accordingly, the OUN (B) leadership issued secret instructions ordering their members who had infiltrated the German auxiliary police in 1941-1942 to desert with their weapons to join the units of UPA at Volhynia.

The number of well-trained and well-armed policemen deserting into the ranks of UPA was estimated as being between 4 to 5 thousand.[18] Initially, the military formation of the OUN under Bandera's leadership was called "military detachment of OUN (SD)" but after April 1943 UPA, a name more well-known and popular among Ukrainians, was adopted as the official name [10]. On May 30, 1947[19] the Main Ukrainian Liberation Council (Головна Визвольна Рада) adopted the date of October 14, 1942 as the official day for celebrating UPA's creation. By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn, outside of the major cities, and was able to organize basic services for the villagers such as schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers.

It’s clear off-topic for chapter which should describe (by name) UPA's warfare against Germany rather then OUN-SD action, UPA formation, and 1947 event.

As regards to current article wording – “Despite the stated opinions of D.Klyachkivskyy and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to the main enemies, the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists which was held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to begin open warfare against the Germans” – in source stated Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak to prepare and commit wide appraisal against Germans the majority of delegates does not support such proposition and accordingly to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy (future commander of UPA) and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German (which already suffered a defeat at WWII) should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”. Also should be noted what Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists declared the beginning of warfare itself (see p.163 for full statement) rather than specifically against the Germans (which was officially done at August 1943). So the usage of that info only here is also incorrect – since similar info should be placed also in Poles and Soviet chapters – since OUN-SD also declared warfare against them. Jo0doe (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR Issue

So correct ref would be pp 269-270 “Official text. English edition. Documents and other material in evidence Number 1218- RF to JN – Trial” of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal Vol.XXXIX published at Nurnberg Germany in 1949 Edition concluded in Absence of Soviet editorial staff. “Documents presented by the Soviet prosecution, which were not provided with document number (PC, C etc) are reproduced here under USSR exhibit numbers.” So interesting facts – document called at infoukes as O14-USSR called 014-USSR portion #7 also appeared in IMT Vol.7 as 003-USSR (but without Bandera documents – as irrelevant to Trial order). Also strange facts – Document appeared in edition before “014-USSR” as “012-USSR” does not included in this publication at all (only short German description), also English brief for it transcription not given (only one case for whole 634 page book – strange isn’t ). As regards to 014-USSR portion #7 itself – it’s only one from 014 set which has not Russian equivalent. Too many strange for one instance. Anyway note about “003-USSR” and 014-USSR issue should be given but not in the UPA article. Jo0doe (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of facts concern

In addition to mentioned in [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

According to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 – see NKVD expire – there no NKVD in December 1946 so what kind of NKVD data in December 1946 can exist?

the autumn of 1944, UPA forces enjoyed virtual freedom of movement over an area 160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people – 1) area measured in “square kilometers” (also mentioned in source) 2) Pre September 1939 area of Soviet Ukraine – 443 K sq.km 1940 area - 558K sq.km 558-443 = 115K sq.km <> 160K as claimed 3) Pre war population of Soviet Ukraine ~ 41 million (9 at recently acquired territories) 1945 population of Soviet Ukraine 31,5 million Jo0doe (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Editor is trying to CONFUSE the readers????

  • 1) What is NKVD? - someone deleted the short description again.

WP link already exist, so inadequate comments is useless.Jo0doe (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 2) What is SMERSH? - the answer belongs in the article page not TALK page

SMERSH – counterintelligence service of Soviet Army (please do not forgot who was a best friend of OUN/UPA since late 1943).Jo0doe (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 3) What is MKGB? - the answer belongs in the article page not TALK page

NKGB – is correct one NKVD in 1944 was split on two services NKVD and NKGB – semi pre KGB Jo0doe (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 4) What is MVD? - the answer belongs in the article page not TALK page

MVD – name of part of NKVD since spring 1946 – militia, Ministry of Internal Affair Jo0doe (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC) All the above terms are not familiar to your average reader of this ENGLISH encyclopedia. see article Armia Krajowa on how the deal with unfamiliar terms. This article has w WIKIPEDIA GOOD ARTICLE rating. Bobanni (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Faustian -

  • 100,000 armed personnel
  • UPA was unique among practically all resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe in that it had no significant foreign support. Its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the Ukrainian people
  • Once again Wehrmacht
  • In June 1943 German SS and police forces under the command of General von dem Bach-Zalewski, seen as an expert in fighting against guerrillas, attempted to destroy UPA-North in Volyn during Operation "BB" (Bandenbekampfung). He was chosen specifically by Himmler to destroy the UPA in this operation
  • Despite the stated opinions of D.Klyachkivskyy and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to the main enemies, the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference
  • By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn
  • Bulba-Borovets cllaims;
  • UPA's struggle against Soviet forces began when they encountered Soviet partisans in late 1942
  • early 1943, the famous Communist partisan leader Sydir Kovpak established himself in Ukraine
  • then mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains
  • total number of Soviet partisans in Ukraine is estimated anywhere from 47,800 to 500,000, only 46% of whom were ethnic Ukrainians
  • the autumn of 1944, UPA forces enjoyed virtual freedom of movement over an area 160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people and had established a shadow government
  • were expressly forbidden from spreading terror to the general population
  • to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated and 2,401 were "missing", presumed kidnapped, in Western Ukraine
  • No policy by OUN/UPA regarding the Jews
  • During the period of Soviet occupation of Ukraine
  • They considered UPA to be a terrorist organizationJo0doe (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Your POV is already well known, as is your aversion towards secondary sources. Most of those facts were from secondary sources, interesting how you forgot to include the references to the information above.Faustian (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So what about credibility of Hurby battles Author? Other WP:RS (non toronto/OUN?UPA origin) provided other data which widelly recognized - instead given hereJo0doe (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mischief

I will briefly discuss the mischief being habitually added and then removed by myself or others:

  • activity (infobox); UPA while technically demobilized and integrated with OUN in 1949, continued armed struggle until mid 1950's.

- officially relegated (there no info about demobilization given) once again - you replays referensed facts with OR accordingly to your OR if some of former SS-man from SS-Galizia which swear to Great Germany - so it should be reflected as Waffen-SS fights with Soviet till 55? I assume it' again so liked by someone DeceptionJo0doe (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that fighting went on until mid 1950';s and that when Vasyl Kuk died he was widely described as last leader of UPA even though he didn't assume command until after Shukhevich's death in 1950. For example here's a statement off the Ukrainian government website [68]. Your use of the date of 1949 is, along with your cluttering of the infobox and attempts to add a parallel "history" section to this article, just an example of your attempt to make the article confusing and unreadable.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • strength (infobox): all of the details are covered in the body of the article; the infobox needs a brief summary. Someone appears to want to clutter it with info that belongs (and indeed, already is) in the article.

- Please stick with sourced data 15-100 - it's misleading and nonsenceinfo

Sources data includes those figures. The 100,000 estimate was included in Magoscy, R. (1996). A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. I know, "manga for Canadian woodcutters", right? LOL.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • popularity - it was obviously most popular in Western Ukraine. Subtelny, the referenced source, stated "among the Ukrainian people" in a section of his book devoted mostly to the events in Western Ukraine. An editor is trying to discredit him by making it seem that Subtelny claimed that UPA enjoyed popularity throughout all of Ukraine.

- It's your OR - WP: its not a place for OR - or give exact citation or remove it as unreliableJo0doe (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No OR on my part whatsoever. Your implication that Subtleny claimed that UPA was universally popular in Ukraine is however your OR.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA's relations with western Ukrainian Jews - a lot of inflammatory material describing events that occurred 1-2 years prior to UPA's creation that better belongs in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists article; a brief summary belongs in this one. This article is about UPA, yet mischievous revisions result in the section on UPA and Jews to be more than 50% devoted to OUN's statements and activities prior to UPA's formation.Faustian (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

- It's your OR - there cited official instruction of OUN (B) adopted and valid by the time of UPA was created. So the wording about no official policy - Deception and OR. Lastly I remind you what WP:ISNOTSOAPBOX while removal/replacemant of referenced and important to article data is vandalism. At same time OR and data from nonreliable source - is not Jo0doe (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information not directly related to UPA is not vanadalism. Addition of information about OUN that adds up to more than 50% of the relevent section about UPA includes non-UPA information of an inflammatory nature is inapropriate for this article. Add it to the OUN article, that is the place for it. Don't forget that WP:ISNOTSOAPBOX. Faustian (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR which will be removed

  • Nazi German Wehrmacht (initially allied) –
see Krocmalyuk As a rule the UPA did not attack units of the Wehrmacht, knowing that they were fighting against Russian Communism
I didn't add that part.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the people of Western Ukraine

Subtelny, the referenced source, stated "among the Ukrainian people"

In a section describing events in Western Ukraine. A good example of your Cherry picking of sources.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants or low to moderate means, 20-25% workers, and 15% from the intelligentsia (students, urban professionals).

See refs for exact data in source

That's the exact reference from Zhukov's article: [69] Yuri Zhukov, "Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", Small Wars and Insurgencies, v.18, no. 3, pp.439-466]
But we already know that you don't like secondary sources that contradict your POV.
  • Despite the stated opinions of D.Klyachkivskyy and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to the main enemies, the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists which was held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to begin open warfare against the German

See refs for exact data in source

That's referenced info.
  • fighters had already attacked a German garrison on February 7th of that year

See source p.181 for more info – mentioned OUN but not UPA.

Changed to OUN fighters.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn, outside of the major cities, and was able to organize basic services for the villagers such as schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers.

OR

Referenced info.
  • these early actions occurred in areas under the control of Taras Bulba-Borovets rather than of the OUN .

– see p.244-245 of Source what OUN and specially OUN (B) – mean UPA/OUN(B)Jo0doe (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to editorialize sources.
Your removal of sourced material will continue to be reverted.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation – TM Faustian

  • If you find it in a legitimate source, it certainly belongs in the article. Unlike you I do not ignore "inconvenient" information.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But we already know that you don't like secondary sources that contradict your POV. Faustian (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another example of your Original Research contradicting secondary sources.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) – that’s regarding yours
The secondary source didn't qualify/editorialize what happened in on February 7th. It stated that in the first days of that month OUN started attacking the Germans.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Subtelny's 1988 edition, page 474, first paragraph: "Compared to other underground movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, the UPA was unique in that it had practically no foreign support. Its growth and strength were, therefore, an indication of the very considerable popular support it enjoyed among most Ukrainians." The quote you provided is on page 476.Faustian (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Go for it. Make those edits, and the articles will be fixed afterward.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to editorialize sources.

  • Your removal of sourced material will continue to be reverted.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So I act accordingly to last sentence, Faustian ?!Jo0doe (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New book

I just picked up a huge thick photo book recently released in Ukraine of UPA documents in photographs etc. It has some realing amazing interesting sections like the activities of women in UPA, the use of arms that UPA used (including photographs of the plane they had in Ivano-Frankivsk (UPA airforce????) Diagrams of the bunkers and hideouts they created. Hundreds of original photos and documents even things like marriage certificates and military course diplomas and report cards. Also copies of document including the various forged Soviet documents used by Shukhevych and others etc. I hope to scan them in the near future and port them into the article/s. The UPA article is quite long as it stands. Is there room for a section on arms and women, documents or should this be a separate article? What are the thought of the cogniscentiBandurist (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included. If the section gets thick enough, it can be summarized and a seperate page produced.Faustian (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist, fill free to visit www.archives.gov.ua – there a plenty of photos (however “publicity” images about results of brave UPA actions unfortunately not published – since there a propaganda campaign for liberators. However, for your info, soviet captured from UPA – 1 plain (Polikarpov-2) in Ternopilska region in 1944, 1 Armored car and 1 Armored personnel carrier both at Lvivska region also 1944, aprox 40+ guns (35 in 1944 6 in 1945). So now we can speak about “UPA air force”, “UPA armored forces”. So what about UPA fleet (dreadnoughts and aircraft carriers)? На безрыбье и рак рыба?Jo0doe (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't notice the ???? Bandurist (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THE WARSAW GHETTO IS NO MORE

For the Fuehrer and their country 11 "Watchmen" from Training Camps, probably Lithuanians, to judge by their names [70] So the “Lithuanians names” of Trawniki men (IMT Vol XXVI):

  • Wachmanns: Odartschenko (KIA)
  • Nestarenko
  • Dawidenko
  • Minenko
  • Huzulak
  • Prottschenko
  • Knyhynyzkyj
  • Usik
  • Jurko Kosatschok

Interesting but amongst 335 of Trawniki men participated 8 of 11 of wounded and 1 of 1 killed had strange “Lithuanians names”.

Also IMT Doc 2992-PS has a very interesting info about “Ukrainian Armed Police” and Dubno Ghetto as of 5 October 1943.

Also fill free to visit www.archives.gov.ua – there exist really interesting info about extensive training of UPA/OUN(B) members at Germans “camps”.

I would be really appreciate if such info will be included into article since “Ukrainian Armed Police” moved to forest as UPA because their masters retreat from “soviet occupation”. Jo0doe (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe since many of the guards at Trawniki were former Soviet army prisoners you can include the info in the Soviet army page also (I'm being facetious of course). But perhaps before you draw other conclusions, you should take another llok at the calander, because Ukrainian armed police who deserted for UPA did so primarily in spring 1943 [71], long before the Dubno actions in October that you imply were committed by future UPA members. Good thing that original research doesn't belong in the article. Faustian (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of many Trawniki guards. I don't think that it's a coincidence that every one of the Ukrainian guards whose biography is known, is a former Soviet soldier and not a single one was from western Ukraine. You should not be insulting the memory of the Soviet army Jo0doe by bringing up Ukrainians in Trawniki.Faustian (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Faustian - it was simply note about reliability of some modern data (one more intresting facts - I've found in Burds CV yale.edu records) - deception. Also you probably don't know what RKKA does not recognize POW (famous story with Stalin's son) - so adding already existed in WP data in irrelevant article it's not good idea. As regards you consern "you imply were committed by future UPA members" - it's poved by many WP:PSTS info Jo0doe (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deception

According to Columbia University professor John Armstrong "If one takes into account the duration, geographical extent, and intensity of activity, the UPA very probably is the most important example of forceful resistance to an established Communist regime prior to the decade of fierce Afghan resistance beginning in 1979...the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was, of course, far more important, involving to some degree a population of nine million...however it lasted only a few weeks. In contrast, the more-or-less effective anti-Communist activity of the Ukrainian resistance forces lasted from mid-1944 until 1950."[3].

  • Faustian – How book published in Columbia University Press, 1963 can describe “Afghan resistance beginning in 1979”?
Obvously I wrote the wrong year of the later edition of that book (it was published in many editions).Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also please remove or provide real references (page number since it’s not online publication) for Krokhmaluk, Y. | title=UPA Warfare in Ukraine| location= New York | publisher= Vantage Press | year = 1973| pages =}}. Or you reprint this book in 1973?
Why?
  • "UPA recruitment poster" - you can find some at arhives.gov.ua - mentioned words "Join UPA" - since currently existed does not have such - it called "propaganda poster" -
I'll change to recruitment poster.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1955 - postponed end of OUN/UPA undeground (actually early 1953) while UPA as UPA ends in 1949 (officially - actually in 1947)
I've already commented on that.
  • ranged from 15,000 - 100,000 why not ranged 286 in 1955? - For military formation data will be relevant as I've given
I'll change it.
  • KGB link irrelevant - it's post UPA organization
  • 60% peasants of low to moderate means, 20-25% workers (primarily... - deception as is
  • O14-USSR - no such document exist in IMT evidence
I'll remove the reference from infoukes.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • General von dem Bach-Zalewski - claim by faustian = Find academic reference please- DOes IMT Vol.7 is not WP:RS?
I've already discussed your original research using primary sources. Secondary sources, please. No Cherry picking. Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IMT Vol.7 is WP:RS while khrokhmalyuk not so -what about WP rules?Jo0doe (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • “General Platle” “General Hintzler - IMT official text Vol.XXX is not WP:RS?
See above. You added the Platle and Hintzler quotes, not me. If you believe that those quotes were errors and added them anyways, you were editing in Bad faith.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I added in order to be a full citation from Y.Krochmlyuk - not only selectively citation by hurby battle author
  • BB was limited to UPA or not doesn't matter - ????
No, it does not.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • although these early actions occurred in areas under the control of Taras Bulba-Borovets rather than of the OUN - DECEPTION
It was a referenced statement.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There no chapter 16 in this work - but exist page 245-246 were clearly stated what Taras Bulba-Borovets was against OUN(B) actions against Polish populationJo0doe (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Soviet Counterinsurgency Tactics and UPA's Response - does it belongs to UPA article
Is it directly related to UPA?Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • made numerous violently antisemitic statements - so what about actions menioned in SD and SIPO reports presented at IMT ?
Wikopedia relies on secondary sources.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It WP:RS sourceJo0doe (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Etc Etc Etc

Faustian - your actions definetly contradicts with your wordsJo0doe (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your OR. Faustian (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV and reliability of BurdS

Exluding nonsense semantic construction “maskirovka units” his works has a plenty of Cherry picking but fact-less statements. Only few example: “between February 1944 and May 1946 over 250,000 people were arrested in Western Ukraine” – Mr. Burds forgot to mention source of such estimation as also the fact what since February till mid of July 1944 “Western Ukraine” was an front line area. At first half of 1945 were arrested 5715 persons (“band assistants”). At same time from 1 of January 1946 till 1 June in Western Oblasts of Ukraine there were arrested less then 5 thousand persons. So we should believe what rest 240K were arrested in Aug-Dec 1944 and at July-Dec 1945? Those arrested typically experienced beatings or other violence. Those suspected of being UPA members underwent extensive torture; some prisoners were burned alive. All 250K beaten and tortured. “Burning alive” – Dovzhenko from Y.Krochmalyuk book? Does Dovzhenko was a witness of such action? The many arrested women believed to be affiliating with UPA were subjected to months of torture, deprivation, and rape at the hands of Soviet security in order to "break" them reveal UPA members' identities and locations or to turn them into Soviet double-agents. Mutilated corpses of captured rebels were frequently put on public display. Many? (archival documents mentioned figures but “many” it’s irrelevant POV term” Frequently – how frequently (archival documents mentioned also “frequency” but not about “Mutilated” ) ?

Moreover things what he forgot to mentioned how in general labeled documents were crimes cases mentioned - like “Nedostatki i oshibki v ideologicheskoi rabote KP(b)U[krainy] 13 August 1946. RGASPI, f. 17, op. 122, d. 137, l. 44., so if in his “works” will be stated what after such actions responsible persons were imprisoned (in Aug 1944-may 45 putted under Military Tribunal) it can be assessed as historical – while now it’s clear propagandistic pamphlets with questionable reliability. More reliable would be Bilas. Repressive-punishment system in Ukraine. 1917-1953 Vol.2 Kyiv Lybid-Viysko Ukrainy, 1994 ISBN 5-325-00599-5 were given a lot of documents related to “crimes against soviet low” and measures about OUN/UPA . Jo0doe (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this is your original research and thus irrelevent for the purposes of this article. You seem to forget WP:PSTS that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Do your archival original research, get it published, and then we can include your discoveries alongside other secondary sources such as the work of Jeffrey Burds. Otherwise your critiques are just a use of space.
As for Bilas' work, it is interesting and rather perverse that you cite for your purposes. His biography indicates that he ran for the Ukrainian parliament as the candidate for the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (the modern successor of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the book you cite is apparently primarily written about Soviet repression in western Ukraine [72]:
The Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, originating mainly in inter-war Poland, resisted the Soviet conquest of western Ukraine during and after the war and was politically active in the Ukrainian diaspora during the following decades. CUN's present leader, Yaroslava Stetsko, and some of her associates returned from the West to independent Ukraine. Another CUN leader, Major-General Ivan Bilas, is a deputy chairman of the Union of Officers of Ukraine and the author of a massive monograph on the Soviet repressive system in Ukraine'
I don't have his book and can't fact-check what you wrote. However, given your well-documented propensity to cherry pick facts, quote sources selectively to twist their meaning so that it becomes the opposite of what the authors intended, it's quite likely that you have done so with Bilas' work. I wonder what that Bilas wrote you "conveniently" forgot to mention. Unless you will have us believe that one of the OUN's successor's leaders is also a guy who wrote a long anti-UPA book.
Thanks for showing us another example of your dishonesty.
Just for review, an earlier clear example of your cherry-picking, concerning this source: [[73]]:
You took one quote from that chapter, from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little activity from UPA. From the same source, page 187, mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. You just pulled a quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet.

No I put a Koch citation which your continuesly exlude, while rest battles remains in article -

Added by me.Faustian (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

thats mean you selectively use a source - and thus it's a POV story.

There is already a quote by German leaders about UPA no longer fighting Germans. Other ones are unnecessary.Faustian (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Does I selectively cite Koch or any other german sources?

Of course - the example is illustrated above.Faustian (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your silly attempt to insult nothing many time described in demagogy section. You can't won with such tactics. Please read more about Kostring http://www.germanwarmachine.com/hitlersforeignlegions/russiannationals.htm

Which doesn't contradict that he was an Eastern Front General. The troops "under his command" fought on which front?

This part is interesting:

"During Barbarossa, the Germans had captured most of the Ukraine by the end of November 1941. Galicia was attached to the General Government of Poland, while Bukovyna and the area up to the southern River Bug, including Odessa, was handed over to Romania. The remainder was organized as the Reichs Commissariat Ukraine, administered by Erich Koch. With the German armies came Ukrainian nationalists. The Brotherhood of Ukrainian Nationalists was organized with the support of the Germans and fought under the auspices of the Bandera faction of the OUN (OUN-B). It was divided into two battalions: Nachtigall and Roland. Nachtigall had about 1000 men in Lvov when a Ukrainian state was proclaimed by OUN-B in June 1941 (to the great surprise of the Germans, who arrested both Melnyk and Bandera and the OUN-B leadership). Both battalions were returned to Frankfurt-on-Oder and there organized into Guard Battalion 201, which was sent to Belorussia to combat partisans. Because of various complaints about the Ukrainians' insubordination, almost all its officers were arrested and the unit disbanded. One officer, Captain Roman Shukhevych, escaped and later became commander-in-chief of the Ukrainska Povstanska Armiya (UPA - Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a nationalist as opposed to communist organization). He headed the Ukrainian underground until his death in a battle with Soviet MVD troops in March 1950, near Lvov."

and more about Jews at UPA at http://www.jew.spb.ru/ami/A392/A392-041.html - however it can't help in your case Jo0doe (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Very professional article. I like how the author mistranslates the Ukrainian word Jew ("Zhyd")into Russian kike (Zhyd) by not changing it to Evrei (in western Ukraine before the war the word for Jew was the same as in Polish - Zhyd - while in Russian that same word has a pejorative meaning.) He also cites Wiktor Poliszczuk, the non-historian dismissed by respected Polish historian Ryszard Torzecki, professor at the Institute of History in Warsaw and member of Poland's Academy of Sciences, as an agent of Soviet intelligence. Good example of the article's honesty, and your own.Faustian (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should review:

Lying by omission: Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. This includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. One may by careful speaking contrive to give correct but only partial answers to questions, thus never actually lying.Faustian (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Deception Dear Hurby battle author it's quite noted things mentioned by me in many examples.Jo0doe (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "inconvenient" information

While core majority peoples of Ukraine assume Ukrainian nationalists (OUN/UPA) as collaborators of Germans occupants. [[4]

I just couldn't open the link when you first posted it. For the reasons documented in the previous section I no longer assume that you edit honestly. And I was right again - the author stated "the typical majority of Ukraine with the exception of the Western regions (you conveniently forgot that part) considered Ukrainian nationalists to be collaborators with the German occupants." So I will add the real citation, having removed your cherry-picked version.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OUN under Bandera actively cooperate and acted in favors of Germans military and intelligence authorities before and few months after German invasion to Soviet Union in 1941 [[5]

Add it tot he OUN article.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In autumn 1943 some detachments of UPA in many areas begins to find a reconciliation with Germans and despite what such actions was condemned by OUN/UPA order from November 25, 1943 such actions were not halted [6] Massacres of Polish civilians]]

I added this tot he article already.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
began on a large scale in February-March 1943 in Volhynia region and since autumn 1943 spread over the Galicia and other territories of General Government.

OUN(B) war-time (1943-44) claims as a reasons for anti-polish actions mentioned the AK action against Ukrainians which worked in German Occupancy Administration at end of 1942. Later OUN(B) blamed Poles for cooperation with Germans and Soviet Partisans and since the approaching of Soviet Army – with such.

Reference, please.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UPA attacks on small units and groups of Soviet Army soldiers, commonly ended with brutal killing (burning alive, cutting noses and ears etc) of captured and wounded. Also UPA acted against mobilization of able-bodied man into Soviet Army through propagandistic extermination of whole families of man who joined Soviet Army to fight with Nazi.

I added this to the article already, minus your POV language.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet archival data for 1944 reported about NKVD-NKGB losses: 221 KIA, 61 MIA and 121 wounded; at same time losses amongst civilians due the UPA actions: 2857 murdered and hanged, 866 missed and 414 wounded.

There are already plenty of numbers in the article, including ones related to these ones. No need for repetition. Our goal isn't to make the article unreadable. WP:NOT states: Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • During service from May till October 1942 “Ukrainian Legion”
Removed data about 201 Guard (Defense Division) and area of operation – Belarus
Was it UPA?Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the stated opinions of D.Klyachkivskyy and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to the main enemies, the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists which was held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to begin open warfare against the Germans
Already there.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Manipulation with data in secondary source
  • German Eastern Front General
Taken from source.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OR see more about him here

Something what Faustian would like to hide by removing or awful manipulation with facts:

  • active role especially of OUN (B) groups in “communists and Jewish extermination” – International military tribunal document 2693-PS and many others
removed
removed
I retained some of that info. The article is about UPA, so excessive info about OUN is inappropriate here. It is inappropriate for a section about UPA and the JEws to be more than 50% devoted to statements by OUN made before UPA existed. I know that this serves your POV, but it doesn't belong in this article. Add it to the OUN article.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “UPA Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.”
manipulated into

Prior to the the formation of UPA, in 1941-1942, the political organization from which it was formed, the OUN, made numerous violently antisemitic statements. For example, in instructions to its members concerning how the OUN should behave during the war, it declared that "in times of chaos...one can allow oneself to liquidate Polish, Russian and Jewish figures, particularly the servants of Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism" and further, when speaking of Russians, Poles, and Jews, to "destroy in the struggle, especially those, who defend the [Soviet] regime: send them to their lands, destroy them especially the intelligentsia...assimilation of the Jews is ruled out."

No manipulation.

While in original texts instead “Polish, Russian and Jewish figures” was “Polish, Russian and Jewish leaders”; instead “servants” mentioned “proponents”; “when speaking of Russians, Poles, and Jews” in original text “nations which are enemies to us”; Faustian add so desired by him [Soviet] – which does not exist in mentioned text;

No kidding. Do you know what brackets indicate in the English language? That the bracketed word wasn't in the original text. Now what regime do you feel Russians, Poles and Jews were alleged to have served by the OUN? The Germans?Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

in “…” hided “intelligentsia does not allowed to take part in any governing authorities, in general deny the producing of intelligentsia and access to schools etc. Leaders must be exterminated …”Jo0doe (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I trimmed the clutter about OUN from the section about UPA. You should be grateful that someone takes the time to edit your work.Faustian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg Trial O14

The "Nuremberg Trial O14" quote comes from Andrew Gregorovich a recognized scholar who has written on Ukrainian history. He is cited many times in Wikipedia. To assert that he is wrong is "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" (OR). According to Wikipedia protocol need a reference that Andrew Gregorovich is an unreliable source. The fact that one wikipedian editor could not locate it among the 100,000 documents that the prosecution submitted is not prove it does not exist. Please note Soviet records are unreliable since it was determined that the Soviets had submitted documents linking the Nazis to the Katyn massacre.

The purpose of reference was to show that OUN/UPA was not allied with the Nazis. Bobanni (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Gregorovich's statement certainly trumps wikipedia editors' OR.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bobbanie - please note what "O14-USSR" document does not exist in IMT - you can check it by your own by visiting a library - IMT Vol # XXXIX. Moreover such case already described brifly in "Background" section (even twice case). Moreover - Faustian agree with what removal.

As regards to Kytyn - there still no documents which dismiss the Nazis link to Katyn massacre - since they mirracly find it only after Stalingrad (but not earlier) Intresting but in a same time (spring 1943) they found a "same style" "holodomor victims" mass grave near vinnitsa - later proved what all of found victims were Jews. I assume it's same story as with 1941 Lviv prisoners massacre - soviet reported about 2,8 K of prisoners while german found 7,5K. So we need to belive what NKVD officer in 1941 cheat his higher command becouse he knew what in 1991 his document was revised by pro-OUN historians?Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to sort through your English - do you mean that according to you Soviets weren't responsible for the Katyn massacre?Faustian (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As for Faustinan please do not spoil your time - your Hurby battle case it's clear for me - to handle an issue with action of persons like you it's only to act accordingly to thier reccomendations - I already note such above. Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your fascination with the Hurby battle. I don't think that I've heard about it.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One more attempt to mediate the edit warring or no longer Hurby battle alone

Dear Editors as far as You know: WP:Sources All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. So “maskirovka units”, Lithuanian Trawniki men, O14 USSR, Jews in every units and rest Tiny-minority views and fringe theories – does not right place for WP. Moreover if we have an info like:

  • UPA was unique among practically all resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe in that it had no significant foreign support. Its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the Ukrainian people
it should be subsided according to the fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view i.e.
  • While core majority peoples of Ukraine assume Ukrainian nationalists (OUN/UPA) as collaborators of Germans occupants (Faustian please distinct people and nation – or you claim what Hungarian, Romanian and Poles population (~0.9 mln) etc. of Western Ukrainian supported UPA? Or they not peoples of Ukraine?) and info about the facts how units pf UPA were supplied by SD SS and Wehrmacht with arms and ammunition.

So if we have what “mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains” we’ve also an other point of view – e.g. own Kovpak. Same if “UPA focused its energy on NKVD units and Soviet officials of all levels” - Soviet archival data for 1944 reported about NKVD-NKGB losses: 221 KIA, 61 MIA and 121 wounded; at same time losses amongst civilians due the UPA actions: 2857 murdered and hanged, 866 missed and 414 wounded. “. Jewish participation was particularly visible among its medical personnel and ” К жидам относиться так же, как и к полякам и цыганам: уничтожать беспощадно, никого не жалеть. Беречь врачей, фармацевтов, химиков, медсестер; содержать их под охраной… Жидов нежелательных использовать для рытья бункеров и укреплений, по окончании работы без огласки ликвидировать". As regards to soviet personnel atrocities info like : September 22 1944, while conducting an operation against bandits in areas of Svetyachesky settlement in house of M.Zayats was captured 3 armed bandits. Accordingly to order of Lt. Cherednichenko all captured bandits were exterminated (shot dead) and house was burned. Amongst bandits were exterminated a family of Zayats together with 3 childred at age 5-7. Amongst 10 killed (shot dead) 4 was killed personally by Lt. Cherednichenko. That case was hided from higher command. Investigation was ended – results were given for approval of higher command. (responsible were sentenced to death or forwarded to shtrafbat (almost the same as death in 1944/45).

Must not appeared as soviet (predominantly Russian) systematically committing atrocities in order to demoralize UPA and exterminate many Ukrainian by nationality children and burning them alive from 1944 till 1955.

The case when in may 1946 local two militia officers (uchastkovye) at Stanislavska region found guilty: Myslyak for looting, Isotov for raping – it does not mean mass raping and looting by Russians NKVD.

Moreover if head of garrison at village Vikhnya of Vayniloskyy rayon of Stanislavska region sub-Lieutenant Sevastyanov systematically beaten of arrested – this also does not mean as Mass arrests of suspected UPA informants and Those arrested typically experienced beatings or other violence.

Here we should distinct the case – soviet lieutenant ordered and personally killed 7 innocent civilians received death sentence and in same time Commander of UPA (D.Klyachkivskyy) which ordered an extermination of dozens thousands Poles was awarded by UPA's Golden Cross of Merit (1946? -). Faustian – please do not disturb, you passed clinical trials successfully. Jo0doe (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you complain about so-called fringe theories right after you seemingly claim that Soviets weren't responsible for the Katyn massacre. As for your claims about fringe theories - those are your personal claims. All statements you complain about were from legitimate secondary sources written by esteemed scholars. However you mosquoted some of those statements in your rant above. Again as usual, you oppose legitimate secondary sources with your personal original research or unsourced claims.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Sources

WP:Sources All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

So since this article belongs to history of Soviet Ukraine (rather then Ukrainian Canadian Diaspora) I assume what, dear editors, if we taking the number of Ukrainian Canadian Diaspora and the population of post Soviet Ukraine and post Soviet Union, we will be get proportion 0.5-0.7 mln to 40 mln or even 210 mln (if we count a Belarus and Russia) – thus significantly less then 1 %. Accordingly to generally adopted rules Ukrainian Canadian Diaspora is Tiny-minority. Thus any “historical works” from that origin would be represent Tiny-minority views. “Scholars” Magochi, Andrew Gregorovich, Kuzyo etc does not known for huge society of historians and does not recognized by them as such, while Subtelny works widely criticizes.

As regards to purpose of reference was to show that OUN/UPA was not allied with the Nazis. Bobanni (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC) – its POV pushing since other (and real instead O14 USSR) IMT documents clear depict OUN/UPA collaboration with Nazi.

In order to calm that case to the end I urge you, dear editors, to read my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Nuremberg_Trial_O14-USSR_Issue message. However the “unknowledgeable” code system of IMT reflect the level of author and quality of his historical works. Cheers Jo0doe (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just more original research.Faustian (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA and Jews reference

Having read over much of the excellent and thorough work about UPA and the OUN by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences [74], I don't recall much if anything written about anti-Jewish massacres by UPA. Anti-semitic proclamations by the OUN dating from before UPA's time - yes, there were many and some of them were violent; but acts of mass terror committed by UPA against the Jews, no. Perhaps I have missed something, although the fact that another editor hasn't posted anything of the sort suggests to me that I haven't and that this thoroughly researched work hasn't turned up any evidence of UPA committing acts of terror against Jews. So I will wait a little to see if someone finds a reference to this from this work. If not, I will add it to the list of references that do not support the claims that UPA was involved in anti-Jewish massacres.Faustian (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hurby battle author, one more time – OUN (B) general instructions and actions widely implemented by it members in Ukraine (not only West) –there a lot of historical works on this theme- instead of Toronto Ukrainian historians don’t chew the gum and published many times already published by other info – they worked predominantly at unknown or less decried field (as work you at least able to read). That’s why you “don't recall much if anything written about anti-Jewish massacres by UPA” – because it already described and published before, and because such massacres were not widely spread- but not because UPA Jews- friendly – since OUN (B) members were an ardent supporters and servants of Nazis policy before - in 1941-early 1943. Since UPA was a military formation of OUN (B) it acted accordingly to the mother-organization ideology. That’s why scholarly accepted the fact of OUN/UPA direct participation in Holocaust.

Well, the lengthy book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences does not describe UPA direct link to Holocaust. The link you try to make is your OR.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You OR will be removed because once again I remind you what UPA was formed on the base of formations (Ukrainian Auxiliary Police , Schutzmannschaftsbataillons and military formation under SS and SD and SIPO command) and commanded by persons which were commander of military formations appeared at time and the place were mass massacres (Jews, Poles and Slavs) were taken place. I assume you propose to believe what during this events they collect stamps or seed a flowers in Nazi favors? WP:OR is not allowed and especially for Hurby battle authorJo0doe (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the Hurby battle you keep talking about? More imprortantly, thank you for confirming that there is no link between UPA itself, the subject of this article, and mass killing of Jews. All you provide is your original research. Four to five thousand of UPA members (anywhere from 5% to 20% of UPA's total membership, depending on the estimates of UPA's numbers) had infiltrated the German police against the wishes of the Germans, before deserting with their weapons and joining UPA. Some of these, we can assume, were involved in the Holocaust. But do you offer any direct proof other than your assumptions? Shukhevich commanded a unit in an area where massacres occurred. But no direct evidence that his unit perpetrated these massacres - that's your OR. And I somehow doubt that if this evidence existed it wopuld have been kept a secret for 50 years by the Poles, Soviets, etc.
And even in those alleged cases, they involved, again, units that were not UPA - and UPA is the subject of this article, not OUN and not police. So far, we have some possible evidence for crimes by OUN members, not for UPA. There is already an OUN article, why don't you add the info there? Ah - because it serves the purpose of demoguery here.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I see you met with a difficulties to assess a long and complex phrase (with unknown words). Thus I try to use short sentence. This Article about military formation which:

  • initially formed from and later absorbed : persons and formations directly involved in Holocaust and ethnical cleaning;
  • acted accordingly to OUN (B) methods and ideology which almost identical in methods and the ideology to Nazi one;
  • commanded by persons which in German uniform appeared in places and in same times were Holocaust action taken place;

See totenkopfbande for similar case.

As for UPA and Jews massacre see relevant academic sources because mentioned by you works does not target the Holocaust – it’s article about unpublished before info about OUN/UPA.

As regards to your

But do you offer any direct proof other than your assumptions

Yes, I’ll provide it at least from Bilas work – a report of soviet partisan commander which acted in Volhinia since July 1943 till April 1944 were he mentioned what mass extermination by “nationalists” Jews, Poles and Slavs - you doubt who were “nationalists” there?

But no direct evidence that his unit perpetrated these massacres

You also wrong – there a lot of evidence for massacres as for Lviv 1941, as for Belarus 1942- so there no necessity to prove responsibility of already executed “hero of Ukraine” – he dead as rat. Because no one would believe what Brandenburg-800 battalions will get a week free time for family visiting while Germans counterattacked by RKKA mechcorps. And while they been in Belarus they fill free for green-tourism? Probably you forgot about their name at soviet propaganda sources – “Ukrainian-German-nationalists” – since they appeared at Ukraine in German uniform, acted in favor of Germans and supported and armed by Germans” Lets facts spoke about themselves - please do not remove such. Jo0doe (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As expected, only reference-free original research, assumptions, and the testimony of anti-UPA communist guerilla leaders themselves linked tp atrocities, no doubt taken out of context from an article written by a KUN (OUN) member. And you still haven't explained about this Hurby battle you seem to be obsessed with.Faustian (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Himka

Himka's excellent article exposes diaspora myths about Ukrainian anti-semitism and crimes against Poles. He describes UIPA massacres of Poles, and Ukrainian police invovlement in the Holocaust. Nowhere in his work does he indicate that UPA massacred Jews. That's why he is in the reference about not supporting the view that UPA massacred Jews. If he came across legitimate evidence that it did, I'm sure that he would have put that in. But he did not.Faustian (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See chapter above – I assume it’s US congress funding matters – does Lobby will be happy to know what they were cheated and they adopt funding for organization headed by person who wrought “establish a Ukrainian police to assist Jews removal”(Y.Stetsko 1941 letter to Bandera. – Y.Stetsko greeted by Reigan as freedom fighter against communism – early 80s) . I assume they will be not happy what they fund remains of the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police as such instead of "Germans fighters" as they allegedly claimes. Please read carefully 16.pdf – you can find a conclusion what Ukrainian Auxiliary Police in Generalbezirk Wolhynien-Podolien consisted from OUN members – and especially from OUN (B) members – and ask were is Generalbezirk Wolhynien-Podolien Jews? Jo0doe (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian anti-semitism and crimes against Poles
Your forgot Western, since SD and SIPO reports does not support whole Ukrainian claimsJo0doe (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA fighters in Rivnenschina, in 1947 – reliability concern

1) There no MVD/NKGB reports about significant (7 persons) armed group and activities of UPA in Rivnenschina, in 1947 2) Arms - most of them armed with rifles, while even in 1946 MVD/NKGB reported that insurgent predominantly used sub-machine guns 3) Almost all of them armed of pre war produced soviet arms (SVT-40, mid 30 produced DP, early Mosins) even “commander” arm more look like DT (definitely 1941) rather then MP 4) Closing – note they don’t have “pogony” but instead a “petlitsy”, both 2 caps is a definitely pre-war soviet junior command types. So – concluding while arms can be kept unused even for 1947 (SVT and DP has a very limited life-time cycle) .While closing materials were not so long time cycle – and especially in forest conditions. So – conclusion – not later then 1943, possibly not UPA and not RivnenschinaJo0doe (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please U have the source under the link:
http://www.cdvr.org.ua/army.php?roz=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.175.98.34 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation Request

Я, воїн Української Повстанчої Армії, взявши в руки зброю, урочисто клянусь своєю честю і совістю перед Великим Народом Українським, перед Святою Землею Українською, перед пролитою кров'ю усіх Найкращих Синів України та перед Найвищим Політичним Проводом Народу Українського:

Боротись за повне визволення всіх українських земель і українського народу від загарбників та здобути Українську Самостійну Соборну Державу. В цій боротьбі не пожалію ні крови, ні життя і буду битись до останнього віддиху і остаточної перемоги над усіма ворогами України.

Буду мужнім, відважним і хоробрим у бою та нещадним до ворогів землі української.

Буду чесним, дисциплінованим і революційно-пильним воїном.

Буду виконувати всі накази зверхників.

Суворо зберігатиму військову і державну таємницю.

Буду гідним побратимом у бою та в бойовому життю всім своїм товаришам по зброї.

Коли я порушу, або відступлю від цієї присяги, то хай мене покарає суворий закон Української Національної Революції і спаде на мене зневага Українського Народу.

Any words I'm not sure about, I'll leave blank, but here are the first two paragraphs:

"I, warrior of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, having taken weapons in my arms, ___ kneel with my honor and conscience before the Ukrainian NAtion, before the Holy Ukrainian Land, before the shed blood of all the Best Sons of Ukraine and before the Highest Political Leadership of the Ukrainian Nation:

To Fight for the full liberation of all Ukrainian lands and the Ukrainian nation from occupiers and achieve the Independent Unified Ukrainian State. In this struggle I will not regret/spare neither blood nor life and will fight to my last breath and ____ victory over all the enemies of Ukraine.Faustian (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)



Передрук з журналу "Повстанець", видаваного Політичним відділом ГК УПА, р. І, ч. І, лист. 1944 р., стор. 1.

Ориґінал: ЗдМЛ, Б - 171.

Bobanni (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Dear collegues I assume you still would like to see desired (instead historicals assured) version of history. We can't win this game. Moreover Bobbanie - I can propose more earlier version of UPA as also a Leafleat "What UPA iS" and "What UPA are fighting for" (as also Map of Ukarine) issued may- august 1943. But please advice which words are propaganda?Jo0doe (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop corrupting this article

Some one has repeatedly corrupted this article - please stop or you may be banned from editing Bobanni (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I have protected the article for a week (Bobanni's version). Please use the time to solve the differences on the talk page rather than editwar Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately I'm not sure how these differences can be resolved. Althought his has already been discussed extensively, I will again adress teh most i,portant issues. As has been documented throughout these talk pages, one particular editor - virtually alone - insists on making edits of an inapropriate nature. Such edits include:

  • Original research through personal searches through archival sources, rather than use of secondary sources. According to policy WP:PSTS:
Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[7] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[8][9] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.
This particular editor has dismissed out of hand various secondary sources that contradict his original research. Work by Orest Subtelny[75] or Paul Magosci [76] are condemned by this editor as, literally, "manga for Canadian woodcutters". Another source, Jeffrey Burds [77], is dismissed as a "grant-consuming Sovietologist. The author of a chapter taken from a monumental work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is dismissed as a former communist-turned-nationalist. Etc. Etc. The particular editor either deletes information by these various secondary sources or cherry picks information from his original research throught he archives that seems to contradict what the secondary source says.
  • Inappropriate POV tages. The particular editor, in dismissing the various secondary sources shown above, then places POV tags on sections (or the entire article) that are thoroughly and well-referenced, apparently because he personally doesn't like the secondary sources.
  • When not relying on his original research from the archives, Cherry picking information from secondary sources. Just one example, when making an edit to the article, he took one quote from chapter 14 [78], from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served his POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, the secondary source stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. After this intense fighting succeeded, UPA's activity level vs. the Germans decliend significantly. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. The particular editor pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. He excused this behavior by stating that the fact he pulled out was true, and that he only quoted the German from the secondary source (essentially, original research in which he personally decided what info from the secondary source was credible or worthy of inclusion into the article, and what was not).
  • Creation of parallel "timeline" of his own facts inserted into the article, and including information into it that should be integrated into the rest of the article (and often is).Faustian (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Numerous examples of minor mischief, such adding comments in front of any information referenced from the work of Subtelny or Magosci with the words "Toronto historians say...", adding excessive information into the infobox that is already covered in the body of the article, adding a large amount of grisly details committed by UPA (cherry picked and taken out of context from an article that described atrocities committed by both sides) etc.

Attempts to reason with this editor tend to end in failure and/or personal attacks. Several editors thus have to resort to reverting his increasingly numerous "contributions". It should be emphasized that this is a limited problem brought about and centered on this one troublesome editor, basically acting against the community of editors. What to do in such circumstances?Faustian (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Dear annalist of defeated and retrated by UPA dozens of SS divisions, please note what WP spoked about deception - like "Hurby battle", "village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division", "Makivka and Black forest groups" etc and manipulation (OR) -, "organization" ws formation mentioned in source, "statement" instead of General Instruction, “Ukrainian Legion" insteas Battalion of 201 German defence division ? Community? WP is not "communty of editors" property, some of them would like to push here a minority view based on deception and twisting and manipulation with facts. Your apples (Koch) and oranges (tanks, planes etc) clear dismissed at http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/14.pdf Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 4], p. 199 -While in general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants. and - At same time, despite post war OUN/UPA claims (1947), they unable to prevent German deportation for slave works 500,000 of Ukrainians from west regions of Ukraine, nor “Ukrainian peoples looting” by Germans since OUN/UPA does not control German road and especially railways communication network. Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 4, p. 180 Jo0doe (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explian this Hurby battle you keep mentioning? You also repeat over and over again the Nedilna battle phrase that I myself hid when I couldn't verify it. In contrast, your OR etc. described previously is not retracted by you; rather, it is expanded and reinserted at every opportunity, over the objections of pretty much all other editors. You make claims about manipulation of facts but the evidence is that, unfortunately, this is your pattern of behavior. With respect to your comments about the wikipedia community, I suggest that you read WP:CONS.
With respect to the other statements you included, the first one is in line with the current article, which claimed that indeed UPA did not focus its efforts on front-line German troops and thus of course it didn't hasten the German defeat on the eastern front (liberation of western Ukraine by the Soviets).
The second statement involved, of course, quite a bit of selective quoting on your part. You presumably added those quotes to push your POV of UPA being some sort of German lackeys. In addition to what you wrote, the chapter stated (page 180) that "UPA and OUN, not devoting all of its strength on the anti-German front, merely managed to inconvience the Nazis in their economic plans on western Ukrainian territory." But it also stated (page 179) "the strategy of the two-fron struggle of OUN-UPA was in many ways similar tot he political line taken from 1941-1943 by the leader of Serb nationalists general Draža Mihailović. He tried to minimize his conflicts with the Germans and Italians in order to conserve his forces for the conflicts against the Croats and Tito's partisans. An analogous position was also adopted by Mao Tse Tung, who avoided conflicts witht he Japanese in order to marshall his resources for the struggle against the nationalists. The article also compares UPA's struggle against the Germans to that of the western European anti-fascist resistance (other than communists). That's the full story from the chapter. Thanks for showing once again your seemingly eternal habit of presenting half-truths. But feel free to mention Nedilna from months ago, or the Hurby battle.
But I agree that the facts you presented above belong in the article, as does the overall summary by the work above (not your selective quoting from it). It does, after all, come from a secondary source and is not your OR from the archives..Faustian (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article optimisation

One of editor known for Makivka&Black forest epic battle - provide very intresting solution -to remove important data to separate article and not to provide later "see more" provision (simple non notable by avarage users link). I assume it's very intresting approch- becouse after removal of data he don't care about them - so sole propose of such "improvement" it's a deception - as with rest his actions. So - I plan to reformat UPA vs Germans in separete article - were will be included Krochmalyuk, Makivka&Black Forest, Lutse and other numerous divisions retrated and defeated by brave resolvers of "mixed families issues" and real data about German activities many time published and WP:RS . Same issue would be good as for UPA vs Soviet - so annihilated NKVD batallion and 20 divisions by Kruschev (actually 1 Division and several brigades) etc.. Jo0doe (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks are provided to the other article. I don't think that I or any other editors would object to a "see more" provision about that article; I good place for that would be the in the section on Soviet counterinsurgeny and UPA's response[79]. What is questionable is the unilateral insertion of that lengthy piece in the front of the article.
The other part of this paragraph is a pretty bad example of bad faith editing: "So - I plan to reformat UPA vs Germans in separete article - were will be included Krochmalyuk, Makivka&Black Forest, Lutse and other numerous divisions retrated and defeated by brave resolvers of "mixed families issues" and real data about German activities many time published and WP:RS." The creation of a separate article devoted apparently to attacking a wikipedia editor and a specific source (Krokhmaluyk) through the use of original research through the archives.Faustian (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi and Soviet sources

Reposted from another discussion... by Bobanni (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that both Nazi and particularly Soviet materials, and particularly (yes, had to use the word twice) with respect to the Baltics and Eastern Europe, is that there is so much propaganda, from the Nazis saying how well the locals are supporting the eradication of Jews even before the Nazis arrived (they weren't) to the Soviets reporting the Nazis killed 300,000 in Latvia [alone] (total fabrication) that it's simply better to stick to reputable sources. To contend that the Nazis, for example, as "meticulous" Germans never falsified reports is not supported by the facts.

If reputable scholarship mentions a (corroborated) Nazi or Soviet source, that's fine. But to suggest that Wikipedia editors have the academic wherewithal to properly discriminate between fact and fiction in Nazi and Soviet sources is sheer hubris that will doom our collective efforts to failure. We should never use Nazi or Soviet sources directly, and certainly not where they have anything even remotely to do with politics and history, other than to report what those sources say (as opposed to representing what they say as fact). This includes any newly discovered "archives"--if Stalin erased people in photographs, why would anyone assume the archives contain the "truth" as opposed to also being subject to the same erasures, etc.? Stalin was, if nothing else, meticulous about his propaganda.

Using any Nazi and Soviet sources directly and drawing conclusions in articles, even if those conclusions are completely accurate, is WP:OR. Is it possible to agree on this point? (original comments by — Pēters J. Vecrumba )

added by Bobanni (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor, this wording ((total fabrication) … is not supported by the facts) in Austria and France (as also rest) called Holocaust denial or revisionism. Unfortunately Peters still unable to find a numbers of “ lend-leased bulldozers used at mass GULAG graves” – so we should wait until any progress

Also such issue it’s not new – at IMT also a lot of call –“ no it’s not me and not us…” Once again – you proposed to believe what in 1941-42 some of higher ranked SS official cheat Himler because he knew what in 2008 in WP someone will used this data? Also same story with Soviet documents. Ok – all of them are faked (excluding USSR-O14!!! and rest reports were OUN (B) mentioned in negative for German actions and inactions) ? Please use such assumption only on TalkPage – don’t make laugh all the WP articles visitors. Moreover - what about own OUN (B) documents of 1941-44 origin is WP:OR??? While all "facts" described as deception to whitewash and indulge minor community (maybe families or friends members). So please not OR, Censoring and do not remove uncomfortable info from WP:RSJo0doe (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews

  • Ribbentrop “… uprising [In Galiscian Ukraine] should be staged that all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed.” IMT Vol II p.448
  • Lahausen: “…Organizations of National Ukrainians with which Amt Abwehr cooperated along military lines, and which were to bring about an uprising in Poland, an uprising which aimed exterminate the Poles and Jews…” IMT Vol II p.478
  • Keitel: “You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews.” IMT Vol III p.21
  • Exhibit USA-290 (Document 3257-PS) “…Specially detached formation of police executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in the public with the use of the Ukrainian militia… So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have been executed in the part of Ukraine belonging to Reichskommissariat.” IMT Vol III p.564
  • Exhibit USA-494 (Document 2992-PS) Anti-Jewish action at the town of Rovno, Ukraine July 13 1942. During the night of 13 July 1942 all inhabitants of the Rovno ghetto, there were still about 5,000 Jews, were liquidated… ghetto was encircled by a large SS detachment and three times as many members of the Ukrainian militia.

SS and militia broke the windows, forced the doors with beams and crowbars and entered the houses… Women carried their dead children in their arms, children pulled and dragged their dead parents by their arms and legs down to the road… Again and again the cries “Open the door! Open the door! Echoed through ghetto.”

What a perfect training for future UPA warriors - interesting but objectives (Poles and Jews) does not changing by the time.

Jo0doe (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Ukrainian nationalist professors began to run for cover. One of them, Orest Subtelny, admitted the still shots were from the 1921-22 famine but justified their use by saying the film lacked "impact" without them. "`You have to have visual impact. You want to show what people dying from a famine look like. Starving children are starving children,' said Subtelny. He offered no apologies for the deliberate attempt to mislead." - as expected Jo0doe (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the source for the quotation you used, above: [80], the "Progressive Labor Party". The same article that you quoted from also said that "any attack on the then-socialist Soviet Union is an attack upon all workers today. Capitalists were horrified by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. For the first time in human history common working people -- under the leadership of a communist party -- proved they could overthrow their exploiters and run a country far better without them. This event still electrifies the world." The article you quoted from, "The Hoax of the Man-Made Ukraine Famine of 1932-33", also presented Tottle as an authority, etc. So according to you Subtelny is "manga for Canadian woodcutters" while communist pamphlets are credible. Sadly, this is not at all a surprise. 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intensive training of freedom fighters

Here is part of an account of a torture school run in Nazi- occupied Poland for fascists of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) in late 1939:

"'The Ukrainian commandant of the entire [Ukrainian training] unit was Lieutenant Vil'nyy,' wrote Kosakivs'kyy, 'whose real name was Mykola Lebid. The curriculum included drills, intelligence and counterintelligence training, and interrogation techniques [i.e. torture], but emphasized "exercises in the hardening of hearts."

"At sundown," recalled Kosakivs'kyy, "Kruger, Rosenbaum [the two German Secret Police, or Gestapo, leaders of the school], Lebid and a few students would go to Zakopane, enter some Jewish home on the way, grab a Jew, and bring him to the Unit. One evening, late in November or early in December 1939, they returned with a young Jew. In the presence of Ukrainian seniors,including myself, Kruger and Rosenbaum, fortified with alcohol, proceeded with their demonstration of the proper methods of interrogation."

"Seeking to induce the innocent Jew to confess that he had raped an 'Aryan' woman, the German officers beat and tortured him, using their fists, a sword and iron bars. When he was bloody from head to toe, they applied salt and flame to his wounds. The broken man then confessed his fictional crimes, but that was not the end."

"'Thereupon,' Kosakivs'kyy, continues, 'he was taken to the corridor of the house and the 'co-eds' (three women members of the unit) were called in. In their presence, Rosenbaum beat the Jew again with an iron pipe and Lebid too assisted manually in that 'heroic action.'... We learned afterwards that the tortured man was stripped naked, stood-up in front of the school as a 'sentry' and doused with water in heavy frost.'"

"Kosakivs'kyy and his friend protested to Lebid the next day, but the commandant told them bluntly that 'it was the duty of every member of the OUN to show the Germans that his nerves are just as tough as a German's and that the heart of any nationalist is just as hard as steel.' Such 'practical exercises' continued unabated..." Jo0doe (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More gems from the Progressive Labor Party website [81]. Thanks for showing your true colors. Why did you conceal the source however? Here is the actual page. The authors of the article you quote from [[82]. ] also state that "First, a note about the Ukraine. The Ukraine and Russia have always [until the past few years -- note added 1996] been part of a single country. Apparently the author forgot the 400 years of Polish or Lithuanian rule. But he can be trusted to describe events alleged to have happened in 1939.
BTW Jo0Doe, the article you reference also stated that "The Ukrainian nationalist groups were always made up mainly of intellectuals. Few workers and peasants joined them. " This contradicts your claims that they were mostly peasants. Are you getting confused now?
This is a good illustration why wikipedia mandates the use of legitimate secondary sources rather than primary sources. It's a good safety-net against biased editors trying to cherry pick facts to fit their often radical or extremist agendas. Thanks for demonstrating that.Faustian (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Another funny quote taken from the source you quoted from above: "The Ukrainian fascists formed an army that was alternately used and repressed by the Nazis, who formed their own "Galician" SS Division from among Eastern (non-Soviet) Ukrainians." Yeah, Subtelny and Magosci are to be dismissed, but this nonsense is worthy of inclusion.Faustian (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean Joe Conason, "To Catch a Nazi", Village Voice (New York City), February 11, 1986, p. 19? Any Comments on "USA Exibits" from IMT?

I not plan to feed trolles. CheersJo0doe (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you got the citation not from the Village Voice article but from the People's Labor Party website. Moreover, Conason is merely a left-wing journalist with an impressive Bachelor's degree in history. But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your extremism.Faustian (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independence act 30 June 1941 - unexpected by masters???

  • Exhibit USA-144 (Document 1030-PS) memorandum dated 8 May 1941, entitled “General Instructions for all Reich Commissioners in the Occupied Eastern Territories”.

In these instructions to his chief henchmen Rosenberg outlines the political aims and purposes of the attack. …. The Ukraine shell become an independent state in alliance with Germany… IMT Vol III p.356

You say unexpected, by German, independence proclaimed 30 June 1941 at Lemberg by OUN(B)?
  • Exhibit USA-277 (Document L-18) “Solution of Jewish question in Galicia” dated 3 June 1943 - many intresting detailsJo0doe (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WHOA

The edits are getting more and more massive on this article. Pictures added to article are being deleted without explanation. Titles that are added to references by BOTs are being reverted. Why? Grammar corrections are being reverted. Why? Extraneous details are being added to various sections. WE NEED TO MAKE THIS EDITS SMALLER – perhaps only individual sections. Maybe the other alternative is to declare a “TIME-OUT” to more edits. Bobanni (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. No more massive edits that include controversial stuff. Controversies are best edited in small pieces. --Irpen 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As there is an edit war going on, I have protected the article, to "encourage" everyone to come and discuss. I like the idea of a time out, and if all involved parties agree to it, I will change it back to semi-protect. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It’s pity to see what article once again locked at version with WP:OR, WP:POV and deception. Unfortunately, as far as you can see on this talk page, it’s not possible to find consensus with editors used WP as soapbox and for propaganda proposes heavily involving a deception and twisting and misusing of facts. "Nedilna battle", "Soviet occupation of Ukraine", etc.

It’s article about military formation of “Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews”. (International Military Tribunal documents) While sole propose of editors are “The purpose of reference was to show that OUN/UPA was not allied with the Nazis. Bobanni (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)” As regards “Pictures added to article are being deleted without explanation” –see [83] as regards to Shukhevich – it`s not article about him – or add photos of all “commanders”. So, the sole solution to handle the situation with edit warring – to stick with WP:Policy – WP:Sources (not only Ukrainian Canadian historians) and avoid twisting and manipulation with data – like mentioning the clear propaganda poster as “recruiting” – see exactly what wording mentioned on it – you can’t find wording –“Join UPA”. Jo0doe (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can agree to slow down the edits, I will unprotect it. I hope that this protection only lasts a day or two, but that depends on whether we can start making progress with small incremental improvements. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please advice how to slow down the edits - becouse current protected version is full of WP:OR, WP:POV and deception. - while "wrong" is well sourced (of couse reqaired a lot of cleaning and correction)Jo0doe (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See meta:The Wrong Version. If there are big changes required, the best way to achieve it is with lots of small improvements that everyone agrees with. Add a few sections to the talk, proposing a few important improvements, and lets see how everyone feels about them. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, the person making claims about deceptions and original research is the one who is himself disrupting the article with original research, as has been well-documented on this page. I have been working hard salvaging the bits of useful information that he presents from time to time, but basically the editor is a rather disruptive force. Please see [84] and [85] on this talk page. However I agree that working in small increments is preferable to large ones, although I am pessimistic that we can come to an agrement with the particular disruptive editor.Faustian (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As a highlight, that particular editor has taken to citing "facts" from this organization's website :[86] during the discussions here. While dismissing information presented by scholars such as Robert Paul Magosci [87], Orest Subtelny [88], Jeffrey Burds [89], etc. The work by the former two scholars was dismissed, charmingly, as "manga for Canadian woodcutters" while the latter was referred to as a "grant-consuming Sovietologist", which did not prevent the disruptive editor from quoting selectively from Burds' work and taking pieces of information out of context.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then, this is going to be interesting! I am soon going to be offline for about 18 hrs, but in the meantime please start new sections for any existing perceived problem with the article, with suggestions on how to fix it. When I come back I will make any adjustments that are agreed upon, and will assess whether it is desirable to reduce the protection level. I am not going to read those sections "#Mischief" and "#Please_stop_corrupting_this_article" just yet, as I hope we can turn a new leaf here. If I come back and find more disruption or stone-walling, I will dig into the history to come to understand the behaviour of those slowing down progress. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
While I would like you to point your attention to topic started in November 2006

[90]

And point you attention specifically to sentence “Those details were taken from a book by Krokhmaliuk about UPA operations” by Faustian 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) While later [91] same editor found what concerned for reliability by other editors “battles” does not exist in book (as also a book published in 1973 itself) which mentioned as “was cited in Subtelny as a source for further readings. Those details are supported by Magosci”. While the reason of such deceptions were not explained and even more manipulation with facts continued (see examples [92] – note differences in months and translations of exact sentence). Also a lot of manipulations and falsification currently present in article – despite numerous note about such. If you would like – I’ll note it once again. Jo0doe (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please comment on Those details were taken from a book by Krokhmaliuk about UPA operations” by Faustian 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) issue. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

There is a note in the current version "Another UPA also existed in Volhynia. It was nominally formed earlier in late November 1941 ... renamed to the Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army in July 1943 before being later partially and forcibly absorbed and disbanded...".

The standard way of doingthis is to add a small note at the top like:

This page is about a military group formed by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. For the group initially known as the "Polissian Sich" and formed under the aegis of the Ukrainian National Republic, see Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army.

Does that sound reasonable? Feel free to propose better wording; shorter if possible. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The difficulties here, in order to be correct, what there plenty of Ukrainian Nationalists groups existed and every has own army – UPA, FUR,OUN-SD etc – every warlord has own army. While article devoted to the OUN(B) UPA which initially named “military detachments of OUN-SD” which actually engaged in ethnical cleaning of Poles and extermination of “undesirable elements” and German collaboration while UPA-UPRA is merely not (on 1942 stage) and belonged more to OUN(M) or even UNR wing. And while WP Article about UPA-UNR more reflect OUN(B) “short version of history” e.g. deception it would be extremely important to distinct 2 different military formations with same name in few words untill article about UPA-UPRA will be fixed accordingly to WP policy Jo0doe (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some more suggestions here?? John Vandenberg (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Update Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army accordingly to data from http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/ - actually files 6-9. pdf with info from 10-16 (data from 16 especially important – because it dismiss OUN(B) deceptions about UPRA responsibility for Poles massacre)

And add after that a note First military formation which adopt name “UPA” by end of November 1941 was a warlord-types formation formed by opposed to OUN(B) wing of Ukrainian nationalists – UNR/OUN(M). In July 1943 they changed name to Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army in order to be no associate with formation OUN(B) currently conducted mass extermination of Poles and “weak elements» amongst other nations . Jo0doe (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA's primary purpose was…

Хоч рішення конференції з військового питання не зберіглося, але існує усталена точка зору (і це підтверджують наступні події), що саме в Олеську ОУН (Б) остаточно визначилася з необхідністю збройного виступу. Цей крок мав на меті наступне: » а) відірвати від впливів Москви ті елементи українського народу, які шукають охорони під загрозою з боку німецького імперіалізму в Москві; б) демаскувати московський більшовизм, що свої імперіалістичні наміри і далі поневолювати Україну прикриває лозунгами оборони українського народу і інщих поневолених народів перед немецким окупантом; в) здобути для українського народу і для національно-возвольної боротьби незалежну позицію на зовнішньополітичному відтінку» - anti-soviet demagogy as always (means pro-nazi by the time) but not as current OR version by one of the editor – i.e. UPA's primary purpose was to protect the interests, of UkrainiansJo0doe (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citation information so that I know what you quoting from. If it is a book, please provide either an ISBN or try to find it in http://worldcat.org/ . If possible, please translate into English for me - if that is too difficult, dont worry, I will find someone else who can help translate. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA Strength and active time myths

Треба відкинути фанатастичні цифри про чисельність постанської армії... Це значить, що через лави повстансьої армії за період з кінця 1942 до вересня 1949, тобто до часу самоліквідації УПА, пройгло понад 100 тис. чоловік. Заслуговує уваги також дослідження ... «найвищу свою чисельність УПА осягнула 1944 та цей рівень ніколи не перевищував цифру 25-30 тис. вояків. ... Із порядком наведених цифр – десятки дисяч слід погодитись, бо вони є найбільш правдоподібними і в цілому відповідали тогочасним матеріальним можливостям і ресурсам визвольного руху. – But one of editor still prefer to have 1955 (instead September 1949) and range 15,000 - 100,000. Subtelnyy and Magochi anyway overwhelm Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine because they gives a desired additions to myths about 3 SS (45K of best German personnel with artillery and tanks) divisions retreated by 0.6K ghost-warriors of UPA near all war important Carpatian passes from village Velyki Patsyuky to village Mali Pisky - Two towers battles relaxed … Jo0doe (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citation information so that I know what you quoting from. If it is a book, please provide either an ISBN or try to find it in http://worldcat.org/ . If possible, please translate into English for me - if that is too difficult, dont worry, I will find someone else who can help translate. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Online version of this book located here [93] (sometimes it may be a difficulties with accessJo0doe (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Magoscy, R. (1996). A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-0830-5. Magosci wrote "up to 100,000". Wikipedia should reflect what the community of scholars says. Estimates vary, so the infobox includes the low and the high, each figure is referenced, so what's the problem? Individual editors' attempts to discredit published historians is OR.Faustian (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean "scholars" of Canadian community says? It's tiny minority view. Also outdated and non reliable.Work of Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine published in 2003 and 2005. Problem it's once again with deceptionJo0doe (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, here are the "scholar's" credentials: [94]. I'm sorry that you have a problem with Canadians. Claims of tiny minority view are yours - a man who per the bio has been "a professor of history and political science at the University of Toronto since 1980, appointed Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 1996 and author of over 450 publications in history, ethnic studies, political science, language, cartography and bibliography." doesn't seem to be marginal, objectively speaking. You can read about some of his books on amazon.com. Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources. It's not about personal archival research. If two legitmate sources offer different information, we put both numbers in rather than use OR to try to discredit the source we don't like. So the 100,000 estimate should stay.Faustian (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And absolutely unknown at Ukraine (Subtely widely critisized) - WP is not a page for iversity of Toronto. So - 100,000 reflect the reliabilty of works while "a professor" - a general quality of grade obtained from University of Toronto. Thank you for your effort.213.159.245.173 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A brief note: Magosci is not in any way a darling of the Ukrainian nationalists who, of the two books written by these Canadian scholars, strongly prefer Subtelny. There are two main reasons. One is that Subtelny's books is more a history of the Ukrainian people than of the territory of Ukraine while Magosci's is about whatever happened in Ukraine itself. For obvious reasons, the ethnic or "national" angle is preferable to the nationalists. The second reason is the Magosci's views on the "Rusyn" questions, that for Ukrainian nationalists is almost a taboo topic.

As for the serious scholars in Ukraine, the current view mostly is that too many facts has been uncovered from the previously unaccessible archives to exclusively rely on any of the two. But they are certainly regarded as respectable academics which by no means make them a final authority. --Irpen 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • All archives were been opened in 1992-96 - now only play around facts -- accrodingly to politicians demands. So, does Magosci works been adopted by Ukrainian scholars community and get a conclution from Ministry of Education of Ukraine? If not - it's self published works with unreliable info about UPA (we don't care about Rusyns)- also dismissed by recent findings and conclusions from Ukrainian Academy of Science, Institute of History - cutation given below - about numbers and days of activity. We should stick with WP:sources policyJo0doe (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, I have created Paul R. Magocsi; please expand with information that might be of relevance to this discussion. Of course, keep WP:BLP in mind. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] …Popularity among the Ukrainian people-?

Негативне ставлення польского населення до цих банд, котре вбачає в них свого ворога та розуміє, що з ним доведеться боротися, на теперешній моменти зменилося [на позитивне] через можливість не здавати поставок, як також і через панику, що почалася серед німців. Українське населення, навпаки, можна поділити на три частини, я зких найменьша, що становить щонайбільше третину, задоволена що білошовистський авангард війшов на цю територію, друга частина – націоналісти, що становлять понад 50% панічно боїться більшовиків, які прийшли, убачають у партизанських загонах початок наступного панування більшовиків на цій території, решта 20% українців, котрих можна назвати русинами, ставляться до [радянських партизанів] як поляки із тієї лише різницею, що частково побоюются репресій. AK “Lviv” area report dated 18 September 1943 Source Archiwum Akt Nowych -– 203/XV-28. – E.71. Despite anti-soviet rhetoric it’s quite notable information – only 50+% support OUN directions in most nationalistic areas (Lemberg, Tarnopol) while 45+% was more or less loyal to Soviet. So, author of sentence “Its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the Ukrainian people”.[10] forgot to mention the cornerstone of such “popularity” – “SB” actions – so it’s not surprised after “You have to have visual impact” in Holodomor falsifications case.Jo0doe (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is vintage behavior on your part. Original research through the archives to find a piece of data that allegedly challenges something referenced in the article from a secondary source. Firstly, about your deliberate mistranslation. The source states that "at most one third" were happy that the Bolshevik forces entered their territory. Another part more than 50% are panicked and fear the Bolsheviks, and see in the Soviet partisans the beginning of the next Bolshevik occupation of this territory, the other 20% of the Ukrainians, whom we can call Rusyns [basically, non-nationalistic Ukrainians - Faustian], have an attitude towards the partisans similar to that of the Poles with the only difference being that to an extent they fear repression. You turn this around into stating "45% was more or less loyal to Soviet."
Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History, 1st edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-8390-0 stated that its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the Ukrainian people. I think that I'm correct in preferring info referenced from Orest Subtelny over mistranslated original research from archival data (primary source).
Moreover, there is nothing contradictory between enjoying a little over 50% of support of the population and having that support explain UPA's growth and strength.Faustian (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Oops. I forgot to mentioned what that is a report about Sydir Kovpak raid (“subsequently mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains” – accordingly to OUN(B)/UPA wild dreams and cited in article by one of the most credible Wpeditor through Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, (page 242). – actually book published in 1972 – so once again perfect example of deception ). Jo0doe (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't misquote (through omitting information) the article. The article states "Attacks by the German air force and military forced Kovpak to break up his force into smaller units, whose remnants were subsequently mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains." You are implying through your misquotes that the article stated that UPA mostrly destroyed Kovpak's forces. This is false and the article doesn't say that. Kovpaks's forces were mostly broken up by German air attacks. UPA just finished off much of their remnants. Should that be reworded differently to make it more clear?Faustian (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I just point to an argument to a former anti-UPA fighter here. I think in terms of NPOV it is justified to take into the accounts the views from the opposite side: От рук бандеровцев на Западной Украине погибло больше местного населения, чем было арестовано или выслано за пособничество бандформированиям...топором зарубили писателя Ярослава Галана. Они говорят, что убивали только активистов. Но кто такие активисты? Грамотные, целеустремленные люди. Цвет нации. Вот их бандеровцы и убивали...Да не было особой поддержки, разве что в первые послевоенные годы. Потом ситуация изменилась. Сработал целый комплекс мер... У бандеровцев выбили идеологическую почву: народ не нуждался в их защите. К 1948 году основная масса населения, несмотря на страх, который сеяла "служба безпеки", была на нашей стороне. ...Кроме того, власть дала шанс многим "лесным бойцам" вернуться к мирной жизни. В 1947-1948 годах было объявлено три амнистии. Многие сдавались, особенно летом 1947-го. На меня как-то вышел один... I think this deserves a place in the article. --Kuban Cossack 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. While his perspective is interesting, the article itself should be nuetral. The man is not a historian, he is a police colonel who spent 7 years hunting UPA with the NKVD (which itself has been implicated in atrocities against civilians). His claims have as little place here as would those by UPA itself. In both cases the specific claims and facts ought to be referenced through a secondary source before placed in the article. Sokolov's statements contradict the referenced info. For example he claimed that UPA killed more Ukrainian civilians than were arrested or deported. As we see in the article, UPA killed approximately 15,000 or so civilians according to Soviet archives, while the Soviets arrested 250,000 people and deported as a minimum over 180,000 people (don't have time now to look throught ghe article). So as historical material the man's claims are as useless as they are biased. It's an interesting eyewitness account, though, and I agree that it's important because it gives us a glimpse into the mind of UPA's adversary. I certainly support placing this interview in the links section because it's worth reading, but not as a source for the article.Faustian (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well again, this is not propaganda material as such, it is but a simple interview. Here is another source:[95]. Here is the relevant chapter. [96]. We have:
  • После изгнания немцев остатки оуновцев сразу же развернули диверсионно-боевую деятельность против советских войск и органов власти. Националистическое движение охватило Львовскую, Ивано-Франковскую, Тернопольскую и Волынскую области. С февраля 1944 по декабрь 1945 г. боевые отряды ОУН совершили более 6600 диверсионно-террористических актов, а до 1956 г. их количество достигло 14500
  • В этот период их действия отличались наибольшим масштабом, решительностью и открытостью, что вынуждало проводить против бандформирований массированные совместные операции армейских частей и внутренних войск НКВД. В результате националисты несли значительные потери. Так, на территории Львовского военного округа за шесть месяцев, с октября 1944 по март 1945 г. было проведено свыше 150 чекистско-войсковых операций с участием в них 16 тыс. военнослужащих. В ходе этих операций было уничтожено 1199 боевиков, взято в плен 1526 чел. и 374 явились с повинной. Части Красной Армии и внутренних войск НКВД при этом потеряли убитыми 45 чел.
  • На последующем этапе (1945-1946 гг.) были разгромлены наиболее крупные отряды Украинской повстанческой армии. Ее потери к концу 1946 г., по данным украинского исследователя B.C. Коваля, составили 56,6 тыс. убитыми и 108,5 пленными.
  • В послевоенный период оуновцы фактически повернули оружие против мирных граждан, как правило, православных. В 1946 г. от их рук погибло свыше 2 тыс. чел., в 1947 г. - 1500 чел. (Metropolitan Oleksiy (Hromadsky) comes to mind)
  • Всего за 1945-1953 гг. на территории западных областей Украины повстанцы совершили 14424 диверсионно-террористических акта. За 10 лет (1945-1955 г.) ими было убито 17 тыс. советских граждан. Только в течение 1948-1955 гг. погибли 329 председателей сельских советов, 231 председатель колхоза, 436 работников райкомов партии, служащих районных организаций и активистов, а также 50 священников. Всего бойцы УПА уничтожили от 30 до 40 тыс. чел.
  • За весь период борьбы (1940-1956 гг.) с националистическим повстанческим движением в Прибалтике и на территориях присоединенных западных областей Украины внутренние войска НКВД СССР и части Красной Армии безвозвратно потеряли 6223 чел. (в том числе: 5635 чел. - убитыми, 588 чел. - пропавшими без вести), и 8612 чел. ранеными.
In interest of neutrality, all views must be presented, and incorporated into the article. No-one questions that Soviet Partisans don't deserve a section about some of their actions which were neither courageous or honourable, why should these ex-Nazi collaborators be treated differently? --Kuban Cossack 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Much of the information above deserves to be in the article and indeed already is in the article.Faustian (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please do not twist and misuse facts and sources. So actually OUN/UPA killed more then 20,000 civilians during 1944-52 (accordingly to well sourced soviet archives - some graves of "freedom fighters" victims still available to prove). 250,000 - wild imaginations of Burds with his NKVD in december 1946 and "11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated and 2,401 were "missing", presumed kidnapped, in Western Ukraine" - both "figures by Burds" proved as disinformation. So it's expected from editor which joined different sources to cheat visitors (and have time for it, while for rest - not). As for "minimum 180,000" - there exist exact figures for number of deported from western Ukraine - 115,820 “supporters of bandits” - so there no place to tease visitors imagination. And should be stated what at least 70-80K of deported were returned in 1956-58.Jo0doe (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it ironic that Burds' claims are dismissed as "wild imagination" (here are Burds' CV: [97] and website: [98]) by the same editor who quotes extensively from the website of the People's Labor Party. You denigrate yourself, not Burds, when you say such things about Burds. In terms of the 180,000 deportees, I believe that you were the one that posted that figure taken from this website [99] about figures released by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Now you are changing your story?Faustian (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you see a difference –
  • As high as 182,543 of "bandits and their family members" was deported between 1944 and 1952 from Ukraine to North, East and Asia
The source [100] specifically states "За даними Міністерства внутрішніх справ України у 1944-1952 роках з території західних та Ізмаїлської областей було виселено 203662 особи, в тому числі членів сімей учасників “банд націоналістичного підпілля”, “бандопособників” та членів їх родин 182543" " According to the ministry of internal affairs of Ukraine from 1944-1952 from the territory of the western and Izmail regions were deported a total of 203,662 people, among whom were families of participants in nationalist insurgence bands and members of their families - 182,543." Stop quoting selectively, please. That's what the source says. What is your problem?Faustian (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • for number of deported fromwestern Ukraine - 115,820 “supporters of bandits

Note (see word Western). Of cause its contradict with world recognized, mainstream and sole truth in oceans of lies – Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History, 1st edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-8390-0 stated 500,000. – or “You have to have visual impact. ?“ Jo0doe (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Failure to assess? - More hints – see – 1949 self disbanding of UPA, article about UPA but not about OUN/UPA underground (since may 1949 – see UHVR/Shukhevich decree) see Izmailska oblast – any UPA there see 1949-52 period anything else Jo0doe (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, (page 242). Issue

Before we begin there exist an important issue. Under mentioned above page (242) in article mentioned following citations:

  • a) On August 19-20, the UPA captured the military center of Kamin Koshyrsky, capturing large quantities of arms and ammunition
  • b) Attacks by the German air force and military forced Kovpak to break up his force into smaller units, whose remnants were subsequently mostly destroyed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains
  • c) UPA focused its energy on NKVD units and Soviet officials of all levels, from high rank NKVD and military officers to the school teachers and postal workers attempting to establish Soviet control over western Ukraine after the front line had passed.
  • d) They blockaded villages and roads and set parts of the forests on fire.

So the fact is what on page 242 located only selectively cited sentence “a)” – selectively means “fortified military center” transformed into “military center” – to hide silly deceptions which actually Yuriy Tys- Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823 published in 1972 full of. Moreover since November 2006 Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press heavily used in this article to cheat visitors and dismiss other editors concerns [101] with false information like “On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers” etc.

Suddenly same editor continued to discredit WP reliability through manipulation with facts mentioned in sources: like “Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivskiy and Roman Shukhevych” while in source Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak to prepare and commit wide appraisal against Germans the majority of delegates does not support such proposition and accordingly to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy (future commander of UPA) and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”. http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/11.pdf p. 163(bottom)- 164 (beginning) - and numerous same manipulations all over article.

Accordingly to another editor's conclusion the same action described as subtle vandalism

Just to note that I corrected the anon's falsification and returned the numbers that reflect the references. This qualifies as subtle vandalism, the worst and most difficult to detect. --Irpen 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So it’s not possible to discuss article with some editors.Jo0doe (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference to page 242 only for part a) above: [102] and it does indeed appear on that page of Krokhmaliuk's book. That page number that I added to that specific reference appears to have then been automatically added to several other citations from Krokhmaliuk's book. There is nothing "selective" about my writing military center rather than fortified military center. Is there really a difference between the two? With respect to the rest, I myself hid the Nedilna stuff several months ago when I failed to confirm it. I must have cited the wrong article. It's significant that you keep returning to it, I guess it's indicative of some kind of desperation on your part. There is no misquote from page 163. With respect to your comment on discussions, are you confirming that you are interested in disrupting the article rather than engaging in discussion?Faustian (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No reasonable explanation yet given. So what about intense campaign started in 22:02, 19 November 2006 and (see resent action - Added by you 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) lasted until 05:59, 1 February 2008 (only when I can dismiss allegedly claims through published in 1972 book) and even not finished right now – interesting who add cite book| author=Krokhmaluk, Y. | title=UPA Warfare in Ukraine| location= New York | publisher= Vantage Press | year = 1973| pages = (page # missing  ?

You ask “Is there really a difference between the two?” – yes because Kamin Koshyrsky was not “military center” nor - especially – “fortified military center” and accordingly to partisans report it was submitted to UPA units based on agreement between Nazi and UPA. There is no misquote from page 163? Really ?!– could you please retype few last sentences – probably we look at different page 163. (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of going back almost 1 1/2 years to try to find a mistake I made (and then eventually corrected) why don't you try to be honest and accurate now in the present? I asked you what is the difference between military center (what I wrote) and fortified military center (what was in the source). You did not answer that question, instead changing the subject by talking about what Soviet partisans claimed. Why don't you translate page 163 and the top of 164. Let's see how close your version is to the real one.Faustian (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It’s a pity, but you once again don’t have time for an answer (few sentences from p 163-164 in Ukrainian as, for instance, you gave in topic before. And of course does not explain not as reason of “mistakes” nor for intense usage of unpublished book lasted 1 and 1/2 years? for cover those “mistakes” from other editors concerns. Jo0doe (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPA recruitment or propaganda poster?

Current version described what on displayed images located only motto is written in Ukrainian on two horizontal lines Glory to Ukraine. Glory to (her) Heroes. While exact wording on it are

  • 1 row (excluding bold greetings) written in Ukrainian : “For Ukraine, for Freedom, For Peoples” .
  • row “300 near Kruty; 359 near Bazar” -
  • “And endless in OUN-UPA struggle”

OUN/UPA formal greetings is written in Ukrainian bold on two horizontal lines Glory to Ukraine (Glory to (her) Heroes

So – I assume it’s once again my OR? Is’t my dear Krokhmaluk, Y (1973) publisher? Jo0doe (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because the other information you put in is clutter and not as important as what is written on the main bars? Why clutter the infobox with some of the other info?Faustian (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This cluttering reminds me of your insistence of putting in lots of figures for numbers in UPA rather merely a range of high to low numbers which you keep reverting. I can't help but suspect you are engaging in a Scorched earth policy on this page - if you can't have it your way, make it unreadable.Faustian (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This was my observation as well in dealing with this particular user. The edits elsewhere are of the same type, and tend to be of poor quality, superfluous information with little to no relevance on the subject. That is really unfortunate.--Riurik(discuss) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So – I assume no reasonable answer mean what that is propaganda poster – and someone cheat WP users not familiar with Ukrainian and with OUN/UPA history? That is really unfortunate… Someone don’t like reliable information and prefer NKVD in 1933 and encircled by army towns? Better to try a special part for fringe theories rather then WP mainland. Jo0doe (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)