86.217.28.90 (talk) |
86.217.28.90 (talk) |
||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
--<span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 10pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
--<span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 10pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
:just one more change, which you didn't noticed. |
:just one more change, which you didn't noticed. This mean that they were on German side , as you seem not to understand very well, not an Ukrainian army within German army. |
||
== Summary == |
== Summary == |
Revision as of 22:09, 4 August 2008
Ukraine Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Germany Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Military history: Russian & Soviet Stub‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Ukrainian or German
Was UNA a Ukrainian or German unit ? Please discuss it here instead of revert warring. --Lysytalk 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The country never ceased to exist, there are no document about that : There always had been a President in exile. Consult President of Ukraine#Ukrainian People's Republic
and read Shandruks book....
Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.26.201 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, lets read books written by Fascist generals. Where ever did you get the concept of presenting "the Ukrainian Popular Republic in exile" as a sovereign state? Shandruk's books? --Bogdan що? 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please provide proof that he was a Fascist generals (detailed proof, and not your own conclusion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.138 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Calling Shandruk a fascist is a bit .... well, extreme, don't you think ? --Lysytalk 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, but there are many examples of history that a nation without and independent country or even under occupation could still have its military forces. Second Infantry Fusiliers Division, Polish 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division, Polish 4th Infantry Division, Polish 1st Armoured Division or Armia Krajowa are just several examples but there are many more. So why Ukrainian National Army was not a Ukrainian unit ? --Lysytalk 16:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- All the examples you provide (except for the AK, which is a resistance movement) are Polish not because Nazi say that they serve someone in exile, but because they were formed from Polish troops that managed to flee from the Germans and Soviets. The so called Ukrainian National Army was recreated from existing understrengthed German formation and only shares its name with the Ukrainian People's Republic which ceased to exist as a sovereign state decades ago. --Bogdan що? 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, they were interned in the territory controlled by Polish 2nd Corps in Italy, and were saved from deportation to Soviet Union by General Anders who protected them as former Polish citizens. Nevertheless, they were under Ukrainian, not German command. The question is to what degree they were independent from the Nazis. --Lysytalk 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes they were under German command! You think the Wehrmacht would recreate their own formations (14th SS + Ukrainian liberation army) into an independent Ukrainian army? Regardless of what the Fascists told anyone on the verge of defeat, this was clearly a German army formation. --Bogdan що? 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you provide proof about that : please read the two sources I cited
- Pavlo Shandruk - Arms of Valor, Robert Speller & Sons, 1959
- Melnyk, Michal James (2002). To Battle, The History and Formation of the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, second updated edition 2007, Helion and Co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.138 (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Віталій Масловський, З ким і проти кого воювали українські націоналісти в роки Другої світової війни. — Москва, 1999. bottom of page 186.
В березні 1945 року українські націоналісти і гітлерівці дійшли остаточної згоди про те, що під керівництвом вермахту і в його складі буде створена УНА під керівництвом генерала П. Шандрука. УНА повинна була сформуватись із різних "українських" підрозділів, які перебували в складі вермахту, військ СС та поліції. Певне місце тут відводилось і безпосередньо "Тарасові Бульбі".
- In every science you should carefully use the exact term to describe the fact or the idea : or Mister Maslowskyj use the word Hitlerit wich is not a word commonly used by historian, but by propagandist. All of his work are of the same propagandist level. This is someone one of the level of Wiktor Poliszczuk
The use of your sources puzzles me in two ways (please log in, by the way). First of all, how can you use Shandruk's publications on his own Nazi formations and how can you use Michael Melnyk's publication on the division his father served in? And secondly, how exactly do your sources present the Ukrainian People's Republic in exile as a sovereign state in 1945? Lysy, obviously Shandruk is obviously ethically Ukrainian, I'm not denying that. But in World War II he wore a Nazi German uniform and commanded Nazi German SS divisions, that makes him a fascist.
- As I just told you above, every word should be used carefully to express exactly the fact you want to describe, in history as in very science : using nazi formation' for UNA is not correct, and look like propagandist formulation, not historically correct.. I just explain to you why : None of their members (ukrainian) were member of the NSDAP (the nazi partei) ...
- There are just very few sources about UNA, and I would be very interested in which sources were used by Mister Maslowskyj? The fact that UNA had to cooperate with Wehrmacht is clear, has had to cooperate the french army under General de Gaulle with british army (have you noticed that there were TWO french armies during WWII and two French government ??? Have you noticed that there were a Polish government in exile, without any country named Poland during WWII) , as had to cooperate polish unit with allied armies ... But The whole commandment was ukrainian.
- I do not understand the porblem wih Melnyk??? Is is forbidden for someone a family of a survivor of Holocaust to write about Holocaust??? is it forbidden for a child of a veteran of the Red Army to write about the Red Army??? Does this make there work less accurate??? Are you judging the work of someone considering his origin???? This is a kind of racism....
I'll repeat myself, it is nonsense to present the Ukrainian People's Republic as a sovereign state in 1945. And the so called Ukrainian National Army was recreated from existing German formations, in Germany, for Germany. --Bogdan що? 15:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is your opiion and the opinion propagate during the soviet union era ....
- You asked for my reference, and I provided you with one. This has nothing to do with the NSDAP, all that I’m saying is that the UNA was within the structure of the Wehrmacht. Hence the sovereign nation to which it belongs to is Nazi Germany. Its commander being Ukrainian is irrelevant, every army, division, regiment, battalion (etc) has its own commander, that does not change its structure. My problem with Melnyk is that he is biased (race?!), and to be honest I'm still not clear as to how he presents the Ukrainian People's Republic in exile as a sovereign nation, please quote it for me. And finally your part on Vichy France and Poland makes no sense, please rephrase it. --Bogdan що? 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is not what is said by Shandruk ... I have more confidence to Shandruk, as he has never been involved in any political movement (He was not a fascist as you pretend), he was a soldier, as to an ukrainian historian who published all his work after independance of Ukraine, in Moscow .... (which is strange considering that none of his work had been considered on a level acceptable by any university in Ukraine...))). SO if you have objective sources (by serious historian, you re welcome.
- Could you please cite a Polish sovereing state during WWII??? But there are a lot of polish unit here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_units_and_formations_of_Poland_in_World_War_II ... This doesn't not support your point of view
- You asked for my reference, and I provided you with one. This has nothing to do with the NSDAP, all that I’m saying is that the UNA was within the structure of the Wehrmacht. Hence the sovereign nation to which it belongs to is Nazi Germany. Its commander being Ukrainian is irrelevant, every army, division, regiment, battalion (etc) has its own commander, that does not change its structure. My problem with Melnyk is that he is biased (race?!), and to be honest I'm still not clear as to how he presents the Ukrainian People's Republic in exile as a sovereign nation, please quote it for me. And finally your part on Vichy France and Poland makes no sense, please rephrase it. --Bogdan що? 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a French unit ... but strangely it was not under the commandment of French sovereign state... but it is called a French division http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Free_French_Division this does not support your point of view... There are many example. I just wonder why you have problem with Ukrainian ....
- LOL! You think the source isn't reliable because it was published after the Soviet era?!? And what the hell do you know of universities in Ukraine?
- Again Lysy's parallel to Polish units in the war does not apply here because they existed as military units in the sovereign Second Republic and fled the Germans and Soviets. On the other hand, the UNA was formed from (1) The SS Galicia and (2) the Ukrainian liberation army. BOTH ARE ENTIRELY GERMAN UNITS. The UNA was just another recreation of those formations under a different name. --Bogdan що? 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the officer of the different units were former soldiers or officers of the UNR army, or Polish Army or Red Army ... so what is the problem, I do not understand the differences (Polish vs Frech vs Ukrainian units)??? Is it the date ??? Who define how long this does not apply (20 years is to much???) Why??? you???
- The UNA had to become a whole army. it is not because some of their units were former Ukrainian units of different German armies, that it is a problem, as everything would have been adapt to form a Ukrainian army. You seem to have a little problem, because they are Ukrainian, and were allied with the German who were fighting their enemy : the Soviet Union...
- But what is funny is that your reason vary with the counter example which are provided ...
Again I don't understand your English, (if you can write a clearer reply in Ukrainian please do) are you asking the difference between the Polish units in the west and the UNA? --Bogdan що? 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Ukrainian National Committee
in http://lib.galiciadivision.com/shandruk/r22.html
Regarding principal and practical purposes of the Ukrainian National Committee, President Livytsky believed that it should: 1) seek opportunities and ways of saving Ukrainian political emigres and numerous leaders who managed to flee from the Bolsheviks in Ukraine, and 2) take over from the Germans the care of hundreds of thousands of soldiers of various Ukrainian formations who found themselves within the German armed forces voluntarily or involuntarily, and special attention was to be paid to the Division "Halychyna" which in the event of German surrender could automatically be turned over to the Bolsheviks. President Livytsky said: "Can we permit our brave soldiers who are such a treasure in the Ukrainian cause to perish? As a soldier you must not only understand, but also feel it." He also considered it imperative to discuss with leaders from Ukraine and Galicia the problem of the several million Ukrainian laborers shipped to forced labor in Germany. It would be necessary to find out how many of them do not want to return home and take care of them so that they would not fall into Communist hands. In his opinion, it would be very beneficial to retain as many as possible in the West, at least those who are the most conscious patriots among youth because, in his opinion, events could unexpectedly create favorable conditions to employ them in the interests of Ukraine. [...]
In conclusion President Livytsky said: "General, I want you to recall my words of other confidential talks, I always told you that I knew my generals well, and that in case of an important decision they would seek support in my authority, but you alone I could always let go freely because you never deviate and never lose sight of our main purpose. This time I am convinced even more firmly that my opinion of you was well justified. Therefore right now, when I don't know what your decision is going to be, I give you, as the future chairman of the Ukrainian National Committee carte blanche: all your decisions will be approved by me."
- When one speaks of members of Fascist SS divisions in this manner (such a treasure in the Ukrainian cause ), how can you even think of using it as a source? --Bogdan що? 15:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I told you above , exact term should be used to describe fact : So if you do not make differences between SS and Waffen SS formation, you should avoid to write about WWII .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.138 (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- What? --Bogdan що? 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- you used the word Fascist SS divisions , aren't you? Or there were no ukrainian SS unit, just one Waffen SS unit, which is totally different ... So if you do not make differences between SS and Waffen SS formation, you should avoid to write about WWII .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.138 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- What? --Bogdan що? 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I told you above , exact term should be used to describe fact : So if you do not make differences between SS and Waffen SS formation, you should avoid to write about WWII .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.138 (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
So you think it's ok to use the book that Shandruk wrote about his own formation, becuase I gave you a link to SS, and not Waffen SS? --Bogdan що? 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to be a dick about it, I'll ask again. When one speaks of members of Nazi Waffen SS divisions in this manner (such a treasure in the Ukrainian cause ), how can you even think of using it as a source? --Bogdan що? 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Simple : he saw them as human being, from the same nationality as his own, and soldier for Ukraine! They were not any criminal people at all... -See the Deschenes Commision , the 1950 scrutiny, and the 1948 scrutiny ... They joined the Galizien division, bc it was presented to them as the core of a future Ukrainian army, I don't think it is hard to understand (except for some blind extremist). Sovie Union was not consider to be the paradize for Ukrainian people (cultural and physical destruction). They were not Nazi at all, if you can"t understand that, you re a little blind : Have you ever visit a gulag camp, or Solovki island, or a psychiatric hospital???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.93.82 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I've never been to a psychiatric hospital, thanks for asking.
I think you need to take a look outside of your little diaspora rhetoric. And even with my inherent blindness I can see that millions on Ukrainians fought in the ranks of the Red Army, not even close to the UNA and UPA numbers. So when someone puts on a German Waffen SS uniform, takes a German Waffen SS machine gun, and goes to shoot at millions of his fellow Ukrainians, I don't consider that it makes him a treasure to the Ukrainian people. --Bogdan що? 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- they were not volunteer for joining Red Army ... (In 1st division of UNA, there were much more volunteer) ... There were no ukrainian units or division within the Red Army. Same question could be formulated for soldier of the Red Army( Have you noticed that Western Ukraina was under Poish control before 1939, and that Red Army attack Poland???) You should think also outside of your dogmatic theory ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.28.90 (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- "There were no ukrainian units or division within the Red Army" - you sure? --Bogdan що? 08:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- give an exemple please...
- Ok, well this is my favourite piece of trivia; the 383rd Rifle Division. The division was not only entirely Ukrainian but it was comprised completely of miners from Donbas. --Bogdan що? 10:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- This does not mean that they were all Ukrainian : Miner come from all of the USSR (or Imperial Russia before) to work in mine: on eexample Khrouchtchov parents who were from Russia and come work in the mine.
- So what? If the SS Division Galicia was recruited in Galicia that does not mean that everyone was Ukrainian either. --Bogdan що? 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there were German ... You should first lean about the recruitment policy before writing such things... (SO first read then write)
- B ut having the same reasoning as yours, made the Galizien Division a Polish division, and the UPA a Polish underground movement, and 2nd North African Infantry Division an Algerian units...
- This does not mean that they were all Ukrainian : Miner come from all of the USSR (or Imperial Russia before) to work in mine: on eexample Khrouchtchov parents who were from Russia and come work in the mine.
- Ok, well this is my favourite piece of trivia; the 383rd Rifle Division. The division was not only entirely Ukrainian but it was comprised completely of miners from Donbas. --Bogdan що? 10:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- give an exemple please...
- Wait, wait, you accuse millions of Ukrainians (4.5 - 7 million) of joining the Red Army involuntarily; while saying that recruitment for the 14th SS, was voluntary? You think that when Germany occupied Ukrainain territory and saw a working-age male, they let him do and volunteer for what ever he liked? I think the highlight of Melnyk's book is that half the members were recruited at gunpoint, no? --Bogdan що? 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- He gave no number.
- should I remember you exploit of NKVD: Katyn massacre of Polish solider and officer/ 30 000 or more execution of civilian (polish and Ukrainian during 1939 / 1941 period (most during retreat of Soviet forces), thousand of deportation of Ukrainian / Polish / Jewish civilians by NKVD... Do you think people forgot Soviet Paradize, and want the return of Red Army and their nice friend of NKVD???
- "There were no ukrainian units or division within the Red Army" - you sure? --Bogdan що? 08:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. The last thing you should be doing when defending waffen SS formations is speaking of massacres. And Katyn is totally besides the point here. The point is that by far most Ukrainians fought in the Red army, and calling members of Nazi divisions a treasure to the Ukrainian people is nothing but offensive to the wide majority. --Bogdan що? 10:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm still waiting to hear your great wisdom on Ukrainian universities. --Bogdan що? 10:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep on, I'm interesting about what you have to say about the massacre. The best is to talk in general, talking about crime of German Waffen SS, and then say that all Waffen SS were criminal (Generalization and vagueness is the core of all the extremists): There were a scrutiny by Canadian Justice which conclude that Galizian DIvision was not responsible of any crime.. (Deschênes Commission).
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by copy and pasting content from 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian), you can read it for yourself. But I've heard of good English language book exactly on this topic; it's called Pure Soldiers Or Bloodthirsty Murderers, by Sol Littman. I'll be honest I've never read it, but I'm sure it'll answer any questions you have. P.S. I'm still waiting to hear your great wisdom on Ukrainian universities. --Bogdan що? 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please inform me ... I'm more interested that WHO, WHEN and WHERE.
- Have you noticed that 14 Galizien division was create AFTER exploit of NKVD (Katyn massacre of Polish solider and officer/ 30 000 or more execution of civilian (polish and Ukrainian during 1939 / 1941 period (most during retreat of Soviet forces), thousand of deportation of Ukrainian / Polish / Jewish civilians ). I just wonder why....
- For universities, ask a question, and I'll answer. No time and place to make a dissertation about that.
- about Littman books : nothing to say : there are very little information about the division, most of the book are about AFTER WWII, how they tried to find criminal within the division in 1950- then 1987 ... But without any results. So not very informative and interesting,, historically and military speaking ; it's much more propagandist (many generalizations, vagueness, the same one you made) , and I'm sure this would be a book for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.28.90 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
UNA
from http://lib.galiciadivision.com/shandruk/r25.html
After the conference I went to see President Livytsky who, as I mentioned, was living near Weimar. I gave him my report and presented my new idea to him with which he was very pleased and said: "I knew that you would find a way out." I then presented the problem of the High Command of the UNA: the UNC was to issue a resolution that I was being appointed Commander of the UNA, but I personally, and many of our older soldiers were legalists, and we would like to get an order of my appointment from the Supreme Command of the UNR Army. President Livytsky promised to do this, and within a few days I received the following order:
"ORDER. To the Army and Navy of the Ukrainian National Republic. No. 8. March 15, 1945.
Re: General Staff: Lieutenant-General of (he General Staff Pavlo Shandruk is hereby appointed Commander of the Ukrainian National Army as of March 15, 1945.
(Signed): A. Livytsky, Commander-in-Chief;
(signed) M. Sadovsky, Major General, for the Ministry of Military Affairs; Certified copy of the original:
(signed) A. Nosachenko, Lt.-Col. Seal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.138 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Bulba Borovets
http://zustrich.quebec-ukraine.com/lib/bulba/bulba_307armee.htm
He spokes about the irregular division of the UNA : the special group B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.28.90 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think this (and the title itself "Army without a nation") answers our question doesn't it:
Цією відозвою Комітет проголосив свою програму та організацію нової української армії при німецьких збройних силах.
--Bogdan що? 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- just one more change, which you didn't noticed. This mean that they were on German side , as you seem not to understand very well, not an Ukrainian army within German army.
Summary
Let me try to summarize what we've found so far.
- Shandruk was not a fascist, on the contrary, he was awarded one of the highest Polish military decorations, Virtuti Militari for fighting against the Germans.
- UNC was created with the purpose to make it possible to command the Ukrainian units independently from the Germans (and Russians from RONA).
- UNA was created in German territory and consisted mostly from former Nazi Ukrainian units that were under German command.
- UNA itself had a Ukrainian command, that did not report to the Germans but to UNC.
- UNC/UNA obviously were the allies of the nazis.
Do we all agree with the above ? --Lysytalk 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- 1. All that I was trying to say is that he commanded a Waffen-SS division. Call him what you will. --Bogdan що? 11:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- 4. It had a Ukrainian commander, but every military formation has its own commander, what difference does it make? --Bogdan що? 11:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the command determines the allegiance of a military unit. --Lysytalk 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- How so? --Bogdan що? 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- How would you define military allegiance, then ? --Lysytalk 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think allegiance field is used to show the state of origin for units which are not part of the regular armed forces (like National Guard units, for example). So it could be omitted here. --Bogdan що? 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, take a look at the Template:Infobox_Military_Unit. It reads: "allegiance – optional – used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated." --Lysytalk 23:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- How would you define military allegiance, then ? --Lysytalk 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- How so? --Bogdan що? 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the command determines the allegiance of a military unit. --Lysytalk 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- What I have to add :
- It was a military formation not an SS one. Waffen SS were soldiers ... specially the foreign Waffen SS ...
- From the book of Melnyk : UNA should include the 14 the Waffen SS division (ukrainian), but it was effective just 10 days before surrender, even if Shandruk visit the division before, due to the reluctance of some Nazi chief (including Hitler) to continue to have a ukrainian formation (he want to disband this unit). With the agreement of the German staff of the 1st division, the German staff (not all but a part) remain in post, and some of their chief sworn on Ukrainian flag and had worn, for the last days the Ukrainian trident. This was because Shandruk do not want to make brutal change, not having logistic with him. (A whole chapter in the book that I tried to summarized.
- there were another additional part, with Ukrainian soldier in training at Nimek, just Ukrainian, who had to form another division. (see Shandruk books) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.93.82 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- What I have to add :
- According to the wikipedia article, Waffen-SS was composed of volunteer troops with particularly strong personal commitments to Nazi ideology, so they were not ordinary soldiers. --Lysytalk 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- This was the case for German waffen SS ... not for waffen ss built from foreigner, later (Russian / Lithuanian, Ukrainian ...), who were not member of NSDAP (b/c of racial theory of the NSDAP). See for the Ukrainian one, what was the recruitment propaganda, nothing about the Nazi, but fighting against Bolshevism ....
- for the rest I agree with what you said -but write Nazi Germany) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.93.82 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- on last thing : To make difference beweent german Waffen SS and foreigne Waffen SS, the name was different :
- SS - XXXX - Division for german division (XXXX could be Panser, Polisei, or other)
- Waffen - XXXX- Division der SS for foreign Waffen SS (XXXX could be Grenadier, Freiwiligen, ...)