In an interview with a REGNUM director of the Institute of Historical research of the Lviv Institute, guest professor at the Central European Institute in Budapest, Senator and Chair of History of Ukraine Ukrainian Catholic Institute Jaroslav Gritsak knows the story of the creation of the UPA, the development of these structures, also analyzes the more controversial and resonant moments in history for their participation.
REGNUM: The What are the pros and cons have to activate the controversial historical issues in the Ukraine during the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko?
Plus I see that activated the discussion on the history, namely regarding the phenomena, events and people that is not something that concealed and kept in the shade under President Leonid Kuchma. Kuchma's historical policy was to ensure not to let sleeping dogs lie, do not touch on sensitive issues that carry within themselves danger of a split in Ukraine. Yushchenko addressed specifically to these issues. First — to the famine of 1932-1933. And then suddenly Yushchenko policy for many was successful. As polls show, during the reign of Yushchenko in the Ukrainian society, there was consensus that: a) the famine was man-made nature and b) was genocide. Important to note that this consensus even enveloped Russian south and east of Ukraine.
But this list is exhausted success Yushchenko. Ukrainian society was not ready for the debate about the past — and this applies equally to politicians, and the "rank and file" of the Ukrainians. This is especially true events 1930-1940-ies. Nothing splits as Ukraine, as the memory of the second world war, and specifically in this memory — the UPA and OUN Bandera. It shows certain historical realities, as Ukraine at the time was divided. It was just that until the war, and remained broken during the war. In this regard, different regions of Ukraine had very different experiences of Russian and German authorities — and difficult to reduce to a common denominator. This fundamental difference between Ukraine and Russia. If we wish to understand the historical experience of Ukraine the second world war, it is better not to associate it with the Russian 1941-1945, and from 1917-20 gg. Relatively speaking, during the second world war in the Ukraine had a plainclothes war in Russia — the war itself was not. Because the memory of the war voedinyzhdy connects Russia, Ukraine, so she splits.
Maybe the Ukrainians and have been able to achieve some small consensus on these issues, if these discussions were limited to Ukraine. But the Ukrainian lands were, and to some extent remain a focus of geopolitical conflict that inevitably has an impact on the debate about the past. In addition, we must not forget that war marked the end of an old multi-ethnic Ukraine. Those Poles and Jews who managed to survive and leave — voluntarily or forcibly — beyond the Ukrainian lands were taken along with them their memories of the war in the Ukraine. Because the discussion of Ukrainian past inevitably affect not only Russia — and Poland, Israel, etc. For example, a fascinating and truly meaningful discussion about Bandera accomplished in North America, as many do not know. Because the debate about Ukraine Ukraine is always greater — than the Ukrainians in connection much harder to reach the state of compromise.
REGNUM: The Let's briefly talk about the history of creation and development of the UPA …
In 1-x, it should be noted that there was not one of the OUN, there were a few of the OUN. The first was, relatively speaking, ancient OUN — OUN Eugene Konovalca. After his assassination ancient OUN split in 1940 into two separated parts: the OUN, Stepan Bandera and the OUN Andrew Miller. Part of the OUN-Bandera during the war, has experienced a strong evolution. After emigrating abroad, she went there in conflict with Bandera and, having broken away, formed another company — OUN "dviykari." Because when we talk about the OUN, we must keep in mind that even among nationalists is typical plainclothes war for this title, and this tradition …
Another discrepancy is that when they say the OUN-UPA, imply that this is the OUN and UPA — it is one and the same organization. But this is a wrong assumption. OUN and UPA relate, relatively speaking, as the Communist Party and the army reddish. Bandera's OUN has played a very important role in the development of the UPA, but UPA was not identical Bandera OUN. In the UPA had very many people who have been out of it, there were even some who did not share its ideological goals. There is a memoir of Daniel Shumko of stay in the UPA, this man was a communist general, a member of the CMLP. I know of at least, two veterans of the movement, who personally knew Bandera and who can not stand him and protest whenever they are called "Bandera". Apart from this, to the UPA at some point came part of the Red Army, who after the retreat of Russian troops hid in the forests or in the villages, or it escaped from captivity. In particular, many among them were Georgians and Uzbeks … In general, the UPA in some respects reminiscent of Noah's Ark: there was a "pair of every creature."
The identification of the UPA, "Bandera" originates from the times of war. By the way, the beginning of the first to do it is not Russian, and German authorities. After the war, "Bandera" began to call all Western Ukrainians — in this case, not only in Siberian labor camps or in Poland, but even in eastern Ukraine. In each case, when we talk about the "Bandera", you need to keep in mind that the term is often used and consumed in vain.
At the moment, the Bandera OUN — call it the OUN-B — try to monopolize the memory about the UPA, said that the UPA was "unblemished" OUN-B. It is interesting that in these positions at the moment are also the Kremlin and the Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych. They put between the OUN-B and UPA symbol of equality. It is that far not the only case in which Ukrainian nationalists agree with the Kremlin — although, of course, for very different reasons. In general, the UPA is a very complex phenomenon and a very different phenomenon, it can not be reduced to a single ideological or political camp. But the historical memory does not suffer hardship. She asks a very common form — "either-or". Therein lies the problem. As the historian to join this discussion, when they are asked very direct, conventional answers?
REGNUM: The Let's all the same details back to the question of the appearance of the UPA …
If you want to understand how there UPA, pay attention to the Eastern Ukraine in 1919. It was a "war of all against all" — when not two, but several armies at once at once at war for control over a territory. Apart from the snow-white, and the Reds Petlyury, there appeared a fourth force — greenish, independent Makhno. It controlled a huge area in the steppes. If for a moment ignore the ideological differences, the UPA — it's about the same as what was the army of Makhno: farming, often very ruthless, but with the support of the local population. Because it is very hard to beat. But during the Revolution and the civilian war when fought wars with swords and steeds, completely steppe could be the basis for that of the army. During the second world war is waged war planes and tanks. The only
place in the Ukraine, where she could hide a large guerrilla army — is the West-Ukrainian forests, swamps and the Carpathian Mountains. Until 1939 it was the territory of the Polish country. Because there, especially in the Volyn region, operated underground Polish Home Army (AK). In 1943, here is Kovpak (commander of Russian partisan unit in Ukraine — IA REGNUM. Other words there during the German occupation, again the same situation as a "war of all against all."
Vserasprostranennaya There is a view that the UPA was created Bandera OUN. It is not, or at least, not quite so. It sounds amazing, but true: Bandera personally was against the creation of the UPA. He had a different concept of state control. Bandera believed that it should be a massive public revolution. Or, as the saying, "People's frustrating," when people — millions — of rebellion against the invader, expels him from his own country. Bandera, like all his generation, inspired by the example of 1918-1919, when the Ukraine there were massive peasant army, who then chased the Germans in 1918, the Bolsheviks, the snow-white. In the imagination of Bandera this was repeated during the second world war: Ukrainian population, waiting for the mutual exhaustion of Stalin and Hitler's rise up and expel them from their own country. This, of course, was utopian. But no revolution is not complete without utopias — and the OUN was created as a revolutionary force. According to the views of Bandera, the creation of the UPA distracted from the main goal. Because he had read about the idea disparaged as a partisan or "sikorschine" (from Sikorsky, head of the Polish government in exile in London, which acted on behalf of AK in the Volyn region).
In the end, the UPA did not appear from the orders of the OUN-B, and "from below." Why? Since the Volyn region is a "war of all against all," and it is particularly jacking up with the arrival here Kovpaka. Kovpak belongs to one or the other side, making a diversion, the Germans are responsible punitive action. To do this, they often use the Ukrainian police in the middle of which there are many members of the OUN-B. The end result is a situation where Ukrainian nationalists should take part in punitive actions against the local Ukrainian population. Ukrainian police deserting to the forest to take the place of Ukrainians Germans Poles. Taking into account the severity of the Polish-Ukrainian relations, just imagine for yourself how this leads to an escalation of the conflict. Local Ukrainian population considers itself one hundred percent unprotected. Then from the lower ranks of the OUN-B can be heard angry voices, "Where is our management, why it does not solve anything?". Without waiting for an answer, they start sformirovyvaetsya military units. UPA appears spontaneously, to a large extent, this is already later Bandera begins to take control of this process under your own control. Namely, it makes what is called a "union": bringing together different groups in the forests of Volyn — and often does so by force and terror, eliminating their own ideological enemies.
Here I must own and complicate the already complicated story. The fact is that when Bandera started their share, in the Volyn region has acted outside the UPA. She first appeared in 1941 under the control of Taras Bulba-Borovets. He acted on behalf of the Ukrainian government in exile in Warsaw, and considered himself and his army Petlura continuation of the movement. Some of his officers was Melnyk. Bandera "borrowed" from Bulba-Borovets not only his rank and file, and the name — wiping out dissent. For example, up to now there is a discussion as to what happened to his wife Bulba-Borovets: he claimed to have eliminated its Bandera, and they flatly deny it. Bandera strategy — a strategy about how the Bolsheviks when they behold the the process of developing, they are trying to head it, and heading, cut with all this 'extra' arms, legs, or even her head to drive the process later in the right frame. Bandera's argument is simple: it was necessary to avoid fragmentation, "ataman" — which is why, in their opinion, lost the Ukrainian revolution in the years 1917-20.
It should be added that during the creation of the UPA in Volyn massacre is the local Poles. I believe that this agreement is not the case: the OUN specially provoked the massacre, and used this as a mobilizing factor. It is not difficult to involve farmers in the massacre at the time under the pretext, for example, solutions excavation issues — western Ukrainian village suffer from hunger earth, and the inter-war Polish government gave the Poles the best local land … The idea to exterminate the Poles fell, so to speak, on a suitable soil: how to justify the historians, the first of its expressed no Ukrainian nationalists, and the local West-Ukrainian communists back in the 1930s. Later, if you once smeared blood on their hands, you already have no where to go, you go to the army, and will continue to kill. From the farmer you become a fighter. To a large extent it is possible to look at the Volyn massacre as a huge bloody mobilization campaign to create the UPA.
In general, early period of history UPA is not a matter of great pride, to put it mildly. Heroic period begins with the UPA in 1944 — after the departure of the Germans and the arrival of Russian power, when the UPA is the emblem of the struggle against communism. In reality, the historical memory of Ukrainian currently only remember this period — in 1944 and beyond. The fact that it was in 1943, in the Volyn region, it is hardly remembered. To understand the heroic period in principle and the fact that at the end of the war OUN-B itself is undergoing evolution. She is aware that under those mottos that is, it does not go down too far, because the Russian troops arrive, Russian ideology. In addition, we have their own bad experience trip to the east, in the Donbass, in Dnepropetrovsk: the local population was foreign to the slogan "Ukraine for Ukrainians". Then OUN begins to change their slogans and talk about the struggle for the liberation of all peoples, including social slogans eight-hour working day or, cancellation of collective and other
REGNUM: The In other words, one can read that the OUN was definitely a time when the nationalist slogans there defected to the social?
Yes, there was something very close to it … It is the policy of each extreme party that wants to prevail. It applies not only terror, and assigns the wrong slogans, if they are popular. The Bolsheviks, for example, adopted the slogans on the division of land and the federation. Something similar happens with the OUN-B. Next there is a fascinating point: at this time comes from the German concentration camps, Stepan Bandera, which is the emblem of the movement. The irony of the situation is that the Bandera came out of the camp, actually knows nothing about the movement that bears his name. I know from the memoirs of Eugene Stakhova, who himself was one of the followers of Bandera, in 1941, went to the east of Ukraine, was in Donetsk. His brother was sitting together with Bandera in a concentration camp. Stakhov knows that when they come together, the Bandera and his brother questioned him, that after all is the UPA, where and how it operates. Attitude, so to speak, between one of the OUN, which operated in the Ukraine and that control, which appeared abroad, about the same as that between Plekhanov and Lenin. Young made the company, went forward, and an old (relatively speaking, Plekhanov — Bandera) — have lagged behind in the emigration of old live performances.
And here there is a new conflict since the UPA has already gone very far, to be shared with Bandera. When the people who made and ruled UPA are in the West, they try to make an alliance with the Bandera. But there comes rapidly to a huge split, since, according to the views of Bandera's O
UN-B threw an old slogans and become so, relatively speaking, the state social democracy. Then this group of people, as I read, does his own, a third of the OUN, cooperating with the CIA, etc. — But that's also another story.
REGNUM: The next time a resonant Ukrainian history — the case of the OUN and the Jews. What is clear about this?
I do not know much about it, because at this day as there is not much bad little research on the subject. To avoid misunderstandings, I will say at once: the OUN was anti-Semitic. But my point is this: it was anti-Semitism faster pogrom, not the software. I do not know 1st theorist of this wing, which would have written a large anti-Semitic work, which would be carefully said that the need for portable and destroy the Jews. We, for example, we have in the Polish tradition of such works that express frank software anti-Semitism. I insist on the importance of "software" aspects when talking about anti-Semitism as one of the "isms", in other words about the ideological direction.
The peculiarity of Ukrainian political thought lies in the fact that, apart from Misha Drahomanova and Vyacheslav Lipinski, it was not a "system" ideologues — ie ideologists who have thought and written systemically. There is always someone who wrote something — but there is not, so you can put it on a par with the "Ideas of Modern Pole" Dmowski or it's "Mein Kampf," Hitler. There are certain anti-Semitic texts Dmitry Doncova 1930 — but for some reason it prints more brightest they are not in the Western Ukraine, and in America, to the same under a pseudonym. Before the war, there are anti-Semitic texts of other ideologies Scyborsky. But a couple of years before he wrote something completely different. Recollection appears that the emergence of anti-Semitic texts pursue pragmatic purpose: to send a signal to Hitler and the Nazis: we are the same as you, so you can trust us and we need to work together.
Ukrainian nationalism, rather, was that of a pragmatic and applied, while in a bad sense. Ideologically, the movement was rather weak, because it did young people 20-30 years of age who had no education, which does not have to ideology. Many of those who survived, recognized that even Dontcov was very difficult for their realization. They became nationalists "nature of things", and not as something once read. Because of their anti-Semitism and the pogrom was faster than software.
There is a big debate, which at this point was the position of Bandera or Stetsko. There are pieces of the publications Stetsko diary in which he writes that he supports the policy of Hitler's extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was. But, again, the same, there is great controversy as this diary is authentic. Immediately after the proclamation of the "Ukrainian statehood" (State) June 30, 1941, in Lviv massacre. But "after" does not necessarily mean "because." At the moment, does not cause any hesitation that these massacres took part in the Ukrainian police, in which there were many nationalists of the OUN-B. But whether they did so on the orders of OUN-B or on its own initiative — is unclear.
We have to take into account that the main wave of riots in the summer of 1941 drove through those territories, which in 1939-1940. were annexed by the Soviet Union — in the Baltic countries, part of the Polish countryside and in Western Ukraine. Some well-known historians — say, such a recognizable, as Mark Mazower — believe that the escalation of anti-Semitic pogrom is a direct consequence of the very concise, but very forcible Sovietization experience. My father, who in 1941 was only 10 years old and he was living in malehankih western Ukrainian village, recalled that as the news came from the city to proclaim independent Ukraine, older rural men as one is willing to go to the closest city "to thrash the Jews." It is unlikely that these men read Doncova or other ideologues. Completely may be that, as in almost all similar cases, the OUN-B was willing to lead the process, which is already "gone".
One thing is clear: OUN-B is not adored the Jews, but did not consider them to his main opponent — the niche occupied Polish, Russian, and later the Germans. The Jews in the nationalist imagination of the favorites was the "secondary enemy." All of them are currently reads in their own decisions and the meetings that you can not give yourself to divert anti-Semitism, as the main enemy — not the Jews, and Moscow, etc. .. Understandable, but something else: if indeed a miracle in 1941, it was established Ukrainian government under the scheme OUN-B, the Jews there or it was not (as there would be there and Poles), or they would have been there a very hard . Historians who deal with the history of the Holocaust in Western Ukraine, concluded that the behavior of local Ukrainians could affect the "final solution" of the Jewish question. Local Jews exterminated would either or without the help of the Ukrainians. But the Ukrainian government might, at least, to express their sympathy. During the mass destruction of the Jews of the OUN-B did not make a 1st warning, which would be strictly prohibited members of the organization participate in these actions. A similar document was among UPA during its "democratization", ie Only after the end of the promotion. And that, as they say the Poles was "mustard after dinner."
It is also clear that when the Jews, especially the Volyn, massively running away into the woods, they were murdered by the UPA. This is currently writes John Paul Himka, and he writes on the basis of memoirs. But in his memoirs frequently sounds term "Bandera", which, as I have read, used very broadly, to all Ukrainians. In short, I wish to create documents — namely, reports the UPA. Second "but": some Jews who escaped from the ghetto, though found a home in the UPA. There is a memoir on this subject, called certain names. To a large extent they were working as doctors. Every army needs a medical software. The number of doctors before the war in the middle of western Ukrainians, for various reasons it was small, on the Polish doctors UPA expect, of course, could not. It is said that at the end of the war, Jewish doctors were shot. Yes, but, memoirs, which they say that these doctors remain loyal to the end and, where necessary, take the gun in his hands. This question, like everything to do with the theme of "the UPA and the Jews," sharp and not much studied. There is a proportional relationship backwards: the more acute the talk, the less know what they are talking.
In summary, I wish to say follow: it seems to me, but that with the departure from the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko, the sharpest debate is back. The need now is to wait for the occurrence conventional works that would be talked about those moments conventional method. So far, most of what you can read and hear about the OUN and UPA — including what I'm saying at the moment — it's less than guesswork. Better or worse, they argued, but it's still guesswork. Therefore, it is important and desirable new high-quality research.