RE: Yushchenko's legacy
Ostap Bender
On Mar 27, 4:42 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 3:14 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > - Making the two notorious Nazi criminals - Shukhevych and Bandera-
> > into Heroes of Ukraine, in order to kick the war veterans and Jewish
> > organizations in the teeth and to provoke Israel, Poland, Belarus and
> > Russia.
>
> What thing that the Russian-Polish-Yanukovichian backlash against
> Banderahas done, is to actually make Bandera somewhat popular in Kiev
> for the first time ever.
Let me understand what you said. Some Kiev residents changed their
opinion about Bandera not based on facts, but just to spite
Yanukovych? The kind of thing that's fairly typical for underdeveloped
5 year old children?
How common is this mental infantilism among the anti-Yanukovych
voters?
The Black Monk
> On Mar 27, 4:42 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 3:14 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > > - Making the two notorious Nazi criminals - Shukhevych and Bandera-
> > > into Heroes of Ukraine, in order to kick the war veterans and Jewish
> > > organizations in the teeth and to provoke Israel, Poland, Belarus and
> > > Russia.
>
> > What thing that the Russian-Polish-Yanukovichian backlash against
> > Banderahas done, is to actually make Bandera somewhat popular in Kiev
> > for the first time ever.
>
> Let me understand what you said. Some Kiev residents changed their
> opinion about Bandera not based on facts, but just to spite
> Yanukovych?
For people who don't know the facts, when someone as hated as
Yanukovich (and Yanukovich is hated in Kiev, so much so that for
example one random Russian-speaking person I ran into spontaneously
stated that Ukraine would only be so lucky if Yanukovich and his elite
suffered the same fate as Kaczynsky) states that Bandera is bad, then
the impulse is to assume that he might be okay. Similarly, for
example, if someone were to discover that Bush thought Chavez was
evil, and knew very little about Chavez, and would decide that Chavez
might be okay.
And yes, most Kievens know little about Bandera. They assume that
most of the Soviet stuff about him was BS and ignore it, and have
little other knowledge.
The facts show Bandera to be bad on the level of Mussolini or Lenin
(not Stalin or Hitler). But thanks to Yanukovich anyone saying this
now has less credibility.
> The kind of thing that's fairly typical for underdeveloped 5 year old children?
So is opening an umbrella in the rain. And?
You don't think it's normal for someone, when someone he hates starts
a big campaign against someone he knows little about, to decide that
the unknown person is okay, and even defend that unknown person?
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 5, 6:50 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:42 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 3:14 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > > > - Making the two notorious Nazi criminals - Shukhevych and Bandera-
> > > > into Heroes of Ukraine, in order to kick the war veterans and Jewish
> > > > organizations in the teeth and to provoke Israel, Poland, Belarus and
> > > > Russia.
>
> > > What thing that the Russian-Polish-Yanukovichian backlash against
> > > Banderahas done, is to actually make Bandera somewhat popular in Kiev
> > > for the first time ever.
>
> > Let me understand what you said. Some Kiev residents changed their
> > opinion about Bandera not based on facts, but just to spite
> > Yanukovych?
>
> For people who don't know the facts, when someone as hated as
> Yanukovich (and Yanukovich is hated in Kiev, so much so that for
> example one random Russian-speaking person I ran into spontaneously
> stated that Ukraine would only be so lucky if Yanukovich and his elite
> suffered the same fate as Kaczynsky) states that Bandera is bad, then
> the impulse is to assume that he might be okay. Similarly, for
> example, if someone were to discover that Bush thought Chavez was
> evil, and knew very little about Chavez, and would decide that Chavez
> might be okay.
Oh god. I sure hope Yanukovych say that Hitler was bad, because that
will turn hundreds of thousands of Kiev voters into neo-nazis.
I guess these anti-Yanukovych voters are the perfect example of brain-
dead knee-jerk zombies whom you and Yulia Latynina would want to deny
voting rights...
No wait! I bet you two think that morons should be allowed to vote as
long as they promise to vote against pro-Russian candidates.
> And yes, most Kievens know little about Bandera. They assume that
> most of the Soviet stuff about him was BS and ignore it, and have
> little other knowledge.
That is very sad. A people that doesn't learn from history is doomed
to repeat it.
What you are describing is that many "nationalist" aka "anti-
Yanukovych" base their political judgment not on reason but on the
following principle: anything that we learned in the Soviet Union is
automatically bad. This is a very dangerous way decease. It is
exactly these people who glamorize Shukhevych and Bandera, want to
fight against Russia in Georgia, and want Ukraine to join NATO.
> The facts show Bandera to be bad on the level of Mussolini or Lenin
> (not Stalin or Hitler). But thanks to Yanukovich anyone saying this
> now has less credibility.
>
> > The kind of thing that's fairly typical for underdeveloped 5 year old children?
>
> So is opening an umbrella in the rain. And?
Intelligent adults also open umbrella in the rain, but intelligent
adults don't make political decisions just to spite somebody or based
on hearsay.
> You don't think it's normal for someone, when someone he hates starts
> a big campaign against someone he knows little about, to decide that
> the unknown person is okay, and even defend that unknown person?
Depends on the intelligence and political maturity of this someone.
Let us say that you strongly dislike Saakashvili. Will you become a
hater of Israel just because Saakashvili is close allies with Israel?
A person should ask himself: Do I see the entire world in terms of
"us" vs. "them"? Do I agree with Lenin's maxim: 'He who is not with
us, is against us!"? Is the "enemy of my enemy" always my best friend?
Is everything black-and-white to me, or do I see colour and shades of
grey?
The Black Monk
Bandera was no Hitler.
> I guess these anti-Yanukovych voters are the perfect example of brain-
> dead knee-jerk zombies whom you and Yulia Latynina would want to deny
> voting rights...
So if Yanukovich, whom you know well and hate for good reason, says X
is awful and starts devoting alot of time to attaking X, and you
decide that maybe X is okay after all, that makes you braindead?
> No wait! I bet you two think that morons should be allowed to vote as
> long as they promise to vote against pro-Russian candidates.
And you support illiterate thugs whose backers are gangsters with
plenty of blood on their hands, as long as they are pro-Russian. Is
that better?
This week I met a guy from Yanukovich-country who left his city and
went to university in Lviv, before eventually settling in America. A
few years after he left, his dad back home, a dentist, was savagely
beaten and murdered in his own apartment by 4 thugs. Sadly such crimes
are all too common, he refers to his hometown as a bandit-city and
while he goes back to Lviv often he has no intention of ever setting
foot in his hometown again.
It's not a sad isolated case, all sorts of social and criminal
atrocities are common there. I don't need to cut and paste hundreds of
articles again.
But because this violent gangster region and the political creatures
it spawned are pro-Russian that means you take it's side?
> > And yes, most Kievens know little about Bandera. They assume that
> > most of the Soviet stuff about him was BS and ignore it, and have
> > little other knowledge.
>
> That is very sad. A people that doesn't learn from history is doomed
> to repeat it.
Yes. Bandera was being reassessed by Ukrainian historians. A lot of
new info has come out recently. Now, anyone describing him more
accurately will be suspected of caving in tot he new authorities and
compromising himself. Serious academics are not going to touch this
subject for a while now, it'll just be neo-Commie historians with
their BS versus nationalist reactionaries with their own BS.
Yanukovich has set the process of studying this chapter in Ukrainian
history back 20 years.
> What you are describing is that many "nationalist" aka "anti-
> Yanukovych" base their political judgment not on reason but on the
> following principle: anything that we learned in the Soviet Union is
> automatically bad.
Or rather, automatically suspect and not to be taken at face value.
regards,
BM
> This is a very dangerous way decease. It is
> exactly these people who glamorize Shukhevych and Bandera, want to
> fight against Russia in Georgia, and want Ukraine to join NATO.
>
> > The facts show Bandera to be bad on the level of Mussolini or Lenin
> > (not Stalin or Hitler). But thanks to Yanukovich anyone saying this
> > now has less credibility.
>
> > > The kind of thing that's fairly typical for underdeveloped 5 year old children?
>
> > So is opening an umbrella in the rain. And?
>
> Intelligent adults also open umbrella in the rain, but intelligent
> adults don't make political decisions just to spite somebody or based
> on hearsay.
>
> > You don't think it's normal for someone, when someone he hates starts
> > a big campaign against someone he knows little about, to decide that
> > the unknown person is okay, and even defend that unknown person?
>
> Depends on the intelligence and political maturity of this someone.
>
> Let us say that you strongly dislike Saakashvili. Will you become a
> hater of Israel just because Saakashvili is close allies with Israel?
>
> A person should ask himself: Do I see the entire world in terms of
> "us" vs. "them"? Do I agree with Lenin's maxim: 'He who is not with
> us, is against us!"? Is the "enemy of my enemy" always my best friend?
> Is everything black-and-white to me, or do I see colour and shades of
> grey?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ostap Bender
Yes, for many values of X, if Yushchnko, whom I know well and hate for
good reason, says X is awful and starts devoting a lot of time to
attacking X, and I decide that maybe X is okay after all, that makes
me braindead.
Substitute the following values for X: Hitler, Lenin, Stalin,
Kaganovich, Yezhov, Dzierzhinski, etc.
> > No wait! I bet you two think that morons should be allowed to vote as
> > long as they promise to vote against pro-Russian candidates.
>
> And you support illiterate thugs whose backers are gangsters with
> plenty of blood on their hands, as long as they are pro-Russian. Is
> that better?
Let's not change the subject to discussing as to which politicians
have more blood on their hands.
>
> > > And yes, most Kievens know little about Bandera. They assume that
> > > most of the Soviet stuff about him was BS and ignore it, and have
> > > little other knowledge.
>
> > That is very sad. A people that doesn't learn from history is doomed
> > to repeat it.
>
> Yes. Bandera was being reassessed by Ukrainian historians. A lot of
> new info has come out recently.
I presume that you knew of this new information when you wrote:
> The facts show Bandera to be bad on the level of Mussolini or Lenin
> (not Stalin or Hitler).
If you ask me, I would complain if the modern Italian government
declared Mussolini to be "Hero of Italy" or if Medvedev declared
Mussolini to be "Hero of the Russian Federation".
> Now, anyone describing him more
> accurately will be suspected of caving in tot he new authorities and
> compromising himself. Serious academics are not going to touch this
> subject for a while now, it'll just be neo-Commie historians with
> their BS versus nationalist reactionaries with their own BS.
I fail to see yuor point here. The bottom line is htat it would be
stupid for modern Romans to glorify Mussolini. Ditto for Kievans
glorifying Bandera and Shuljevych.
> Yanukovich has set the process of studying this chapter in Ukrainian
> history back 20 years.
No. It was Yuschenko and his "historians in civilian clothes" from the
SBU who made so many lies about OUN and Nachtigall that they destroyed
all the goodwill of honest historians all over the World.
You seem to be saying that a lot of questions remain open concerning
Bandera and his words and actions,and that the scientific community
doesn't have a definitive answer as to Bandera's role.
I agree with that, just as I would agree with saying that General
Vlasov's role needs to be studied much further. And that's why if
Putin formally declared Vlasov "Hero of Russia" without waiting for
scientific conclusions that prove that Vlasov was a great hero, I
would be very angry.
So, given that Bandera's role is not clear to science and that your
own best guess is Bandera was a fascist like Mussolini, why did
Yuschenko rush to declare Bandera and Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine"?
Why didn't he wait for scientific proofs that they were indeed good
guys and not at all like Mussolini?
Whose fault is it that the roles of Bandera and Shukhevych have been
politicized? Who made the issue a political hot potato? It was
Yuschednko, who started and politicized this debate by rushing to
declare Bandera and Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine"?
The fact is that if Yuschenko had allowed historians to continue their
research and left Bandera and Shukhevych out of politics, 'Yanukovych
would not have talked about them either.
Yanukovych isn't asking for any "punitive actions" against Bandera and
Shukhevych or their memory. All he wants is to restore the status quo
and revert back to the times when Bandera and Shukhevych were not
"Heroes of Ukraine".
If it was a mistake for Yuschenko to make them "Heroes of Ukraine",
what's wrong with Yanukovych wanting to undo this mistake?
> > What you are describing is that many "nationalist" aka "anti-
> > Yanukovych" base their political judgment not on reason but on the
> > following principle: anything that we learned in the Soviet Union is
> > automatically bad.
>
> Or rather, automatically suspect and not to be taken at face value.
Suspecting that the Soviet interpretation of Bandera and Shukhevych
and others may be highly inaccurate, is not the same as declaring
every person, whom the Soviet propaganda hated, to be "Heroes of
Ukraine".
To declare a person "Hero of Ukraine", it is not enough to start
suspecting that he may have been not as monstrous as the Soviets
portrayed him. You need to prove that he was indeed a positive
person. Saying that he was no worse than Mussolini or Lenin - this is
just not a good justification for making him a Hero. So, Yanukovych is
right on this issue, and Yuschenko is wrong.
And if some people in Kiev or anywhere else think that it is OK to
politicize history and to declare people as "Heroes of Ukraine" before
their role becomes understood by historians - they are bigots.
The Black Monk
Except Bandera was not in the same league as almost all of those guys
you mentioned.
> > > No wait! I bet you two think that morons should be allowed to vote as
> > > long as they promise to vote against pro-Russian candidates.
>
> > And you support illiterate thugs whose backers are gangsters with
> > plenty of blood on their hands, as long as they are pro-Russian. Is
> > that better?
>
> Let's not change the subject to discussing as to which politicians
> have more blood on their hands.
Okay.
> > > > And yes, most Kievens know little about Bandera. They assume that
> > > > most of the Soviet stuff about him was BS and ignore it, and have
> > > > little other knowledge.
>
> > > That is very sad. A people that doesn't learn from history is doomed
> > > to repeat it.
>
> > Yes. Bandera was being reassessed by Ukrainian historians. A lot of
> > new info has come out recently.
>
> I presume that you knew of this new information when you wrote:
>
> > The facts show Bandera to be bad on the level of Mussolini or Lenin
> > (not Stalin or Hitler).
Yes.
> If you ask me, I would complain if the modern Italian government
> declared Mussolini to be "Hero of Italy" or if Medvedev declared
> Mussolini to be "Hero of the Russian Federation".
Lenin is de facto a Russian hero, given that his corpse is still on
display in the heart of Red Square, and that hundreds of Russian towns
have statues to him, streets named in his honor, etc. Moscow's metro
is still named after Lenin, etc.
This makes criticism of Bandera's Hero status by Russians (or Eastern
Ukrainians, who also have many Lenin statues, Lenin streets, etc. in
their cities) total hypocrisy.
I was opposed to granting Bandera hero status. But until the Russian
state stamps out all of its own glorification for Lenin its leaders
have no moral standing in criticizing that act.
However let me amend my analogy. Bandera seems to have been about as
nasty as Lenin, although he was nasty in a different way (perhaps I
should have been more careful when I made my analogy). Lenin (like
Mussolini) sought to export and impose his system outside of their own
countries - they invaded other nations. Bandera did not. So from
this perspective a better analogy would be to compare Bandera to Fidel
Castro (minus the Angolan adventure), or Francisco Franco, or whoever
founded the Irish Republican Army.
> > Now, anyone describing him more
> > accurately will be suspected of caving in tot he new authorities and
> > compromising himself. Serious academics are not going to touch this
> > subject for a while now, it'll just be neo-Commie historians with
> > their BS versus nationalist reactionaries with their own BS.
>
> I fail to see yuor point here. The bottom line is htat it would be
> stupid for modern Romans to glorify Mussolini. Ditto for Kievans
> glorifying Bandera and Shuljevych.
Shukhevich was no Bandera. While Bandera was politically pretty close
to fascism Shukhevych was nonpolitical/nonideological and basically
purely an IRA-style "terrorist" (1930's) guerrilla resistance fighter
(1940's and 1950's).
As for stupidity - if modern-day Romans were under an anti-Italian
government which happened to go after Mussolini, and reacted by liking
Mussolni, it would be a sadly understandable negative development,
rather than stupidity.
> > Yanukovich has set the process of studying this chapter in Ukrainian
> > history back 20 years.
>
> No. It was Yuschenko and his "historians in civilian clothes" from the
> SBU who made so many lies about OUN and Nachtigall that they destroyed
> all the goodwill of honest historians all over the World.
Which lies about Nachtigall are you talking about? Actually
historians who also condemn Bandera and Shukhevych agree that
Nachtigall didn't do what it was accused of doing.
> You seem to be saying that a lot of questions remain open concerning
> Bandera and his words and actions,and that the scientific community
> doesn't have a definitive answer as to Bandera's role.
I think many of them have been answered and its a matter of
disseminating the answers. Yushchenko's act was harmful, Yanukovich's
actions no less so.
> I agree with that, just as I would agree with saying that General
> Vlasov's role needs to be studied much further. And that's why if
> Putin formally declared Vlasov "Hero of Russia" without waiting for
> scientific conclusions that prove that Vlasov was a great hero, I
> would be very angry.
And you would be right to be.
> So, given that Bandera's role is not clear to science and that your
> own best guess is Bandera was a fascist like Mussolini, why did
> Yuschenko rush to declare Bandera and Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine"?
> Why didn't he wait for scientific proofs that they were indeed good
> guys and not at all like Mussolini?
He should have - I condemned Yushchenko's act from the start. I am
not happy that thanks to Yanukovich Kievans have started to have
sympathy for Bandera.
> Whose fault is it that the roles of Bandera and Shukhevych have been
> politicized? Who made the issue a political hot potato? It was
> Yuschednko, who started and politicized this debate by rushing to
> declare Bandera and Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine"?
>
> The fact is that if Yuschenko had allowed historians to continue their
> research and left Bandera and Shukhevych out of politics, 'Yanukovych
> would not have talked about them either.
>
> Yanukovych isn't asking for any "punitive actions" against Bandera and
> Shukhevych or their memory. All he wants is to restore the status quo
> and revert back to the times when Bandera and Shukhevych were not
> "Heroes of Ukraine".
If Yanukovich stated that the issue needs to be depoliticized and
suspended the Hero status pending symposia by historians, etc. etc. to
examine Bandera's role in Ukrainian history you would have no argument
from me.
What instead has happened is that Yanukovich has joined a chorus with
the likes of Russia's leaders, appointed a goverment with an education
minister who stated that Hitler personally awarded Bandera an Iron
Cross and that Bandera was simply a collaborator, etc. Rather than
counter a nationalist POV of Bandera is a glorious lilly-white knight
and savior, with a nuetral one Yanukovich has instead responded with
an equally wrong communist view of Bandera as a vicious Nazi friend of
Hitler.
The truth seems to be that Bandera was a Ukrainian patriot whose
entire life was devoted to his struggle to achieve Ukrainian
independence. This aspect of him is why he is celebrated.
Unfortunately, he was willing to achieve this goal using any means
necessary, including a lot of bad stuff such as working with the
Germans when he deemed that doing so suited his goal of an independent
Ukraine (and turning on them when it did not), ethnically cleansing
Ukraine of populations whose existence was judged to be a threat for
Ukrainian independence (his organization is blamed for the massacres
of 80,000-100,000 ethnic Poles), wiping out Ukrainians who presented a
threat to his party's authority because divisiveness (too many
otamans) was correctly seen as a cause of the downfall of the
Ukrainian independence struggle in 1919, etc etc.
Like most of Europe in Bandera's time, his ideology was a fascistic
one. I have no doubt that in different circumstances Bandera could
have been a communist such as Fidel Castro or Ho Chih Minh.
The more that Ukraine is under assault, the more support for Bandera,
a fanatic destroyer of Ukraine's enemies, will grow. Even among
Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians from Kiev.
I view such a development negatively. The fact that Yushchenko
skillfuly laid the trap for Yanukovich doesn't in any way justify
Yanukovich's actions.
> If it was a mistake for Yuschenko to make them "Heroes of Ukraine",
> what's wrong with Yanukovych wanting to undo this mistake?
Because he did more than that.
> > > What you are describing is that many "nationalist" aka "anti-
> > > Yanukovych" base their political judgment not on reason but on the
> > > following principle: anything that we learned in the Soviet Union is
> > > automatically bad.
>
> > Or rather, automatically suspect and not to be taken at face value.
>
> Suspecting that the Soviet interpretation of Bandera and Shukhevych
> and others may be highly inaccurate, is not the same as declaring
> every person, whom the Soviet propaganda hated, to be "Heroes of
> Ukraine".
Sure.
> To declare a person "Hero of Ukraine", it is not enough to start
> suspecting that he may have been not as monstrous as the Soviets
> portrayed him. You need to prove that he was indeed a positive
> person. Saying that he was no worse than Mussolini or Lenin - this is
> just not a good justification for making him a Hero. So, Yanukovych is
> right on this issue, and Yuschenko is wrong.
Both are wrong.
> And if some people in Kiev or anywhere else think that it is OK to
> politicize history and to declare people as "Heroes of Ukraine" before
> their role becomes understood by historians - they are bigots.
They are reacting to anti-Ukrainian bigotry by supporting someone with
a nasty aspect.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
Neither Yeltsin nor Putin nor Medvedev declared Lenin "Hero of
Russia". Yuschnko declared and officially appointed Bandera and
Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine".
Moreover, if, say, Nemtsov said that Lenin was a very bad man, would
that be a terrible act on his part? (see below)
> This makes criticism of Bandera's Hero status by Russians (or Eastern
> Ukrainians, who also have many Lenin statues, Lenin streets, etc. in
> their cities) total hypocrisy.
First of all, leave Russia out of it. And we are not talking about
Eastern Ukrainians vs. Kiev Ukrainians or Western Ukrainians. (BTW, I
assure you that your beloved Kiev has more that its share of Lenin
streets and Lenin statues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenin_statue_kiev.jpg
http://wikimapia.org/13494410/ru/%D1%83%D0%BB-%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-55)
We are talking Yuschenko vs. Yanukovych. Yanukovych hasn't appointed
Lenin or any other odious figure to be a "Hero of Ukraine", has he?
> I was opposed to granting Bandera hero status. But until the Russian
> state stamps out all of its own glorification for Lenin its leaders
> have no moral standing in criticizing that act.
Actually, we are not talking about the Russian state. We are talking
about the Ukrainian state and its democratically elected President
Yanukovych. Why are you constantly confusing him with the Russian
leaders like Putin? Are you going to next blame Yanukovych for the
murder of Litvinenko or Politkovskaya?
> However let me amend my analogy. Bandera seems to have been about as
> nasty as Lenin, although he was nasty in a different way (perhaps I
> should have been more careful when I made my analogy). Lenin (like
> Mussolini) sought to export and impose his system outside of their own
> countries - they invaded other nations. Bandera did not. So from
> this perspective a better analogy would be to compare Bandera to Fidel
> Castro (minus the Angolan adventure), or Francisco Franco, or whoever
> founded the Irish Republican Army.
Even if Bandera is like Castro, what's wrong with Yanukovych saying
that it is wrong to treat Castro and Bandera as national heroes?
> > > Now, anyone describing him more
> > > accurately will be suspected of caving in tot he new authorities and
> > > compromising himself. Serious academics are not going to touch this
> > > subject for a while now, it'll just be neo-Commie historians with
> > > their BS versus nationalist reactionaries with their own BS.
>
> > I fail to see yuor point here. The bottom line is htat it would be
> > stupid for modern Romans to glorify Mussolini. Ditto for Kievans
> > glorifying Bandera and Shuljevych.
>
> Shukhevich was no Bandera. While Bandera was politically pretty close
> to fascism Shukhevych was nonpolitical/nonideological and basically
> purely an IRA-style "terrorist" (1930's) guerrilla resistance fighter
> (1940's and 1950's).
Well, I don't want to return to the pointless discussions about
Nachtigall that we have had in the past, but:
1. Nachtigall was a German batallion, and its members, including
Shukhevych himself, took a solemn oath to obey every Hitler's
command. Of course, so did the Vlasov's people.
2. While there I have seen no proof that Nachtigall as a military
unit, took part in the massacre of Jews and Polish professors in June
30 - July 2 1941period, it is well-documented that some Nachtigall
soldiers took part in them, and there is no evidence that they were
ever evewn reprimanded by their officers for their mass murders of
civilians.
3. It is also well-documented that these massacres were supervised by
Ukrainian-speaking Wehrmacht soldiers. If they didn't belong to
Nachtigall, what other Wehrmacht unit, that conquered Lviv, had
Ukrainian soldiers in them?
4. The Ukrainian pogromschik rioters, even civilians, were well-
armed. Who, if not Nachtigall soldiers and officers, had the rifles
and ammunition to give out to the civilian rioters?
But I hope we don't go deep on this tangent. Otherwise, we'll never
finish, as always.
> As for stupidity - if modern-day Romans were under an anti-Italian
> government which happened to go after Mussolini, and reacted by liking
> Mussolni, it would be a sadly understandable negative development,
> rather than stupidity.
"Go after Mussolini"? How can they do that?! He is dead. What can they
do to him? Dig up his grave and burn his remains?
More importantly, what do you mean when you say that Yanukovych is
"going after Bandera"? What exactly has be done to Bandera?
> > > Yanukovich has set the process of studying this chapter in Ukrainian
> > > history back 20 years.
>
> > No. It was Yuschenko and his "historians in civilian clothes" from the
> > SBU who made so many lies about OUN and Nachtigall that they destroyed
> > all the goodwill of honest historians all over the World.
>
> Which lies about Nachtigall are you talking about?
Here is the first two that come to mind:
1st SBU lie: SBU's claim that the late chairman of Yad Vashem Joseph
Lapid had no information about the Yad Vashem archives because he was
"not an employee of the Yad Vashem archives":
http://www.proua.com/news/2008/03/04/133017.html
The archives of the memorial complex "Yad Vashem in Israel has
documents that would confirm the involvement of Roman Shukhevych in
the murder of Jews in Ukraine, said in a briefing Advisor to the
President of SBU, Candidate of Historical Sciences Vladimir
Vyatrovich. He said that the Ukrainian side visited Yad Vashem "in the
period from February 27 to March 2.
Vyatrovich also said that "Joseph Lapid, who claimed the existence of
such materials, is not an employee of the archive".
----------------------------------------
Truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Lapid
On July 2006, Lapid was appointed chairman of Yad Vashem, the
Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, a role he called
"a sacred duty." Lapid died on 1 June 2008, aged 77, after a battle
with cancer.[10]
-------------------------
Second SBU lie about the role of OUN in hte June 30 - July 3 massacres
in Lviv:
http://unian.net/eng/news/news-234844.html
The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has declassified documents,
proving that OUN is not connected with the anti-Jewish action in Lviv
in 1941. SBU archive representative, candidate of historical sciences
Oleksander Ishchuk showed the declassified documents, which provide an
objective basis to state that OUN is not connected with violent
actions against the civil population of Lviv in July 1941.
In particular, according to O.Ishchuk, the declassified documents of
SBU indicate that on July 4-7 of 1941, representatives of Gestapo, who
arrived in Lviv, turned to Ukrainian circles with demand to carry out
a three-day massacre of Jews. “The OUN leadership, having got to know
about that, informed its members that it was a German provocation in
order to compromise Ukrainians with massacres”, the document reads.
The scientist stressed that thanks to declassifying the documents, now
historians have grounds to state that the OUN leadership refused to
take part in Jewish massacres in Lviv in 1941.
--------------------------
The reality check:
http://www.brama.com/news/press/2008/03/080319himka_nachtigall.html
True and False Lessons from the Nachtigall Episode
— John-Paul Himka
Among the newly declassified documents cited by the SBU in support of
Nachtigall's innocence is one that purports to be a chronicle of OUN
activities from March to September 1941 entitled "From the Book of
Facts" or "From the Book of Acts." According to this document, the
Gestapo on 4-7 July 1941 invited Ukrainian nationalists to stage a
three-day pogrom, but OUN forbade its members to participate, since
they considered this "a German provocation to compromise Ukrainians by
[participation in] pogroms."
This document is fishy. The Lviv pogrom started on 30 June 1941 and
the Germans put an end to it on 2 July. This is established by
numerous reliable sources. So why does the document refer to a German
invitation to commence a pogrom days after it had already taken
place?
-----------------------------------------
> Actually
> historians who also condemn Bandera and Shukhevych agree that
> Nachtigall didn't do what it was accused of doing.
Not as a unit. But many officers and soldiers did as individuals.
> > You seem to be saying that a lot of questions remain open concerning
> > Bandera and his words and actions,and that the scientific community
> > doesn't have a definitive answer as to Bandera's role.
>
> I think many of them have been answered and its a matter of
> disseminating the answers. Yushchenko's act was harmful, Yanukovich's
> actions no less so.
What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
referring to?
I like this sentence. Very nostalgic. Takes me back to the USSR, where
"guilt by association" was commonly practiced by propaganda: "Andrei
Sakharov has joined a chorus with the likes of imperialist American
leaders"
,
If Sakharov agreed with the US government on something - then he is a
traitor to the Soviet Motherland. And If Yanukovych agreed with the
Russian government on something - then he is a traitor to the
Ukrainian Motherland!
> appointed a goverment with an education
> minister who stated that Hitler personally awarded Bandera an Iron
> Cross and that Bandera was simply a collaborator, etc.
So, THAT is your entire case against Yanukovych's "actions" on
Bandera? That one of his ministers had once written in some newspaper
that Bandera was awarded an Iron Cross and that Bandera was simply a
collaborator, etc."? Guilt by association again? Are you saying that
Tabachnik was appointed education minister because of his old article
against Bandera?! That sounds quite paranoid.
Did Yanukovych himself do anything terrible against Bandera? Or even
say/write anything terrible about him?
> Rather than
> counter a nationalist POV of Bandera is a glorious lilly-white knight
> and savior, with a nuetral one Yanukovich has instead responded with
> an equally wrong communist view of Bandera as a vicious Nazi friend of
> Hitler.
What did Yanukovych say about Bandera?! We have been discussing this
issue for a while, but you haven't given me a single quote from
Yanukovych.
>
> The more that Ukraine is under assault, the more support for Bandera,
> a fanatic destroyer of Ukraine's enemies, will grow. Even among
> Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians from Kiev.
>
> I view such a development negatively. The fact that Yushchenko
> skillfuly laid the trap for Yanukovich doesn't in any way justify
> Yanukovich's actions.
So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?!
> > If it was a mistake for Yuschenko to make them "Heroes of Ukraine",
> > what's wrong with Yanukovych wanting to undo this mistake?
>
> Because he did more than that.
So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?! Did Yanukovych
offically appoint Bandera to the list of "Villains of Ukraine" or
something?
> > > > What you are describing is that many "nationalist" aka "anti-
> > > > Yanukovych" base their political judgment not on reason but on the
> > > > following principle: anything that we learned in the Soviet Union is
> > > > automatically bad.
>
> > > Or rather, automatically suspect and not to be taken at face value.
>
> > Suspecting that the Soviet interpretation of Bandera and Shukhevych
> > and others may be highly inaccurate, is not the same as declaring
> > every person, whom the Soviet propaganda hated, to be "Heroes of
> > Ukraine".
>
> Sure.
>
> > To declare a person "Hero of Ukraine", it is not enough to start
> > suspecting that he may have been not as monstrous as the Soviets
> > portrayed him. You need to prove that he was indeed a positive
> > person. Saying that he was no worse than Mussolini or Lenin - this is
> > just not a good justification for making him a Hero. So, Yanukovych is
> > right on this issue, and Yuschenko is wrong.
>
> Both are wrong.
So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?!
> > And if some people in Kiev or anywhere else think that it is OK to
> > politicize history and to declare people as "Heroes of Ukraine" before
> > their role becomes understood by historians - they are bigots.
>
> They are reacting to anti-Ukrainian bigotry by supporting someone with
> a nasty aspect.
So, what "anti-Ukrainian bigotry" with respect to Bandera is the
President of Ukraine Yanukovych guilty of?
READ MORE:
Ostap Bender
I just found an interesting academic article that seems to be quite
objective on Shukhevych:
http://ww2-historicalmemory.org.ua/docs/eng/Rudling.doc.
The Shukhevych Cult in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications
Per A. Rudling, University of Alberta
I will let you find pro-Shukhevych facts in it, but here are facts
that are not nice about him and about his Nachtigall:
While Yushchenko has awarded the order “Hero of Ukraine” to several
controversial figures, none has proven more divisive than the
recognition of Shukhevych, something that led to international
protests. Among Yushchenko’s previous choices for the award can be
mentioned Levko Luk’ianenko, former dissident, Ukrainian ambassador to
Canada and anti-Semitic Verkhovna Rada deputy for Yulia Tymoshenko’s
Bloc; the above mentioned Yuri Shukhevych leader of UNA-UNSO, the
Ukrainian sister party of the German NPD [neo-nazis]; and Ivan
Spodarenko, head of the paper Sils’ki Visti, known for its publication
of anti-Semitic articles. (Per A. Rudling, ”Organized Anti-Semitism in
Contemporary Ukraine: Structure, Influence, and Ideology.” Canadian
Slavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes, Vol. XLVIII, Nos. 1-2,
(March – June 2006): 81-119; Aleksandr Burakovskiy, “Key
Characteristics and Transformation of Jewish-Ukrainian Relations
during the Period of Ukraine’s Independence: 1991-2007,” Paper
presented at the 13th Annual ASN World Conference, Harriman Institute,
Columbia University, New York, April 10, 2008. )
Today, most Ukrainian textbooks present Shukhevych in very favorable
light. “Relentlessly and almost infallibly, the OUN and the UPA are
portrayed as victims and not perpetrators,” writes Swedish historian
Johan Dietsch.
This history writing presents the Ukrainian nationalist movement,
rather than the Ukrainian SSR, as the main actor of the Ukrainian
historical process of the 20th century.1 This perspective resembles
the traditional diaspora narrative, and has gained prominence
following the Orange Revolution in 2004. This perspective has several
implications. It means a switch in focus towards Western Ukraine. It
combines a vicitmization narrative with a glorification of the leaders
of the nationalist movements.
Shukhevych played a key role in organizing the Second Congress (II
Velykyi Zbir) of the Bandera Wing of the OUN, held in Nazi-occupied
Krakow in April, 1941.1 At this conference, the influences of Nazi
Germany and Fascist Italy were particularly strong, something that
found an expression in the anti-democratic platform adopted.2 The
OUN(b) endorsed the removal of all “non-Ukrainians” living in Ukraine
and the liquidation of “Polish, Muscovite, and Jewish activists.”3
Nachtigall participated in the invasion of the Soviet Union in June,
1941, took part in the capture of L’viv, Zolochiv, Ternopil’ and
Vinnytsia. Bloody pogroms and mass murders were carried out in these
cities, and soldiers of Nachtigall participated in the slaughter of
Jews. (REFEREBCES: Viktor Khar’kiv “Khmara,” a member of both
Nachtigall and then Schutzmannschaft battalion 201 wrote in his diary
that he participated in the shooting of Jews in two villages in the
vicinity of Vinnytsia. Patryliak, Viis’kova diial’nist’, 361-362,
citing TsDAVO Ukraїny, f. 3833, op. 1, spr. 57, ark. 18; On the L’viv
pogroms, see Sergei Chuev, Ukrainskii Legion (Moscow, 2006), 180;
Frank Golczewski “Die Kollaboration in der Ukraine,” in Christoph
Dieckmann, Babette Quinkert, Tatjana Tönsmeyer (eds.), Kooperation und
Verbrechen. Formen der “Kollaboration“ im östlichen Europa 1939-1945
(Göttingen: Wallenstein, 2003), 162; Christoph Mick, “Ethnische Gewalt
und Pogrome in Lemberg 1914 und 1941,” Osteuropa, 53 (2003):
1810-1811, 1824-1829; Hannes Heer: “Einübung in den Holocaust: Lemberg
Juni/Juli 1941,“ in: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 49 (2001):
410, 424; Bruder, 140-150; Frank Grelka, Die ukrainische
Nationalbewegung unter deutscher Besatzungsherrschaft 1918 und
1941/1942. (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2005), 276-286; Dieter Pohl,
Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941-1944
Organisation und Durchführung eines staatlichen Massenverbrechens
(München: Oldenbourg, 1997), 60-62; Wachs 2000, 71, 78-80; Eliyahu
Yones, Die Straße nach Lemberg: Zwangsarbeit und Widerstand in
Ostgalizien 1941-1944 (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag,
1999), 18. )
On October 21, 1941, the Nachtigall soldiers were reorganized as the
201st Ukrainian Schutzmannschaft Battalion, consisting of four
companies. Roman Shukhevych’s title was that of Hauptsturmführer
(captain) of the first company and deputy commander of the legion.1
Even though enrollment was voluntary, of the some 300 remaining
members of the Nachtigall division, only about 15 declined to sign up
for service in the Schutzmannschaften.2 Almost all of its members
belonged to the OUN.3 To the battalion were added 60 Soviet POWs from
Poltava and Dnipropetrovs’k oblasti, selected by Shukhevych.4 After
training in Germany, Schutzmannschaft battalion 201 was assigned to
Belarus on February 16, 1942. The soldiers signed a one-year contract
with the Germans.5 The men of Schutzmannschaft battalion 201 wore
German Police Uniforms without national symbols.
On March 16, 1942, the battalion arrived in Belarus and was spread out
over 12 different points in the triangle Mahiliou-Vitsebsk-Lepel’,
guarding a territory of 2,400 square kilometers.1 Frank Golczewski
describes the activities of Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 as
“fighting partisans and killing Jews.” ( Golczewski, “Kollaboration in
der Ukraine,” 176. )
From March 15 to April 15, 1943, close to 4,000 Ukrainian former
Schutzmänner joined the UPA.1 The skills acquired in 1941-1942 became
useful in the UPA’s ethnic cleansing of the Poles of Volhynia.
(Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine,
Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 2003), 162. )
In the spring of 1943, the men of the Schutzmannschaft battalion 201,
who had crossed over from Belarus to Volhynia came to constitute the
heart of the OUN(b) security service, the Sluzhba Bezpeki, or SB,
under Mykola Lebed, who also led the OUN until August 1943.1 Other
officers of Schutzmannschaft battalion 201 became officers in the
Waffen SS Galizien.
Hunczak correctly dismisses the Russian description of Shukhevych as
“a captain of the SS” as false, without providing a corrective that
Shukhevych indeed was a captain, but in the Schutzmannschaften, a
lesser-known institution, yet one which systematically collaborated
with both Einsatzgruppen, the SS and other repressive Nazi organs, and
heavily implicated in both the Holocaust as well as war crimes against
Jews and gentiles alike.
While many of the controversies around Shukhevych’s person are linked
to his, and Nachtigall’s role in the pogroms and the murder of 45
Polish professors in L’viv in the summer of 1941, or UPA’s destruction
of the Polish community in Volhynia in 1943, Shukhevych’s whereabouts
in 1942 are by no means uncontroversial. Most of Shukhevych
nationalist biographers downplay or omit this period of Shukhevych
life.1 Shukhevych’s elevation to a national hero has led to much
speculation about the nature of his activities during the “missing
year” of 1942.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Shukhevych has been promoted as a
national hero for the Ukrainian state. Since independence, a
nationalist lobby with considerable influence, particularly in Western
Ukraine and in the Ukrainian diaspora has worked to have Shukhevych
recognized as a national hero.
While Yad Vashem may not have in their possession a file on
Nachtigall’s participation in the L’viv pogrom, the consensus of
Holocaust specialists seems to be that some of its soldiers did. We
knew that Nachtigall soldiers took part in massacres of Jews in other
Ukrainian cities as they marched east.1 Neither do this non-existent
file exonerate the OUN from participation in the pogrom, or Shukhevych
for the mass murders of Polish civilians in Volhynia in 1943
n the Summer of 2009, in order to mark the centennial of Bandera’s
birth, a number of nationalists planned to bike through Poland on
their way to Munich, to put flowers of Bandera’s grave, they were met
by angry Polish protesters by the border, and denied entry to Poland.1
In general, Polish collective memory of Ukrainians during World War II
remain highly critical. An August 2009 survey showed that the popular
image of the war-time activities of Ukrainians was even more negative
than that of Germans and Russians
Turning a person like Shukhevych into a national hero, while remaining
indifferent to his activities in 1941-1943 makes it harder to address
other important issues, particularly before all aspects of his
whereabouts during the L’viv pogrom, huis activities in the
Schutzmannschaften and the massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943. A
selective and quasi-mythical representation of the past not only makes
the nationalists’ appeals about the need to address other tragedies,
such as the 1932-33 famine, less effective, it also raises the
question of double standards and the whether they are more interested
in politics than an understanding of the past.
Yet, while Shukhevych’s personal bravery cannot be denied, it is hard
to see why this in itself would be a criterion for making him a hero.
Certainly, self-sacrificing bravery could be observed within all sorts
of military formations in Ukraine: within the UPA, the Red Army, the
Wehrmacht, as well as the German and Ukrainian SS formations. In a
divided country, which lacks a common collective memory of the war,
the attempts to turn Shukhevych into a national hero may serve to
polarize and further divide Ukraine.
Given Yushchenko’s objective to join western political institutions
such as the European Union and NATO, the new national myths are also
problematic in that they set him apart from the European mainstream.
Ironically, the historical interpretations of Yanukovych and his pro-
Russian electorate in the east are more in line with the rest of
Europe then are Yushchenko’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzmannschaft
BTW, this lie that the Chairman of Yad Vashem Lapid was not part of
Yad Vashem are now part of the pro-Shukhevych propaganda machine, even
Ukrainian historians who hold prestigious positions in USA:
"The last part of the campaign to slander of Shukhevych and the
Nachtigall battalion was started by Joseph Lapid, who called himself
the head of the council of the Yad Vashem memorial complex. At the
time of President Yushchenko’s visit to Israel and his visit to Yad
Vashem in November of 2007 Lapid protested against Yushchenko’s award
of the order Hero of Ukraine to Shukhevych. Ihor Iukhnovs’kyi, the
head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, and Volodymyr
V’iatrovych went to Israel on February 27 2008. The next day they met
with the director of Yad Vashem Avner Shalev, who informed the
Ukrainian delegation, that they did not have the file abut
Shukhevych, and that Joseph Lapid, who made that statement, is not a
member of Yad Vashem. "
/Taras Hunczak, “Shukhevych i batal’ion ‘Nakhtihal’’,” Den’, No. 122,
July 17, 2009/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Hunczak.
Taras Hunczak (Ukrainian: Тарас Гунчак) is a professor emeritus at
Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. He lectures in Ukrainian,
Russian, and East-European history. Dr. Hunczak has written
extensively on Ukrainian history, the twentieth century in particular.
A great book is this:
Poland's holocaust
Tadeusz Piotrowski
Also on Bandera:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=162249.
In early August 1943, at the time of the Third Congress and before the
anti-Polish massacres
had ended, Sluzhba Bezpeki (SB), the internal security organization of
OUN(b), carried out a
bloody purge of the UPA and the civilian Ukrainian population.
Hundreds of UPA members
were shot or put in a concentration camp near UPA’s headquarters. This
purge was
prompted by fear of spies from the NKVD, the Soviet secret police, in
the organization. SB
had concerns about the ideological purity of the UPA. (Per Anders
Rudlingg, page 170
There was two formation OUN B and OUN M - fighting with each other -
as Tymothy Snyder in "Reconstruction of the nations" tells " it is not
enough examined but OUN UPA probably killed in 1943 as many Ukrainians
as Poles" (page 185 of Polish edition) . All because of purges.
Bandera's supporters created police inside unit SB (Sluzba Bezpeky)
who was responsible for order inside the organization. Many members
were trained in special Gestapo training centre in Zakopane (Per
Anders Rudling, op. cit. p. 167)
J. Anderson
"Ostap Bender" <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:95263713-55bc-4628...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> "Go after Mussolini"? How can they do that?!
> He is dead. What can they do to him?
> Dig up his grave and burn his remains?
Oh, they wouldn't have to dig. Mussolini's remains can be found in a
limestone sarcophagus in a special crypt in Predappio. I visited the place a
few years ago, by coincidence on his birthday (July 29th). It was a very
interesting experience and showed that the guy has quite a following in
today's Italy. Here's a picture of mine from the crypt:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ostsee/4682194316/
Where do they keep the two Ukrainian 'heroes'?
The Black Monk
> "Ostap Bender" <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Bandera is buried in Munich, it is not known AFAIL where Shukhevych's
remains are.
They are planning a huge memorial for these guys in Lviv; it is still
under construction.
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
> On Jun 7, 6:57 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
...cut...
> > > If you ask me, I would complain if the modern Italian government
> > > declared Mussolini to be "Hero of Italy" or if Medvedev declared
> > > Mussolini to be "Hero of the Russian Federation".
>
> > Lenin is de facto a Russian hero, given that his corpse is still on
> > display in the heart of Red Square, and that hundreds of Russian towns
> > have statues to him, streets named in his honor, etc. Moscow's metro
> > is still named after Lenin, etc.
>
> Neither Yeltsin nor Putin nor Medvedev declared Lenin "Hero of
> Russia".
They did not have to, because he is already de facto a Russian Hero.
I doubt that any Russian, other than Pushkin, has more statues and
streets in Russia than does Lenin. So Medvedev and Putin condemn
Bandera's award from the Kremlin with Lenin's corpse in front of
it.
> Yuschnko declared and officially appointed Bandera and
> Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine".
>
> Moreover, if, say, Nemtsov said that Lenin was a very bad man, would
> that be a terrible act on his part? (see below)
Nope.
> > This makes criticism of Bandera's Hero status by Russians (or Eastern
> > Ukrainians, who also have many Lenin statues, Lenin streets, etc. in
> > their cities) total hypocrisy.
>
> First of all, leave Russia out of it.
It is important. The only ones who really have a right to publicly
condemn this is the Poles. Russians, who did not really suffer from
Bandera's movement but who tolerate easily equally odious Russian
political leaders, have been conspicuosly the loudest voices
complaining about Yushchenko's action.
> And we are not talking about Eastern Ukrainians vs. Kiev Ukrainians or Western Ukrainians. (BTW, I
> assure you that your beloved Kiev has more that its share of Lenin
> streets and Lenin statues:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenin_statue_kiev.jpg
Is this still up? The photo was from 4 years ago. Lenin was removed
from the city center.
> http://wikimapia.org/13494410/ru/%D1%83%D0%BB-%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B...)
>
> We are talking Yuschenko vs. Yanukovych. Yanukovych hasn't appointed
> Lenin or any other odious figure to be a "Hero of Ukraine", has he?
See my comments on Medvedev, above. When Yanukovich was governor of
Donetsk did he remove any Lenin statues? Lenin Square with its Lenin
statue is in the very heart of Donetsk:
http://www.weekends.com.ua/attraction/
In his oblast there is also a city bnamed after the founder of the
Cheka:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzerzhynsk
So this man who tolerated Lenin in the very heart of his provincial
capital and who toelrated having a city named after the founder of the
Cheka that was responsible for millions of deaths, makes a fuss about
Bandera's Hero status.
> > I was opposed to granting Bandera hero status. But until the Russian
> > state stamps out all of its own glorification for Lenin its leaders
> > have no moral standing in criticizing that act.
>
> Actually, we are not talking about the Russian state. We are talking
> about the Ukrainian state and its democratically elected President
> Yanukovych. Why are you constantly confusing him with the Russian
> leaders like Putin? Are you going to next blame Yanukovych for the
> murder of Litvinenko or Politkovskaya?
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy here, a hypocrisy that
Yanukovich shares with Russian leaders.
> > However let me amend my analogy. Bandera seems to have been about as
> > nasty as Lenin, although he was nasty in a different way (perhaps I
> > should have been more careful when I made my analogy). Lenin (like
> > Mussolini) sought to export and impose his system outside of their own
> > countries - they invaded other nations. Bandera did not. So from
> > this perspective a better analogy would be to compare Bandera to Fidel
> > Castro (minus the Angolan adventure), or Francisco Franco, or whoever
> > founded the Irish Republican Army.
>
> Even if Bandera is like Castro, what's wrong with Yanukovych saying
> that it is wrong to treat Castro and Bandera as national heroes?
It depends on the way it is done. If the Nazis condemn Soviet
atrocities as part of their ant-Jewish campaign then this is wrong.
Likewise Yanukovich's embedding his anti-Bandera activities within his
neo-Soviet or anti-Ukrainian campaign is wrong.
> > > > Now, anyone describing him more
> > > > accurately will be suspected of caving in tot he new authorities and
> > > > compromising himself. Serious academics are not going to touch this
> > > > subject for a while now, it'll just be neo-Commie historians with
> > > > their BS versus nationalist reactionaries with their own BS.
>
> > > I fail to see yuor point here. The bottom line is htat it would be
> > > stupid for modern Romans to glorify Mussolini. Ditto for Kievans
> > > glorifying Bandera and Shuljevych.
>
> > Shukhevich was no Bandera. While Bandera was politically pretty close
> > to fascism Shukhevych was nonpolitical/nonideological and basically
> > purely an IRA-style "terrorist" (1930's) guerrilla resistance fighter
> > (1940's and 1950's).
>
> Well, I don't want to return to the pointless discussions about
> Nachtigall that we have had in the past, but:
Oops, you just did.
> 1. Nachtigall was a German batallion, and its members, including
> Shukhevych himself, took a solemn oath to obey every Hitler's
> command. Of course, so did the Vlasov's people.
Evidence of his "solemn oath to obey every Hitler's command?"
> 2. While there I have seen no proof that Nachtigall as a military
> unit, took part in the massacre of Jews and Polish professors in June
> 30 - July 2 1941period, it is well-documented that some Nachtigall
> soldiers took part in them,
And some Soviet soldiers raped women in eastern and central Europe,
and some Soviet POWS were the main workforce among the guards at
concentration camps.
> and there is no evidence that they were ever evewn reprimanded by their officers for their mass murders of
> civilians.
How many? And while we're at it, how many American and British pilots
were reprimanded for the murder of far more German and Japanese
civilians? Actually the architect of the bombing of 100,000s
civilians was awarded a title and given a statue by the British:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Harris.jpg
Yes, one crime does not justify another. And I am not changing the
subject, rather I am placing this one in perspective: many nations
honor people with very unsavory aspects (Lenin, Peter the Great,
Catherine the Great in Russia, Andrew Jackson who ethnically cleansed
Indians from the Southeastern US who sits on the US 20 dollar bill in
America, Napoleon's grandioise tomb in Paris, there are hundreds of
examples). And yet when a Ukrainian president does something similar,
he is condemned for it. Churchill gassed Iraqi Kurds and was cosy
with the butcher Stalin, yet no foreign leader demands that the
British not honor him. Sorry, the anti-Bandera howling just seems to
be Ukrainophobia coming from the likes of Yanukovich or Medvedev.
> 3. It is also well-documented that these massacres were supervised by
> Ukrainian-speaking Wehrmacht soldiers.
By whom?
> If they didn't belong to Nachtigall, what other Wehrmacht unit, that conquered Lviv, had
> Ukrainian soldiers in them?
>
> 4. The Ukrainian pogromschik rioters, even civilians, were well-
> armed. Who, if not Nachtigall soldiers and officers, had the rifles
> and ammunition to give out to the civilian rioters?
Russian historian Sergei Chuyev in his book on the Ukrainian Legion
based on Russian archival sources wrote:
On June 30 in Lviv the German administration started mass repressions.
The commander of the Einzatzgruppen C Dr. Rasch had incriminated the
death of those incarcerated in the Lviv jails to the "Jews from the
NKVD" which became the spark for the terror against the Jews and Poles
of Lviv. In the bloody murder of the Jews the Einsatzgruppen under the
command of brigadeerfuhrer SS Karl Eberhard Schenhardt took
prominence. The sections of this group under the command of H. Kruger
and W. Kutschman on July 4 murdered 23 Polish professors and their
families. On July 11, 2 more were killed, and later the former prime-
minister of Poland, Professor Bartel. In the Autumn of 1941 a ghetto
was formed in Lviv.
> But I hope we don't go deep on this tangent. Otherwise, we'll never
> finish, as always.
I hope I didn't get too deeply into it.
> > As for stupidity - if modern-day Romans were under an anti-Italian
> > government which happened to go after Mussolini, and reacted by liking
> > Mussolni, it would be a sadly understandable negative development,
> > rather than stupidity.
>
> "Go after Mussolini"? How can they do that?! He is dead. What can they
> do to him? Dig up his grave and burn his remains?
So lying about someone after they have died is not "going after
them?" Will this be a discussion involving nitpicking of how things
are worded in hastily-written posts?
> More importantly, what do you mean when you say that Yanukovych is
> "going after Bandera"? What exactly has be done to Bandera?
Yanukovich threatened to revoke the award and appointed a guy who
smears Bandera and who plans to introduce soviet-style smears of
Bandera into Ukrainian schools as education minister.
So where, in your link above, does it state that he was an employee of
the archives? Is Yanukovuich an employee of Ukraine's defence
ministry, forestry ministry, archives, etc.?
The document itself may have been fishy but it exists and was written
by the OUN in the 1940's. The SBU did not lie when they quoted it.
You quote Himka (whom I respect very much)selectively though. From
your link above, the very first paragraph:
I was extremely surprised to read in the reporting of President
Yushchenko's visit to Israel in November 2007 that someone at Yad
Vashem had raised the old accusations against Nachtigall. I understood
the consensus of Holocaust specialists to be that, although some
soldiers of the battalion participated in the pogrom in Lviv in July
1941, the unit as a whole did not. In fact, it was well known that the
soldiers of Nachtigall enjoyed a week's furlough after the city was
taken on 30 June.
And later:
There are lessons that Yad Vashem should draw from this episode. The
uncritical resurrection of allegations that had already been
questioned by leading scholars of the Holocaust, such as Frank
Golczewski in Hamburg, indicates a lapse in professionalism and
suggests a prejudice beclouding scholarly objectivity. Certainly, this
incident has not contributed positively to Yad Vashem's efforts to
promote Holocaust awareness in Ukraine.
> > Actually
> > historians who also condemn Bandera and Shukhevych agree that
> > Nachtigall didn't do what it was accused of doing.
>
> Not as a unit. But many officers and soldiers did as individuals.
Himka stated "some" not many.
> > > You seem to be saying that a lot of questions remain open concerning
> > > Bandera and his words and actions,and that the scientific community
> > > doesn't have a definitive answer as to Bandera's role.
>
> > I think many of them have been answered and its a matter of
> > disseminating the answers. Yushchenko's act was harmful, Yanukovich's
> > actions no less so.
>
> What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
> referring to?
Rescinding the award *as part of his anti-Ukrainian campaign.* (see
my earlier comments about Nazi documentation of Soviet crimes)
Which is exactly what you are doing with my comment about "joining the
chorus". Clever.
But seriously, from the apppintment of Tabachnik as education
minister, the anti-UPA propaganda in the Ukrainian House in Kiev, the
tolerance/mild criticism of the new Stalin statue in Zaporizhia,
publicly denouncing the idea that the Holodomor was a genocide against
the Ukrainian people, etc. Yanukovich has embedded his revocation of
Bandera's award into his anti-Ukrainian crusade. Doing so has made it
qyuite difficult for an objective accouning of the man and his
historcal role.
> If Sakharov agreed with the US government on something - then he is a
> traitor to the Soviet Motherland. And If Yanukovych agreed with the
> Russian government on something - then he is a traitor to the
> Ukrainian Motherland!
Oh, it is much more than that.
> > appointed a goverment with an education
> > minister who stated that Hitler personally awarded Bandera an Iron
> > Cross and that Bandera was simply a collaborator, etc.
>
> So, THAT is your entire case against Yanukovych's "actions" on
> Bandera? That one of his ministers had once written in some newspaper
> that Bandera was awarded an Iron Cross and that Bandera was simply a
> collaborator, etc."? Guilt by association again?
It's hardly "guilt by association" when one's own minister from one's
own governing party does or writes something.
> Are you saying that Tabachnik was appointed education minister because of his old article
> against Bandera?! That sounds quite paranoid.
He has done more than that. He's plannning on introducing Russian
textbooks for Ukrainian students (they will learn the exact same
history as those in Russia - imagine Polish students being taught
Polish history from German or Russian textbooks), dropped the
Ukrainian language from national exams, etc. as some commentator put
it, he is not drinking Ukraine back to the Kuchma-era 1990's but tot
he Soviet 1970's.
> Did Yanukovych himself do anything terrible against Bandera? Or even
> say/write anything terrible about him?
As president he is responsible not only for his own public statements
but for the acts of his ministers. Tabachnik is not some minor
official far removed from the president. At best he could have
removed Tabachnik after saying that he had been unaware ofhis writings
or his plans. But he has not done so.
> > Rather than
> > counter a nationalist POV of Bandera is a glorious lilly-white knight
> > and savior, with a nuetral one Yanukovich has instead responded with
> > an equally wrong communist view of Bandera as a vicious Nazi friend of
> > Hitler.
>
> What did Yanukovych say about Bandera?! We have been discussing this
> issue for a while, but you haven't given me a single quote from
> Yanukovych.
See my comment above.
> > The more that Ukraine is under assault, the more support for Bandera,
> > a fanatic destroyer of Ukraine's enemies, will grow. Even among
> > Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians from Kiev.
>
> > I view such a development negatively. The fact that Yushchenko
> > skillfuly laid the trap for Yanukovich doesn't in any way justify
> > Yanukovich's actions.
>
> So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?!
See above.
> > > If it was a mistake for Yuschenko to make them "Heroes of Ukraine",
> > > what's wrong with Yanukovych wanting to undo this mistake?
>
> > Because he did more than that.
>
> So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?! Did Yanukovych
> offically appoint Bandera to the list of "Villains of Ukraine" or
> something?
Basically, yes. Yanukovich's government plans to do that in the
textbooks.
regards,
BM
> > > > > What you are describing is that many "nationalist" aka "anti-
The Black Monk
> On Jun 7, 11:34 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > But I hope we don't go deep on this tangent. Otherwise, we'll never
> > finish, as always.
>
> I just found an interesting academic article that seems to be quite
> objective on Shukhevych:
Not totally objective, unfortunately. Just in the first few
paragrpahs of the article, he forgot to mention that the "Red Army
veterans" protesting against UPa were veterans of NKVD units (civilian-
killers who would be justifyably prosecuted in, for example, the
Baltic republics) and that the ant-Bandera protesting political party
the Progressive Socialists are a neo-Stalinist party.
The actual context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
According to the OUN, Ukraine's primary enemies were considered to be
Poles and Russians, with Jews playing a secondary role. German
documents of the period lead to the impression that extreme Ukrainian
nationalists were indifferent to the plight of the Jews; they were
willing to either kill them or help them, whichever was more
appropriate for their political goals.[17] The OUN-B's ambivalent
attitude towards the Jews was highlighted during the Second General
Congress of OUN-B (April, 1941, Krakow). At that conference the OUN-B
declared "The Jews in the USSR constitute the most faithful support of
the ruling Bolshevik regime, and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism
in Ukraine. The Muscovite-Bolshevik government exploits the anti-
Jewish sentiments of the Ukrainian masses masses to divert their
attention from the true cause of their misfortune and to channel them
in a time of frustration into pogroms on Jews. The OUN combats the
Jews as the prop of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime anbd simultaneously
it renders the masses conscious of the fact that the principal foe is
Moscow."[31] The OUN-B condemned anti-Jewish pogroms. [32]
Shukhevich was a minor player in the OUN in 1941. He came to the
forefront when UPA's role grew later. Probably not coincidentally,
the vestiges of ideological antisemitism were thrown out.
Okay, but how many?
So which specific massacres did Shukhevych's unit commit? Any
evidence of such?
Also quoted from the article, the pro-Shukhevych side of the story:
On February 20, 1942, the Legion was sent on military operations. It
was sent to a part of Belarus, terrorized by Muscovite-MGB partisans.
Much like in the adjacent Ukrainian territories, [the MGB] terrorized
the population mercilessly, purposely provoking the German Army and
their Polish allies into harsh punitive actions…During its nine-month
protective assignment the officers and soldiers of the Legion took
every chance to work to enhance the national consciousness of the
local population and to implant a conviction that a free and
prosperous life is possible only in a powerful, independent state.
With that aim the officers and the instructors provided specialized
education for hundreds of young Belarusians, preparing them for
struggle not only against the Russian-Bolshevik invaders. This could
not be talked about openly. Yet, the Ukrainian legionnaires were able
to rescue many Belarusian patriots, supporters of state independence
from both the Gestapo, and the MGB, which operated under the auspices
of Bolshevik partisans. There were many such cases, when such people
were able to engage [the local Belarusians] in serious battles or
assist them through powerful military support.
Did [Shukhevych] have the right to collaborate with evil Germany? In
order to answer that question we again need to evaluate the situation
not from the perspective of 2008, or even 1945, but only 1941, when
that decision was made. However, for us the German army means millions
of victims. It means that, what was put on trial at in Nuremberg in
1945. But that had not yet happened in 1941….Thanks to legionnaires in
foreign armies they were able to create a national army, and in that
way the Greeks, Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians were able to achieve
independence….Yes, Shukhevych fought in 1941-1942 in a German uniform,
but wearing it does not mean that he assumed responsibility for all
crimes, committed by the soldiers of the German army…There are
practically no documentary sources on Roman Shukhevych’s stay in
Belarus, as all the only recollection of the activities of that period
are the memoirs of one comrade from the Battalion. Despite this, after
it was established that Shukhevych’s alleged participation in anti-
Jewish actions in 1941 was a hoax, [some people] have begun trying to
untwist the problem about his possible participation in the
pacification against the Belarusian population in 1942. However, if
there are no documents, then it will be difficult to prove that
Shukhevych did not participate in such actions. Again there is the
presumption of guilt.
In Belarus the 201st Ukrainian battalion was not concentrated in
place, as it was protecting bridges over the rivers Biarezina and
Dzvina. The detachments in the small villages were also assigned to
protect the local German administration. Towards the end of November
1942, in order to avoid further losses, the Ukrainian officers decided
to curtail, as much as possible, the battalions’ active participation
in German military actions. On December 1, 1942 the soldiers of the
battalion declined to renew the contract with the Germans, which led
to the arrest of many of them, and their leaders, in particular.
Others, including Roman Shukhevych, were able to escape. All together,
many soldiers of the battalion joined the Ukrainian Insurgent Army,
where they, as well-prepared soldiers, chose to take up commanding
positions. In the functions of that army, defending the Ukrainian
population, they fought honorably against their former allies, the
Germans.
“After the Germans failed to recognize the Act of Renewal of Ukrainian
Independence on June 30, 1941 and the Stet’sko government, and instead
began to repress its leadership, the OUN pursued an anti-German
political line.” To the obvious follow-up question, as to why
Shukhevych then collaborated with the Abwehr from 1939 and then signed
up for the Schutzmannschaften V’’iatrovych answers “Shukhevych, as an
individual, had the right to collaborate with the [German military]
intelligence. We cannot avoid that moment, but evaluate the goals he
set up for himself. That goal was one – the formation of an armed
formation, which could become the kernel of a Ukrainian army. Very
many of the officers of the Nachtigall later became commanders of the
UPA. And why did France and Britain have the right to collaborate with
Germany during 1938-1939, why did the Soviet Union have the right to
collaborate with Germany during 1939-1941?...OUN-UPA was a force that
dared to challenge both totalitarianisms: the German as well as the
Soviet. Even Churchill made compromises with one evil in order to
fight the other. And already in 1946 he realized that they, after
destroying one, had supported another.”
On the question why Shukhevych did not immediately turn his weapons
against the Germans after they had lied to him and arrested the
leadership of the OUN, V’’iatrovych responded
Let’s be realistic. Roman Shukhevych commanded 700 soldiers, the
Wehrmacht, at that time, close to half a million. To turn the weapons
against the Wehrmacht in 1941 and tell them: ‘now Roland and
Nachtigall will fight the Wehrmacht’ would have meant that they would
have been killed on the spot…Until the end of 1942 the soldiers were
bound by a contract, which tied them to the Schutzmannschaft
battalion. When the contract ended, those people declared: we will no
longer serve with you. That decision cost many of them their lives.
Q: They say that after 1942, Shukhevych fought against Belarusian
partisans and Poles?
A: The Schutzmannschaft battalion, in which the former Nachtigall
members, among them Shukhevych, served, ended its activities in the
end of 1942. After that the majority of the boys joined the ranks of
the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. And anyway, what partisans were there in
1942 in Belarus?
Q: Vasyl Bykau writes, that there were…
A: Vasyl Bykau was a novelist. Let’s look at the documents. The
documents show that there were special groups, created under the
leadership of the NKVD, who infiltrated and carried out acts of
sabotage behind the German lines. To call them partisans is difficult,
since partisans are rebels, organized by the local population….
Q: As a historian, can you say that Shukhevych did not participate in
[anti-]Jewish pogroms?
A: Yes.
Q: Likewise, can you say that Shukhevych did not participate in the
killing of peaceful Belarusian and Polish civilians?
A: Very interesting question regarding peaceful population during
partisan warfare… In conventional warfare, one soldier differs from
another by his uniform. Is it possible to consider Poles or
Belarusians a peaceful population, if they work as ordinary villagers,
during the day, only to arm themselves in the evening and attack the
village? How should they be regarded – as Polish or Ukrainian
[soldiers]? With a machine gun – he is a soldier, with a hoe – a
peaceful civilian? When such a person is killed in an armed conflict,
should he be regarded as a killed civilian or as a military
casualty?
Ukraїns’ka Pravda published a similar assessment by Serhii
Hrabovs’kyi, a member of the Association of Ukrainian Writers.
[T]he supreme commander of the UPA and the people he commanded were
hardly any more “collaborators” than, say, the leaders of the
Judenräte in the Nazi-occupied territories, and no more “fascists”
than the Gaullists of the French resistance…Strictly speaking, almost
all serious researchers speak about the absence of a serious popular
partisan movement and battles between “real” partisans (and not
intelligence officers and NKVD provocateurs) and the police and parts
of the Wehrmacht until 1943. In regards to the 201st battalion,
scholars and publicists of diametrically opposed ideological
perspectives agree that it did not rush into battle, but at times
reached a neutrality agreement with the partisans (Shukhevych, in
particular, was interested in such an agreement), though, without
doubt, there were battles with victims on both sides.
Using examples from 1943, Hrabovs’kyi focuses on atrocities of pro-
Soviet partisans against the local Belarusian population. After giving
an example of how Soviet partisans cut the throat of an under-aged
girl, Hrabovs’kyi asks, rhetorically:
It was this kind of “operations” the Kutuzov Soviet partisan division,
commanded by Israil Lapidus carried out. The people were of the same
lot as Lazar Kaganovich, who pathetically stressed “I am not a Jew, I
am a Bolshevik!” Do we need to question whether the Ukrainian
nationalists had the moral right to fight such
partisans? ...Naturally, among the Soviet partisans as well as with
the OUN there were various kinds of people. Of course it is not
possible to portray the warriors of the UPA and their commanders as
angels – as the last supreme commander of the insurgents, Vasyl’ Kuk
put it: “they killed and we killed.” My purpose is not to “justify”
Roman Shukhevych – after all, his political principles, expressed in
the programs of the Third Congress of the OUN(b), have today entered
the Ukrainian constitution, while the Bolshevik ideology has been
thrown on the dust heap of history…I call on politicians and
journalists, among them Israeli: do not rush to make simple
conclusions regarding “Ukrainian fascists”…
Shukhevich's son makes an excellent point:
Let us look at the events of World War II in other countries. In Burma
there was Aun Sang, who formed military formations on the side of the
Japanese to fight the English colonizers. As a result, Burma became an
independent state in 1948! The Indian legions, created by Chandra Bos
– the leader of Indian National Congress – fought England as an ally
not only of the Japanese, but also of the Germans (!). It was formed
in Europe out of captive Hindus. This is not held against them. The
Union of Young Officers, which under the leadership of Gamal Abdel
Nasser fought for the independence of Egypt against the English,
received assistance from Mussolini. That cooperation did not discredit
Nasser [in the eyes of the Soviets] who, after becoming president of
Egypt, received the order of Hero of the Soviet Union!
> > The archives of the memorial complex "Yad Vashem in Israel has
> > documents that would confirm the involvement of Roman Shukhevych in
> > the murder of Jews in Ukraine, said in a briefing Advisor to the
> > President of SBU, Candidate of Historical Sciences Vladimir
> > Vyatrovich. He said that the Ukrainian side visited Yad Vashem "in the
> > period from February 27 to March 2.
>
> > Vyatrovich also said that "Joseph Lapid, who claimed the existence of
> > such materials, is not an employee of the archive".
> > ----------------------------------------
>
> > Truth:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Lapid
>
> > On July 2006, Lapid was appointed chairman of Yad Vashem, the
> > Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, a role he called
> > "a sacred duty." Lapid died on 1 June 2008, aged 77, after a battle
> > with cancer.[10]
>
> > -------------------------
>
> BTW, this lie that the Chairman of Yad Vashem Lapid was not part of
> Yad Vashem
Actually the SBU guy stated that he was not a member of the
*archives*. And he was not. There was no lie. Lapid was chair of
the organization and as such has as much to do with the archives as
the CEO of a company has to do with the inner workings of the IT
department.
> are now part of the pro-Shukhevych propaganda machine, even
> Ukrainian historians who hold prestigious positions in USA:
>
> "The last part of the campaign to slander of Shukhevych and the
> Nachtigall battalion was started by Joseph Lapid, who called himself
> the head of the council of the Yad Vashem memorial complex. At the
> time of President Yushchenko’s visit to Israel and his visit to Yad
> Vashem in November of 2007 Lapid protested against Yushchenko’s award
> of the order Hero of Ukraine to Shukhevych. Ihor Iukhnovs’kyi, the
> head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, and Volodymyr
> V’iatrovych went to Israel on February 27 2008. The next day they met
> with the director of Yad Vashem Avner Shalev, who informed the
> Ukrainian delegation, that they did not have the file abut
> Shukhevych, and that Joseph Lapid, who made that statement, is not a
> member of Yad Vashem. "
So they misquoted/confused the issue a bit - instead of stating
correctly that he didn't work in the archives they stated he wasn't in
Vad Yashem at all. Given that the central issue is one of using
archives, this misquote is not so horrible.
>
> /Taras Hunczak, “Shukhevych i batal’ion ‘Nakhtihal’’,” Den’, No. 122,
> July 17, 2009/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Hunczak.
>
> Taras Hunczak (Ukrainian: Тарас Гунчак) is a professor emeritus at
> Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. He lectures in Ukrainian,
> Russian, and East-European history. Dr. Hunczak has written
> extensively on Ukrainian history, the twentieth century in particular.
>
> A great book is this:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=NBbnrEMswbUC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=g...
>
> Poland's holocaust
>
> Tadeusz Piotrowski
I am quite familiar with that book. Look at Piotrowky's sources.
They are basically a collection of discredited Polish propoganda
sources, many of which were published by this notoriously anti-semitic
and anti-Ukrainian publishing house:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortom
NORTOM is a privately owned Polish publishing house, founded in 1992
in Wrocław, specializing in books on Polish history with special focus
on the Kresy region of the Second Polish Republic, the Polish
literature and political thought, including on post-communism economic
crises and nationalism. Nortom is listed by the Roth Institute in Tel
Aviv among the four Polish publishers known for their "antisemitic,
Holocaust distorting or Holocaust denying books."[1] It also publishes
religious books for children and youth. Nortom was founded by Norbert
Tomczyk,[2] re-elected as member of the Board of Control of the Polish
Chamber of Book Publishers in December 2000,[1] a leader of the
marginal Polish political party Stronnictwo Narodowe ("National Party")
[1] whose ideology is based on that of the pre-war antisemitic
National Democratic movement and which received .16% of the Polish
vote in the presidential elections.[1]
Authors featured by Nortom include: antisemitic[3][4][verification
needed] Polish politician, diplomat and statesman Roman Dmowski
(1864-1939), who was a chief architect of the new Polish state,[5]
with a series on the return of Polish sovereignty; Jan Ludwik
Popławski (1854-1908) the founder of The National-Democratic Party
(1897); right-wing politician Janusz Dobrosz, member of the Polish
Parlament;[6] Dmowski's political ally Jędrzej Giertych, Polish war
correspondent and Franco ally during the Spanish Civil War,[7]
expelled from the emigration party Stronnictwo Narodowe because of his
extremism and antisemitism [8]; Zbigniew Żmigrodzki; Adam Doboszyński
(1904-1949); Roman Rybarski (1887-1942), one of the best economists in
prewar Poland,[9] (another ally of Roman Dmowski); Czesław Czaplicki;
Andrzej Sołdrowski, political prisoner under Stalinism; Lubomir
Czupkiewicz; Piotr Kosobudzki; Maciej Giertych, a member of the
European parliament who created a scandal with his antisemitic writing
[10][11]; Stanisław Jastrzębski, veteran Polish underground fighter
during world war II; controversial politologist Edward Prus; Stanisław
Żurek; Norbert Tomczyk; Stanisław Sosenkiewicz; Henryk Komański;
Szczepan Siekierka; Witalij Masłowśkyj; Aleksander Korman; Mieczysław
Dobrzański; Feliks Koneczny, a Polish historian and social philosopher
who claimed that Jews were conspiring to destroy Latin-Christian
civilization and that Nazism was example of Jewish civilization
type[12]; Michał Poradowski; Stanisław Bełza; Izabella Wolikowska and
others.[2]
-----------
Basically Piotrowsky found whatever anti-Ukrainian stuff he could, no
matter what the source, and put it together in his book. The book
seems cedible on the surface because he's a professor at the
University of New Hampshire, but he's a sociology professor not a
history professor.
>
> Also on Bandera:
>
> http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=162249.
>
> In early August 1943, at the time of the Third Congress and before the
> anti-Polish massacres
> had ended, Sluzhba Bezpeki (SB), the internal security organization of
> OUN(b), carried out a
> bloody purge of the UPA and the civilian Ukrainian population.
> Hundreds of UPA members
> were shot or put in a concentration camp near UPA’s headquarters. This
> purge was
> prompted by fear of spies from the NKVD, the Soviet secret police, in
> the organization. SB
> had concerns about the ideological purity of the UPA. (Per Anders
> Rudlingg, page 170
>
> There was two formation OUN B and OUN M - fighting with each other -
> as Tymothy Snyder in "Reconstruction of the nations" tells " it is not
> enough examined but OUN UPA probably killed in 1943 as many Ukrainians
> as Poles" (page 185 of Polish edition) . All because of purges.
> Bandera's supporters created police inside unit SB (Sluzba Bezpeky)
> who was responsible for order inside the organization. Many members
> were trained in special Gestapo training centre in Zakopane (Per
> Anders Rudling, op. cit. p. 167)
Yes, the OUN were not gentle. Now place them in the world of the
1940's, betweeen Hitler and Stalin. They were clearly still despite
their nastiness the nicest of the three goups operating in Ukraine.
Ironically the most decent people of all seemed to have in the 14th
Waffen-SS Division, which because of its name is such an easy target
for ignorant demogogues that there is no hope of ever celebrating it:
The formation of the division was encouraged by the Melnyk faction of
the OUN and discouraged by the Bandera faction. The Division's prime
organizer and highest ranking Ukrainian officer, Dmytro Paliiv, had
been a leader of a small legal political party in the Second Polish
Republic and many of his colleagues had been members of the pre-war
moderate, left-leaning democratic UNDO movement [13][nb 1] that before
the war had been opposed to the authoritarian Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists. The Division was also strongly supported by
Andriy Melnyk's moderate faction of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists, who saw it as a counterweight to the extremist Banderist-
dominated UPA. The Division also obtained moral support from officers
of the exiled Polish-allied Ukrainian National Republic such as
General Mykhailo Omelianovych-Pavlenko.[11] It also had the support of
both the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[citation needed] and the
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church[citation needed]. Among its
members was a son of Mstyslav Skrypnyk, the Orthodox Bishop of Kiev.
[11]
---------
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 8, 2:34 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 6:57 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...cut...
Hi, BM, since our debate is again growing exponentially, let me delay
discussing various side topics for a later date (when we reach some
understanding on the main topic) and concentrate primarily on the main
topic: that of Yanukovych vs. Bandera.
> > > The truth seems to be that Bandera was a Ukrainian patriot whose
> > > entire life was devoted to his struggle to achieve Ukrainian
> > > independence. This aspect of him is why he is celebrated.
> > > Unfortunately, he was willing to achieve this goal using any means
> > > necessary, including a lot of bad stuff such as working with the
> > > Germans when he deemed that doing so suited his goal of an independent
> > > Ukraine (and turning on them when it did not), ethnically cleansing
> > > Ukraine of populations whose existence was judged to be a threat for
> > > Ukrainian independence (his organization is blamed for the massacres
> > > of 80,000-100,000 ethnic Poles),
Well, massacre of 80,000-100,000 ethnic Polish civilians - isn't this
a major genocide? I recall reading about Volyn. is that where this
took place? Or in other places as well? I also recall reading about
the massacres of Jews in Volyn. Is that right?
In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews? How
many Jews died in WWII at the hands of Ukrainians of some sort or
another (I am not counting here those who were killed by Ukrainians
acting on direct orders from German forces like SS or Gestapo)? Can
you give m ea rough estimate? And what rough percentage of these
killings were done either by OUN/UPA people or by people strongly
influenced by OUN/UPA ideology?
Are you sure that it is "anti-Ukrainian" to teach Ukrainian students
that genocide against hundreds of thousands of civilians from other
ethnic groups (even Poles and Jews) is wrong?
> > > wiping out Ukrainians who presented a
> > > threat to his party's authority because divisiveness (too many
> > > otamans) was correctly seen as a cause of the downfall of the
> > > Ukrainian independence struggle in 1919, etc etc.
>
> > > Like most of Europe in Bandera's time, his ideology was a fascistic
> > > one.
I don't recall many fascists (other than the Nazis and the Croatian
Ustase and maybe Romanians) who advocated and perpetrated genocide
against other ethnicities. Certainly not the Italian, Spanish or
Portuguese fascists. Doesn't Bandera's OUN rank at the top of
genocidal organizations, right below the Nazis and maybe Ustase?
> >> I have no doubt that in different circumstances Bandera could
> > > have been a communist such as Fidel Castro or Ho Chih Minh.
Excuse me if I am becoming senile, but could you remind me when and
how Fidel Castro and Ho Chih Minh exterminated hundreds of thousands
of foreign civilians because of their ethnicity?
From what I recall, both Fidel Castro and Ho Chih Minh taught ethnic
tolerance and were THE VERY OPPOSITE of Bandera and Hitler.
> So lying about someone after they have died is not "going after
> them?" Will this be a discussion involving nitpicking of how things
> are worded in hastily-written posts?
How exactly did Yanukovych "lie" about Bandera?
> > More importantly, what do you mean when you say that Yanukovych is
> > "going after Bandera"? What exactly has be done to Bandera?
>
> Yanukovich threatened to revoke the award
I don't like the word "threatened". It is a very demagogical term,
just as the opposite term "promised". So, let's use the neutral term
"said that he will revoke the award"
In any case, please give me the exact quote (with context) from
Yanukovych in which he said this, so that we can discuss further the
appropriateness of his words.
> and appointed a guy who smears Bandera
What exact "smears" against Bandera did you mean when you wrote this?
Please give me exact quotes from this man, Tabachnik.
> and who plans to introduce soviet-style smears of
> Bandera into Ukrainian schools as education minister.
What exact lies about Bandera has Tabachnik promised to introduce into
education or textbooks? Please be specific and give the exact relevant
quotes from Tabachnik himself, not "interpretations" from his
detractors.
> > > > You seem to be saying that a lot of questions remain open concerning
> > > > Bandera and his words and actions,and that the scientific community
> > > > doesn't have a definitive answer as to Bandera's role.
>
> > > I think many of them have been answered and its a matter of
> > > disseminating the answers. Yushchenko's act was harmful, Yanukovich's
> > > actions no less so.
>
> > What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
> > referring to?
>
> Rescinding the award *as part of his anti-Ukrainian campaign.* (see
> my earlier comments about Nazi documentation of Soviet crimes)
1. He conducted an "anti-Ukrainian campaign"? Really? Please provide
exact quotes of what he said or did. When you say "anti-Ukrainian", do
you mean that he said bad things about fellow ethnic Ukrainians? All
of them? Or just West Ukrainians?
In any case, your refusal to give any quotes (you have not given a
single quote of Yanukovych's words in our entire discussion to date
here!) tells me that you don't have any evidence.
2. Yanukovych rescinding the award to Bandera?! Really? How did I miss
this news? When did he do that? What exactly did he say in his
rescinding order? Please give me the references.
> > > > So, given that Bandera's role is not clear to science and that your
> > > > own best guess is Bandera was a fascist like Mussolini, why did
> > > > Yuschenko rush to declare Bandera and Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine"?
> > > > Why didn't he wait for scientific proofs that they were indeed good
> > > > guys and not at all like Mussolini?
>
> > > He should have - I condemned Yushchenko's act from the start. I am
> > > not happy that thanks to Yanukovich Kievans have started to have
> > > sympathy for Bandera.
> But seriously, from the appointment of Tabachnik as education
> minister, the anti-UPA propaganda in the Ukrainian House in Kiev, the
> tolerance/mild criticism of the new Stalin statue in Zaporizhia,
> publicly denouncing the idea that the Holodomor was a genocide against
> the Ukrainian people, etc., Yanukovich has embedded his revocation of
> Bandera's award into his anti-Ukrainian crusade.
Why are you constantly trying to generalize the conversation into an
exponentially growing list of EVERYTHING that Western Ukrainians don't
like about what's going on in Ukraine? I assure you that Yanukovych
supporters have an even longer list of grievances, not only about
what was going on under Yuschenko, but even now under Yanukovych,
because he is not a dictator and can't make everything in Ukraine work
according to his objectives. But rehashing all these mutual
grievances would make our conversation explode as triple exponential.
> ... Yanukovich has embedded his revocation of
> Bandera's award into his anti-Ukrainian crusade.
When did Yanukovich revoke this award?
And are you saying that any politician, who wants to see the Bandera's
award revoked, is on an "anti-Ukrainian crusade"? Don't you yourself
think that Bandera's award was a mistake and should be rescinded?
Don't you think that any decent human being would hope that the award
to Bandera, man whose organization is guilty of genocide, be revoked?
> the anti-UPA propaganda in the Ukrainian House in Kiev
What is that about?
And is any criticism of OUN and UPA "anti-Ukrainian"? Hasn't there
been quite a lot of pro-UPA and pro-OUN propaganda in Ukraine over the
last years and even decades? So what's wrong with allowing some
freedom of speech?
> Doing so has made it
> qyuite difficult for an objective accouning of the man and his
> historcal role.
So, a man's role in history can be objectively accounted for only IF
he is an official hero of his country? But General Vlasov is not a
Hero of Russia, and Rudolph Hess is certainly not a Hero of Germany
and is not likely to become one. Are you saying that their roles
cannot be studied objectively by historians?
And are you saying that if Vlasov and Hess become heroes, then this
will make it finally possible to study their historical role? I would
think it is the other way around: first you study a man's historical
role, and only AFTER that you decide if he deserves to be declared a
Hero.
And note that unlike Bandera, neither Vlasov nor Hess have had that
much to do with genocides against innocent civilians based on
ethnicity. Did Vlasov exterminate Jews and/or Poles? Did he advocate
this?
> > > appointed a government with an education
> > > minister who stated that Hitler personally awarded Bandera an Iron
> > > Cross
When did he (Tabachnik) "state" that? Please give me the quote. My
google search comes up empty.
>> and that Bandera was simply a collaborator, etc.
Is that false? Weren't Bandera, Shukhevych and much of their OUN/UPA
collaborators with Nazi Germany for quite some time?
And please give the exact quote from Tabachnik.
> > So, THAT is your entire case against Yanukovych's "actions" on
> > Bandera? That one of his ministers had once written in some newspaper
> > that Bandera was awarded an Iron Cross and that Bandera was simply a
> > collaborator, etc."? Guilt by association again?
>
> It's hardly "guilt by association" when one's own minister from one's
> own governing party does or writes something.
Well, there are actually 3 different claims here:
1. It's hardly "guilt by association" when your own minister (i.e.,
whose appointment originated with you and your allies) does or writes
something.
2. It's hardly "guilt by association" when a ranking member of one's
own party does or writes something.
3. It's hardly "guilt by association" when a ranking member of one's
own ruling coalition does or writes something.
Which of these three statements do you agree with?
And again: aside from repeating the unfounded claim that Bandera had
received the Iron Cross from Hitler, what other lies has Tabachnik
written about Bandera? Please be specific and give the relevant
quotes.
> > Are you saying that Tabachnik was appointed education minister because of his old article
> > against Bandera?! That sounds quite paranoid.
>
> He has done more than that. He's planning on introducing Russian
> textbooks for Ukrainian students
Tabachnik said that he is going to introduce a textbook, written in
Russia, to Ukrainian students
> (they will learn the exact same history as those in Russia
Is all of history going to taught from Russian textbooks or only part
of it? Or maybe the part that is non-ideological and is the same for
both Russia and Ukraine and even Belarus?
> - imagine Polish students being taught
> Polish history from German or Russian textbooks),
Tabachnik said that Ukrainian students will read a history textbook,
written in Russia?
> - imagine Polish students being taught
> Polish history from German or Russian textbooks),
Tell me, if it were the other way around and Russian students were to
study some sections of history from Ukrainian textbooks - wouldn't
that be OK?
> dropped the
> Ukrainian language from national exams, etc. as some commentator put
> it, he is not drinking Ukraine back to the Kuchma-era 1990's but tot
> he Soviet 1970's.
And all this is related to Yanukovych's alleged actions towards
Bandera how? Or are you just trying make sure that this debate grows
exponentially and never ends, by introducing new topics?
> > Did Yanukovych himself do anything terrible against Bandera? Or even
> > say/write anything terrible about him?
>
> As president he is responsible not only for his own public statements
> but for the acts of his ministers.
Acts or words? Or both?
And only of ministers? Or are presidents responsible for the actions
of lower-level government officials as well?
And how about military commanders? Are they responsible for the
actions of their officers and soldiers?
> Tabachnik is not some minor
> official far removed from the president. At best he could have
> removed Tabachnik after saying that he had been unaware ofhis writings
So, what exactly has Tabachnik written about Bandera?
> or his plans. But he has not done so.
So, what exactly has Tabachnik said about his plans towards Bandera
and when did he say it?
> > > Rather than
> > > counter a nationalist POV of Bandera is a glorious lilly-white knight
> > > and savior, with a neutral one Yanukovich has instead responded with
> > > an equally wrong communist view of Bandera as a vicious Nazi friend of
> > > Hitler.
>
> > What did Yanukovych say about Bandera?! We have been discussing this
> > issue for a while, but you haven't given me a single quote from
> > Yanukovych.
>
> See my comment above.
I don't see a single quote about Bandera from Yanukovych. Nor from
Tabachnik. Nor from anybody else. Not a single one. Only a sea of West
Ukrainian paranoia about everything on Earth: Stalin's statues,
Holodomor, Russia's love for Lenin, etc.
Where did any of them say that Bandera was a friend of Hitler? Yes,
both of them wanted to exterminate Jews and blamed them for
Bolshevism. And yes, OUN/UPA collaborated with Nazi Germany whenever
their interests coincided, and both fought against the Red Army and
the Belorussian partizans.
But there were huge differences. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire
World, free of Jews and Bolsheviks. All Bandera wanted is to have an
independent Ukraine, free of Jews and Bolsheviks. Plus, unlike Hitler,
Bandera was also very much interested in genocide against Poles. So,
these are big differences. And schoolchildren should be taught both
the similarities and the differences.
> > > The more that Ukraine is under assault, the more support for Bandera,
> > > a fanatic destroyer of Ukraine's enemies, will grow. Even among
> > > Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians from Kiev.
>
> > > I view such a development negatively. The fact that Yushchenko
> > > skillfuly laid the trap for Yanukovich doesn't in any way justify
> > > Yanukovich's actions.
>
> > So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?!
>
> See above.
I don't see a single quote about Bandera from Yanukovych. Nor from
Tabachnik. Nor from anybody else. What trap did Yuschenko "skillfully
lay", and what exactly did Yanukovych do to fall into this "trap"? Are
you saying that Yuschenko purposefully trapped Yanukovych into
appointing Tabachnik?!
> > > > If it was a mistake for Yuschenko to make them "Heroes of Ukraine",
> > > > what's wrong with Yanukovych wanting to undo this mistake?
>
> > > Because he did more than that.
>
> > So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?! Did Yanukovych
> > officially appoint Bandera to the list of "Villains of Ukraine" or
> > something?
>
> Basically, yes. Yanukovich's government plans to do that in the
> textbooks.
What exactly has Yanukovich's government said about the coverage of
Bandera in textbook? Give me exact words. And point out which of these
plans constitute lies about Bandera.
Moreover, you can't distinguish between deeds and plans. Is everything
that a President plans to do, done? As I recall, Obama announced that
Guantanamo would be closed by December 2009. Was it? Saakashvili
announced that he would tear down Stalin's monument in Gori by January
2010. Was it? Let's not confuse words with deeds.
> > First of all, leave Russia out of it.
>
> It is important. The only ones who really have a right to publicly
> condemn this is the Poles.
We are talking about Yanukovych and Tabachnik. Do Ukrainians like
Yanukovych and (part)Jewish-Ukrainians like Tabachnik have a right to
publicly condemn the glorification of Bandera?
> > > > To declare a person "Hero of Ukraine", it is not enough to start
> > > > suspecting that he may have been not as monstrous as the Soviets
> > > > portrayed him. You need to prove that he was indeed a positive
> > > > person. Saying that he was no worse than Mussolini or Lenin - this is
> > > > just not a good justification for making him a Hero. So, Yanukovych is
> > > > right on this issue, and Yuschenko is wrong.
>
> > > Both are wrong.
Equally?
> > > > And if some people in Kiev or anywhere else think that it is OK to
> > > > politicize history and to declare people as "Heroes of Ukraine" before
> > > > their role becomes understood by historians - they are bigots.
>
> > > They are reacting to anti-Ukrainian bigotry by supporting someone with
> > > a nasty aspect.
Advocating extermination of Jews and the genocide against 90,000
Polish civilians are merely "a nasty aspect"? Wow.
----------------------------------
PS: I also have one question about what you wrote about Shukhevych:
> > 4. The Ukrainian pogromschik rioters, even civilians, were well-
> > armed. Who, if not Nachtigall soldiers and officers, had the rifles
> > and ammunition to give out to the civilian rioters?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_regarding_the_Nachtigall_Bat...
>
> Russian historian Sergei Chuyev in his book on the Ukrainian Legion
> based on Russian archival sources wrote:
>
> On June 30 in Lviv the German administration started mass repressions.
> The commander of the Einzatzgruppen C Dr. Rasch had incriminated the
> death of those incarcerated in the Lviv jails to the "Jews from the
> NKVD" which became the spark for the terror against the Jews and Poles
> of Lviv. In the bloody murder of the Jews the Einsatzgruppen under the
> command of brigadeerfuhrer SS Karl Eberhard Schenhardt took
> prominence. The sections of this group under the command of H. Kruger
> and W. Kutschman on July 4 murdered 23 Polish professors and their
> families.
1. Why do you believe Chuyev?
2. What is your point? That these massacres of Jews and Poles, which
started on June 29-30, were organized not by Nachtigall/OUN but by
German SS? Wouldn't the German military trying to establish order and
control over a newly captured city, NOT want armed murderous mobs
running around? Why would they allow the SS Einzatzgruppe C organize
such a mayhem? Were the SS people uncontrollable? Wouldn't it be more
likely be Ukrainian soldiers who wanted to take revenge on Jews for
the NKVD crimes and who supplied arms to the Uke civilians?
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:26 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 2:34 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 6:57 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ...cut...
>
> Hi, BM, since our debate is again growing exponentially, let me delay
> discussing various side topics for a later date (when we reach some
> understanding on the main topic) and concentrate primarily on the main
> topic: that of Yanukovych vs. Bandera.
>
> > > > The truth seems to be that Bandera was a Ukrainian patriot whose
> > > > entire life was devoted to his struggle to achieve Ukrainian
> > > > independence. This aspect of him is why he is celebrated.
> > > > Unfortunately, he was willing to achieve this goal using any means
> > > > necessary, including a lot of bad stuff such as working with the
> > > > Germans when he deemed that doing so suited his goal of an independent
> > > > Ukraine (and turning on them when it did not), ethnically cleansing
> > > > Ukraine of populations whose existence was judged to be a threat for
> > > > Ukrainian independence (his organization is blamed for the massacres
> > > > of 80,000-100,000 ethnic Poles),
>
> Well, massacre of 80,000-100,000 ethnic Polish civilians - isn't this
> a major genocide?
So therefore do you agree that Putin and Russia committed,in your
words, "a major genocide" in Chechnya, where in the first Chechen war
30,000-100,000 civilians were killed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
and in the second war 25,000-50,000 civilians are dead or missing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
In Afghanistan the Soviets killed 1 million civilians. In Vietnam the
Americans killed 3 million (?). In Iraq the over 600,000 civilians
died.
But let's look at World War II. In one bombing raid over Tokyo, the
Americans killed about 88,000 Japanese civilians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
All total, between 300,000-600,000 German and 330,000-500,000 Japanese
civilians were killed by American and Vritish strategic bombing in
World War II:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
Between 500,000 and 2 million ethnic Germans were killed by Soviet
forces in the territories of east Prussia, Czeckoslovakia, Danzig,
etc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
----------
So, during wartime, the horrible and criminal murder of 80,000-100,000
Polish civilians pales in comparison to the number of civilians
murdered by the Americans, British, and Soviets. In fact, over 2
years, the OUN/UPA killed as fewer Polish civilians than the Americans
killed Japanese in one evening. If based on the murdered Polish
civilians Bandera should be considered a criminal, then strip all
American, British and Soviets of their honors also.
---------
> I recall reading about Volyn. is that where this
> took place? Or in other places as well? I also recall reading about
> the massacres of Jews in Volyn. Is that right?
By Germans.
> In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
That would be odd, given that one of his top aides was married to a
Jewish woman and was descended from Hungarian Jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
Unlike the Croatian Ustashe or Romania's Legion of the Archangel
Michael to whom the OUN can be compared, the OUN's ideology did not
emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
> How many Jews died in WWII at the hands of Ukrainians of some sort or
> another (I am not counting here those who were killed by Ukrainians
> acting on direct orders from German forces like SS or Gestapo)? Can
> you give m ea rough estimate?
I don't know exactly. The number was probably quite small, given that
Jews wre not specifically targeted and that most Jews were already
dead by the time armed Ukrainian nationalists went into the battle.
In many cases Polish villages were destroyed and everyone in them
killed indiscriminantly, including Jews who had been sheltered from
the Germans by the Poles (and Ukrainians living among them too,
married to Poles, etc.). In such cases the Jews were not meant to be
targeted. OTOH often the Jews were the only ones spared in such
massacres, and we know of the massacre of the Poles in certain
villages thanks to Jewish eyewitnesses who were set aside and watched
as their neighbors were butchered. Some Jewish bands int he forest
were assumed to be NKVD and liquidated. I doubt that the OUN/UPA
killed more than a few thousand Jews.
It is well known that Russians and Soviets have historically tried to
deflect their own antisemitism by falsely pinning it on Ukrainians.
Here is a paper presented at a conference at the University of
Illinois by Moses Fishbein, a Jewish-Ukrainian poet, posted on the
website of the Association of Jewish Organizatins and Communities of
Ukraine:
http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
Excerpts:
One aspect of Russia’s special operations against Ukraine is the so-
called “Jewish card.” But first, a little history lesson is in order
here. When did the imperialist gamblers begin playing the “Jewish
card” on Ukrainian territory?
This was done in the Russian Empire.
For many years Symon Petliura was proclaimed a pogromist in the USSR.
It was of no importance that one of the founders and key ideologists
of Zionism, the distinguished journalist, civic and political leader
Vladimir (Ze’ev) Zhabotinsky had a deep and abiding respect for
Petliura, because Zhabotinsky’s own name was taboo in the Soviet
Union.
Shortly after Petliura was assassinated in Paris, on the fortieth day
after his death—4 July 1926—Zhabotinsky wrote an article that was
published in the New York newspaper, The Jewish Morning Journal. It
states in part:
Neither Petliura nor Vynnychenko, nor the rest of the distinguished
members of this Ukrainian government, were ever “pogromists,” as they
are called…I know this type of Ukrainian intellectual-nationalist with
socialist views very well. I grew up with them; together with them I
waged a struggle against anti-Semites and Russifiers—Jewish and
Ukrainian. No one will ever convince me or the rest of the thinking
Zionists of southern Russia that these types of people may be
considered anti-Semites.
On 28 May 2009 Boris Shpigel, a Russian senator and the head of the
World Congress of Russian Jewry (WCRJ), which was founded on the
initiative of the Russian special services, had a meeting in Jerusalem
with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, during which he
raised the topic of anti-Semitism. During their conversation he
declared that “old national heroes are being restored” in Ukraine,
those who committed crimes against the Jews, and “history is being
rewritten by whitewashing them.” Shpigel cited the example of Symon
Petliura. As the Israeli media later reported, “Mr. Netanyahu
expressed concern.” It should be noted that Israel’s Likud Party,
which is headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, represents the ideological
current of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Zhabotinsky whose portrait hangs in this
party’s headquarters.
-----------
Here I quote Symon Petliura himself.
FROM THE “ORDER ISSUED BY THE MAIN COMMAND OF THE ARMIES OF THE
UKRAINIAN NATIONAL REPUBLIC”—26 AUGUST 1919
It is time to realize that the world Jewish population—their children,
their women—was enslaved and deprived of its national freedom, just
like we were.
It should not go anywhere away from us; it has been living with us
since time immemorial, sharing our fate and misfortune with us…
I decisively order that all those who will be inciting you to carry
out pogroms be expelled from our army and tried as traitors of the
Motherland. Let the courts try them for their actions, without sparing
the criminals the severest punishments according to the law. The
government of the UNR, understanding all the harm that pogroms inflict
on the state, has issued a proclamation to the entire population of
the land, with the appeal to oppose all measures by enemies that
instigate pogroms against the Jewish population…
Chief otaman Petliura
------------
FROM THE PROCLAMATION “AGAINST POGROMS”—12 OCTOBER 1919
Our National Army must bring equality, fraternity, and liberation to
Ukrainian and Jewish citizens because the latter actively support the
Government of the UNR. All their parties, like the Bund, the United
[Jewish Socialists], Poalei-Zion, and the Folks-Partei have adopted
the platform of Ukraine’s independence and are taking part in building
the republic.
I myself know of cases where the members of the Jewish population
assisted our army and supported the legal republican government.
I have great respect for those sacrifices that the Jewish population
endured on the altar of our motherland in this struggle […]
The death penalty must fall on the heads of pogromists and
provocateurs.
Chief otaman Petliura
------------
The twentieth anniversary of the founding congress of the People’s
Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine will be marked soon. Does anyone remember
how, twenty years ago, the official Soviet press frightened readers
with statements, like “The members of Rukh are anti-Semites”? I
remember because my congratulatory telegram was read out at Rukh’s
founding congress, and it ended with the Hebrew word, “Shalom!”
In early 1990 the government launched a scare campaign targeting the
Jews of Kyiv. Female caretakers went around warning them: “Rukh
members armed with machine guns are coming from Lviv. Don’t leave your
houses. There will be pogroms.” The Ukrainian philosopher Myroslav
Popovych and I made it onto TV, and the provocateurs were silenced.
On 1 December 1991 an explosive device was found in a Kyiv synagogue—
the day that the referendum on Ukraine’s independence was slated to
take place. The message was clear: ‘See? They haven’t even managed to
become independent and synagogues are being blown up.’ This explosive
device was placed beneath Ukrainian Independence.
According to the fabrications of Moscow’s political technologists,
manipulated by Russia’s special services, in 2003 and 2004 the
opponents of Ukrainian presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko began
disseminating rumors and publications and shooting a film about “the
anti-Semitism of Yushchenko and his milieu.” In December 2003 Victor
Yushchenko greeted the Jews of Ukraine on Hanukkah. No such message
was prepared in the administration of President Leonid Kuchma. In his
message to the Jews of Ukraine during Hanukkah, and later during
Passover, Victor Yushchenko emphasized: “The history of the Jews has
much to teach all of us.” Citing a line from a poem by Ukraine’s
greatest female poet Lesia Ukrainka, he said: “And you, my Ukraine,
once struggled like Israel.” At that time, I informed the Jewish
community of Ukraine that during the Second World War Victor
Yushchenko’s mother, who was living in the village of Khoruzhivka,
risked her life by hiding three Jewish girls from the city of Romny—
for one and a half years.
At that point the campaign to smear Victor Yushchenko as an anti-
Semite fizzled out. The film production, which had already cost a
considerable amount of money, was halted. We won on Independence
Square.
But the Russian special services continue to play the “Jewish card” in
their special operations against Ukraine.
In mid-April 2008 the Russian Internet site IA_REGNUM posted
information claiming that an Israeli historian named Yury Vilner had
published a book entitled Andrii Yushchenko: The Person and the
“Legend.” The following sentence instantly began circulating from
website to website: “The research proves that during the Second World
War the father of the president of Ukraine may have been a camp
policeman and Nazi informer.” Few people paid any attention to the
stylistic shortcoming of the phrase “proves that…he may have been.”
Later, the text of this “book” ended up on the Internet. I started
reading it. The book contained the dedication, “To the humanist Aron
Shneer.”
Who is Aron Shneer? I finally remembered that the Israeli journalist
Mikhail Kheifetz—the same former Soviet political prisoner who wrote
brilliant reminiscences of the Ukrainian poet and political prisoner
Vasyl Stus—cited Aron Shneer in one of his articles. Dr. Aron Shneer
is a Yad Vashem researcher and scholar. I telephoned him. It turns out
that he had read the text of the “investigation” on the Internet, but
had no idea who Yury Vilner was. The Russian website www.regnum.ru
claimed: “This book, published in Israel, has appeared in Moscow,” but
no one either in Israel or in Russia—or anywhere else for that matter—
neither scholars nor journalists knew about the existence of this
“Israeli.”
I started looking at the book’s ISBN, the unique numeric commercial
identifier, which is 969-228-292-5. The first three numbers indicate
the country where the book was published. It turns out that “969” is
Pakistan. One could, therefore, assume that the book was assigned its
registration number in this country. But a search of this publication
in the ISBN databank showed that such a book did not exist. This means
that the ISBN was fabricated, and hence the “book” itself and its
“author” are fabrications created and launched into circulation by
means of anti-Ukrainian special operations whose goal is to create
difficulties in Ukrainian-Israeli relations, cause mischief between
the Ukrainians and Jews, and alarm the international community by
exposing the “dark pages of the fascist past” of the Ukrainian
president’s father. Within a few days after this book appeared on the
www.regnum.ru website, on 18 April 2008 this fabrication was exposed
simultaneously on the pages of the Kyiv-based newspaper Ukraina moloda
and an Israeli website, which information quickly spread throughout
the Internet. Another anti-Ukrainian special operation was nipped in
the bud.
In its imperialistic frenzy, which stems from its acute inferiority
complex, the Russian leadership, with the help of its special
services, is trying to brainwash both the international community and
Russian society with its Ukrainophobia, and through the mass media and
agents of influence which they control—a certain segment of Ukraine’s
population.
In playing the “Jewish card” in their special operations against
Ukraine, the Russian special services are exploiting their “Putin-
Juden,” particularly Moscow-based rabbis.
The following statements are taken from the website of the “Eurasian
Youth Movement”:
Rabbis and Eurasians joining forces in the struggle against Nazism
21 August 2007
On 20 August an official meeting took place at the synagogue located
on Spasoglenishchevskii Pereulok [Lane] in Moscow between the leader
of the Eurasian Youth Movement, Pavel Zarifullin, and the chief rabbi
of Russia, Adolf Shaevich. During the talks the leader of the EYM and
the chief rabbi of Russia reached the conclusion that they have one
common enemy—contemporary Ukrainian neo-Nazism, the quasi-official
ideology of the “Orange” government of Victor Yushchenko of Ukraine.
From the Novosti portal “Eurasia”:
Eurasians and Jews are for traditionalism and against Ukrainian state
fascism
11 November 2008
On 11 November a meeting took place in the Moscow synagogue located in
Mariina Roshcha between the chief rabbi of Russia, Berl Lazar, and the
head of the main administration of the International “Eurasian
Movement,” Pavel Zarifullin.
During the talks Rabbi Lazar expressed his profound concern in
connection with the revival of Nazism in Ukraine and the Baltic
republics. He discussed the awarding of the title of “Hero of Ukraine”
to the SS executioner Shukhevych. Russia’s chief rabbi emphasized that
Ukraine’s accession to the EU and other international organizations
should be prevented, and he appealed to the guests to use their
connections and reputations in the struggle against the restoration of
Nazism.
On 17 September 2008 the well-known Russian journalist Aleksandr
Prokhanov and editor of the newspaper Zavtra (Tomorrow)—of whom it is
said, “What Putin has on his mind, Prokhanov has on his tongue”—the
same Prokhanov who openly calls himself an imperialist—was interviewed
by the Ekho Moskvy radio station: “Stalin is becoming the face of
Russia…Russia is a potential superpower. Otherwise, it will fall
apart.” He went on to declare: “We have achieved this very crisis in
Ukraine.” In reply to the female journalist’s question, “What must be
done right now?” he said: “Yushchenko must be neutralized.”
High-ranking Russian politicians, particularly the mayor of Moscow,
are publicly issuing claims to Ukrainian territory. Cultivated and
welcomed by the Russian leadership, provocateurs are plundering
national Ukrainian hallowed sites on Mt. Hoverla, and shredding and
trampling the Ukrainian flag near the Ukrainian Embassy in Israel.
During a press conference held on 28 October 2008 Vitaly Churkin, the
Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation at the UN, made the
following comment about the Holodomor, the Great Famine of 1932-33 in
Ukraine: “…the Ukrainian government is using this question in order to
create mischief between our two fraternal nations and sow discord
between our peoples…No matter what repressions or actions were carried
out by the Stalinist regime, it cannot be called the primary cause of
the Famine…And it is wrong to say that the Stalinist regime was
against the Ukrainian people.”
I don’t know if Churkin the diplomat has ever read Forever Flowing, a
book about the Holodomor that was written by the famous Russian writer
Vasily Grossman. I don’t know if Mr. Churkin reads anything besides
“instructions from the Center.” But his statement is nothing but
shameless profanity. The other comments that he made during that press
conference at the UN headquarters are also nothing but shameless
profanity and arrogant lies. I quote: “…The second question…which, in
my opinion, has a definite, logical connection with the first, is the
question of the heroization of Nazism…In his edict bestowing an award
on one of the odious members of the Ukrainian Nazi movement, the
President of Ukraine called Mr. Shukhevych, who was a Nazi, a hero…Do
you remember that thousands of Jews were killed on the territory of
Kyiv? The majority of the people who were killing Jews in Babyn Yar
were Ukrainian Nazis.”
“Ukrainian Nazis”? In other words, some Ukrainians who were supposedly
members of Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party, the
NSDAP, were shooting Jews in Babyn Yar, and not Germans from the
Einsatzkommando? “Shukhevych, who was a Nazi”? In other words,
Shukhevych, who was supposedly a member of the Nazi Party yet was
based in Galicia, was in some fashion involved in the shootings in
Babyn Yar? Anyone who says this is either an ignoramus or a
disinformation specialist. I hope that Mr. Churkin is at least not an
ignoramus.
I would like to remind Mr. Churkin that from 1939 to 1941 the USSR,
whose successor today is the Russian Federation, was an ally of Nazi
Germany. How can one forget all those movie reels showing the joint
Soviet-German military parades? I would also like to remind him of the
way the special disinformation operation targeting Roman Shukhevych,
the Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), is being
conducted today. Initially, a story was planted in the mass media,
claiming that Shukhevych was an “SS captain.” The rebuttal to the
disinformation specialists was that there was never any such rank.
Then the disinformation specialists transformed Shukhevych into some
sort of Obersturmfuehrer. It was explained to them that in order for
an individual to become a member of the SS, he had to expend a lot of
effort on proving his Aryan origins, which Shukhevych naturally did
not have.
Then the disinformation specialists planted another story in the mass
media, this one claiming that Shukhevych had received a military
decoration from Hitler himself. They were reminded that the only
person had ever received a military decoration from Hitler was
Himmler. According to documents stored in Germany’s Military Archive
in Freiburg, the Commander in Chief of the UPA was never awarded any
German decoration.
But the disinformation specialists desperately need to discredit not
only General Shukhevych and the UPA but the entire Ukrainian national
liberation movement, as well as the president of Ukraine, Viktor
Yushchenko.
So they have resorted to an old Soviet secret police provocation by
playing the “Jewish card”: they accuse some Ukrainians of destroying
Jews, and others of turning into heroes those whom they were allegedly
destroying. This is a well-known device: turn the Jews away from the
Ukrainian renaissance, turn the Jews and the entire civilized world
away from those who seek to restore a genuine Ukrainian Ukraine—
Ukrainian in spirit, language, and remembrance of its geniuses and
heroes—a Ukrainian Ukraine for all those who live in that country
today, regardless of ethnic origins.
In 1942-43 Natalia Shukhevych, the wife of UPA Commander in Chief
Roman Shukhevych, hid a young Jewish girl named Ira Reichenberg in her
home. General Shukhevych prepared a fake passport for the girl in the
name of Iryna Ryzhko. When the Gestapo arrested Mrs. Shukhevych, the
little girl was brought to an orphanage based at a convent located in
the village of Kulykiv in the Lviv region. There the little girl
survived the German occupation and the war. In 2007 Iryna Ryzhko died
in Kyiv, where her son Volodymyr lives.
I recounted all this during my briefing at Ukraine’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs on 3 November 2008.
President Victor Yushchenko has instituted state recognition of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army. The mass media in Russia and beyond its
borders, which are manipulated by Russia’s special services, have
unfolded a frantic smear campaign against the UPA, which is accused of
complicity in the destruction of the Jews. On 14 October 2008, the
Feast of the Protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary—the day set aside
to pay homage to UPA soldiers—I gave an interview to the BBC. Here is
a fragment:
The claim that “the UPA engaged in anti-Jewish actions” is a
provocation engineered by Moscow. It is a provocation. It is a lie
that the UPA destroyed Jews. Tell me: how could the UPA have destroyed
Jews when Jews were serving members of the UPA? I knew a Jew who
served in the UPA. I also knew Dr. Abraham Shtertser, who settled in
Israel after the war. There was Samuel Noiman whose [UPA] codename was
Maksymovych. There was Shai Varma (codename Skrypal/Violinist). There
was Roman Vynnytsky whose codename was Sam.
There was another distinguished figure in the UPA, a woman by the name
of Stella Krenzbach, who later wrote her memoirs. She was born in
Bolekhiv, in the Lviv region. She was the daughter of a rabbi, she was
a Zionist, and in Bolekhiv she was friends with Olia, the daughter of
a [Ukrainian] Greek-Catholic priest. In 1939 Stella Krenzbach
graduated from Lviv University’s Faculty of Philosophy. From 1943 she
served in the UPA as a nurse and intelligence agent. In the spring of
1945 she was captured by the NKVD while meeting a courier in
Rozhniativ. She was imprisoned, tortured, and sentenced to death.
Later, this Jewish woman was sprung from prison by UPA soldiers. In
the summer of 1945 she crossed into the Carpathian Mountains together
with a group of Ukrainian insurgents, and on 1 October 1946 she
reached the British Zone of Occupation in Austria. Eventually, she
reached Israel. In her memoirs Stella Krenzbach writes:
“I attribute the fact that I am alive today and devoting all the
strength of my thirty-eight years to a free Israel only to God and the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army. I became a member of the heroic UPA on 7
November 1943. In our group I counted twelve Jews, eight of whom were
doctors.”
I trust that the Ukrainian state will name all of these individuals.
The Ukrainian state will proclaim as heroes these people who, although
they were not ethnic Ukrainians, fought for Ukraine’s independence. To
me personally, the UPA is sacred. In my opinion, the UPA is sacred to
all individuals who, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, have a
bit of Ukraine in their souls.
Russia’s special services are seeking to destabilize the situation in
Ukraine, undermine its sovereignty and independence, create a negative
image of this country, block its integration into European and Euro-
Atlantic structures, and turn Ukraine into a dependent and manipulated
satellite. In their special operations against Ukraine they attribute
exceptional importance to the “Jewish card.”
They want to set the Ukrainians and Jews against each other by means
of the well known method of “Divide and conquer.” They will not
succeed in either dividing us or ruling over us.
Moses Fishbein is a distinguished Ukrainian poet and translator,
winner of the Vasyl Stus Prize, and a member of the Ukrainian Center
of the International PEN Club and the National Union of Writers of
Ukraine. Academician Ivan Dziuba calls him a “Poet by the Grace of
God.” He is listed in various world encyclopedias. He is the recipient
of Ukraine’s Order of Prince Yaroslav Mudry, V Degree, and the Order
of Holy Prince Volodymyr the Great, Equal to the Apostles, III Degree.
-------------------------------------
> And what rough percentage of these killings were done either by OUN/UPA people or by people strongly
> influenced by OUN/UPA ideology?
>
> Are you sure that it is "anti-Ukrainian" to teach Ukrainian students
> that genocide against hundreds of thousands of civilians from other
> ethnic groups (even Poles and Jews) is wrong?
Of course it is not. It is, however, anti-Ukrainian to teach that
Ukrainians who are not Soviets are Nazis and that such crimes are an
expression of Ukrainian-not-Soviet inherent Nazism. It is anti-
Ukrainian to single out crimes committed by Ukrainians while ignoring
those committed by others, deliberately creating the false implication
that Ukrainians are the main criminals.
> > > > wiping out Ukrainians who presented a
> > > > threat to his party's authority because divisiveness (too many
> > > > otamans) was correctly seen as a cause of the downfall of the
> > > > Ukrainian independence struggle in 1919, etc etc.
>
> > > > Like most of Europe in Bandera's time, his ideology was a fascistic
> > > > one.
>
> I don't recall many fascists (other than the Nazis and the Croatian
> Ustase and maybe Romanians) who advocated and perpetrated genocide
> against other ethnicities.
Actually the OUN called for the removal by any means necessary of
forces that would prevent the establishment of the Ukrainian state.
It reached this decision after the Polish underground having met with
the OUN representatives refused to surrender their claim to western
Ukraine post-war. Genocide of the Poles was a means, not an end or
goal in itself (unlike as in the case of Hitler's Final Solution - or
Ustashe concentration camps), to make it impossible for the Poles to
regain control over western Ukraine as had happened in 1919.
Often the Poles were given an ultimatum to leave or be destroyed and
many left rather than being killed.
I am not justifying the OUN here - the murder of 1 civilian not to
mention 80,000-100,000 is a crime, I'm just pointing out the situation
was not as you said it was. There was no Final Solution to the Polish
problem calling for the extermination of all Poles by Bandera.
Rather, it was "do whatever it takes to make Ukraine ethnically
Ukrainian, either chase the Poles away or kill them if you have to."
Bandera was not a Ukrainian version of Hitler or Eichman or Himmler.
> Certainly not the Italian, Spanish or
> Portuguese fascists. Doesn't Bandera's OUN rank at the top of
> genocidal organizations, right below the Nazis and maybe Ustase?
"Maybe" Ustahe? I'm afraid your anti-Ukrainian bias is showing.
Ustashe killed 500,000 people, at least 5 times more than did the OUN/
UPA, in concentration camps devoted to this activity.
> > >> I have no doubt that in different circumstances Bandera could
> > > > have been a communist such as Fidel Castro or Ho Chih Minh.
>
> Excuse me if I am becoming senile, but could you remind me when and
> how Fidel Castro and Ho Chih Minh exterminated hundreds of thousands
> of foreign civilians because of their ethnicity?
Oops, you slipped. Estimates of deaths at the hands of the OUN/UPA are
80,000-100,000, not "hundreds of thousands."
Sorry, I don't differentiate murderr based on ethnicity from murder
based on class. Castro had about 10,000 political prisoners
executed. Ho Chih Minh was respnosible for the deaths of "hundeds of
thousands" of landlords and such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chih_Minh
So Bandera was somewhere between Castro and Ho Chih Minh.
> From what I recall, both Fidel Castro and Ho Chih Minh taught ethnic
> tolerance and were THE VERY OPPOSITE of Bandera and Hitler.
See above. Actually even Bandera's ethnic intolerance cannot be
lumped together with Hitler's. Bandera did not go after Poles in
Poland even though the OUN had many cells operating there (unlike
Chechens killing Russians in Moscow). He did not want Poles or Jews
exterminated because they were Poles or Jews. He simply wanted
Ukraine to be indeopendent and was immoral and ruthless in achieving
this goal. This is quie different than Nazis declaring that Jews are
vermin that need to be destroyed wherever they are found. If the
Poles had acquised to UKrainian independence, or had left voluntarily,
not a single one would have been killed by the OUN/UPA.
I'm sad to see you engaging in such lies and demogoguery, Ostap.
> > So lying about someone after they have died is not "going after
> > them?" Will this be a discussion involving nitpicking of how things
> > are worded in hastily-written posts?
>
> How exactly did Yanukovych "lie" about Bandera?
As with you regarding Bandera (who AFAIK did not personally kill a
single Pole) I give responsibility to Yanukovich's high-ranking
followers to Yanukovich. Dmytro Tabachnik: "their ‘heroes’ (Stepan
Bandera, Roman Shukhevych) for us are killers, traitors and abettors
of Hitler’s executioners.”
Anyways, I'm out of time for now....
regards,
BM
captain!
"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:HnrPn.17431$if1....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
i had no idea that existed. what is it with people and our obsession with
these types?
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 10, 3:42 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
Hi, BM. Your reply to me seems not to include responses to about 95%
of the main points regarding the issue of Yanukovych-Tabachnik vs.
Yuschenko-Bandera. I have been waiting for your continuation, but it
hasn't come yet. I would really prefer to come to a definite
conclusion on the original issues, rather than allow you to divert
attention to various wild goose chases, like Petrlura, Zhabotinsky
and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
I will respond to the relevant parts of your last reply but I would
like to see your full reply to my other main points. In the meantime
let me raise a few more relevant and important questions that I would
like to see you address:
> > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> That would be odd, given that one of his top aides was married to a
> Jewish woman and was descended from Hungarian Jews:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
>
> OUN's ideology did not
> emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
> Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
> Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
> to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
You can't be serious here! How does the presence of a couple of people
of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that a group or an
organization cannot be anti-semitic? Are you taking me for a total
idiot here?
> > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> That would be odd
Haven't you seen a lot of calls from OUN in 1939-41 for exterminating
Jews?
> > > > What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
> > > > referring to?
>
> > > Rescinding the award *as part of his anti-Ukrainian campaign.*
You and many other patriots of Galicia constantly accuse Yanukovych
and his supporters of being “anti-Ukrainian”. But that would depend on
what one considers to be “pro-Ukrainian”. If you consider the south-
western half of Ukraine “Ukrainian”, then why is Yanukovych “anti-
Ukrainian”?
In fact, let me go to the extreme and give you an example of views
that characterize not Yanukovych but politicians who are much more pro-
Russian than he. Imagine a person who holds the following views:
1. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should be one united country
2. People in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should speak a common
language
3. The religion of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should be Greek
Orthodox and be centrally ruled
Let's make it even worse:
4. His relatives/ancestors came to Ukraine from Russia.
5. In the old times, he was a government apparatchik in Russia, far
from Ukraine
In other words, somebody who fits Peteris' false description of
Transdniestrian leaders.
This politician is much more “extreme” than Yanukovych. But can even
he be labeled as “an enemy of Ukraine” or “anti-Ukrainian”? What's so
“anti-Ukrainian” in all this? What's wrong with wanting a union
between Ukraine, Russia and Belarus?! And notice that Yanukovych
doesn't want it!
> I'm sad to see you engaging in such lies and demogoguery, Ostap.
That's how I feel about your posts here too. In particular about your
refusal to discuss the issues at hand, because you are losing this
argument, and instead bringing up 20 pages of mostly irrelevant stuff
about Petrlura, Zhabotinsky and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
While your ability to write 20 pages of stuff is impressive, I hope
for your sake that you didn't write it all from scratch but instead
just dumped 20 pages of stuff from some old article that you had
handy. Am I right?
> Anyways, I'm out of time for now....
I hope you find time soon to give me a reply that doesn't insult my
intelligence.
>
> > Hi, BM, since our debate is again growing exponentially, let me delay
> > discussing various side topics for a later date (when we reach some
> > understanding on the main topic) and concentrate primarily on the main
> > topic: that of Yanukovych vs. Bandera.
>
<snip>
<20 pages deleted>
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Jun 10, 7:04 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 3:42 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi, BM. Your reply to me seems not to include responses to about 95%
> of the main points regarding the issue of Yanukovych-Tabachnik vs.
> Yuschenko-Bandera. I have been waiting for your continuation, but it
> hasn't come yet.
I have been busy, sorry. I will respond within a few days. The
response requires more than 15-20 minutes which is all the time I've
had to spare lately.
> I would really prefer to come to a definite
> conclusion on the original issues, rather than allow you to divert
> attention to various wild goose chases, like Petrlura, Zhabotinsky
> and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
>
> I will respond to the relevant parts of your last reply but I would
> like to see your full reply to my other main points. In the meantime
> let me raise a few more relevant and important questions that I would
> like to see you address:
>
> > > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> > That would be odd, given that one of his top aides was married to a
> > Jewish woman and was descended from Hungarian Jews:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
>
> > OUN's ideology did not
> > emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
> > Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
> > Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
> > to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
>
> You can't be serious here! How does the presence of a couple of people
> of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that a group or an
> organization cannot be anti-semitic?
So how many open Jews were in the top echelons of the Nazi party or
were openly married to Jews? Rather strange to describe an
organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
> Are you taking me for a total idiot here?
Then please do not pretend to be one (see below about your pretending
that Moses Fishbein's article is irrelevent or that I wrote it)
> > > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> > That would be odd
>
> Haven't you seen a lot of calls from OUN in 1939-41 for exterminating Jews?
Mostly quotes taken out of context. Was the OUN willing to kill Jews
if doing so helped them gain favor with the Germans and help their
cause? Sure. They were immoral like that. They probably would have
killed Irishmen or Malaysians too if the Germans agreed to help them
in exchange. That wouldn't make then anti-Irish or anti-Malaysian.
> > > > > What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
> > > > > referring to?
>
> > > > Rescinding the award *as part of his anti-Ukrainian campaign.*
>
> You and many other patriots of Galicia constantly accuse Yanukovych
> and his supporters of being “anti-Ukrainian”. But that would depend on
> what one considers to be “pro-Ukrainian”. If you consider the south-
> western half of Ukraine “Ukrainian”, then why is Yanukovych “anti-
> Ukrainian”?
??? You meant southeastern?
Funny definition of "Ukrainian" - ethnically half-Ukrainian and that
doesn't speak Ukrainian.
Sure, if you consider Russian to be "Ukrainian", then why is
Yanukovich "anti-Ukrainian?"
> In fact, let me go to the extreme and give you an example of views
> that characterize not Yanukovych but politicians who are much more pro-
> Russian than he. Imagine a person who holds the following views:
>
> 1. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should be one united country
> 2. People in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should speak a common
> language
> 3. The religion of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should be Greek
> Orthodox and be centrally ruled
>
> Let's make it even worse:
>
> 4. His relatives/ancestors came to Ukraine from Russia.
> 5. In the old times, he was a government apparatchik in Russia, far
> from Ukraine
>
> In other words, somebody who fits Peteris' false description of
> Transdniestrian leaders.
>
> This politician is much more “extreme” than Yanukovych. But can even
> he be labeled as “an enemy of Ukraine” or “anti-Ukrainian”? What's so
> “anti-Ukrainian” in all this?
Um...you really don't see that as anti-Ukrainian? Sure, for some
colonists Ukraine is a great part of Russia. I'm sure that mny white
South Africans that supported apartheid really love their land, too.
But I wasn't speaking of anti-Ukrainian in a geographic sense.
In your analogy above replace the Russians with, say Poles wanting to
unite all Slavs under the Roman Catholic faith and in the Polish
language and ask youself if any reasonable Russian or UKrainian would
consider them to be anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
> What's wrong with wanting a union
> between Ukraine, Russia and Belarus?! And notice that Yanukovych
> doesn't want it!
Sure, his backers see what happened to Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky.
> > I'm sad to see you engaging in such lies and demogoguery, Ostap.
>
> That's how I feel about your posts here too. In particular about your
> refusal to discuss the issues at hand, because you are losing this
> argument, and instead bringing up 20 pages of mostly irrelevant stuff
> about Petrlura, Zhabotinsky and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
>
> While your ability to write 20 pages of stuff is impressive, I hope
> for your sake that you didn't write it all from scratch but instead
> just dumped 20 pages of stuff from some old article that you had
> handy. Am I right?
I wrote:
"Here is a paper presented at a conference at the University of
Illinois by Moses Fishbein, a Jewish-Ukrainian poet, posted on the
website of the Association of Jewish Organizatins and Communities of
Ukraine:"
This article is directly relevent because it addresses your tactic of
falsely ascribing or exaggerating antisemtisim among Ukrainian
patriots. So please don't pretend that it is irrelevant. Petliura
was the first victim of such lies by Russians, and it goes on. I'll
repost a slightly trimmed version of what I had posted:
http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
...........
The twentieth anniversary of the founding congress of the People’s
Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine will be marked soon. Does anyone remember
how, twenty years ago, the official Soviet press frightened readers
with statements, like “The members of Rukh are anti Semites”? I
In playing the “Jewish card” in their special operations against
11 November 2008
...
----------------
I admit that I have no right to demand that you respond to this until
I get to the rest of your last post, but hopefully you read it next
time.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 13, 8:01 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > On Jun 10, 3:42 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > Hi, BM. Your reply to me seems not to include responses to about 95%
> > of the main points regarding the issue of Yanukovych-Tabachnik vs.
> > Yuschenko-Bandera. I have been waiting for your continuation, but it
> > hasn't come yet.
>
> I have been busy, sorry. I will respond within a few days. The
> response requires more than 15-20 minutes which is all the time I've
> had to spare lately.
No problem. That's understandable. Take all the time you need.
However, if we were to keep on discussing new issues or tangential
issues, I fear your reply to my main points will be delayed
indefinitely.
> > I would really prefer to come to a definite
> > conclusion on the original issues, rather than allow you to divert
> > attention to various wild goose chases, like Petrlura, Zhabotinsky
> > and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
>
> > I will respond to the relevant parts of your last reply but I would
> > like to see your full reply to my other main points. In the meantime
> > let me raise a few more relevant and important questions that I would
> > like to see you address:
>
> > > > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> > > That would be odd, given that one of his top aides was married to a
> > > Jewish woman and was descended from Hungarian Jews:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
>
> > > OUN's ideology did not
> > > emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
> > > Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
> > > Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
> > > to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
>
> > You can't be serious here! How does the presence of a couple of people
> > of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that a group or an
> > organization cannot be anti-semitic?
>
> So how many open Jews were in the top echelons of the Nazi party or
> were openly married to Jews?
Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
But that's hardly the point here. If a group openly declares the
desire to exterminate Jews, how does the presence of a couple of
people of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that that group
or an organization cannot be anti-semitic?
> Rather strange to describe an
> organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
>
> > Are you taking me for a total idiot here?
>
> Then please do not pretend to be one (see below about your pretending
> that Moses Fishbein's article is irrelevent or that I wrote it)
I didn't even have the time to read and respond to your Fishbein
article.
> > > > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> > > That would be odd
>
> > Haven't you seen a lot of calls from OUN in 1939-41 for exterminating Jews?
>
> Mostly quotes taken out of context. Was the OUN willing to kill Jews
> if doing so helped them gain favor with the Germans and help their
> cause? Sure. They were immoral like that.
> They probably would have
> killed Irishmen or Malaysians too if the Germans agreed to help them
> in exchange. That wouldn't make then anti-Irish or anti-Malaysian.
Haven't you seen OUN call for the extermination of Jews in situations
that had nothing to do with trying to please the Germans at all?
> > > > > > What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
> > > > > > referring to?
>
> > > > > Rescinding the award *as part of his anti-Ukrainian campaign.*
>
> > You and many other patriots of Galicia constantly accuse Yanukovych
> > and his supporters of being “anti-Ukrainian”. But that would depend on
> > what one considers to be “pro-Ukrainian”. If you consider the south-
> > western half of Ukraine “Ukrainian”, then why is Yanukovych “anti-
> > Ukrainian”?
>
> ??? You meant southeastern?
>
Yes, of course.
> Funny definition of "Ukrainian" - ethnically half-Ukrainian and that
> doesn't speak Ukrainian.
>
> Sure, if you consider Russian to be "Ukrainian", then why is
> Yanukovich "anti-Ukrainian?"
>
> > In fact, let me go to the extreme and give you an example of views
> > that characterize not Yanukovych but politicians who are much more pro-
> > Russian than he. Imagine a person who holds the following views:
>
> > 1. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should be one united country
> > 2. People in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should speak a common
> > language
> > 3. The religion of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus should be Greek
> > Orthodox and be centrally ruled
>
> > Let's make it even worse:
>
> > 4. His relatives/ancestors came to Ukraine from Russia.
> > 5. In the old times, he was a government apparatchik in Russia, far
> > from Ukraine
>
> > In other words, somebody who fits Peteris' false description of
> > Transdniestrian leaders.
>
> > This politician is much more “extreme” than Yanukovych. But can even
> > he be labeled as “an enemy of Ukraine” or “anti-Ukrainian”? What's so
> > “anti-Ukrainian” in all this?
>
> Um...you really don't see that as anti-Ukrainian? Sure, for some
> colonists Ukraine is a great part of Russia. I'm sure that my white
> South Africans that supported apartheid really love their land, too.
> But I wasn't speaking of anti-Ukrainian in a geographic sense.
Actually, the politician I am talking about, is one of the most
revered man in Ukrainian history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_the_Great
Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great, (c. 958 near Pskov – 15 July 1015,
Berestovo) was the grand prince of Kiev who converted to Christianity
in 988[1][2][3], and proceeded to baptise all of Kievan Rus'.
Well, not only him personally, but pretty much all of his Ryurik
ancestors and descendants, as well pretty much everybody else who
lived in Kievan Rus. Let's go over the points:
4. His relatives/ancestors came to Kiev from Novgorod, Russia when
they moved the capital of the Rus nation from Novgorod to Kiev.
5. Vladymir himself was born in Pskov, Russia and in his young years,
he was the “governor” (Prince) of the Russian city of Novgorod.
1. He ruled over Rus which included Ukraine, Russia and Belarus and
would kill anybody who tried to endanger this unity
2. He wanted people in Rus to speak a common language
3. He gave the Greek Orthodox religion Rus - Ukraine, Russia and
Belarus – and had the entire church centrally ruled
The people, whom you guys call “anti-Ukrainians”, are simply people
who are fans of Kievan Rus.
And the modern “pro-Ukrainians” are the people who hate the return to
Kievan Rus.
Here is another such pro-Kievan-Rus and thus “anti-Ukrainians”
politician: Vladimir son Yaroslav I the Wise, THE the most revered man
in Ukrainian history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_I_the_Wise
Yaroslav I the Wise was thrice Grand Prince of Novgorod and Kiev,
uniting the two principalities for a time under his rule. During his
lengthy reign, Rus' reached the zenith of its cultural flowering and
military power. In his youth, Yaroslav was sent by his father to rule
the northern lands around Rostov but was transferred to Novgorod, as
befitted a senior heir to the throne, in 1010.
During the next four years Yaroslav waged a complicated and bloody war
for Kiev against his half-brother Sviatopolk, who was supported by his
father-in-law, Duke Bolesław I Chrobry of Poland. Yaroslav defeated
Svyatopolk in their first battle, in 1016, and Svyatopolk fled to
Poland. But Svyatopolk returned with Polish troops furnished by his
father-in-law, seized Kiev and pushed Yaroslav back into Novgorod.
Yaroslav at last prevailed over Svyatopolk, and in 1019 firmly
established his rule over Kiev. One of his first actions as a grand
prince was to confer on the loyal Novgorodians (who had helped him to
gain the Kievan throne), numerous freedoms and privileges. Thus, the
foundation of the Novgorodian republic was laid. In 1030, he
reconquered Red Rus from the Poles
In 1051, he had a Russian monk Ilarion proclaimed the metropolitan of
Kiev, thus challenging old Byzantine tradition of placing Greeks on
the episcopal sees. Ilarion's discourse on Yaroslav and his father
Vladimir is frequently cited as the first work of Old Russian
literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Ukrainians.
On 11 April 2008, the top 100 of Great Ukrainians were announced. The
top 10 was to be re-voted, and the results where shown on 16 May 2008.
The final top 10 was[1]:
1.Yaroslav I the Wise (40% of the votes)
2.Nikolai Amosov (19,88%)
3.Stepan Bandera (16%)
4.Taras Shevchenko (9,3%)
5. Bohdan Khmelnytsky (4,02%)
11. Ivan Mazepa
12. Roman Shukhevych
16. Vladimir I of Kiev
20. Viktor Yushchenko
24. Vladimir Dal
26. Symon Petliura
40. Yevhen Konovalets
The greatest Ukrainian by far is Yaroslav I the Wise with 40%, the man
who symbolyzes the unity of Rus. The second is Nikolai Amosov, a great
Russian foctor from Russia. And you also have Vladimir I of Kiev,
Vladimir Dal and Bohdan Khmelnytsky, all assiciated with unity of
Rus.
>
> In your analogy above replace the Russians with, say Poles wanting to
> unite all Slavs under the Roman Catholic faith and in the Polish
> language and ask youself if any reasonable Russian or UKrainian would
> consider them to be anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
Well, you've hit the point here: indeed, much of the modern “east vs
west” contradiction is the confrontation between the people who say
that Ukraine's true nature lies in Kievan Rus vs. the people who say
that Ukraine's nature started much later - with the Polish Catholic
Rzecz Pospolita - and that the ideals of Kievan Rus are bad for
Ukraine.
I think Tabachnik would agree with this assessment. And that's what
Tabachnik's views are so hated in West Ukraine: because they are
openly pro-Kievan Rus.
Ask yourself, whose side would Princes Yaroslav and Vladimir take?
> > > I'm sad to see you engaging in such lies and demogoguery, Ostap.
>
> > That's how I feel about your posts here too. In particular about your
> > refusal to discuss the issues at hand, because you are losing this
> > argument, and instead bringing up 20 pages of mostly irrelevant stuff
> > about Petrlura, Zhabotinsky and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
>
> > While your ability to write 20 pages of stuff is impressive, I hope
> > for your sake that you didn't write it all from scratch but instead
> > just dumped 20 pages of stuff from some old article that you had
> > handy. Am I right?
> I wrote:
>
> "Here is a paper presented at a conference at the University of
> Illinois by Moses Fishbein, a Jewish-Ukrainian poet, posted on the
> website of the Association of Jewish Organizatins and Communities of
> Ukraine:"
I am sorry but why are you bringing up this Moses Fishbein, other
than he is a Jew? There are 14 million Jews in the World, and all of
us have different views.
Is he a poet? I have never read his verses, but I am willing to
postulate that he is great at rhyming and rhythm. But is he a
professional historian? What facts can he tell us about Bandera that
historians don't know?
And what is the significance of the fact that Association of Jewish
Organizatins and Communities of Ukraine gave him an opportunity to
express his opinions? Did it endorse them? Or is this just part of
free speech and diversity of opinions?
What is your logic? “Here is a Jew who doesn't consider Petliura or
Bandera anti-Jewish. Therefore, they aren't!” What's next? Letters
from poets and painters who have Jewish wives or once kissed a Jewish
woman on the mouth?
> This article is directly relevent because it addresses your tactic of
> falsely ascribing or exaggerating antisemtisim among Ukrainian
> patriots.
Which of my statements in this discussion does Fishbein show to be
false” or “exaggerated”? Please be concrete.
> So please don't pretend that it is irrelevant. Petliura
> was the first victim of such lies by Russians, and it goes on.
First of all, even if it turned out that the Petliura army and
government were very nice to Jews, how does this negate the fact that
OUN, which was formed long after Petrliura's death, was anti-Jewish
and anti-Polish? Again, you are using demagoguery: “OUN was not anti-
Jewish because Petliura was unfairly accused of antisemitism”
And second, are you saying that there were no antisemites in
Petliura's entourage, in his government, and his army never committed
any pogroms?
But let's talk about Petliura AFTER we finish with OUN, Bandera,
Yanukovych and Tabachnik.
<another 7 pages of stuff about Petliura snipped>
> I admit that I have no right to demand that you respond to this until
> I get to the rest of your last post, but hopefully you read it next
> time.
I will gladly talk about Petliura and Fishbein, but only after we
finish with Bandera and Tabachnik.
However given that you continually claim that you have no time and
continue to find time to post new and new lengthy dissertations about
Petliura and other tangential topics, I suspect you will NEVER have
time to address our original topics.
The Black Monk
> On Jun 10, 3:42 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:26 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
...cut...
> > > More importantly, what do you mean when you say that Yanukovych is
> > > "going after Bandera"? What exactly has be done to Bandera?
>
> > Yanukovich threatened to revoke the award
>
> I don't like the word "threatened". It is a very demagogical term,
> just as the opposite term "promised".
Thanks for sharing your personal opinion of the meanings of some
words.
> So, let's use the neutral term "said that he will revoke the award"
>
> In any case, please give me the exact quote (with context) from
> Yanukovych in which he said this, so that we can discuss further the
> appropriateness of his words.
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/61561/
On Feb. 25, as part of a resolution supporting Ukraine's European
integration, Europe's parliament also called on Yanukovych to rethink
the Bandera award, which was granted by ex-president Victor Yushchenko
on Jan. 22. The Europeans alleged that Bandera, who headed OUN, was a
Nazi collaborator.
Yanukovych appeared willing to comply when, during an official visit
to Moscow on March 5, he told journalists the award would be revoked
by May 9. Known as Victory Day, many former Soviet republics still
annually commemorate the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany on
that day. He also promised to annul a similar award that in 2007 was
granted to Roman Shukhevych, who headed the guerilla Ukrainian
Insurgent Army.
"As to Yushchenko's decrees, they have caused great resonance. Of
course, these decrees aren't accepted in Europe or in Ukraine,"
Yanukovych said, adding it was "not by accident" that the European
Parliament turned to the new Ukrainian leadership to void the Bandera
award.
"There is a legal and political process - and Ukraine is going through
it. And this decision will be made by Victory Day," Yanukovych said.
---------
> > and appointed a guy who smears Bandera
>
> What exact "smears" against Bandera did you mean when you wrote this?
> Please give me exact quotes from this man, Tabachnik.
Just go to his Ukrainian wikipedia page:
"У нас разные враги и разные союзники. Более того, наши союзники и
даже братья - их враги, а их <<герои>> (Бандера, Шухевич) для нас -
убийцы, предатели и пособники гитлеровских палачей>>"
Translation is on the English wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_Tabachnyk
"Furthermore, our allies and even brothers are their enemies, and
their 'heroes' (Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych) for us are killers,
traitors and abettors of Hitler's executioners."[15]
> > and who plans to introduce soviet-style smears of Bandera into Ukrainian schools as education minister.
>
> What exact lies about Bandera has Tabachnik promised to introduce into
> education or textbooks?
See above.
> Please be specific and give the exact relevant quotes from Tabachnik himself, not "interpretations" from his
> detractors.
http://en.ura-inform.com/politics/2010/06/07/tabachnjak#
Education and Science Minister Dmitry Tabachnik wrote in his note to
the history books that the historical figures Stepan Bandera and Roman
Shukhevych should be considered collaborators.
Can't you google, Ostap?
> > > > > You seem to be saying that a lot of questions remain open concerning
> > > > > Bandera and his words and actions,and that the scientific community
> > > > > doesn't have a definitive answer as to Bandera's role.
>
> > > > I think many of them have been answered and its a matter of
> > > > disseminating the answers. Yushchenko's act was harmful, Yanukovich's
> > > > actions no less so.
>
> > > What particular Yanukovich's actions concerning Bandera are you
> > > referring to?
>
> > Rescinding the award *as part of his anti-Ukrainian campaign.* (see
> > my earlier comments about Nazi documentation of Soviet crimes)
>
> 1. He conducted an "anti-Ukrainian campaign"? Really? Please provide
> exact quotes of what he said or did. When you say "anti-Ukrainian", do
> you mean that he said bad things about fellow ethnic Ukrainians? All
> of them? Or just West Ukrainians?
Hiring Ukrainophone Tabachnyk as education minister, giving Russian
troops a base in Crimea until 2042, dropping Ukrainian language tests,
declaring that there was no genocide against the Ukrainian people when
millions of them were starved to death by the Soviet government, etc.
All of this was maanged in less then 100 days in office.
I'l give an analogy for Baltic readers unfamiliar and curious about
ths situation. Imagine if Latvia were still 45% Soviet/Russian and
that these people had a monolithic voting bloc. Furthermore imagine
if in a fluke election (squabbling amongst the other parties, apathy
among the Latvians due to that squabbling etc.) the Russian party came
into power. Led by a half-Russian, half-Belorusian president and a
prime minister who was totally Russian, could barely speak the Latvian
language, and who moved to Latvia from Moscow in the 1980's, this new
government then demolished Latvia's language laws (cheekily stating
that it was making the country more "European" by appealing to
minority language rights when doing so), got a major Russian military
base to stay in Latvia until 2042, brought in an ethnic Russian
education minister who promised that Latvians would be using the same
history textbooks as students in Russia and who declared Latvian
historial figures traitors or collaborators, etc.
This is exactly what is happening in Ukraine now.
> In any case, your refusal to give any quotes (you have not given a
> single quote of Yanukovych's words in our entire discussion to date
> here!) tells me that you don't have any evidence.
You didn't ask. It's rather demogogic not to ask for quotes and then
indignantly trumpet that I never gave them.
> 2. Yanukovych rescinding the award to Bandera?! Really? How did I miss
> this news? When did he do that? What exactly did he say in his
> rescinding order? Please give me the references.
He had his Donetsk court declare Bandera's award invalid. You missed
it?
http://rianovosti.com/exsoviet/20100402/158413723.html
> > > > > So, given that Bandera's role is not clear to science and that your
> > > > > own best guess is Bandera was a fascist like Mussolini, why did
> > > > > Yuschenko rush to declare Bandera and Shukhevych "Heroes of Ukraine"?
> > > > > Why didn't he wait for scientific proofs that they were indeed good
> > > > > guys and not at all like Mussolini?
>
> > > > He should have - I condemned Yushchenko's act from the start. I am
> > > > not happy that thanks to Yanukovich Kievans have started to have
> > > > sympathy for Bandera.
> > But seriously, from the appointment of Tabachnik as education
> > minister, the anti-UPA propaganda in the Ukrainian House in Kiev, the
> > tolerance/mild criticism of the new Stalin statue in Zaporizhia,
> > publicly denouncing the idea that the Holodomor was a genocide against
> > the Ukrainian people, etc., Yanukovich has embedded his revocation of
> > Bandera's award into his anti-Ukrainian crusade.
>
> Why are you constantly trying to generalize the conversation into an
> exponentially growing list of EVERYTHING that Western Ukrainians don't
> like about what's going on in Ukraine?
Kievans are also outraged by Tabachnik and by Yanukovich's policies.
Why do you repeat this fantasy that only western Ukrainians care about
Ukraine.
> I assure you that Yanukovych
> supporters have an even longer list of grievances, not only about
> what was going on under Yuschenko, but even now under Yanukovych,
> because he is not a dictator and can't make everything in Ukraine work
> according to his objectives. But rehashing all these mutual
> grievances would make our conversation explode as triple exponential.
>
> > ... Yanukovich has embedded his revocation of
> > Bandera's award into his anti-Ukrainian crusade.
>
> When did Yanukovich revoke this award?
>
> And are you saying that any politician, who wants to see the Bandera's
> award revoked, is on an "anti-Ukrainian crusade"?
No, I'm saying that politicians on an anti-Ukrainian crusade cheapen
the controversial issue of Bandera when they make him part of their
crusade.
Got it now?
Just as Communists cheapen Nazi crimes when they portray in temrs of
their ani-capitalism crusade, or Nazis cheapen commie criems if they
try to make them part of a Jewish-conspiracy-against-non-Jews story.
> Don't you yourself think that Bandera's award was a mistake and should be rescinded?
Yes.
> Don't you think that any decent human being would hope that the award to Bandera, man whose organization is guilty of genocide, be revoked?
Not this way though.
> > the anti-UPA propaganda in the Ukrainian House in Kiev
>
> What is that about?
http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-over-volyn-massacre.html
He let a Russian nationalist and Polish fringe-right-wing nationalists
collectively set up an anti-UPA exhibit in Kiev's Ukrainian House.
I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone let German
neo-Nazis set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
on Tverskaya, or let Chechen rebels put up a display of Rusian crimes
in Chechnya?
> And is any criticism of OUN and UPA "anti-Ukrainian"?
I explained myself already.
> Hasn't there been quite a lot of pro-UPA and pro-OUN propaganda in Ukraine over the
> last years and even decades? So what's wrong with allowing some
> freedom of speech?
We're talking about pushing things from above, not allowing
individuals or private companies to speak.write whatever.
> > Doing so has made it quite difficult for an objective accouning of the man and his
> > historcal role.
>
> So, a man's role in history can be objectively accounted for only IF
> he is an official hero of his country? But General Vlasov is not a
> Hero of Russia, and Rudolph Hess is certainly not a Hero of Germany
> and is not likely to become one. Are you saying that their roles
> cannot be studied objectively by historians?
Doing so is compromised if the issue becomes politicized. Yushchenko
started that process but Yanukovich has made it much worse, by
bringing it into his anti-Ukrainian campaign.
> And are you saying that if Vlasov and Hess become heroes, then this
> will make it finally possible to study their historical role? I would
> think it is the other way around: first you study a man's historical
> role, and only AFTER that you decide if he deserves to be declared a
> Hero.
Sure.
> And note that unlike Bandera, neither Vlasov nor Hess have had that
> much to do with genocides against innocent civilians based on
> ethnicity.
> Did Vlasov exterminate Jews and/or Poles? Did he advocate
> this?
There you go again, repeating the lies about UPA committing genocide
against Jews.
I posted with links, and you ignored (and censored, with your
deletions) numbers placing UPA's killing of Poles in context. UPA
killed about as many Poles as Russians killed Chechens in the 1990's.
UPA killed fewer Poles in 2 years than the British and Americans
killed German and Japanese civilians in *one* night in some cities.
UPA killed about 1/5 as many Poles as Soviets killed German civilians
in the process of eliminating the German population in eastern PRussia
and the Sudatenland. Etc.
So from the perspective of civilian-killing, Bandera was just a little
worse than Putin and much gentler than Soviets, Americans and British
during World War II.
> > > > appointed a government with an education
> > > > minister who stated that Hitler personally awarded Bandera an Iron
> > > > Cross
>
> When did he (Tabachnik) "state" that? Please give me the quote. My
> google search comes up empty.
Please don't play stupid. It took 20 seconds to find it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/entertainment/story/2007/08/070822_shuxevych_tabachnik_sp.shtml
У травні, виступаючи з трибуни Верховної Ради, Петро Симоненко заявив,
що Україна не повинна вшановувати пам'ять Романа Шухевича, оскільки,
як висловився лідер комуністів, ця людина "отримала з рук Гітлера два
"Залізні хрести"".
Пізніше цю думку в інтерв'ю українським засобам інформації повторив
гуманітарний віце-прем'єр Дмитро Табачник.
На запитання про те, як він ставиться до вшанування на державному
рівні 100-річчя Романа Шухевича та присвоєння чільнику УПА звання
героя України, урядовець відповів так:
"З огидою. Я вважаю їх проведення ганьбою українського суспільства. А
тих, хто підштовхував Президента до підписання відповідного указу, -
людьми непатріотичними, недалекоглядними і безсовісними. Тому що по-
різному можна говорити про ветеранів УПА, які воювали разом з німцями
проти Червоної Армії, а потім - проти військ НКВС...
Але офіцер, який одержував з рук Гітлера вищі бойові нагороди, - це
особливий випадок. Вже дуже спеціальним треба було бути офіцером-
неарійцем, щоб тебе відзначив вождь усього рейху", - цитує пана
Табачника агенство УНІАН.
Translation:
In May, speaking in the Verkhovna Rada, Petro Symonenko said that
Ukraine should respect the memory of Roman Shukhevych, since, as
advocated Communist leader, that person "received from the hands of
Hitlers two" Iron Crosses ".
Later in an interview with the Ukrainian media humanitarian Deputy
Prime Minister Dmitry Tabachnik repeated this view.
Asked how he treats commemorating the national level 100 years of
Roman Shukhevych and assigning UPA Hero of Ukraine, the official
replied:
"With disgust. I consider them a disgrace to Ukrainian society. And
those who pushed the President to sign the decree, - unpatriotic,
short-sighted and unconscionable people. Because in different ways we
can speak of UPA veterans who fought alongside the Germans against the
Red Army and then - against the NKVD troops ...
But the officer who received *from Hitler's hand* the highest military
award - this is a special case. For you had to be a very special
officer for the leadeer of the entire Reich to award you" "- UNIAN
quoted Mr Tabachnik.
> >> and that Bandera was simply a collaborator, etc.
>
> Is that false? Weren't Bandera, Shukhevych and much of their OUN/UPA
> collaborators with Nazi Germany for quite some time?
>
> And please give the exact quote from Tabachnik.
See above. Your repeated false claims are getting tiresome, Ostap.
> > > So, THAT is your entire case against Yanukovych's "actions" on
> > > Bandera? That one of his ministers had once written in some newspaper
> > > that Bandera was awarded an Iron Cross and that Bandera was simply a
> > > collaborator, etc."? Guilt by association again?
>
> > It's hardly "guilt by association" when one's own minister from one's
> > own governing party does or writes something.
>
> Well, there are actually 3 different claims here:
>
> 1. It's hardly "guilt by association" when your own minister (i.e.,
> whose appointment originated with you and your allies) does or writes
> something.
>
> 2. It's hardly "guilt by association" when a ranking member of one's
> own party does or writes something.
>
> 3. It's hardly "guilt by association" when a ranking member of one's
> own ruling coalition does or writes something.
>
> Which of these three statements do you agree with?
My statement was clearly # 1.
> And again: aside from repeating the unfounded claim that Bandera had
> received the Iron Cross from Hitler, what other lies has Tabachnik
> written about Bandera? Please be specific and give the relevant
> quotes.
That's not enough? How about repeated claims that he was a "traitor"
to Ukraine? You can google them yourself, I've done enough of thast
for you on this post already.
> > > Are you saying that Tabachnik was appointed education minister because of his old article
> > > against Bandera?! That sounds quite paranoid.
>
> > He has done more than that. He's planning on introducing Russian
> > textbooks for Ukrainian students
>
> Tabachnik said that he is going to introduce a textbook, written in
> Russia, to Ukrainian students
http://ukranews.com/uk/news/ukraine/2010/05/13/18566
He said Russian and Ukrainian schoolchildren will learn history from
the same textbook.
> > (they will learn the exact same history as those in Russia
>
> Is all of history going to taught from Russian textbooks or only part
> of it? Or maybe the part that is non-ideological and is the same for
> both Russia and Ukraine and even Belarus?
No parts were mentioned. You made that part up.
> > - imagine Polish students being taught
> > Polish history from German or Russian textbooks),
>
> Tabachnik said that Ukrainian students will read a history textbook,
> written in Russia?
See above.
> > - imagine Polish students being taught
> > Polish history from German or Russian textbooks),
>
> Tell me, if it were the other way around and Russian students were to
> study some sections of history from Ukrainian textbooks - wouldn't
> that be OK?
Let's not go with your fantasy.
> > dropped the
> > Ukrainian language from national exams, etc. as some commentator put
> > it, he is not drinking Ukraine back to the Kuchma-era 1990's but tot
> > he Soviet 1970's.
>
> And all this is related to Yanukovych's alleged actions towards
> Bandera how? Or are you just trying make sure that this debate grows
> exponentially and never ends, by introducing new topics?
Context to his actions re: Bandera.
> > > Did Yanukovych himself do anything terrible against Bandera? Or even
> > > say/write anything terrible about him?
>
> > As president he is responsible not only for his own public statements
> > but for the acts of his ministers.
>
> Acts or words? Or both?
Both of course. Unless perhaos he immediately repudiates such actions
and fires the one committing them.
> And only of ministers? Or are presidents responsible for the actions
> of lower-level government officials as well?
Whichever ones he is aware of and tolerates.
> And how about military commanders? Are they responsible for the
> actions of their officers and soldiers?
See above.
> > Tabachnik is not some minor
> > official far removed from the president. At best he could have
> > removed Tabachnik after saying that he had been unaware ofhis writings
>
> So, what exactly has Tabachnik written about Bandera?
See above.
> > or his plans. But he has not done so.
>
> So, what exactly has Tabachnik said about his plans towards Bandera
> and when did he say it?
See above.
> > > > Rather than
> > > > counter a nationalist POV of Bandera is a glorious lilly-white knight
> > > > and savior, with a neutral one Yanukovich has instead responded with
> > > > an equally wrong communist view of Bandera as a vicious Nazi friend of
> > > > Hitler.
>
> > > What did Yanukovych say about Bandera?! We have been discussing this
> > > issue for a while, but you haven't given me a single quote from
> > > Yanukovych.
>
> > See my comment above.
>
> I don't see a single quote about Bandera from Yanukovych. Nor from
> Tabachnik. Nor from anybody else. Not a single one. Only a sea of West
> Ukrainian paranoia about everything on Earth: Stalin's statues,
> Holodomor, Russia's love for Lenin, etc.
Hopefully you've seen now.
> Where did any of them say that Bandera was a friend of Hitler?
See above.
> Yes, both of them wanted to exterminate Jews and blamed them for
> Bolshevism.
Lie about OUN.
> And yes, OUN/UPA collaborated with Nazi Germany whenever
> their interests coincided,
As did Stalin/USSR. Should this be in Russian textbooks?
> and both fought against the Red Army and
> the Belorussian partizans.
>
> But there were huge differences. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire
> World, free of Jews and Bolsheviks. All Bandera wanted is to have an
> independent Ukraine, free of Jews and Bolsheviks.
Bandera had no problems with Jews who weren't Bolsheviks. Nor did he
claim that all Jews were Bolsheviks. Certainly he didn't believe this
about his friends' wives, nor about the Jews fighting within UPA's
ranks, nor about the Jews sheltered and saved by UPA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera#cite_note-52
> Plus, unlike Hitler, Bandera was also very much interested in genocide against Poles.
He wanted them gone, not (necessarily) dead. While Hitler wanted Jews
dead. And Stalin, Lenin wanted certain people belonging to certain
social classes to be dead.
> So, these are big differences. And schoolchildren should be taught both the similarities and the differences.
With my corrections to your falsehoods, sure.
> > > > The more that Ukraine is under assault, the more support for Bandera,
> > > > a fanatic destroyer of Ukraine's enemies, will grow. Even among
> > > > Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians from Kiev.
>
> > > > I view such a development negatively. The fact that Yushchenko
> > > > skillfuly laid the trap for Yanukovich doesn't in any way justify
> > > > Yanukovich's actions.
>
> > > So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?!
>
> > See above.
>
> I don't see a single quote about Bandera from Yanukovych. Nor from
> Tabachnik. Nor from anybody else.
Since you explicitly asked, I provided. Satisfied?
> What trap did Yuschenko "skillfully lay", and what exactly did Yanukovych do to fall into this "trap"? Are
> you saying that Yuschenko purposefully trapped Yanukovych into appointing Tabachnik?!
I was talking abiut the Bandera thing.
> > > > > If it was a mistake for Yuschenko to make them "Heroes of Ukraine",
> > > > > what's wrong with Yanukovych wanting to undo this mistake?
>
> > > > Because he did more than that.
>
> > > So, what did Yanukovych do concerning Bandera?! Did Yanukovych
> > > officially appoint Bandera to the list of "Villains of Ukraine" or
> > > something?
>
> > Basically, yes. Yanukovich's government plans to do that in the
> > textbooks.
>
> What exactly has Yanukovich's government said about the coverage of
> Bandera in textbook? Give me exact words. And point out which of these
> plans constitute lies about Bandera.
Bandera is to be treated as a traitor/collaborator. The World War II
narrative is to be the Soviet one exactly (good Soviets, bad Germans,
Bandera simply on the German side).
> Moreover, you can't distinguish between deeds and plans. Is everything
> that a President plans to do, done? As I recall, Obama announced that
> Guantanamo would be closed by December 2009. Was it? Saakashvili
> announced that he would tear down Stalin's monument in Gori by January
> 2010. Was it? Let's not confuse words with deeds.
It's only been 100 days since Yanukovich came into power.
> > > First of all, leave Russia out of it.
>
> > It is important. The only ones who really have a right to publicly
> > condemn this is the Poles.
>
> We are talking about Yanukovych and Tabachnik. Do Ukrainians like
> Yanukovych
Yanukovich is half-Ukrainian, half-Belorussian, but his Ukrainian
mother died when he was two years old.
> and (part)Jewish-Ukrainians like Tabachnik
Tabachnik is, I believe, an ethnic Russian. He has a Jewish
grandmother or something (I don't have time to dig this up).
> have a right to publicly condemn the glorification of Bandera?
See my previous comments about the nature of their criticism.
> > > > > To declare a person "Hero of Ukraine", it is not enough to start
> > > > > suspecting that he may have been not as monstrous as the Soviets
> > > > > portrayed him. You need to prove that he was indeed a positive
> > > > > person. Saying that he was no worse than Mussolini or Lenin - this is
> > > > > just not a good justification for making him a Hero. So, Yanukovych is
> > > > > right on this issue, and Yuschenko is wrong.
>
> > > > Both are wrong.
>
> Equally?
Yanukovich is worse, as he trivializes the issue by making it part of
his anti-Ukrainian campaign.
> > > > > And if some people in Kiev or anywhere else think that it is OK to
> > > > > politicize history and to declare people as "Heroes of Ukraine" before
> > > > > their role becomes understood by historians - they are bigots.
>
> > > > They are reacting to anti-Ukrainian bigotry by supporting someone with
> > > > a nasty aspect.
>
> Advocating extermination of Jews and the genocide against 90,000
> Polish civilians are merely "a nasty aspect"? Wow.
Nice job making things up and getting shocked by your fantasies.
Yes, Bandera had a nasty aspect towards Poles comparable to Putin's
nasty aspect towards Chechens.
> ----------------------------------
>
> PS: I also have one question about what you wrote about Shukhevych:
>
> > > 4. The Ukrainian pogromschik rioters, even civilians, were well-
> > > armed. Who, if not Nachtigall soldiers and officers, had the rifles
> > > and ammunition to give out to the civilian rioters?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_regarding_the_Nachtigall_Bat...
>
> > Russian historian Sergei Chuyev in his book on the Ukrainian Legion
> > based on Russian archival sources wrote:
>
> > On June 30 in Lviv the German administration started mass repressions.
> > The commander of the Einzatzgruppen C Dr. Rasch had incriminated the
> > death of those incarcerated in the Lviv jails to the "Jews from the
> > NKVD" which became the spark for the terror against the Jews and Poles
> > of Lviv. In the bloody murder of the Jews the Einsatzgruppen under the
> > command of brigadeerfuhrer SS Karl Eberhard Schenhardt took
> > prominence. The sections of this group under the command of H. Kruger
> > and W. Kutschman on July 4 murdered 23 Polish professors and their
> > families.
>
> 1. Why do you believe Chuyev?
Just an example.
> 2. What is your point? That these massacres of Jews and Poles, which
> started on June 29-30, were organized not by Nachtigall/OUN but by
> German SS? Wouldn't the German military trying to establish order and
> control over a newly captured city, NOT want armed murderous mobs
> running around? Why would they allow the SS Einzatzgruppe C organize
> such a mayhem? Were the SS people uncontrollable?
You didn't know that the Germans encouraged anti-Jewish riots by
Ukrainian civilians and were sometimes even disapointed when
theUkrainians weren't bloodthirsty enough?
http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje16/text11.htm
The Nazis' thinking was that the Ukrainians (and the Baltic
nationalities) were, owing to historical circumstances, particularly
anti-Bolshevik, and therefore anti-Semitic, and, moreover,
sufficiently primitive to perform whatever dirty work was required.
(13) Perhaps for this reason the Nazis decided to instigate the wave
of pogroms that encompassed all the western territories of the Soviet
Union in the summer of 1941. In these pogroms tens of thousands of
Jews perished at the hands of the non-Jewish local population. The
Nazis attempted nothing similar to this anti-Jewish violent mass
mobilization in any other territory they held. Even if one does not
agree fully with Raul Hilberg's assessment that "truly spontaneous
pogroms, free from Einsatzgruppen influence, did not take place; all
outbreaks were either organized or inspired by the
Einsatzgruppen," (14) it is unambiguously clear from the German
documentation that most of the pogroms were incited by the Germans
themselves and by local agents working on their instructions. (15)
> Wouldn't it be more likely be Ukrainian soldiers who wanted to take revenge on Jews for
> the NKVD crimes and who supplied arms to the Uke civilians?
That dosn't correspond to the facts.
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:16 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
>
> > > > OUN's ideology did not
> > > > emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
> > > > Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
> > > > Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
> > > > to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
>
> > > You can't be serious here! How does the presence of a couple of people
> > > of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that a group or an
> > > organization cannot be anti-semitic?
>
> > So how many open Jews were in the top echelons of the Nazi party or
> > were openly married to Jews?
>
> Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
she was openly Jewish? Rico Yary was quite close to Bandera.
In fact, so close was the cooperation between the OUN and Jews that
some Soviet propaganda complaiend about OUN-Zionist plots against the
USSR:
English language propaganda books and pamphlets were prepared with KGB
assistance for dissemination in the West. One such pamphlet complained
that Ukrainian nationalists arrange noisy demonstrations in support of
the Israeli aggressors (as has happened in West Germany), while the
Zionist chieftains declare their ‘firm intention to continue close
cooperation' with the OUN [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists]
killers. Therefore, both partners in this wicked marriage publicly
admit the real nature of the sinister alliance between Zionists and
Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists.
Since this is a baltic newsgroup, I will mention that the article I
linked to above also shows how the Soviets attacked Lithuanian
nationalists in a similar way top how they attacked Ukrainian
nationalists.
> But that's hardly the point here. If a group openly declares the
> desire to exterminate Jews, how does the presence of a couple of
> people of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that that group
> or an organization cannot be anti-semitic?
I asked you how many top Nazis were married to Jewish women? How many
openly Jewish people recieved the highest Nazi awards? Were any of
Hitler's top helpers of openly Jewish descent? How many Black
Hundreds leaders had Jewish wives? Your persistent refusal to answer
such questions is an implicit acknowledgment that you are wrong.
While we're out it, please list the KKK leaders who were married to
blacks, or KKK leaders of black descent.
You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet the
facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved with the
OUN at the highest levels.
> > Rather strange to describe an
> > organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> > Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> > two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> > organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> > risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
>
> > > Are you taking me for a total idiot here?
>
> > Then please do not pretend to be one (see below about your pretending
> > that Moses Fishbein's article is irrelevent or that I wrote it)
>
> I didn't even have the time to read and respond to your Fishbein
> article.
But you didn't write that, did you. Instead you lied about me writing
it and dismissed it as irrelevent without having even read it.
> > > > > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> > > > That would be odd
>
> > > Haven't you seen a lot of calls from OUN in 1939-41 for exterminating Jews?
>
> > Mostly quotes taken out of context. Was the OUN willing to kill Jews
> > if doing so helped them gain favor with the Germans and help their
> > cause? Sure. They were immoral like that.
> > They probably would have
> > killed Irishmen or Malaysians too if the Germans agreed to help them
> > in exchange. That wouldn't make then anti-Irish or anti-Malaysian.
>
> Haven't you seen OUN call for the extermination of Jews in situations
> that had nothing to do with trying to please the Germans at all?
Nope. Provide quotes please, in context, of the OUN calling for the
extermination of Jews as Jews (killing all or any Jews, not only those
tied to the Bolsheviks) that had nothing to do with trying to please
the Germans at all.
> > colonists Ukraine is a great part of Russia. I'm sure that many white
> > South Africans that supported apartheid really love their land, too.
> > But I wasn't speaking of anti-Ukrainian in a geographic sense.
>
> Actually, the politician I am talking about, is one of the most
> revered man in Ukrainian history:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_the_Great
>
> Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great, (c. 958 near Pskov – 15 July 1015,
> Berestovo) was the grand prince of Kiev who converted to Christianity
> in 988[1][2][3], and proceeded to baptise all of Kievan Rus'.
>
> Well, not only him personally, but pretty much all of his Ryurik
> ancestors and descendants, as well pretty much everybody else who
> lived in Kievan Rus. Let's go over the points:
>
> 4. His relatives/ancestors came to Kiev from Novgorod, Russia when
> they moved the capital of the Rus nation from Novgorod to Kiev.
Novgorod was not a part of Russia (which the extension of Vladimir-
Suzdal. It is was as much "Russian" as Galicia, Kiev, Chernihiv or
other principalities. Even worse, Novgorod was destroyed by Russia,
its culture snuffed out.
> 5. Vladymir himself was born in Pskov, Russia and in his young years,
> he was the “governor” (Prince) of the Russian city of Novgorod.
See my comment above.
> 1. He ruled over Rus which included Ukraine, Russia and Belarus and
> would kill anybody who tried to endanger this unity
Sure. He ruled these lands from Kiev.
> 2. He wanted people in Rus to speak a common language
Did he? Any evidence of that or did you make that up? Moreover, did
he want the people of Rus to speak the Kievan or the Novgorodian
speech?
> 3. He gave the Greek Orthodox religion Rus - Ukraine, Russia and
> Belarus – and had the entire church centrally ruled
At that time the Orthodox and Catholic Chruches were united. So he
was a Greek Catholic. And his Church was based in Kiev, not
Novogord.
> The people, whom you guys call “anti-Ukrainians”, are simply people
> who are fans of Kievan Rus.
Really? They want to transfer the capital and the Church to Kiev under
a Ukrainian Patriarch in communion with Rome?
> And the modern “pro-Ukrainians” are the people who hate the return to
> Kievan Rus.
Actually it's somewhere in UNA-UNSO's program to reestablish a Slavic
empire based in Kiev combined with an aggresive de-tatarization
(Ukrainianization) of Russia up to the Urals. Don't have time to
reread that and post the links for you, though. You'll have to do it
yourself.
And the primacy of Kiev, and the links between Ukraine and the West,
particularly Scandanavia, England, and France. And under Yaroslav the
Ukrainian Church was together with Rome. Indeed, it took 70 years
after the schism for the Ukrainian Church to take the Greek side.
One thing you glaringly and for obvious reasons forgot to mention in
your analogy was the form of government. Kieven Rus was a rough
democracy along Scandanavian lines (not surprising, given that its
leaders were of Scandanavian dent as was much of the elite). It was
chaotic, with conflicts between leaders (kind of like the eternal
ethnic Ukrainian political scene). It was perpetually at war with
eastern Asiatic tribes that were despotic. Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal),
which inherited its political culture largely from its Mongol
overlords and tutors. Thus, Yanukovich represents the Cumans and
Pechenegs vs. his political enemies' Kieven Rus.
> The second is Nikolai Amosov, a great
> Russian foctor from Russia. And you also have Vladimir I of Kiev,
> Vladimir Dal and Bohdan Khmelnytsky, all assiciated with unity of
> Rus.
Yaroslav, as we have seen, would be considered anti-Russian. He
crushed the Pechenegs. A modern Yaroslav the Wise would be even more
radical than Bandera: fight the Poles and destroy the Russians
(Pechenegs), establish Kieven hegenomy over the eastern Slavic lands,
make Kiev head of the Orthodox Church and make it in communion with
Rome. He would then give pieces of eastern Slavic lands to his
various Kieven-born sons to rule over. This is sort of like UNA-
UNSO's modern program.
> > In your analogy above replace the Russians with, say Poles wanting to
> > unite all Slavs under the Roman Catholic faith and in the Polish
> > language and ask youself if any reasonable Russian or UKrainian would
> > consider them to be anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
>
> Well, you've hit the point here: indeed, much of the modern “east vs
> west” contradiction is the confrontation between the people who say
> that Ukraine's true nature lies in Kievan Rus vs. the people who say
> that Ukraine's nature started much later - with the Polish Catholic
> Rzecz Pospolita - and that the ideals of Kievan Rus are bad for
> Ukraine.
Nope, its the eternal battle of Kiev vs. eastern despotic invaders.
> I think Tabachnik would agree with this assessment. And that's what
> Tabachnik's views are so hated in West Ukraine: because they are
> openly pro-Kievan Rus.
Please provide a quotes Tabachnik expresses his desire for hegenomy
over all of eastern Europe for Kiev, transfer of the Church to Kiev,
and reestablish communion between this Kieven-based Church and Rome,
as had been the situation during the times of Yaroslav the Wise, and
making Kieven-born people princes of all the eastern Slavic
territories.
> Ask yourself, whose side would Princes Yaroslav and Vladimir take?
The answer is obvious.
If you want a Russian analogue to Kieven Rus times you can only turn
to Andrey Bogolubsky, grandson of a Pecheneg chieftain, who sacked
Kiev, stole a bunch of icons, and returned to the Moscow region:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_I_Bogolyubsky
Prince Andrei I of Vladimir, commonly known as Andrey Bogolyubsky
(Russian: Андрей Боголюбский, "Andrey the God-Loving") (c. 1111 – June
28, 1174) was a prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (after 1157). He was the son
of Yuri Dolgoruki, who proclaimed Andrei a prince in Vyshhorod (near
Kiev). His mother was a Kipchak princess, khan Aepa's daughter.
He left Vyshhorod in 1155 and moved to Vladimir. Promoting development
of feudal relations, he relied on a team and on Vladimir’s
townspeople; he connected to trading-craft business of Rostov and
Suzdal. After his father’s death (1157), he became Knyaz (prince) of
Vladimir, Rostov and Suzdal.
Grand Prince St. Andrei Bogolyubsky, by Viktor Vasnetsov.Andrei
Bogolyubsky tried to unite Rus' lands under his authority. From 1159
he persistently struggled for submission of Novgorod to his authority
and conducted a complex military and diplomatic game in South Rus. In
1169 his troops took Kiev. After plundering the city [1] including
stealing much religious artwork, he returned to the northeast
afterwards. This act underlined the declining importance of that city.
Andrei achieved the right to receive a tribute from Dvinskaya’s
population. Becoming "ruler of all Suzdal land", Andrei Bogolyubsky
transferred his capital to Vladimir, strengthened it and constructed
the magnificent Assumption Cathedral and other churches and
monasteries. Under his leadership Vladimir was much enlarged, and
fortifications were built around the city.
At the same time the castle Bogolyubovo was built next to Vladimir,
and was a favorite residence of his. In fact he received his nickname
"Bogolyubsky" in honor of this place. During Andrei Bogolyubsky’s
reign Vladimir-Suzdal principality attained significant power and was
the strongest among the Rus' principalities.
> > > > I'm sad to see you engaging in such lies and demogoguery, Ostap.
>
> > > That's how I feel about your posts here too. In particular about your
> > > refusal to discuss the issues at hand, because you are losing this
> > > argument, and instead bringing up 20 pages of mostly irrelevant stuff
> > > about Petrlura, Zhabotinsky and “Eurasian Youth Movement”.
>
> > > While your ability to write 20 pages of stuff is impressive, I hope
> > > for your sake that you didn't write it all from scratch but instead
> > > just dumped 20 pages of stuff from some old article that you had
> > > handy. Am I right?
> > I wrote:
>
> > "Here is a paper presented at a conference at the University of
> > Illinois by Moses Fishbein, a Jewish-Ukrainian poet, posted on the
> > website of the Association of Jewish Organizatins and Communities of
> > Ukraine:"
>
> I am sorry but why are you bringing up this Moses Fishbein, other
> than he is a Jew? There are 14 million Jews in the World, and all of
> us have different views.
His paper prefectly illustrates the pattern of Russian natrionalists
deflected from their own antisemitism by making false accusations
against Ukrainian nationalists and patriots.
> Is he a poet? I have never read his verses, but I am willing to
> postulate that he is great at rhyming and rhythm. But is he a
> professional historian? What facts can he tell us about Bandera that
> historians don't know?
He stated everything I would have, saving me some time. Nice that you
noticed he is Jewish. Now how about trying to read the substance of
what he had written.
> And what is the significance of the fact that Association of Jewish
> Organizatins and Communities of Ukraine gave him an opportunity to
> express his opinions? Did it endorse them? Or is this just part of
> free speech and diversity of opinions?
>
> What is your logic? “Here is a Jew who doesn't consider Petliura or
> Bandera anti-Jewish. Therefore, they aren't!” What's next? Letters
> from poets and painters who have Jewish wives or once kissed a Jewish
> woman on the mouth?
Nice deflection away from the facts provided by Fishbein.
> > This article is directly relevent because it addresses your tactic of
> > falsely ascribing or exaggerating antisemtisim among Ukrainian
> > patriots.
>
> Which of my statements in this discussion does Fishbein show to be
> false” or “exaggerated”? Please be concrete.
That Bandera and the OUN were deeply antisemitic.
Fishbein's article puts your false claims in the proper context: the
habitual false smears against Ukrainians as being antisemites by
Russian and Soviet apologists.
>
> > So please don't pretend that it is irrelevant. Petliura
> > was the first victim of such lies by Russians, and it goes on.
>
> First of all, even if it turned out that the Petliura army and
> government were very nice to Jews, how does this negate the fact that
> OUN, which was formed long after Petrliura's death, was anti-Jewish
> and anti-Polish? Again, you are using demagoguery: “OUN was not anti-
> Jewish because Petliura was unfairly accused of antisemitism”
Nope, I'm just pointing out a pattern of false accusations that began
long before Bandera and continue long after Bandera.
> And second, are you saying that there were no antisemites in
> Petliura's entourage, in his government, and his army never committed
> any pogroms?
Nope. But nice try changing to change the subject.
>
> But let's talk about Petliura AFTER we finish with OUN, Bandera,
> Yanukovych and Tabachnik.
>
> <another 7 pages of stuff about Petliura snipped>
Translation: more info uncomfortable for Ostap ignored.
> > I admit that I have no right to demand that you respond to this until
> > I get to the rest of your last post, but hopefully you read it next
> > time.
>
> I will gladly talk about Petliura and Fishbein, but only after we
> finish with Bandera and Tabachnik.
>
> However given that you continually claim that you have no time and
> continue to find time to post new and new lengthy dissertations about
> Petliura and other tangential topics, I suspect you will NEVER have
> time to address our original topics.
Another falsehood.
Seriously, since you are wrong, just admit it and move on.
regards,
BM
J. Anderson
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1528abf6-04d1-45c8...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 14, 12:31 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> But you didn't write that, did you. Instead you lied about me writing
> it and dismissed it as irrelevent without having even read it.
Ostap lied? Interesting. I thought only the rest of us were supposed to be
liars.
lorad
This is exactly how it works with what Karla says.
When Karla states that someone or something was bad, I immediately
suspect that it was good.
Ostap Bender
Congratulations, BM: Mamma Hui shares your position.
The Black Monk
Ostap Bender
Because I don't like Bandera, he now thinks that Bandera was great. He
must be a Yuschenko supporter from Kiev. :-)
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 14, 12:31 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > > > > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>> Haven't you seen OUN call for the extermination of Jews in situations
>> that had nothing to do with trying to please the Germans at all?
> > > > > That would be odd
>
> > > > Haven't you seen a lot of calls from OUN in 1939-41 for exterminating Jews?
>
> > > Mostly quotes taken out of context. Was the OUN willing to kill Jews
> > > if doing so helped them gain favor with the Germans and help their
> > > cause? Sure. They were immoral like that.
> > > They probably would have
> > > killed Irishmen or Malaysians too if the Germans agreed to help them
> > > in exchange. That wouldn't make then anti-Irish or anti-Malaysian.
>
> > Haven't you seen OUN call for the extermination of Jews in situations
> > that had nothing to do with trying to please the Germans at all?
>
> Nope. Provide quotes please, in context, of the OUN calling for the
> extermination of Jews as Jews (killing all or any Jews, not only those
> tied to the Bolsheviks) that had nothing to do with trying to please
> the Germans at all.
Nope?! Really? Haven't you read the Wikipedia articles and the
Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences archives
that include a lot of antisemitic statements by the OUN from
1939-1941, generally along the lines of Jews= Bolsheviks, including
calls for exterminating Jews/Bolsheviks?
Look, OUN didn't invent antisemitism. OUN people grew up in the
hateful environment of the “between-wars” Poland, where the
historical anti-semitism of the masses was further aggravated by the
mass resentment of the fact that on average, the Polish Jewry was
achieving a higher socio-economic status of as compared with the
Ukrainians, and even the Poles. Like many average West Ukrainians,
most of OUN members equated Jews and Bolsheviks and wanted to get rid
of or even exterminate both groups.
And this folk anti-semitism in West Ukraine has its roots in earlier
centuries. John Himka writes:
“There are at least some elements in the folk culture which suggest
the existence of a violent animosity, such as the proverb “Kozhdyi
zhyd shybenytsi vart” (“Every Jew deserves the gallows”). More
substantially, there was a belief current among some Galician
Ukrainian peasants in the second half of the nineteenth century that a
day of reckoning was coming when all the Jews would be slaughtered.”
In fact, given that the matter-of-fact antisemitism was deeply
engraved in the masses in Western Ukraine in 1920-1941, it would have
been a miracle if OUN, the most nationalist, terrorist, fringe element
on the West Ukrainian political spectrum, weren't antisemitic. And
Bandera's OUN(B) was even more extreme faction of OUN, compared to
OUN(M).
Wikipedia:
At the time of its founding, the OUN was originally a fringe movement
in western Ukraine, where the political scene was dominated by the
mainstream and moderate Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance (UNDO).
This party promoted constitutional democracy and sought to achieve
independence through peaceful means. UNDO was supported by the
Ukrainian clergy, intelligentsia, and the traditional establishment.
UNDO, while opposed to Polish rule, called for peaceful and democratic
means to achieve independence from Poland. The OUN, on the other hand,
was originally a fringe movement within western Ukraine, condemned for
its violence by figures from mainstream Ukrainian society. OUN
accepted violence as a political tool against foreign and domestic
enemies of their cause.
Decisions leading to the massacre of Poles in Volhynia, and their
implementation, were primarily attributable to the extremist Bandera
faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and not
by other Ukrainian political or military groups.[14] The OUN-B's
ideology involved the following ideas: Integral nationalism, that a
pure national state and language were desired goals;[15] glorification
of violence and armed struggle of nation versus nation;[16]
totalitarianism, in which the nation must be ruled by one person and
one political party. While the moderate Melnyk faction of the OUN
admired aspects of Mussolini's fascism, the more extreme Bandera
faction of the OUN admired aspects of Nazism.[17]
/////////////////////////
John Himka writes: "The Bandera movement, that is, the radical wing of
the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists..."
So, OUN-B was an extremist wing of an extremist organization (OUN) of
the nationalist wing in a land – 1930s Poland and especially West
Ukraine - where antisemitism was the norm.
The OUN attitude and policy towards Jews was not set in cement. It
varied from person to person and from year to year. But the same can
be said of the National-Socialist Party of Germany. I suspect that
very soon in our discussion, I will need to provide an analysis of
these policies and attitudes as they evolved in historical context.
However, for the purpose of kick-starting this long discussion with
you, let me concentrate in this post on the damning facts and evidence
against OUN. The analysis will be given in future posts. And so will
examples of OUN behaving decently towards Poles and Jews. So, here is
the negative evidence that I have found:
Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
process. [105]
----------------------------------------------------------
Initially, as OUN's ideology was beginning to materialize and mature
in the late 1920s, antisemitism played a very little role in the
conversation. But within just a couple of years, it matured and grew
in importance in the early 1930s, as OUN's ideology grew and matured.
This evolution is observed by studying the OUN's official journal
“Nation Building”, which was the focus point for the development of
OUN's ideology and philosophy.
John Himka writes: “ According to the memoirs of Vladimir Martynets,
the status of this publication was such that any view on the
ideological and programmatic principles uttered in its pages,
automatically became a dogma and not subject to discussion. Often,
debates went on for weeks and months concerning individual
paragraphs or even individual sentences, until a consensus was
reached. “
The very first issue of “Nation Building” contained anti-semitic
materials, and from that point on, anti-semitism was omnipresent in
it. You can read Himka for details. With the exception of one single
article by Mykola Stsyborsky in 1930 (which while describing that the
Ukrainian masses were ready to exterminate Jews, argued for the
abandonment of virulent judophobia), antisemitic articles appeared in
every issue until its closure in 1934. The main arguments were along
the lines that Jews are evil, assimilation of Jews is impossible, and
Jews should be expelled from Ukraine exactly like they were expelled
from Spain in 1942. Immediately after Stsyborsky's moderate article,
the “Nation Building” devoted the next 3 years to publishing the book
by Mytsiuk, characterized by Ukrainian-Canadian historians T. Kurylo
and J. Himka as: "Mitsyuk's work was one of the most serious anti-
Jewish publications ever created by the Ukrainian intellectual
tradition ". Himka writes: “This series of anti-Jewish articles lasted
for three years, in every issue of the OUN's blow-horn “Nation
Building”. This gives us reason to believe that the anti-Jewish
position at that time became the program postulate OUN.”
Such theoretical sentiments led to more practical actions. As a first
shot, leaflet scattered in the village Beliv of Stanislav Province
read: “Ukrainian peasant! Ukrainian worker! Land which is owned by
local Jews, belongs to the Ukrainian nation. The Jews are the eternal
enemy of the Ukrainian nation. From this day on, no one will work for
a Jew. Jews must disappear from the Ukrainian soil. Those who come to
the Jew to work, will be strictly condemned and gravely wounded. Out
with the Jews !". However, it is not known if these leaflets were
typed by OUN officials.
What is known that OUN distributed leaflets in the village of
Kourostov in the Zdolbunivsky district that said: "Do not let the Jews
steal from you! Do not buy from the Jew. Throw the Jew out of your
village. Let our slogan be “Out with the Jews!” . In 1935, members of
the OUN carried out actions in villages of Zhidachivsky, Kalusky,
Stanislavsky and Striysky districts, during which they broke windows
in the houses that belonged to Jews. An even more massive rally was
held in the summer of 1936 in Kostopolschina. It was preceded by the
meeting of the local branch of the OUN, which adopted the decision
that "the Jews are harmful to the Ukrainian nation, we must liberate
ourselves from them, and the best way to accomplish this is by burning
Jews' houses, shops, etc. ".98 Mass burnings followed, and a hundred
Jewish families became homeless . A few months after this action, the
Province Committee of OUN clarified its position on the "Jewish
question". Under this decision, one ought to distinguish between
"Jews" and "Jewish communists". The Jews were to be dealt with by
means of economic boycott, while the Jews-communists should be “fought
with all the energy, without renouncing terror ".100
When the time for action came in 1941, this theory became part of the
directives to action. After the Second General Congress of OUN-B
(April, 1941, Krakow), which chose Stepan Bandera as its leader and
Yaroslav Stetsko as his assistant, the leadership of Bandera's OUN(b)
faction issued the core document – the instruction booklet "The
Struggle and the Actions of OUN During the War”, which was prepared
for internal use by members of the OUN(b) organization (not to be
revealed to the general public). These instructions were full of
orders and appeals to the destruction of ethnic minorities, like:
----------------------------------
"In times of chaos and confusion we can afford to eliminate unwanted
Polish, Russian and the Jewish leaders, particularly supporters of
Moscow's Bolshevik-imperialism.
Ethnic minorities are divided into: a) loyal to us, members of still
oppressed peoples, ave the same rights as the Ukrainians,
and
b) hostile to us - Muscovites, Poles and Jews. They should all be
destroyed in our struggle, except for those who defend our regime. We
should settle Ukrainians on their land. Exterminate first of all
their intelligentsia, which can not be tolerated in any governing
bodies. Deny them access to education to make it impossible to
"manufacture" new intelligentsia, etc. Jews must be isolated. Jews
and especially Russians and Poles should be kept away from government
jobs in order to prevent sabotage. If it is absolutely impossible to
get by without a Jewish specialist, a militia man must oversee him and
liquidate him for the slightest offense. .... ASSIMILATION OF JEWS IS
EXDCLUDED.”
---------------------
Such words were a direct call for the blind liquidation of ethnic
minorities.
In 1941 the leaders of Bandera's OUN sought to learn from the Nazi how
to “solve the Jewish problem”, although Bandera did not have the
appropriate organized and effective punitive-repressive apparatus.
Manuals of the Security Service (SB) of the OUN (b) and its
subordinate People's Militia stated:
------------------------------------
There are elements that must be neutralized when creating a new
revolutionary regime in Ukraine. These elements are:
- Muscovites who settled on Ukrainian lands to consolidate Moscow's
power over Ukraine
- Jews, individually and as an ethnic group
- Various Asians, who help Moscow to colonizes Ukraine
- Poles, on the Western Ukrainian lands, who are still committed to
the dream of building the Great of Poland
------------------------------------
When Wehrmacht occupied new locations, so-called “mission groups” of
OUN organized there new administration and governance structures,
including the Ukrainian militia.
The first tasks of the People's Militia was put an initial "cleansing
against NKVD, Muscovites, Jews and others" as well as compiling lists
of "those noted in the harassment and persecution of Ukrainians - in
the first place non-Ukrainians - especially Jews, Muscovites and
Poles."
One of leaders of OUN (B) Jaroslav Stetsko (Bandera's right hand man)
later wrote: "Moscow and Jewry are the main enemies of Ukraine ...
Considering the main and decisive enemy to be Moscow, which has
masterfully kept Ukraine in captivity, I, however, regard as damaging
and hostile the fate of the Jews, who help Moscow enslave Ukraine.
Therefore I stand on the position of the EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS AND
the ADVISABILITY of transferring to Ukraine the GERMAN METHOD OF
EXTERMINATION OF JEWS, PREVENTING THEIR ASSIMILATION and so on...”
With the start of Operation Barbarossa, when the German troops invaded
the Soviet territory , the OUN (b) immediately began forming units of
Ukrainian militia on the territories "liberated" by the Wehrmacht.
OUN leader Stetsko in his report to Bandera openly wrote on June 25,
1941: "We are CREATING the MILITIA which will help us to ELIMINATE
THE JEWS"
Stetsko with a group of supporters arrived in Lviv right behind the
German troops and proclaimed the creation of the Ukrainian State on
June 30, 1941, which also declared:
---------------------------
PROCLAMATION of RESTORATION of UKRAINIAN STATE
3. The Ukrainian Government will work closely with the National
Socialist Party of the great Germany, which under the leadership of
Adolf Hitler is creating a new order in Europe and the world and is
helping the Ukrainian people to free themselves from Moscow's
occupation. Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army, which will be
created on Ukrainian soil, will fight in the future in conjunction
with the German army against Moscow's occupation of a sovereign
Ukrainian state and the new order in the world.
---------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Stetsko
Yaroslav Stetsko was the Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed
Independent Ukrainian Republic, and elected President of the republic
by members of OUN-B on June 30, 1941.
---------------------------
OUN also egged on ordinary people to acts of violence by
distributing leaflets that said things like: "The people! Know!
Moscow, Poland, Hungarians, Jews – these are your enemies! EXTERMINATE
THEM! Know! Your government is the Provid (Presidium) of OUN. Your
leader is Stepan Bandera!”, which was pasted on the walls all over
Lviv on the morning of Jul 1 1941, one day after the
occupation/”liberation” of Lviv.
http://www.zeit.de/2001/26/200126_a-lemberg.xml?page=1
Die Zeit
Blutige Ouvertüre. Lemberg, 30. Juni 1941: Mit dem Einmarsch der
Wehrmachttruppen beginnt der Judenmord
Bandera was the leader of one of the two rival wings of the Ukrainian
Nationalists OUN organization, and its urgent action to sharply anti-
Semitic group of OUN (B) enjoyed the special patronage of the German
defense. The Germans created a Ukrainian battalion, which had marched
under the code name “Nightingale” in German uniforms and under the
command of army officers into Lviv. To Bandera, it was important that
reliable and local party members formed the main contingent. He had
prepared his people in the town on the day of the siege. Witnesses
report that in the deserted streets “suddenly, out of nowhere” people
with badges and the blue and yellow ribbons appeared “to provide for
so-called” order” . They occupied, with the approval of the Germans,
the police station and took over its functions.”
//////////////////////
http://anvsu.org.ua/index.files/Articles/Gunchak01.htm
OUN BETWEEN COLLBARIATION AND RESISTANCE AGASINT NAZI GERMANY
Taras Hunchak, Honorary Academician of the Ukrainian Academy of
History (USA)
As soon as the German army began to move forward, Yaroslav Stetsko,
the `First Deputy of Bandera, prepared for the crossing of the Soviet-
Germany border, to be in Lviv, when German troops enter the city. The
new political reality was reflected in the activities OF OUN(B), as
documented in the German police reports. By July 2, 1941 the police
reports show that the followers of Bandera organizes the militia
(police) and the city administration.
---------------------------
German commander Pfleiderer wrote: “I arrived yesterday in Lviv. There
is still battle going on in the eastern suburbs. The population
appeared on the streets and greeted German soldiers with enthusiasm
and delight. On the streets there are many members of the Ukrainian
Organizations with yellow-blue armbands, part of them armed with
weapons. Now we are seeing acute community actions against the Jews.
"
--------------------
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Yushchenko+erred+honouring+Bandera/2533423/story.html.
David R. Marples, Professor, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
February 10, 2010
Yushchenko erred in honouring Bandera
Honorary title may provoke divisions among Ukrainians today
Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in L’viv in the summer of
1941 when about 4,000 Jews were killed.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/vlad/My%20Documents/dyukov.htm
Later, the Provincial Presidium (Provid) of OUN (B) issued another
important order - the establishment of Ukrainian armed forces. It
declared the "COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY (family and ETHNIC) for all
offenses against the Ukrainian State, Ukrainian troops and the OUN”.
Thus, all Jews and a Poles became a legitimate target for murder.
Protocols of the OUN (B) conference in Lviv in July 1941 clearly show
that Bandera's people planned partial extermination of Jews and then
putting the rest of the Jewish population in ghettos.
A slogan put forth by the Bandera group and recorded in the July 16
1941 Einsatzgruppen report stated: "Long live Ukraine without Jews,
Poles and Germans; Poles behind the river San, Germans to Berlin, and
JEWS to the GALLOWS!". (“Jews on the hook!”)
------------------------------------
Another OUN(B) leader Stepan Lenkavsky declared in July 1941:
"Concerning the Jews – apply all the methods that will lead to their
defeat"
Photographs of public squares in West Ukrainian cities in September
1941 show huge slogans on buildings:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/1/17/UNRA_sl.jpg
“Heil Hitler! Glory to Bandera! Long live the independent Ukrainian
State! Long live Leader St. Bandera! Heil Hitler! "Glory to the
undefeatable German and Ukrainian armed forces! Bandera!”
Wikipedia:
After the proclamation of the "Ukrainian State with the Leader
Bandera", OUN created its SB – Security Services - (Office of the
Reigning Security Council). With the entry of the Nazi SS and CD
unis into Lviv in early July 1941 this "people's militia" becomes
their subordinated to them.
------------------------------------
http://lib.oun-upa.org.ua/gogun/pub07.html
Gogun Alexander, Alexander Vovk
Jews in the Struggle for independence of Ukraine
In 1999, Ukrainian researcher, Ivan Patrilyak in his "The Legions of
Ukrainian Nationalists," published a paper indicating that members of
the Ukrainian battalion of Wehrmacht "Nachtigall" ("Nightingale"),
led by Roman Shukhevych, from anti-Semitic motives shot all the Jews
encountered in a small village near Vinnitsy. One of the members of
the Ukrainian Nachtigall in his autobiography, written for the SB OUN
(b), describes the events that accompanied the passage of the
detachment of the territory of the USSR:
During our march we saw traces of Judeo-Bolshevik terror, which so
strengthened our hatred for the Jews, that in the two villages we
encountered, we shot all the Jews. And all the Russians and Russian-
speakers found on the road.
Similar events took place in several villages in Vinnytsia region.
[16]
////////////////////////////////////
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17327623/-
There is no current evidence about involvement of Nachtigall in the
actions against Jews in the town of Zlochev. But there is
incontrovertible evidence of the participation of soldiers of
Nachtigall in the destruction of the Jews in the Vinnitsa region.
Murder of Jews by Ukrainian nationalists in the countryside soon
assumed massive scale. Panel organized by the member of the Bukovyna
Presidium (Provid) of OUN Peter Voynovsky on July 5, 1941 organized
the slaughter of Jews in the village Milievo, killing about 120
people.
On July 7 1941, 45 Jews in Borovets and 54 Jews in Kisslev were
murdered on the order of the super-district head of OUN (M) Stepan
Karabashevsky. In the village of Turbov the nationalists massacred all
the male Jews and wanted to burn alive the remaining women and
children, but were stopped by German soldiers.
On July 7-8 in the village of Kosuv near Ternopil, OUN militants
killed 80 Jews, including women and children.
In the village of Mohyl'nytsia in Ternopil, OUN member Leonyd
Kozlovsky organized the Ukrainian militia. According to the testimony
of villagers: "In July 1941, he arrested three Jewish families,
consisting of 18 elderly, adolescents and children aged from one month
to 12 years. All of them were taken to the forest, where adults were
shot, and with children of 6 months to 6 years old – he took them by
the legs and slammed their heads against the tree, then threw them
into a pit.”
Testimony of the resident Kamenetz-Podolsk region Eugenia Vaysburg:
describes how In July 1941, to the village of Kuzmin came armed
Bandera men and killed all Jewish men and beat women to half-death.
Interestingly, there were not only anti-Jewish and anti-Polish
leaflets but also anti-Roma/Gypsy ones:
"Ukrainians in the Red Army, you should be ashamed to be in the same
units with Jews, Gypsies and other scum, the ethnicities that do not
even have the right to life, no historian in the world will remember
them.”
Those Jews who remained alive, Ukrainian police required to wear
armbands with the Star of David ". Ukrainians are forbidden contact
with Jews and Poles. “Do not shake hands with the Jews and give them
your hand. Do not sell food to Jews and Poles food, boycott those who
do not fulfill these Instructions ".
Jews were "legitimate victims" for extortion and robbery. Money that
they obtained by robbing and looting Jews, members of the OUN invested
in the enterprises they had confiscated from the Jews, and part of
proceeds went to the needs of the organization.
Arrests of Jews were done by Ukrainian militia in close collaboration
with the occupying authorities. However, in some cases policemen let
go some arrested Jews in exchange for bribes, which aroused
indignation of the leadership of the OUN. On June 28 1941, the
Publicity Department of the OUN (B) sent to the OUN Security Service
the following message:
№ 82 / n
Lviv July 28, 1941
OUN Security Service in Lviv
Priest Father Tabinsky notifies us: Our militia together with the
German authorities are now conducting numerous arrests of Jews. Before
their liquidation, the Jews are trying to defend themselves by all
means, primarily with money. According to Father Tabinsky, among our
militia officers are those who agree to free the Jews for gold or
money. They should be arrested.
Glory to Ukraine!
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists
Chief Publicity Department
The zeal of the Ukrainian nationalists against the "undesirable
elements" is shown by another internal document - the instructions of
the District Presidium (Provid) OUN (B)from August 1941: "In each
town, central housing management should be in our hands. Explain to
the Gestapo that today's housing management is the foundation of
Polish and Jewish-Bolshevik organizations against Ukraine and
Germany ... Prepare and submit to the district Presidium (Provid) of
OUN the lists of Poles and Jews, and their directors and officers "
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Katchanovski.pdf
Terrorists or National Heroes? Politics of the OUN and the UPA in
Ukraine
Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Visiting Scholar, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, Tel. (617) 495-9722,
ikat...@fas.harvard.edu
Local Ukrainian police commanders and members assisted Nazi
executioners in implementing the Nazi genocidal policy by rounding
Jews and guarding them during mass executions, catching escapees, and
guarding Jewish ghettos. For example, senior police commanders and
police members, a large proportion of whom later joined the UPA on the
order of the OUN-B, served in these capacities in the biggest cities
and many small towns of the Volyn Region when mass executions of Jews
took place (See Antoniuk 19, 25-26, 34). Estimated numbers of Jews who
were executed or killed by other means in these locations from the end
of June 1941 to spring 1943 are as follows: 20 000 in Volodymyr
Volynsk, 15 000 in Lutsk, 15 000 in Kovel, 3 000 in Matsiiv, 3 000 in
Torchyn, and 800 in Kolky.
The police from these Volhynian towns before defecting to the UPA
participated in mass executions in other locations although its
specific units are not yet identified in many cases. For example, the
police from Lutsk assisted in the Nazi executions of some 4 000 Jews
in Sofiivka in summer and fall of 1942 (Cybulski 67, Nakonechnyi
2003). A significant part of the regional and district police based in
Lutsk joined the UPA in spring 1943 (Antoniuk 25-26). In addition, the
UPA killed on its own at least a thousand of Jews, who survived the
Nazi genocide 11 (Himka).
Police from Ratno assisted in mass murder of close to 3 000 Ukrainians
in the village of Kortelisy and several neighboring villages in the
Volyn Region in September 1942 (Olkhovsky). In April 1943, the Ratno
police joined the UPA (Antoniuk 25). Similarly, the auxiliary police
from Tsuman, most of which later joined the UPA, helped to carry out
mass executions of more than 130 residents of the Ukrainian village of
Klubochyn and about 50 people in the Polish settlement of Oborky in
November 1942 (Sprava 4)
German police forces in Volhynia numbered at that time only about 1500
(See Motyka 193, 197). Kolky was seized by UPA units without any fight
after most of the Kolky police, which participated in mass killings of
the local Jewish population, deserted to the UPA, and a small
contingent of German gendarmes abandoned the town (Sprava 12).
Archival police records implicate police units under their command in
participation in the Nazi genocidal policy of annihilation of Jews and
Slavs among the local population and POWs.
///////////////////////////////
The Ukrainian-Canadian historian John Himka, the word-renown expert on
the Holocaust, writes in various publications and open letters:
------------------------------------
I was never a participant in the Polish-Ukrainian debate, but a few
years ago I began to work on the role of Ukrainian nationalists in the
destruction of Ukraine’s Jewish population, i.e., in the Holocaust.
In late June and July 1941 OUN militias and “Sich” organizations went
on a rampage in Galicia, Northern Bukovina, and Volhynia, killing Jews
primarily, but also some Poles and communists.
These murders only occurred in territories that had two things in
common: they were invaded in June-July 1941 and OUN was active there.
It is an undeniable fact, though, that OUN organized pogroms and mass
violence against Jews and others throughout Western Ukraine in July
1941. The pattern of the violence exhibits many features of
coordination over the whole territory.
Many of the German documents and Jewish testimonies indicate that OUN
militias were behind the violence. OUN leaders in July communicated
among themselves and to the Ukrainian public about the need to
exterminate the Jews.
July and August 1943 were the months of UPA’s most intense murder of
Poles in Volhynia, and in the following winter UPA and OUN security
units systematically murdered Jewish survivors.
I quote from the book of reports of UPA’s Kolodzinsky division, for
example, about how they stumbled upon twelve Hungarian Jews hiding in
the forest in Volhynia and “dispatched them to the bosom of Abraham.”
I quote a German report about how their own forces could not reach a
gang of a hundred Jews near Stryi, but fortunately UPA was on the spot
killing them. My main evidence, however, is that many Jewish
testimonies, taken in different places, in different languages, and
over a span of sixty years tell the same basic story: that UPA killed
Jews at the same time as they killed Poles and that in the winter of
1943-44, as the Red Army approached Volhynia, UPA lured survivors out
of hiding in the forests, enrolled them in labor camps, and then
killed them.
Of course, infiltrating the Ukrainian police formations meant taking
part in anti-Jewish actions. Apparently, this did not constitute an
obstacle of conscience for the radical nationalists. In fact, taking
part in some actions was probably useful, since weapons could be
confiscated during ghetto clearings and added to the stockpile. (40)
When the Germans discovered the stockpiles associated with the Rivne
academy, the members of the Bandera movement denied that they were
theirs and said they belonged to Jews. (41) According to the Germans,
to finance their activities, the Banderites raised some of their
contributions from Jews, whom they often blackmailed. (42)
Viacheslav Viatrovych told an interviewer that UPA should not be
condemned for killing civilians because it is hard to tell civilians
apart from partisans. Such argumentation only continues the crimes.
The archives are not completely open, but many, many new documents are
now available to researchers. In them you can find UPA internal
reports on its murders of Poles and Jews, OUN leaflets from 1941
calling upon the population to murder Jews and other non-Ukrainians,
films of boievyky (militants) beating Jews on the streets of Lviv at
the end of June 1941, and much more.
Many other scholars have pointed out the role of OUN-UPA in atrocities
against Poles and Jews, including Karel C. Berkhoff, Franziska Bruder,
Jeffrey Burds, Aleksandr Diukov, Gabriel Finder, Frank Golczewski,
Ihor Iliushyn, Dieter Pohl, Alexander Prusin, Ewa Siemaszko, and
Władysław Siemaszko.
Just as soon as OUN began murdering Poles in Volhynia, the original
founder of OUN, Taras Bulba-Borovets wrote: “The axe and the flail
have gone into motion. Whole families are butchered and hanged, and
Polish settlements are set on fire. The ‘hatchet men,’ to their shame,
butcher and hang defenceless women and children....By such work
Ukrainians not only do a favor for the SD [German security service],
but also present themselves in the eyes of the world as barbarians. We
must take into account that England will surely win this war, and it
will treat these ‘hatchet men’ and lynchers and incendiaries as agents
in the service of Hitlerite cannibalism, not as honest fighters for
their freedom, not as state-builders.”
After the murder of Poles spread to Galicia, the head of the Greek
Catholic church Andrei Sheptytsky appealed to the elders of
communities to save those in danger of death: “Do not let yourselves
be provoked to commit any iniquitous acts. Do not let yourselves be
deceived by people who present as a necessity acts against God’s law.
Remember that you will achieve nothing good through actions that are
opposed to God’s law.” Ukrainians need not adopt the heritage of OUN
as the basis of their identity. There are other strands also in the
legacy that our ancestors bequeathed to us.
Jewish survivors knew that they were being attacked by Ukrainian
speakers in the name of something Ukrainian. For them their attackers
were “the Ukrainians.” I happen to know that these actions were put in
motion by a certain group of Ukrainians, OUN. Why not make that
differentiation? Why let the blame fall on the nation as a whole? Why
would anyone want to embrace the heritage of that group? Why would I,
a person of Ukrainian ancestry and someone devoted to Ukrainian
studies for forty years, not want to distance myself and my vision of
Ukraine and Ukrainians from that of OUN?
There are compelling moral arguments for critically distancing oneself
from the legacy of OUN/UPA. It is wrong to take part in the cover up
or minimization of crimes of this nature. The murders themselves were
horrible. I have nightmares from my research. These crimes can never
be undone. The most that can be offered in compensation is to
recognize them and regret them.
------------------------------------
///////////////////////////////////////////
Is this enough evidence, BM, to convince you that maybe (just maybe!)
the European Parliament and Yanukovych are justified in not wanting
these nightmarish mass murderers to remain as Heroes of Ukraine? And
maybe Tabachnik is justified in wanting to teach the new generations
of Ukrainian youth that OUN is not an appropriate model for
imitation? Or do you need more evidence of these horrible mass
crimes?
P.S. This is my response to the issue of OUN's crimes against Jews. I
will respond to the rest of your last two posts later.
The Black Monk
information does not offer anything toher than details that I did not
already state had occurred: that the OUN, particularly the Banderist
wing, were ruthless and willing to kill innocents for their cause, but
were not particularly antisemitic and saw Jews as "secondary" enemies,
compared to Poles and Russians. Now to your points:
On Jun 27, 10:44 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
As I said, please find quotes of Jews being condemned as Jews, not as
Bolsheviks and not at a time when it was deemed advantagous in order
to build a relationship with the Germans.
> Look, OUN didn't invent antisemitism. OUN people grew up in the
> hateful environment of the “between-wars” Poland, where the
> historical anti-semitism of the masses was further aggravated by the
> mass resentment of the fact that on average, the Polish Jewry was
> achieving a higher socio-economic status of as compared with the
> Ukrainians, and even the Poles. Like many average West Ukrainians,
> most of OUN members equated Jews and Bolsheviks and wanted to get rid
> of or even exterminate both groups.
Evidence that "average West Ukrainians" wanted this? For your
information, in the three-way rivarly between Poles, Ukrainians and
Jews in western Ukraine the Ukrainians and Jews were somewhat closer
than either group were to the Poles. Both Ukrainians and Jews
suffered from assaults leaving hundreds of civilians dead after the
Poles took Lviv in 1918:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lwow_pogrom
On November 9-10, the Jews of Lwów formed a militia and declared their
neutrality in the Polish-Ukrainian conflict over the city.[10] Other
than reports of isolated instances of Jewish support for the Ukrainian
side, Lwów's Jews remained officially neutral; the accounts of
sporadic Jewish support for the Ukrainians [15][16] would serve as a
rationale for false accusations that most Jews adopted the anti-Polish
stance.[7][10][17] The Ukrainian government respected Jewish
neutrality and during the two weeks that the city was controlled by
Ukrainian forces there were no incidents of anti-Jewish violence.[18]
Poles resented the proclaimed Jewish neutrality, and there were
reports, leading to exaggerated rumors, that some Jews, including the
militia, collaborated with the Ukrainians in various ways, up to
actively engaging the Polish forces.[7][10][11]
Historian Norman Davies has cited figures of 340 total deaths in the
violence, of whom two thirds were Ukrainian Christians and the
remaining 70 were Jews.[9] Davies questioned whether these
circumstances can be accurately described as a "pogrom," suggesting
that Polish forces may have carried out two distinct massacres — an
anti-semitic pogrom against Jews and an anti-Ukrainian massacre.[9]
As a result of the pogrom, an all Jewish unit of around 1000 men was
formed in the army of the West Ukrainian National Republic.
----------
The info above is not irrelevent for our purposes - it is the
background of Ukrainian-Jewish-Polish relations in western Ukraine.
As is the background for our conversation - persistent Russian
attempts to paint Ukrainians as antisemites.
---------
One man of Jewish descent, Rico Yary - whose wife Olga Rosalie
Spielvogel was Jewish - served in the Provid (sort of the Central
Committee) of Bandera's OUN. Two other top OUN leaders (though they
were OUN-M) also had Jewish wives.
> And this folk anti-semitism in West Ukraine has its roots in earliercenturies. John Himka writes:
>
> “There are at least some elements in the folk culture which suggest
> the existence of a violent animosity, such as the proverb “Kozhdyi
> zhyd shybenytsi vart” (“Every Jew deserves the gallows”). More
> substantially, there was a belief current among some Galician
> Ukrainian peasants in the second half of the nineteenth century that a
> day of reckoning was coming when all the Jews would be slaughtered.”
It's great that you can quote Himka out of context. He also wrote:
"Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian
nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that
existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33)
Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they
did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they
demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the
less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread
in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently
exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own
nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major
component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the
Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as
Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and
the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine. In certain states
within which the Ukrainians found themselves, anti-Semitism suffused
the political culture (late imperial Austria, imperial Russia,
interwar Poland, interwar Romania). This constant exposure to anti-
Semitic ideology probably facilitated its acceptance when it was also
espoused, in a more lethal form, by the German occupation
authorities."
So when he writes what you quoted above, keep the context I have
provided in mind. That whatver antisemitism existed, it was not
central, and it based on traditions or political reasons, and it was
the result of Polish, Russian and Romanian influences.
How ironic then that you, a Russian, or Yanukovich, Russia's darling,
accuse Ukrainians of antisemtism.
> In fact, given that the matter-of-fact antisemitism was deeply
> engraved in the masses in Western Ukraine in 1920-1941,
See above about "deeply engraved." It existed, which your example,
proves and which I do not denie, but it was was not central nor
"engraved." At least according to the conclusion by the scholar whom
you cite with your example taken out of context.
> it would have been a miracle if OUN, the most nationalist, terrorist, fringe element
> on the West Ukrainian political spectrum, weren't antisemitic.
An interesting process. Since you falsely equate western Ukrainians
in general with antisemitism, you falsely conclude that therefore
nationalists must be even more antisemitic and the more nationalistic
or fringe, the more antisemitism. One falsehood thus snowballs.
The reality is, the more nationalistic or extreme, the more violent
(and thus more murderous), but since antisemitism wasn't a core aspect
of the ideology, it was not more antisemitic.
Nothing there indicating that Jews were singled out. Remembered, I
asked:
Provide quotes please, in context, of the OUN calling for the
extermination of Jews as Jews (killing all or any Jews, not only those
tied to the Bolsheviks) that had nothing to do with trying to please
the Germans at all.
> /////////////////////////
>
> John Himka writes: "The Bandera movement, that is, the radical wing of
>
> the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists..."
>
> So, OUN-B was an extremist wing of an extremist organization (OUN) of
> the nationalist wing in a land –
Please don't use the OUN-B's extremism to demogogue it's alleged
antisemtisim.
> 1930s Poland and especially West Ukraine - where antisemitism was the norm.
The reality, as I posted, written by Himka:
"Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian
nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that
existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33)
Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they
did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they
demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the
less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread
in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently
exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own
nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major
component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the
Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as
Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and
the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine. In certain states
within which the Ukrainians found themselves, anti-Semitism suffused
the political culture (late imperial Austria, imperial Russia,
interwar Poland, interwar Romania). This constant exposure to anti-
Semitic ideology probably facilitated its acceptance when it was also
espoused, in a more lethal form, by the German occupation
authorities."
> The OUN attitude and policy towards Jews was not set in cement. It
> varied from person to person and from year to year. But the same can
> be said of the National-Socialist Party of Germany.
So you believe that some Nazis were actually pro-Jewish? Tell me,
which of Hityler's closest leaders was married to an openly Jewish
woman? Which one was openly of Jewish descent?
> I suspect that
> very soon in our discussion, I will need to provide an analysis of
> these policies and attitudes as they evolved in historical context.
> However, for the purpose of kick-starting this long discussion with
> you, let me concentrate in this post on the damning facts and evidence
> against OUN.
In other words, pick out certain facts, out of context, ignore
"inconvenient" facts, to paint a one-sided and therefore false
picture. Look, someone can also just point out specific facts of OUN
helping Jews, ignore the facts you post below, and paint a picture of
the OUN being the Jews' best friend. The reality is, as I have said,
that the OUN was immoral and willing to kill tens of thousands of
people in pursuit of its goal of an independent Ukraine (sorta like
Allied willingness to firebomb 100,000s of German and Japanese
civilians to subdue those nations) but while not free of antisemtiism
it was less antisemitic than its rival nationalists (Polish, Russian
and Romanian) that Nazi-like antisemitism was not one of its many
sins.
> The analysis will be given in future posts. And so will
> examples of OUN behaving decently towards Poles and Jews.
> So, here is the negative evidence that I have found:
>
> Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
>
> http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
>
> Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
>
> Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
> documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
> German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
> process. [105]
> ----------------------------------------------------
Yes, as I said, when the OUN was trying to win the Germans' favor they
participated in some horrible anti-Jewish acts and released a lot of
anti-Jewish rhetoric. BTW pg. 88 of that book the author summarizes
things: "In general, studying the Holocaust in this region brings out
the distinction between sentiments about Jews - whether positive or
negative - and acts affecting them. In a setting where it was possible
to obtain property or reward, or to "prove" onseself reliable in spite
of Communist party membership, antisemitic prejudice frequently played
only a minor role in shaping the behavior of non-Jews with respect to
Jews."
> Initially, as OUN's ideology was beginning to materialize and mature
> in the late 1920s, antisemitism played a very little role in the
> conversation. But within just a couple of years, it matured and grew
> in importance in the early 1930s, as OUN's ideology grew and matured.
>
> This evolution is observed by studying the OUN's official journal
> “Nation Building”, which was the focus point for the development of
> OUN's ideology and philosophy.
>
> John Himka writes: “ According to the memoirs of Vladimir Martynets,
> the status of this publication was such that any view on the
> ideological and programmatic principles uttered in its pages,
> automatically became a dogma and not subject to discussion. Often,
> debates went on for weeks and months concerning individual
> paragraphs or even individual sentences, until a consensus was
> reached. “
Any link to the article above? I couldn't find the quotes through
google. I'm curious how you used this out-of-context.
> The very first issue of “Nation Building” contained anti-semitic
> materials, and from that point on, anti-semitism was omnipresent in
> it. You can read Himka for details. With the exception of one single
> article by Mykola Stsyborsky in 1930 (which while describing that the
> Ukrainian masses were ready to exterminate Jews, argued for the
> abandonment of virulent judophobia), antisemitic articles appeared in
> every issue until its closure in 1934. The main arguments were along
> the lines that Jews are evil, assimilation of Jews is impossible, and
> Jews should be expelled from Ukraine exactly like they were expelled
> from Spain in 1942. Immediately after Stsyborsky's moderate article,
> the “Nation Building” devoted the next 3 years to publishing the book
> by Mytsiuk, characterized by Ukrainian-Canadian historians T. Kurylo
> and J. Himka as: "Mitsyuk's work was one of the most serious anti-
> Jewish publications ever created by the Ukrainian intellectualtradition ". Himka writes: “This series of anti-Jewish articles lasted
> for three years, in every issue of the OUN's blow-horn “Nation
> Building”. This gives us reason to believe that the anti-Jewish
> position at that time became the program postulate OUN.”
So as the OUN maneovered into a German alliance it made sure to
include antisemtic ideas, wghich the Germans would be pleased with, in
its goals? But I already stated that they did things like that.
> Such theoretical sentiments led to more practical actions. As a first
> shot, leaflet scattered in the village Beliv of Stanislav Province
> read: “Ukrainian peasant! Ukrainian worker! Land which is owned by
> local Jews, belongs to the Ukrainian nation. The Jews are the eternal
> enemy of the Ukrainian nation. From this day on, no one will work for
> a Jew. Jews must disappear from the Ukrainian soil. Those who come to
> the Jew to work, will be strictly condemned and gravely wounded. Out
> with the Jews !". However, it is not known if these leaflets were
> typed by OUN officials.
Hmm..
> What is known that OUN distributed leaflets in the village of
> Kourostov in the Zdolbunivsky district that said: "Do not let the Jews
> steal from you! Do not buy from the Jew. Throw the Jew out of your
> village. Let our slogan be “Out with the Jews!” .
Do you know the context of that? (Jewish tavern owners, alcoholics
getting into debt, trading monopolies that were only broken by the
cooperative movement, etc.)
> In 1935, members of
> the OUN carried out actions in villages of Zhidachivsky, Kalusky,
> Stanislavsky and Striysky districts, during which they broke windows
> in the houses that belonged to Jews. An even more massive rally was
> held in the summer of 1936 in Kostopolschina. It was preceded by the
> meeting of the local branch of the OUN, which adopted the decision
> that "the Jews are harmful to the Ukrainian nation, we must liberate
> ourselves from them, and the best way to accomplish this is by burning
> Jews' houses, shops, etc. ".98 Mass burnings followed, and a hundred
> Jewish families became homeless . A few months after this action, the
> Province Committee of OUN clarified its position on the "Jewish
> question".
Shall we compare 100 homeless people to the vuictims of the Russian
nationalists and Polish nationalists?
> Under this decision, one ought to distinguish between
> "Jews" and "Jewish communists". The Jews were to be dealt with by
> means of economic boycott, while the Jews-communists should be “fought
> with all the energy, without renouncing terror ".100
Which supports what I have been saying.
> When the time for action came in 1941, this theory became part of the
> directives to action. After the Second General Congress of OUN-B
> (April, 1941, Krakow), which chose Stepan Bandera as its leader and
> Yaroslav Stetsko as his assistant, the leadership of Bandera's OUN(b)
> faction issued the core document – the instruction booklet "The
> Struggle and the Actions of OUN During the War”, which was prepared
> for internal use by members of the OUN(b) organization (not to be
> revealed to the general public). These instructions were full of
> orders and appeals to the destruction of ethnic minorities, like:
>
> ----------------------------------
> "In times of chaos and confusion we can afford to eliminate unwanted
> Polish, Russian and the Jewish leaders, particularly supporters of
> Moscow's Bolshevik-imperialism.
Yes, that was the key.
> Ethnic minorities are divided into: a) loyal to us, members of still
> oppressed peoples, ave the same rights as the Ukrainians,
>
> and
>
> b) hostile to us - Muscovites, Poles and Jews. They should all be
> destroyed in our struggle, except for those who defend our regime. We
> should settle Ukrainians on their land. Exterminate first of all
> their intelligentsia, which can not be tolerated in any governing
> bodies. Deny them access to education to make it impossible to
> "manufacture" new intelligentsia, etc. Jews must be isolated. Jews
> and especially Russians and Poles should be kept away from government
> jobs in order to prevent sabotage. If it is absolutely impossible to
> get by without a Jewish specialist, a militia man must oversee him and
> liquidate him for the slightest offense. .... ASSIMILATION OF JEWS IS
> EXDCLUDED.”
> ---------------------
So as we see, Jews were seen as not the main enemy and their status as
enemies is tied not to their Jewishness but tot he extent that Jewish
individuals were seen as supporters of Bolsheviks or Russians.
This is the problem with just quoting stuff out of context as you do:
it creates a false impression. The same conference above also
condemned anti-Jewish pogrms and stated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
"The Jews in the USSR constitute the most faithful support of the
ruling Bolshevik regime, and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in
Ukraine. The Muscovite-Bolshevik government exploits the anti-Jewish
sentiments of the Ukrainian masses masses to divert their attention
from the true cause of their misfortune and to channel them in a time
of frustration into pogroms on Jews. The OUN combats the Jews as the
prop of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime and simultaneously it renders
the masses conscious of the fact that the principal foe is
Moscow."[32]
> Such words were a direct call for the blind liquidation of ethnic minorities.
>
> In 1941 the leaders of Bandera's OUN sought to learn from the Nazi how
> to “solve the Jewish problem”, although Bandera did not have the
> appropriate organized and effective punitive-repressive apparatus.
>
> Manuals of the Security Service (SB) of the OUN (b) and its
> subordinate People's Militia stated:
>
> ------------------------------------
> There are elements that must be neutralized when creating a new
> revolutionary regime in Ukraine. These elements are:
>
> - Muscovites who settled on Ukrainian lands to consolidate Moscow's
> power over Ukraine
>
> - Jews, individually and as an ethnic group
>
> - Various Asians, who help Moscow to colonizes Ukraine
>
> - Poles, on the Western Ukrainian lands, who are still committed to
> the dream of building the Great of Poland
> ------------------------------------
>
> When Wehrmacht occupied new locations, so-called “mission groups” of
> OUN organized there new administration and governance structures,
> including the Ukrainian militia.
>
> The first tasks of the People's Militia was put an initial "cleansing
> against NKVD, Muscovites, Jews and others" as well as compiling lists
> of "those noted in the harassment and persecution of Ukrainians - in
> the first place non-Ukrainians - especially Jews, Muscovites and
> Poles."
So non-Ukrainians persecuting Ukrainians were to be cleansed. That's
what I've been saying. How about non-Ukrainians not persecuting
Ukrainians or helping them? Were they doomed too?
> One of leaders of OUN (B) Jaroslav Stetsko (Bandera's right hand man)later wrote: "Moscow and Jewry are the main enemies of Ukraine ...
>
> Considering the main and decisive enemy to be Moscow, which has
> masterfully kept Ukraine in captivity, I, however, regard as damaging
> and hostile the fate of the Jews, who help Moscow enslave Ukraine.
> Therefore I stand on the position of the EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS AND
> the ADVISABILITY of transferring to Ukraine the GERMAN METHOD OF
> EXTERMINATION OF JEWS, PREVENTING THEIR ASSIMILATION and so on...”
Yes, Jews helping Moscow were to be exterminated by the OUN, in a
declaration made at the time the OUN was seking an alliance with
Germany.
Do you remember what I asked you?
Provide quotes please, in context, of the OUN calling for the
extermination of Jews as Jews (killing all or any Jews, not only those
tied to the Bolsheviks) that had nothing to do with trying to please
the Germans at all.
You haven't done so yet.
> With the start of Operation Barbarossa, when the German troops invaded
> the Soviet territory , the OUN (b) immediately began forming units of
> Ukrainian militia on the territories "liberated" by the Wehrmacht.
>
> OUN leader Stetsko in his report to Bandera openly wrote on June 25,
> 1941: "We are CREATING the MILITIA which will help us to ELIMINATE
> THE JEWS"
So what was the context of that single sentence you provided?
> Stetsko with a group of supporters arrived in Lviv right behind the
> German troops and proclaimed the creation of the Ukrainian State on
> June 30, 1941, which also declared:
>
> ---------------------------
> PROCLAMATION of RESTORATION of UKRAINIAN STATE
>
> 3. The Ukrainian Government will work closely with the National
> Socialist Party of the great Germany, which under the leadership of
> Adolf Hitler is creating a new order in Europe and the world and is
> helping the Ukrainian people to free themselves from Moscow's
> occupation. Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army, which will be
> created on Ukrainian soil, will fight in the future in conjunction
> with the German army against Moscow's occupation of a sovereign
> Ukrainian state and the new order in the world.
> ---------------------------
So?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Stetsko
> Yaroslav Stetsko was the Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed
> Independent Ukrainian Republic, and elected President of the republic
> by members of OUN-B on June 30, 1941.
> ---------------------------
>
> OUN also egged on ordinary people to acts of violence by
> distributing leaflets that said things like: "The people! Know!
> Moscow, Poland, Hungarians, Jews – these are your enemies! EXTERMINATE
> THEM! Know! Your government is the Provid (Presidium) of OUN. Your
> leader is Stepan Bandera!”, which was pasted on the walls all over
> Lviv on the morning of Jul 1 1941, one day after the
> occupation/”liberation” of Lviv.
So the OUN, actively pursuing an alliance with Germany in order to
liberate Ukraine, made sure to ionclude some anti-Jewish rhetoric
which the Nazis loved and which the Nazis could read?
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?
> http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Yushchenko+erred+honouring+Bander....
The below was taken from a work published by Regnum in Moscow, written
by an Alexander Diukov.
Our Baltic readers might remember Diukov for his anti-Latvian
statements. From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soviet_Story
Russian historian with alleged FSB affiliation,[29][30] Alexander
Dyukov has been the most vocal critic of the documentary. His first
reaction on the film was this: "After watching two thirds of the film,
I had only one wish: to kill its director and to burn down the Latvian
Embassy."[31] As a result of Dyukov's statements a criminal
investigation has been initiated against him in Latvia.[32] Asked to
comment on the case, Latvian Foreign Minister Maris Riekstins
commented that Alexander Dyukov might be a "mentally unstable
personality".[33
I could counter by providing info published in Lviv by some Ukrainian
nationalist "historian" but I won't. Let's stickl to nuetral unbiased
sources (such as Himka) please.
Nice "facts" above by Moscow's Diukov, a 31 year old publicit/
journalist and rabid Russian nationalist. Unfortunatel your source
has trouble with facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soviet_Story
Since Alexander Dyukov publicly criticized the film on TV and in the
Russian newspapers even before seeing the actual film, some of his
statements about the film proved to be not true. He alleged, for
example, that Arseny Roginsky, head of the "Memorial" society took
part in the film.[36] In fact, according to the official website of
the film, Arseny Roginsky did not take part in the film.[37]
Seriously, I can look for some Ukrainian nationalist journalist and we
can duel with rival propaganda, but what would be the point?
> http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Katchanovski.pdf
>
> Terrorists or National Heroes? Politics of the OUN and the UPA in
> Ukraine
>
> Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
> Visiting Scholar, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies
> Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, Tel. (617) 495-9722,
>
> Local Ukrainian police commanders and members assisted Nazi
> executioners in implementing the Nazi genocidal policy by rounding
> Jews and guarding them during mass executions, catching escapees, and
> guarding Jewish ghettos. For example, senior police commanders and
> police members, a large proportion of whom later joined the UPA on the
> order of the OUN-B, served in these capacities in the biggest cities
> and many small towns of the Volyn Region when mass executions of Jews
> took place (See Antoniuk 19, 25-26, 34). Estimated numbers of Jews who
> were executed or killed by other means in these locations from the end
> of June 1941 to spring 1943 are as follows: 20 000 in Volodymyr
> Volynsk, 15 000 in Lutsk, 15 000 in Kovel, 3 000 in Matsiiv, 3 000 in
> Torchyn, and 800 in Kolky.
Nothng contradcits what I wrote.
I have enormous respect for Himka. What he writes does not in any way
contradict what I have claiwemd about the OUN.
> Is this enough evidence, BM, to convince you that maybe (just maybe!)
> the European Parliament and Yanukovych are justified in not wanting
> these nightmarish mass murderers to remain as Heroes of Ukraine?
When England demounces the gasser of Kurds Winston Churchill and
removes the statue of Harris, the British air force commander who
murdered several times more German civilians than did UPA, and when
France tears down the grandiose Napoleon tomb in Paris or removes its
national anthem, written by a regime which killed three times more
civilians than did UPA, then Europe will have the right to condemn
what happens in Ukraine.
> And maybe Tabachnik is justified in wanting to teach the new generations
> of Ukrainian youth that OUN is not an appropriate model for
> imitation? Or do you need more evidence of these horrible mass
> crimes?
I quite clearly opposed making Bandera a Hero of Ukraine. My problem
is with making opposition to Bandera as part of a general anti-
Ukrainian movement, which is what Yanuovich and Tabachnik do. It's
like documenting the Katyn massacre as part of the Jewish-Bolshevik
war against Christians, which is what the people who have polluted
soc.cutlure.russian do. It is disgusting.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
>
>>>> > In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
>>>> Jewish woman and was descended from Hungarian Jews:
>
>
> > > > > OUN's ideology did not
> > > > > emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
> > > > > Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
> > > > > Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
> > > > > to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
>
> > > > You can't be serious here! How does the presence of a couple of people
> > > > of Jewish descent and a few Jewish wives prove that a group or an
> > > > organization cannot be anti-semitic?
>
> > > So how many open Jews were in the top echelons of the Nazi party or
> > > were openly married to Jews?
>
> > Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> > Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> > government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> > direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> > the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> > descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
>
> Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> she was openly Jewish?
I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
didn't hate Jews as an overall group. Was Rico Yary's wife openly
Jewish? Did she go to the synagogue while dating Yary? While married
to him? Or was she not proud of her Judaism? Did she belong to
Judaism or maybe she was a practicing Catholic, who knows? We all know
of famous Jewish parents who raised their children in Catholicism in a
way that these children didn't even suspect that their own parents
were originally Jewish by birth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
Madeleine Korbel Albright (born May 15, 1937) is the first woman to
become a United States Secretary of State. Her father, Josef Korbel,
was a Jewish Czech diplomat. She was his first child with his Jewish
wife, Anna (née Spieglová). Albright was raised Catholic. Albright
did not learn until late in life that her parents were Jewish and that
many of her Jewish relatives in Czechoslovakia perished in The
Holocaust, including three of her grandparents.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher
Bill Maher was born in New York City, the son of Julie (née Berman), a
nurse, and William Maher, Sr. Maher was raised in his Irish American
father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was
Jewish until his teenage years.
That's why I am asking you: how openly Jewish was this Olga
Spielvogel? Was her Jewishness commonly known to OUN leaders like
Bandera and Stetsko? Was she a practicing Jew? What if she was a
Catholics? Or an agnostic?
And how openly Jewish were the wives of Mykola Kapustiansky and
Mykola Skyborski?
Wikipedia biographies of Mykola Skyborski and Mykola Kapustiansky
don't even mention if they had wives. What and from where do you know
about their Jewish wives? Were they Jewish ethnically or religiously?
Fully Jewish or partially? Was their Jewishness commonly known to OUN
leaders like Melnik, Bandera and Stetsko? Were they practicing Jews?
Or Catholics? Or agnostics? And what were their names?!
> Rico Yary was quite close to Bandera.
So, how openly Jewish was Rico Yary? Did Bandera know that Yary was
a Jew? Did Yary himself know that he, Rico Yary, was a Jew?
Or was Yary no more of a Jew than Stalin, Hitler, Andropov, Columbus,
Bush, Yeltsin, Medvedev and all other historical figures:
MOSCOW— As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares to hand over the
keys of Kremlin to his confidante First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev, far-rightists are trying to spoil the transition landscape,
claiming that the presidential front-runner was a Jew in disguise.
"It's common knowledge. Medvedev never hide his sympathy towards
Judaism," Nikolai Bondarik, who heads the nationalist Russian Party in
St Petersburg, told Reuters Tuesday, February 26.
Moscow's Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt dismissed the nationalists'
accusations of Medvedev as new take on a well-worn theme among the
rightists. "In the 1990s groups said (then president Boris) Yeltsin
was Jewish. The same has been said of (US President) George Bush,"
Goldschmidt told Reuters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
After receiving a "blackmail letter" from Hitler's nephew William
Patrick Hitler threatening to reveal embarrassing information about
Hitler's family tree, Nazi Party lawyer Hans Frank investigated, and,
in his memoirs, claimed to have uncovered letters revealing that
Alois' mother, Maria Schicklgruber, was employed as a housekeeper for
a Jewish family in Graz and that the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold
Frankenberger, fathered Alois.[7] No evidence has ever been produced
to support Frank's claim, and Frank himself said Hitler's full Aryan
blood was obvious.[9] Frank's claims were widely believed in the
1950s, but by the 1990s, were generally doubted by historians.
> Rico Yary was quite close to Bandera.
How about Mykola Kapustiansky and Mykola Skyborski? How close were
they with Bandera? Were they too good friends?
> Tell me,
> which of Hityler's closest leaders was married to an openly Jewish
> woman? Which one was openly of Jewish descent?
Here are some in the military:
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html
Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men
of Jewish Descent in the German Military
"Half-Jew" Horst Geitner was awarded both the Iron Cross Second Class
and the Silver Wound Badge.
Half-Jew" Commander Paul Ascher, Admiral Lütjens's first staff officer
on the battleship Bismarck; Ascher received Hitler's
Deutschblütigkeitserklärung. (Military awards: EKI, EKII, and War
Service Cross Second Class.)
"Quarter-Jew" Admiral Bernhard Rogge wearing the Ritterkreuz; he
received Hitler's Deutschblütigkeitserklärung. (Military awards: oak
leaves to Ritterkreuz, Ritterkreuz, samurai sword from the emperor of
Japan, EKI, and EKII.)
Half-Jew" Johannes Zukertort (last rank general) received Hitler's
Deutschblütigkeitserklärung.
"Half-Jew" Colonel Walter H. Hollaender, decorated with the
Ritterkreuz and German-Cross in Gold; he received Hitler's
Deutschblütigkeitserklärung. (Military awards: Ritterkreuz, German-
Cross in Gold, EKI, EKII, and Close Combat Badge.)
"Half-Jew" and later Luftwaffe General Helmut Wilberg; Hitler declared
him Aryan in 1935. (Military awards: Hohenzollern's Knight's Cross
with Swords, EKI, EKII.)
General Gotthard Heinrici, who was married to a "half-Jew," meeting
Hitler in 1937.
Half-Jew" and field-marshal Erhard Milch (left) with General Wolfram
von Richthofen. Hitler declared Milch Aryan. He was awarded the
Ritterkreuz for his performance during the campaign in Norway in
1940.
Hermann Göring give his famous quotation about Milch: "Wer Jude ist,
bestimme ich" (I decide who is a Jew).
In 1947, Milch was tried as a war criminal by a United States Military
Tribunal in Nuremberg. He was convicted of two counts, including
Crimes against humanity. Milch was sentenced to life imprisonment.
---------------------------------
How many of Bandera's close associates Jewish, half-Jewish, quarter
Jewish? Was Rico Yary openly of Jewish descent? How can we be sure
that he was indeed of Jewish descend? Where is the source for your
information?
> You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet the
> facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved with the
> OUN at the highest levels.
>
> > > Rather strange to describe an
> > > organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> > > Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> > > two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> > > organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> > > risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
So, you insist that a group whose prominent members included an ethnic
Jew, cannot be anti-semitic and cannot even contemplate of committing
genocide against Jews? Really? OK, if you insist.
> > > But seriously, from the appointment of Tabachnik as education
> > > minister publicly denouncing the idea that the Holodomor was a
>>> genocide against the Ukrainian people, etc....
Holodomor was a genocide against the Ukrainian people? Really?
http://lenta.ru/news/2009/11/27/names/
The Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaychenko
announced the names of people whom Kiev says the organizers of the
Holodomor:
"It is Stanislaw Kosior, Pavel Postyshev, and Vlas Chubar'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlas_Chubar
In 2010, Ukrainian criminal court established that Chubar, along with
other leaders of Soviet Ukraine, is personally responsible for
Holodomor artificial famine
---------------------------
As you can see, an ethnic Ukrainian man – Chubar' – was one of these
three villains: a Pole, a Russian and a Ukrainian.
Among the other 19 top men accused of being in charge of Holodomor
crimes, you will also find:
http://www.zlev.ru/117/117_22.htm
Khoma Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
Khomych Kryvets'.
I wish I knew the ethnicities (or even names) of Holodomor villains'
wives, but I strongly suspect that if we knew them, we would find
Ukrainian ethnicity among them too.
Chubar', Balytskyj, Leonyuk, Krivets' … So, using your own logic, how
could Holodomor be a genocide against the Ukrainian people?
Doesn't this show the utter hypocrisy of your arguments about Jews and
OUN?
More importantly,why is it that by merely disagreeing that Holodomor
was an intentional genocide against the Ukrainian people, a person
becomes an “anti-Ukrainian” villain? Since Holodomor criminals like
Chubar and Balytskyj were ethnic Ukrainians, why is it so terrible
for Tabachnik to use the same logic that you yourself have used
repeatedly to deny that OUN was anti-Semitic?
Why is it righteous for you to deny purposeful anti-Jewish nature of
OUN, but a crime for Tabachnik to deny purposeful anti-Ukrainian
nature of Holodomor?
> > > "Here is a paper presented at a conference at the University of
> > > Illinois by Moses Fishbein, a Jewish-Ukrainian poet, posted on the
> > > website of the Association of Jewish Organizatins and Communities of
> > > Ukraine:"
>
> > I am sorry but why are you bringing up this Moses Fishbein, other
> > than he is a Jew? There are 14 million Jews in the World, and all of
> > us have different views.
>
> His paper prefectly illustrates the pattern of Russian natrionalists
> deflected from their own antisemitism by making false accusations
> against Ukrainian nationalists and patriots.
>
> > Is he a poet? I have never read his verses, but I am willing to
> > postulate that he is great at rhyming and rhythm. But is he a
> > professional historian? What facts can he tell us about Bandera that
> > historians don't know?
>
> He stated everything I would have, saving me some time. Nice that you
> noticed he is Jewish.
Well, I am a little more intelligent that you give me credit for. When
I read that you wrote “ Moses Fishbein, a Jewish-Ukrainian poet”, I
said to myself: “Ostap, I bet Fishbein could be Jewish!”
> "Here is a paper presented at a conference at the University of
> Illinois by Moses Fishbein
>
> http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
>
> Excerpts:
>
> http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
>
> In 1942-43 Natalia Shukhevych, the wife of UPA Commander in Chief
> Roman Shukhevych, hid a young Jewish girl named Ira Reichenberg in her
> home. General Shukhevych prepared a fake passport for the girl in the
> name of Iryna Ryzhko.
Wow, that sounds like a very scientific paper presented at a
scientific conference by a man dedicated to presenting facts that he
himself has double checked. So, tell me more. What documents in the
archives did Moses Fishbein use for his research on Ira Reichenberg?
In particular, the fake passport - passport of what country? USSR or
Nazi Germany? Please tell me.
> When the Gestapo arrested Mrs. Shukhevych, the
> little girl was brought to an orphanage based at a convent located in
> the village of Kulykiv in the Lviv region. There the little girl
> survived the German occupation and the war.
Did the Nazis ever discover that Natalia Shukhevych had been hiding
this Jewish girl?
What kind of archive documents did Fishbein use to discover all these
facts? Were they OUN archives? NKVD archives? Gestapo archives? Some
other German or Soviet archives?
Or was this based on eyewitness testimony? If so – what is the name of
the witness(es) and to whom did they give this testimony and in what
year (approximately)?
Has Fishbein ever provided the sources for this story or is he acting
here in the capacity of a fiction writer/poet?
The Black Monk
wrote:
> The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> > > Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> > > government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> > > direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> > > the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> > > descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
>
> > Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> > she was openly Jewish?
>
> I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
> Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
> expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
> post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
> didn't hate Jews as an overall group.
It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
> Was Rico Yary's wife openly Jewish? Did she go to the synagogue while dating Yary? While married
> to him? Or was she not proud of her Judaism? Did she belong to
> Judaism or maybe she was a practicing Catholic, who knows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Yary
According the historians O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh Yary was of
partilineal Czech and matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent
Yary married Olga Rosalie Spielvogel, a Jewish woman from
Peremyshlyany in 1923.
At the same time there were reports by the Einsatzgruppe B that Yary
and his wife were Jewish, and as such subject to persecution[6]. After
the abrogation by the Nazis of the independent Ukrainian State Yary
left the General Government and from 1942 he lived in the Rumanian-
occupied Bukovina. In 1943, he was arrested by the Gestapo and was
sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
Ukrainian wikipedia:
Дружина Р.Ярого Ольга Шпільфогель народилася в єврейській родині 29
жовтня 1896 року в Перемишлянах.
Russian wikipedia:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4
По происхождению — венгерский еврей, был офицером австро-венгерской
армии [1].
> We all know
> of famous Jewish parents who raised their children in Catholicism in a
> way that these children didn't even suspect that their own parents
> were originally Jewish by birth:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
>
> Madeleine Korbel Albright (born May 15, 1937) is the first woman to
> become a United States Secretary of State. Her father, Josef Korbel,
> was a Jewish Czech diplomat. She was his first child with his Jewish
> wife, Anna (née Spieglová). Albright was raised Catholic. Albright
> did not learn until late in life that her parents were Jewish and that
> many of her Jewish relatives in Czechoslovakia perished in The
> Holocaust, including three of her grandparents.[9]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher
>
> Bill Maher was born in New York City, the son of Julie (née Berman), a
> nurse, and William Maher, Sr. Maher was raised in his Irish American
> father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was
> Jewish until his teenage years.
Since she was born into a Jewish family she, um, was aware that she
was Jewish.
> That's why I am asking you: how openly Jewish was this Olga
> Spielvogel? Was her Jewishness commonly known to OUN leaders like
> Bandera and Stetsko? Was she a practicing Jew? What if she was a
> Catholics? Or an agnostic?
The sources state she was Jewish. If you believe she had converrted,
etc. the burdon of proof is on you to show this was the case. Until
you do, all we know is that she was a Jew (with no qualifications).
> And how openly Jewish were the wives of Mykola Kapustiansky and
> Mykola Skyborski?
See my comment above.
> Wikipedia biographies of Mykola Skyborski and Mykola Kapustiansky
> don't even mention if they had wives. What and from where do you know
> about their Jewish wives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
Unlike the Croatian Ustashe or Romania's Legion of the Archangel
Michael to whom the OUN can be compared, the OUN's ideology did not
emphasize antisemitism. Indeed, three of its leaders, General Mykola
Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish descent), and
Mykola Skyborski, were married to Jewish women [29] and Jews belonged
to the OUN's underground movement.[30]
> Were they Jewish ethnically or religiously?
> Fully Jewish or partially? Was their Jewishness commonly known to OUN
> leaders like Melnik, Bandera and Stetsko?
"Let me introduce my wife, Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. She isn't Jewish."
> Were they practicing Jews?
> Or Catholics? Or agnostics? And what were their names?!
>
> > Rico Yary was quite close to Bandera.
>
> So, how openly Jewish was Rico Yary? Did Bandera know that Yary was
> a Jew? Did Yary himself know that he, Rico Yary, was a Jew?
Sources atet that he was of Jewish descent and that his wiofe was
Jewish, born into a Jewish family. No evidence that he did not know
these things. You are asking me to prove that h e is not a camel:
http://www.vocaboly.com/forums/ftopic9104.html
> Or was Yary no more of a Jew than Stalin, Hitler, Andropov, Columbus,
> Bush, Yeltsin, Medvedev and all other historical figures:
>
> http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zon...
>
> MOSCOW— As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares to hand over the
> keys of Kremlin to his confidante First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
> Medvedev, far-rightists are trying to spoil the transition landscape,
> claiming that the presidential front-runner was a Jew in disguise.
> "It's common knowledge. Medvedev never hide his sympathy towards
> Judaism," Nikolai Bondarik, who heads the nationalist Russian Party in
> St Petersburg, told Reuters Tuesday, February 26.
> Moscow's Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt dismissed the nationalists'
> accusations of Medvedev as new take on a well-worn theme among the
> rightists. "In the 1990s groups said (then president Boris) Yeltsin
> was Jewish. The same has been said of (US President) George Bush,"
> Goldschmidt told Reuters.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
>
> After receiving a "blackmail letter" from Hitler's nephew William
> Patrick Hitler threatening to reveal embarrassing information about
> Hitler's family tree, Nazi Party lawyer Hans Frank investigated, and,
> in his memoirs, claimed to have uncovered letters revealing that
> Alois' mother, Maria Schicklgruber, was employed as a housekeeper for
> a Jewish family in Graz and that the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold
> Frankenberger, fathered Alois.[7] No evidence has ever been produced
> to support Frank's claim, and Frank himself said Hitler's full Aryan
> blood was obvious.[9] Frank's claims were widely believed in the
> 1950s, but by the 1990s, were generally doubted by historians.
Sorry, no evidence that Yary's wife's origins were mere rumors.
> > Rico Yary was quite close to Bandera.
>
> How about Mykola Kapustiansky and Mykola Skyborski? How close were
> they with Bandera? Were they too good friends?
The other two were on Melnyk's side.
> > Tell me, which of Hityler's closest leaders was married to an openly Jewish
> > woman? Which one was openly of Jewish descent?
>
> Here are some in the military:
I asked about the Nazi inner circle. A bunch of Jewish people were in
UPA, some of whom were awarded UPA's version of the Iron Cross. But I
didn't mention them because their existence has less to do with the
OUN (UPA was a military formation). Similarly, the German Army is not
the same as the Nazi Party.
I asked you, how many tope Nazi leaders in Hitler's inner circle were
of Jewish descent and/or married to Jewish women? You failed to
answer or to honestly admit that none were.
> How many of Bandera's close associates Jewish, half-Jewish, quarter
> Jewish? Was Rico Yary openly of Jewish descent? How can we be sure
> that he was indeed of Jewish descend? Where is the source for your
> information?
See above.
> > You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet the
> > facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved with the
> > OUN at the highest levels.
>
> > > > Rather strange to describe an
> > > > organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> > > > Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> > > > two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> > > > organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> > > > risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
>
> So, you insist that a group whose prominent members included an ethnic
> Jew, cannot be anti-semitic and cannot even contemplate of committing
> genocide against Jews?
I insist that in such an organization antisemtism could not have been
a core value. As I have written, the OUN in its immoral ruthlessness
was willing to kill anyone if they felt that doing so would further
their goal of an independent Ukraine. So when they were seeking a
German alliance they issues antisemitic statements and even killed
Jews. But this is not the same as it being antisemtic. If the Nazis
hated the Irish the OUN would kill them too, for the purposes of
getting what they wanted from the Nazis. Got it?
> Really? OK, if you insist.
But I don't insist. This is merely your convenient fantasy.
> > > > But seriously, from the appointment of Tabachnik as education
> > > > minister publicly denouncing the idea that the Holodomor was a
> >>> genocide against the Ukrainian people, etc....
>
> Holodomor was a genocide against the Ukrainian people? Really?
>
> http://lenta.ru/news/2009/11/27/names/
>
> The Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaychenko
> announced the names of people whom Kiev says the organizers of the
> Holodomor:
>
> "It is Stanislaw Kosior, Pavel Postyshev, and Vlas Chubar'”
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlas_Chubar
>
> In 2010, Ukrainian criminal court established that Chubar, along with
> other leaders of Soviet Ukraine, is personally responsible for
> Holodomor artificial famine
>
> ---------------------------
>
> As you can see, an ethnic Ukrainian man – Chubar' – was one of these
> three villains: a Pole, a Russian and a Ukrainian.
Chubar was from eastern Ukraine and spent most of his formative years
in Russia and Russian environments, participating in the revolutions
in St. Petersburg etc. He returned to Ukraine with the Soviet military
during their invasion from Russia. If this is the most "Ukrainian"
figure you can come up with in the implementation of the Holodomor,
this is further good evidence of its anti-Ukrainian character.
Moreover, the Holodomor was obviously both a national and class-based
genocide, directed at peasants in Ukraine who were overwhelmingly
Ukrainian. It broke down the peasants both nationally and as a
class. Thus an ethnic UKrainian supporter of the dominance of
factory workers could participate in the Holodomor for class
reasons.
> Among the other 19 top men accused of being in charge of Holodomor crimes, you will also find:
>
> http://www.zlev.ru/117/117_22.htm
>
> Khoma Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> Khomych Kryvets'.
>
> I wish I knew the ethnicities (or even names) of Holodomor villains'
> wives, but I strongly suspect that if we knew them, we would find
> Ukrainian ethnicity among them too.
>
> Chubar', Balytskyj, Leonyuk, Krivets' … So, using your own logic, how
> could Holodomor be a genocide against the Ukrainian people?
It was both a genocide of the Ukrainian people and a crushing of a
counterrevolutionary social element - peasants who refused to hand
their land over to the kolkhosp (who, coincidentally, were the main
support base for Ukrainian nationalism). The two are not mutually
exclusive phenomena.
> Doesn't this show the utter hypocrisy of your arguments about Jews and
> OUN?
It rather shows your convenient omission of facts and context in order
to present your own twisted views. This is a well-established pattern
of yours, as we see on this thread.
> More importantly,why is it that by merely disagreeing that Holodomor was an intentional genocide against the Ukrainian people, a person
> becomes an “anti-Ukrainian” villain?
So what would you say about someone who claimed that the Holocaust was
not an intentional genocide against the Jewish people? How would Jews
react if a Palestinian representing the Jewish state (such as an
Arabic member of the Knesset) said something like that at the UN?
Don't you think they would be legitimately outraged?
> Since Holodomor criminals like Chubar and Balytskyj were ethnic Ukrainians, why is it so terrible
> for Tabachnik to use the same logic that you yourself have used
> repeatedly to deny that OUN was anti-Semitic?
Which logic specifically did Tabachnyk use?
> Why is it righteous for you to deny purposeful anti-Jewish nature of
> OUN, but a crime for Tabachnik to deny purposeful anti-Ukrainian
> nature of Holodomor?
Because the facts support my position and not Tabachnik's. In addition
to the presence of Jews in the highest levels of government, as Himka
described the Germans themselves understood that the OUN was nuetral
with respect to Jews:
http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje16/text11.htm
"According to the Germans, to finance their activities, the Banderites
raised some of their contributions from Jews, whom they often
blackmailed. (42) On the other hand, the Bandera movement provided
some Jews with false papers. (43) The impression created by the German
documentation is that the extreme Ukrainian nationalists were so
indifferent to the fate of the Jews (44) that they would either kill
them or help them, whichever was more appropriate to their political
goals."
While during the time of the Holodomor the Communists, while murdering
millions of Ukrainian peasants, were also shutting down Ukrainian
schools, arresting and executing Ukrainian cultural figures (for
nationalist deviency etc.) the OUN crimes against Jews involved either
trying to please the Germans in the early parts of the war or
afterwards going after suspected Communists, with Jewishness or
Zionism itself not being a cause for persecution.
Don't know about Fishbein, but the wikipedia article includes links to
references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych#Rescue_of_Irene_Reichenberg
According to Vladimir Vyatrovich, a councillor to the head of the SBU,
Natalia Shukhevych, wife of the UPA Head Commander Roman Shukhevych,
sheltered in her house a Jewish girl, Irene Reichenberg (other
transcription: Reisinberg, Reitenberg) from September 1942 till
February 1943. She was a neighbor's daughter and was 7 years old at
that time.[30] [31] [32] [33]
According to Yuri Shukhevych, at the beginning of the World War II
their family lived in Lviv on Queen Yadvyga Street, where their
neighbour was a Jewish family of Wolf and Ruzha Reichenberg who owned
a textile shop. Nazis shot their older daughter Irma in the street in
1942. Her younger sister Irene lived with Shukhevych family for a
certain period of time while preparing for school.[34]
Roman Shukhevych used his connections to provide the girl with new
documents in the Ukrainian name of Iryna Vasylivna Ryzhko. Girl's
actual birth year was changed from 1936 to 1937.[35] [36] In her new
documents Iryna was indicated as a daughter of a Red Army officer
killed early in the war.
After arrest of Natalia Shukhevych in 1943 by the Gestapo, Roman
Shukhevych succeeded to take a girl to the orphan shelter at the
Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Convent of Vasilianky in the village of
Phylypove, near the township of Kulykiv in 30 kilometres from Lviv,
where Irene remained till the end of the World War II surviving German
occupation and Holocaust.[37] [38] In 1956 Irene sent a letter with
her picture to the prioress of the monastery.
After the war Iryna lived in Ukraine and died in 2007 in Kiev at the
age of 72. Her son Vladimir still lives in Kiev. Yuri Shukhevych met
with him after his mothers death.[32]
--------------
Same info herer on this Russian-language webpage:
http://lib.kture.kharkov.ua/ua/elexh25/1.php
--------------
Here's an aticle written by another Jewish person about UPA and the
Jews:
http://izrus.co.il/article.php?article=325
I'll translate from the Russian language:
Vyatrovich told the portal IzRus, that prominent leaders of the
Bandera movement saved Jews during the Holocaust. During the war, the
head of Nikopol District of OUN Ivan Vovchuk (Fedir Vovk) war hid the
Jewish Bakst family. Subsequently, he was awarded the title "Righteous
among the Nations" by the Jerusalem Institute for Yad Vashem.
Historians have also discovered a document by the Gestapo in March
1942, which reported that "OUN (Bandera) make false documents for Jews
in hiding." Natalia Shuhevych, the wife of UPA military commander
Roman Shukeyvich, in 1942-1943, hid the Jewish girl Irina Reichenberg,
providing her with documents under thename of Ira Ryzhko. When Natalia
was arrested by the Gestapo, her husband hid the girl in the convent
sisters Vasilyanok Kulyk near the town 30 km from the city.
Moreover, Jews even constituted a significant percentage of physicians
in the partisan detachments UPA. One of them - under the pseudonym
"Kum" - was killed in battle against a detachment of the NKVD.
Posthumously he was awarded one UPA's highest awards - the Silver
Cross.
One of UPA's propogandists was the Jew Leyba Itzik Dobrovský. In
modern terms, he served as a "PR expert" for the Bandera movement.
Called up from Kiev, 31 years old Dobrovský was encirced in September
1941, escaped and joined the Ukrainian rebels in the forests of the
Rivne region, and remained at the headquarters of the Northern UPA.
Dobrovský, having higher education, was considered by Bandera to be a
"policy advisor on the Soviet Union. Leiba, Itzik created dozens of
leaflets with appeals to join the UPA struggle with Stalin and the
Moscow imperialism. In a bitter irony of history, a Jew Dobrovský
approached Turkmens call to join the Ukrainians and get up to fight
the "Muscovites". He prepared the book "How to Moscow conquered
peoples", but was arrested by SMERSH in February 1944. Dobrovský
sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Apparently, he had remained in the
Krasnoyarsk region until 1980.
--------------
So much for your Ukrainophobic, Russian nationalist fantasy about the
essential antisemitism of the OUN/UPA.
> Or was this based on eyewitness testimony? If so – what is the name of
> the witness(es) and to whom did they give this testimony and in what
> year (approximately)?
>
> Has Fishbein ever provided the sources for this story or is he acting
> here in the capacity of a fiction writer/poet?
It wasn't a writer's conference, was it? It was a "Conference on
Ukrainian Subjects at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Jul 1, 12:26 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> > > > Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> > > > government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> > > > direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> > > > the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> > > > descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
>
> > > Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> > > she was openly Jewish?
>
> > I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
> > Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
> > expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
> > post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
> > didn't hate Jews as an overall group.
>
> It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
Is it good evidence? And even if it is – is it a strong “proof” that
OUN(B) was not responsible of any murders of innocent Jewish women,
infants elderly and other civilians?
> > Was Rico Yary's wife openly Jewish? Did she go to the synagogue while
> > dating Yary? While married
> > to him? Or was she not proud of her Judaism? Did she belong to
> > Judaism or maybe she was a practicing Catholic, who knows?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Yary
>
> According the historians O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh Yary was of
> partilineal Czech and matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent
>
> Yary married Olga Rosalie Spielvogel, a Jewish woman from
> Peremyshlyany in 1923.
Wow. What a beautiful job of copying the Wikipedia article honestly
and with integrity! No disagreement among historians: Richard Yary was
half-Jewish! You have convinced me. But just out of curiosity I am
going to look up your Wiki link for myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Yary
According the historians O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh Yary was of
partilineal Czech and matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent[1]
[page needed](Polish rather than Hungarian (maiden name "Pollack")
according to Patrylyak[2]).[not in citation given]. Yary's Jewish
descent was affirmed by the historian Z.Knysh, but denied by P.Mirchuk
who affirmed that Yary was not Jewish, but was denounced as such by
his enemies in OUN-M, and Knysh himself was Yary's personal enemy[3].
According to the Yary family legend the Yarys descended from a
Ukrainian Cossack wounded during the Siege of Vienna in 1685. Yary
married Olga Rosalie Spielvogel, a Jewish woman from Peremyshlyany in
1923.
--------------------------------
Wait a second. What are all these sentencest:
-------------------------------------
[1] [page needed](Polish rather than Hungarian (maiden name "Pollack")
according to Patrylyak[2]).[not in citation given]. Yary's Jewish
descent was affirmed by the historian Z.Knysh, but denied by P.Mirchuk
who affirmed that Yary was not Jewish, but was denounced as such by
his enemies in OUN-M, and Knysh himself was Yary's personal enemy[3].
------------------------------------------
????? They turn your whole argument on its head.
What happened? How come these highly essential sentences mysteriously
disappeared when you cut-and-pasted the above text?
If it were anybody else, I would consider such an action as a gross
example of cheating, cheating of the stupidest kind, because it
assumes that your reader is too stupid to press on the link and see
your gaping omissions.
But knowing you to be a man of perfect objectivity and honesty, I
can't believe you've done this on purpose. Moreover, had you done it
on purpose, this would have meant that you take me for a mental
retard, too stupid to press your link and check for myself. I would
hate to think that you have such a low opinion about my gullibility
and my lack of intelligence.
So, please give me a good reason why you deleted these middle
sentences please.
The Black Monk
> On Jul 1, 7:40 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:26 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> > > > > Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> > > > > government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> > > > > direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> > > > > the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> > > > > descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
>
> > > > Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> > > > she was openly Jewish?
>
> > > I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
> > > Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
> > > expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
> > > post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
> > > didn't hate Jews as an overall group.
>
> > It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
>
> Is it good evidence? And even if it is – is it a strong “proof” that
> OUN(B) was not responsible of any murders of innocent Jewish women,
> infants elderly and other civilians?
I did not claim that the OUN (B) was not responsible for any murders
of innocent Jews. Can you be honest, please?
No, because 2 historians claimed he was on Jewish descent and only one
claim was attacked. Moreover, Mirchuk who denied Knysh's claims is
not apparantly a historian. Wikipedia links to his denial here:
http://www.ukrcenter.com/Library/read.asp?id=7097&page=13#text_top
Which begins "Bandera - Our Leader!"
Clearly Mirchuk is not a historian. Moreover, his "proof" that Yary
could not be of partial Jewish descent was that the Germans didn't
arrest him for his Jewishness. Yet, as you have magnificently shown
yourself, the Germans did not arrest officers in their own army who
were of partial Jewish descent, as was Yary, if it served their
purposes not to do so. So, Mirchuk's claim is based entirely on an
assumption that you have shown to be false.
> What happened? How come these highly essential sentences mysteriously
> disappeared when you cut-and-pasted the above text?
Sorry, I don't consider claims by questionable sources based on false
assumptions to be "essential." Indeed, they are the opposite, adding
dishonesty to the conversation. I checked the link to the denial of
his Jewishness. If such claims were indeed essential or valid I would
have included them or retracted my claim about Yary. But they were
not, and until you chose to demogoue the issue I felt it was
unecessary to further muddy the conversation by adding unreliable info
and explaining why it is unreliable.
> If it were anybody else, I would consider such an action as a gross
> example of cheating, cheating of the stupidest kind, because it
> assumes that your reader is too stupid to press on the link and see
> your gaping omissions.
>
> But knowing you to be a man of perfect objectivity and honesty, I
> can't believe you've done this on purpose. Moreover, had you done it
> on purpose, this would have meant that you take me for a mental
> retard, too stupid to press your link and check for myself. I would
> hate to think that you have such a low opinion about my gullibility
> and my lack of intelligence.
I would have hoped that you would have checked the links to the other
info that some random wikipedia editor inserted into the article. But
this leads to my ultimate mistake: assuming that you wanted to engage
in an argument in good faith rather than engage in demogoguery in
order to portray a Franco/Mussolini/Ho Chih Minh/Castro (Bandera) as a
Hitler or Pol Pot.
I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
doing this.
> So, please give me a good reason why you deleted these middle
> sentences please.
See above. I included only the important info, not his questionable
stuff or irrelevent stuff (such his father's descent from Zaporozhian
cossacks when his mother was the one who was of Jewish descent).
Ostap Bender
> On Jul 2, 2:49 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 7:40 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> > > > > > Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> > > > > > government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> > > > > > direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> > > > > > the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> > > > > > descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
>
> > > > > Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> > > > > she was openly Jewish?
>
> > > > I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
> > > > Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
> > > > expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
> > > > post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
> > > > didn't hate Jews as an overall group.
>
> > > It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
>
> > Is it good evidence? And even if it is – is it a strong “proof” that
> > OUN(B) was not responsible of any murders of innocent Jewish women,
> > infants elderly and other civilians?
>
> I did not claim that the OUN (B) was not responsible for any murders
> of innocent Jews. Can you be honest, please?
I find it very ironic to hear YOU accuse ME of dishonesty.
> > Wait a second. What are all these sentences:
>
> > -------------------------------------
> > [1] [page needed](Polish rather than Hungarian (maiden name "Pollack")
> > according to Patrylyak[2]).[not in citation given]. Yary's Jewish
> > descent was affirmed by the historian Z.Knysh, but denied by P.Mirchuk
> > who affirmed that Yary was not Jewish, but was denounced as such by
> > his enemies in OUN-M, and Knysh himself was Yary's personal enemy[3].
> > ------------------------------------------
>
> > ????? They turn your whole argument on its head.
>
> No, because 2 historians claimed he was on Jewish descent and only one
> claim was attacked.
So, you analyzed the evidence for and against Yary's mother being
Jewish and convincingly concluded that more people say “yes” than “no”
by 2-1. And upon this analysis, you decided that your readers should
not be allowed even to hear the “no” side, and purposefully deleted
the inconvenient sentences to make your reader think that there is no
dispute and that everybody knows and agrees that Yary's mother was
Jewish. An interesting tactic..... But what would have been so bad if
you allowed the reader to read the omitted sentences?
And what about the 4th historian here, Patrylyak? Have you looked up
what he says? Given that he is THE OFFICIAL expert on OUN, appointed
by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, it would seem that his opinion
would count more than anybody else's.
Moreover, even if the score were 2-1 in favour of “yes”, doesn't the
fact that there is disagreement as to whether Yary's mother was of
Jewish descent, indicate that maybe his colleagues at OUN(B) were not
aware of it or at least not convinced of it? That would negate your
entire argument that OUN(B) knowingly and willingly tolerated Jewish
origins in their leaders, wouldn't it?
> Moreover, Mirchuk who denied Knysh's claims is
> not apparantly a historian. Wikipedia links to his denial here:
>
> http://www.ukrcenter.com/Library/read.asp?id=7097&page=13#text_top
>
> Which begins "Bandera - Our Leader!"
>
> Clearly Mirchuk is not a historian.
Really? You know better than the Wikipedia?
http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%80%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE
Peter Mirchuk
Born June 26, 1913, Dobrivliany (now Lviv)
Other names: Zaliznyak
Activities Ukrainian politician, historian, journalist
Peter Mirchuk (* June 26, 1913, Lviv region) - Ukrainian politician,
historian, journalist. Alias - Zaliznyak.
Member of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. He participated
in the publication of "Regional Executive Newsletter OUN on ZUZ on",
edited by nationalist periodical publication "Young Village", "Our
outlook”.
In 1933-1939 the Polish police arrested him several times for
participating in the national movement. In 1939 after the collapse of
the Polish state emigrated to Prague, where he continued teaching at
the Ukrainian Free University (1941).
In 1945-1946 years headed the Central Emigration Union of Ukrainian
Students.
In the years 1948-1952 - member of the Provid (Presidium) of the
foreign parts of the OUN, co-editor of a number of nationalist
publications.
From 1950 he lived in the U.S.. Taught in many American colleges. 1969
received a PhD from the
Publications:
* "Ukrainian Insurgent Army, 1942-1952" (1953).
* "In the revolutionary fight" (1964).
* "Character of the history of Ukrainian Nationalists (1968).
* Collection of documents "Ukrainian Insurgent Army
(1941-1952,1953).”
* Journalistic work:
* «For the purity of positions of the Ukrainian National Liberation
Front" (1955)
* «Bend of history" (1959).
* Memoirs "In the German death mills" (1957).
* Articles about the leaders of Ukrainian national liberation
struggle.
* Meetings and talks in Israel
References
* Encyclopedia. In 10's t / Ch. edit. Vladimir Kubiiovych. - Paris,
New York: Young Life, 1954-1989. - T. 4. - S. 1583-1584.
* Guide to Ukraine's history. - 2nd edition. - K., 2001. - S.
475-476.
-----------------------------------
So, he WAS a historian. A major historian. A historian who deserved
his own Wikipedia article.
But he was more than that. MUCH-MUCH more. He was an OUN leader
himself and a member of the OUN Provid after WWII. His articles about
the leaders of Ukrainian national liberation struggle are more
important than any historical research into eyewitness testimonies
that a modern professional historian can dig up. These are EYEWITNESS
MEMOIURS. First hand knowledge! Mirchuk was one of the OUN leaders.
He tells us the inside workings of OUN and its leaders. These memoirs
are what other historians use to write their works. Does the fact that
Mirchuk says that Yary had no Jewish roots at all, prove that some
greatgrandfather of Yary's couldn't have been Jewish? Maybe not. But
what it DOES prove is that Mirchuk and other OUN(B) leaders didn't
know or believe that Yary had Jewish roots. And in fact, Mirchuk
explains that the rumour that Yary was Jewish was started in the
memoirs of Knysh, who was a personal nemesis of Yary like Salieri to
Mozart.
> Moreover, his "proof" that Yary
> could not be of partial Jewish descent was that the Germans didn't
> arrest him for his Jewishness. Yet, as you have magnificently shown
> yourself, the Germans did not arrest officers in their own army who
> were of partial Jewish descent, as was Yary, if it served their
> purposes not to do so. So, Mirchuk's claim is based entirely on an
> assumption that you have shown to be false.
Nonsense. Mirchuk knew Yary personally and admires him. His entire
article is to defend Yary's memory form the lies fabricated about Yary
by the Soviet authorities and by Knysh. Mirchuk's biography of Yary
shows detailed knowledge of Yary's life. So, are you accusing Mirchuk
of lying? Are you saying that Mirchuk knows that Yary's mother was
Jewish but purposefully lies to the reader and maliciously uses the
fact that “the Germans didn't arrest Yary for his Jewishness” to hide
the fact that Yary was an open Jew? Is Mirchuk a malicious person who
knowingly tells lies?
> > What happened? How come these highly essential sentences mysteriously
> > disappeared when you cut-and-pasted the above text?
>
> Sorry, I don't consider claims by questionable sources based on false
> assumptions to be "essential."
Well, then you still should not have deleted these middle sentences,
but instead explained to us why we should trust the sources that you
like and distrust the ones that you don't like, like you have done
now.
> Indeed, they are the opposite, adding
> dishonesty to the conversation. I checked the link to the denial of
> his Jewishness. If such claims were indeed essential or valid I would
> have included them or retracted my claim about Yary. But they were
> not, and until you chose to demogoue the issue I felt it was
> unecessary to further muddy the conversation by adding unreliable info
> and explaining why it is unreliable.
Really? You've verified all these references and concluded that what
O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote, looked “honest” but what Mirchuk and
Patrylyak wrote was “dishonest” or at least “untrustworthy”?
Interesting....
Well, I too have read Mirchuk and Patrylyak but failed to find
anything on the that O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote concerning Yary's
Jewishness. Where did you read these two references? On the Internet?
If so – please give me the links. If you have the Kucheruk book itself
– please type in the exact text of what is said about Yary's
Jewishness there.
Also, who is this Z.Knysh? Why is he trusted by you but Mirchuk – not?
Is what Mirchuk says about him – that he was a personal enemy of Yary
like Salieri to Mozart – true? And what exactly does Knysh say about
Yary's Jewishness and in what book?
> > If it were anybody else, I would consider such an action as a gross
> > example of cheating, cheating of the stupidest kind, because it
> > assumes that your reader is too stupid to press on the link and see
> > your gaping omissions.
>
> > But knowing you to be a man of perfect objectivity and honesty, I
> > can't believe you've done this on purpose. Moreover, had you done it
> > on purpose, this would have meant that you take me for a mental
> > retard, too stupid to press your link and check for myself. I would
> > hate to think that you have such a low opinion about my gullibility
> > and my lack of intelligence.
>
> I would have hoped that you would have checked the links to the other
> info that some random wikipedia editor inserted into the article.
I had done exactly that. And had YOU done it, you wouldn't be arguing
against me right now.
> But
> this leads to my ultimate mistake: assuming that you wanted to engage
> in an argument in good faith rather than engage in demogoguery in
> order to portray a Franco/Mussolini/Ho Chih Minh/Castro (Bandera) as a
> Hitler or Pol Pot.
> I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> doing this.
Let us come back to these two paragraphs after you quote me from
Kucheruk and Knysh.
The Black Monk
> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 2:49 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 7:40 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Well, if you want to have a comparison between the number of ethnic
> > > > > > > Jews and Jewish wives among Nazis, OUN, Gomulka government, Stalin's
> > > > > > > government, Zhirinovsky's party etc - let's start moving in that
> > > > > > > direction. How openly "Jewish" was Rico Yary? How openly Jewish were
> > > > > > > the wives Mykola Kapustiansky, Rico Yary (himself of Hungarian-Jewish
> > > > > > > descent), and Mykola Skyborski?
>
> > > > > > Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> > > > > > she was openly Jewish?
>
> > > > > I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
> > > > > Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
> > > > > expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
> > > > > post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
> > > > > didn't hate Jews as an overall group.
>
> > > > It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
>
> > > Is it good evidence? And even if it is – is it a strong “proof” that
> > > OUN(B) was not responsible of any murders of innocent Jewish women,
> > > infants elderly and other civilians?
>
> > I did not claim that the OUN (B) was not responsible for any murders
> > of innocent Jews. Can you be honest, please?
>
> I find it very ironic to hear YOU accuse ME of dishonesty.
You find truth to be ironic? Should I waste time finding the links
where I stated that the OUN killed innocent Jews?
The "one" is not a reliable source.
> And upon this analysis, you decided that your readers should
> not be allowed even to hear the “no” side, and purposefully deleted
> the inconvenient sentences to make your reader think that there is no
> dispute and that everybody knows and agrees that Yary's mother was
> Jewish.
If that were my goal I would not have included the link.
> An interesting tactic..... But what would have been so bad if
> you allowed the reader to read the omitted sentences?
A further tangent from our disicsion, which you have chosen to do
anyways in your quest to avoid the topic we had been discussing.
> And what about the 4th historian here, Patrylyak? Have you looked up
> what he says? Given that he is THE OFFICIAL expert on OUN, appointed
> by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, it would seem that his opinion
> would count more than anybody else's.
Couldn't find what he had to say about Yary's Jewishness, online.
Could you?
BTW Patrylyak is a Soviet mythologist, isn't he? At least ccordng to
this article:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2010/04/13/4932965/
>
> Moreover, even if the score were 2-1 in favour of “yes”, doesn't the
> fact that there is disagreement as to whether Yary's mother was of
> Jewish descent, indicate that maybe his colleagues at OUN(B) were not
> aware of it or at least not convinced of it? That would negate your
> entire argument that OUN(B) knowingly and willingly tolerated Jewish
> origins in their leaders, wouldn't it?
That a writer in his propoganda tract denied this is more relevent
about the propagandist himself, rather than about Yary.
>
> > Moreover, Mirchuk who denied Knysh's claims is
> > not apparantly a historian. Wikipedia links to his denial here:
>
> >http://www.ukrcenter.com/Library/read.asp?id=7097&page=13#text_top
>
> > Which begins "Bandera - Our Leader!"
>
> > Clearly Mirchuk is not a historian.
>
> Really? You know better than the Wikipedia?
>
> http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%80%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA_%D0...
You're right, I didn't check Ukrainian wikipedia about him. The link
from Yary's article was obviously a propaganda tract, written in is
capacity as an OUN (B) activist. But the guy is also a historian.
>
> But he was more than that. MUCH-MUCH more. He was an OUN leader
> himself and a member of the OUN Provid after WWII. His articles about
> the leaders of Ukrainian national liberation struggle are more
> important than any historical research into eyewitness testimonies
> that a modern professional historian can dig up. These are EYEWITNESS
> MEMOIURS. First hand knowledge! Mirchuk was one of the OUN leaders.
Cool. So if an eyewitness friend of Stalin's or Hitler's claims that
they were good people who never wanted anyone dead, this would be the
truth because they are eyewitnesses, according to you.
> He tells us the inside workings of OUN and its leaders. These memoirs
> are what other historians use to write their works. Does the fact that
> Mirchuk says that Yary had no Jewish roots at all, prove that some
> greatgrandfather of Yary's couldn't have been Jewish? Maybe not. But
> what it DOES prove is that Mirchuk and other OUN(B) leaders didn't
> know or believe that Yary had Jewish roots. And in fact, Mirchuk
> explains that the rumour that Yary was Jewish was started in the
> memoirs of Knysh, who was a personal nemesis of Yary like Salieri to
> Mozart.
So, according to you, Himmler's memoirs about Hitler would be the
truth and whatever he had to say is more valid than what historians
claim? Sorry, Mirchuk's claims are the stuff that historians sort
through in order to explain what happens, original sources.
Mirchuk wrote a self-serving propaganda tract with some interesting
information that should all be taken with a grain of salt. For
example, in the same article he claims that OUN (B) would never
assassinate OUN (M) leaders:
http://www.ukrcenter.com/Library/read.asp?id=7097&page=13
Yet Yale historian John Armstrong of Columbia university has stated
that the OUN (B) probably committed that crime:
Many locals were recruited into the OUN-M. The OUN-M also organized
police forces, recruited from Soviet prisoners of war. Two members
senior members of its leadership, or Provid, even came to Zhitomir. At
the end of August 1941, however, they were both gunned down, allegedly
by the OUN-B which had justified the assassination in their literature
and had issued a secret directive (referred to by Andriy Melnyk as a
"death sentence") not to allow OUN-M leaders to reach Kiev. In
retaliation, the German authorities, often tipped off by OUN-M
members, began mass arrests and executions of OUN-B members, to a
large extent eliminating it in much of central and eastern Ukraine.
[13]
So in the same document where Mirchuk claims Yary was not of Jewish
descent, he also lies about OUN (B) inot being involved in killing
Ukrainian political rivals.
> > Moreover, his "proof" that Yary
> > could not be of partial Jewish descent was that the Germans didn't
> > arrest him for his Jewishness. Yet, as you have magnificently shown
> > yourself, the Germans did not arrest officers in their own army who
> > were of partial Jewish descent, as was Yary, if it served their
> > purposes not to do so. So, Mirchuk's claim is based entirely on an
> > assumption that you have shown to be false.
>
> Nonsense. Mirchuk knew Yary personally and admires him. His entire
> article is to defend Yary's memory form the lies fabricated about Yary
> by the Soviet authorities and by Knysh. Mirchuk's biography of Yary
> shows detailed knowledge of Yary's life. So, are you accusing Mirchuk
> of lying?
His article has other lies, why not in this case too?
Moreover, as I stated, Mirchuk's ONLY proof that Yary was not Jewish
was that the Germans refused to arrest him for being Jewish. That's
his only evidence. He didn't list the UKrainian names or historiy of
Yary's mother, he only stated that Yary couldn't have been Jewish
because despite Knysh's denouncing him as partially Jewish to the
Germans the Germans refused to arrest him as a Jew. Yet, you yourself
have shown that the Germans often didn't arrest people who were
partially Jewish.
> Are you saying that Mirchuk knows that Yary's mother was
> Jewish but purposefully lies to the reader and maliciously uses the
> fact that “the Germans didn't arrest Yary for his Jewishness” to hide
> the fact that Yary was an open Jew? Is Mirchuk a malicious person who
> knowingly tells lies?
He's writing in his capacity as an OUN (B) propagandist.
> > > What happened? How come these highly essential sentences mysteriously
> > > disappeared when you cut-and-pasted the above text?
>
> > Sorry, I don't consider claims by questionable sources based on false
> > assumptions to be "essential."
>
> Well, then you still should not have deleted these middle sentences,
> but instead explained to us why we should trust the sources that you
> like and distrust the ones that you don't like, like you have done
> now.
Because unlike you I am interested in discussing the issues not
avoiding them.
>
> > Indeed, they are the opposite, adding
> > dishonesty to the conversation. I checked the link to the denial of
> > his Jewishness. If such claims were indeed essential or valid I would
> > have included them or retracted my claim about Yary. But they were
> > not, and until you chose to demogoue the issue I felt it was
> > unecessary to further muddy the conversation by adding unreliable info
> > and explaining why it is unreliable.
>
> Really? You've verified all these references and concluded that what
> O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote, looked “honest” but what Mirchuk and
> Patrylyak wrote was “dishonest” or at least “untrustworthy”?
> Interesting....
I verified that Mirchuk wrote propaganda and was dishonest. So, I
rejected it. The 2 other sources I did not verify.
>
> Well, I too have read Mirchuk and Patrylyak but failed to find
> anything on the that O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote concerning Yary's
> Jewishness. Where did you read these two references? On the Internet?
> If so – please give me the links. If you have the Kucheruk book itself
> – please type in the exact text of what is said about Yary's
> Jewishness there.
English, Russian and UKrainian wikipedia use Kucherik as a reference
for Yary's Jewishness. Are they all lying about what he wrote?
> Also, who is this Z.Knysh? Why is he trusted by you but Mirchuk – not?
I trust Kucheryk's biography of Yary as referenced by 3 wikipedias
more than Mirchuk's obvious propaganda tract.
> Is what Mirchuk says about him – that he was a personal enemy of Yary
> like Salieri to Mozart – true? And what exactly does Knysh say about
> Yary's Jewishness and in what book?
>
> > > If it were anybody else, I would consider such an action as a gross
> > > example of cheating, cheating of the stupidest kind, because it
> > > assumes that your reader is too stupid to press on the link and see
> > > your gaping omissions.
>
> > > But knowing you to be a man of perfect objectivity and honesty, I
> > > can't believe you've done this on purpose. Moreover, had you done it
> > > on purpose, this would have meant that you take me for a mental
> > > retard, too stupid to press your link and check for myself. I would
> > > hate to think that you have such a low opinion about my gullibility
> > > and my lack of intelligence.
>
> > I would have hoped that you would have checked the links to the other
> > info that some random wikipedia editor inserted into the article.
>
> I had done exactly that. And had YOU done it, you wouldn't be arguing
> against me right now.
So you admit that despite Mirchuk's work being a propaganda tract
(which would have been clear had you actually read it - or did you lie
again?) you chose to use it anyways as a "truthful" source. Nice.
> > But
> > this leads to my ultimate mistake: assuming that you wanted to engage
> > in an argument in good faith rather than engage in demogoguery in
> > order to portray a Franco/Mussolini/Ho Chih Minh/Castro (Bandera) as a
> > Hitler or Pol Pot.
> > I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> > other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> > tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> > pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> > written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> > doing this.
>
> Let us come back to these two paragraphs after you quote me from
> Kucheruk and Knysh.
Sorry, the 3 wikipedia references are enough. Neither the English,
Russian nor Ukrainian editors tried to remove that info.
Now Ostap, I will wait until you address all the other points in my
previous posts that you have been ignoring - which you seem to avoid
because you lack the integrity to admit when you're wrong - before I
continue discussing Rico Yary's Jewish maternal roots.
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
Addendum: in the pasaage Ostap cites Mirchuk claimed that UPA never
killed Taras Bulba-Borovets' wife. Yet according to the historians
from the Ukrainian Institue of Histroy of the Aademy of Sciences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN-B.27s_struggle_for_dominance_in_western_Ukraine
On August 18, 1943, Taras Bulba-Borovets and his headquarters was
surrounded in a surprise attack by OUN-B force consisting of several
battalions. Some of his forces, including his wife, were captured,
while five of his officers were killed. Borovets escaped but refused
to submit, in a letter accusing the OUN-B of among other things:
banditry; of wanting to establish a one-party state; and of fighting
not for the people but in order to rule the people. In retaliation,
his wife was murdered after two weeks of torture at the hands of the
OUN-B's SB. In October 1943 Bulba-Borovets largely disbanded his
depleted force in orer to end further bloodshed.[19]
(follow the link)
If I dig up a quote by Mirchuk that UPA never hamred innocent Jews
will Ostap believe it? OR does he only believe propaganda that serves
his own dishonest purposes?
Ostap Bender
No, I find it ironic when a man, who skillfully deletes middle
sentences from a Wiki article in order to reverse its meaning, would
accuse others of dishonesty.
I also find it ironic that having shown great intelligence in the
past, you exhibit in this discussion the innocence of a person with
the IQ of 70, constantly pretending not to understand what I am
saying.
So, you analyzed the two sources – the writings of O.Kucheruk and
Z.Knysh - that give evidence for Yary's mother being Jewish and
convincingly concluded that these two sources - O.Kucheruk and
Z.Knysh - are totally reliable, while you found Mirchuk to be a liar
and intentionally lying, right?
> > And upon this analysis, you decided that your readers should
> > not be allowed even to hear the “no” side, and purposefully deleted
> > the inconvenient sentences to make your reader think that there is no
> > dispute and that everybody knows and agrees that Yary's mother was
> > Jewish.
>
> If that were my goal I would not have included the link.
Then I would have asked you where you got that quote from. Do you
still take me for a gullible idiot?
> > An interesting tactic..... But what would have been so bad if
> > you allowed the reader to read the omitted sentences?
>
> A further tangent from our disicsion, which you have chosen to do
> anyways in your quest to avoid the topic we had been discussing.
>
> > And what about the 4th historian here, Patrylyak? Have you looked up
> > what he says? Given that he is THE OFFICIAL expert on OUN, appointed
> > by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, it would seem that his opinion
> > would count more than anybody else's.
>
> Couldn't find what he had to say about Yary's Jewishness, online.
> Could you?
Yes, I do have his writing. He says that Yary's mother was a Pole, but
his first wife – Olga/Else – indeed grew up in an Orthodox Jewish
family.
> BTW Patrylyak is a Soviet mythologist, isn't he? At least ccordng to
> this article:
>
> http://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2010/04/13/4932965/
What do you mean by “ Soviet mythologist”? And what is this Pravda
place? Is it one of the children of the old Soviet Pravda that we all
loved and revered for its honesty and objectivity?
Patrylyak is a highly respected mainstream historian in Ukraine, who
is much more sympathetic to OUN than, say, Himka.
And what is your point? That Patrylyak is a liar and he cannot be
trusted? Most of the time, Patrylyak is pro-OUN. If Patrylyak said
something that favoured your argument, wouldn't you gladly quote his
writing as a legitimate proof, without even doubting him for a
second?
> > > No, because 2 historians claimed he was on Jewish descent and only one
> > > claim was attacked.
>
> > So, you analyzed the evidence for and against Yary's mother being
> > Jewish and convincingly concluded that more people say “yes” than “no”
> > by 2-1.
>
> The "one" is not a reliable source.
But the other two are totally reliable to you?
> > Moreover, even if the score were 2-1 in favour of “yes”, doesn't the
> > fact that there is disagreement as to whether Yary's mother was of
> > Jewish descent, indicate that maybe his colleagues at OUN(B) were not
> > aware of it or at least not convinced of it? That would negate your
> > entire argument that OUN(B) knowingly and willingly tolerated Jewish
> > origins in their leaders, wouldn't it?
>
> That a writer in his propoganda tract denied this is more relevent
> about the propagandist himself, rather than about Yary.
You call Mirchuk “a propagandist”. A propagandist of what? What is his
position? That OUN hated Jews? That OUN was a horrible bunch of
people?
How about Knysh? Wasn't he also a propagandist?
So, what evidence initially convinced you that Mirchuk was not a
historian?
> > But he was more than that. MUCH-MUCH more. He was an OUN leader
> > himself and a member of the OUN Provid after WWII. His articles about
> > the leaders of Ukrainian national liberation struggle are more
> > important than any historical research into eyewitness testimonies
> > that a modern professional historian can dig up. These are EYEWITNESS
> > MEMOIURS. First hand knowledge! Mirchuk was one of the OUN leaders.
>
> Cool. So if an eyewitness friend of Stalin's or Hitler's claims that
> they were good people who never wanted anyone dead, this would be the
> truth because they are eyewitnesses, according to you.
>
> > He tells us the inside workings of OUN and its leaders. These memoirs
> > are what other historians use to write their works. Does the fact that
> > Mirchuk says that Yary had no Jewish roots at all, prove that some
> > greatgrandfather of Yary's couldn't have been Jewish? Maybe not. But
> > what it DOES prove is that Mirchuk and other OUN(B) leaders didn't
> > know or believe that Yary had Jewish roots. And in fact, Mirchuk
> > explains that the rumour that Yary was Jewish was started in the
> > memoirs of Knysh, who was a personal nemesis of Yary like Salieri to
> > Mozart.
>
> So, according to you, Himmler's memoirs about Hitler would be the
> truth and whatever he had to say is more valid than what historians
> claim?
1. Mirchuk is a historian, remember?
2. Given that Knysh may be a personal enemy of Yary, why would we
trust Knysh's memoirs more than Mirchuk's?
Have you read the entire Knysh's book or just the passages about
Yary's Jewish mother? And what about his father? Was he Jewish too,
according to Knysh? Did Knish say that it was a well-known fact that
Yary's mother was Jewish or only an unconfirmed rumor?
> Sorry, Mirchuk's claims are the stuff that historians sort
> through in order to explain what happens, original sources.
>
> Mirchuk wrote a self-serving propaganda tract with some interesting
> information that should all be taken with a grain of salt. For
> example, in the same article he claims that OUN (B) would never
> assassinate OUN (M) leaders:
>
> http://www.ukrcenter.com/Library/read.asp?id=7097&page=13
>
> Yet Yale historian John Armstrong of Columbia university has stated
> that the OUN (B) probably committed that crime:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN-M#Early_Years_of_the_War_and_Activit...
>
> Many locals were recruited into the OUN-M. The OUN-M also organized
> police forces, recruited from Soviet prisoners of war. Two members
> senior members of its leadership, or Provid, even came to Zhitomir. At
> the end of August 1941, however, they were both gunned down, allegedly
> by the OUN-B which had justified the assassination in their literature
> and had issued a secret directive (referred to by Andriy Melnyk as a
> "death sentence") not to allow OUN-M leaders to reach Kiev. In
> retaliation, the German authorities, often tipped off by OUN-M
> members, began mass arrests and executions of OUN-B members, to a
> large extent eliminating it in much of central and eastern Ukraine.
> [13]
>
> So in the same document where Mirchuk claims Yary was not of Jewish
> descent, he also lies about OUN (B) inot being involved in killing
> Ukrainian political rivals.
>
> Addendum: in the pasaage Ostap cites Mirchuk claimed that UPA never
> killed Taras Bulba-Borovets' wife. Yet according to the historians
> from the Ukrainian Institue of Histroy of the Aademy of Sciences:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN-B.27s_struggle_for_dominance_in_...
>
> On August 18, 1943, Taras Bulba-Borovets and his headquarters was
> surrounded in a surprise attack by OUN-B force consisting of several
> battalions. Some of his forces, including his wife, were captured,
> while five of his officers were killed. Borovets escaped but refused
> to submit, in a letter accusing the OUN-B of among other things:
> banditry; of wanting to establish a one-party state; and of fighting
> not for the people but in order to rule the people. In retaliation,
> his wife was murdered after two weeks of torture at the hands of the
> OUN-B's SB. In October 1943 Bulba-Borovets largely disbanded his
> depleted force in orer to end further bloodshed.[19]
>
> (follow the link)
Mirchuk wrote his article/book in 1985, when very little was certain
about OUN's crimes. Mirchuk and other Uke nationalists thought that
all accusations against OUN, except for those that they may have
witnessed themselves, were Soviet fabrications.
http://martyrology.netfirms.com/people00a02uk.htm
31. Петро Мірчук. Революційний змаг за УССД., 1985. - 222 с.
Are you saying that when Mirchuk wrote his memoirs back in 1985, he
knew that 15 to 20 years later the Ukrainian Institute of History of
the Academy of Sciences would find evidence of UPA's murder of Taras
Bulba-Borovets' wife, and that he knowingly lied? Or could it be the
case that Mirchuk was not aware in 1985 of this murder?
Moreover, given his unwavering OUN allegiance, why would he trust the
Academy of Sciences? Wouldn't he think that some historians at the
Ukrainian Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences are too pro-
Soviet and not to be trusted?
> If I dig up a quote by Mirchuk that UPA never harmed innocent Jews
> will Ostap believe it? OR does he only believe propaganda that serves
> his own dishonest purposes?
I have no doubt that virtually any person's memoirs are highly biased
in favour of painting himself, his cause and his friends as “good
guys” and his enemies as “bad guys”. So, given that Mirchuk doesn't
want himself or OUN to be blamed for taking part in the Holocaust or
killing their rivals, Mirchuk's denials of OUN's crimes against Jews
and against each other should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.
However, why would it be in Mirchuk's interest to deny that Yary and
his wife were openly Jewish, and that Bandera and Mirchuk knew that
Yary's mother was an open Jew? That would paint Mirchuk, Bandera and
the rest of OUN(B) as an organization that tolerated an open Jew in
its leadership. That would make OUN look good. So, why would Mirchuk
lie against his own self-interest?
> > > Moreover, his "proof" that Yary
> > > could not be of partial Jewish descent was that the Germans didn't
> > > arrest him for his Jewishness. Yet, as you have magnificently shown
> > > yourself, the Germans did not arrest officers in their own army who
> > > were of partial Jewish descent, as was Yary, if it served their
> > > purposes not to do so. So, Mirchuk's claim is based entirely on an
> > > assumption that you have shown to be false.
>
> > Nonsense. Mirchuk knew Yary personally and admires him. His entire
> > article is to defend Yary's memory form the lies fabricated about Yary
> > by the Soviet authorities and by Knysh. Mirchuk's biography of Yary
> > shows detailed knowledge of Yary's life. So, are you accusing Mirchuk
> > of lying?
>
> His article has other lies, why not in this case too?
First of all, the examples of mistakes in his writings are likely to
be the result of him not being aware of these events, not of him
intentionally lying against his own interest.
In fact, all of his mistakes are done in favour of painting OUN as a
nice organization, i.e., in self-interest. Claiming that Yary was an
open Jew would also paint OUN as a nice organization. But he does the
opposite here, admitting against self-interest that Yary was not a
Jew.
And BTW does Knysh's article/book contain no lies or mistakes? Have
you looked for any?
> Moreover, as I stated, Mirchuk's ONLY proof that Yary was not Jewish
> was that the Germans refused to arrest him for being Jewish. That's
> his only evidence. He didn't list the Ukrainian names or history of
> Yary's mother,
I don't think much if anything is known for certain about Yary's
mother, except that she was a Pole.
> he only stated that Yary couldn't have been Jewish
> because despite Knysh's denouncing him as partially Jewish to the
> Germans the Germans refused to arrest him as a Jew. Yet, you yourself
> have shown that the Germans often didn't arrest people who were
> partially Jewish.
No, that was just an additional argument. The main reason why Mirchuk
stated that Yary was not a Jew was because he, Mirchuk, and other
OUN(B) members didn't believe the accusation that he was a Jew.
> > Are you saying that Mirchuk knows that Yary's mother was
> > Jewish but purposefully lies to the reader and maliciously uses the
> > fact that “the Germans didn't arrest Yary for his Jewishness” to hide
> > the fact that Yary was an open Jew? Is Mirchuk a malicious person who
> > knowingly tells lies?
>
> He's writing in his capacity as an OUN (B) propagandist.
And yet, he is missing a great opportunity to make OUN(B) look better
by claiming that Yary was known to be a Jew.
> > > > What happened? How come these highly essential sentences mysteriously
> > > > disappeared when you cut-and-pasted the above text?
>
> > > Sorry, I don't consider claims by questionable sources based on false
> > > assumptions to be "essential."
>
> > Well, then you still should not have deleted these middle sentences,
> > but instead explained to us why we should trust the sources that you
> > like and distrust the ones that you don't like, like you have done
> > now.
>
> Because unlike you I am interested in discussing the issues not
> avoiding them.
So, you deleted these middle sentences because you are interested in
discussing the issues not avoiding them? So, the best way not to avoid
issues, is to delete them?
> > > Indeed, they are the opposite, adding
> > > dishonesty to the conversation. I checked the link to the denial of
> > > his Jewishness. If such claims were indeed essential or valid I would
> > > have included them or retracted my claim about Yary. But they were
> > > not, and until you chose to demogoue the issue I felt it was
> > > unecessary to further muddy the conversation by adding unreliable info
> > > and explaining why it is unreliable.
>
> > Really? You've verified all these references and concluded that what
> > O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote, looked “honest” but what Mirchuk and
> > Patrylyak wrote was “dishonest” or at least “untrustworthy”?
> > Interesting....
>
> I verified that Mirchuk wrote propaganda and was dishonest. So, I
> rejected it. The 2 other sources I did not verify.
You did not verify them?! You have no idea what they say, and yet you
find Wikipedia's fabrications about them fully trustworthy?
So, what is it that you find especially trustworthy about some jerk in
Wikipedia making unfounded claims about O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh?
> > > No, because 2 historians claimed he was on Jewish descent and only one
> > > claim was attacked.
Where do they claim that? You have given me no links. All you have
given me is an article in Wikipedia where somebody posted that these 2
historians claim that.
And what do they claim? That Yary's mother was Jewish-Hungarian or
Jewish-Polish? Your Wikipedia quote says that O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh
allegedly say that she was Jewish-Hungarian. But Patrylyak says that
she was a Pole. I have the Patrylyak article. You don't have the
O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh books/articles. You have never seen them.
Nobody of authority has ever seen them say that Yary's mother was
Jewish-Hungarian. So, why should we ignore Patrylkyak and instead
believe the anonymous Wikipedia poster who claims that O.Kucheruk and
Z.Knysh claim that she was Jewish-Hungarian? Did Knish say that it
was a well-known fact that Yary's mother was Jewish or only an
unconfirmed rumor?
> > So, you analyzed the evidence for and against Yary's mother being
> > Jewish and convincingly concluded that more people say “yes” than “no”
> > by 2-1.
>
> The "one" is not a reliable source.
How about the other two? Since neither you nor I nor any other
trustworthy person has seen these sources, why do you find the Wiki
hearsay about them more reliable than the articles by Mirchuk and
Patrylyak?
And even if Z.Knysh and O.Kucheruk did say that Yary's mother was
Jewish-Hungarian, do these two sources also say that it was a well-
known fact and/or that Yary was openly Jewish and that Bandera,
Mirchuk and other OUN(B) leaders believed Knysh's accusations that
Yary was Jewish?
> > Well, I too have read Mirchuk and Patrylyak but failed to find
> > anything on the that O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote concerning Yary's
> > Jewishness. Where did you read these two references? On the Internet?
> > If so – please give me the links. If you have the Kucheruk book itself
> > – please type in the exact text of what is said about Yary's
> > Jewishness there.
>
> English, Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia use Kucherik as a reference
> for Yary's Jewishness. Are they all lying about what he wrote?
Definitely. I think somebody (like the notorious Bandurist) initially
wrote a willful lie, and then the others just repeated it without ever
seeing the works by Z.Knysh and O.Kucheruk. Most likely, this
falsehood appeared in one of the versions (say, Ukrainian or English)
and then was copied into all the other versions (English and Russian
or Ukrainian and Russian respectively). Are you saying that you
blindly trust everything you read in Wikipedia? Are you unaware that
people, who contribute to Wikipedia articles, look at other language
versions of the same article and often copy information from them?
Given that you have never seen these articles/books, would you stake
your reputation on the claim that Z.Knysh and O.Kucheruk indeed wrote
that Yary was definitely known to be “of partilineal(sic.) Czech and
matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent” and Yary didn't hide it?
> > Also, who is this Z.Knysh? Why is he trusted by you but Mirchuk – not?
>
> I trust Kucheryk's biography of Yary as referenced by 3 wikipedias
> more than Mirchuk's obvious propaganda tract.
Then why don't you trust Patrylyak's and Mirchuk's biography?
And what exactly does “Kucheryk's”(sic.) biography of Yary say?
> > Is what Mirchuk says about him – that he was a personal enemy of Yary
> > like Salieri to Mozart – true? And what exactly does Knysh say about
> > Yary's Jewishness and in what book?
>
> > > > If it were anybody else, I would consider such an action as a gross
> > > > example of cheating, cheating of the stupidest kind, because it
> > > > assumes that your reader is too stupid to press on the link and see
> > > > your gaping omissions.
>
> > > > But knowing you to be a man of perfect objectivity and honesty, I
> > > > can't believe you've done this on purpose. Moreover, had you done it
> > > > on purpose, this would have meant that you take me for a mental
> > > > retard, too stupid to press your link and check for myself. I would
> > > > hate to think that you have such a low opinion about my gullibility
> > > > and my lack of intelligence.
>
> > > I would have hoped that you would have checked the links to the other
> > > info that some random wikipedia editor inserted into the article.
Have YOU checked the links? For example the links to Z.Knysh and O.
Kucheruk? No, you haven't. Why not?
> > I had done exactly that. And had YOU done it, you wouldn't be arguing
> > against me right now.
>
> So you admit that despite Mirchuk's work being a propaganda tract
> (which would have been clear had you actually read it - or did you lie
> again?) you chose to use it anyways as a "truthful" source. Nice.
Let's pause for a second. Mirchuk's work is used in Wikipedia. You
blindly trust Wikipedia. So, why are you mistrusting this particular
Wikipedia reference to Mirchuk, and not to Knysh?
> > > But
> > > this leads to my ultimate mistake: assuming that you wanted to engage
> > > in an argument in good faith rather than engage in demogoguery in
> > > order to portray a Franco/Mussolini/Ho Chih Minh/Castro (Bandera) as a
> > > Hitler or Pol Pot.
> > > I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> > > other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> > > tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> > > pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> > > written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> > > doing this.
>
> > Let us come back to these two paragraphs after you quote me from
> > Kucheruk and Knysh.
>
> Sorry, the 3 wikipedia references are enough. Neither the English,
> Russian nor Ukrainian editors tried to remove that info.
So, the fact that the language versions of the wikipedia about Yary
say something, is your ONLY argument in favor of Yary's mother being
Jewish? Are you serious?
> Now Ostap, I will wait until you address all the other points in my
> previous posts that you have been ignoring - which you seem to avoid
> because you lack the integrity to admit when you're wrong - before I
> continue discussing Rico Yary's Jewish maternal roots.
I will gladly change the subject as soon as we come to some resolution
in our discussion of Yary's mother. I am still patiently waiting for
you to give me evidence that your claim that Kucheruk and Knysh
actually wrote what some contributor to Wikipedia - be he a man, a
woman, a child, a bot, or a trained chimp with access to internet –
claims they wrote.
Instead of wasting hours and hours on digging up dirt on Patrylyak,
Mirchuk and anybody else whom I quote for my arguments, can you take a
few minutes to find out what exactly Kucheruk and Knysh said about
Yary?
> If I dig up a quote by Mirchuk that UPA never hamred innocent Jews
> will Ostap believe it? OR does he only believe propaganda that serves
> his own dishonest purposes?
Oh, in third person now? “Will Ostap believe it?”... Appealing to the
rightful indignation of the masses, eh?
How about Black Monk? Does **he** only believe propaganda that serves
**his** own dishonest purposes?
The Black Monk
soon as you stop avoiding the main parts of our discussion, which you
have been doing. While it serves your purpose to transform out
ocnversation about OUN and the Jews - where you are clearly wrong -
into one about Rico Yary's mother, I will patiently wait until you
address my many other points from days ago before continuing to
indulge you on this specific one. I have been quite decent by
indulging you on two posts as you sught to derail the conversation,
but now I will wait until you adress what you have been avoiding befoe
replying to this post (and I give you my word, I will reply).
Thank you,
BM
On Jul 5, 12:22 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
Tadas Blinda
>
> read more »
Oh yes, it's all so relevant to SCB, we wait with bated breath ....
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 14, 12:31 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
Yes, at that time, there was no “Russia” and no “Ukraine”. It was one
nation: Rus. Assuming your wisdom, I used the term “ “Novgorod,
Russia” to mean “ Novgorod, future Russia” and expected you to
understand. I overestimated you, and I am sorry.
Our discussion is already too unwieldy for me to spell out
trivialities in even further detail without you attacking every
shortcut I make, but if that what it takes to make you understand – I
will do so, but this “dumbing down” will further slow down our
discussion.
> Even worse, Novgorod was destroyed by Russia,
> its culture snuffed out.
Under Yaroslav the Wise or many-many centuries later?
Yes, reunification of Russia in the 16th century (500 years AFTER
Yaroslav) was hardly pacifist. The same kind of thing we saw in other
nations like England and Germany – when different principalities
fought for domination. Here is a recent example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Civil_War
The Austro-Prussian War (in Germany known as Deutscher Krieg ("German
War"); or the Unification War[2] or the German Civil War or
Bruderkrieg, German for "fraternal war") was a war fought in 1866
between the German Confederation under the leadership of the Austrian
Empire and its German allies on one side and the Kingdom of Prussia
with its German allies and Italy on the other, that resulted in
Prussian dominance over the German states.
In the United State too, the Civil War between the North and the South
was highly brutal. More than 600 000 people were killed. And as I
recall, the North burned down the South's capital city of Atlanta. So
what? Are you saying that, for example, Atlanta is NOT an American
city? Or that it is/was evil to want to see the United States re-
united?
> > 5. Vladymir himself was born in Pskov, Russia and in his young years,
> > he was the “governor” (Prince) of the Russian city of Novgorod.
>
> See my comment above.
>
> > 1. He ruled over Rus which included Ukraine, Russia and Belarus and
> > would kill anybody who tried to endanger this unity
>
> Sure. He ruled these lands from Kiev.
And his greatgreatgreatgrandfather Ryurik ruled these lands from
Novgorod. And his father Svyatoslav ruled these lands from
Pereyaslavets . So what? Just because the capital of USA moved from
Philadelphia to Washington, did it destroy USA or its unity? Or when
Peter the Great moved the capital of Russia from Moscow to St
Pete....
Moreover, Vladimir himself was both the Prince of Novgorod and the
Prince of Kiev. In which city he spent more time – that's up to
historians to tell us. However, Kiev was indeed considered the more
important capital of Rus than Novgorod.
> > 2. He wanted people in Rus to speak a common language
>
> Did he? Any evidence of that or did you make that up?
Do you doubt that any ruler of any country prefers all his subjects to
speak the same language that he speaks himself?
Do you doubt that for a country to function as a strong united whole,
it is important that there must exist a common language that
everybody knows well?
>Moreover, did
> he want the people of Rus to speak the Kievan or the Novgorodian
> speech?
What were the main differences between the two? Please educate me.
The ruler always wants the rest of his country to speak the same
language that he speaks himself. So, I suspect his father Svyatoslav
wanted everybody to speak the Pereyaslavets dialect and Vladimir
himself wanted everybody to speak the Kiev dialect.
We can compare this ruler Vladimir with the latest ruler Vladimir:
Putin. Putin is from St. Petersburg, he loves St. Petersburg
infinitely more than Moscow (I bet he hates Moscow), he surrounds
himself with fellow people from St. Petersburg, and he has even tried
to move as many government functions to St. Petersburg as possible. I
bet he would want to make the St. Petersburg dialect to be the
official dialect of Russia. But it is not of much importance to him,
is it?
In any case, how much difference was there between the “speeches”
spoken by the ruling elite in Kiev, Pereyaslavets and Novgorod?
> > 3. He gave the Greek Orthodox religion Rus - Ukraine, Russia and
> > Belarus – and had the entire church centrally ruled
>
> At that time the Orthodox and Catholic Chruches were united. So he
> was a Greek Catholic. And his Church was based in Kiev, not
> Novogord.
>
> > The people, whom you guys call “anti-Ukrainians”, are simply people
> > who are fans of Kievan Rus.
>
> Really? They want to transfer the capital and the Church to Kiev under
> a Ukrainian Patriarch in communion with Rome?
And at some point the Catholic Church was based in Avignon not Rome.
But it was still united, wasn't it?
> > And the modern “pro-Ukrainians” are the people who hate the return to
> > Kievan Rus.
>
> Actually it's somewhere in UNA-UNSO's program to reestablish a Slavic
> empire based in Kiev combined with an aggresive de-tatarization
> (Ukrainianization) of Russia up to the Urals.
Just because some extremists support an idea, it doesn't make it
necessarily wrong, does it? Hitler was a vegetarian...
> Don't have time to
> reread that and post the links for you, though. You'll have to do it
> yourself.
I appreciate your generosity, but if this topic is so important to
you, I will let you have the honour of finding support for your own
claim.
> > The greatest Ukrainian by far is Yaroslav I the Wise with 40%, the man
> > who symbolyzes the unity of Rus.
>
> And the primacy of Kiev,
I bet that if Tabachnik and Yanukovych desired the re-unification of
Rus, they would be happy to place the capital of Rus in Kiev, if it's
so important to you. Or would you prefer Peryslavets or Novgorod? Any
of these choices would be fine with me.
In fact, I bet that Tabachnik, being a Kiev native, would be a big
supporter of having the capital in his beloved native city. Unlike
Putin, who would prefer to move the capital to St. Petersburg...
> and the links between Ukraine and the West, particularly Scandanavia, England, and France.
Are you saying that Tabachnik and Yanukovych are against links between
Ukraine and the West? In fact, as I recall, Putin too is quite fond of
Scandinavia, Germany and France. I hear he may have Finnish roots...
It is Tabachnik and Yanukovych who co-operate with the European
Parliament, while you find the idea of such co-operation to be “anti-
Ukrainian”. If co-operation with the European Parliament is “anti-
Ukrainian” then surely “anti-Ukrainians” Tabachnik and Yanukovych are
more pro-Western-European than “pro-Ukrainians” like yourself.
> And under Yaroslav the
> Ukrainian Church was together with Rome. Indeed, it took 70 years
> after the schism for the Ukrainian Church to take the Greek side.
A valid point. As long as the Rus Church is united, I would have no
problem if it once again became neutral in the arguments between
Greece and Vatican. In fact, modern Greece should have no say in the
affairs of the Church in Russia and Ukraine, anyway.
> One thing you glaringly and for obvious reasons forgot to mention in
> your analogy was the form of government. Kievan Rus was a rough
> democracy along Scandanavian lines (not surprising, given that its
> leaders were of Scandanavian dent as was much of the elite). It was
> chaotic, with conflicts between leaders (kind of like the eternal
> ethnic Ukrainian political scene). It was perpetually at war with
> eastern Asiatic tribes that were despotic. Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal),
> which inherited its political culture largely from its Mongol
> overlords and tutors.
How old was Yaroslav the Wise when Vladimir-Suzdal “inherited its
political culture largely from its Mongol overlords and tutors”?
And these were NOT tutors. These were brutal occupiers. Your poking
fun at the suffering of Russian people is highly inappropriate.
You say “tutors”. Are you saying that Mongols were in charge of
educating Russian children or adolescents? Did they meddle in the way
Russian children were educated? In fact, wasn't it the case that
there were almost no Mongols (not even officials) living in Russian
cities. Mongols and Tatars lived in their own lands. The only
“contact” that Mongols had with Russians happened when some Russian
city refused or was late to pay taxes, and the Mongol army rode from
their lands and ransacked the city as punishment for “tax avoidance”,
slaughtering lots of innocent civilians.
How would you like it if somebody else made fun of the suffering of
your own Galician people? Or if somebody referred to German Nazis as
"tutors of Jews". Just because the Nazis referred to the death camps
as "re-education camps", doesn't mean that there was much education
going on in those camps. Similarly, there was no education involved in
the Mongol occupation of Russia.
Are you saying that Ukraine should not re-unite with Russia, because
the latter had been brutalized by Mongols? That's like saying to your
sister that you don't want to live with her because she has been
raped.
> Thus, Yanukovich represents the Cumans and
> Pechenegs vs. his political enemies' Kieven Rus.
I fail to be convinced that “Yanukovich represents the Cumans and
Pechenegs”. They have been totally integrated into the Ukrainian
nation long time ago, anyway. Don't modern Ukrainians have at least as
much Pecheneg blood in them than, say, the modern people in St.
Petersburg, Russia, or even in Vladimir or Suzdal?
Are you saying that Turkic peoples like Cumans and Pechenegs are
somehow not “real” Ukrainians? Would the rulers of Kievan Rus refuse
to accept Turkic peoples like Cumans and Pechenegs and their lands as
their subjects? Should Turkic peoples like Cumans and Pechenegs and
their lands not be part of modern Ukraine or modern Rus (if my dream
of Rus re-unification comes true)?
> > The second is Nikolai Amosov, a great
> > Russian doctor from Russia. And you also have Vladimir I of Kiev,
> > Vladimir Dal and Bohdan Khmelnytsky, all associated with unity of
> > Rus.
>
> Yaroslav, as we have seen, would be considered anti-Russian.
We have? Where have we seen that? Don't you mean “anti-Pecheneg” or
“anti-Marxist?” :-)
> He crushed the Pechenegs.
Did he also subjugate them and rule their land?
More importantly, wasn't Yaroslav's nemesis and a two-times Kievan
Prince himself – Svyatopolk – a leader of joint Polish and Pecheneg
forces that constantly tried to conquer and occupy Kiev, while
Yaroslav – at that time the Prince of Novgorod (future Russia) as well
as the Prince of Rostov (near Vladimir, i.e. future Moscovian region
of Russia) – together with the Vikings/Scandinavians tried to defeat
them and to save Kiev?
That's what it was: the struggle between the Novgorod/Rostov/Vladimir
(i.e. future Russia) on one side, and the Poles/Turkics on the other
side for the soul and body of Kiev. Exactly like today: the struggle
between the pro-Rus, pro-friendship-with-Russia forces on one side,
and the Yuschenko forces (pro-Poland/pro-Crimean-Tatar/anti-Russian/
anti-Belorusan) on the other side for the soul and body of Kiev. Whom
will Kiev go with? Fellow Rus people? Or Poland and Turkics?
The main point is that many of those, whom you label as “anti-
Ukrainians”, are simply people who consider all regions of former Rus
as brothers. As simple as that.
> A modern Yaroslav the Wise would be even more
> radical than Bandera: fight the Poles and destroy the Russians
> (Pechenegs),
Russians are Pechenegs? I though the (future) Russians were the ones
who, under the leadership of Yaroslav the Wise, defeated Pechenegs and
Poles and conquered Kiev for Yaroslav.
> establish Kieven hegenomy over the eastern Slavic lands,
> make Kiev head of the Orthodox Church and make it in communion with
> Rome.
Please tell me when exactly Yaroslav the Wise made the Orthodox
Church in communion with Rome. I am not an expert on religion.
> He would then give pieces of eastern Slavic lands to his
> various Kieven-born sons to rule over. This is sort of like UNA-
> UNSO's modern program.
I agree with your point here: There should be a united country that
encompasses all of Kievan Rus and all the new lands colonized by the
Russian Czars: Ukraine, Belarus, European Russia, Siberia, Far East,
etc.
The only difference between you and me is that you want it ruled by a
Prince/Czar from Kiev, with various other Oblasts ruled by his sons,
while I would prefer a centralized electoral democracy, with no Czars/
Princes. As far as its capital goes, I am a Muscovite, so I would
slightly prefer to live/visit in Moscow, and thus the capital to be in
Moscow. Slightly prefer. And Putin prefers it in St. Pete. And you ,
Tabachnik (probably), Yaroslav and OUN would want it in Kiev (or would
OUN prefer Lviv?). But to me, the issue of capital is immaterial. So,
to let Tabachnik stay in his native Kiev, I now officially agree: the
capital should be in Kiev.
Are we in full agreement (on this issue) now?
BTW, let me ask about your own family. Your wife is from Moscow. Do
you too spend more time in Moscow or in Kiev? And where would you two
prefer to live in: Moscow or Kiev?
Also, I have heard talk of creating a joint modern Commonwealth
between Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania. How would Yaroslav and OUN
react to this idea?
> > > In your analogy above replace the Russians with, say Poles wanting to
> > > unite all Slavs under the Roman Catholic faith and in the Polish
> > > language and ask youself if any reasonable Russian or UKrainian would
> > > consider them to be anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
>
> > Well, you've hit the point here: indeed, much of the modern “east vs
> > west” contradiction is the confrontation between the people who say
> > that Ukraine's true nature lies in Kievan Rus vs. the people who say
> > that Ukraine's nature started much later - with the Polish Catholic
> > Rzecz Pospolita - and that the ideals of Kievan Rus are bad for
> > Ukraine.
>
> Nope, its the eternal battle of Kiev vs. eastern despotic invaders.
You mean joint forces of Poles and Pechenegs/Tatars? LOL
And who defeated these joint forces of Poles and Pechenegs? Wasn't it
the people of Novgorod/Rostov(future Moskovia) under the leadership of
their Prince Yaroslav?
> > I think Tabachnik would agree with this assessment. And that's what
> > Tabachnik's views are so hated in West Ukraine: because they are
> > openly pro-Kievan Rus.
>
> Please provide a quotes Tabachnik expresses his desire for hegenomy
> over all of eastern Europe for Kiev, transfer of the Church to Kiev,
> and reestablish communion between this Kieven-based Church and Rome,
> as had been the situation during the times of Yaroslav the Wise, and
> making Kieven-born people princes of all the eastern Slavic
> territories.
Where did I say that Tabachnik “expresses his desire for hegemony over
all of eastern Europe for Kiev, transfer of the Church to Kiev, and
reestablish communion between this Kieven-based Church and Rome, as
had been the situation during the times of Yaroslav the Wise, and
making Kieven-born people princes of all the eastern Slavic
territories.”?
> > Ask yourself, whose side would Princes Yaroslav and Vladimir take?
>
> The answer is obvious.
To me too. Definitely with the people of Novgorod and Vladimir/Moscow/
Suzdal/Rostov (the Northern one), not with Crimean Tatars nor with
Poland.
> If you want a Russian analogue to Kieven Rus times you can only turn
> to Andrey Bogolubsky, grandson of a Pecheneg chieftain, who sacked
> Kiev, stole a bunch of icons, and returned to the Moscow region:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_I_Bogolyubsky
>
> Prince Andrei I of Vladimir, commonly known as Andrey Bogolyubsky
> (Russian: Андрей Боголюбский, "Andrey the God-Loving") (c. 1111 – June
> 28, 1174) was a prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (after 1157). He was the son
> of Yuri Dolgoruki, who proclaimed Andrei a prince in Vyshhorod (near
> Kiev).
Aha, so he lived and ruled near Kiev (future Ukraine) until the age of
44. And later he also became the Prince of Turov (modern Belarus),
Pinsk (modern Belarus) and Dobruzhansk (modern Smolensk oblast).
>His mother was a Kipchak princess, khan Aepa's daughter.
> He left Vyshhorod in 1155 and moved to Vladimir.
So, in his adult life, he lived near Kiev, ruled small towns all over
Rus, and and the age of 44 (very old for that time) was promoted to
the position of the Prince of the great city of Vladimir.
> Promoting development
> of feudal relations, he relied on a team and on Vladimir’s
> townspeople; he connected to trading-craft business of Rostov and
> Suzdal. After his father’s death (1157), he became Knyaz (prince) of
> Vladimir, Rostov and Suzdal.
>
> Grand Prince St. Andrei Bogolyubsky, by Viktor Vasnetsov.Andrei
> Bogolyubsky tried to unite Rus' lands under his authority. From 1159
> he persistently struggled for submission of Novgorod to his authority
> and conducted a complex military and diplomatic game in South Rus. In
> 1169 his troops took Kiev. After plundering the city [1] including
> stealing much religious artwork, he returned to the northeast
> afterwards. This act underlined the declining importance of that city.
> Andrei achieved the right to receive a tribute from Dvinskaya’s
> population. Becoming "ruler of all Suzdal land", Andrei Bogolyubsky
> transferred his capital to Vladimir, strengthened it and constructed
> the magnificent Assumption Cathedral and other churches and
> monasteries. Under his leadership Vladimir was much enlarged, and
> fortifications were built around the city.
>
> At the same time the castle Bogolyubovo was built next to Vladimir,
> and was a favorite residence of his. In fact he received his nickname
> "Bogolyubsky" in honor of this place. During Andrei Bogolyubsky’s
> reign Vladimir-Suzdal principality attained significant power and was
> the strongest among the Rus' principalities.
So this Andrey Bogolyubsky fella had a mother who was of Turkic
royalty, and he died in Vladimir. Big deal! And Pushkin had a
greatgrandfather who was of African royalty, and he died in
Petersburg. What does it prove? That Russians are African-Americans?
And if Obama is half-Black, does it make ALL Americans to be Black?
Give me some statistics. What percentage of princes in the regions of
Rus that later became Ukraine, were half- or full- Turkic? What
percentage of princes in the regions of Rus that later became Russia,
were half- or full- Turkic? Which percentage was higher? And btw, how
many modern Ukrainians have Pechenegs' and other Turkic ancestors?
Andrey Bogolyubsky lived and worked as a prince of a small town in
the Kiev province until the age of 44, also ruling (remotely) various
small cities all over Belarus and Smolensk regions. At the age of 44
he was promoted to the high position of the Prince of Vladimir, where
he spent his old age living and ruling. So, what's your point? That a
prince, whose mothers was of Pecheneg royalty, was promoted and moved
from Kiev region to Vladimir in his old age? So what?
To me, this example of Andrey Bogolyubsky is proof of my whole point:
Rus was a very united country, and all of it was ruled by the same
national elite, who constantly moved from Vladimir to Novgorod to Kiev
to Smolensk to everywhere else. If you look at almost any Rus ruler
from that era, you will see that he was born in one place, grew up in
another place, became a prince of a third place, then was promoted to
be the ruler of a fourth, larger, place, and so on – all over Rus! It
was one united country, at least in terms of its ruling class and
their assistants, servants and warriors. Exactly my point: one united
country: Rus, consisting of what later became modern Russia, modern
Ukraine, and modern Belarus.
One example proves nothing. When a person uses one (or two or even
three) examples instead of statistics, the only thing that he proves
is that he is either a cretin or a demagogue. Or both. Let me jump to
the very end of your post:
> Seriously, since you are wrong, just admit it and move on.
>
> regards,
>
> BM
Oh.... Let me correct myself. A cretin or a demagogue are not the only
two options. A very childish person is an even likelier option. But we
digressed.... Again...
Ostap Bender
my post from 2 minutres ago. Please reply to this one, not to the
previous one.
The Black Monk
wrote:
>
> > > Actually, the politician I am talking about, is one of the most
> > > revered man in Ukrainian history:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_the_Great
>
> > > Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great, (c. 958 near Pskov – 15 July 1015,
> > > Berestovo) was the grand prince of Kiev who converted to Christianity
> > > in 988[1][2][3], and proceeded to baptise all of Kievan Rus'.
>
> > > Well, not only him personally, but pretty much all of his Ryurik
> > > ancestors and descendants, as well pretty much everybody else who
> > > lived in Kievan Rus. Let's go over the points:
>
> > > 4. His relatives/ancestors came to Kiev from Novgorod, Russia when
> > > they moved the capital of the Rus nation from Novgorod to Kiev.
>
> > Novgorod was not a part of Russia (which the extension of Vladimir-
> > Suzdal. It is was as much "Russian" as Galicia, Kiev, Chernihiv or
> > other principalities.
>
> Yes, at that time, there was no “Russia” and no “Ukraine”. It was one
> nation: Rus. Assuming your wisdom, I used the term “ “Novgorod,
> Russia” to mean “ Novgorod, future Russia” and expected you to
> understand. I overestimated you, and I am sorry.
You also failed to understand what I had written. Try again: "Novgorod
was not a part of Russia (which the extension of Vladimir- Suzdal"
> Our discussion is already too unwieldy for me to spell out
> trivialities in even further detail without you attacking every
> shortcut I make, but if that what it takes to make you understand – I
> will do so, but this “dumbing down” will further slow down our
> discussion.
Given that you failed to understand what I wrote, I will have to be
the one to dumb things down for you. Russia evolved from/descended
from/was (in shorthand) Valdimir-Suzdal, just one of the
principalities to emerge from Rus. Vladimir-Suzdal was future Russia.
Novgorod, Kiev, Chernihiv, Galicia were never future-Russia, except
(like the Baltics, or the Buryat lands, etc.) in a purely territorial
case.
Do you understand what I have been saying now, or should I dumb it
down further for you?
> > Even worse, Novgorod was destroyed by Russia,
> > its culture snuffed out.
>
> Under Yaroslav the Wise or many-many centuries later?
>
> Yes, reunification of Russia in the 16th century (500 years AFTER
> Yaroslav) was hardly pacifist.
I thought that you understood that Rus was not Russia? Thus there
could have been no reunification.
> The same kind of thing we saw in other nations like England and Germany – when different principalities
> fought for domination. Here is a recent example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Civil_War
>
> The Austro-Prussian War (in Germany known as Deutscher Krieg ("German
> War"); or the Unification War[2] or the German Civil War or
> Bruderkrieg, German for "fraternal war") was a war fought in 1866
> between the German Confederation under the leadership of the Austrian
> Empire and its German allies on one side and the Kingdom of Prussia
> with its German allies and Italy on the other, that resulted in
> Prussian dominance over the German states.
I hope you aren't implying the existence of Rusian nationalism in the
1500s.
The issue btw is not whether there was war and integration but whether
it was a reunification or not. A Rusian nationalist pan-Slavic could
claim that the Poles should also be integrated by Russia with the
other Slavs and use the Germans as an example, just as you do (and
Polish is no less comprehensible to a Russian than Bavarian is to a
Prussian). So what?
> In the United State too, the Civil War between the North and the South
> was highly brutal.
The North and the South were both settled mostly by British (although
of different social classes) c. 1650. They developed as separate
colonies within the same state for about 150 years before being united
c. 1800 into the United States. They then continued within a federal
system for another 60 years, were seperate states for 4 years and then
reintegrated.
The Slavic tribes in what are now Russia and Ukraine (and was
Novgorod) dispersed in the 6th-7th centuries, maintaining little
contact with each other before being loosely being united around 850,
under Oleg (who used the Norse name Helgi), a Norse warrior. They thus
developed independently for 500-600 years. Moreover, the ones who
settled Novgorod traveled from Pomerania while the ones who came to
the lands that were to become Russia came from Kiev. The migrants
mixed with the local Finns they encountered in their destination.
For migration info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Slavs
What was the nature of this state that united them in about 850? I'll
quote from pg. 31 of Harvard historian Richard Pipes' book Russia
under the Old Regime: "Lest, however, the name 'Kieven state' evoke
the image of a territorial entity familiar from Norman history of
France, England or Sicily, it must be stressed that it was nothing of
the kind. The Norman state in Russia rather resembled the great
merchant enterprises of 17th and 18th century Europe, such as the East
India or Hudson's Bay companies, founded to make money but compelled
by the absence of any administration in the area of their operations
to assume quasi-governmental responsibilities. The Great Prince was a
merchant par excellence, and his realm was essentially a commercial
enterprise, composed of loosely affiliated towns whose garrisons
collected the tribute and maintained, in a rough sort of way, public
order. The princes were quite independent of one another. Together
with their retainers (druzhiny) the Norman rulers of Russia formed a
distinct caste. They lived apart from the rest of thepopulation, they
judged their own members by special laws, and preferred to have their
remains buried in separate tombs."
So, therefore, even during much of Kieven Rus the various areas
inhabited by different tribes lived a largely separate existence,
united only in terms of trading with the same Norse overlords.
These overlords did not become Slavicized until the latter half of the
10th century. Pipes notes that the treaty between the Kieven princes
and Byzantium from 912 included only Scandanavian names among the
Kieen signatories ( Ingjald, Farulf, Vermund, Gunnar). The first
prince with a Slavic name, Sviatoslav, ascended the Kieven throne in
960.
As Pipes notes, the Kieven state disintegrated in the 12th century
when the principalities basically became independent. Thus, with
respect to the various Eastern Slavic areas, we have separate
development for 500 years, *loose* superficial unity under a non-
Slavic Norman trading group for 100 years, a culturally unified elite
for about 170 years (Sviatoslav until Monomakh's son Mstslav, the last
ruler of a united Kieven state, who died in 1132), followed by a few
more centuries of existance as seperate principalities ending with
Muscovite conquest.
So basically, it is ridiculous to compare Novogrod, Kiev and Vladimir-
Suzdal to the American South vs. North.
> More than 600 000 people were killed. And as I
> recall, the North burned down the South's capital city of Atlanta. So
> what? Are you saying that, for example, Atlanta is NOT an American
> city? Or that it is/was evil to want to see the United States re-
> united?
Novogrod was culturally and physically destroyed. Most of its
inhabitants were either slaughtered or deported. Thus, Novgorod today
is Russian because its non-Russian (meaning, non-Vladimir-Suzdal/
Muscovite) population was destroyed and dispersed. Could you provide
the links or references to your interesting theory that the South's
inhabitants were largely exterminated or deported and its population
replaced by Yankees? Because that is what you imply happened to the
South when you compare the two situations.
> > > 5. Vladymir himself was born in Pskov, Russia and in his young years,
> > > he was the “governor” (Prince) of the Russian city of Novgorod.
>
> > See my comment above.
>
> > > 1. He ruled over Rus which included Ukraine, Russia and Belarus and
> > > would kill anybody who tried to endanger this unity
>
> > Sure. He ruled these lands from Kiev.
>
> And his greatgreatgreatgrandfather Ryurik ruled these lands from
> Novgorod. And his father Svyatoslav ruled these lands from
> Pereyaslavets . So what? Just because the capital of USA moved from
> Philadelphia to Washington, did it destroy USA or its unity? Or when
> Peter the Great moved the capital of Russia from Moscow to St
> Pete....
As we have seen Kieven rus was not a state in the modern sense of the
word (or even in the French, Eglish or Sicilian sense of the middle
ages). But we are talking about Yaroslav, aren't we? In chooisng the
top Ukrainian in histrory, the Ukrainian people didn't chose Rurik or
Sviatoslav but Yaroslav, who when he became ruler of Rus moved to Kiev
and kept it as the capital of Rus.
> Moreover, Vladimir himself was both the Prince of Novgorod and the
> Prince of Kiev. In which city he spent more time – that's up to
> historians to tell us. However, Kiev was indeed considered the more
> important capital of Rus than Novgorod.
> > > 2. He wanted people in Rus to speak a common language
>
> > Did he? Any evidence of that or did you make that up?
>
> Do you doubt that any ruler of any country prefers all his subjects to
> speak the same language that he speaks himself?
I doubt that in the 11th century the ruler cared what language his
subjects spoke. He certainly wasn't a romantic nationalist.
> Do you doubt that for a country to function as a strong united whole, it is important that there must exist a common language that
> everybody knows well?
Let's stick to what Yaroslav wanted. Any evidence that he was trying
to standardize the language of Kieven Rus?
> >Moreover, did
> > he want the people of Rus to speak the Kievan or the Novgorodian
> > speech?
>
> What were the main differences between the two? Please educate me.
Do you doubt that after 500 years of separate development the language
spoken in Novgorod differed fromthat spoken in Kiev?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Novgorod_dialect
According to Zaliznyak, the Old Novgorod linguistic features, instead
of being merely isolated deviations, represent a bundle of peculiar
isoglosses. The deviations are more abundant in older birch bark
letters than in the younger ones, and this development indicates,
contrary to what is expected, that the development was convergent
rather than divergent, with regard to other northern East Slavic
dialects.
Therefore, according to Zaliznyak, the discovery of Old Novgorod
dialect makes it possible to conclude that earlier conception of East
Slavic as a relatively homogeneous linguistic unity has been rendered
obsolete by a view of East Slavic as an area of much greater dialectal
diversity. Zaliznyak therefore divides East Slavic area into two
dialectal groupings: Proto-Novgorodian-Pskovian on one side, singled
out chiefly on the basis of two features of the lack of second
palatalization of velars and the ending -e in nominative singular of
masculine o-stems, and all the remaining East Slavic dialects on the
other side.
> The ruler always wants the rest of his country to speak the same
> language that he speaks himself.
So any evidence of Oleg or Olga or Rurik forcing the Slavs to learn
Norse? They didn't, because they did not care.
> So, I suspect his father Svyatoslav
> wanted everybody to speak the Pereyaslavets dialect and Vladimir
> himself wanted everybody to speak the Kiev dialect.
>
> We can compare this ruler Vladimir with the latest ruler Vladimir:
> Putin. Putin is from St. Petersburg, he loves St. Petersburg
> infinitely more than Moscow (I bet he hates Moscow), he surrounds
> himself with fellow people from St. Petersburg, and he has even tried
> to move as many government functions to St. Petersburg as possible. I
> bet he would want to make the St. Petersburg dialect to be the
> official dialect of Russia. But it is not of much importance to him,
> is it?
>
> In any case, how much difference was there between the “speeches”
> spoken by the ruling elite in Kiev, Pereyaslavets and Novgorod?
Until c. 960 it was mostly Norse, then it was Slavic. Supposedly the
educated often used Church Slavonic.
>
> > > 3. He gave the Greek Orthodox religion Rus - Ukraine, Russia and
> > > Belarus – and had the entire church centrally ruled
>
> > At that time the Orthodox and Catholic Chruches were united. So he
> > was a Greek Catholic. And his Church was based in Kiev, not
> > Novogord.
>
> > > The people, whom you guys call “anti-Ukrainians”, are simply people
> > > who are fans of Kievan Rus.
>
> > Really? They want to transfer the capital and the Church to Kiev under
> > a Ukrainian Patriarch in communion with Rome?
>
> And at some point the Catholic Church was based in Avignon not Rome.
> But it was still united, wasn't it?
Remember, we are talking abiout Yaroslav here. You implied that by
choosing him Ukrainians express a desire for union with Russia. The
logical response is that, if what you imply is true, such a desired
union would follow Yaroslav's model: with capital in Kiev, and with
the other parts ruled by princes sent from Kiev.
> > > And the modern “pro-Ukrainians” are the people who hate the return to
> > > Kievan Rus.
>
> > Actually it's somewhere in UNA-UNSO's program to reestablish a Slavic
> > empire based in Kiev combined with an aggresive de-tatarization
> > (Ukrainianization) of Russia up to the Urals.
>
> Just because some extremists support an idea, it doesn't make it
> necessarily wrong, does it?
I was just pointing out that the only political party (at least that
I've heard of) wanting unity between Russia and Ukraine with its
capital in Kiev is UNA-UNSO. Do you know of any others following
Yaroslav's model?
> Hitler was a vegetarian...
You don't think vegetariansim is wrong? That's too bad.
> > Don't have time to
> > reread that and post the links for you, though. You'll have to do it
> > yourself.
>
> I appreciate your generosity, but if this topic is so important to
> you, I will let you have the honour of finding support for your own
> claim.
UNA-UNSO's manifesto:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1679966/posts
"Ukraine is destined to renew itself as a superpower. The millenial
cycle of Slavic history has been completed. As in the 10th century, we
are again at a turning point, but on a higher level. Our own agenda is
the reestablishment of Kievan Rus-Ukraine, with borders from the
Adriatic to the Pacific. We have proclaimed ourselves the descendants
of that empire not only in a static sense, but in a dynamic one as
well. Russia, Moscow, that chaotic mixture of races and people, is
simply not capable of serving as the basis for an Empire of a new
type, an Empire that will be based on a Ukrainian ethnocratic nucleus,
an Empire in which, finally, the main slogan of Ukrainian nationalists
—Sobornist (collectivity) will be realized as a step to a higher goal,
that of Ukraine as the center of all Slavs, the expression of pan-
Slavism.”
Would they also ensure that all other Rus lands we ruled by people
sent from Kiev?
>
> In fact, I bet that Tabachnik, being a Kiev native, would be a big
> supporter of having the capital in his beloved native city. Unlike
> Putin, who would prefer to move the capital to St. Petersburg...
>
> > and the links between Ukraine and the West, particularly Scandanavia, England, and France.
>
> Are you saying that Tabachnik and Yanukovych are against links between
> Ukraine and the West? In fact, as I recall, Putin too is quite fond of
> Scandinavia, Germany and France. I hear he may have Finnish roots...
>
> It is Tabachnik and Yanukovych who co-operate with the European
> Parliament, while you find the idea of such co-operation to be “anti-
> Ukrainian”. If co-operation with the European Parliament is “anti-
> Ukrainian” then surely “anti-Ukrainians” Tabachnik and Yanukovych are
> more pro-Western-European than “pro-Ukrainians” like yourself.
Are you saying that Tymoshenko and Yushchenko did not cooperate with
Europe?
Are you saying that Yanukovich's actions do not make integration with
Europe *less* likely? Oh, I know that he says that integration is a
top priority but his calls for integration with Russia and his
stifling of democracy and free press serve to seprate Ukraine from the
West (not to mention his obvious rejection of NATO). Here's an example
of actual cooperation, not mre words, with Europe:
Germany summons Ukraine ambassador over visa dispute
Jun 30, 2010, 12:39 GMT
Berlin - The German Foreign Ministry summoned Ukraine's ambassador
Wednesday to tell him of Berlin's displeasure that border guards tried
to stop a prominent German political expert arriving in Kiev.
Sources said political director Emily Haber told the envoy that Berlin
expected no repeats of such obstruction. She said Berlin felt
'ruffled' by the Saturday incident, in which the expert, Nico Lange,
was held up for more than eight hours on Saturday.
Lange, who was returning to Kiev, had criticized a lack of democracy
under the current Ukraine leadership. He has represented the taxpayer-
funded Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Kiev since 2006.
Lange's foundation is associated with Chancellor Angela Merkel's
Christian Democratic Union (CDU). It is a think-tank, promoting that
party's underlying views at home and abroad. Legally, the foundation
is separate from both the party and the government.
Ukrainian officials have asserted the Saturday standoff was merely a
misunderstanding.
Lange has criticized the policies of Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovich who took over at the end of February.
The Konrad Adenauer Foundation works abroad to promote democracy,
working as an aid organization. Lange is a political scientist.
----------------
> > And under Yaroslav the
> > Ukrainian Church was together with Rome. Indeed, it took 70 years
> > after the schism for the Ukrainian Church to take the Greek side.
>
> A valid point. As long as the Rus Church is united, I would have no
> problem if it once again became neutral in the arguments between
> Greece and Vatican. In fact, modern Greece should have no say in the
> affairs of the Church in Russia and Ukraine, anyway.
>
> > One thing you glaringly and for obvious reasons forgot to mention in
> > your analogy was the form of government. Kievan Rus was a rough
> > democracy along Scandanavian lines (not surprising, given that its
> > leaders were of Scandanavian dent as was much of the elite). It was
> > chaotic, with conflicts between leaders (kind of like the eternal
> > ethnic Ukrainian political scene). It was perpetually at war with
> > eastern Asiatic tribes that were despotic. Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal),
> > which inherited its political culture largely from its Mongol
> > overlords and tutors.
>
> How old was Yaroslav the Wise when Vladimir-Suzdal “inherited its
> political culture largely from its Mongol overlords and tutors”?
Vladimir-Suzdal was at that time not a historical player.
> And these were NOT tutors. These were brutal occupiers. Your poking
> fun at the suffering of Russian people is highly inappropriate.
They were brutal occupiers and tutors. The Muscovites were the best
students, which is why they succeeded. Unlike you I an not an anti-
Asian racist who sees everything inherited from the Mongols as bad.
> You say “tutors”. Are you saying that Mongols were in charge of
> educating Russian children or adolescents? Did they meddle in the way
> Russian children were educated? In fact, wasn't it the case that
> there were almost no Mongols (not even officials) living in Russian
> cities. Mongols and Tatars lived in their own lands. The only
> “contact” that Mongols had with Russians happened when some Russian
> city refused or was late to pay taxes, and the Mongol army rode from
> their lands and ransacked the city as punishment for “tax avoidance”,
> slaughtering lots of innocent civilians.
Nonsense, the Mongol influence on Russian political culture was quite
important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'
Historians have debated the long-term influence of Mongol rule on Rus
society. The Mongols have been blamed for the destruction of Kievan
Rus', the breakup of the ancient Rus nationality into three
components, and the introduction of the concept of "oriental
despotism" into Russia. But some historians agree that Kievan Rus' was
not a homogeneous political, cultural, or ethnic entity and that the
Mongols merely accelerated fragmentation that had begun before the
invasion. Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important
role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol
occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo
hierarchy, postal road network, census, fiscal system, and military
organization.[7]
The period of Mongol rule over Russia included significant cultural
and interpersonal contacts between the Russian and Mongolian ruling
classes. By 1450, the Tatar language had become fashionable in the
court of the Grand Prince of Moscow, Vasily II, who was accused of
excessive love of the Tatars and their speech.[9] Many Russian boyar
(noble) families traced their descent from the Mongols or Tatars,
including Veliaminov-Zernov, Godunov, Arseniev and Bakhmetev. In a
survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the
Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.[10] In the
religious sphere, St. Paphnutius of Borovsk was the grandson of a
Mongol baskak, or tax collector, while a nephew of khan Bergai of the
Golden Horde converted to Christianity and became known as the monk
St. Peter Tsarevich of the Horde [11]
> How would you like it if somebody else made fun of the suffering of
> your own Galician people? Or if somebody referred to German Nazis as
> "tutors of Jews".
See above. I'm sorry that you are such an anti-Mongol racist.
> Just because the Nazis referred to the death camps
> as "re-education camps", doesn't mean that there was much education
> going on in those camps. Similarly, there was no education involved in
> the Mongol occupation of Russia.
I never mentioned schools. But the Russians did learn how to create
their political, military and fiscal systems on the Mongol model. The
Suzdal princes were the closest to the Mongols, their most devoted
collaborators, and best students. Richard Pipes wrote, pg. 62, "the
Mongols who frequently raided other parts of Russia to loot and take
prisoners, tended to respect the propertyies of their principal agent,
with the result that the principality of Moscow became an island of
relative security in a country torn by violence. Boyars with their
retainers readily entered the service of the Moscow prince to benefit
from the protection which the principal collaborator alone was able to
provide."
Rather ironic for a Russian to complain about the Mongols in an
argument with people who were their victimsd, when the Russia was its
beneficiary. But hypocrisy comes easily to you, Ostap.
> Are you saying that Ukraine should not re-unite with Russia, because
> the latter had been brutalized by Mongols? That's like saying to your
> sister that you don't want to live with her because she has been
> raped.
If as a result of that rape she becomes abusive I sure wouldn't want
her to babysit my children.
> > Thus, Yanukovich represents the Cumans and
> > Pechenegs vs. his political enemies' Kieven Rus.
>
> I fail to be convinced that “Yanukovich represents the Cumans and
> Pechenegs”. They have been totally integrated into the Ukrainian
> nation long time ago, anyway. Don't modern Ukrainians have at least as
> much Pecheneg blood in them than, say, the modern people in St.
> Petersburg, Russia, or even in Vladimir or Suzdal?
Russia maintains the Mongol political tradition, just as does batko
Lukashenko in Russifuied Belarus and Yanukovich in Russified/
Sovietized eastern Ukraine (the international gangsters, baased in
Russia whom they took over, eventually adopted a perverse and extreme
form of the same political approach).
> Are you saying that Turkic peoples like Cumans and Pechenegs are
> somehow not “real” Ukrainians? Would the rulers of Kievan Rus refuse
> to accept Turkic peoples like Cumans and Pechenegs and their lands as
> their subjects? Should Turkic peoples like Cumans and Pechenegs and
> their lands not be part of modern Ukraine or modern Rus (if my dream
> of Rus re-unification comes true)?
I think that they were accepted as subjects ruled from Kiev.
>
> > > The second is Nikolai Amosov, a great
> > > Russian doctor from Russia. And you also have Vladimir I of Kiev,
> > > Vladimir Dal and Bohdan Khmelnytsky, all associated with unity of
> > > Rus.
>
> > Yaroslav, as we have seen, would be considered anti-Russian.
>
> We have? Where have we seen that? Don't you mean “anti-Pecheneg” or
> “anti-Marxist?” :-)
> > He crushed the Pechenegs.
>
> Did he also subjugate them and rule their land?
>
> More importantly, wasn't Yaroslav's nemesis and a two-times Kievan
> Prince himself – Svyatopolk – a leader of joint Polish and Pecheneg
> forces that constantly tried to conquer and occupy Kiev, while
> Yaroslav – at that time the Prince of Novgorod (future Russia) as well
> as the Prince of Rostov (near Vladimir, i.e. future Moscovian region
> of Russia) – together with the Vikings/Scandinavians tried to defeat
> them and to save Kiev?
Yes, Ukrainian nationalists also fought against both Poles and
Russians, just as Yaroslav fought against Poles and Pechenegs.
> That's what it was: the struggle between the Novgorod/Rostov/Vladimir
> (i.e. future Russia) on one side, and the Poles/Turkics on the other
> side for the soul and body of Kiev.
It is quite disgusting of you to equate Novgorod, which was brutally
destroyed by Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal/Moscow) with its destroyer,
Russia.
> Exactly like today: the struggle
> between the pro-Rus, pro-friendship-with-Russia forces on one side,
> and the Yuschenko forces (pro-Poland/pro-Crimean-Tatar/anti-Russian/
> anti-Belorusan) on the other side for the soul and body of Kiev. Whom
> will Kiev go with? Fellow Rus people? Or Poland and Turkics?
Last election Kiev voted 65% Tymoshenko, 25% Yanukovich.
> The main point is that many of those, whom you label as “anti-
> Ukrainians”, are simply people who consider all regions of former Rus
> as brothers. As simple as that.
From the persepctive of those whose history of unity = destroying the
other brothers.
> > A modern Yaroslav the Wise would be even more
> > radical than Bandera: fight the Poles and destroy the Russians
> > (Pechenegs),
>
> Russians are Pechenegs? I though the (future) Russians were the ones
> who, under the leadership of Yaroslav the Wise, defeated Pechenegs and
> Poles and conquered Kiev for Yaroslav.
Russia is descended from the branch of Rus was most tied to the
Eastern nomads and whose political culture was largely learned from
them.
>
> > establish Kieven hegenomy over the eastern Slavic lands,
> > make Kiev head of the Orthodox Church and make it in communion with
> > Rome.
>
> Please tell me when exactly Yaroslav the Wise made the Orthodox
> Church in communion with Rome. I am not an expert on religion.
It was already in communion at the time of his rule. A restoration of
Yaroslav would mean a return to that state of affairs.
>
> > He would then give pieces of eastern Slavic lands to his
> > various Kieven-born sons to rule over. This is sort of like UNA-
> > UNSO's modern program.
>
> I agree with your point here: There should be a united country that
> encompasses all of Kievan Rus and all the new lands colonized by the
> Russian Czars: Ukraine, Belarus, European Russia, Siberia, Far East,
> etc.
>
> The only difference between you and me is that you want it ruled by a
> Prince/Czar from Kiev, with various other Oblasts ruled by his sons,
> while I would prefer a centralized electoral democracy, with no Czars/
> Princes.
I don't follow UNA-UNSO's program, sorry.
> As far as its capital goes, I am a Muscovite, so I would
> slightly prefer to live/visit in Moscow, and thus the capital to be in
> Moscow. Slightly prefer. And Putin prefers it in St. Pete. And you ,
> Tabachnik (probably), Yaroslav and OUN would want it in Kiev (or would
> OUN prefer Lviv?). But to me, the issue of capital is immaterial. So,
> to let Tabachnik stay in his native Kiev, I now officially agree: the
> capital should be in Kiev.
>
> Are we in full agreement (on this issue) now?
No, because in such a union Kiev would be dominated by Moscow either
way due to the disparity of population, which means everything in a
democratic system. It wuld thus be in essence a total surrender to
the Mongol political tradition, with 23 million Ukrainians (along
with, perhaps, 3 million Russian liberals) voting for European-style
democrats being completely outvoted by140 million Russians and 22
million eastern Ukrainians voting for tatar-syle despots.
> BTW, let me ask about your own family. Your wife is from Moscow. Do
> you too spend more time in Moscow or in Kiev? And where would you two
> prefer to live in: Moscow or Kiev?
I spend much more time in Moscow and prefer it to Kiev for personal
reasons.
> Also, I have heard talk of creating a joint modern Commonwealth
> between Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania. How would Yaroslav and OUN
> react to this idea?
Yaroslav was oppsed to both Poles and Pechenegs. But he liked the
Varangians and had tied to the English.
> > > > In your analogy above replace the Russians with, say Poles wanting to
> > > > unite all Slavs under the Roman Catholic faith and in the Polish
> > > > language and ask youself if any reasonable Russian or UKrainian would
> > > > consider them to be anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
>
> > > Well, you've hit the point here: indeed, much of the modern “east vs
> > > west” contradiction is the confrontation between the people who say
> > > that Ukraine's true nature lies in Kievan Rus vs. the people who say
> > > that Ukraine's nature started much later - with the Polish Catholic
> > > Rzecz Pospolita - and that the ideals of Kievan Rus are bad for
> > > Ukraine.
>
> > Nope, its the eternal battle of Kiev vs. eastern despotic invaders.
>
> You mean joint forces of Poles and Pechenegs/Tatars? LOL
>
> And who defeated these joint forces of Poles and Pechenegs? Wasn't it
> the people of Novgorod/Rostov(future Moskovia) under the leadership of
> their Prince Yaroslav?
Sources indicate it was ovgorod (not Russia) and the Varangians.
Where have you seen Rostov mentioned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_I_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Expedition_(1018)
Even better, after securing Kiev's independence from Poland Yaroslav
pursued policies of alliance with Poland and with Scandanavia while
being aggressive towards the East and the Orthodox world in the South:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_I_the_Wise#Reign
In his foreign policy, Yaroslav relied on the Scandinavian alliance
and attempted to weaken the Byzantine influence on Kiev. In 1030, he
reconquered Red Rus from the Poles and concluded an alliance with King
Casimir I of Poland, sealed by the latter's marriage to Yaroslav's
sister Maria. In another successful military raid the same year, he
founded Yuriev (named after Saint George, or "Yury", Yaroslav's patron
saint) and forced the surrounding province of Ugaunia to pay annual
tribute.
One of many statues of Yaroslav holding the "Russkaya Pravda" in his
hand. See another image here.In 1043, Yaroslav staged a naval raid
against Constantinople led by his son Vladimir and general Vyshata.
Although the Rus' navy was defeated, Yaroslav managed to conclude the
war with a favourable treaty and prestigious marriage of his son
Vsevolod to the emperor's daughter. It has been suggested that the
peace was so advantageous because the Kievans had succeeded in taking
a key Byzantine possession in Crimea, Chersones.
To defend his state from the Pechenegs and other nomadic tribes
threatening it from the south he constructed a line of forts, composed
of Yuriev, Boguslav, Kaniv, Korsun, and Pereyaslav. To celebrate his
decisive victory over the Pechenegs in 1036 (who thereupon never were
a threat to Kiev) he sponsored the construction of the Saint Sophia
Cathedral in 1037. Other celebrated monuments of his reign, such as
the Golden Gates of Kiev, have since perished.
So, a modern Yaroslav would probably bring Ukraine into NATO and would
support NATO aggressin against the Orthodox Balkans.
> > > I think Tabachnik would agree with this assessment. And that's what
> > > Tabachnik's views are so hated in West Ukraine: because they are
> > > openly pro-Kievan Rus.
>
> > Please provide a quotes Tabachnik expresses his desire for hegenomy
> > over all of eastern Europe for Kiev, transfer of the Church to Kiev,
> > and reestablish communion between this Kieven-based Church and Rome,
> > as had been the situation during the times of Yaroslav the Wise, and
> > making Kieven-born people princes of all the eastern Slavic
> > territories.
>
> Where did I say that Tabachnik “expresses his desire for hegemony over
> all of eastern Europe for Kiev, transfer of the Church to Kiev, and
> reestablish communion between this Kieven-based Church and Rome, as
> had been the situation during the times of Yaroslav the Wise, and
> making Kieven-born people princes of all the eastern Slavic
> territories.”?
You stated that Tabachnik was pro-Kieven Rus. As we see, Kieven Rus
was ruled from Kiev with Kieven princes sent to rule the other parts,
the center of its Church was Kiev, its curch was in communion with
Rome (at least, under Yaroslav). so if you claim that Tabachnik is
pro-Kieven Rus then you ought to prove that he supports the things
that characterized Kieven Rus.
> > > Ask yourself, whose side would Princes Yaroslav and Vladimir take?
>
> > The answer is obvious.
>
> To me too. Definitely with the people of Novgorod and Vladimir/Moscow/
> Suzdal/Rostov (the Northern one), not with Crimean Tatars nor with
> Poland.
So according to you in the modern world Yaroslav the Wise would
support that state (Russia) that descends from the one that utterly
destroyed Novgorod, whose half-Kipchak prince sacked Kiev, rather than
Kiev?
An elite whose connection to the population was similar to that of a
British trading outpost leader to the Indians in the Hudson's Bay
territory.
> If you look at almost any Rus ruler
> from that era, you will see that he was born in one place, grew up in
> another place, became a prince of a third place, then was promoted to
> be the ruler of a fourth, larger, place, and so on – all over Rus! It
> was one united country, at least in terms of its ruling class and
> their assistants, servants and warriors. Exactly my point: one united
> country: Rus, consisting of what later became modern Russia, modern
> Ukraine, and modern Belarus.
See Pipes' quote from the beginning of my post.
The reality is that you have different tribes with different dialects
and tradition, briefly united after centuries of separation by a
loosely-organized trading enterprise, which after less than 200 years
of such "unity", by 1132 had already separated into independent
principalities.
> One example proves nothing. When a person uses one (or two or even
> three) examples instead of statistics, the only thing that he proves
> is that he is either a cretin or a demagogue. Or both. Let me jump to
> the very end of your post:
>
> > Seriously, since you are wrong, just admit it and move on.
>
> > regards,
>
> > BM
>
> Oh.... Let me correct myself. A cretin or a demagogue are not the only
> two options. A very childish person is an even likelier option. But we
> digressed.... Again...
So you believe that everyone using case studies is a cretin, demogogue
or childish? That's too bad.
regards,
BM
BTW - the last ruler of Kiev prior to the Mongol invasion (and thus
last legitimate medievel ruler) was Daniel of Galicia, the guy who
would later become the only Rurikovych to accept a crown from the
Roman Pope.
The Black Monk
your response to part of as an expression of good faith it so I will
reply here.
On Jul 5, 12:22 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
I removed a sentence that was linked to an article, Mirchuk's, that I
was able to confirm was full of lies. Your problem with my action is
simply your problem with honesty.
No, I found one source - Mirchuk's - to be intentioanlly lying and
removed it. I could neither confrim nor deny the honesty of the other
two sources, although one of them - Kucheruk - is from an entire bok
devoted to Yary which has been referenced on 3 language wikipedias and
not taken down as false or wrong on any of them. So, like wikipedia,
I acccept what is said until proven otherwise (I probably would have
dione the same with Mirchuk, if I couldn't have checked his work
through the link, in which case I would have included the entire
passage).
>
> > > And upon this analysis, you decided that your readers should
> > > not be allowed even to hear the “no” side, and purposefully deleted
> > > the inconvenient sentences to make your reader think that there is no
> > > dispute and that everybody knows and agrees that Yary's mother was
> > > Jewish.
>
> > If that were my goal I would not have included the link.
>
> Then I would have asked you where you got that quote from. Do you
> still take me for a gullible idiot?
I am not stupid, Ostap. If my intention was to decieve I would have
only included the Russian or Ukrainian wiki pages that don't include
Mirchuk, or would have deleted the Mirchuk info before posting the
link (Mirchuk doesn't meet wikipedia qualifications as a reliable
source). Instead, naively assuming that like me you were involved in
an honest debate about interesdting historical issues, I simply
included the relevent parts not the ones rendered irrelevent by the
fact that the source is obviously lying about all sorts of things.
>
> > > An interesting tactic..... But what would have been so bad if
> > > you allowed the reader to read the omitted sentences?
>
> > A further tangent from our disicsion, which you have chosen to do
> > anyways in your quest to avoid the topic we had been discussing.
>
> > > And what about the 4th historian here, Patrylyak? Have you looked up
> > > what he says? Given that he is THE OFFICIAL expert on OUN, appointed
> > > by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, it would seem that his opinion
> > > would count more than anybody else's.
>
> > Couldn't find what he had to say about Yary's Jewishness, online.
> > Could you?
>
> Yes, I do have his writing. He says that Yary's mother was a Pole, but
> his first wife – Olga/Else – indeed grew up in an Orthodox Jewish
> family.
Okay, so he have Yary's biogrpaher claiming that he was of partial
Jewish desent through his mother and another historian claiming he was
of Polish descent, but who admits that his wife was from an Orthodox
Jewish household.
>
> > BTW Patrylyak is a Soviet mythologist, isn't he? At least ccordng to
> > this article:
>
> >http://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2010/04/13/4932965/
>
> What do you mean by “ Soviet mythologist”? And what is this Pravda
> place? Is it one of the children of the old Soviet Pravda that we all
> loved and revered for its honesty and objectivity?
You never heard of the Ukrainian newspaper Ukrainian Pravda?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrayinska_Pravda
>
> Patrylyak is a highly respected mainstream historian in Ukraine, who
> is much more sympathetic to OUN than, say, Himka.
Thanks for the info.
> And what is your point? That Patrylyak is a liar and he cannot be
> trusted? Most of the time, Patrylyak is pro-OUN. If Patrylyak said
> something that favoured your argument, wouldn't you gladly quote his
> writing as a legitimate proof, without even doubting him for a
> second?
Nope, because I am not pro-OUN. I am merely pro-reality. The reality
is that the OUN were nasty along the lines of Franco, Mussolini, or Ho
Chi Nimh. They were not, as Soviet mythologizers lie about them, in
the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot, Ustashe, or equivalent to Stalin.
> > > > No, because 2 historians claimed he was on Jewish descent and only one
> > > > claim was attacked.
>
> > > So, you analyzed the evidence for and against Yary's mother being
> > > Jewish and convincingly concluded that more people say “yes” than “no”
> > > by 2-1.
>
> > The "one" is not a reliable source.
>
> But the other two are totally reliable to you?
I know that one is not. The nonreliable one had bad things (lies?) to
say about another one. The third one is an entire biography of the
man referenced by not only the Engflish but by the Ukrainian and
Russian wikipedias by an author, Kucheruk, with many publications who
is described as a historian here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/entertainment/story/2008/05/080506_unr_medal_oh.shtml
among other places. Here is a scholarly article by him with a lot of
details about Yary's work:
http://history.org.ua/JournALL/gpu/gpu_2003_20_1/14.pdf
No mention of Yary's family background in this article.
So it is reasonable to assume he is reliable, feel free to prove
otherwise. OTOH, it is quite clear that Mirchuk is not reliable.
> > > Moreover, even if the score were 2-1 in favour of “yes”, doesn't the
> > > fact that there is disagreement as to whether Yary's mother was of
> > > Jewish descent, indicate that maybe his colleagues at OUN(B) were not
> > > aware of it or at least not convinced of it? That would negate your
> > > entire argument that OUN(B) knowingly and willingly tolerated Jewish
> > > origins in their leaders, wouldn't it?
>
> > That a writer in his propoganda tract denied this is more relevent
> > about the propagandist himself, rather than about Yary.
>
> You call Mirchuk “a propagandist”. A propagandist of what? What is his
> position? That OUN hated Jews? That OUN was a horrible bunch of
> people?
His position is that the OUN did not kill Taras Bulba Borovets wife
but tht she ran off with a partisan commander which is contradicted by
the Ukrainian Institute of Histroy of the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences which claims she was tortured to death in reprisal to Bulba's
opposition to the OUN. His article about Yary is full of such claims
and so therefore whatever he says in not relaible.
> How about Knysh? Wasn't he also a propagandist?
Only, so far, according to Mirchuk and we know what Mirchuk's word is
worth.
I didn't think that historians would write stuff with headings such as
"Bandera - Our Leader!" and "Bandera - this is Ukraine" followed by a
bunch of easily verifiable BS. But I stand corrected, he is a
propagandist and historian.
> > > But he was more than that. MUCH-MUCH more. He was an OUN leader
> > > himself and a member of the OUN Provid after WWII. His articles about
> > > the leaders of Ukrainian national liberation struggle are more
> > > important than any historical research into eyewitness testimonies
> > > that a modern professional historian can dig up. These are EYEWITNESS
> > > MEMOIURS. First hand knowledge! Mirchuk was one of the OUN leaders.
>
> > Cool. So if an eyewitness friend of Stalin's or Hitler's claims that
> > they were good people who never wanted anyone dead, this would be the
> > truth because they are eyewitnesses, according to you.
>
> > > He tells us the inside workings of OUN and its leaders. These memoirs
> > > are what other historians use to write their works. Does the fact that
> > > Mirchuk says that Yary had no Jewish roots at all, prove that some
> > > greatgrandfather of Yary's couldn't have been Jewish? Maybe not. But
> > > what it DOES prove is that Mirchuk and other OUN(B) leaders didn't
> > > know or believe that Yary had Jewish roots. And in fact, Mirchuk
> > > explains that the rumour that Yary was Jewish was started in the
> > > memoirs of Knysh, who was a personal nemesis of Yary like Salieri to
> > > Mozart.
>
> > So, according to you, Himmler's memoirs about Hitler would be the
> > truth and whatever he had to say is more valid than what historians
> > claim?
>
> 1. Mirchuk is a historian, remember?
>
> 2. Given that Knysh may be a personal enemy of Yary, why would we
> trust Knysh's memoirs more than Mirchuk's?
According to Mirchuk, a proven liar.
Well, thanks to people like you Jews in Ukraine can be perceived as
hostile towards the idea of Ukrainian independence. Lying about
Yary's Jewishness could be seen as coering up implications about
Bandera's inner circle. The Soviets were sometimes portraying the
Banderists as colluding with Zionists.
But, as your source Patrylyak confirms, his wife was from an Orthodox
Jewish family. Mirchuk also denied that his wife was Jewish. In fact,
unile Patrylyak he claimed his mother was Ukrainian, not Polish. So
since he lied about the wife, why do you assume he was truthful about
the mother?
>
> > > > Moreover, his "proof" that Yary
> > > > could not be of partial Jewish descent was that the Germans didn't
> > > > arrest him for his Jewishness. Yet, as you have magnificently shown
> > > > yourself, the Germans did not arrest officers in their own army who
> > > > were of partial Jewish descent, as was Yary, if it served their
> > > > purposes not to do so. So, Mirchuk's claim is based entirely on an
> > > > assumption that you have shown to be false.
>
> > > Nonsense. Mirchuk knew Yary personally and admires him. His entire
> > > article is to defend Yary's memory form the lies fabricated about Yary
> > > by the Soviet authorities and by Knysh. Mirchuk's biography of Yary
> > > shows detailed knowledge of Yary's life. So, are you accusing Mirchuk
> > > of lying?
>
> > His article has other lies, why not in this case too?
>
> First of all, the examples of mistakes in his writings are likely to
> be the result of him not being aware of these events, not of him
> intentionally lying against his own interest.
So you claim he wasn't aware of events even though you admit he was a
leading figure in the movement, friends with Yary and Bandera? This
isn't some UKrainian-American guy growing up in New Jersey and getting
a degree in history in the USA.
> In fact, all of his mistakes are done in favour of painting OUN as a
> nice organization, i.e., in self-interest. Claiming that Yary was an
> open Jew would also paint OUN as a nice organization. But he does the
> opposite here, admitting against self-interest that Yary was not a
> Jew.
Because many Jews, such as you, hate Ukrainian nationalists and want
Ukraine to be not independent but united with Russia, Ukrainian
nationalists sometimes become suspicious of Jews. This might explain
Mirchuk's denial. Moreover, Mirchuk even denied that Yary's wife was
a Jew, yet even your source states that she was from an Orthodox
Jewish family.
> And BTW does Knysh's article/book contain no lies or mistakes? Have
> you looked for any?
>
> > Moreover, as I stated, Mirchuk's ONLY proof that Yary was not Jewish
> > was that the Germans refused to arrest him for being Jewish. That's
> > his only evidence. He didn't list the Ukrainian names or history of
> > Yary's mother,
>
> I don't think much if anything is known for certain about Yary's
> mother, except that she was a Pole.
According to one source, a Jew according to another.
> > he only stated that Yary couldn't have been Jewish
> > because despite Knysh's denouncing him as partially Jewish to the
> > Germans the Germans refused to arrest him as a Jew. Yet, you yourself
> > have shown that the Germans often didn't arrest people who were
> > partially Jewish.
>
> No, that was just an additional argument. The main reason why Mirchuk
> stated that Yary was not a Jew was because he, Mirchuk, and other
> OUN(B) members didn't believe the accusation that he was a Jew.
Which was just an expression of his stated belief.
> > > Are you saying that Mirchuk knows that Yary's mother was
> > > Jewish but purposefully lies to the reader and maliciously uses the
> > > fact that “the Germans didn't arrest Yary for his Jewishness” to hide
> > > the fact that Yary was an open Jew? Is Mirchuk a malicious person who
> > > knowingly tells lies?
>
> > He's writing in his capacity as an OUN (B) propagandist.
>
> And yet, he is missing a great opportunity to make OUN(B) look better
> by claiming that Yary was known to be a Jew.
Look better in whose eyes?
> > > > > What happened? How come these highly essential sentences mysteriously
> > > > > disappeared when you cut-and-pasted the above text?
>
> > > > Sorry, I don't consider claims by questionable sources based on false
> > > > assumptions to be "essential."
>
> > > Well, then you still should not have deleted these middle sentences,
> > > but instead explained to us why we should trust the sources that you
> > > like and distrust the ones that you don't like, like you have done
> > > now.
>
> > Because unlike you I am interested in discussing the issues not
> > avoiding them.
>
> So, you deleted these middle sentences because you are interested in
> discussing the issues not avoiding them? So, the best way not to avoid
> issues, is to delete them?
The best way to not avoid issues is to delete unreliable sources that
only subtract from the issues by adding falsehood to them.
>
> > > > Indeed, they are the opposite, adding
> > > > dishonesty to the conversation. I checked the link to the denial of
> > > > his Jewishness. If such claims were indeed essential or valid I would
> > > > have included them or retracted my claim about Yary. But they were
> > > > not, and until you chose to demogoue the issue I felt it was
> > > > unecessary to further muddy the conversation by adding unreliable info
> > > > and explaining why it is unreliable.
>
> > > Really? You've verified all these references and concluded that what
> > > O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote, looked “honest” but what Mirchuk and
> > > Patrylyak wrote was “dishonest” or at least “untrustworthy”?
> > > Interesting....
>
> > I verified that Mirchuk wrote propaganda and was dishonest. So, I
> > rejected it. The 2 other sources I did not verify.
>
> You did not verify them?! You have no idea what they say, and yet you
> find Wikipedia's fabrications about them fully trustworthy?
Until proven otherwise, yes. Wikipedia is good shorthand.
> So, what is it that you find especially trustworthy about some jerk in
> Wikipedia making unfounded claims about O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh?
Well, it is jerks in three wikipedias and they were not contradicted
in any of them.
> > > > No, because 2 historians claimed he was on Jewish descent and only one
> > > > claim was attacked.
>
> Where do they claim that? You have given me no links. All you have
> given me is an article in Wikipedia where somebody posted that these 2
> historians claim that.
>
> And what do they claim? That Yary's mother was Jewish-Hungarian or
> Jewish-Polish? Your Wikipedia quote says that O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh
> allegedly say that she was Jewish-Hungarian. But Patrylyak says that
> she was a Pole. I have the Patrylyak article. You don't have the
> O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh books/articles. You have never seen them.
> Nobody of authority has ever seen them say that Yary's mother was
> Jewish-Hungarian. So, why should we ignore Patrylkyak and instead
> believe the anonymous Wikipedia poster who claims that O.Kucheruk and
> Z.Knysh claim that she was Jewish-Hungarian? Did Knish say that it
> was a well-known fact that Yary's mother was Jewish or only an
> unconfirmed rumor?
I believe you when you confirm Patrylak stating she was a Pole. I
haven't seen evidence showing the others were wrong.
> > > So, you analyzed the evidence for and against Yary's mother being
> > > Jewish and convincingly concluded that more people say “yes” than “no”
> > > by 2-1.
>
> > The "one" is not a reliable source.
>
> How about the other two? Since neither you nor I nor any other
> trustworthy person has seen these sources, why do you find the Wiki
> hearsay about them more reliable than the articles by Mirchuk and
> Patrylyak?
Mirchuk is proven wrong. Patrlylak states she was Polish. I don't see
reliable sources statin the other two are unreliable.
>
> And even if Z.Knysh and O.Kucheruk did say that Yary's mother was
> Jewish-Hungarian, do these two sources also say that it was a well-
> known fact and/or that Yary was openly Jewish and that Bandera,
> Mirchuk and other OUN(B) leaders believed Knysh's accusations that
> Yary was Jewish?
>
> > > Well, I too have read Mirchuk and Patrylyak but failed to find
> > > anything on the that O.Kucheruk and Z.Knysh wrote concerning Yary's
> > > Jewishness. Where did you read these two references? On the Internet?
> > > If so – please give me the links. If you have the Kucheruk book itself
> > > – please type in the exact text of what is said about Yary's
> > > Jewishness there.
>
> > English, Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia use Kucherik as a reference
> > for Yary's Jewishness. Are they all lying about what he wrote?
>
> Definitely. I think somebody (like the notorious Bandurist) initially
> wrote a willful lie, and then the others just repeated it without ever
> seeing the works by Z.Knysh and O.Kucheruk. Most likely, this
> falsehood appeared in one of the versions (say, Ukrainian or English)
> and then was copied into all the other versions (English and Russian
> or Ukrainian and Russian respectively). Are you saying that you
> blindly trust everything you read in Wikipedia?
I am somewhat skeptical but in the absence of counter evidence accept
what it has to say.
> Are you unaware that
> people, who contribute to Wikipedia articles, look at other language
> versions of the same article and often copy information from them?
Sure, and others have a chance to verify that information.
> Given that you have never seen these articles/books, would you stake
> your reputation on the claim that Z.Knysh and O.Kucheruk indeed wrote
> that Yary was definitely known to be “of partilineal(sic.) Czech and
> matrilineal Hungarian-Jewish descent” and Yary didn't hide it?
I would accept that with some reservations but still accept it, as
with any other wiki info without links.
> > > Also, who is this Z.Knysh? Why is he trusted by you but Mirchuk – not?
>
> > I trust Kucheryk's biography of Yary as referenced by 3 wikipedias
> > more than Mirchuk's obvious propaganda tract.
>
> Then why don't you trust Patrylyak's and Mirchuk's biography?
I trust Patrylyak's account. Sometimes historians disagree. Is
Patrylyak as much of an expert on Yary as Kucheryk, who wrote an
entire biogrpahy of the man? I doubt it.
> And what exactly does “Kucheryk's”(sic.) biography of Yary say?
I don't know, I only know that it was referenced 3 times as stating
that Yary's mother was of Jewish-Hungarian descent.
> > > Is what Mirchuk says about him – that he was a personal enemy of Yary
> > > like Salieri to Mozart – true? And what exactly does Knysh say about
> > > Yary's Jewishness and in what book?
>
> > > > > If it were anybody else, I would consider such an action as a gross
> > > > > example of cheating, cheating of the stupidest kind, because it
> > > > > assumes that your reader is too stupid to press on the link and see
> > > > > your gaping omissions.
>
> > > > > But knowing you to be a man of perfect objectivity and honesty, I
> > > > > can't believe you've done this on purpose. Moreover, had you done it
> > > > > on purpose, this would have meant that you take me for a mental
> > > > > retard, too stupid to press your link and check for myself. I would
> > > > > hate to think that you have such a low opinion about my gullibility
> > > > > and my lack of intelligence.
>
> > > > I would have hoped that you would have checked the links to the other
> > > > info that some random wikipedia editor inserted into the article.
>
> Have YOU checked the links? For example the links to Z.Knysh and O.
> Kucheruk? No, you haven't. Why not?
No links. If there I would have checked, of course.
> > > I had done exactly that. And had YOU done it, you wouldn't be arguing
> > > against me right now.
>
> > So you admit that despite Mirchuk's work being a propaganda tract
> > (which would have been clear had you actually read it - or did you lie
> > again?) you chose to use it anyways as a "truthful" source. Nice.
>
> Let's pause for a second. Mirchuk's work is used in Wikipedia. You
> blindly trust Wikipedia. So, why are you mistrusting this particular
> Wikipedia reference to Mirchuk, and not to Knysh?
Because I read the original of Mirchuk. If not for that, I would have
trusted Mirchuk also, and corrected myself immediately after
verification.
>
> > > > But
> > > > this leads to my ultimate mistake: assuming that you wanted to engage
> > > > in an argument in good faith rather than engage in demogoguery in
> > > > order to portray a Franco/Mussolini/Ho Chih Minh/Castro (Bandera) as a
> > > > Hitler or Pol Pot.
> > > > I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> > > > other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> > > > tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> > > > pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> > > > written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> > > > doing this.
>
> > > Let us come back to these two paragraphs after you quote me from
> > > Kucheruk and Knysh.
>
> > Sorry, the 3 wikipedia references are enough. Neither the English,
> > Russian nor Ukrainian editors tried to remove that info.
>
> So, the fact that the language versions of the wikipedia about Yary
> say something, is your ONLY argument in favor of Yary's mother being
> Jewish? Are you serious?
They say something with reference to a book about the man.
>
> > Now Ostap, I will wait until you address all the other points in my
> > previous posts that you have been ignoring - which you seem to avoid
> > because you lack the integrity to admit when you're wrong - before I
> > continue discussing Rico Yary's Jewish maternal roots.
>
> I will gladly change the subject as soon as we come to some resolution
> in our discussion of Yary's mother. I am still patiently waiting for
> you to give me evidence that your claim that Kucheruk and Knysh
> actually wrote what some contributor to Wikipedia - be he a man, a
> woman, a child, a bot, or a trained chimp with access to internet –
> claims they wrote.
>
> Instead of wasting hours and hours on digging up dirt on Patrylyak,
> Mirchuk and anybody else whom I quote for my arguments, can you take a
> few minutes to find out what exactly Kucheruk and Knysh said about
> Yary?
I'm not willing to order his book, sorry, and its not on line. Here's
another source, some Ukrainian nationalist one but with details about
his life that are referenced to other works:
It claims his mother was Polish, with maiden name Pollack. (spelled
exactly that way - Pollak"). Pollak is, of course, a typically Jewish
surname:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pollak
http://www.jewcy.com/post/joel_pollak_jewish_republican_you_might_really
In fact, every Pollak listed in wikipedia whose ethnic background is
known, is a Jew:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollak
Pollak is a surname, and may refer to:
Burglinde Pollak (1951— ), German athlete
Jacob Pollak (c. 1460–1541), Polish rabbi, founder of the Pilpul
method of halakic study
Joachim Pollak (1798–1879), Austrian rabbi
Jonathan Pollak (1982— ), Israeli anarchist
Kay Pollak (1938— ), Swedish film director
Kevin Pollak (1957— ), American comedian and actor
Mimi Pollak (1903–1999), Swedish actress
Otto Pollak (1908–1998), American sociologist
Does Patrylyak give Yary's supposedly Polish mother's maiden name?
> > If I dig up a quote by Mirchuk that UPA never hamred innocent Jews
> > will Ostap believe it? OR does he only believe propaganda that serves
> > his own dishonest purposes?
>
> Oh, in third person now? “Will Ostap believe it?”... Appealing to the
> rightful indignation of the masses, eh?
I was replying to myself in that post. Have you now been reduced to
making grammar corrections? Will you start an entire thread on this
issue to avoid the other ones?
> How about Black Monk? Does **he** only believe propaganda that serves
> **his** own dishonest purposes?
Don't project your own problems onto me.
Bottom line: you claim the OUN was antisemitic at its core, while 3
members of its central committee were married to Jews, one of whom
Rico Yary was probably of Jewish matrilineal descent himself.
I asked you before, how many of Hitler's inner circle were married to
girls from Orthodox Jewish households? How many were of likely Jewish
partial descent? Not army men, please, but top Nazui party
officials. Because it's pretty odd to claim that the OUN was
fundementally antisemitic when one of its leader's main politcal
allies married an Orthodox Jewish girl.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
yesterday when I saw you refuse to finish the discussion of Yary until
I discuss the other numerous topics that you have introduced into our
discussion When I finished it and came to SCB a few minutes ago, I saw
that you have in the meantime continued our discussion of Yary, thus
somewhat outdating this response of mine and stealing thunder from it.
I am glad to see you continue the Yary discussion. However, since I
wasted the entire yesterday evening plus almost an hour today to write
this post, I am going to post it still.
I promise that tomorrow I will start reading and responding to your
latest two posts, although I am not sure how long it will take me to
research thoughtful responses.
On Jul 5, 7:03 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As I said, I would love to continue discussing this issue with you as
> soon as you stop avoiding the main parts of our discussion, which you
> have been doing.
I was under the impression that the alleged Jewish roots of some OUN
members and/or wives was a very important part of your argument. In
fact, I continually dismissed these issues as of little importance
compared with the actual words and deeds of OUN towards Jews, but you
insisted that it was very important:
> > > > > Rico Yary's wife was named Olga Rosalie Spielvogel. You don't think
> > > > > she was openly Jewish?
>
> > > > I have no idea. ( All I can tell form her name is that I recall that “
> > > > Spielvogel” means “Game bird” in German.) You tell me. You are the
> > > > expert on Yary and his wife, bringing them up in post after post after
> > > > post as if their lives are your best evidence that OUN(B) and Bandera
> > > > didn't hate Jews as an overall group.
>
> > > It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
“It is good evidence, why not bring it up?”
> While it serves your purpose to transform out
> ocnversation about OUN and the Jews - where you are clearly wrong -
This clarity is only in your mind, not in mine.
> into one about Rico Yary's mother, I will patiently wait until you
> address my many other points from days ago before continuing to
> indulge you on this specific one. I have been quite decent by
> indulging you on two posts
“Indulging me”? On the topic that I kept on avoiding and you kept on
bringing up again and again and again and again:
-------------------------
>>In fact, didn't Bandera's OUN advocate the extermination of Jews?
>
> That would be odd, given that one of his top aides was married
> to a Jewish woman and was descended from Hungarian Jews:
and
> So how many open Jews were in the top echelons of the Nazi party
> or were openly married to Jews? Rather strange to describe an
> organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew,
> and two other people married to Jews.
and
> I asked you how many top Nazis were married to Jewish women?
> How many openly Jewish people recieved the highest Nazi awards?
> Were any of Hitler's top helpers of openly Jewish descent?
> How many Black Hundreds leaders had Jewish wives?
> Your persistent refusal to answer such questions is an implicit
> acknowledgment that you are wrong.
and
> You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet
> the facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved
> with the OUN at the highest levels.
and
> One man of Jewish descent, Rico Yary - whose wife Olga Rosalie
> Spielvogel was Jewish - served in the Provid (sort of the Central
> Committee) of Bandera's OUN. Two other top OUN leaders (though
> they were OUN-M) also had Jewish wives.
and
> Tell me,
> which of Hityler's closest leaders was married to an openly Jewish
> woman? Which one was openly of Jewish descent?
and
> I asked you, how many tope Nazi leaders in Hitler's inner circle
> were of Jewish descent and/or married to Jewish women?
> You failed to answer or to honestly admit that none were.
-------------------------
> I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> other point in my rebuttal
> It is good evidence, why not bring it up?
So, it is both a “non-issue”, and “good evidence, why not bring it
up”?! LOL
You wrote earlier:
>>> Your persistent refusal to answer such questions is an implicit
>>> acknowledgment that you are wrong.
Let me see... When I put this issue of Jewishness of Yary and his wife
on the back-burner, you demanded that I address it and used my
reticence to address it as “an implicit acknowledgment” that I am
wrong. But when I obliged you and addressed it, you told me that it it
a “non-issue”?! What utter demagoguery. Do you take me for an idiot to
fall for it?
Why were you so anxious to shove Yary's alleged Jewishness into every
little discussion that we had and even demanded that I respond to it,
and why are you so anxious now not to talk about it? It would seem
that you would enjoy this topic, because the longer it goes on, the
more chances you get to emphasize that Yary was openly Jewish. What
happened to change your mind? Did you suddenly realize that all your
evidence for this “Jewishness' lies with a Wikipedia article that
dubiously gives two sources, both of which are not available for
verification, while at least two pieces of evidence against his “open
Jewishness” is available for all to see? Guilty conscience?
> as you sught to derail the conversation,
> but now I will wait until you adress what you have been avoiding befoe
> replying to this post (and I give you my word, I will reply).
Let me assume that you are NOT avoiding the topic of Yary's Jewishness
now because you have lost the debate on this topic. Then I have
another, benign explanation. You and I seem to have different
approaches to arguing. Yours is “breadth-first”, mine is “depth-
first”. That is, being highly fast with your writing, you want to
discuss as many topics at once as possible, growing the discussion in
an exponential matter, and introducing new and new topics at a pace
that seems “head-spinning” to me. Whereas I like to concentrate on one
topic at a time, and to go on to the next topic only once the previous
topic is exhausted.
Maybe this is due to the apparent fact that you can write long posts
at a speed that's at least 10 times higher than mine. But my time and
mind limitations are what they are. I can't discuss 10 different
topics at the same time, giving each of them the proper attention. We
work at totally different speeds. All you need to do is to peruse
relevant Wikipedia articles, select everything that fits your
argument, delete everything that goes against your argument, paste the
results into your post – and you got yourself a mew post. I can do
that. To me, my integrity is paramount. When I am engaged in a serious
scholarly discussion, I physically incapable of intellectual
dishonesty. I consider myself to be intelligent, honest, and I wasn't
born yesterday. I know that when it comes to politics-related
Wikipedia articles, almost everything written there (except for direct
quotes) is either a lie or a gross misrepresentation. When I am
engaged in a serious scholarly discussion and I read such Wikipedia
articles, I do my best to verify every claim that's made there, no
matter how convenient it is for my cause. When I am engaged in a
serious scholarly discussion and I read, for example: “Historian Such-
and-such said this-and-that about person Such-and-so”, I will do my
best to see for myself if historian Such-and-such DID indeed say this-
and-that. And if I can't find this reference, I am not going to put
this claim into my argument. This is especially so when there is no
direct quote from historian Such-and-such given in the Wikipedia.
And even more so when there is nor even the page number given. And if
I ever – God forbid! - make such mistake, then I would NEVER insist on
it after my opponent asked me to substantiate it. And I would never
use the argument like “Well, if this statement in the English-language
version of the article is incorrect, why was it copied into the
Russian and Ukrainian versions of the same article?”. Not only because
this is highly dishonest, but because only an idiot would argue this.
And I respect myself too much to make myself look like an idiot in
front of others. I would simply apologize and withdraw my claim. Why?
Because otherwise I would consider myself to be scum and lowlife. I
don't have to read Usenet, but I do have to look myself in the mirror
every morning. And if I see a miserable scumbag in this mirror – I
will feel like shit the rest of the day. This self-respect makes my
life quite difficult. When I am engaged in a serious scholarly
discussion, I verify everything. I google for hundreds and hundreds of
items. For every link that I post, there are hundreds that I had
examined and found to contain no relevant information one way or the
other. For example, My post of June 27 on OUN's anti-Jewish crimes
took me at least 30 hours of research over almost 2 weeks to compose.
This very post here has taken me at least 4 or 5 hours.
You are very lucky and blessed that don't have this handicap. If you
see anything in Wikipedia that's convenient for your argument – you
will just post it and get done with it. Your integrity will not
prevent you from posting Wikipedia's claims of the type “Historian
Such-and-such said this-and-that about person Such-and-so” even if you
have never seen any factual support for this claim. And when you are
called to task – you have no problem using such “scholarly” arguments
as “If it has been in Wikipedia for a while – it must be true!” and
“If it weren't true, somebody out there would have corrected this by
now!”.
Look, I am not trying to prove to you that self-respect and integrity
are paramount. I am sure that in response, you will cut-and-paste lots
of sentences from various Wikipedia articles in four different
languages that say that some respected scientists say everything that
Wikipedia says should be fully trusted, as long as it is said in at
least three different languages, and that some scientists say that
integrity is unimportant. But what I am saying is that I cannot change
myself. When I am engaged in a serious scholarly discussion, I have to
research every reference and allegation about scholarly works. Thus,
it takes me many hours to write each new serious scholarly post.
> I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
>other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> written
I am not “ignoring” this majority. You have a habit of bringing up
dozens of new issues in a post. It takes me many hours to get to the
bottom of each one. And if we skim the surface on dozens of topics
without getting to the bottom of any one of them – this would be a
pointless hot air general discussion. And I don't want to engage in
such. Thus, I am going to get to the bottom of each issue you have
raised (until a clear pattern emerges).
>proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> doing this.
False. I am not wrong. I am right at least on 90% of the topics. Since
you insisted and goaded me to get to the bottom of the Yary issue, I
have obliged you and I will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you
are wrong in claiming that Yary was “openly Jewish” or even that it is
an established historical fact that he was Jewish. This is the first
issue that I intend to get to the bottom of. Then we are going to
repeat the same process to other issues – like alleged open Jewishness
of OUN wives, alleged close cooperation between the OUN and Jews,
that OUN's murders of innocent Jewish civilians was no big deal,
Petliura army's good attitude towards Jews, etc – and I will show
that you are wrong on each one of them.
My other problem here is that the discussion of OUN's nightmarish
activities against Poles and Jews in WWII is very disturbing to me in
a very personal way. John Himka put it best when he wrote (in
condensed version)::
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an undeniable fact that OUN organized pogroms and mass violence
against Jews and others throughout Western Ukraine in July 1941. The
pattern of the violence exhibits many features of coordination over
the whole territory.
Many of the German documents and Jewish testimonies indicate that OUN
militias were behind the violence. OUN leaders in July communicated
among themselves and to the Ukrainian public about the need to
exterminate the Jews.
July and August 1943 were the months of UPA’s most intense murder of
Poles in Volhynia, and in the following winter UPA and OUN security
units systematically murdered Jewish survivors. Just as soon as OUN
began murdering Poles in Volhynia, the original founder of OUN, Taras
Bulba-Borovets wrote: “The axe and the flail have gone into motion...”
The archives are not completely open, but many, many new documents are
now available to researchers. In them you can find UPA internal
reports on its murders of Poles and Jews, OUN leaflets from 1941
calling upon the population to murder Jews and other non-Ukrainians,
films of boievyky (militants) beating Jews on the streets of Lviv at
the end of June 1941, and much more.
Many other scholars have pointed out the role of OUN-UPA in atrocities
against Poles and Jews, including Karel C. Berkhoff, Franziska Bruder,
Jeffrey Burds, ALEKANDR DIUKOV, Gabriel Finder, Frank Golczewski,
Ihor Iliushyn, Dieter Pohl, Alexander Prusin, Ewa Siemaszko and
Władysław Siemaszko.
For Jewish survivors ... their attackers were “the Ukrainians.” I
happen to now that these actions were put in motion by a certain group
of Ukrainians, OUN. Why not make that differentiation? Why let the
blame fall on the nation as a whole? Why would anyone want to embrace
the heritage of that group? Why would I, a person of Ukrainian
ancestry and someone devoted to Ukrainian studies for 40 years, not
want to distance myself and my vision of Ukraine and Ukrainians from
that of OUN? ….Ukrainians need not adopt the heritage of OUN as the
basis of their identity. There are other strands also in the legacy
that our ancestors bequeathed to us.
It is wrong to take part in the cover up or minimization of crimes of
this nature. The murders themselves were horrible. I have nightmares
from my research. These crimes can never be undone. The most that can
be offered in compensation is to recognize them and regret them.
-----------------------------------
“ The murders themselves were horrible. I have nightmares from my
research.”....”It is wrong to take part in the cover up or
minimization of crimes of this nature.”...
When you and I exchanged posts about OUN's crimes against Jews, I
indeed had nightmares and one half-sleepless night. It was very
disturbing: both the graphic details of the documents AND your refusal
to consider these actions to be a big deal. I don't think I can take
much more of this torture. I am not a Holocaust specialist. In fact,
in the last 12 years, I have refused to watch any movies or
documentaries or anything else involving Holocaust. I remember weeping
uncontrollably out of sheer helplessness after seeing Louis Malle 's
“Au Revoir, les Enfants". The last one I saw was Roberto Benigni's
“Life is Beautiful”. This topic, if pursued in detail, physically
pains me like no other topic other than death itself. All my
relatives, except for the lucky ones who had moved to Russia (Moscow
and St Pete) were exterminated. I don't know a single one who
survived. At least 5 million out of maybe 7 million Jews that came
under Nazi occupation, perished. However, discussion the alleged
Jewishness of Yary or his wife is, of course, of infinitely less
painfulness, and I don't mind continuing it.
So, to dilute the nightmares that I (and hopefully you) experience
from delving into the OUN's crimes against innocent Polish and Jewish
civilians, I suggest a compromise:
We keep two discussions going in parallel: one to satisfy my need to
put closure to one topic before going to the next, the other – to
satisfy your need to diversify.
> I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> doing this.
I apologize that I take too long time to research my articles here. I
am at my limit. I already spend an average of 3 hours per day on our
discussion: way more than I can afford. So, please don't be upset
with me that I cannot answer all the topics that you throw into the
ring in a timely fashion.
Hopefully, our discussion of Yary is soon coming to a closure. Then we
can go on to the next topic in the “depth-first” tree. And please bear
in mind that it takes me a very long time to write well-researched
responses, and be patient.
Thanks,
Ostap
The Black Monk
I enjoy our discussions very much - it's rare to engage in a thorough
and well-thought out debate concerning politics or history...
On Jul 7, 1:40 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi BM, below is the rather angry response that I wrote to you
> yesterday when I saw you refuse to finish the discussion of Yary until
> I discuss the other numerous topics that you have introduced into our
> discussion When I finished it and came to SCB a few minutes ago, I saw
> that you have in the meantime continued our discussion of Yary, thus
> somewhat outdating this response of mine and stealing thunder from it.
> I am glad to see you continue the Yary discussion. However, since I
> wasted the entire yesterday evening plus almost an hour today to write
> this post, I am going to post it still.
>
> I promise that tomorrow I will start reading and responding to your
> latest two posts, although I am not sure how long it will take me to
> research thoughtful responses.
>
> On Jul 5, 7:03 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I said, I would love to continue discussing this issue with you as
> > soon as you stop avoiding the main parts of our discussion, which you
> > have been doing.
>
> I was under the impression that the alleged Jewish roots of some OUN
> members and/or wives was a very important part of your argument. In
> fact, I continually dismissed these issues as of little importance
> compared with the actual words and deeds of OUN towards Jews, but you
> insisted that it was very important:
They were important but not the only one. When seeking to portray an
organization as fundamentally antisemitic or that antisemitism was one
of its core values or to compare it to the German Nazi party or that
the extermination of the Jews was one of its goals as you have done,
the fact that three of its top members - members of its Provid or
"Central Committee! - were married to a Jewish women and that one of
them, Bandera's very close friend, was himself likely of partial
Jewish descent, is indeed an important counterargument to your
claims. It does not, of course, rebutt the allegations of anti-Jewish
*actions* undertaken by the OUN but it is important when considering
*motivation.* People who, like the Nazis, feel that the Jews as Jews
are evil and have to be exterminated would not be marrying Jewish
girls and associating with those who do. Yet, unlike top Nazi
officials, top OUN leaders did do this. So the facts of close
interpersonal relationships with Jews at the top of the party seems to
take the allegation of OUN antisemitic ideology (other than
superficial statements made for Germany's sake in the 30's and early
40's) off the table. If you disagree with this, why?
Once we understand motivation, then the interpretation of OUN crimes
against Jews and their extent becomes clearer.
My problem was when you addressed only that issue for 3 (or 4?) posts
and ignored all the other ones. I was willing to uindulge this
digression for a few posts before demanding that you stop ignoring the
other issues. But you seem to have addressed this, below.
> Why were you so anxious to shove Yary's alleged Jewishness into every
> little discussion that we had and even demanded that I respond to it,
> and why are you so anxious now not to talk about it?
I talked about it for three posts, ignoring the rest of what had been
said. But there are limits to this, for me. I was not anxious to not
talk about it; I said I would but only after you stopped ignoring the
other issues. You have now addresed this in your post however.
> It would seem
> that you would enjoy this topic, because the longer it goes on, the
> more chances you get to emphasize that Yary was openly Jewish. What
> happened to change your mind? Did you suddenly realize that all your
> evidence for this “Jewishness' lies with a Wikipedia article that
> dubiously gives two sources, both of which are not available for
> verification, while at least two pieces of evidence against his “open
> Jewishness” is available for all to see? Guilty conscience?
One of those sources, Mirchuk, is proven to be of no value. The other
that denies his mother's Jewish background confirms that his wife grew
up in an Orthodox Jewish household. So it would seem that Yary's
wife's Jewishness is now confirmed (you had earlier questioned whether
he was indeed married to a Jewish woman) and that the evidence about
the man himself is now mixed - his mother may have been either a Pole,
or of Jewish descent. Or both - while the source didn't put 2 and 2
together, one of them claims his mother was Polish but her listed
"Polish" maiden name, Pollak, was a typically Jewish one (I mentioned
this in another post - probably best to respond to this there) shared
by some famous Jewish rabbis from Poland.
> > as you sught to derail the conversation,
> > but now I will wait until you adress what you have been avoiding befoe
> > replying to this post (and I give you my word, I will reply).
>
> Let me assume that you are NOT avoiding the topic of Yary's Jewishness
> now because you have lost the debate on this topic. Then I have
> another, benign explanation. You and I seem to have different
> approaches to arguing. Yours is “breadth-first”, mine is “depth-
> first”. That is, being highly fast with your writing, you want to
> discuss as many topics at once as possible, growing the discussion in
> an exponential matter, and introducing new and new topics at a pace
> that seems “head-spinning” to me. Whereas I like to concentrate on one
> topic at a time, and to go on to the next topic only once the previous
> topic is exhausted.
Hmm..that sounds right.
>
> Maybe this is due to the apparent fact that you can write long posts
> at a speed that's at least 10 times higher than mine. But my time and
> mind limitations are what they are. I can't discuss 10 different
> topics at the same time, giving each of them the proper attention. We
> work at totally different speeds. All you need to do is to peruse
> relevant Wikipedia articles, select everything that fits your
> argument, delete everything that goes against your argument, paste the
> results into your post – and you got yourself a mew post. I can do
> that. To me, my integrity is paramount. When I am engaged in a serious
> scholarly discussion, I physically incapable of intellectual
> dishonesty. I consider myself to be intelligent, honest, and I wasn't
> born yesterday. I know that when it comes to politics-related
> Wikipedia articles, almost everything written there (except for direct
> quotes) is either a lie or a gross misrepresentation. When I am
> engaged in a serious scholarly discussion and I read such Wikipedia
> articles, I do my best to verify every claim that's made there, no
> matter how convenient it is for my cause. When I am engaged in a
> serious scholarly discussion and I read, for example: “Historian Such-
> and-such said this-and-that about person Such-and-so”, I will do my
> best to see for myself if historian Such-and-such DID indeed say this-
> and-that. And if I can't find this reference, I am not going to put
> this claim into my argument. This is especially so when there is no
> direct quote from historian
But even direct quotes can be falsified on wikipedia. It is unlikely
but you can take that approach if it suits you.
> Such-and-such given in the Wikipedia.
> And even more so when there is nor even the page number given. And if
> I ever – God forbid! - make such mistake, then I would NEVER insist on
> it after my opponent asked me to substantiate it. And I would never
> use the argument like “Well, if this statement in the English-language
> version of the article is incorrect, why was it copied into the
> Russian and Ukrainian versions of the same article?”. Not only because
> this is highly dishonest, but because only an idiot would argue this.
> And I respect myself too much to make myself look like an idiot in
> front of others. I would simply apologize and withdraw my claim. Why?
> Because otherwise I would consider myself to be scum and lowlife. I
> don't have to read Usenet, but I do have to look myself in the mirror
> every morning. And if I see a miserable scumbag in this mirror – I
> will feel like shit the rest of the day. This self-respect makes my
> life quite difficult.
Thanks for sharing how you feel about using wikipedia. My approach is
different - verify if I can but if not, then assume (with
reservations) that it is correct, at least if referenced to something
legitimate. I don't think the odds are terribly high that someone
read a legitimate source and then lied about what that source said.
An unreferenced article is another matter.
> When I am engaged in a serious scholarly
> discussion, I verify everything. I google for hundreds and hundreds of
> items. For every link that I post, there are hundreds that I had
> examined and found to contain no relevant information one way or the
> other. For example, My post of June 27 on OUN's anti-Jewish crimes
> took me at least 30 hours of research over almost 2 weeks to compose.
> This very post here has taken me at least 4 or 5 hours.
Wow. Thank you for being so careful.
> You are very lucky and blessed that don't have this handicap. If you
> see anything in Wikipedia that's convenient for your argument – you
> will just post it and get done with it. Your integrity will not
> prevent you from posting Wikipedia's claims of the type “Historian
> Such-and-such said this-and-that about person Such-and-so” even if you
> have never seen any factual support for this claim. And when you are
> called to task – you have no problem using such “scholarly” arguments
> as “If it has been in Wikipedia for a while – it must be true!” and
> “If it weren't true, somebody out there would have corrected this by
> now!”.
It is not a lack of integrity to use wikipedia without physically
verifying every claim in it that isn't accesible on-line.
> Look, I am not trying to prove to you that self-respect and integrity
> are paramount.
I notice this shift of now automatically assuming that using wikipedia
without going to the library and personally verifying all bits of
information not online = lack of integrity.
> I am sure that in response, you will cut-and-paste lots
> of sentences from various Wikipedia articles in four different
> languages that say that some respected scientists say everything that
> Wikipedia says should be fully trusted, as long as it is said in at
> least three different languages, and that some scientists say that
> integrity is unimportant. But what I am saying is that I cannot change
> myself. When I am engaged in a serious scholarly discussion, I have to
> research every reference and allegation about scholarly works. Thus,
> it takes me many hours to write each new serious scholarly post.
>
> > I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> >other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> > tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> > pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> > written
>
> I am not “ignoring” this majority. You have a habit of bringing up
> dozens of new issues in a post. It takes me many hours to get to the
> bottom of each one. And if we skim the surface on dozens of topics
> without getting to the bottom of any one of them – this would be a
> pointless hot air general discussion. And I don't want to engage in
> such. Thus, I am going to get to the bottom of each issue you have
> raised (until a clear pattern emerges).
Good - thank you for explaining yourself.
> >proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> > doing this.
>
> False. I am not wrong. I am right at least on 90% of the topics. Since
> you insisted and goaded me to get to the bottom of the Yary issue, I
> have obliged you and I will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you
> are wrong in claiming that Yary was “openly Jewish” or even that it is
> an established historical fact that he was Jewish.
Why are you ignoring the claim that he was also married to a Jewish
woman? Because that part of my argument was supported by your own
source?
> This is the first
> issue that I intend to get to the bottom of. Then we are going to
> repeat the same process to other issues – like alleged open Jewishness
> of OUN wives, alleged close cooperation between the OUN and Jews,
> that OUN's murders of innocent Jewish civilians was no big deal,
I never claiemd that OUN's murders of Jews was no big deal. Indeed the
murder of a single person is a big deal.
> Petliura army's good attitude towards Jews, etc – and I will show
> that you are wrong on each one of them.
Just start from a truthful description, please. I never claimed that
"Petliura's army" had a good attitude towards Jews. I claimed that
about Petliura himself.
Probably 95% of what I claim matches what Himka has seen and
describes.
> “ The murders themselves were horrible. I have nightmares from my
> research.”....”It is wrong to take part in the cover up or
> minimization of crimes of this nature.”...
>
> When you and I exchanged posts about OUN's crimes against Jews, I
> indeed had nightmares and one half-sleepless night. It was very
> disturbing: both the graphic details of the documents AND your refusal
> to consider these actions to be a big deal.
I never claimed they weren't a big deal.
> I don't think I can take
> much more of this torture. I am not a Holocaust specialist. In fact,
> in the last 12 years, I have refused to watch any movies or
> documentaries or anything else involving Holocaust. I remember weeping
> uncontrollably out of sheer helplessness after seeing Louis Malle 's
> “Au Revoir, les Enfants". The last one I saw was Roberto Benigni's
> “Life is Beautiful”. This topic, if pursued in detail, physically
> pains me like no other topic other than death itself. All my
> relatives, except for the lucky ones who had moved to Russia (Moscow
> and St Pete) were exterminated. I don't know a single one who
> survived.
And my relatives were often exterminated by the Communists.
> At least 5 million out of maybe 7 million Jews that came
> under Nazi occupation, perished. However, discussion the alleged
> Jewishness of Yary or his wife is, of course, of infinitely less
> painfulness, and I don't mind continuing it.
>
> So, to dilute the nightmares that I (and hopefully you) experience
> from delving into the OUN's crimes against innocent Polish and Jewish
> civilians, I suggest a compromise:
>
> We keep two discussions going in parallel: one to satisfy my need to
> put closure to one topic before going to the next, the other – to
> satisfy your need to diversify.
Okay.
>
> > I will also note that you have used this non-issue to avoid every
> > other point in my rebuttal, which itself was in response to your reply
> > tha had ignored many points I had made previously. This is sadly a
> > pattern with you on this thread - ignore the majority of what is
> > written proving you wrong, then when proven wrong again, once again
> > doing this.
>
> I apologize that I take too long time to research my articles here. I
> am at my limit. I already spend an average of 3 hours per day on our
> discussion: way more than I can afford. So, please don't be upset
> with me that I cannot answer all the topics that you throw into the
> ring in a timely fashion.
>
> Hopefully, our discussion of Yary is soon coming to a closure. Then we
> can go on to the next topic in the “depth-first” tree. And please bear
> in mind that it takes me a very long time to write well-researched
> responses, and be patient.
So what do we conclude about Yary? At this point I would say, based
on the evidence, that his wife was certainly Jewish and that he
himself was probably, though not certainly, of partial Jewish descent,
depending on the source. I don't include Mirchuk as a legitimate
source but Patrylyak and Kucheruk are. Unless some wikipedia editor
lied about what Kucheryk said and this lie has been kept up on all
three relevent language wikipedia pages (English, Russian, Ukrainian).
I just noticed from the wikipedia page that Yary's mother's "Polish"
maiden name - Pollak - described by Patrylyak - is indeed a Jewish
one. So even Patrylyak may have mistakenly listed a Polish Jew as a
Pole.
regards,
BM
> Thanks,
>
> Ostap
J. Anderson
"Ostap Bender" <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f790db4-d2cf-4992...@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> The ruler always wants the rest of his country to speak the same
> language that he speaks himself.
Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia prefered to speak French. He was
arrogant enough to say (in French): "German I speak only to my dogs."
OTOH some British, Dutch, Danish and Swedish rulers have spoken only German.
J. Anderson
news:f4d7fba4-80dc-4725...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Oh yes, it's all so relevant to SCB, we wait with bated breath ....
But it's nice to see them quarrel and insult each other. It not only reveals
their true character but also keeps them out of mischief.
The Black Monk
> "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
>
> news:f4d7fba4-80dc-4725...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Oh yes, it's all so relevant to SCB, we wait with bated breath ....
The same arguments used against Ukrainians are also used against
Balts...by the same people.
> But it's nice to see them quarrel and insult each other. It not only reveals
> their true character
What would that be, in your opinion?
regards,
BM
Vladimir Makarenko
Basically what I am going to address is a bunch of lazy thoughts, so
Tadas why not to bitch about another Russian invading Baltic privacy?
With all due respect to Mr Anderson - I do think that when people do NOT
speak is as revealing as when they Do Speak. I have no conclusions on
the personalias in question I just try to say - how do we know what they
think when they do not talk? Sorry if it sounds a bit like Dostoevsky,
but I am a Russian after all. At least kinda of: Putin is my Hero. And
you haven't yet heard from my sister who is a health care profi in
charge - she got two brand new ambulance cars with all the fancy
equipment, she started to sing a song: What kto to s gorochki spustilsya
- naverno Putin moi idet...That is just speaking about the damn oil dollars.
But back to our topic - Russia was shut down of free speech for decades,
we know how to keep silent (and Balts as nobody esle share the
knowledge). So there is a cultural barrier between Westerners and us -
we know how to be quet they know how to talk aloud. And we sometimes
feel intimidated by their talk, sometimes feel angry and do not know how
to reply and keep it silent. In brief we have to learn how to talk.
Funny and silly but this is how things are. This crap about Russian "spy
ring" is very good example - absolutely ridiculous and what Russians
did? Holy smoke - Putin has apologized. For WHAT?
Some people around on the West side classify what they see/hear from
us as "KGB" sponsored propaganda. If you are a child and know only few
words - are you a KGB agent? It is very awkward, inept defense - we know
what you say is wrong we just often than not are not skilled to give an
articulate rational answer. And unfortunately Vello on the West side.
Thanks God at least prof Holman occasionally steps in.
Do not make a mistake - in a kitchen, on stools between ourselves and
some alcohol on a table we are VERY articulate. But you better not hear
our language. It's a bit dirty. But very heart warming.
Just few lazy thoughts.
VM.
Ostap Bender
>
> > "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
>
> >news:f4d7fba4-80dc-4725...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Oh yes, it's all so relevant to SCB, we wait with bated breath ....
>
> The same arguments used against Ukrainians are also used against
> Balts...by the same people.
How nice of you to try
Let me see... The arguments here are about the WWII genocide against
innocent Polish civilians and the Holocaust. And "the same people"
whose arguments I am presenting, are myself, Holocaust historians,
Polish WWII historians, prominent Ukrainian-American historians, and
other people whom you compare to "neo-nazis".
> http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-over-volyn-massacre.html
"Yesterday in Kyiv a group of Ukrainians protested an exhibition at
Ukrainian House organised by a 'human rights group' called 'Russophone
Ukraine' (a project of Party of Regions MP Vadim Kolesnichenko) and
the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the
Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.' Video of the confrontation is
embedded above. The exhibition is entitled 'The Volyn Massacre: Polish
and Jewish Victims of OUN-UPA [Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists
and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army]'. An essay on the memory of the
Volyn Massacre among the Ukrainian diaspora by John-Paul Himka can be
read here.
-------------------------------------------------
> He let a Russian nationalist and Polish fringe-right-wing nationalists
> collectively set up an anti-UPA exhibit in Kiev's Ukrainian House.
What is your complaint? That there was no such thing as the Volyn
Massacres? Or that UPA had nothing to do with them? Or that the
exhibits and/or documents at this 'Volyn Massacre' exhibition, are
falsified? If so - which ones?
Or are you complaining that everything at this exhibition is
authentic?
> I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone let German
> neo-Nazis set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
Who are the "neo-Nazis" there? The 'Russophone Ukraine' society? The
Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the Crimes
of Ukrainian Nationalists.'? Or the prominent Ukrainian-American
professor of Holocaust history John Himka and his colleagues at the
University of Alberta? Or all three? Please provide documents proving
their neo-nazi status.
And if the 'Russophone Ukraine' society is "neo-nazi", why would the
REAL neo-nazis plan a cyber attack on it and call its leader
Kolesnichenko "a dirty Jew"? Is he really a "degenerate" Jew, as they
claim? (see below) How degenerate of a Jew is he, in your opinion?
http://www.from-ua.com/news/e3aab515c2289.html
Ultra-right organizations in charge of the "Festival of German-Slavic
Brotherhood", which is planned to be held on 27 February in Kiev, also
plan a cyber attack on the human rights society "Russophone Ukraine",
in order to provoke blocking access to the site.
"Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood", which is planned to be held
on 27 February in Kiev by ultra-right organizations is of great
concern.
Neo-Nazis from across Europe will gather to take part in the "Festival
of German-Slavic brotherhood" 27 February in Kiev, organized by
rightist organizations.
The event will feature neo-Nazi bands like "9 Shaft" (Ukraine), "Axe
of Perun" (Ukraine), "Anti-system" (Russia), "Moschpit" (Germany), and
others. Neo-Nazis want to take advantage of the imperfection of the
Ukrainian legislation to carry out their black sabbath in Ukraine. The
result of such activities can become not only the unrest, provocation
and attacks on the Ukrainian citizens, but also to discredit Ukraine
in the eyes of Europe as a breeding ground of Nazism and anti-
Semitism.
MP of the Ukrainian Rada, Chairman of the human rights social
movement" Russian-speaking Ukraine" Vadym Kolesnichenko appealed to
the Security Service of Ukraine to demand to prevent the incitement of
ethnic hatred and check the "Festival of German-Slav Brotherhood",
which is planned to be held on 27 February in Kiev by the ultra-right
organizations .for compliance with the rule of law.
-------------------------------------------
Why is it so "neo-nazi" to oppose REAL neo-Nazis?
And BTW, don't worry: you can rest assured that the neo-Nazis had
absolutely no problem getting the Kiev authorities to allow their
black sabbath, and the "Festival of German-Slav Brotherhood" was a
complete success!
------------
http://news.nswap.info/?p=29479>lang=en
"Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" was a complete success!
So, about the event from prehistory. On Wednesday, it was noted
that a deputy from the Party of Regions called the Security Service
( UG-paper ), at the same time on Wednesday in the Unter-Live on the
same degenerate Jew Kolesnichenko said about the concert.
Fears were. But! Must be Moshpit, and therefore fears otsutpayut the
background...Thus, the beginning of the concert. 9th shaft - a lot of
listening to them in the last month - it was nice to hear their tracks
- a lively, friendly, youth)))) "Eagle Badge" - a thing, thing.... And
tuuuut .... They begin to prepare for the show some Germans ...)))
SUDDEN sounds something: "Hello evrybody, we are MOSHPIT crew from
Germany!!!" ... The spirit prevailing in the crowd of students makes
it clear that the unity of Ukrainians, Germans, Russian and British -
were present at the concert - as strong as ever.
---------------------------
So, this neo-nazi concert in Kirev is yet another proof how Ukraine is
intolerant to neo-nazis while Russia is one happy neo-nazi camp. :-)
What is especially telling in this story is that you are mad and angry
at the authorities for allowing an exhibit about the Holocaust in
Kiev, while you have no complaints about the authorities allowing neo-
nazi ""Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" in the same Kiev.
> I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone [....]
> ..set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
> on Tverskaya,...
Well, since we are talking about UPA crimes against Poles in WWII,
then a better analogy would be an exhibit on Tverskaya in Moscow of
Stalin's crimes against Poles in Katyn. And I think that it is
absolutely necessary to organize such an exhibition. And an exhibit
about East Prussia would be OK too.
> ... or let Chechen rebels put up a display of Rusian
> crimes in Chechnya?
Why are you asking this question? Haven't I convinced you in the past
5 years that I am a libertarian, not a fascist, and believe in honesty
and openness (aka glasnost)? Of course, I would approve of an
exhibition of Russian crimes in Chechnya, as long as the exhibits are
authentic.
And of all places in the World, Moscow would be the best place for
this exhibit. In fact, if this exhibit were held, say, in New York,
Kiev or London, I would have some fear that it was intended as an anti-
Russian propaganda ploy. But by having this exhibit in Moscow avoids
such propaganda to foreign countries, but instead tells average
Russians the side of their country's story that they may not know.
That would be awesome!
Ostap Bender
The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:54 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> > "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
> > > Oh yes, it's all so relevant to SCB, we wait with bated breath ....
> The same arguments used against Ukrainians are also used against
> Balts...by the same people.
Let me see... The arguments here are about the WWII genocide against
>http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-over-volyn-massacre.html
Kolesnichenko "a degenerate Jew"? (see below) Is he really a
"degenerate" Jew, as they claim? How degenerate of a Jew is he, in
your opinion?
http://www.from-ua.com/news/e3aab515c2289.html
Ultra-right organizations in charge of the "Festival of German-Slavic
Brotherhood", which is planned to be held on 27 February in Kiev, also
plan a cyber attack on the human rights society "Russophone Ukraine",
in order to provoke blocking access to the site.
"Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood", which is planned to be held
on 27 February in Kiev by ultra-right organizations is of grave
concern.
Neo-Nazis from across Europe will gather to take part in the "Festival
of German-Slavic brotherhood" 27 February in Kiev, organized by
rightist organizations.
The event will feature neo-Nazi bands like "9 Shaft" (Ukraine), "Axe
of Perun" (Ukraine), "Anti-system" (Russia), "Moschpit" (Germany), and
others. Neo-Nazis want to take advantage of the imperfection of the
Ukrainian legislation to carry out their black sabbath in Ukraine. The
result of such activities can become not only the unrest, provocation
and attacks on the Ukrainian citizens, but also to discredit Ukraine
in the eyes of Europe as a breeding ground of Nazism and anti-
Semitism.
MP of the Ukrainian Rada, Chairman of the human rights social
movement" Russian-speaking Ukraine" Vadym Kolesnichenko appealed to
the Security Service of Ukraine to demand to prevent the incitement of
ethnic hatred and check the "Festival of German-Slav Brotherhood",
which is planned to be held on 27 February in Kiev by the ultra-right
organizations .for compliance with the rule of law.
-------------------------------------------
Why is it so "neo-nazi" to oppose REAL neo-Nazis?
And BTW, don't worry: the neo-Nazis had absolutely no problem getting
the Kiev authorities to allow their black sabbath, and the "Festival
of German-Slav Brotherhood" was a complete success!
------------
http://news.nswap.info/?p=29479>lang=en
"Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" was a complete success!
So, about the event from prehistory. On Wednesday, it was noted that
a deputy from the Party of Regions called authorities, at the same
time on Wednesday the same degenerate Jew Kolesnichenko said about the
concert... We had fears.
But! Must be Moshpit, and therefore fears otsutpayut the
background...Thus, the beginning of the concert. 9th shaft - a lot of
listening to them in the last month - it was nice to hear their tracks
- a lively, friendly, youth)))) "Eagle Badge" - a thing, thing.... And
tuuuut .... They begin to prepare for the show some Germans …)))
SUDDEN sounds something: "Hello evrybody, we are MOSHPIT crew from
Germany!!!" ... The spirit prevailing in the crowd of students makes
it clear that the unity of Ukrainians, Germans, Russian and British -
were present at the concert - as strong as ever.
---------------------------
So, this neo-nazi concert in Kiev is yet another proof how Ukraine is
intolerant to neo-nazis while Russia is one happy neo-nazi camp. :-)
What is especially telling in this story is that you are mad and angry
at the authorities for allowing an exhibit about the Holocaust in
Kiev, while you have no complaints about the authorities allowing neo-
nazi ""Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" in the same Kiev.
> I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone [....]
> ..set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
> on Tverskaya,...
Well, since we are talking about UPA crimes against Poles in WWII,
then a better analogy would be an exhibit on Tverskaya in Moscow of
Stalin's crimes against Poles in Katyn. And I think that it is
absolutely necessary to organize such an exhibition. And an exhibit
about East Prussia would be fine too.
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 11:54 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f4d7fba4-80dc-4725...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Oh yes, it's all so relevant to SCB, we wait with bated breath ....
>
> > The same arguments used against Ukrainians are also used against
> > Balts...by the same people.
>
> How nice of you to try
>
> Let me see... The arguments here are about the WWII genocide against
> innocent Polish civilians and the Holocaust. And "the same people"
> whose arguments I am presenting, are myself, Holocaust historians,
> Polish WWII historians,
Could you list which ones - I hope they aren't simply right-wing
nationalist "historians" such as Edward Prus with their fairy tales.
> prominent Ukrainian-American historians,
Quoted out of context.
> and other people whom you compare to "neo-nazis".
>
> >http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-ove...
>
> "Yesterday in Kyiv a group of Ukrainians protested an exhibition at
> Ukrainian House organised by a 'human rights group' called 'Russophone
> Ukraine' (a project of Party of Regions MP Vadim Kolesnichenko) and
> the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the
> Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.' Video of the confrontation is
> embedded above. The exhibition is entitled 'The Volyn Massacre: Polish
> and Jewish Victims of OUN-UPA [Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists
> and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army]'. An essay on the memory of the
> Volyn Massacre among the Ukrainian diaspora by John-Paul Himka can be
> read here.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> > He let a Russian nationalist and Polish fringe-right-wing nationalists
> > collectively set up an anti-UPA exhibit in Kiev's Ukrainian House.
>
> What is your complaint? That there was no such thing as the Volyn
> Massacres? Or that UPA had nothing to do with them? Or that the
> exhibits and/or documents at this 'Volyn Massacre' exhibition, are
> falsified? If so - which ones?
Just as I oppose German using of Katyn (which really happened) to
attack "Judeo-Bolshevism" I oppse anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists
and anti-Ukrainian (and anti-Jewish also, btw) Polish nationalists to
use the Volyn massacres (which really happened) to push their anti-
Ukrainian agenda. Given the people who put up this exhibit it is
reasonable to suspect it of including falsification, though I will go
no further as I don't have the ability to research the history of
every (or any) photograph.
Here is an article from the Russophone Ukraine website written by a
represent of the "Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the
Victims of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.," Szepan Sekierka.
He condemns the mainstream Polosh press for their light treatment of
Ukrainians and Balts. Guess who publishes Siekierka's work? The
notorious private Nortom publishing house Nortom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortom
Nortom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NORTOM is a privately owned Polish publishing house, founded in 1992
in Wrocław, specializing in books on Polish history with special focus
on the Kresy region of the Second Polish Republic, the Polish
literature and political thought, including on post-communism economic
crises and nationalism. Nortom is listed by the Roth Institute in Tel
Aviv among the four Polish publishers known for their "antisemitic,
Holocaust distorting or Holocaust denying books."[1] It also publishes
religious books for children and youth. Nortom was founded by Norbert
Tomczyk,[2] re-elected as member of the Board of Control of the Polish
Chamber of Book Publishers in December 2000,[1] a leader of the
marginal Polish political party Stronnictwo Narodowe ("National Party")
[1] whose ideology is based on that of the pre-war antisemitic
National Democratic movement and which received .16% of the Polish
vote in the presidential elections.[1]
Authors featured by Nortom include: antisemitic[3][4] Polish
politician, diplomat and statesman Roman Dmowski (1864-1939), who was
a chief architect of the new Polish state,[5] with a series on the
return of Polish sovereignty; Jan Ludwik Popławski (1854-1908) the
founder of The National-Democratic Party (1897); right-wing politician
Janusz Dobrosz, member of the Polish Parlament;[6] Dmowski's political
ally Jędrzej Giertych, Polish war correspondent and Franco ally during
the Spanish Civil War,[7] expelled from the emigration party
Stronnictwo Narodowe because of his extremism and antisemitism [8];
Zbigniew Żmigrodzki; Adam Doboszyński (1904-1949); Roman Rybarski
(1887-1942), one of the best economists in prewar Poland,[9] (another
ally of Roman Dmowski); Czesław Czaplicki; Andrzej Sołdrowski,
political prisoner under Stalinism; Lubomir Czupkiewicz; Piotr
Kosobudzki; Maciej Giertych, a member of the European parliament who
created a scandal with his antisemitic writing [10][11]; Stanisław
Jastrzębski, veteran Polish underground fighter during world war II;
controversial politologist Edward Prus; Stanisław Żurek; Norbert
Tomczyk; Stanisław Sosenkiewicz; Henryk Komański; Szczepan Siekierka;
Witalij Masłowśkyj; Aleksander Korman; Mieczysław Dobrzański; Feliks
Koneczny, a Polish historian and social philosopher who claimed that
Jews were conspiring to destroy Latin-Christian civilization and that
Nazism was example of Jewish civilization type[12]; Michał Poradowski;
Stanisław Bełza; Izabella Wolikowska and others.[2]
------
Now, in case you are not aware, right-wing anti-Ukrainian and anti-
semitic Polish nationalism has a long history of cooperation with
right-wing Russian nationalism. Roman Dmowski was a Russophile, or
course. Look up, on googlebooks, Ethnic nationalism and the fall of
empires: central Europe, Russia, and the ... By Aviel Roshwald. On
page 139 "Dmowski was not as readily accepted by the Western
establishment as were Masaryk and the Yugoslavists. His Russophile
orientation and flagrantly ethnocentric conception of nationalism
raised eyebrows in Britain; although he tried to tone down and
rationalize his antisemitism, his open hostility towards Polish Jews
and unwilligness to embrace the concept of tolerance towards
ethnocultural minorities in an indepeendent Poland rubbed many of its
audiences the wrong way."
So, what Yanukovich has done is to allow right-wing Polish chauvinists
together with anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists to stage an exhibit
right in the center of Kiev. I somehow doubt that the Lithuanian,
Latvian or Estonian governments would ever allow Polish right-wing
chauvinists together with local Russian nationalist organizations to
use government buildings in which to stage their created exhibits
about crimes committing by Balts during World War II.
> Or are you complaining that everything at this exhibition is authentic?
Read the commentary at the bottom of this article purporting to expose
the exhibit's lack of facts:
http://www.r-u.org.ua/history/506-ypa.html
(notice the pro-Russian comments slip into anti-Balticism)
> > I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone let German
> > neo-Nazis set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
>
> Who are the "neo-Nazis" there? The 'Russophone Ukraine' society? The
> Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the Crimes
> of Ukrainian Nationalists.'?
The latter are Polish versions of Neo-nazis. It's a Polish fringe
rightwing organization. They are not technically neo-Nazis because
according to traditional Polish nationalism Nazism is a form of
Judaism.
But my comment was an anlogy. Just as it would be ridiculous for the
Ukrainian government to sponsor Polish right-wing nationalist exhibits
in UKrainian government buildings, so it would be ridiculous for a
Polish goverrnment to sponsor German neo-Nazi exhibit in arsaw about
the evils of German suffering in Danzig or for the Russian government
to sponsor Basayev's group to place exhibits about Rusian evils in
Chechnya, etc.
The staging of this exhibit is further proof that Ukraine is under an
anti-Ukrainian government.
Tadas Blinda somewhere mentioned being grateful what Kaliningrad was
not annexed to Lithuania. And he should be. If it were there would
be the chance of, in case of voter apathy among Lithuanians and a
bitter split among Lithuanian politicians, the chance for a fluke
election in which Kaliningrad elects a Russian president of Lithuania
who would then among other things stage exhibits such as the one in
Kiev, put of by anti-Lithuanian Polish nationalists with their Russian
friends documenting the crimes of Lithuanian nationalists.
> Or the prominent Ukrainian-American professor of Holocaust history John Himka and his colleagues at the
> University of Alberta?
Why are you bringing him into this exhibit? He wasn't involved in it.
> Or all three? Please provide documents proving their neo-nazi status.
First, my comment was an analogy, second - see above about fringe
Polish rightwing extremists.
> And if the 'Russophone Ukraine' society is "neo-nazi", why would the REAL neo-nazis plan a cyber attack on it and call its leader
> Kolesnichenko "a dirty Jew"?
Polish right-wing extremists collaborating with Russian nationalists.
Nothing new, it was Dmowski's strategy.
> Is he really a "degenerate" Jew, as they claim? (see below) How degenerate of a Jew is he, in your opinion?
Don't know anything about him, including whether or not he is Jewish.
I have no connection to nao-nazis but thanks for linking them to me.
However, if I were Jewish I would be outraged that one of my people
would present himself as such an anti-Ukrainian bigot, seeking to
provoke anti-semitism.
> http://www.from-ua.com/news/e3aab515c2289.html
>
> Ultra-right organizations in charge of the "Festival of German-Slavic
> Brotherhood", which is planned to be held on 27 February in Kiev, also
> plan a cyber attack on the human rights society "Russophone Ukraine",
> in order to provoke blocking access to the site.
>
> http://www.groisman.com.ua/unrezh/centr-po-zashhite-grazhdanskix-prav...
>
> "Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood", which is planned to be held
> on 27 February in Kiev by ultra-right organizations is of great
> concern.
>
> Neo-Nazis from across Europe will gather to take part in the "Festival
> of German-Slavic brotherhood" 27 February in Kiev, organized by
> rightist organizations.
>
> The event will feature neo-Nazi bands like "9 Shaft" (Ukraine), "Axe
> of Perun" (Ukraine), "Anti-system" (Russia), "Moschpit" (Germany), and
> others. Neo-Nazis want to take advantage of the imperfection of the
> Ukrainian legislation to carry out their black sabbath in Ukraine. The
> result of such activities can become not only the unrest, provocation
> and attacks on the Ukrainian citizens, but also to discredit Ukraine
> in the eyes of Europe as a breeding ground of Nazism and anti-
> Semitism.
>
> MP of the Ukrainian Rada, Chairman of the human rights social
> movement" Russian-speaking Ukraine" Vadym Kolesnichenko appealed to
> the Security Service of Ukraine to demand to prevent the incitement of
> ethnic hatred and check the "Festival of German-Slav Brotherhood",
> which is planned to be held on 27 February in Kiev by the ultra-right
> organizations .for compliance with the rule of law.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Why is it so "neo-nazi" to oppose REAL neo-Nazis?
So now you accuse all people opposed to Russian nationalists and
Polish right-wing nationalists as being neo-Nazis? Tymoshenko also
condemned this exhibit. Is she, according to you, a neo-Nazi.
BTW your attempt to use the "Jwish card" against Ukrainians is old and
well-known. Remember the article I posted before:
http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
The twentieth anniversary of the founding congress of the People's
Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine will be marked soon. Does anyone remember
how, twenty years ago, the official Soviet press frightened readers
with statements, like "The members of Rukh are anti-Semites"? I
remember because my congratulatory telegram was read out at Rukh's
founding congress, and it ended with the Hebrew word, "Shalom!"
In early 1990 the government launched a scare campaign targeting the
Jews of Kyiv. Female caretakers went around warning them: "Rukh
members armed with machine guns are coming from Lviv. Don't leave your
houses. There will be pogroms." The Ukrainian philosopher Myroslav
Popovych and I made it onto TV, and the provocateurs were silenced.
(I won't post more, it's in the link)
> And BTW, don't worry: you can rest assured that the neo-Nazis had
> absolutely no problem getting the Kiev authorities to allow their
> black sabbath, and the "Festival of German-Slav Brotherhood" was a
> complete success!
>
> ------------
>
> http://news.nswap.info/?p=29479>lang=en
>
> "Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" was a complete success!
>
> So, about the event from prehistory. On Wednesday, it was noted
> that a deputy from the Party of Regions called the Security Service
> ( UG-paper ), at the same time on Wednesday in the Unter-Live on the
> same degenerate Jew Kolesnichenko said about the concert.
>
> Fears were. But! Must be Moshpit, and therefore fears otsutpayut the
> background...Thus, the beginning of the concert. 9th shaft - a lot of
> listening to them in the last month - it was nice to hear their tracks
> - a lively, friendly, youth)))) "Eagle Badge" - a thing, thing.... And
> tuuuut .... They begin to prepare for the show some Germans ...)))
> SUDDEN sounds something: "Hello evrybody, we are MOSHPIT crew from
> Germany!!!" ... The spirit prevailing in the crowd of students makes
> it clear that the unity of Ukrainians, Germans, Russian and British -
> were present at the concert - as strong as ever.
> ---------------------------
>
> So, this neo-nazi concert in Kirev is yet another proof how Ukraine is
> intolerant to neo-nazis while Russia is one happy neo-nazi camp. :-)
So how many people have neo-Nazis killed in Ukraine and how many have
they killed in Russia? This is wjat happens in Russia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8537861.stm
A court in Moscow has sentenced nine members of a neo-Nazi skinhead
gang to prison terms of up to 23 years.
The gang members, most in their late teens, were found guilty of a
string of brutal and very public murders.
The skinheads targeted people of Central Asian origin and posted
videos of their attacks on the Internet.
Russia has seen a surge of racially-motivated attacks in recent years.
In 2009 alone, neo-Nazis are believed to have killed more than 70
people.
'Wrong accent'
The nine neo-Nazis called themselves "The White Wolves".
They sought out Central Asian migrants, and attacked them in Moscow's
back streets.
They clubbed some of their victims to death with wooden planks and
killed others by repeatedly stabbing them with knives and
screwdrivers.
In one case, a glazier from Kyrgyzstan was stabbed 73 times, as the
gang members shouted "Russia for the Russians!" and filmed the murder
on their mobile phones.
The jury heard the gang was responsible for at least 11 killings,
possibly even more.
And so - after five months of deliberations - came the prison terms:
Twenty-three years for the gang leader and up to nine years for the
others - the maximum prison term allowed in Russia for underage
criminals.
Human rights activists have welcomed the sentencing.
They admit that the police are now cracking down on skinhead gangs.
But even so, last year alone, dozens were killed, and hundreds injured
simply for not looking Slavic, and for speaking with a foreign
accent.
--------------
Russian judge who cracked down on skinheads and corruption is gunned
down
---------------
This nonscientific comment seems to capture it:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100611092016AA2oNC3
Q:How bad is the Skinhead problem in the Ukraine in 2010?
I am Australian but my ethnic decent is Asian. What are my chances of
getting bashed to death if I visit the Ukraine in 2010
A: Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
It is impossible. I knew ppl from India they feel safe in Ukraine but
not in Moscow(they was students, medical)
----------
So Ostap, could you please list me some example of people being killed
by skinheads in Ukraine, as they regularly are in Russia? In 2009,
neo-Nazis killed 70 people in Russia. Did neo-Nazis in Ukraine kill
even one person that year?
Here is something I found:
http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/702/2/lang,ua/
Larysa Loyko, director of the International Center of Tolerance,
revealed the grim statistics on racial violence: "In 2006, 14 people
were assaulted, two perished. In 2007, nearly 70 were attacked and six
perished, and since January this year, there have been at least 10
attacks on minorities."
Most of the incidents occur in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Simferopol and Odesa.
The majority of victims were from African, Middle Eastern, Asian
countries, the Caucausus and noticeable minorities from Western
countries. This year alone seven persons in the capital became victims
due to the color of their skin, and two died. Even a professional
American basketball player, Marcus Feyson, playing for the Kyiv team
was attacked.
Assuming comparable rates for 2009, it looks like in Ukraine skinheads
are about 1/10 as bad as in Russia (70 were murdered that year).
Moreover, other than Kiev, all the Ukrainian skinhead attacks occured
in Yanukovich-country. Lviv, smeared by you and other anti-Ukrainian
bigots as "Nazi", did not have a single skinhead attack. I haven't
researched this and may be wrong, but I suspect that so-called Nazi
Baltic republics also have far fewer murders by skinhead than does
Russia, the skinhead capital of the world.
> What is especially telling in this story is that you are mad and angry
> at the authorities for allowing an exhibit about the Holocaust in
> Kiev, while you have no complaints about the authorities allowing neo-
> nazi ""Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" in the same Kiev.
I never knew about this festival. Are there other events I never knew
about that you can use to accuse me of hypocrisy with?
Is that the best argument you can come up with - desribe a festival I
neer heard of and then complain that I never complaiend about it?
> > I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone [....]
> > ..set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
> > on Tverskaya,...
>
> Well, since we are talking about UPA crimes against Poles in WWII,
> then a better analogy would be an exhibit on Tverskaya in Moscow of
> Stalin's crimes against Poles in Katyn.
Staged not be nuetral scholars but by anti-Russian fringe
organizations - to make the analogy truly comparable to what happened
in Kiev.
> And I think that it is absolutely necessary to organize such an exhibition. And an exhibit
> about East Prussia would be OK too.
And, once again, to make the analogy comparable to what happened in
Kiev, have German neo-Nazi or revisionsit organization create the East
Prussia exhibit in Moscow.
> > ... or let Chechen rebels put up a display of Rusian
> > crimes in Chechnya?
>
> Why are you asking this question? Haven't I convinced you in the past
> 5 years that I am a libertarian, not a fascist, and believe in honesty
> and openness (aka glasnost)? Of course, I would approve of an
> exhibition of Russian crimes in Chechnya, as long as the exhibits are
> authentic.
Would you let Basayev's group set them up?
> And of all places in the World, Moscow would be the best place for
> this exhibit. In fact, if this exhibit were held, say, in New York,
> Kiev or London, I would have some fear that it was intended as an anti-
> Russian propaganda ploy. But by having this exhibit in Moscow avoids
> such propaganda to foreign countries, but instead tells average
> Russians the side of their country's story that they may not know.
> That would be awesome!
My problem is not with having an exhibit about UPA crimes but with
having such an exhibit organized by the people who organized it. An
objective analysis of UPA by respected scholars such as Himka, and
others would be awesome. The UPA story as told by Polish nationalists
and their Russian nationalist allies in the krainian government
building is disgusting. Got it now?
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Jul 8, 6:31 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 11:54 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> > > > "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
>
>
> > > The same arguments used against Ukrainians are also used against
> > > Balts...by the same people.
>
> > innocent Polish civilians and the Holocaust. And "the same people"
> > whose arguments I am presenting, are myself, Holocaust historians,
> > Polish WWII historians,
>
> Could you list which ones - I hope they aren't simply right-wing
> nationalist "historians" such as Edward Prus with their fairy tales.
You are asking me to repeat here the names of historians who have
contributed to the results that I have quoted? What for? To further
burden me and to make me spend more than 35 hours per day on
addressing all your points?
Will the names of Himka. Rudling and other U of Alberta professors,
Patrylyak and Berkhoff suffice? Or should I also add other scholars
like Franziska Bruder, Jeffrey Burds, Aleksandr Dyukov, Gabriel
Finder, Frank Golczewski, Ihor Iliushyn, Dieter Pohl, Alexander
Prusin, Ewa Siemaszko and Władysław Siemaszko?
> > prominent Ukrainian-American historians,
>
> Quoted out of context.
>
> > and other people whom you compare to "neo-nazis".
>
> > >http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-ove...
>
> > "Yesterday in Kyiv a group of Ukrainians protested an exhibition at
> > Ukrainian House organised by a 'human rights group' called 'Russophone
> > Ukraine' (a project of Party of Regions MP Vadim Kolesnichenko) and
> > the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the
> > Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.' Video of the confrontation is
> > embedded above. The exhibition is entitled 'The Volyn Massacre: Polish
> > and Jewish Victims of OUN-UPA [Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists
> > and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army]'. An essay on the memory of the
> > Volyn Massacre among the Ukrainian diaspora by John-Paul Himka can be
> > read here.
> > -------------------------------------------------
>
> > > He let a Russian nationalist and Polish fringe-right-wing nationalists
> > > collectively set up an anti-UPA exhibit in Kiev's Ukrainian House.
>
> > What is your complaint? That there was no such thing as the Volyn
> > Massacres? Or that UPA had nothing to do with them? Or that the
> > exhibits and/or documents at this 'Volyn Massacre' exhibition, are
> > falsified? If so - which ones?
>
> Just as I oppose German using of Katyn (which really happened) to
> attack "Judeo-Bolshevism"
Let's stay on the analogy here. What you are describing is Germans in
Germany criticizing Bolsheviks for their crimes against Poles. But
here we have Poles in Ukraine criticizing OUN for their crimes against
Poles. If a Polish group organized a Katyn exhibit in Moscow in 1944,
I would have no complaint.
>I oppse anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists
> and anti-Ukrainian (and anti-Jewish also, btw) Polish nationalists to
> use the Volyn massacres (which really happened) to push their anti-
> Ukrainian agenda. Given the people who put up this exhibit it is
> reasonable to suspect it of including falsification, though I will go
> no further as I don't have the ability to research the history of
> every (or any) photograph.
In other words, you don't deny that there was such thing as the Volyn
Massacres, and that OUN/UPA was instrumental in them, and that there
is no evidence that the exhibits and/or documents at this 'Volyn
Massacre' exhibition are falsified? Right?
> Here is an article from the Russophone Ukraine website written by a
> represent of the "Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the
> Victims of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.," Szepan Sekierka.
Where is it? And what part of his article do you find as bad as neo-
Nazi?
> He condemns the mainstream Polosh press for their light treatment of
> Ukrainians and Balts.
Please give the exact quote as to what he says about "the mainstream
Polish press for their light treatment of Ukrainians and Balts."
Does he REALLY refer to "ALL Ukrainians and Balts" or is he talking
about a bunch of what he considers to be war criminals from 70 years
ago who happen to be Ukrainians and Balts? Your convictions that
"Ukrainian war criminals = all Ukrainians" is as mistaken as OUN's and
Nazis' conviction that "Bolsheviks = Jews". Let me remind you of what
Himka's words:
-------------------------------
July and August 1943 were the months of UPA’s most intense murder of
Poles in Volhynia, and in the following winter UPA and OUN security
units systematically murdered Jewish survivors.... For Jewish
survivors ... their attackers were “the Ukrainians.” I happen to now
that these actions were put in motion by a certain group of
Ukrainians, OUN.
Why not make that differentiation? Why let the blame fall on the
nation as a whole? Why would anyone want to embrace the heritage of
that group? Why would I, a person of Ukrainian ancestry and someone
devoted to Ukrainian studies for 40 years, not want to distance myself
and my vision of Ukraine and Ukrainians from that of OUN? ….Ukrainians
need not adopt the heritage of OUN as the basis of their identity.
There are other strands also in the legacy that our ancestors
bequeathed to us.
-------------------------------
> Guess who publishes Siekierka's work?
Why would I care? I don't play this guilt by association game. If I
wrote a book and the only publishing house that agreed to publish it
were part of the abominable BP, I would still agree to publish it
there.
> The
> notorious private Nortom publishing house Nortom:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortom
>
> Nortom
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> NORTOM is a privately owned Polish publishing house, founded in 1992
> in Wroc³aw, specializing in books on Polish history with special focus
> on the Kresy region of the Second Polish Republic, the Polish
> literature and political thought, including on post-communism economic
> crises and nationalism. Nortom is listed by the Roth Institute in Tel
> Aviv among the four Polish publishers known for their "antisemitic,
> Holocaust distorting or Holocaust denying books."[1] It also publishes
> religious books for children and youth. Nortom was founded by Norbert
> Tomczyk,[2] re-elected as member of the Board of Control of the Polish
> Chamber of Book Publishers in December 2000,[1] a leader of the
> marginal Polish political party Stronnictwo Narodowe ("National Party")
> [1] whose ideology is based on that of the pre-war antisemitic
> National Democratic movement and which received .16% of the Polish
> vote in the presidential elections.[1]
>
> Authors featured by Nortom include: antisemitic[3][4] Polish
> politician, diplomat and statesman Roman Dmowski (1864-1939), who was
> a chief architect of the new Polish state,[5] with a series on the
> return of Polish sovereignty; Jan Ludwik Pop³awski (1854-1908) the
> founder of The National-Democratic Party (1897); right-wing politician
> Janusz Dobrosz, member of the Polish Parlament;[6] Dmowski's political
> ally Jêdrzej Giertych, Polish war correspondent and Franco ally during
> the Spanish Civil War,[7] expelled from the emigration party
> Stronnictwo Narodowe because of his extremism and antisemitism [8];
> Zbigniew ¯migrodzki; Adam Doboszyñski (1904-1949); Roman Rybarski
> (1887-1942), one of the best economists in prewar Poland,[9] (another
> ally of Roman Dmowski); Czes³aw Czaplicki; Andrzej So³drowski,
> political prisoner under Stalinism; Lubomir Czupkiewicz; Piotr
> Kosobudzki; Maciej Giertych, a member of the European parliament who
> created a scandal with his antisemitic writing [10][11]; Stanis³aw
> Jastrzêbski, veteran Polish underground fighter during world war II;
> controversial politologist Edward Prus; Stanis³aw ¯urek; Norbert
> Tomczyk; Stanis³aw Sosenkiewicz; Henryk Komañski; Szczepan Siekierka;
> Witalij Mas³ow¶kyj; Aleksander Korman; Mieczys³aw Dobrzañski; Feliks
> Koneczny, a Polish historian and social philosopher who claimed that
> Jews were conspiring to destroy Latin-Christian civilization and that
> Nazism was example of Jewish civilization type[12]; Micha³ Poradowski;
> Stanis³aw Be³za; Izabella Wolikowska and others.[2]
> ------
Wow. That's a lot of names! And all these people took part in the
organization of the Volyn exhibit? Or are you once again employing
“guilt by association”?
You forgot to quote a single word from Siekierka's work but you waste
so much of space and my time on articles about the company that
printed this work.
What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
have won the argument. :-)
> Now, in case you are not aware, right-wing anti-Ukrainian and anti-
> semitic Polish nationalism has a long history of cooperation with
> right-wing Russian nationalism. Roman Dmowski was a Russophile, or
> course. Look up, on googlebooks, Ethnic nationalism and the fall of
> empires: central Europe, Russia, and the ... By Aviel Roshwald. On
> page 139 "Dmowski was not as readily accepted by the Western
> establishment as were Masaryk and the Yugoslavists. His Russophile
> orientation and flagrantly ethnocentric conception of nationalism
> raised eyebrows in Britain; although he tried to tone down and
> rationalize his antisemitism, his open hostility towards Polish Jews
> and unwilligness to embrace the concept of tolerance towards
> ethnocultural minorities in an indepeendent Poland rubbed many of its
> audiences the wrong way."
What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
have won the argument. :-)
But let me digress from your exciting new topic on Roman Dmowski who
was a Russophile, and Aviel Roshwald and the Western establishment and
Masaryk and the Yugoslavists, and return to our discussion and repeat
my question: Is the "Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the
Victims of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists" anti-semitic? Is it
"neo-Nazi" too?
> So, what Yanukovich has done is to allow right-wing Polish chauvinists
> together with anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists to stage an exhibit
> right in the center of Kiev. I somehow doubt that the Lithuanian,
> Latvian or Estonian governments would ever allow Polish right-wing
> chauvinists together with local Russian nationalist organizations to
> use government buildings in which to stage their created exhibits
> about crimes committing by Balts during World War II.
Let's ask the Baltic readers here: are Baltic states democratic? Would
the Latvian government allow, say, an exhibit of the role of Latvian
polizei in the Holocaust or would they ban it in order to prevent the
Latvians from learning about this role?
And, since you have taken a new angle of trying to win our discussion
by appealing to the “patriotism” of the Baltic readers here, let me
also ask the Baltic readers this:
Would you like to see an exhibit in Moscow of Stalin's crimes in the
Baltic states, or do you think that such an exhibit should be banned?
> > Or are you complaining that everything at this exhibition is authentic?
>
> Read the commentary at the bottom of this article purporting to expose
> the exhibit's lack of facts:
>
> http://www.r-u.org.ua/history/506-ypa.html
And you point being what? That this is a weak exhibit, and the
visitors will come away unconvinced? Maybe historians like Himka and
Berkhoff could have provided better evidence for them to work with?
And if this exhibit is not as strong of an evidence of OUN/UPA's
crimes in Volyn as it could be, why are you complaining? Do you want
to see even more damning evidence introduced?
> (notice the pro-Russian comments slip into anti-Balticism)
Still using cheap demagoguery to get the SCB readers to sympathize
with your argument? And blaming the authors for comments posted by
readers, eh?
Tell me, BM, why are you treating me like a total moron? Why have do
you writ eat such childish level? Do you think I am incapable of
understanding intelligent arguments?
> > > I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone let German
> > > neo-Nazis set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
>
> > Who are the "neo-Nazis" there? The 'Russophone Ukraine' society? The
> > Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the Crimes
> > of Ukrainian Nationalists.'?
>
> The latter are Polish versions of Neo-nazis. It's a Polish fringe
> rightwing organization. They are not technically neo-Nazis because
> according to traditional Polish nationalism Nazism is a form of
> Judaism.
I don't understand your bringing up Judaism here. Let's cut to the
chase? Is the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims
of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists” a neo-nazi-like organization?
Do they advocate hatred for civilians of other elasticities? Do they
advocate extermination or expulsion of civilian populations of other
ethnicties? Please give me exact proof. No demagogy this time,
please.
And speaking of the REAL neo-Nazis. The original article that you have
given me on this issue has a somewhat disturbing video about the
protest demarche by the opponents of this exhibit:
http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-over-volyn-massacre.html
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMmKzo90gtM
Who are this big crowd that occupied the exhibit site and disrupted
it? who Why are most of them dressed in black and why are there many
young body-builder-looking hoodlums with cleanly shaved heads and
thick necks in black jackets? And they are chanting hundreds of times
over: “The Polish army – occupier of Ukraine!” and “Occupiers – out!”
and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!”
and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!”
again and again. Who are these “occupiers” of modern Ukraine whom they
want to expel out of Ukraine? Poles? Russians? Jews?
Isn't it the case that it is not the organizers of the exhibit that
are neo-Nazis, but the organizers of the protest who are the REAL-
LIFE NEO-NAZIS?
> But my comment was an anlogy. Just as it would be ridiculous for the
> Ukrainian government to sponsor Polish right-wing nationalist exhibits
> in UKrainian government buildings, so it would be ridiculous for a
> Polish goverrnment to sponsor German neo-Nazi exhibit in arsaw about
> the evils of German suffering in Danzig or for the Russian government
> to sponsor Basayev's group to place exhibits about Rusian evils in
> Chechnya, etc.
An analogy. Fine. Let's go with one. Imagine a Latvian 'Society for
Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the Crimes of Stalin”
organized an exhibit of Stalin's crimes against Lithuanians,
Latvians, Estonians and Jews. Should this exhibit be allowed?
I am asking you and, since you appeal so much to the SCB readers, I am
asking the Baltic readers here: is it REALLY a crime (or
inappropriate) for Latvian patriots to organize an exhibit of
Stalin's crimes against Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians in
Moscow?
> The staging of this exhibit is further proof that Ukraine is under an
> anti-Ukrainian government.
Wouldn't the staging of the neo-Nazi "Festival of German-Slavic
Brotherhood" in February 2010 be “further proof that Ukraine and Kiev
were under anti-Semitic governments”?
If Medvedev allowed an exhibit of Stalin's crimes against
Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians in Moscow, would that be “further
proof that Russia is under an anti-Russian government”?
> Tadas Blinda somewhere mentioned being grateful what Kaliningrad was
> not annexed to Lithuania. And he should be. If it were there would
> be the chance of, in case of voter apathy among Lithuanians and a
> bitter split among Lithuanian politicians, the chance for a fluke
> election in which Kaliningrad elects a Russian president of Lithuania
> who would then among other things stage exhibits such as the one in
> Kiev, put of by anti-Lithuanian Polish nationalists with their Russian
> friends documenting the crimes of Lithuanian nationalists.
What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
have won the argument. :-)
> > Or the prominent Ukrainian-American professor of Holocaust history John Himka and his colleagues at the
> > University of Alberta?
>
> Why are you bringing him into this exhibit? He wasn't involved in it.
That came from the link that you told me to read:
> > >http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-ove...
>
> > "Yesterday in Kyiv a group of Ukrainians protested an exhibition at
> > Ukrainian House organised by a 'human rights group' called 'Russophone
> > Ukraine' (a project of Party of Regions MP Vadim Kolesnichenko) and
> > the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the
> > Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.' Video of the confrontation is
> > embedded above. The exhibition is entitled 'The Volyn Massacre: Polish
> > and Jewish Victims of OUN-UPA [Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists
> > and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army]'. An essay on the memory of the
> > Volyn Massacre among the Ukrainian diaspora by John-Paul Himka can be
> > read here.
> > -------------------------------------------------
Since you then made your analogy to the neo-Nazis and Chechen
terrorists, I wanted to clarify which of the three mentioned entities
you equated to neo-Nazis and terrorists. BTW, here is a link to this
essay on the memory of the Volyn Massacre among the Ukrainian diaspora
by John-Paul Himka and some quotes from it:
http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/soi/article/view/7999/7147
War Criminality:
A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora
John-Paul Himka
This paper tackles the touchy question of atrocities committed by
Ukrainians during the Second World War as a component, or rather its
absence as a component, of the identity consciousness of the Ukrainian
diaspora. The paper goes very much against the grain of that
diaspora’s current consensus.
Instead, there persists a deafening silence about, as well as
reluctance to confront, even well-documented war crimes, such as the
mass murder of Poles in Volhynia by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)
[7] and the cooperation of the Ukrainian auxiliary police in the
execution of the Jews.[8]
In the diaspora one frequently encounters a double standard in
discussing war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by
Ukrainians as opposed to those perpetrated against Ukrainians. Memoirs
and eyewitness accounts, for example, are considered untrustworthy
evidence for the former, but trustworthy for the latter; that is,
Jewish or Polish first-hand accounts of Ukrainian war crimes are
dismissed as biased, while an important Ukrainian victimization
narrative, the famine of 1932-33, has relied primarily on just such
eyewitness accounts.[11]
The opening of Soviet archives makes it intellectually more difficult
for the diaspora to remain in denial concerning war crimes perpetrated
by Ukrainian militia and police in German service and Ukrainian
nationalist units. A major study of the destruction of the Jews in
Eastern Galicia documents the participation of Ukrainian police in the
execution of Jews.[45]
UPA’s atrocities against civilians have been documented in riveting
archivally based studies by Jeffrey Burds,[47]
It has also become more difficult to maintain the innocence of
Ukrainian national ideology in light of recent research. It is now
clear that Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia was already highly
racialized in the late 19th century[49] and had developed an elaborate
anti-Jewish discourse.[50] Anti-Semitic articles appeared regularly in
the interwar Western Ukrainian press.[51] During the war OUN leader
Yaroslav Stetsko expressed his support for German-style eliminationist
anti-Semitism.[52]
-------------------------------------------------
> > Or all three? Please provide documents proving their neo-nazi status.
>
> First, my comment was an analogy, second - see above about fringe
> Polish rightwing extremists.
>
> > And if the 'Russophone Ukraine' society is "neo-nazi", why would the
> > REAL neo-nazis plan a cyber attack on it and call its leader
> > Kolesnichenko "a dirty Jew"?
>
> Polish right-wing extremists collaborating with Russian nationalists.
> Nothing new, it was Dmowski's strategy.
What? The neo-Nazis, who organized the "Festival of German-Slavic
Brotherhood" were “Polish right-wing extremists collaborating with
Russian nationalists”? Please provide references.
> > Is he really a "degenerate" Jew, as they claim? (see below) How degenerate of a Jew is he, in your opinion?
>
> Don't know anything about him, including whether or not he is Jewish.
I suspect he isn't. He doesn't look Jewish. Neo-Nazis always view all
their opponents as “Jews”.
> I have no connection to nao-nazis but thanks for linking them to me.
You have no connection to neo-nazis that YOU KNOW OF. But judging
from the esoteric events and issues that you raise, I bet you
subscribe to some Galician nationalist list which (unbeknown to you)
is run by people of neo-Nazi views. Can you tell me, for example, from
which Uke list you got this complaint about the Volyn exhibit?
> However, if I were Jewish I would be outraged that one of my people
> would present himself as such an anti-Ukrainian bigot, seeking to
> provoke anti-semitism.
Please give me evidence that Kolesnichenko is an anti-Ukrainian bigot,
seeking to
> provoke anti-semitism.
And why would a Volyn exhibit “provoke anti-semitism”. Are you saying
that the showing of the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust “ provoke
anti-semitism”? Should the discussion of the Holocaust be banned not
only in Ukraine but in Germany too in order to not to “ provoke anti-
semitism”?
Wow. What a logic. If a victim is complaining about a crime that was
perpetrated against him – he is provoking a new crime? It's like
saying: “Woman, stop complaining that I raped you, or else I will rape
you again!”
Are Balts, who keep on complaining about Stalin's occupation of
Baltics, “provoking” a new Russian invasion and occupation?
Don't you yourself accuse all people who criticize OUN/UPA of being
enemies of Ukrainians as a whole?
> Tymoshenko also
> condemned this exhibit. Is she, according to you, a neo-Nazi.
What exactly did she say? That this exhibit should be shut down?
> BTW your attempt to use the "Jwish card" against Ukrainians is old and
> well-known. Remember the article I posted before:
>
> http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
>
> The twentieth anniversary of the founding congress of the People's
> Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine will be marked soon. Does anyone remember
> how, twenty years ago, the official Soviet press frightened readers
> with statements, like "The members of Rukh are anti-Semites"? I
> remember because my congratulatory telegram was read out at Rukh's
> founding congress, and it ended with the Hebrew word, "Shalom!"
>
> In early 1990 the government launched a scare campaign targeting the
> Jews of Kyiv. Female caretakers went around warning them: "Rukh
> members armed with machine guns are coming from Lviv. Don't leave your
> houses. There will be pogroms." The Ukrainian philosopher Myroslav
> Popovych and I made it onto TV, and the provocateurs were silenced.
What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
have won the argument. :-)
> (I won't post more, it's in the link)
>
> > And BTW, don't worry: you can rest assured that the neo-Nazis had
> > absolutely no problem getting the Kiev authorities to allow their
> > black sabbath, and the "Festival of German-Slav Brotherhood" was a
> > complete success!
>
> > ------------
>
> >http://news.nswap.info/?p=29479>lang=en
>
> > "Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" was a complete success!
>
> > So, about the event from prehistory. On Wednesday, it was noted
> > that a deputy from the Party of Regions called the Security Service
> > ( UG-paper ), at the same time on Wednesday in the Unter-Live on the
> > same degenerate Jew Kolesnichenko said about the concert.
>
> > Fears were. But! Must be Moshpit, and therefore fears otsutpayut the
> > background...Thus, the beginning of the concert. 9th shaft - a lot of
> > listening to them in the last month - it was nice to hear their tracks
> > - a lively, friendly, youth)))) "Eagle Badge" - a thing, thing.... And
> > tuuuut .... They begin to prepare for the show some Germans ...)))
> > SUDDEN sounds something: "Hello evrybody, we are MOSHPIT crew from
> > Germany!!!" ... The spirit prevailing in the crowd of students makes
> > it clear that the unity of Ukrainians, Germans, Russian and British -
> > were present at the concert - as strong as ever.
> > ---------------------------
>
> > So, this neo-nazi concert in Kiev is yet another proof how Ukraine is
> > intolerant to neo-nazis while Russia is one happy neo-nazi camp. :-)
>
> So how many people have neo-Nazis killed in Ukraine and how many have
> they killed in Russia?
Since we are talking about Jews and Poles, the answer is not a single
Jew and not a single Pole.
Thank you for turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into the
discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians.
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/russi...
>
> Russian judge who cracked down on skinheads and corruption is gunned
> down
>
> ---------------
Oh, there's more of turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into
the discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians?
> This nonscientific comment seems to capture it:
>
> http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100611092016AA2oNC3
>
> Q:How bad is the Skinhead problem in the Ukraine in 2010?
>
> I am Australian but my ethnic decent is Asian. What are my chances of
> getting bashed to death if I visit the Ukraine in 2010
>
> A: Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> It is impossible. I knew ppl from India they feel safe in Ukraine but
> not in Moscow(they was students, medical)
And even more of turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into
the discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians?
> So Ostap, could you please list me some example of people being killed
> by skinheads in Ukraine, as they regularly are in Russia? In 2009,
> neo-Nazis killed 70 people in Russia. Did neo-Nazis in Ukraine kill
> even one person that year?
And even more of turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into
the discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians?
Could we please for the time being stay on Poles, Ukrainians and Jews
please?
> Here is something I found:
>
> http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/702/2/lang,ua/
>
> Larysa Loyko, director of the International Center of Tolerance,
> revealed the grim statistics on racial violence: "In 2006, 14 people
> were assaulted, two perished. In 2007, nearly 70 were attacked and six
> perished, and since January this year, there have been at least 10
> attacks on minorities."
>
> Most of the incidents occur in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Simferopol and Odesa.
> The majority of victims were from African, Middle Eastern, Asian
> countries, the Caucausus and noticeable minorities from Western
> countries. This year alone seven persons in the capital became victims
> due to the color of their skin, and two died. Even a professional
> American basketball player, Marcus Feyson, playing for the Kyiv team
> was attacked.
>
> Assuming comparable rates for 2009, it looks like in Ukraine skinheads
> are about 1/10 as bad as in Russia (70 were murdered that year).
>
> Moreover, other than Kiev,
Kiev? Isn't that your favourite place? You constantly use Kiev's
accomplishments as an example of how all pro-Orange cities are great
and all Blue cities are bad.
> all the Ukrainian skinhead attacks occured
> in Yanukovich-country. Lviv, smeared by you and other anti-Ukrainian
> bigots as "Nazi", did not have a single skinhead attack. I haven't
> researched this and may be wrong, but I suspect that so-called Nazi
> Baltic republics also have far fewer murders by skinhead than does
> Russia, the skinhead capital of the world.
So now you are turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into the
discussion of how Kiev and Yanukovych country are criminals and
Galicians are saints?
> > What is especially telling in this story is that you are mad and angry
> > at the authorities for allowing an exhibit about the Holocaust in
> > Kiev, while you have no complaints about the authorities allowing neo-
> > nazi ""Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" in the same Kiev.
>
> I never knew about this festival. Are there other events I never knew
> about that you can use to accuse me of hypocrisy with?
> Is that the best argument you can come up with - desribe a festival I
> neer heard of and then complain that I never complaiend about it?
That's EXACTLY my point: how come you hear about things like Holocaust
exhibits and hear that they are “criminal” but don't hear about such
outrages as neo-Nazi festivals? If you aren't even even hear about
such outrages as neo-Nazi Aryan Brotherhood festivals, how can you
claim to be an expert on the treatment of Jews in modern Ukraine?
And why do you compare human rights organizations of Russian-speakers
and Poles to neo-Nazis?
> > > I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone [....]
> > > ..set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
> > > on Tverskaya,...
>
> > Well, since we are talking about UPA crimes against Poles in WWII,
> > then a better analogy would be an exhibit on Tverskaya in Moscow of
> > Stalin's crimes against Poles in Katyn.
>
> Staged not be nuetral scholars but by anti-Russian fringe
> organizations - to make the analogy truly comparable to what happened
> in Kiev.
You still haven't proved to me that the Volyn exhibit was staged by “
fringe organizations”. Please do so.
Moreover, what matters is whether the exhibited items are authentic,
not the personality of organizers.
For example, if some Baltic patriots, who passionately and non-
neutrally hate Stalin's Russia, organized an authentic exhibit in
Moscow of Stalin's crimes, should it be banned?
> > And I think that it is absolutely necessary to organize such an exhibition. And an exhibit
> > about East Prussia would be OK too.
>
> And, once again, to make the analogy comparable to what happened in
> Kiev, have German neo-Nazi or revisionsit organization create the East
> Prussia exhibit in Moscow.
You have already asked this false analogy, and I have already given my
answer.
But if you insist on it again, please tell me (with proof) which of
the organizing parties of the Volyn exhibit are a “ neo-Nazi or
revisionist organization”.
> > > ... or let Chechen rebels put up a display of Rusian
> > > crimes in Chechnya?
>
> > Why are you asking this question? Haven't I convinced you in the past
> > 5 years that I am a libertarian, not a fascist, and believe in honesty
> > and openness (aka glasnost)? Of course, I would approve of an
> > exhibition of Russian crimes in Chechnya, as long as the exhibits are
> > authentic.
>
> Would you let Basayev's group set them up?
Basayev? The notorious murderer of Beslan children? One of the worst
criminals in modern history? which of the organizing parties of the
Volyn exhibit are criminals like Basayev?
Look, stop treating me like an idiot. Your contempt for my
intellectual abilities is seen in every sentence that oyu write to me.
In particular, start giving valid and neutral (your word!) analogies.
If you keep on repeating the same comparisons to neo-Nazis and
Basayev, we shall never make any progress. Maybe it is your
objective anyway: to bog me in insulting childish nonsense in order to
obscure the real issues?
So, to answer your question: if Basayev's group set up such an
exhibition, I would:
1. Arrest them and put on trial for their crimes in Beslan and
elsewhere
2. Allow the exhibition to go on, if it is authentic.
> > And of all places in the World, Moscow would be the best place for
> > this exhibit. In fact, if this exhibit were held, say, in New York,
> > Kiev or London, I would have some fear that it was intended as an anti-
> > Russian propaganda ploy. But by having this exhibit in Moscow avoids
> > such propaganda to foreign countries, but instead tells average
> > Russians the side of their country's story that they may not know.
> > That would be awesome!
>
> My problem is not with having an exhibit about UPA crimes but with
> having such an exhibit organized by the people who organized it.
So, please give me the concrete evidence of what terrible acts these
organizers are guilty of. Are they really as bad Basayev and neo-
Nazis?
> An
> objective analysis of UPA by respected scholars such as Himka, and
> others would be awesome. The UPA story as told by Polish nationalists
> and their Russian nationalist allies in the krainian government
> building is disgusting. Got it now?
Got what? That you think that the average Ukrainian people should not
be allowed to see evidence against OUN/UPA, even if it's truthful, and
make their own conclusions? Yes, I got it long time ago.
And what kind of a condescending language is this: “Got it now?”? I am
not a child and you are not my teacher. I assure you that I am not as
dumb and slow as you think. If you dropped your condescending view of
me and stopped treating me as either a child or a retard or both, we
would be able to address 10 times more different issues that you want
me to address.
Ostap Bender
> On Jul 1, 12:26 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet the
> > > facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved with the
> > > OUN at the highest levels.
>
> > > > > Rather strange to describe an
> > > > > organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> > > > > Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> > > > > two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> > > > > organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> > > > > risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
>
> > So, you insist that a group whose prominent members included an ethnic
> > Jew, cannot be anti-semitic and cannot even contemplate of committing
> > genocide against Jews?
>
> I insist that in such an organization antisemtism could not have been
> a core value.
The number one value was Ukrainian independence. Antisemitism and hate
for Poles, Moskals and other non-ethnic Ukrainians came after that.
To Nazis too, hate for Gypsies and even for Jews were of secondary
importance to their desire for the independence of Sudetenland;
Dantzig, Memel and East Prussia; Alsace and Lorraine; and their
incorporation, along with Austria, into a united and independent
Germany. So what?
Why is this important? Are you saying that ethnic Ukrainians who are
from the east of Dnieper/Kiev, are less of Ukrainians than those who
are form the west of Dnieper/Kiev? Or maybe that ethnic Ukrainians
from the east of Dnieper/Kiev were ideologically more pro-Moscow?
> and spent most of his formative years
> in Russia
Where in Russia? And how old was he when he moved form Ukraine to
Russia and how long did he spend in Russia before returning back to
Ukraine?
> and Russian environments,
Really? What's your reference?
And even if so - does that make his parents “non-Ukrainians”? Isn't he
as more of “Ukrainian descent” than Yary is of “Jewish descent”? And
isn't the certainty of his Ukrainian ethnic roots higher than that of
Yary's alleged Jewish ethnic roots?
> participating in the revolutions in St. Petersburg etc.
Aha, revolutions! So, that's what's important here: the perpetrators
of the Holodomor were revolutionaries/Bolsheviks of all ethnicities,
including Ukrainian.
> He returned to Ukraine with the Soviet military
> during their invasion from Russia. If this is the most "Ukrainian"
> figure you can come up with in the implementation of the Holodomor,
> this is further good evidence of its anti-Ukrainian character.
If Yary – btw, a Catholic – is the most "Jewish" figure you can come
up with in the OUN(B) leadership, this is further good evidence of its
anti- Jewish character.
Chubar was named by the Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn
Nalyvaychenko as one of THE TOP THREE organizers of the Holodomor
(after Stalin himself)!!! Was Yary one of top three organizers of
OUN(B) militias and of UPA, the two entities that are directly guilty
of ethnic cleansing against Polish and Jewish civilians? No, he
wasn't. In fact, I doubt if he were one of the top 1000 organizers of
the militias or one of the top 10 000 organizers of UPA. Or was he?
Moreover, if you further read my post instead of attacking the very
first name I gave with a rather unintelligent exclamation “If this is
the most "Ukrainian" figure you can come up with...”, you would be
able to discover that he was not the only indicted Holodomor criminal
of apparent Ukrainian descend that I named. I also named Khoma
Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
Khomych Kryvets'.
That's four for Holodomor and only one for OUN(B), even if we were to
assume that Yary's mother is certain to be of (distant?) Jewish
ancestry.
> Moreover, the Holodomor was obviously both a national and class-based
> genocide, directed at peasants in Ukraine who were overwhelmingly
> Ukrainian.
Was it directed in any way against proletariat of Ukrainian
ethnicity?
And why only Ukraine? Wasn't it also directed at peasants in Russian
Socialist Republic (Kuban, Crimea and Kazakhstan), who weren't
overwhelmingly Ukrainian? And wasn't it the case that the reason why
Stalin chose to leave less food with Kazak (aka Kuban and Ukraine
Cossacks) and Kazakh peasants was not because Stalin was born as a
Kazak- and Kazakh- hater but because he saw them as populations most
opposed to Stalinism, just as OUN(B) saw Jew and Poles as populations
most opposed to Ukrainian independence and most in favour of
Bolshevism? Remember their “Jews = Bolsheviks” thingy?
Tell me, why do you think Stalin chose Kazakhs and Cossacks/Ukrainians
as his biggest victims? What was his motivation in choosing them
over, say, Belorussians, Karelo-Finnsmurts, Chukchas, Tadjiks, Azeris
or Bashkirs?
> It broke down the peasants both nationally and as a
> class.
Finally we agree on something.
> Thus an ethnic UKrainian supporter of the dominance of
> factory workers could participate in the Holodomor for class
> reasons.
Well, then couldn't an ethnic Jew participate in the OUN for political
reasons like anti-Bolshevism and fight against Poland's oppression?
> > Among the other 19 top men accused of being in charge of Holodomor crimes, you will also find:
>
> >http://www.zlev.ru/117/117_22.htm
>
> > Khoma Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> > Khomych Kryvets'.
>
> > I wish I knew the ethnicities (or even names) of Holodomor villains'
> > wives, but I strongly suspect that if we knew them, we would find
> > Ukrainian ethnicity among them too.
>
> > Chubar', Balytskyj, Leonyuk, Krivets' … So, using your own logic, how
> > could Holodomor be a genocide against the Ukrainian people?
>
> It was both a genocide of the Ukrainian people and a crushing of a
> counterrevolutionary social element - peasants who refused to hand
> their land over to the kolkhosp (who, coincidentally, were the main
> support base for Ukrainian nationalism).
Exactly right. Just as OUN's main goal was that of Ukrainian
independence. And Hitler's original goal was that of unifying German
people and getting rid of the oppression of Germans caused by the
Versailles Treaty.
So, if Holodomor could be both a class warfare AND an ethnic genocide,
why couldn't OUN(B)'s actions be both a struggle for independence AND
a struggle to cleanse Ukraine of non-Ukrainians ( Jews AND Poles AND
most Moskals AND most Hungarians AND most Gypsies) just because one of
OUN(B) member's mother and wife were of Jewish origin?
> The two are not mutually exclusive phenomena.
Exactly my whole point. Finally you got it. Why did it take you 3
weeks and hundreds of hours of my time to explain this obvious fact to
you?
And why do I suspect that this is not going to be the end of this
issue, and that you will post thousands of more lines of tangential
stuff and induce me into hundreds of hours more of research and
writing to debate this obvious fact?
> > Doesn't this show the utter hypocrisy of your arguments about Jews and
> > OUN?
>
> It rather shows your convenient omission of facts and context in order
> to present your own twisted views. This is a well-established pattern
> of yours, as we see on this thread.
How's that?
> > More importantly,why is it that by merely disagreeing that Holodomor was an intentional genocide against the Ukrainian people, a person
> > becomes an “anti-Ukrainian” villain?
>
> So what would you say about someone who claimed that the Holocaust was
> not an intentional genocide against the Jewish people? How would Jews
> react if a Palestinian representing the Jewish state (such as an
> Arabic member of the Knesset) said something like that at the UN?
> Don't you think they would be legitimately outraged?
Don't you think that the prominent Ukrainian-Canadian historian John
Himka, whom you respect so much, is not a big fan of treating
Holodomor (or, as he refers to it, “the famine of 1932-33”) as a
genocide and of inflating the number of victims? If he can have his
doubts, why can't others?
The Black Monk
> On Jul 8, 7:20 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Let me see... The arguments here are about the WWII genocide against
> > > innocent Polish civilians and the Holocaust. And "the same people"
> > > whose arguments I am presenting, are myself, Holocaust historians,
> > > Polish WWII historians,
>
> > Could you list which ones - I hope they aren't simply right-wing
> > nationalist "historians" such as Edward Prus with their fairy tales.
>
> You are asking me to repeat here the names of historians who have
> contributed to the results that I have quoted? What for? To further
> burden me and to make me spend more than 35 hours per day on
> addressing all your points?
If you recall, I stated that UPA killed approximately 80,000-100,000
Polish civilians. I also stated that Jews were not a principal target
of UPA and, if I didn't say if before, I'l give an estimate now that
they killed perhaps 5,000 of them. This makes UPA horrible, of course,
in a roughly similar category of horrible as other ruthless national
liberation figures such as Ho Chi Minh (several 100,000 "class
enemies" liquidated). Yes, I know for you it makes a difference
whether someone was killed because of ethnicity vs. class, for me
murder is murder.
You on the other hand, compare UPA to the Nazis, or to the Ustashe,
exaggerating UPA's crimes to an exponential degree, I suspect because
UPA are Ukrainian.
So - my claim, UPA were bad like Ho Chi Minh, your claim, they were
bad like Hitler/Ustashe. Who is correct?
So, please tell me - which historians support your thesis that UPA are
not on the level of Ho Chi Minh but on the level of Hitler or the
Ustashe, as you repeatedly imply in your comments.
>
> Will the names of Himka. Rudling and other U of Alberta professors,
> Patrylyak and Berkhoff suffice? Or should I also add other scholars
> like Franziska Bruder, Jeffrey Burds, Aleksandr Dyukov, Gabriel
> Finder, Frank Golczewski, Ihor Iliushyn, Dieter Pohl, Alexander
> Prusin, Ewa Siemaszko and Władysław Siemaszko?
Really, all of these people claim that UPA killed more than about
105,000 innocent people - fewer than the Americans killed in one
bombing raid over Hiroshima - in their years-long battles?
Please, which ones?
Correction: we do not have Polish academics from, say, the Institute
of National Remembrence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_National_Remembrance
But instead right-wing Polish extremists putting up an exhibit.
> If a Polish group organized a Katyn exhibit in Moscow in 1944,
> I would have no complaint.
>
> >I oppse anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists
> > and anti-Ukrainian (and anti-Jewish also, btw) Polish nationalists to
> > use the Volyn massacres (which really happened) to push their anti-
> > Ukrainian agenda. Given the people who put up this exhibit it is
> > reasonable to suspect it of including falsification, though I will go
> > no further as I don't have the ability to research the history of
> > every (or any) photograph.
>
> In other words, you don't deny that there was such thing as the Volyn
> Massacres, and that OUN/UPA was instrumental in them,
Of course not. Why are you dishonestly implying that I did?
> and that there is no evidence that the exhibits and/or documents at this 'Volyn
> Massacre' exhibition are falsified? Right?
I provided the evidence later. And you commented on it.
> > Here is an article from the Russophone Ukraine website written by a
> > represent of the "Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the
> > Victims of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists.," Szepan Sekierka.
>
> Where is it? And what part of his article do you find as bad as neo-
> Nazi?
Sorry, here is the link:
http://www.r-u.org.ua/history/1444-news.html
>
> > He condemns the mainstream Polosh press for their light treatment of
> > Ukrainians and Balts.
>
> Please give the exact quote as to what he says about "the mainstream
> Polish press for their light treatment of Ukrainians and Balts."
Этим исключением являются преступления геноцида, совершённые
украинскими националистами из Организации Украинских Националистов
(ОУН) и так называемой Украинской Повстанческой Армии (УПА). Следует
отметить, что по оценкам Общества, в 1939-1947 годах украинские
националисты по собственной инициативе уничтожили около 200 тысяч
поляков, а также принимали активное участие в Холокосте, который на
Волыни и в Восточной Малой Польше поглотил несколько сотен тысяч
евреев. Эти преступления часть средств массовой информации
замалчивают, умаляют и открыто отрицают, в связи с неверно понятой
идеей „польско-украинского примирения". Ведущую роль среди таких СМИ
играет крупнейшая польская газета - "Газета Выборча".
See how the "scholar" who organizes this exhibit doubles the number of
Polish victims and attacks the largest Polish newspaper for not
publishing the fringe right-wing's fantasies. He criticizes when the
newspaper reports scholars conclusions of 60,000-100,000 innocent
Polish victims and 20,000 innocent Ukrainian victims during the
massacres in Poland.
And this liar puts up a "historical" exhibition in Kievan government
buildings!
> Does he REALLY refer to "ALL Ukrainians and Balts" or is he talking
> about a bunch of what he considers to be war criminals from 70 years
> ago who happen to be Ukrainians and Balts?
He attacks "Ukrainian nationalists" - i.e., 90% of the western
Ukrainian population. Here you go:
С момента возникновения Общества мы всегда подчёркиваем, что не имеем
никаких претензий к украинскому народу, считаем, что защита ОУН-УПА
вредит этому народу, требуем лишь осуждения позорных действий
украинских националистов, преступления которых нельзя сравнить ни с
какими другими, совершенными в ХХ веке.
So Ukrainians who are not "nationalists" (i.e., those who love Russia
or Poland) are okay but otherwise - they commit the worst crimes in
the 20th century! Worse even then Hitler and Stalin.
And a "scholar" making such claims is the one creating the exhibit in
Kiev.
Here is what one of the scholars you mentioned, Siemaszko, claimed:
"almost every Ukrainian family in Volhynia was involved in the murder
of Poles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Massacre_of_Poles_in_Volhynia#cite_ref-45
> Your convictions that "Ukrainian war criminals = all Ukrainians"
Now you lie about my convictions.
> is as mistaken as OUN's and Nazis' conviction that "Bolsheviks = Jews". Let me remind you of what
> Himka's words:
>
> -------------------------------
> July and August 1943 were the months of UPA’s most intense murder of
> Poles in Volhynia, and in the following winter UPA and OUN security
> units systematically murdered Jewish survivors.... For Jewish
> survivors ... their attackers were “the Ukrainians.” I happen to now
> that these actions were put in motion by a certain group of
> Ukrainians, OUN.
You imply that I deny those facts when I do not. Are you so wrong
that you have to reduce yourself to dishonesty?
> Why not make that differentiation? Why let the blame fall on the
> nation as a whole? Why would anyone want to embrace the heritage of
> that group? Why would I, a person of Ukrainian ancestry and someone
> devoted to Ukrainian studies for 40 years, not want to distance myself
> and my vision of Ukraine and Ukrainians from that of OUN? ….Ukrainians
> need not adopt the heritage of OUN as the basis of their identity.
> There are other strands also in the legacy that our ancestors
> bequeathed to us.
> -------------------------------
>
> > Guess who publishes Siekierka's work?
>
> Why would I care? I don't play this guilt by association game. If I
> wrote a book and the only publishing house that agreed to publish it
> were part of the abominable BP, I would still agree to publish it
> there.
How about if you wrote a book making fantastic claims focussed on oil,
and about how BP wasn't so bad, that was published by BP? Would it
not be reasonable to conclude that your book about BP and oil, that no
one other than BP itself published, was wortheless?
Because you see, the director of organization that put up the exhibit
in Kiev did not write just any book. He wrote books about Ukrainian
and Polish history which just happened to be published by a notorious
Polish publishing house that serves as a home for the worst Polish
nationalists and chauvinists.
Or are you once again conveniently dismissing evidence that shows your
source is tainted. If someone wrote an article about Jews that was
only carried on a white supremacist website wouldn't it be reasonable
to dismiss that article due to "guilt buy
association?"
> You forgot to quote a single word from Siekierka's work but you waste
> so much of space and my time on articles about the company that
> printed this work.
I've printed it above.
> What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
> always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
> unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
> of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
> have won the argument. :-)
>
> > Now, in case you are not aware, right-wing anti-Ukrainian and anti-
> > semitic Polish nationalism has a long history of cooperation with
> > right-wing Russian nationalism. Roman Dmowski was a Russophile, or
> > course. Look up, on googlebooks, Ethnic nationalism and the fall of
> > empires: central Europe, Russia, and the ... By Aviel Roshwald. On
> > page 139 "Dmowski was not as readily accepted by the Western
> > establishment as were Masaryk and the Yugoslavists. His Russophile
> > orientation and flagrantly ethnocentric conception of nationalism
> > raised eyebrows in Britain; although he tried to tone down and
> > rationalize his antisemitism, his open hostility towards Polish Jews
> > and unwilligness to embrace the concept of tolerance towards
> > ethnocultural minorities in an indepeendent Poland rubbed many of its
> > audiences the wrong way."
>
> What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
> always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
> unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
> of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
> have won the argument. :-)
The above is the context of Siekerka's work. Naturally you, whose
arguments depend on taking information out of context to paint a false
picture, will dismiss such facts.
> But let me digress from your exciting new topic on Roman Dmowski who
> was a Russophile, and Aviel Roshwald and the Western establishment and
> Masaryk and the Yugoslavists, and return to our discussion and repeat
> my question: Is the "Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the
> Victims of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists" anti-semitic? Is it
> "neo-Nazi" too?
It's Polish fringe-nationalist, which therefore includes antisemtism.
Polish antisemite nationalists are of course not "neo-Nazis."
> > So, what Yanukovich has done is to allow right-wing Polish chauvinists
> > together with anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists to stage an exhibit
> > right in the center of Kiev. I somehow doubt that the Lithuanian,
> > Latvian or Estonian governments would ever allow Polish right-wing
> > chauvinists together with local Russian nationalist organizations to
> > use government buildings in which to stage their created exhibits
> > about crimes committing by Balts during World War II.
>
> Let's ask the Baltic readers here: are Baltic states democratic? Would
> the Latvian government allow, say, an exhibit of the role of Latvian
> polizei in the Holocaust or would they ban it in order to prevent the
> Latvians from learning about this role?
Let's not dishonestly change the situation here. The exhibit in Kiev
is put up in a government building not just anywehre and it is
organized by an anti-Ukrainian fringe group.
So - would the Latvian government allow, say, Zhirnovsky's party to
stage an exhibit about it's version of Latvian crimes against Russians
and Jews in a Latvian government building? I somehow doubt it.
>
> And, since you have taken a new angle of trying to win our discussion by appealing to the “patriotism” of the Baltic readers here, let > me also ask the Baltic readers this:
Well, in some cases the Ukrainians and Balts were mentioned negatively
in the same sentence by your Siekierka.
> Would you like to see an exhibit in Moscow of Stalin's crimes in the
> Baltic states, or do you think that such an exhibit should be banned?
Please stop shifting this onto just any exhibit. It is not an exhibit
by scholars but by fringe theorists.
> > > Or are you complaining that everything at this exhibition is authentic?
>
> > Read the commentary at the bottom of this article purporting to expose
> > the exhibit's lack of facts:
>
> >http://www.r-u.org.ua/history/506-ypa.html
>
> And you point being what? That this is a weak exhibit, and the
> visitors will come away unconvinced?
That's it's full of innacuracies, and organized by proven liars (see
above) who double the number of Polish victims, claim those events
were literally the worst in the 20th century, etc.
> Maybe historians like Himka and Berkhoff could have provided better evidence for them to work with?
Sure.
> And if this exhibit is not as strong of an evidence of OUN/UPA's
> crimes in Volyn as it could be, why are you complaining? Do you want
> to see even more damning evidence introduced?
I want real evidence produced, not b.s. by anti-Ukrainian chauvinists.
> > (notice the pro-Russian comments slip into anti-Balticism)
>
> Still using cheap demagoguery to get the SCB readers to sympathize with your argument? And blaming the authors for comments
> posted by readers, eh?
I am tying Baltics in whenever possible, as one of our hosts
complained about irrelevence for the Baltics.
> Tell me, BM, why are you treating me like a total moron? Why have do
> you writ eat such childish level? Do you think I am incapable of
> understanding intelligent arguments?
You can answer this one yourself. It is evident at the end of this
post.
> > > > I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone let German
> > > > neo-Nazis set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
>
> > > Who are the "neo-Nazis" there? The 'Russophone Ukraine' society? The
> > > Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the Crimes
> > > of Ukrainian Nationalists.'?
>
> > The latter are Polish versions of Neo-nazis. It's a Polish fringe
> > rightwing organization. They are not technically neo-Nazis because
> > according to traditional Polish nationalism Nazism is a form of
> > Judaism.
>
> I don't understand your bringing up Judaism here. Let's cut to the
> chase? Is the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims
> of the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists” a neo-nazi-like organization?
Those are your repeated claims. As I've stated several times, they
are a right-wing fringe organization.
> Do they advocate hatred for civilians of other elasticities?
They publish stuff by authors who lie that every Ukrainian family in
volhynia killed Poles. Does that constitute hatred for you?
> Do they
> advocate extermination or expulsion of civilian populations of other
> ethnicties? Please give me exact proof. No demagogy this time,
> please.
They do not, as there are no longer any compact Ukrainian settlements
to exterminate or expell. Nor did the OUN once the Poles were gone.
However the Polish 'Society for Honouring the Memory of the Victims of
the Crimes of Ukrainian Nationalists do justify the ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians from what is now southeastern Poland by publishing
articles in their journal Na Rubiezy by the likes of E. Prus that
justify or deny the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians.
> And speaking of the REAL neo-Nazis. The original article that you have
> given me on this issue has a somewhat disturbing video about the
> protest demarche by the opponents of this exhibit:
>
> http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-ove...
>
> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMmKzo90gtM
>
> Who are this big crowd that occupied the exhibit site and disrupted
> it? who Why are most of them dressed in black and why are there many
> young body-builder-looking hoodlums with cleanly shaved heads and
> thick necks in black jackets? And they are chanting hundreds of times
> over: “The Polish army – occupier of Ukraine!” and “Occupiers – out!”
> and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!”
> and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!” and “Occupiers – out!”
> again and again. Who are these “occupiers” of modern Ukraine whom they
> want to expel out of Ukraine? Poles? Russians? Jews?
The Polish right-wing extremists and their friends who are occupying
UKrainian government buildings?
> Isn't it the case that it is not the organizers of the exhibit that
> are neo-Nazis, but the organizers of the protest who are the REAL-
> LIFE NEO-NAZIS?
Specify who organized the protest and then dscribe whom they want to
kill or expel, pleaase. Exact quotes please, no demogoguery.
> > But my comment was an anlogy. Just as it would be ridiculous for the
> > Ukrainian government to sponsor Polish right-wing nationalist exhibits
> > in UKrainian government buildings, so it would be ridiculous for a
> > Polish goverrnment to sponsor German neo-Nazi exhibit in arsaw about
> > the evils of German suffering in Danzig or for the Russian government
> > to sponsor Basayev's group to place exhibits about Rusian evils in
> > Chechnya, etc.
>
> An analogy. Fine. Let's go with one. Imagine a Latvian 'Society for
> Honouring the Memory of the Victims of the Crimes of Stalin”
> organized an exhibit of Stalin's crimes against Lithuanians,
> Latvians, Estonians and Jews. Should this exhibit be allowed?
Not if it were a fringe right-wing organization with a benign-sounding
name that published stuff by people who double the number of Latvian
victims, glorifying past expulsion of Russians, claiming that every
Russian family was involved in murdring civilians, etc.
> I am asking you and, since you appeal so much to the SCB readers, I am
> asking the Baltic readers here: is it REALLY a crime (or
> inappropriate) for Latvian patriots to organize an exhibit of
> Stalin's crimes against Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians in
> Moscow?
Once again you implictly acknowledge you are wrong when you
dishonestly ignore the nature of the organization putting up the
exhibit in Kiev.
> > The staging of this exhibit is further proof that Ukraine is under an
> > anti-Ukrainian government.
>
> Wouldn't the staging of the neo-Nazi "Festival of German-Slavic
> Brotherhood" in February 2010 be “further proof that Ukraine and Kiev
> were under anti-Semitic governments”?
Was this concert staged in a government facility and sponsored by
figures from the government (as the exhibit was)? If not, you are
just demogoguing to mask your being wrong as usual.
> If Medvedev allowed an exhibit of Stalin's crimes against
> Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians in Moscow, would that be “further
> proof that Russia is under an anti-Russian government”?
See above about the nature of the exhibitor.
> > Tadas Blinda somewhere mentioned being grateful what Kaliningrad was
> > not annexed to Lithuania. And he should be. If it were there would
> > be the chance of, in case of voter apathy among Lithuanians and a
> > bitter split among Lithuanian politicians, the chance for a fluke
> > election in which Kaliningrad elects a Russian president of Lithuania
> > who would then among other things stage exhibits such as the one in
> > Kiev, put of by anti-Lithuanian Polish nationalists with their Russian
> > friends documenting the crimes of Lithuanian nationalists.
>
> What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
> always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
> unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
> of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
> have won the argument. :-)
>
> > > Or the prominent Ukrainian-American professor of Holocaust history John Himka and his colleagues at the
> > > University of Alberta?
>
> > Why are you bringing him into this exhibit? He wasn't involved in it.
>
> That came from the link that you told me to read:
>
> > > >http://cambridgeculturalmemory.blogspot.com/2010/04/clash-in-kyiv-ove...
But not from the exhibit.
I don't disagree with that and it doesn't contradict what I say. So
what does the post mean for you?
> > > Or all three? Please provide documents proving their neo-nazi status.
>
> > First, my comment was an analogy, second - see above about fringe
> > Polish rightwing extremists.
>
> > > And if the 'Russophone Ukraine' society is "neo-nazi", why would the
> > > REAL neo-nazis plan a cyber attack on it and call its leader
> > > Kolesnichenko "a dirty Jew"?
>
> > Polish right-wing extremists collaborating with Russian nationalists.
> > Nothing new, it was Dmowski's strategy.
>
> What? The neo-Nazis, who organized the "Festival of German-Slavic
> Brotherhood" were “Polish right-wing extremists collaborating with
> Russian nationalists”? Please provide references.
Retreating into your fantasies?
>
> > > Is he really a "degenerate" Jew, as they claim? (see below) How degenerate of a Jew is he, in your opinion?
>
> > Don't know anything about him, including whether or not he is Jewish.
>
> I suspect he isn't. He doesn't look Jewish. Neo-Nazis always view all
> their opponents as “Jews”.
>
> > I have no connection to nao-nazis but thanks for linking them to me.
>
> You have no connection to neo-nazis that YOU KNOW OF. But judging
> from the esoteric events and issues that you raise, I bet you
> subscribe to some Galician nationalist list which (unbeknown to you)
> is run by people of neo-Nazi views.
The Kyiv Post? Really?
> Can you tell me, for example, from which Uke list you got this complaint about the Volyn exhibit?
I read the Kyiv Post, Zerkalo Nedeli, UP from time to time. Are you
suggesting that neo-Nazis run them? Which ones? Proof please.
> > However, if I were Jewish I would be outraged that one of my people
> > would present himself as such an anti-Ukrainian bigot, seeking to
> > provoke anti-semitism.
>
> Please give me evidence that Kolesnichenko is an anti-Ukrainian bigot,
> seeking to provoke anti-semitism.
If he is a Jew and he releases anti-Ukrainian bigotry he is provoking
a backlash.
> And why would a Volyn exhibit “provoke anti-semitism”.
Haven't you been paying attention about the nature of the people
putting up the exhibit?
> Are you saying that the showing of the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust “ provoke
> anti-semitism”? Should the discussion of the Holocaust be banned not
> only in Ukraine but in Germany too in order to not to “ provoke anti-
> semitism”?
Interesting. A Jewish man (assuming he is, who knows, probably he is
not) smears Ukrainians as antisemites and invites proven anti-
Ukrainian liars to promote their version of history in Ukraine. Some
primitive jerks generalize his disgusting actions onto other Jews.
Shouldn't Jews be outraged by the predictable backlash his actions
would bring on their own community? As a Ukrainian I would certainly
be angry at a Ukrainian insulting Russians or Jews or whomever,
bringing a backlash against other Ukrainians.
> Wow. What a logic. If a victim is complaining about a crime that was
> perpetrated against him – he is provoking a new crime? It's like
> saying: “Woman, stop complaining that I raped you, or else I will rape
> you again!”
Funny how you assume the complaints are even close to being valid in
terms of that exhibit.
> Are Balts, who keep on complaining about Stalin's occupation of Baltics, “provoking” a new Russian invasion and occupation?
Unlike those of you and the exhibors, Baltic compliants seem to be
mostly true.
You still don't get it, or pretend to be stupid. I am specific in my
accusation of those who criticize UPA/OUN. when did I accuse Himka or
being an enemy of Ukraine as a whole? You stated "Don't you yourself
accuse all people who criticize OUN/UPA of being enemies of Ukrainians
as a whole." Quote please, where I accused Himka of this. Or have you
been caught being dishonest yet again.
> > Tymoshenko also
> > condemned this exhibit. Is she, according to you, a neo-Nazi.
>
> What exactly did she say? That this exhibit should be shut down?
http://www.tymoshenko.ua/en/article/2nv67223
Yulia Tymoshenko is demanding that the ruling government respond to
the actions of their ‘colleagues’ who organized a provocative
exhibition in the Ukrainian House in Kyiv.
"I want to hear a response from the Party of Regions regarding their
‘colleague’ who dared organize an anti-Ukrainian provocation in the
Ukrainian House. Although I understand that my demand makes no sense.
Unfortunately, the new government’s strategy is anti-Ukrainian," Yulia
Tymoshenko said regarding the exhibit
"Volyn Massacre – Polish and Jewish victims of OUN-UPA" in the
Ukrainian House.
Yulia Tymoshenko once against stressed that from its first days in
power, the new government team is demonstrating that it despises
everything Ukrainian.
"They’ll take any steps and resort to any provocation in order to
distort our history, to get people to argue and divide society into
friend and foe. They still can’t accept the existence of an
independent Ukrainian state. It’s alien to them," said the leader of
the opposition.
----------------------
>
> > BTW your attempt to use the "Jwish card" against Ukrainians is old and
> > well-known. Remember the article I posted before:
>
> >http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm
>
> > The twentieth anniversary of the founding congress of the People's
> > Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine will be marked soon. Does anyone remember
> > how, twenty years ago, the official Soviet press frightened readers
> > with statements, like "The members of Rukh are anti-Semites"? I
> > remember because my congratulatory telegram was read out at Rukh's
> > founding congress, and it ended with the Hebrew word, "Shalom!"
>
> > In early 1990 the government launched a scare campaign targeting the
> > Jews of Kyiv. Female caretakers went around warning them: "Rukh
> > members armed with machine guns are coming from Lviv. Don't leave your
> > houses. There will be pogroms." The Ukrainian philosopher Myroslav
> > Popovych and I made it onto TV, and the provocateurs were silenced.
>
> What I like most about your posts is that you are always concise,
> always stay on the point, and never turn short discussions into a an
> unwieldy mess, later complaining that by failing to address every one
> of the hundreds of new issues that you had raised, I prove that you
> have won the argument. :-)
Yes, ignore the truth as usual. That's all you have left.
Um...you frogt that you were the one that mentioned a skinhead concert
in Kiev? You brought up skinheads, I showed you that in Ukraine they
are a minor problem compared to in Russia.
> >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/russi...
>
> > Russian judge who cracked down on skinheads and corruption is gunned
> > down
>
> > ---------------
>
> Oh, there's more of turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into
> the discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians?
You brought up the skinhead concert.
> > This nonscientific comment seems to capture it:
>
> >http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100611092016AA2oNC3
>
> > Q:How bad is the Skinhead problem in the Ukraine in 2010?
>
> > I am Australian but my ethnic decent is Asian. What are my chances of
> > getting bashed to death if I visit the Ukraine in 2010
>
> > A: Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> > It is impossible. I knew ppl from India they feel safe in Ukraine but
> > not in Moscow(they was students, medical)
>
> And even more of turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into
> the discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians?
>
> > So Ostap, could you please list me some example of people being killed
> > by skinheads in Ukraine, as they regularly are in Russia? In 2009,
> > neo-Nazis killed 70 people in Russia. Did neo-Nazis in Ukraine kill
> > even one person that year?
>
> And even more of turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into
> the discussion of Russian neo-Nazi crimes against Asians?
>
> Could we please for the time being stay on Poles, Ukrainians and Jews
> please?
Says the guy who brought skinheads into the converation, after having
been shown that Russia is worse with respect to that problem.
The relevence here, of course, is that this in the background of this
conversation is the traditional Russian smear of Ukrainians as neo-
Nazis or antisemties. So therefore, Bandera = neo-Nazi, etc. The
skinhead problem shows that Russia is far far worse. Indeed, as a Jew
you are much physically safer in Lviv than in Moscow.
> > Here is something I found:
>
> >http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/702/2/lang,ua/
>
> > Larysa Loyko, director of the International Center of Tolerance,
> > revealed the grim statistics on racial violence: "In 2006, 14 people
> > were assaulted, two perished. In 2007, nearly 70 were attacked and six
> > perished, and since January this year, there have been at least 10
> > attacks on minorities."
>
> > Most of the incidents occur in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Simferopol and Odesa.
> > The majority of victims were from African, Middle Eastern, Asian
> > countries, the Caucausus and noticeable minorities from Western
> > countries. This year alone seven persons in the capital became victims
> > due to the color of their skin, and two died. Even a professional
> > American basketball player, Marcus Feyson, playing for the Kyiv team
> > was attacked.
>
> > Assuming comparable rates for 2009, it looks like in Ukraine skinheads
> > are about 1/10 as bad as in Russia (70 were murdered that year).
>
> > Moreover, other than Kiev,
>
> Kiev? Isn't that your favourite place? You constantly use Kiev's
> accomplishments as an example of how all pro-Orange cities are great
> and all Blue cities are bad.
It's the capital.
> > all the Ukrainian skinhead attacks occured
> > in Yanukovich-country. Lviv, smeared by you and other anti-Ukrainian
> > bigots as "Nazi", did not have a single skinhead attack. I haven't
> > researched this and may be wrong, but I suspect that so-called Nazi
> > Baltic republics also have far fewer murders by skinhead than does
> > Russia, the skinhead capital of the world.
>
> So now you are turning the discussion of the Volyn massacres into the
> discussion of how Kiev and Yanukovych country are criminals and
> Galicians are saints?
We can do that later if you'd like.
> > > What is especially telling in this story is that you are mad and angry
> > > at the authorities for allowing an exhibit about the Holocaust in
> > > Kiev, while you have no complaints about the authorities allowing neo-
> > > nazi ""Festival of German-Slavic Brotherhood" in the same Kiev.
>
> > I never knew about this festival. Are there other events I never knew
> > about that you can use to accuse me of hypocrisy with?
> > Is that the best argument you can come up with - desribe a festival I
> > neer heard of and then complain that I never complaiend about it?
>
> That's EXACTLY my point: how come you hear about things like Holocaust
> exhibits and hear that they are “criminal” but don't hear about such
> outrages as neo-Nazi festivals?
I don't follow skinhead news. Do you?
> If you aren't even even hear about such outrages as neo-Nazi Aryan Brotherhood festivals, how can you
> claim to be an expert on the treatment of Jews in modern Ukraine?
So one needs to knwo where skinheads party to be an expert on Jewish
treatment in Ukraine?
> And why do you compare human rights organizations of Russian-speakers
> and Poles to neo-Nazis?
How can you compare fringe Polish chauvinist organizations to "human
rights organizations"?
>
> > > > I wonder if you would consider it "anti-Russian" if someone [....]
> > > > ..set up an exhibit of crimes against Germans in East Prussia
> > > > on Tverskaya,...
>
> > > Well, since we are talking about UPA crimes against Poles in WWII,
> > > then a better analogy would be an exhibit on Tverskaya in Moscow of
> > > Stalin's crimes against Poles in Katyn.
>
> > Staged not be nuetral scholars but by anti-Russian fringe
> > organizations - to make the analogy truly comparable to what happened
> > in Kiev.
>
> You still haven't proved to me that the Volyn exhibit was staged by “
> fringe organizations”. Please do so.
See above. Here's excerpts from an article published by your Polish
"human rights organization"
http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ukrainian_insurgent_atrocities/uia_ukrainian_genocide.html
Let us add that on a European scale, as far as dreadful tortures go,
the genocide committed by the Ukrainians on the Poles is only
comparable, to a certain extent, to the Croatian genocide (by the
Ustashi of Ante Pavelic) against the Serbs during World War II from
the spring of 1941...
It is for this reason that I would qualify the genocide in Volhynia
during World War II as being clearly Ukrainian genocide, and not, for
example, genocide committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the
Bandera bands, Ukrainian nationalists and so forth. Contrary to what
is often claimed by Wiktor Poliszczuk in his publications (he is later
quoted highly favourably in this Article), the genocide in Volhynia -
as is documented by the Siemaszkos' work – was carried out by a broad
spectrum of Ukrainians from that area and not only by the "fighters"
of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. As was already mentioned, there took
part in it thousands and thousands of ordinary peasants (often forced
into it by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army), including unfortunately,
hordes of greedy women, adolescents and even children at times.
Ukrainian genocide was characterized as a rule by tortures of the
utmost barbarity. These reached back to the Cossack traditions of the
XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries (the Khmelnitsky Uprising, and the
uprising of 1768 called "kolistchyzna"), with the methods in use at
that time - hacking Poles and Jews with axes, throwing wounded victims
into wells, sawing people alive, horse-dragging, eye-gouging, pulling
out of tongues, and other atrocities. Such acts of barbarity were not
as a rule employed by the Germans or even the Soviets
(so let's see- Ukrainians were the worst of all, but the Germans were
better then the Soviets. Right.)
> Moreover, what matters is whether the exhibited items are authentic, not the personality of organizers.
>
> For example, if some Baltic patriots, who passionately and non-
> neutrally hate Stalin's Russia, organized an authentic exhibit in
> Moscow of Stalin's crimes, should it be banned?
Are chauvinists with a track record of lies capable of putting on a
truthful exhibit abouthe very topic theu lied about??
>
> > > And I think that it is absolutely necessary to organize such an exhibition. And an exhibit
> > > about East Prussia would be OK too.
>
> > And, once again, to make the analogy comparable to what happened in
> > Kiev, have German neo-Nazi or revisionsit organization create the East
> > Prussia exhibit in Moscow.
>
> You have already asked this false analogy, and I have already given my
> answer.
>
> But if you insist on it again, please tell me (with proof) which of
> the organizing parties of the Volyn exhibit are a “ neo-Nazi or
> revisionist organization”.
Read above.
They are as objective as them. And that is the main point of the
analogy, which you failed (or pretended to fail) to grasp.
>
> > An
> > objective analysis of UPA by respected scholars such as Himka, and
> > others would be awesome. The UPA story as told by Polish nationalists
> > and their Russian nationalist allies in the krainian government
> > building is disgusting. Got it now?
>
> Got what? That you think that the average Ukrainian people should not
> be allowed to see evidence against OUN/UPA, even if it's truthful, and
> make their own conclusions? Yes, I got it long time ago.
>
> And what kind of a condescending language is this: “Got it now?”? I am
> not a child and you are not my teacher. I assure you that I am not as
> dumb and slow as you think. If you dropped your condescending view of
> me and stopped treating me as either a child or a retard or both, we
> would be able to address 10 times more different issues that you want
> me to address.- Hide quoted text -
You still didn't get it : (
Let me try to explain it again: I do not oppose exhibits about these
historical events organized by objective scholars. I welcome them. I
do object to exhibits about these historical events put up by biased,
anti-Ukrainian liars. An organization that publishes works by an
author who claims that every Ukrainian family in Volhynia murdered
Jews, and who doubles the number of victims, should not be exhibiting
on that topic in Kiev. Do you understand now?
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
> On Jul 1, 7:40 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:26 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet the
> > > > facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved with the
> > > > OUN at the highest levels.
>
> > > > > > Rather strange to describe an
> > > > > > organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> > > > > > Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> > > > > > two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> > > > > > organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> > > > > > risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
>
> > > So, you insist that a group whose prominent members included an ethnic
> > > Jew, cannot be anti-semitic and cannot even contemplate of committing
> > > genocide against Jews?
>
> > I insist that in such an organization antisemtism could not have been
> > a core value.
>
> The number one value was Ukrainian independence. Antisemitism and hate
> for Poles, Moskals and other non-ethnic Ukrainians came after that.
Nope. You enjoy quoting Himka out of context but pretend not to
undertand his conclusion:
Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian
nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that
existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33)
Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they
did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they
demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the
less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread
in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently
exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own
nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major
component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the
Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as
Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and
the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine.
Repeat to yourself:
Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct.
and
Ukrainian nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-
Semitism that existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian
nationalisms. (33)
> To Nazis too, hate for Gypsies and even for Jews were of secondary
> importance to their desire for the independence of Sudetenland;
> Dantzig, Memel and East Prussia; Alsace and Lorraine; and their
> incorporation, along with Austria, into a united and independent
> Germany. So what?
Actually as we see now from the OUN perspective Jews were seen as of,
at most, tertiary importance. OUN wanted independence at any price.
The main enemies in this regard were Poles and Russians. Jews were
largely ignored, except when killing them would please their
prospective German allies or in particular cases where specific Jews
were seen as helping the main enemies, Jews and Russians.
Since once again you compare OUN to Nazis, tell me please, once again,
how many tope Nazi party officials were married to Jewish women? How
many top Nazi party officials were partially Jewish themselves? How
many members of the Nazi party (not the German military, but the Nazi
Party itself) were Jews?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUN#OUN_and_Antisemitism
"Jews belonged to the OUN's underground movement"
taken from:
Philip Friedman. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi
Occupation. In Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust. (1980)
New York: Conference of Jewish Social Studies. pg. 204
Since you have in several posts and after hours of exhaustive research
failed to prove that any high Nazi Party official had a Jewish wife we
already see a fundamental difference between the two organizations.
Indeed, in terms of their relations to Jews the OUN was closer to
Mussolini's fascists than to Hitler's Nazis. Both the OUN and
fascists had Jewish members, yet both went after Jews when it became
politically expedient to do so (OUN was doing this at the beginning of
the war when it was trying to get Germany's support, Mussolini at the
end).
While in Ukraine Chubar spent his life in factory towns that were, by
my estimate, about 70% Russian (Russian settlers and their kids) then
moved to Russia itelf where he began his political career.
> > and spent most of his formative years
> > in Russia
>
> Where in Russia? And how old was he when he moved form Ukraine to
> Russia and how long did he spend in Russia before returning back to
> Ukraine?
He moved from Russian colonies within Ukraine (such as in Donetsk
oblast) to Russia itself in sometime between 1911 and 1917.
> > and Russian environments,
>
> Really? What's your reference?
>
> And even if so - does that make his parents “non-Ukrainians”? Isn't he
> as more of “Ukrainian descent” than Yary is of “Jewish descent”? And
> isn't the certainty of his Ukrainian ethnic roots higher than that of
> Yary's alleged Jewish ethnic roots?
Chubar was an assimilated Russian.
> > participating in the revolutions in St. Petersburg etc.
>
> Aha, revolutions! So, that's what's important here: the perpetrators
> of the Holodomor were revolutionaries/Bolsheviks of all ethnicities,
> including Ukrainian.
Well, let's break this down. In 1936, 60 of 90 ranking NKVD members
in Ukraine (Captain or above) who declared their nationality declared
themselves to be Jews. In the 1920's over 50% of the Communist party
members as a whole were Rusians, and over 13% Jews. So the party that
killed millions of Ukrainians was not Ukrainian.
Source for the above:
The Shoah in Ukraine: history, testimony, memorialization By Ray
Brandon, Wendy Lower - Pg. 88.
(feel free to confirm with googlebooks)
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/C/O/Communism.htm
"A spontaneous, Ukrainian-organized communist movement hardly ever
existed. The Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) originated as a Russian
organization, and it remained anti-Ukrainian in tendency."
So while there were a small number of Ukrinians the majority were non-
Ukrainians. Within Ukraine, the Communist regime which murderd
milions of Ukraine people was the regime of places such as Donetsk.
> > He returned to Ukraine with the Soviet military
> > during their invasion from Russia. If this is the most "Ukrainian"
> > figure you can come up with in the implementation of the Holodomor,
> > this is further good evidence of its anti-Ukrainian character.
>
> If Yary – btw, a Catholic – is the most "Jewish" figure you can come
> up with in the OUN(B) leadership, this is further good evidence of its
> anti- Jewish character.
So now you have advanced from comparing OUN to Nazis to comparing them
to Communists. Well, that's a little more realistic. Good. However,
while the Communists targetted and killed millions of Ukrainians the
OUN targetted and killed, perhaps, 5,000 Jews. Maybe even 10,000. So
when it comes to the numbers of vitims, your analogy falls apart
completely.
However, it would be fair to compare OUN:Poles and
Communists:Ukrainians.
> Chubar was named by the Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn
> Nalyvaychenko as one of THE TOP THREE organizers of the Holodomor
> (after Stalin himself)!!! Was Yary one of top three organizers of
> OUN(B) militias and of UPA, the two entities that are directly guilty
> of ethnic cleansing against Polish and Jewish civilians? No, he
> wasn't. In fact, I doubt if he were one of the top 1000 organizers of
> the militias or one of the top 10 000 organizers of UPA. Or was he?
Yary was a member of the Provid (kind of like the Central Committeee)
of the OUN (B) and probably among the top 5 most powerful members
within that organization. Neither he nor Bandera probably personally
organized the militias.
So, which of the top 5 most important Nazis had a Jewish wife?
Can we therefore move on and conclude from your point of view that the
OUN were not Nazi-like with respect to the Jews? Have we moved on to
seeing the OUN: Jews as Communists:Ukrainians?
> Moreover, if you further read my post instead of attacking the very
> first name I gave with a rather unintelligent exclamation “If this is
> the most "Ukrainian" figure you can come up with...”, you would be
> able to discover that he was not the only indicted Holodomor criminal
> of apparent Ukrainian descend that I named. I also named Khoma
> Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> Khomych Kryvets'.
Sure. But as you once pointed out, it is about statistics not
individuals.
> That's four for Holodomor and only one for OUN(B), even if we were to
> assume that Yary's mother is certain to be of (distant?) Jewish
> ancestry.
>
> > Moreover, the Holodomor was obviously both a national and class-based
> > genocide, directed at peasants in Ukraine who were overwhelmingly
> > Ukrainian.
>
> Was it directed in any way against proletariat of Ukrainian ethnicity?
No - and neither were OUN actions directed against Jews of patriotic
Ukrainian national orientation. Or Poles who didn't live in Ukraine.
> And why only Ukraine? Wasn't it also directed at peasants in Russian
> Socialist Republic (Kuban, Crimea and Kazakhstan), who weren't
> overwhelmingly Ukrainian?
Kuban was 50% Ukrainian according to Soviet censuses in the 1920's.
So starvation in Kuban was part of the anti-Ukrainian genocide.
Here are the areas hit by the Holodomor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg
Here is the ethnographic map of the Slavs from the early 20th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnographic_map_of_Slavs,_Lubor_Niederle.JPG
Hmm...see the correlation?
> And wasn't it the case that the reason why
> Stalin chose to leave less food with Kazak (aka Kuban and Ukraine
> Cossacks) and Kazakh peasants was not because Stalin was born as a
> Kazak- and Kazakh- hater but because he saw them as populations most
> opposed to Stalinism,
Does this make it less of a genocide?
> just as OUN(B) saw Jew and Poles as populations most opposed to Ukrainian independence and most in favour of
> Bolshevism?
So how many Jewish deaths were orchestrated by the OUN? Himka claims
several thousand, perhaps more. You're going to compare that to 3
million or so Ukrainians killed by Stalin?
Even the Polish deaths - 60,000-100,000 - does not compare to Stalin.
>Remember their “Jews = Bolsheviks” thingy?
Which was adopted to please the Germans and dropped in 1943.
> Tell me, why do you think Stalin chose Kazakhs and Cossacks/Ukrainians
> as his biggest victims? What was his motivation in choosing them
> over, say, Belorussians, Karelo-Finnsmurts, Chukchas, Tadjiks, Azeris
> or Bashkirs?
Don't know enough about Kazakhs to comment. With respect o Ukrainians/
Cossacks, it was the twin and inseparable reasons of national and
class incompatibility to the centralizing Communism he was building
after coming to power.
> > It broke down the peasants both nationally and as a
> > class.
>
> Finally we agree on something.
>
> > Thus an ethnic UKrainian supporter of the dominance of
> > factory workers could participate in the Holodomor for class
> > reasons.
>
> Well, then couldn't an ethnic Jew participate in the OUN for political
> reasons like anti-Bolshevism and fight against Poland's oppression?
Absolutely. Actually, not only for purpose of anti-Bolshevism but for
an independent Ukraine.
> > > Among the other 19 top men accused of being in charge of Holodomor crimes, you will also find:
>
> > >http://www.zlev.ru/117/117_22.htm
>
> > > Khoma Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> > > Khomych Kryvets'.
>
> > > I wish I knew the ethnicities (or even names) of Holodomor villains'
> > > wives, but I strongly suspect that if we knew them, we would find
> > > Ukrainian ethnicity among them too.
>
> > > Chubar', Balytskyj, Leonyuk, Krivets' … So, using your own logic, how
> > > could Holodomor be a genocide against the Ukrainian people?
>
> > It was both a genocide of the Ukrainian people and a crushing of a
> > counterrevolutionary social element - peasants who refused to hand
> > their land over to the kolkhosp (who, coincidentally, were the main
> > support base for Ukrainian nationalism).
>
> Exactly right. Just as OUN's main goal was that of Ukrainian
> independence. And Hitler's original goal was that of unifying German
> people and getting rid of the oppression of Germans caused by the
> Versailles Treaty.
Antisemtism was a central feature of Nazism. This centrality
differentiated Nazism from Mussolini's fascism and from the OUN's
ideology.
> So, if Holodomor could be both a class warfare AND an ethnic genocide,
> why couldn't OUN(B)'s actions be both a struggle for independence AND
> a struggle to cleanse Ukraine of non-Ukrainians ( Jews AND Poles AND
> most Moskals AND most Hungarians AND most Gypsies) just because one of
> OUN(B) member's mother and wife were of Jewish origin?
Your argument would be more compelling if you wouldn't find the need
to twist it, suggesting your own insecurity about what yo have to say.
Rico Yary was no mere member but one of the top leaders of the OUN.
The other false aspect of your statement is that as Himka noted the
enemies were Poles and Russians. I would, indeed, compare OUN with
respect to Poles, to Communists with respect to Ukrainians. The OUN
was still less deadly (OUN preferred expulsion of Poles to murder, but
murdered 60,000-100,000 when expelling was unfeasible - Communists
just starved the around 3 million Ukrainians to death).
> > The two are not mutually exclusive phenomena.
>
> Exactly my whole point. Finally you got it. Why did it take you 3
> weeks and hundreds of hours of my time to explain this obvious fact to
> you?
Why did it take you 3 weeks and hundreds of hours of time to
understand what I've been saying? That OUN was about independence by
any means necessary but that extermination wasn't a goal in itself
(unlike Nazis with respect to Jews).
> And why do I suspect that this is not going to be the end of this
> issue, and that you will post thousands of more lines of tangential
> stuff and induce me into hundreds of hours more of research and
> writing to debate this obvious fact?
??
>
> > > Doesn't this show the utter hypocrisy of your arguments about Jews and
> > > OUN?
>
> > It rather shows your convenient omission of facts and context in order
> > to present your own twisted views. This is a well-established pattern
> > of yours, as we see on this thread.
>
> How's that?
This conclusion you always somehow forget when posted other stuff by
Himka:
Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian
nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that
existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33)
Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they
did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they
demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the
less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread
in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently
exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own
nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major
component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the
Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as
Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and
the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine.
> > > More importantly,why is it that by merely disagreeing that Holodomor was an intentional genocide against the Ukrainian people, > > > a person becomes an “anti-Ukrainian” villain?
>
> > So what would you say about someone who claimed that the Holocaust was
> > not an intentional genocide against the Jewish people? How would Jews
> > react if a Palestinian representing the Jewish state (such as an
> > Arabic member of the Knesset) said something like that at the UN?
> > Don't you think they would be legitimately outraged?
>
> Don't you think that the prominent Ukrainian-Canadian historian John
> Himka, whom you respect so much, is not a big fan of treating
> Holodomor (or, as he refers to it, “the famine of 1932-33”) as a
> genocide and of inflating the number of victims? If he can have his
> doubts, why can't others?
Quote him on it, please. I suspect his attitude towards the Holodomor
does not differ from my own. (but I may be wrong - prove it please).
Do you mean this essay?
http://www.brama.com/news/press/2008/02/080202himka_famine.html
Excerpts:
Dr. Kulchytsky was one of the ideological architects of Yushchenko's
campaign to have the Ukrainian famine recognized internationally as a
genocide. He devoted a number of publications in 2005 precisely to
explaining why the famine fit the definition. These publications
appeared in Ukrainian, Russian, and English. The latter were
circulated electronically by The Day in Kyiv as well as by E. Morgan
Williams' Action Ukraine Report and Dominque Arel's Ukraine List. (I
have reviewed the key text in the Summer 2007 issue of Kritika:
Explorations of Russian and Eurasian History.) In the texts of 2005,
Kulchytsky stuck to the results of his earlier research on the
demographic effects of the famine in Ukraine: that there were
3,238,000 deaths directly attributable to the Holodomor.
Kulchytsky had conducted careful research on the subject and published
several works devoted to the demography of the famine, notably
Demohrafichni naslidky holodmoru 1933 r. v Ukraini, which came out in
2003. What distinguishes Kulchytsky's research from that of the
earlier researchers who gave me my first lessons in famine
demographics is that it draws on statistical information that was not
available before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of
the archives.
Kulchytsky also drew heavily on recent studies by the Australian
historian and demographer Stephen Wheatcroft. Wheatcroft had once
produced estimates that were much too low for the losses connected
with famine and collectivization, but in the past several years he has
corrected his methodological errors and supplemented his sources with
formerly inaccessible Soviet documentation. Wheatcroft now estimates
that there were 3-3.5 million excess deaths in Ukraine (and about 6-7
million in the USSR as a whole).
Another serious attempt to estimate the losses in Ukraine was
conducted by a team of French and Ukrainian demographers (Jacques
Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, and Serhii Pirozhkov). The
results of their research were published in Population Studies, which
is a top journal in the field of demography (November 2002). Here is
their conclusion: "The disasters of the decade culminated in the
horrific famine of 1933. These events resulted in a dramatic fall in
fertility and a rise in mortality. Our estimates suggest that total
losses can be put at 4.6 million, 0.9 million of which was due to
forced migration, 1 million to a deficit in births, and 2.6 million to
exceptional mortality."
So how many people were actually killed by the famine? From 2.5 to 3.5
million. Those who died disproportionately were the rural population
(predominantly Ukrainians) and little children. May their memory be
eternal.
I particularly like when he wrote "I find it disrespectful to the dead
that people use their deaths in a ploy to gain the moral capital of
victimhood."
Because the same can and should be said for the Polish deaths in
Volhynia, tastelessly peddled by you, Polish and Russian nationalists
in order to attack Ukrainians as was done in Kiev.
Note that Himka did use the word Holodomor in his essay. And the
figures he gives are the ones I give.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Jul 9, 1:17 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 7:40 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 12:26 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > > The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You are claiming that the OUN was an antisemitic organization yet the
> > > > > facts show that Jews and Jew-friendly people were involved with the
> > > > > OUN at the highest levels.
>
> > > > > > > Rather strange to describe an
> > > > > > > organization as "antisemitic" when its Central Committee (called
> > > > > > > Provid) consisted of one guy of Jewish descent, married to a Jew, and
> > > > > > > two other people married to Jews. Rather strange to describe an
> > > > > > > organization as antisemitic when it's main military leader's wife
> > > > > > > risked her life hiding a Jewish neighbor from the Nazis.
>
> > > > So, you insist that a group whose prominent members included an ethnic
> > > > Jew, cannot be anti-semitic and cannot even contemplate of committing
> > > > genocide against Jews?
>
> > > I insist that in such an organization antisemtism could not have been
> > > a core value.
>
> > The number one value was Ukrainian independence. Antisemitism and hate
> > for Poles, Moskals and other non-ethnic Ukrainians came after that.
>
> Nope. You enjoy quoting Himka out of context
No. Not out of contest. If Himka were to put his signature to anything
that I quoted from Himka, he would. Throughput this thread, I never
attributed or misrepresented thoughts or conclusions or evidence or
feelings that Himka didn't have.
When he was talking about “nationalism”, was Himka talking about
OUN(B) specifically? How come there is no mention of OUN in the entire
main text of Himka's article?
http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Brody/ukrainian_collaboration.htm
UKRAINIAN COLLABORATION IN THE EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS DURING WORLD
WAR II
JOHN-PAUL HIMKA
Copyright ©John-Paul Himka 1997
How recent is this article/book? Isn't this article, published back in
1997, more than 13 years ago, outdated? This article was written
before Himka and his colleagues went through the nightmare of reading
the archives which were finally opened to the public over the last 10
years or so. Here is a brief collage of the horrors that Himka
discovered in recent years, as expressed by him in his articles and
letters, most written this year, 2010:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an undeniable fact that OUN organized pogroms and mass violence
against Jews and others throughout Western Ukraine in July 1941. The
pattern of the violence exhibits many features of coordination over
the whole territory.
In late June and July 1941 OUN militias and “Sich” organizations went
on a rampage
in Galicia, Northern Bukovina, and Volhynia, killing Jews primarily,
but also some
Poles and communists.
Many of the German documents and Jewish testimonies indicate that OUN
militias were behind the violence. OUN leaders in July communicated
among themselves and to the Ukrainian public about the need to
exterminate the Jews.
July and August 1943 were the months of UPA’s most intense murder of
Poles in Volhynia, and in the following winter UPA and OUN security
units systematically murdered Jewish survivors.
The archives are not completely open, but many, many new documents are
now available to researchers. In them you can find UPA internal
reports on its murders of Poles and Jews, OUN leaflets from 1941
calling upon the population to murder Jews and other non-Ukrainians,
films of boievyky (militants) beating Jews on the streets of Lviv at
the end of June 1941, and much more.
Many other scholars have pointed out the role of OUN-UPA in atrocities
against Poles and Jews, including Karel C. Berkhoff, Franziska Bruder,
Jeffrey Burds, ALEKANDR DIUKOV, Gabriel Finder, Frank Golczewski, Ihor
Iliushyn, Dieter Pohl, Alexander Prusin, Ewa Siemaszko and Władysław
Siemaszko.
For Jewish survivors ... their attackers were “the Ukrainians.” I
happen to know that these actions were put in motion by a certain
group of Ukrainians, OUN. Why not make that differentiation? Why let
the blame fall on the nation as a whole? Why would anyone want to
embrace the heritage of that group?
It is wrong to take part in the cover up or minimization of crimes of
this nature. The murders themselves were horrible. I have nightmares
from my research. These crimes can never be undone. The most that can
be offered in compensation is to recognize them and regret them.
-----------------------------------
Can you offer anything nice that Himka said about OUN(B) in the last 2
years, or was the last “good” thing that Hinka said about OUN 13 years
ago? Or has he grown totally disgusted with OUN(B) in recent years?
Please do quote the best pro-OUN(B) arguments that Himka wrote in the
last couple of years!
I spent a total of 2 minutes on this topic. I just pulled out a copy
of “Hitler's Soldiers” and pasted dozens of names of highly-decorated
top Nazi German field marshals and generals of Jewish descent, one of
who was even sentenced to life in prison by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
> Indeed, in terms of their relations to Jews the OUN was closer to
> Mussolini's fascists than to Hitler's Nazis. Both the OUN and
> fascists had Jewish members, yet both went after Jews when it became
> politically expedient to do so (OUN was doing this at the beginning of
> the war when it was trying to get Germany's support, Mussolini at the
> end).
Is this what Karel Cornelis Berkhoff meant when he wrote:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves... they wanted the
Jews, or at the very least Jewish
males, killed, and they were willing to participate in the process.
------------------------------------
Didn't he grow up in a purely Ukrainian village and a purely Ukrainian
household?
> > > and spent most of his formative years
> > > in Russia
>
> > Where in Russia? And how old was he when he moved form Ukraine to
> > Russia and how long did he spend in Russia before returning back to
> > Ukraine?
>
> He moved from Russian colonies within Ukraine (such as in Donetsk
> oblast)
What do you mean by “Russian colonies”? Don't you consider all of
Ukraine (except for the Austrian part) a Russian colony?
For the future reference, which oblasts in the Russian Empire/early
USSR do you consider “Russian colonies”? Please name them.
> to Russia itself in sometime between 1911 and 1917.
Why didn't you answer my question: HOW OLD was he when he moved form
Ukraine to Russia and how long did he spend in Russia before
returning back to Ukraine? Give me the lower and the upper bounds on
both numbers.
And since I am not a native English speaker, tell me what is the exact
age range for formative years? From what age to what age exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formative_years
Adolescence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Formative years)
Adolescence (from Latin: adolescere meaning "to grow up") is a
transitional stage of physical and mental human development that
occurs between childhood and adulthood. This transition involves
biological (i.e. pubertal), social, and psychological changes, though
the biological or physiological ones are the easiest to measure
objectively. Historically, puberty has been heavily associated with
teenagers and the onset of adolescent development.
> > > and spent most of his formative years in Russia
What is the the lower and the upper bounds on the fraction of his
formative years that he spent in Russia?
> > > and Russian environments,
>
> > Really? What's your reference?
>
> > And even if so - does that make his parents “non-Ukrainians”? Isn't he
> > as more of “Ukrainian descent” than Yary is of “Jewish descent”? And
> > isn't the certainty of his Ukrainian ethnic roots higher than that of
> > Yary's alleged Jewish ethnic roots?
>
> Chubar was an assimilated Russian.
Was Yary was an un-assimilated Jew?
Does your brain REALLY fail to understand this simple analogy from the
case of Yary to the case of Chubar? Why do I have to waste s many
hours explaining it to you? I didn't mind having to explain the most
trivial logical points in excruciating detail to my daughters when
they were little and illogical, but by now they are almost 10 and I
can go at a faster pace with them, and now I am much less patient with
having to explain mathematical/logical trivialities. If IO didn't have
to do this with oyu, our discussion would go 10 times faster.
> > > participating in the revolutions in St. Petersburg etc.
>
> > Aha, revolutions! So, that's what's important here: the perpetrators
> > of the Holodomor were revolutionaries/Bolsheviks of all ethnicities,
> > including Ukrainian.
>
> Well, let's break this down. In 1936, 60 of 90 ranking NKVD members
> in Ukraine (Captain or above) who declared their nationality declared
> themselves to be Jews. In the 1920's over 50% of the Communist party
> members as a whole were Rusians, and over 13% Jews. So the party that
> killed millions of Ukrainians was not Ukrainian.
But it had many people of known Ukrainian descent, right?
> Source for the above:
>
> The Shoah in Ukraine: history, testimony, memorialization By Ray
> Brandon, Wendy Lower - Pg. 88.
>
> (feel free to confirm with googlebooks)
>
> http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/C/O/Communism.htm
>
> "A spontaneous, Ukrainian-organized communist movement hardly ever
> existed. The Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) originated as a Russian
> organization, and it remained anti-Ukrainian in tendency."
>
> So while there were a small number of Ukrainians the majority were non-
> Ukrainians. Within Ukraine, the Communist regime which murders
> milions of Ukraine people was the regime of places such as Donetsk.
So, even though there were several people of Ukrainian descent among
the indicted Holodomor leaders, Holodomor can still be viewed as a
genocide against Ukrainians, right?
> > > He returned to Ukraine with the Soviet military
> > > during their invasion from Russia. If this is the most "Ukrainian"
> > > figure you can come up with in the implementation of the Holodomor,
> > > this is further good evidence of its anti-Ukrainian character.
>
> > If Yary – btw, a Catholic – is the most "Jewish" figure you can come
> > up with in the OUN(B) leadership, this is further good evidence of its
> > anti- Jewish character.
>
> So now you have advanced from comparing OUN to Nazis to comparing them
> to Communists. Well, that's a little more realistic. Good.
Not really. I am drawing an analogy showing the fallacy of your logic
“Since Yary's mother may have been of Jewish origin, OUN(B) could not
be anti-semitic” by applying the exactly same logic to Holodomor.
Do you begin to see the analogy between your Yary and my Chubar
arguments? Or do I need to explain this trivial logical analogy to you
in an even more excruciating detail?
What's the relationship with math?
Have you been severely mathematical challenged in your life, and thus
really need many hours to understand the most trivial logic and
analogies?
Or do you think that **I** have been severely mathematical challenged
in my life, and thus you can pull the wool over my eyes or exhaust me
by your repetitive refusals to use trivial logic, thus making me drop
this subject out of pure exhaustion?
The latter possibility seems much more likely to me than the former.
> However,
> while the Communists targetted and killed millions of Ukrainians the
> OUN targetted and killed, perhaps, 5,000 Jews. Maybe even 10,000.
The number of Jews who died at the hands of OUN-organized militias and
UPA is higher than that. But were Jews OUN's only victims? How many
Poles were targeted and killed by OUN/UPA?
> So
> when it comes to the numbers of victims, your analogy falls apart
> completely.
That's true. Bandera definitely loses the numbers contest to Hitler
and Stalin.
> However, it would be fair to compare OUN:Poles and
> Communists:Ukrainians.
>
> > Chubar was named by the Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn
> > Nalyvaychenko as one of THE TOP THREE organizers of the Holodomor
> > (after Stalin himself)!!! Was Yary one of top three organizers of
> > OUN(B) militias and of UPA, the two entities that are directly guilty
> > of ethnic cleansing against Polish and Jewish civilians? No, he
> > wasn't. In fact, I doubt if he were one of the top 1000 organizers of
> > the militias or one of the top 10 000 organizers of UPA. Or was he?
>
> Yary was a member of the Provid (kind of like the Central Committeee)
> of the OUN (B) and probably among the top 5 most powerful members
> within that organization. Neither he nor Bandera probably personally
> organized the militias.
Right. Yary was instrumental in organizing Nachtigall and Rolland,
together with his German employers. So, he didn't participate in
organizing the worst offenders: OUN militias and UPA. That was my
point.
BTW, how big of a role did Yary have in OUN(B) in 1942? In 1943? In
1944? In 1945?
> So, which of the top 5 most important Nazis had a Jewish wife?
We''ll get to the wives in the other thread: on Yary.
> Can we therefore move on and conclude from your point of view that the
> OUN were not Nazi-like with respect to the Jews? Have we moved on to
> seeing the OUN: Jews as Communists:Ukrainians?
You can (and always do) conclude whatever your heart desires. But the
analogy above is totally wrong.
> > Moreover, if you further read my post instead of attacking the very
> > first name I gave with a rather unintelligent exclamation “If this is
> > the most "Ukrainian" figure you can come up with...”, you would be
> > able to discover that he was not the only indicted Holodomor criminal
> > of apparent Ukrainian descend that I named. I also named Khoma
> > Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> > Khomych Kryvets'.
>
> Sure. But as you once pointed out, it is about statistics not
> individuals.
What do you mean: the OUN membership is about statistics and not
individuals like Yary? Then why do you bring him up?
> > That's four for Holodomor and only one for OUN(B), even if we were to
> > assume that Yary's mother is certain to be of (distant?) Jewish
> > ancestry.
>
> > > Moreover, the Holodomor was obviously both a national and class-based
> > > genocide, directed at peasants in Ukraine who were overwhelmingly
> > > Ukrainian.
>
> > Was it directed in any way against proletariat of Ukrainian ethnicity?
>
> No - and neither were OUN actions directed against Jews of patriotic
> Ukrainian national orientation. Or Poles who didn't live in Ukraine.
>
> > And why only Ukraine? Wasn't it also directed at peasants in Russian
> > Socialist Republic (Kuban, Crimea and Kazakhstan), who weren't
> > overwhelmingly Ukrainian?
>
> Kuban was 50% Ukrainian according to Soviet censuses in the 1920's.
Is 50% “overwhelming”?
> So starvation in Kuban was part of the anti-Ukrainian genocide.
So, the other 50% of Kuban – ethnic Russians – didn't suffer this
starvation?
> Here are the areas hit by the Holodomor:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg
>
> Here is the ethnographic map of the Slavs from the early 20th century:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnographic_map_of_Slavs,_Lubor_Ni...
>
> Hmm...see the correlation?
> > And wasn't it the case that the reason why
> > Stalin chose to leave less food with Kazak (aka Kuban and Ukraine
> > Cossacks) and Kazakh peasants was not because Stalin was born as a
> > Kazak- and Kazakh- hater but because he saw them as populations most
> > opposed to Stalinism,
>
> Does this make it less of a genocide?
I want to know your answer to this question.
> > just as OUN(B) saw Jew and Poles as populations most opposed to Ukrainian independence and most in favour of
> > Bolshevism?
>
> So how many Jewish deaths were orchestrated by the OUN? Himka claims
> several thousand, perhaps more. You're going to compare that to 3
> million or so Ukrainians killed by Stalin?
Let's talk about Jewish deaths in the numerous threads of ours devoted
to Jewish deaths.
> Even the Polish deaths - 60,000-100,000 - does not compare to Stalin.
Didn't you write “ 80,000-100,000” earlier?
And yes, of course the 10 to 20 million that Bolsheviks/Stalin killed,
far surpass OUN's abilities.
> >Remember their “Jews = Bolsheviks” thingy?
>
> Which was adopted to please the Germans and dropped in 1943.
To please the Allies. And at the time when almost all Jews had
already been either killed or sent to German concentration camps.
> > Tell me, why do you think Stalin chose Kazakhs and Cossacks/Ukrainians
> > as his biggest victims? What was his motivation in choosing them
> > over, say, Belorussians, Karelo-Finns, Udmurts, Chukchas, Tadjiks, Azeris
> > or Bashkirs?
>
> Don't know enough about Kazakhs to comment.
Why would a man of your encyclopedic memory, devoted to studying
Holodomor, not spend a couple of hours reading about other major
1932-33 Holodomor victims: Kazakhs?
But let me rephrase then: why do you think Stalin chose Cossacks/
Ukrainians among his biggest victims? What was his motivation in
choosing them over, say, Belorussians, Karelo-Finns, Udmurts,
Chukchas, Tadjiks, Azeris or Bashkirs?
> With respect o Ukrainians/
> Cossacks, it was the twin and inseparable reasons of national and
> class incompatibility to the centralizing Communism he was building
> after coming to power.
So, didn't Stalin target them because he saw them as anti-Stalin
elements?
> > > It broke down the peasants both nationally and as a class.
>
> > Finally we agree on something.
>
> > > Thus an ethnic UKrainian supporter of the dominance of
> > > factory workers could participate in the Holodomor for class
> > > reasons.
>
> > Well, then couldn't an ethnic Jew participate in the OUN for political
> > reasons like anti-Bolshevism and fight against Poland's oppression?
>
> Absolutely. Actually, not only for purpose of anti-Bolshevism but for
> an independent Ukraine.
Thus, if a Jew didn't know that OUN(B) was going to act on in its anti-
semitic rhetoric, a Jew, who loves Ukrainian independence, may join
OUN and disregard its anti-semitic rhetoric as “hot air propaganda for
the masses”? Most people believed in early 1930s that the Nazi threats
against Jews were also “hot air propaganda for the masses”
> > > > Among the other 19 top men accused of being in charge of Holodomor crimes,
>>>> you will also find:
>
> > > >http://www.zlev.ru/117/117_22.htm
>
> > > > Khoma Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> > > > Khomych Kryvets'.
>
> > > > I wish I knew the ethnicities (or even names) of Holodomor villains'
> > > > wives, but I strongly suspect that if we knew them, we would find
> > > > Ukrainian ethnicity among them too.
>
> > > > Chubar', Balytskyj, Leonyuk, Krivets' … So, using your own logic, how
> > > > could Holodomor be a genocide against the Ukrainian people?
>
> > > It was both a genocide of the Ukrainian people and a crushing of a
> > > counterrevolutionary social element - peasants who refused to hand
> > > their land over to the kolkhosp (who, coincidentally, were the main
> > > support base for Ukrainian nationalism).
>
> > Exactly right. Just as OUN's main goal was that of Ukrainian
> > independence. And Hitler's original goal was that of unifying German
> > people and getting rid of the oppression of Germans caused by the
> > Versailles Treaty.
>
> Antisemtism was a central feature of Nazism. This centrality
> differentiated Nazism from Mussolini's fascism and from the OUN's
> ideology.
Well, the German Nazis have done orders of magnitude more evil to Jews
than OUN(B) did. No argument there.
> > So, if Holodomor could be both a class warfare AND an ethnic genocide,
> > why couldn't OUN(B)'s actions be both a struggle for independence AND
> > a struggle to cleanse Ukraine of non-Ukrainians ( Jews AND Poles AND
> > most Moskals AND most Hungarians AND most Gypsies) just because one of
> > OUN(B) member's mother and wife were of Jewish origin?
>
> Your argument would be more compelling if you wouldn't find the need
> to twist it, suggesting your own insecurity about what yo have to say.
> Rico Yary was no mere member but one of the top leaders of the OUN.
>
> The other false aspect of your statement is that as Himka noted the
> enemies were Poles and Russians.
Not just Himka. Every single other scholar – from Patrylyak to Dyukov
– says this. Dyukov even titled his research book along the lines
“Jews, a Secondary Enemy of OUN”. If that's what happened to the
secondary enemy, I would sure hate to be the PRIMARY enemy!
> I would, indeed, compare OUN with
> respect to Poles, to Communists with respect to Ukrainians. The OUN
> was still less deadly (OUN preferred expulsion of Poles to murder, but
> murdered 60,000-100,000 when expelling was unfeasible - Communists
> just starved the around 3 million Ukrainians to death).
Why do you need to non-stop compare OUN to something? Why can't you
analyze an entity's actions on its own, before trying to find
equivalents?
> > > The two are not mutually exclusive phenomena.
>
> > Exactly my whole point. Finally you got it. Why did it take you 3
> > weeks and hundreds of hours of my time to explain this obvious fact to
> > you?
>
> Why did it take you 3 weeks and hundreds of hours of time to
> understand what I've been saying? That OUN was about independence by
> any means necessary but that extermination wasn't a goal in itself
> (unlike Nazis with respect to Jews).
No, extermination of Jews was not a goal in itself neither for OUN nor
for Nazis. For example, ridding their country of Jews was a bigger
goal, and that can be accomplished with little blood through mass
expulsion from the country (aka “ethnic cleansing”).
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Yushchenko+erred+honouring
+Bander....
David R. Marples, Professor, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
February 10, 2010
Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in L’viv in the summer of
1941 when about 4,000 Jews were killed.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
process. [105]
------------------------------------
OUN wanted all the Jews, or at the very least all Jewish males,
killed!
John Himka writes:
“ OUN leaders in July communicated among themselves and to the
Ukrainian public about the need to exterminate the Jews”
==============================
> > > > Doesn't this show the utter hypocrisy of your arguments about Jews and
> > > > OUN?
>
> > > It rather shows your convenient omission of facts and context in order
> > > to present your own twisted views. This is a well-established pattern
> > > of yours, as we see on this thread.
>
> > How's that?
>
> This conclusion you always somehow forget when posted other stuff by
> Himka:
>
> Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
> ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
> against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian
> nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that
> existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33)
> Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they
> did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they
> demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the
> less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread
> in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently
> exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own
> nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major
> component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the
> Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as
> Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and
> the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine.
Isn't this article more than 13 years old and outdated? Himka wrote
in the last year or two:
===================================
“ OUN leaders in July communicated among themselves and to the
Ukrainian public about the need to exterminate the Jews”
It is wrong to take part in the cover up or minimization of crimes of
this nature. The murders themselves were horrible. I have nightmares
from my research.
==============================
Can you offer anything nice that Himka said about OUN(B) in the last 2
years, or was the last “good” thing that Himka said about OUN 13 years
ago? Please do quote the best pro-OUN(B) arguments that Himka wrote in
the last couple of years!
> > > > More importantly,why is it that by merely disagreeing that Holodomor was an intentional genocide against the Ukrainian people,
> > > a person becomes an “anti-Ukrainian” villain?
>
> > > So what would you say about someone who claimed that the Holocaust was
> > > not an intentional genocide against the Jewish people? How would Jews
> > > react if a Palestinian representing the Jewish state (such as an
> > > Arabic member of the Knesset) said something like that at the UN?
> > > Don't you think they would be legitimately outraged?
>
> > Don't you think that the prominent Ukrainian-Canadian historian John
> > Himka, whom you respect so much, is not a big fan of treating
> > Holodomor (or, as he refers to it, “the famine of 1932-33”) as a
> > genocide and of inflating the number of victims? If he can have his
> > doubts, why can't others?
>
> Quote him on it, please. I suspect his attitude towards the Holodomor
> does not differ from my own. (but I may be wrong - prove it please).
Sure. But let us get to it after we finish some earlier topics.
This is indeed one article by Himka about Holodomor. I have his other
works that talk about Holodomor, but I don't have time to search for
them right now. As I recall, he wrote a letter in the Ukrainian
history list about it earlier this year. I'll need to find the link.
> So how many people were actually killed by the famine? From 2.5 to 3.5
> million. Those who died disproportionately were the rural population
> (predominantly Ukrainians) and little children. May their memory be
> eternal.
Yes, he wrote:
“So how many people were actually killed by the famine? From 2.5 to
3.5 million. Those who died disproportionately were the rural
population (predominantly Ukrainians) and little children. May their
memory be eternal. And let me add: may it be unsullied by falsehood. “
> I particularly like when he wrote "I find it disrespectful to the dead
> that people use their deaths in a ploy to gain the moral capital of
> victimhood."
Yes, he wrote:
“I find it disrespectful to the dead that people use their deaths in a
ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood. To this end, they
inflate the numbers. “
So, you agree that it's wrong to inflate the numbers and then to use
the deaths in a “ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood" by
exaggerating the number of victims? And isn't it what Himka is
accusing Yuschenko of doing?
> Because the same can and should be said for the Polish deaths in
> Volhynia, tastelessly peddled by you, Polish and Russian nationalists
> in order to attack Ukrainians as was done in Kiev.
I don't think the purpose of the Volynya Massacre historians like Burd
or Himka is to “gain the moral capital”. Their purpose id to get the
facts and the correct numbers. If somebody tried to inflate the number
of victims of the Volynya Massacre and/or blame the wrong perpetrators
for them and/or attributed the wrong motivation to them, then they
would indeed be guilty of “using their deaths in a ploy to gain the
moral capital of victimhood.". But as long as you tell the full truth
“ unsullied by falsehood” – it's legitimate history.
Himka is not against studying and publicizing history. He is against “
unsullied by falsehoods”.
Let's look at Yuschenko's “Presidential opus” on Holodomor.
http://www.president.gov.ua/docs/Holodomor_English_version.pdf
The very first page (page 1) consists of only one short paragraph:
“I address you on behalf of a nation that lost about ten million
people as a result of the Holodomor genocide...We insist that the
world learn the truth about all crimes against humanity.
Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine
----------------------------------
“The truth”? Ten million? Is it really the TRUTH?
John Himka says:
“I find it disrespectful to the dead that people use their deaths in a
ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood. To this end, they
inflate the numbers. “
By a factor of three! And look at the HUGE QUOTE on top of page 3:
“The Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), which took from
7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy
for the Ukrainian people”.
/Joint statement by 65 UN member states, adopted by the 58th UN
General Assembly on 7 November 2003/
See? They even made the UN officially sign up for this gross
inflation of the numbers. By the factor of 3 (three)!
> Note that Himka did use the word Holodomor in his essay.
Yes, a few, especially when he talks about the use of Holodomor as a
publicity ploy. But not nearly as many as the number of times I myself
use “Holodomor” in my posts. What does that prove about my views on
its size and causes?
> And the figures he gives are the ones I give.
Well, almost. Still, your 4 million is not exactly the same as Himka's
2.5 to 3.5 million.
The Black Monk
You quote bits of what he writes and ignore his general conclusion.
This means you quote him out of context.
So, according to you, when Himka wrote about "nationalism" he
specifically excluded the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the
largest wartime nationalist organization?
How convenient for you.
Yes, and which of the above contradicts what Himka concluded in 1997?
So because Jews weren't OUN's principle enemy, you believe that the
OUN couldn't have coordinated the deaths of a few thousand of them?
> Can you offer anything nice that Himka said about OUN(B) in the last 2
> years, or was the last “good” thing that Hinka said about OUN 13 years
> ago?
How is what he said "good"?
> Or has he grown totally disgusted with OUN(B) in recent years?
Can you find any quote of his that repudiates his conclusions from
1997? Obviously what you pasted above does not.
> Please do quote the best pro-OUN(B) arguments that Himka wrote in the
> last couple of years!
I didn't claimed he made pro-OUN arguments. Why should I prove your
fantasies?
Thank you for proving that you cannot find a single high ranking Nazi
official or Nazi party member of partial Jewish descent or married to
a Jewish woman.
I have several times asked you, specifically, to name not German army
members (there were UPA soldiers who were not just of partial Jewish
desent but 100% Jewish) but NAZI party leaders who were Jewish.
You divert this onto soldiers, which I didn't ask for, yet again.
The reality is that, given the centrality of antisemitism to Nazi
ideology, no Jew or husband of a Jew was in Hitler's inner circle of
top Nazi party leaders. But because for the OUN Jews were not a
primary "problem" is was no big deal for a man of partial Jewish
descent, married to a girl from an Orthodox Jewish family, to be one
of Bandera's top assistants.
> > Indeed, in terms of their relations to Jews the OUN was closer to
> > Mussolini's fascists than to Hitler's Nazis. Both the OUN and
> > fascists had Jewish members, yet both went after Jews when it became
> > politically expedient to do so (OUN was doing this at the beginning of
> > the war when it was trying to get Germany's support, Mussolini at the
> > end).
>
> Is this what Karel Cornelis Berkhoff meant when he wrote:
>
> http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
> Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves... they wanted the
> Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> males, killed, and they were willing to participate in the process.
> ------------------------------------
Did you think I couldn't look up this quote. What is contained in the
"....."? Why, the context you left out. The full quote is this "Both
factions of the OUN were antisemitic themselves, and wartime documents
with regards to leading Banderites show that during the German
invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish males,
killed, and they were willing to participate in the process."
So, with your lying ommision of data, you made it look like during the
German invasion the Melnyk faction also wanted Jews or Jewish males
dead by removing that section from the source that clearly blamed only
the Bandera faction for this. More importantly for the purposes of our
disucssion, you removed the phrase "during the German invasion."
The whole time I have been saying that in order to please the German
would-be allies Bandera was willing to kill Jews. As Himka noted,
"The impression created by the German documentation is that the
extreme Ukrainian nationalists were so indifferent to the fate of the
Jews (44) that they would either kill them or help them, whichever was
more appropriate to their political goals. "
So clearly killing Jews was not seen by the OUN as a goal in itself.
They were willing to do it, as I have already told you multiple times,
but it wasn't one of their goals. Which makes sense, given that, as
Himka concluded:
Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic
ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed
against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian
nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that
existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33)
As I said, if the price for an alliance with powerful Germany would
have been to kill Irish, I'm sure that the immoral Bandera would have
done so. But this would not have made anti-Irish sentiments a core
OUN principle.
He moved to an industrial town in the Donetsk region at age 15:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/C/H/ChubarVlas.htm
Do you know the ethnic makeup of his village in what is now Zaporizhia
oblast?
> > > > and spent most of his formative years
> > > > in Russia
>
> > > Where in Russia? And how old was he when he moved form Ukraine to
> > > Russia and how long did he spend in Russia before returning back to
> > > Ukraine?
>
> > He moved from Russian colonies within Ukraine (such as in Donetsk
> > oblast)
>
> What do you mean by “Russian colonies”? Don't you consider all of
> Ukraine (except for the Austrian part) a Russian colony?
I mean, towns settled by mostly Russians where the small Ukrainian
element asimilated with the local Russian majority, just as they would
if they had moved to Russia itself. Such towns built on Ukrainian
lands were about as Ukrainian as white settlements outside Durban are
Zulu.
> For the future reference, which oblasts in the Russian Empire/early
> USSR do you consider “Russian colonies”? Please name them.
Do you undertand the word "in". Let me repeat: "He moved from Russian
colonies within Ukraine (such as in Donetsk oblast)"
> > to Russia itself in sometime between 1911 and 1917.
>
> Why didn't you answer my question: HOW OLD was he when he moved form
> Ukraine to Russia and how long did he spend in Russia before
> returning back to Ukraine? Give me the lower and the upper bounds on
> both numbers.
He moved to a Russian colony within Ukraine at age 15. I do not know
the exact dates when he moved from a Rusian industrial town on
Ukrainian territory (although at the time it was all the Russian
Empire) to the territory of what is now Russia. He moved into Ukraine
alongside the Bolshevik forces in 1919, when he was 28 where he
settled in Donetsk, the place where Russian workers would later be
living off food taken out of the hands of starving Ukrainian peasants.
> And since I am not a native English speaker, tell me what is the exact
> age range for formative years? From what age to what age exactly?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formative_years
>
> Adolescence
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> (Redirected from Formative years)
>
> Adolescence (from Latin: adolescere meaning "to grow up") is a
> transitional stage of physical and mental human development that
> occurs between childhood and adulthood. This transition involves
> biological (i.e. pubertal), social, and psychological changes, though
> the biological or physiological ones are the easiest to measure
> objectively. Historically, puberty has been heavily associated with
> teenagers and the onset of adolescent development.
In the early 20th century when puberty came later, the formative years
would be from 14-18 or so? So yes, most of his formative years were
spent in the Russian world.
> > > > and spent most of his formative years in Russia
>
> What is the the lower and the upper bounds on the fraction of his
> formative years that he spent in Russia?
See above.
>
> > > > and Russian environments,
>
> > > Really? What's your reference?
>
> > > And even if so - does that make his parents “non-Ukrainians”? Isn't he
> > > as more of “Ukrainian descent” than Yary is of “Jewish descent”? And
> > > isn't the certainty of his Ukrainian ethnic roots higher than that of
> > > Yary's alleged Jewish ethnic roots?
>
> > Chubar was an assimilated Russian.
>
> Was Yary was an un-assimilated Jew?
I stated that he was of Jewish descent, not that he was an
unassimilated Jew. You didn't undertasnd when I stated this? However
his wife, having grown up in an Orthodox Jewish household, was
certainly an unassimilated Jew.
> Does your brain REALLY fail to understand this simple analogy from the
> case of Yary to the case of Chubar? Why do I have to waste s many
> hours explaining it to you?
As I stated, if you want to compare the OUN to the Communists in terms
of their relations to Jews (or better, Poles) and Ukrainians,
respectively, this is much closer to reality than comparing OUN to
Nazis. Yes, the OUN had an attitude towards Poles that was very
similar to the Communist attitude towards Ukrainians.
Unfortunately your analogy above does not support your claim that the
OUN were Nazi-like in their antisemitisim. You came up with high-
ranking Communists with Ukrainian roots but no high-ranking Nazis with
Jewish roots. So your analogy really supports the view that the OUN
in its antisemitism was similar to the Communist party in its anti-
Ukrainianism.
Of course, your analogy with respect to Jews breaks down in terms of
the numbers of people killed. The Communists acting on their own
killed 3 million or so Ukrainians, the OUN acting on their own killed
how many - 5,000, 10,000 Jews? OTOH the OUN acting on its own did
kill 60,000-100,000 Poles.
> I didn't mind having to explain the most
> trivial logical points in excruciating detail to my daughters when
> they were little and illogical, but by now they are almost 10 and I
> can go at a faster pace with them, and now I am much less patient with
> having to explain mathematical/logical trivialities. If IO didn't have
> to do this with oyu, our discussion would go 10 times faster.
See above.
> > > > participating in the revolutions in St. Petersburg etc.
>
> > > Aha, revolutions! So, that's what's important here: the perpetrators
> > > of the Holodomor were revolutionaries/Bolsheviks of all ethnicities,
> > > including Ukrainian.
>
> > Well, let's break this down. In 1936, 60 of 90 ranking NKVD members
> > in Ukraine (Captain or above) who declared their nationality declared
> > themselves to be Jews. In the 1920's over 50% of the Communist party
> > members as a whole were Rusians, and over 13% Jews. So the party that
> > killed millions of Ukrainians was not Ukrainian.
>
> But it had many people of known Ukrainian descent, right?
Sure. Given that Ukraine was over 80% Ukrainian that is not
surprising.
If you want to argue that the OUN attitude towards Jews and Poles was
comparable to the Communist attitude towaerds Ukrainians, I don't
generally have a problem with that. However you don't do that - you
compare the OUN to Nazis.
> > Source for the above:
>
> > The Shoah in Ukraine: history, testimony, memorialization By Ray
> > Brandon, Wendy Lower - Pg. 88.
>
> > (feel free to confirm with googlebooks)
>
> >http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/C/O/Communism.htm
>
> > "A spontaneous, Ukrainian-organized communist movement hardly ever
> > existed. The Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) originated as a Russian
> > organization, and it remained anti-Ukrainian in tendency."
>
> > So while there were a small number of Ukrainians the majority were non-
> > Ukrainians. Within Ukraine, the Communist regime which murders
> > milions of Ukraine people was the regime of places such as Donetsk.
>
> So, even though there were several people of Ukrainian descent among
> the indicted Holodomor leaders, Holodomor can still be viewed as a
> genocide against Ukrainians, right?
Yes. So?
Are you seriously claiming that the UPA in killing "several thousand"
Jews commited genocide against the Jews?
Please tell me now - did the USSR in your view commit genocide against
the Poles when it murdered the 22,000 Polish officers at Katyn?
Did Russia commit genocide against Chechnya during the Chechen wars?
I wait for your answer.
> > > > He returned to Ukraine with the Soviet military
> > > > during their invasion from Russia. If this is the most "Ukrainian"
> > > > figure you can come up with in the implementation of the Holodomor,
> > > > this is further good evidence of its anti-Ukrainian character.
>
> > > If Yary – btw, a Catholic – is the most "Jewish" figure you can come
> > > up with in the OUN(B) leadership, this is further good evidence of its
> > > anti- Jewish character.
>
> > So now you have advanced from comparing OUN to Nazis to comparing them
> > to Communists. Well, that's a little more realistic. Good.
>
> Not really. I am drawing an analogy showing the fallacy of your logic
> “Since Yary's mother may have been of Jewish origin, OUN(B) could not
> be anti-semitic” by applying the exactly same logic to Holodomor.
Sory, anti-semitism or anti-Ukrainiansim is not a binary thing.
Communists were anti-Ukrainian in a different way than Nazis were
antisemitic. Your analogy shows that the OUN could have been as
antisemitic as Communists were anti-Ukrainian. It tells us nothing
about a comparison to Nazism - other then the fact that because you
had to find examples among Communists rather than NAzis you show that
the OUN could not have been antisemitic in the way Nazis were.
> Do you begin to see the analogy between your Yary and my Chubar
> arguments? Or do I need to explain this trivial logical analogy to you
> in an even more excruciating detail?
I see that when I asked you to name some top Nazi leaders who were of
Jewish descent or married to Jews (comparable to the situation in the
OUN), you could not do so and instead listed some German generals and
some Ukrainian Communist party leaders.
Rather than honestly admit you were wrong you repeatedly refused to
provide the examples I asked for.
>
> What's the relationship with math?
>
> Have you been severely mathematical challenged in your life, and thus
> really need many hours to understand the most trivial logic and
> analogies?
Do you need to resort to insults rather than admit that you cannot
come up with a single top Nazi party leader married to a Jewish woman?
> Or do you think that **I** have been severely mathematical challenged
> in my life, and thus you can pull the wool over my eyes or exhaust me
> by your repetitive refusals to use trivial logic, thus making me drop
> this subject out of pure exhaustion?
I think you have lost and are grasping for straws, German generals and
Ukrainian Communist Party officials. Your next strategy may be to
declare that you have become bored and won't participate any longer,
rather than admit you were wrong.
> The latter possibility seems much more likely to me than the former.
>
> > However,
> > while the Communists targetted and killed millions of Ukrainians the
> > OUN targetted and killed, perhaps, 5,000 Jews. Maybe even 10,000.
>
> The number of Jews who died at the hands of OUN-organized militias and
> UPA is higher than that.
What do you mean by "OUN-organized militia's?" So if an OUN guy is
invovled, it becomes an OUN-organized militia? Define this, please,
and then provide specific numbers of Jews killed by UPA and OUN-
organized militias. Himka blames the OUN for "several thousand" Jwish
deaths but states the number could be higher. I note that he didn't
say "tens of thousands."
> But were Jews OUN's only victims? How many
> Poles were targeted and killed by OUN/UPA?
Scholars estimate between 60,000 and 100,000 Poles mostly in
1943-1944, were killed in UPA's ethnic cleansing operations in western
Ukraine. In the context of wartime, compare that to 90,000-140,000
total dead civilians killed by Americans in Hiroshima alone. Or
500,000 to 2.0 million German deaths caused by the expulsions of
Germans by Soviet and allied forces from former German territories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
> > So when it comes to the numbers of victims, your analogy falls apart
> > completely.
>
> That's true. Bandera definitely loses the numbers contest to Hitler
> and Stalin.
>
> > However, it would be fair to compare OUN:Poles and
> > Communists:Ukrainians.
>
> > > Chubar was named by the Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn
> > > Nalyvaychenko as one of THE TOP THREE organizers of the Holodomor
> > > (after Stalin himself)!!! Was Yary one of top three organizers of
> > > OUN(B) militias and of UPA, the two entities that are directly guilty
> > > of ethnic cleansing against Polish and Jewish civilians? No, he
> > > wasn't. In fact, I doubt if he were one of the top 1000 organizers of
> > > the militias or one of the top 10 000 organizers of UPA. Or was he?
>
> > Yary was a member of the Provid (kind of like the Central Committeee)
> > of the OUN (B) and probably among the top 5 most powerful members
> > within that organization. Neither he nor Bandera probably personally
> > organized the militias.
>
> Right. Yary was instrumental in organizing Nachtigall and Rolland,
> together with his German employers. So, he didn't participate in
> organizing the worst offenders: OUN militias and UPA. That was my
> point.
>
> BTW, how big of a role did Yary have in OUN(B) in 1942? In 1943? In
> 1944? In 1945?
He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1943.
> > So, which of the top 5 most important Nazis had a Jewish wife?
>
> We''ll get to the wives in the other thread: on Yary.
It's a simple question. Can't answer it?
> > Can we therefore move on and conclude from your point of view that the
> > OUN were not Nazi-like with respect to the Jews? Have we moved on to
> > seeing the OUN: Jews as Communists:Ukrainians?
>
> You can (and always do) conclude whatever your heart desires. But the
> analogy above is totally wrong.
How so?
> > > Moreover, if you further read my post instead of attacking the very
> > > first name I gave with a rather unintelligent exclamation “If this is
> > > the most "Ukrainian" figure you can come up with...”, you would be
> > > able to discover that he was not the only indicted Holodomor criminal
> > > of apparent Ukrainian descend that I named. I also named Khoma
> > > Akimovych Leonyuk, Vsevolod Apollonovych Balyt'skyj, and Yukhym
> > > Khomych Kryvets'.
>
> > Sure. But as you once pointed out, it is about statistics not
> > individuals.
>
> What do you mean: the OUN membership is about statistics and not
> individuals like Yary? Then why do you bring him up?
What percentage of the Communist party in Ukraine were ethnic
Ukrainians?
> > > That's four for Holodomor and only one for OUN(B), even if we were to
> > > assume that Yary's mother is certain to be of (distant?) Jewish
> > > ancestry.
>
> > > > Moreover, the Holodomor was obviously both a national and class-based
> > > > genocide, directed at peasants in Ukraine who were overwhelmingly
> > > > Ukrainian.
>
> > > Was it directed in any way against proletariat of Ukrainian ethnicity?
>
> > No - and neither were OUN actions directed against Jews of patriotic
> > Ukrainian national orientation. Or Poles who didn't live in Ukraine.
>
> > > And why only Ukraine? Wasn't it also directed at peasants in Russian
> > > Socialist Republic (Kuban, Crimea and Kazakhstan), who weren't
> > > overwhelmingly Ukrainian?
>
> > Kuban was 50% Ukrainian according to Soviet censuses in the 1920's.
>
> Is 50% “overwhelming”?
Kuban was 50% Ukrainian but the percentage of rural dwellers, as
everywhere else, was more Ukrainian than the general population. So
most famine deaths in Kuban were probably ethnic Ukrainians.
> > So starvation in Kuban was part of the anti-Ukrainian genocide.
>
> So, the other 50% of Kuban – ethnic Russians – didn't suffer this
> starvation?
I'm sure many did. Just because Ukrainians weren't the only victims
doesn't mean it was not a genocide.
> > Here are the areas hit by the Holodomor:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg
>
> > Here is the ethnographic map of the Slavs from the early 20th century:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnographic_map_of_Slavs,_Lubor_Ni...
>
> > Hmm...see the correlation?
Didn't comment?
> > > And wasn't it the case that the reason why
> > > Stalin chose to leave less food with Kazak (aka Kuban and Ukraine
> > > Cossacks) and Kazakh peasants was not because Stalin was born as a
> > > Kazak- and Kazakh- hater but because he saw them as populations most
> > > opposed to Stalinism,
>
> > Does this make it less of a genocide?
>
> I want to know your answer to this question.
I don't know enough about Kazakh history nor Stalin's attitude towards
Kazakhs to answer that question.
> > > just as OUN(B) saw Jew and Poles as populations most opposed to Ukrainian independence and most in favour of
> > > Bolshevism?
>
> > So how many Jewish deaths were orchestrated by the OUN? Himka claims
> > several thousand, perhaps more. You're going to compare that to 3
> > million or so Ukrainians killed by Stalin?
>
> Let's talk about Jewish deaths in the numerous threads of ours devoted
> to Jewish deaths.
I'm asking for a simple number. How many Jewish deaths were
orchestrated by OUN?
>
> > Even the Polish deaths - 60,000-100,000 - does not compare to Stalin.
>
> Didn't you write “ 80,000-100,000” earlier?
Sources vary. Unlike you I am not an expert in mathematics but I
suspect that 80,000-100,000 is within the 60,000-100,000 range.
http://wyborcza.pl/1,86758,5240814,Zapomnijcie_o_Giedroyciu__Polacy__Ukraincy__IPN.html
> And yes, of course the 10 to 20 million that Bolsheviks/Stalin killed,
> far surpass OUN's abilities.
> > >Remember their “Jews = Bolsheviks” thingy?
>
> > Which was adopted to please the Germans and dropped in 1943.
>
> To please the Allies.
The two are not mutually exclusive. As Himka noted:
The impression created by the German documentation is that the extreme
Ukrainian nationalists were so indifferent to the fate of the Jews
(44) that they would either kill them or help them, whichever was more
appropriate to their political goals.
> And at the time when almost all Jews had already been either killed or sent to German concentration camps.
Is this your excuse for being wrong when you claim that OUN was
Nazilike in its mass killing of Jews?
> > > Tell me, why do you think Stalin chose Kazakhs and Cossacks/Ukrainians
> > > as his biggest victims? What was his motivation in choosing them
> > > over, say, Belorussians, Karelo-Finns, Udmurts, Chukchas, Tadjiks, Azeris
> > > or Bashkirs?
>
> > Don't know enough about Kazakhs to comment.
>
> Why would a man of your encyclopedic memory, devoted to studying
> Holodomor, not spend a couple of hours reading about other major
> 1932-33 Holodomor victims: Kazakhs?
Don't feel like it. So?
> But let me rephrase then: why do you think Stalin chose Cossacks/
> Ukrainians among his biggest victims? What was his motivation in
> choosing them over, say, Belorussians, Karelo-Finns, Udmurts,
> Chukchas, Tadjiks, Azeris or Bashkirs?
Personal dislike combined with class reasons/high regarsd for personal
property among those people.
> > With respect o Ukrainians/
> > Cossacks, it was the twin and inseparable reasons of national and
> > class incompatibility to the centralizing Communism he was building
> > after coming to power.
>
> So, didn't Stalin target them because he saw them as anti-Stalin
> elements?
Sure.
> > > > It broke down the peasants both nationally and as a class.
>
> > > Finally we agree on something.
>
> > > > Thus an ethnic UKrainian supporter of the dominance of
> > > > factory workers could participate in the Holodomor for class
> > > > reasons.
>
> > > Well, then couldn't an ethnic Jew participate in the OUN for political
> > > reasons like anti-Bolshevism and fight against Poland's oppression?
>
> > Absolutely. Actually, not only for purpose of anti-Bolshevism but for
> > an independent Ukraine.
>
> Thus, if a Jew didn't know that OUN(B) was going to act on in its anti-
> semitic rhetoric, a Jew, who loves Ukrainian independence, may join
> OUN and disregard its anti-semitic rhetoric as “hot air propaganda for
> the masses”?
Certainly. And he would also consider those Jews who support
Bolsheviks to be traitors to Ukraine and their deaths to be a good
thing. There were Jewish *fighters* in UPA units who presumably would
have killed Jews assumed to be Bolsheviks.
> Most people believed in early 1930s that the Nazi threats against Jews were also “hot air propaganda for the masses”
Except that antisemitism was far more prevalent and central to Nazi
ideology than in OUN ideology.
So, again, how many top Nazi party leaders had Jewish wives?
How many Jews did the OUN kill in its own acts?
> > I would, indeed, compare OUN with
> > respect to Poles, to Communists with respect to Ukrainians. The OUN
> > was still less deadly (OUN preferred expulsion of Poles to murder, but
> > murdered 60,000-100,000 when expelling was unfeasible - Communists
> > just starved the around 3 million Ukrainians to death).
>
> Why do you need to non-stop compare OUN to something? Why can't you
> analyze an entity's actions on its own, before trying to find
> equivalents?
You're the one comparing it to the Nazis and I am showing your
comparison to be false,a nd presenting more realistic alternatives.
> > > > The two are not mutually exclusive phenomena.
>
> > > Exactly my whole point. Finally you got it. Why did it take you 3
> > > weeks and hundreds of hours of my time to explain this obvious fact to
> > > you?
>
> > Why did it take you 3 weeks and hundreds of hours of time to
> > understand what I've been saying? That OUN was about independence by
> > any means necessary but that extermination wasn't a goal in itself
> > (unlike Nazis with respect to Jews).
>
> No, extermination of Jews was not a goal in itself neither for OUN nor
> for Nazis. For example, ridding their country of Jews was a bigger
> goal, and that can be accomplished with little blood through mass
> expulsion from the country (aka “ethnic cleansing”).
So the Nazis didn't have a Final Solution according to you?
> http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Yushchenko+erred+honouring
> +Bander....
>
> David R. Marples, Professor, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
> February 10, 2010
>
> Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in L’viv in the summer of
> 1941 when about 4,000 Jews were killed.
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
>
> http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
>
> Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
>
> Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
> documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
> German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
> process. [105]
> ------------------------------------
>
> OUN wanted all the Jews, or at the very least all Jewish males,
> killed!
Where is the word "all" in the passage?
And, btw, as I said, the OUN saidall sorts of nasty things while
trying to form their alliance with the Germans. But the Germans
knew. As Himka wrote,
"The impression created by the German documentation is that the
extreme Ukrainian nationalists were so indifferent to the fate of the
Jews (44) that they would either kill them or help them, whichever was
more appropriate to their political goals."
> John Himka writes:
>
> “ OUN leaders in July communicated among themselves and to the
> Ukrainian public about the need to exterminate the Jews”
> ==============================
Sure. And? They also helped them, whichever served their purpose.
Which doesn't contradict what I quoted.
> Can you offer anything nice that Himka said about OUN(B) in the last 2
> years, or was the last “good” thing that Himka said about OUN 13 years
> ago? Please do quote the best pro-OUN(B) arguments that Himka wrote in
> the last couple of years!
Why do you think that Himka (1997) was "nice?" Can you find anything
written afterwars by Himka that repudiates his previous statement?
Please do, I appreciate it.
> > So how many people were actually killed by the famine? From 2.5 to 3.5
> > million. Those who died disproportionately were the rural population
> > (predominantly Ukrainians) and little children. May their memory be
> > eternal.
> Yes, he wrote:
>
> “So how many people were actually killed by the famine? From 2.5 to
> 3.5 million. Those who died disproportionately were the rural
> population (predominantly Ukrainians) and little children. May their
> memory be eternal. And let me add: may it be unsullied by falsehood. “
>
> > I particularly like when he wrote "I find it disrespectful to the dead
> > that people use their deaths in a ploy to gain the moral capital of
> > victimhood."
> Yes, he wrote:
>
> “I find it disrespectful to the dead that people use their deaths in a
> ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood. To this end, they
> inflate the numbers. “
>
> So, you agree that it's wrong to inflate the numbers and then to use
> the deaths in a “ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood" by
> exaggerating the number of victims? And isn't it what Himka is
> accusing Yuschenko of doing?
Yes, and he is correct. And it is also btw exactly what the Polish
guys putting up the exhibit in Kiev are doing.
BTW how would you as a Russian feel if Yushchenko put up a propaganda
exhibit in a Russian government building about his distorted view of
the Holodomor? Wouldn't it be reasonable for Russians to be outraged?
> > Because the same can and should be said for the Polish deaths in
> > Volhynia, tastelessly peddled by you, Polish and Russian nationalists
> > in order to attack Ukrainians as was done in Kiev.
>
> I don't think the purpose of the Volynya Massacre historians like Burd
> or Himka is to “gain the moral capital”.
Who said Burd and Himka were putting up that exhibit in Kiev?
> Their purpose id to get the
> facts and the correct numbers. If somebody tried to inflate the number
> of victims of the Volynya Massacre and/or blame the wrong perpetrators
> for them and/or attributed the wrong motivation to them, then they
> would indeed be guilty of “using their deaths in a ploy to gain the
> moral capital of victimhood.". But as long as you tell the full truth
> “ unsullied by falsehood” – it's legitimate history.
Well, we can agree on this.
> Himka is not against studying and publicizing history. He is against “
> unsullied by falsehoods”.
>
> Let's look at Yuschenko's “Presidential opus” on Holodomor.
>
> http://www.president.gov.ua/docs/Holodomor_English_version.pdf
>
> The very first page (page 1) consists of only one short paragraph:
>
> “I address you on behalf of a nation that lost about ten million
> people as a result of the Holodomor genocide...We insist that the
> world learn the truth about all crimes against humanity.
>
> Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine
> ----------------------------------
>
> “The truth”? Ten million? Is it really the TRUTH?
>
> John Himka says:
>
> “I find it disrespectful to the dead that people use their deaths in a
> ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood. To this end, they
> inflate the numbers. “
>
> By a factor of three! And look at the HUGE QUOTE on top of page 3:
>
> “The Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), which took from
> 7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy
> for the Ukrainian people”.
> /Joint statement by 65 UN member states, adopted by the 58th UN
> General Assembly on 7 November 2003/
>
> See? They even made the UN officially sign up for this gross
> inflation of the numbers. By the factor of 3 (three)!
I'm not arguing against you on this point.
> > Note that Himka did use the word Holodomor in his essay.
>
> Yes, a few, especially when he talks about the use of Holodomor as a
> publicity ploy. But not nearly as many as the number of times I myself
> use “Holodomor” in my posts. What does that prove about my views on
> its size and causes?
>
> > And the figures he gives are the ones I give.
>
> Well, almost. Still, your 4 million is not exactly the same as Himka's
> 2.5 to 3.5 million.
In the post you just repsonded to I stated "So how many Jewish deaths
were orchestrated by the OUN? Himka claims several thousand, perhaps
more. You're going to compare that to 3 million or so Ukrainians
killed by Stalin? I remember using 4 million or so also - well,
that's what I remember from earlier times (Himka mentions Kulchytsky's
figure of arounf 4 million).
regards,
BM
Bill Grosvenor
Gruber, but I changed it in a futile attempt to conceal
my shameful, criminal past.
I want to move to New Zealand, having worn out my welcome
here in Manila.
I am a convicted criminal... my side of the story can be
found here: http://william-grosvenor.info
Did I mention that I am a bigamist?
It seems I have three wives, named Sario Grosvenor,
Darlene (whom I married in Halifax in 1968) and Victoria.
If I am able to locate a woman stupid enough to swallow
my bullshit, I will change my name again and make her
my fourth victim. (I thought my Bulacan whore was
dumb enough until she threw my sorry ass out the
door after discovering who I really was.)
I use aliases in the vain hope that people even stupider
than I am will think that someone ELSE is posting my endless
stream of drivel. It never works, but it seems I can no
longer afford the consequences of posting as myself.
I chose my aliases to honor my intellectual, social and moral
superiors... those people I truly admire, the despised maggots
that expose my lies, my criminal past, my sexual incontinence,
my prediliction for little boys and the maggot's nest that
passes for the sewer of my mind.
I, William Grosvenor, am, in alpabetical order:
Anne Onime <anon...@rip.ax.lt>
ExposingKenMcVay<LisaMcVa...@AntiMcVay.org>
GayKenMcVay <GayKe...@nazikor.org>
GregCarp <Greg...@Zionazis.net>
HorstWieseltal <HorstWi...@ZioNazis.net>
KenMcVayNAMBLA <KenM...@NAMBLA.nizkor.org>
Levi Cohen <Levi...@hasbara.net>
MattSalleh <MattS...@batu.ferenghi.com>
RoddnSue<Rodd...@gmail.com>
SteveHorn{Caduceus} <kc...@earthlink.net>
Tarapia Tapioco <comes...@ntani.firenze.linux.it>
Xposing McVay <Xposin...@anti.nazikor.net>
Xposing McVaySOBC <Xposin...@anti.nazikor.net>
XposingSteveHorn <XposingS...@anti.kidmolesters.net>
I have moved into a hovel in Bulacan on my inevitable way
to the gutter I so richly deserve.
I am the poster boy of the White Supremacy movement.
1. I am a complete fucking failure. I fuck up everything
I touch.
2. I shoot off my mouth in willful ignorance and
pay dearly for it; most recently, my home
was taken from me by force after I was summarily
evicted and humiliated.
3. I was ejected from my professional organization
in disgrace.
4. I express hatred for just about everyone. In
truth, I loathe who and what I am, and blame
my Masters, many of whom hide beneath my bed,
for my many failures.
5. I ran out on #3 wife and left her homeless and
penniless. I am a worthless fat blob of human
excrement.
6. I am a bigamist because it is easy to find
fat, stupid women who do not discover how
deranged I am until it is too late.
7. If someone gave me a clue, I would not know what
the fuck to do with it.
White Power!!
William David Michael Gruber Grosvenor
euro...@gmail.com;ru...@gmail.com;ru...@operamail.com
Manila
--
My name is Buck Turgidson, and I approved this message.
--
My name is Buck Turgidson, and I approved this message.
Ostap Bender
I can now continue our discussion, although I am, luckily, much busier
these days, so I will not be able to devote more than an hour or so
per day to this on average.
I am now composing a detailed post on Yary and Knysh, but since this
may take a while, let me start by clarifying any misunderstanding that
there may be about a person named Melnik and his OUN(M) group. Their
antisemtism was indeed not nearly as homicidal as Bandera's OUN(B)'s:
On Jul 9, 10:34 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:21 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > Is this what Karel Cornelis Berkhoff meant when he wrote:
>
> >http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
> > Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves... they wanted the
> > Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> > males, killed, and they were willing to participate in the process.
> > ------------------------------------
>
> Did you think I couldn't look up this quote. What is contained in the
> "....."? Why, the context you left out.
Why would you need to look up this quote?! I gave you this full quote
later in this very post:
>
> > Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
>
> >http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
>
> > Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
>
> > Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
> > documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
> > German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> > males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
> > process. [105]
> > ------------------------------------
Moreover, I already posted this full quote in a post earlier in this
discussion:
/////////////////////////////////////////////
http://groups.google.com.ng/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/74ccb13a58edd7ea?dmode=source
From: Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics
Subject: Re: Yushchenko's legacy
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=3Dnd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=3DPA289&lpg=3DPA289&dq=3D=
Massacres+of+Poles+in+Volhynia+Bandera&source=3Dbl&ots=3DpsII4_-
jG2&sig=3D-=
90BFqHM-eOAkRxeyvoXQdiDX4M&hl=3Dnl&ei=3Dhj6gSvrRGsft-
AaXwrHZDw&sa=3DX&oi=3D=
book_result&ct=3Dresult&resnum=3D8#v=3Donepage&q=3DMassacres%20of
%20Poles%2=
0in%20Volhynia%20Bandera&f=3Dfalse
Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
process. [105]
/////////////////////////////////////////////
And you saw, read and even replied to this full quote:
On Jun 27, 10:53 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 10:44 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
>
> > Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
> > documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
> > German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> > males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
> > process. [105]
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, as I said, when the OUN was trying to win the Germans' favor they
> participated in some horrible anti-Jewish acts and released a lot of
> anti-Jewish rhetoric.
I find it very disingenuous on you part to pretend that I didn't give
you the full quote and that you had to look it up in the book.
However, when I abbreviated that quote above, I did indeed
inadvertently missed that I wrongfully accused Melnikites of being as
genocidal as Banderites. I had no such intention. I am not making any
accusations about Melnikites at all in this thread. I am talking
about Banderites. Melniketes were not nearly as horrible. In fact, one
of my points has been that Banderites were much more extreme than
Melnikites.
> The full quote is this "Both
> factions of the OUN were antisemitic themselves, and wartime documents
> with regards to leading Banderites show that during the German
> invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish males,
> killed, and they were willing to participate in the process."
Thanks for repeating my full quote for the third time.
> So, with your lying ommision of data,
“Lying”? I made an inadvertent mistake when repeating the same quote
for the third time. And a mistake that is of little relevance to the
topic of our discussion: Banderites.
If anybody is engaged in lying here, it's you, in your pretending that
I hadn't given you the full quote and that you had to look it up in
the book.
> you made it look like during the
> German invasion the Melnyk faction also wanted Jews or Jewish males
> dead by removing that section from the source that clearly blamed only
> the Bandera faction for this.
Absolutely correct. Melnik's role in the Holocaust is miniscule
compared with Bandera's.
If anybody else is reading this discussion and is too retarded to read
the full text of Berkhoff's quote, let me emphasize that based on all
the historical research that I have read, Melnikites' antisemitism was
not nearly as mind-bogglingly evil as Banderites. I am not an expert
on Melnik, but it also seems to me that Melnik's people didn't
exterminate as many innocent Polish civilians (if any) as did
Banderites.
And yet, as I understand, when the time came to creating role models
for the Ukrainian youth, Yuschenko chose Bandera and his even more
evil right-hand henchman Stetsko over Melnik, whose antisemitism was
not nearly as genocidal.
The Black Monk
wrote:
> Hi BM,
>
> I can now continue our discussion, although I am, luckily, much busier
> these days, so I will not be able to devote more than an hour or so
> per day to this on average.
>
> I am now composing a detailed post on Yary and Knysh, but since this
> may take a while, let me start by clarifying any misunderstanding that
> there may be about a person named Melnik and his OUN(M) group. Their
> antisemtism was indeed not nearly as homicidal as Bandera's OUN(B)'s:
I like your wording - "not nearly as homicidal." So according to you
was Melnyk's group still homicidal?
> On Jul 9, 10:34 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 11:21 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > Is this what Karel Cornelis Berkhoff meant when he wrote:
>
> > >http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
> > > Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves... they wanted the
> > > Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> > > males, killed, and they were willing to participate in the process.
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > Did you think I couldn't look up this quote. What is contained in the
> > "....."? Why, the context you left out.
>
> Why would you need to look up this quote?! I gave you this full quote
> later in this very post:
But not there. You removed a small number of words, an act that made
it look as if both factions of the OUN (according to Berkhoff) wanted
Jews killed.
> > > Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
>
> > >http://books.google.nl/books?id=nd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Ma...
>
> > > Harvest of despair: life and death in Ukraine under Nazi rule, p 83
>
> > > Both factions of OUN were anti-semitic themselves, and wartime
> > > documents with regard to leading Banderites show that during the
> > > German invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish
> > > males, killed, and that they were willing to participate in the
> > > process. [105]
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> Moreover, I already posted this full quote in a post earlier in this
> discussion:
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> http://groups.google.com.ng/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/74ccb13a58e...
>
> From: Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics
> Subject: Re: Yushchenko's legacy
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Karel Cornelis Berkhoff writes:
>
> http://books.google.nl/books?id=3Dnd9WzIkTJrAC&pg=3DPA289&lpg=3DPA289...
I didn't claim you always left that out to create a misleading
impression, only that you did that at that time. Your rebuttal
represents an interesting strategy. It is like a thief caught
shoplifting at a store, caught red-handed on video, then using video
of other trips to the store where he didn't steal, to "prove" that he
is not a thief. As if other occasions when he was not a thief "erase"
the time when he was.
Sorry, you were caught red-handed, falsifying the quote, which smeared
Melnyk's people.
> However, when I abbreviated that quote above, I did indeed
> inadvertently missed that I wrongfully accused Melnikites of being as
> genocidal as Banderites. I had no such intention. I am not making any
> accusations about Melnikites at all in this thread.
And yet when you write, "not nearly as genocidal" you accuse them of
being genocidal, too, which is a serious accusation.
I get the feeling that, on some level, to you all Ukrainians who are
not pro-Russian are genocidal.
> I am talking
> about Banderites. Melniketes were not nearly as horrible. In fact, one
> of my points has been that Banderites were much more extreme than
> Melnikites.
Okay. I'll take your word for it and consider it to be the result of
your anti-Ukrainian bigotry inadvertantly leading you to write it that
way, rather than a deliberate act of deception.
> > The full quote is this "Both
> > factions of the OUN were antisemitic themselves, and wartime documents
> > with regards to leading Banderites show that during the German
> > invasion, they wanted the Jews, or at the very least Jewish males,
> > killed, and they were willing to participate in the process."
>
> Thanks for repeating my full quote for the third time.
>
> > So, with your lying ommision of data,
>
> "Lying"? I made an inadvertent mistake when repeating the same quote
> for the third time. And a mistake that is of little relevance to the
> topic of our discussion: Banderites.
I will retract my claim that it was a lie.
> If anybody is engaged in lying here, it's you, in your pretending that
> I hadn't given you the full quote and that you had to look it up in
> the book.
I never claimed you never gave the full quote. Your statement above
is not true.
> > you made it look like during the
> > German invasion the Melnyk faction also wanted Jews or Jewish males
> > dead by removing that section from the source that clearly blamed only
> > the Bandera faction for this.
>
> Absolutely correct. Melnik's role in the Holocaust is miniscule
> compared with Bandera's.
>
> If anybody else is reading this discussion and is too retarded to read
> the full text of Berkhoff's quote, let me emphasize that based on all
> the historical research that I have read, Melnikites' antisemitism was
> not nearly as mind-bogglingly evil as Banderites. I am not an expert
> on Melnik, but it also seems to me that Melnik's people didn't
> exterminate as many innocent Polish civilians (if any) as did
> Banderites.
Melnyk dominated the nationalist scene in Bukovyna and Zakarpathia
where there were no massacres by Ukrainian nationalists. They also
bruielfy held some power in Kiev and Ukraine under the military
administration but were wiped out by the Nazis. The mayor of Kiev,
Volodymyr Bahaziy, was a devoted Melnykite who was executed by the
Germans at Babyn Yar along with many other of Melnyk's followrs (such
as the famous poetess Olena Teliha). Bahaziy had been a teacher at a
Jewish school before the war. Any important Nazi mayors who were
devoted to Hitler had a histroy of teaching in Jewish schools?
-------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Bahaziy
Volodymyr (Vladimir, Wladimir) Panteleimonovych Bahasiy (Bagaziy,
Bagasij, Bahasij), Ukrainian: Вoлoдимир Пантелеймонович Багазiй (1902,
Ryabovka village, Ukraine -- 21 February 1942, Kiev, Babyn Yar) was a
Ukrainian nationalist affiliated with the Andriy Melnyk's faction of
the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and head of Kiev City
Administration under German occupation in October 1941 - January 1942.
He was a professional pedagogue, taught in a Jewish school, and later
was a postgraduate student at Kiev Pedagogical Institute. In September
1941, when the Germans occupied Kiev, Oleksandr Ohloblyn who knew him
for years invited him at the meeting where representatives of OUN
(Andriy Melnyk's faction) formed the new Kiev city administration.
Although Bahaziy was supported by a large group, the OUN
representatives mistrusted him and agreed to appoint him a deputy to
Ohloblyn who became the city mayor. Very soon, however, Bahaziy gained
favor of both OUN people (for his active participation in the
activities of the Ukrainian National Council) and the German military
leaders. Claims that he was personally present during the execution of
Jews in Babyn Yar were later proven to be untrue[1]. In October 1941
Ohloblyn retired and Bahaziy was appointed the new Kiev mayor.
As mayor of Kiev, Bahaziy encountered the bitter opposition of Erich
Koch, the brutal Nazi administrator of Reichskommissariat Ukraine. At
a speech before journalists Bahaziy praised OUN leaders and proclaimed
that "the eyes of all Ukrainians are turned toward Melnyk." A German
officer begged the journalists not to disseminate this remark for fear
of inflaming Nazi authorities. [2] In January 1942 he was arrested and
accused of various crimes, including: threatening the pro-Russian
bishop if Kiev; theft of German property in order to aid the Ukrainian
nationalist cause; being a leader of the OUN-M; attempting to secure
the control of the Ukrainian police. He was very soon executed in
Babyn Yar along with other Ukrainian nationalists, although his wife
was left unaware of his death and kept bringing him packages to Kiev
prison until summer 1942.
---------------
Before you accuse me of throwing more "irrelevent" information here,
the purpose of me posting the Melnykite stuff was your accusation that
the OUN (M) were genocidal (if less so than Bandwera's group) towards
Jews (see the end of your statement below).
> And yet, as I understand, when the time came to creating role models
> for the Ukrainian youth, Yuschenko chose Bandera and his even more
> evil right-hand henchman Stetsko over Melnik, whose antisemitism was
> not nearly as genocidal.
You accuse Bandera's antisemitism of being "genocidal" even though
Bandera's men targeted and killed, perhaps, 10,000 Jews (I haven't
found specific total numbers - have you?). This is an unjutifiable
crime of course, but if based on this Bandera can be described as
"genocidal", then how would you describe Putin and Yeltsin and what
they did to the Chechens? Would you state that both post-Soviet
leaders of Russia were genocidal?
Or, in your anti-Ukrainian bigotry, are only Ukrainians (particularly
those who are not pro-Russian) capable of being labelled as
"genocidal."
regards,
BM