Talk:Lviv pogroms (1941)

Anti-Ukrainian propaganda

Very important article but inter alia is using as part of global anti-Ukrainian propaganda, organized by the Kremlin, where Wikipedia is part of global informational war is.

When the article was frozen (Extended protected)? For sure before invasion of Russia into Ukraine, so everybody who is interesting in the "nazi/nationalism problem in Ukraine" can see what he/she heard on international (belongs to Russia state) medias.

First paragraph of the article, which for sure mostly readable, argue that the "pogroms were ignored or obfuscated in Ukrainian historical memory", it is very controversial statement and directly condemns Ukraine as a state that hides the memory of the Holocaust, thereby being to one degree or another the (neo)Nazi, as official Russian propaganda claims.

Very quick search about this problem (historian memory) shows us plenty of articles online, in papers and magazines, just several examples: at Istorychna Pravda, polemical article about previous one, Lviv Interactive encyclopedia, in Ukrainа moderna magazine. Moreover there are several monuments and memorials in memory of holocaust in Lviv .

So in conclusion, this article has controversial statements which should be moderated to more neutral. DUKE (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is the summary of the section Manipulation of historical memory which is well-sourced. The existence of articles which discuss this does not refute it. If you want to add something concrete - for example the erection of monuments and memorial - then please do it. Alaexis_¿question? 11:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Russian sources

Russian sources are quite specific with regard to the pogroms. The Russian historian Sergei Chuguyev (whom I understand was a former KGB archivist) wrote: "That 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 in 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. Kutshman 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".

Also, the initial number of 4,000 deaths was originally the number ascribed to the Ukrainian and Polish Political prisoners who were killed in their cells by the Soviets during their withdrawal. This particular number seems to have wandered over to the anti-jewish pogroms. What the mechanism was for this is not clear.

The number of Jewish deaths that was quoted in an article I recently read from the Nuremberg trials (this is just off the top of my head was I think) was more like 30,000 which is considerably more than 4,000, although I do also remember that there was a not regarding the fact that these numbers could have been inaccurate. One of the reasons that Babi Yar did not become a major topic during Nuremberg was because the numbers for Babi Yar were at that time so small in comparisonto Lviv and Kharkiv.

An international commission was set up at The Hague in the Netherlands in 1958 to carry out independent investigations initially into Federal Minister Oberländer but also it touched on the Nachtigall battalion which he commanded. The members were four former anti-Hitler activists, Norwegian lawyer Hans Cappelen, former Danish foreign minister and president of the Danish parliament Ole Bjørn Kraft, Dutch socialist Karel van Staal, Belgian law professor Flor Peeters, and Swiss jurist and member of parliament Kurt Scoch. Following its interrogation of a number of Ukrainian witnesses between November 1959 and March 1960, the commission concluded: "After four months of inquiries and the evaluation of 232 statements by witnesses from all circles involved, it can be established that the accusations against the Battalion Nachtigall and against the then Lieutenant and currently Federal Minister Oberländer have no foundation in fact."

A valuable source of a detailed study of archival documents of this period are in de Zayas book "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945" University of Nebraska Press, Rockport, Maine, 2000 edition . Sections regarding the investigation of the Lviv attrocities are available online[[1]].

One should keep in mind that in the fall of 1959 the Soviet press mounted a major disinformation campaign against the then minister in the West German Adenauer cabinet, Theodor Oberländer, who at the time was commander of the Nachtigall Battalion made up of a couple of hundred Ukrainian volunteers. The Soviets accused him and the Ukrainian division of participating in the SS murders in Lviv. On 5 September 1959 the "Radianska Ukraina" newspaper wrote: "Eighteen years ago the fascists committed a horrendous crime in Lviv in the night of 29 - 30 June 1941. The Hitlerites arrested on the basis of prepared lists hundreds of Communists, Communist youth, and non-party members and murdered them in brutal fashion in the courtyard of the Samarstinov Prison." These accusations were picked up by the Western press and eventually led to Oberländer's resignation. The investigation by the district attorney's office in Bonn, however, completely cleared Oberländer. The accusations of Oberlander and the Nachtigall Battalion keep resurfacing in Western sources however. (This is based on the fact that for a short time he was a former assistant to the infamous Gauleiter Erich Koch and also because of his then political alliances to far-right movements).

This year in Ukraine the government has honoured Roman Shukhevych who was the Ukrainian Commander of the Nachtigall Battalion. Some sources in Ukraine (particularly Eastern Ukraine and the areas in Russia with significant Ukrainian populations) are once again making accusations of involvement in anti-jewish pogroms. I'm sure there will be much more information during the course of the year. Bandurist 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Re sources

As I read through more and more sources and books from Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Jewish sources one begins to get a feeling with regard to the various POV's that are out there.

Despite the fact that the Russian accounts are probably the most detailed, I have noticed numerous inaccuracies in the Russian sources. Incorrect names, dates that do not fall within the parameters of particular actions. Material which was also avoided and not mentioned. The ascribing of Soviet atrocities to others. Soviet scholarship had many of these holes, however, although current Russian Scholarship seems to be better it still continues in that particular vein.

Polish sources from the 60's seem to have been fed from Russian sources and mirror what was stated or written in Russia at the time. Many of these works are being brought up in recent times. Tracing where they got there information from is interesting.

Jewish sources often quote Polish sources, particularly from the 60's which in turn were often restatements of Soviet materials.

Soviet Ukrainian materials seem the least reliable. Emigre Ukrainian materials avoid the subject almost completely, and the subject regarding Ukrainian collaboration with the Germans is if not avoided, then dealt with extremely sparsely, however, there is enough there to check the more detailed Russian accounts. Bandurist (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The day we can trust Soviet/Russian sources about such a delicate matter, we'll all be happily ice-skating in hell. They should automatically be taken with a pinch of salt. Malick78 (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

The paragraph below has been removed because of lack of documentation. Anyone having the citation for the numbers is welcome to restore the substance of the paragraph.

The number of actual Jewish deaths which was quoted in an article I recently read about the Nuremberg trials (this is just off the top of my head was I think) was more like 30,000.

One should also note the substantial similarity between this Wikipedia article and the essay at http://alfreddezayas.com/Chapbooks/Lembergmassacre.shtml.

Richard David Ramsey 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I have problems with the following:

vThe Lviv pogroms was a massacre of Jews living in and near the city of Lviv in the Nazi-occupied Ukraine) that took place in July 1941 during World War II.

The Nazi's entered Lviv on July 30 at 4.30 am.

The pogroms could not start any earlier.

Also this paragraph

During the four-week pogrom from the end of June to early July 1941, nearly 4,000 Jews were murdered. On July 25, 1941, a second pogrom, called "Petliura Days" after Symon Petliura, was organized; nearly 2,000 more Jews were killed in Lviv, mostly shot in groups by civilian collaborators after being marched to the Jewish cemetery or to Lunecki prison.

If Lviv was occupied on July 30 a four week pogrom could not take place from the end of June to early July.

Same applies to the second pogrom of July 25. If the German forces lead by the Nachtigall Battalion entered Lviv on July 30. Something is wrong with the source. Bandurist (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

02:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Biased source

"According to Yevgen Nakonechny the main perpetrators of this pogrom were the local declassee Poles" - This statement is a source degrades, I have not heard of any sources indicating Poles as perpetrators of the pogrom--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nakonechny is a major historian, and a considerable moral authority. You don't have to like him, but his statement is notable.--Galassi (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Here one can read about this "moral authority": [2] With respect to the author’s attempts to blame the Lviv pogrom on Polish lumpen elements (shumovynnia), “this again is a myth in which the author wants to believe” (Kovba, Review 140). GlaubePL (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you use him I am going to cite Poliszczuk, Prus, Korman. Prus is a Polish historian too. Nakonenechny and Wiatrowycz are OUN supporters.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with GlaubePL and Pawel here, with respect to Nakonechny, based on Himka's article. Nakonechny may be cited but only as a represdentative of the Ukrainan nationalist point of view; his opinions shouldn't be presented as neutral ones. Adding Prus or Poliszczuk to "balance" Nakonechny is not the correct approach: two wrongs don't make a right.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read Nakonechny's books, I do not see him as a representative of the Ukrainian Nationalist point of view. Ukrainian view yes, but not a nationalist one. In fact in some of his statements he is very critical of Ukrainian nationalist POV.

Ivan444 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read his work but Himka (a reliable source) is rather objective and he is very very negative about him, as a Ukrainian nationalist.Faustian (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He was a member of OUN. GlaubePL (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a link?Faustian (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at source added by Glaube - At the age of 17 he was arrested for belongingto a youth group of the OUN.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Youthful allegiance isn't the same as lifetime commitment/membership. I know a part-Polish countess who as a fifteen year old joined the OUN, just to fight Bolsheviks, and died while doing so.Faustian (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Prof. Himka calls him OUN's admirer [3], page 3, footnote 17. GlaubePL (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the same. That being said, I'm convinced that he is not a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• SBU during the presidency of Juszczenko is not certain source too. Read Per A. Rudling, The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust: A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths, The Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies nr 2107, listopad 2011, ISSN 0889-275X. I got link to Polish translation this article. Maybe Glaube will help with english link. Google translation: The Liberation Movement Research Center is associated with the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, most importantly, Ukrainian security forces (sluzhba Bezpeki Ukraine, SBU), the direct successor to the KGB. This organization was designed to implement key aspects of Yushchenko camera for memory management: memory uphold, institutions, resources, and archives Ukrainian security service. Sofia Hrachova stresses that "the SBU has a monopoly on information and uses that monopoly to the purpose of political, publishing selected documents that depict historical events in Depending on the current official perspectives (political demands), and are confirmed official position on controversial issues. "In contrast to similar archives in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the majority of their collection is not available for researchers--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• More sources about SBU hoaxes: Marko Carynnyk].--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Generally unrelated, but FYI Yushchenko's pro-Bandera and pro-OUN activities are now widely considered in Ukraine to have been part of his collusion with Yanukovich to keep Tymoshenko from getting elected: [4].Faustian (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems

I think there are some problems with the article, maybe some bias.

1) Ukrainian Auxillary Police could not have participated in the Pogroms of 30 June - 2nd July nor do I think that they could have participated in the Petlura days as the auxillary Police were only formed on the 27th of July.

2) At the time of the German invasion there were only about 100,000 inhabitants of Lviv, of which about 11% were Ukrainian and about 4-50% Jewish. It would have been hard to fit 120,000 Jews into a Ghetto that was one of the ethnic quadrants of the city. The area of the Ghetto was very small, with only small houses and low buildings. I would estimate a population of 8-10,000 people fitting in there. Even today, this area has not been built up and consists mainly of individual houses and low building.

3) I doubt that the Ukrainian division participated, as it quickly left the city after it entered it and continued fighting on the front. And initially the small number of Ukrainians (11% of the city) were busy proclaiming independence and gaining control of the Radio station and newspapers.

The numbers and dates don't really seem so add up.

With Polish, Jewish, Russian and Ukrainian POV's articles like this, where the information is mixed in with some emotional content, they should post a warning note for readers that information contained in the article may be distorted by editors, and the other POV publications. Ivan444 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ad.1 - Correct. It was militia of OUN, established by Stetsko.

Ad. 2 - Good idea to check the numbers, anyway it was normal for Germans to compress Jews in the smallest possible area and to resettle them from villages to towns.

Ad. 3 - The article does not tell about any division.

GlaubePL (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I got Dieter Schenk book: "Noc morderców", he mentioned also about Nachtigall soldiers.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Himka confirms that Nachtigall's participation was a Soviet-created hoax. However, he also confirms that OUN (but not Nachtigall) were responsible. See: [5]Faustian (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

I am proposing that as a curtesy to other editors, if a Polish, Ukrainian, or Russian language article is used, at bare minimum it should be one that is searchable on the internet and/or if it is a book - and is in fact a RS - it should be one that does not direct to blank hit on Google, Amazon (or another major book seller). The burdon of proof that a source is a RS is on the editor, so please make it easy for us to research the source of your information.

For instance, FN 1 of this article seems to be a Polish work but based on initial searches on Google, Amazon, Jastor, other English sources, etc. it is seemingly non-existent except as it links to this article as FN 1, circular reasoning I think. Can the editor please provide either a better source or some other link so that we can confirm FN 1 and its information? Gmw112252 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It was given in transliteration without enough details: it is probably in Ukrainian Євген Наконечний «Шоа у Львові» ISBN 966-02-3363-9.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Common Criminals"

This is unsourced inflammatory NNPOV and will be deleted.--Galassi (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A RS was provided, but if you can think of term that is more accurate and dosen't "offend you" I'll agree. However, the only thing that is inflamatory is your stark revert and condescending tone. Why not take it up on the talk page instead? Gmw112252 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So, where does it say "common criminals"?--Galassi (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First, as to NNPOV, who is the term non-neutural to, convicted criminals? Do you want me to call them "legally challenged"? (smile) Second, as to the RS, I cited it in the revert explaination as Footnote 129, p. 399 Lemberg Mosaic. It's also presented by Filip Friedman in his Roads to Extinction chapter on Lwow as if it was common knowledge in the city at the time. And finally, on another note, some of those killed may also have been Jews, Poles, Romani or others in L'vov's prisons for garden variety of criminal matters. Gmw112252 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The victim lists are available, and their ethnic composition has all the ethnic groups, with approximately 1 Jewish name per 25-30 Ukrainians. As too "common criminals" - no source mentions that. You might have provide a scan of the relevant paragraph. The of the massacred were political arrestees.--Galassi (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all it's not that important a point to waste so much bandwidth on. I'm still not sure why you are so incensed that some prisoners in three (3) local prisons may actually have been there for a non-political offenses. After all, one man's freedom fighter can be another man's terrorist (or murdurer). But we don't have to re-invent the wheel here by re-litigating their convictions and ethnic composition according to "lists."

First off, what lists? Whose lists? Prepared by whom and for what adgenda? Second, how do we know the prisoner was "Ukrainian" only by name... perhaps the mother was Jewish or Polish or of some other ethnicity? Third, your use of words/terms like "ovewhelming number," "no source mentions..." when two (2) sources were provided, are not acceptable without a RS, like I've cited. And finally -- if the lists are available cite a RS and link to them.

In the end, I don't think the point is important enough to provide a scan, if you haven't access to the book (which I find that hard to believe as the title produces almost 200,000 hits on Google), assume GFaith in a fellow editor. I'm busy now and must run. Peace and let's consider the more important issue(s) I've raised below which I *think* will end all this silly bickering over trying to re-write or re-fight the war.Gmw112252 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this Article (Revisited)

In trying to edit this article for clarity and acuracy (starting today with the introductory paragraph) I came to the conclusion - through my research - that this article as it stands to is "highly," perhaps irreparably flawed from the gate. And this is most likely the cause for others editors' concern, reverts (one of which I was forced to make today as unsourced or incorrectly sourced), and confusion of the subject which has already led to a separate controversy paragraph and WP controversy page on the subject.

I believe that this problem has come about because of the article's overly ambitious attempt to lump together two inherently conflicted concepts - in the format of historical events, i.e. The Prison Massacre and the subsequent Prison Aktion - in what essentially is an article about three separate components of the Shoah (Holocaust) in Lviv (Lemberg/Lwow at the time) and a relatively important event in Ukrainian history during World War II, the Prison Massacre. I believe each is a very broad subject in itself:

1. The Prison Massacre of 1941

2. The Prison Aktion Pogrom against the Jews of Lviv

3. The Pogrom widely covered by Jewish historians and witnesses known as "Petlura Days"

The problem I see is that the NPOV is lost when these topics are presented here as one continuous pogrom. What has happened here is that sources from Ukrainian historians have been jockeyed against a library of Jewish RS on the Holocaust. The result is a mish-mosh and blurring of the history because the events above - especially #1 are highly disputed, and to a lesser extent, #2.

Ukrainian Pogrom. The article as it stands also makes it seem as if the Prison Massacre against the inmates was a "pogrom" (or part of one, actually #2 above) without citing RS that call it a "pogrom" (I have found none) in conflict with the facts, and the generally accepted definition of the term pogrom. As to whether the editors are trying to say it was a "pogrom," or are trying to characterize it as one by "free-riding" RS about the pogrom(s) against Jews (in which the victims of the massacre are the perpetrators of the pogroms). At minimum it's just confusing.

I propose that this article be divided into three separate articles that link to each other where relevant, and I think this *might* make it easier to resolve the problem of its non-NPOV and historical inaccuracies.

I further would like to suggest that since most of the research on this subject refers to the name of the city as Lwow, L'vov, Lvov, or Lemberg GG, as it was called at the time in 1941 and for years thereafter, through to the creation of an independent Ukraine in 1991, that a paragraph be devoted to this subject so as not to confuse the reader and/or some kind of disambiguation page... or however it's done on WP. Comments? Suggestions? Gmw112252 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lviv pogroms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x16/xm1688.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005171

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Misquotation?

The quote by prof. Norman Davies ("in the [Lviv] personnel of the Soviet security police at the time, the high percentage of Jews was striking.") doesn't appear to address Lviv specifically, but is instead referring to all of "eastern Poland in 1939–1941." Please review page 32 in the source. In its current version, the text seems to insinuate Lviv was exceptional. --ארינמל (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please go back to the listed PDF source, and read again. The extensive quotation from Davies goes across several pages, from page 32 through to page 34.[6] – In his discourse with Abraham Brumberg, Davies' used these exact words (as quoted on page 32): "Among the informers and collaborators, as in the personnel of the Soviet security police at the time, the high percentage of Jews was striking." This statement is followed by a referral to seven (7) authors including Krakowiecki, Blum, Wat, Mirska, Watowa, Chciuk and Rowiński. It is not possible to confirm whether the situation in Lviv was being addressed specifically by any of them. However, on page 34 the situation in Lviv (in Davies' quote) is being addressed directly with these words (attributed to Gross' research at Yad Vashem): In Lwów, “I must admit that the majority of positions in the Soviet agencies have been taken by Jews.” A Jewish observer to the pro-Soviet demonstrations in Lwów related, “Whenever a political march, or protest meeting, or some other sort of joyful event took place, the visual effect was unambiguous—Jews.” The message conveyed in these two statements combined amounts to the same thing. We can change the words of course, but that could result in even more confusion because the (quote-unquote) Soviet agencies really mean just one thing i.e. the Soviet security police. No agencies existed outside of the NKVD stronghold, which is clear in the context of the entire Soviet occupation of eastern Poland before Operation Barbarossa. Poeticbent talk 07:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should omit Lviv from the current quote. This contextualizing takes too much liberty. That, or quote him on page 34 instead --ארינמל (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No texts were copied from other wikipedias

Poeticbent, no texts were copied from other wikipedias--Slav70 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR

• User:Slav70 (18 edits since: 2015-03-21) wrote about the Lviv pogroms for Ukrainian Wikipedia. According to tools.wmflabs.org Slav70 made 49 edits to Львівський погром (1941), or 96.08% of the total edits made to that page. — I can appreciate his desire to help build Wikipedia. However, User:Slav70 also copy-pasted an entire column of inline citations into here from Львівський погром (1941) without reading them, and that is not acceptable. In some of his sources (see below) there's NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF THE LVIV POGROMS OR EVEN THE CITY ITSELF. This is against our WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK policies. See the full list of what he put into here:

The problem becomes clear only when you examine the above entries one by one. Here it is:

1. Number one: Richard J. Evans (p. 46). The actual book is online, in preview mode: NOTHING ABOUT THE CITY OR ABOUT ANY POGROMS WHATSOEVER ON PAGE 46! Google Books: "The New Racial Order," page 46. The link by Slav70 leads to a user-generated screenshot showing ONE paragraph from a Google Book preview saved as jpg by himself. No chapter, no publication data, nothing. Just the convenient one paragraph grabbed from the screen in a JPG (!) format and uploaded to archive.is anonymously. Those of you who have a knack for graphic arts, please look carefully at the top right-hand corned of that screenshot, and study the usual compression artifacts. "Page 46" was typed into the picture using Photoshop after the fact. That's even worse than I thought.
2. Number two: 413-page book NEIGHBOURS On the Eve Of the Holocaust in PDF. NO PAGE NUMBER GIVEN. ARRIVAL OF THE GERMANS BEGINS ON P. 299.
3. Number three: This is a 220-page book Patterns of Cooperation... in PDF. Please search for Lwów and/or Lvov using search feature. There are virtually dozens of mentions of local inhabitants, and NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF THE LVIV POGROMS!
4. This is a 432-page book Jews in Poland: A Documentary History with camps and ghettos. NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF THE CITY ITSELF AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE LVIV POGROMS!
5. NO EXTERNAL LINKS (NOTHING TO CONFIRM).
6. NO EXTERNAL LINKS, AND NO PAGE NUMBERS (NOTHING TO CONFIRM).
7. THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. PRIVATE 'GEOCITIES' WEBPAGE WITH HUNDREDS OF CHERRY-PICKED LITTLE EXCERPTS FROM ALL OVER THE WEB, WITH NO OVERVIEW OF ANY-KIND!

This cannot go on. Poeticbent talk 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent All these books provide the information about Jewish collaboration with Soviets and NKVD during Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland which includes Lviv. Some undefined number of Jews like some undefined number of Poles, Ukrainian, Belorussians and other nationalities collaborated with Soviets and NKVD during Soviet occupation, so the issue of Jewish collaboration is relevant to the issue of Lviv pogrom. There are a few preview modes for the same book of The Third Reich at War By Richard J. Evans. If you scroll down about twenty - twenty one pages from this page of this numberless page book preview mode you offered, you will find the same text on Jewish collaboration https://ibb.co/e85Xem . You also can find it by searching words Even conservative and religious Jews welcomed the Soviet takeover in the book, https://ibb.co/k25bN6 , and you can find it in another book preview mode on page 46 , https://ibb.co/gxUYKm . The other books also supply information on Jewish collaboration in Eastern Poland, including Lviv, during Soviet occupation. Did you read all these books? Do I need to take photocopies of the books and give them to you for reading?--Slav70 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There are other books in preview mode. For example: Piotrowski, Tadeusz. Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in Second Republic, 1918-1947.Chapter 3. Jewish Collaboration. page 35--Slav70 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The book of Jews in Poland: A Documentary History Paperback by Iwo Pogonowsk on 98, 158, 406-411 pages and the book of Mark Paul. "NEIGHBOURS On the Eve of the Holocaust Polish-Jewish Relations in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939–1941" on pages 34, 41, 43-45, 48, 67, 74, 78, 81 and others tell about Jewish collaboration with Soviets.--Slav70 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Slav70, I'd like to save you some time. We already know that the collaboration took place. As you said, the Ukrainians also collaborated with the Soviets. Numerous respectable historians have already confirmed that. You don't need to prove the Jewish collaboration to us. It is mentioned in this article already. And, drop the patronizing tone of your rhetorics. This article is about the massacres that followed.

On the whole, initial Ukrainian reactions [to Soviet occupation] ranged from radical rejection to hopeful welcome. While others fled, many Ukrainian elite representatives stayed, some at least welcoming the demotion of Poles or complaining about imagined preferences for Jews. In reality, Ukrainians predominated among locals given positions in Soviet institutions in Lviv oblast, accounting for two-thirds (4,909) of 6,822 locals promoted by the middle of 1940. — Tarik Cyril Amar (2015), The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists. Cornell University Press, p. 74. ISBN 1501700839. Poeticbent talk 23:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article is mentioned Jewish collaboration? Numerous respectable historians link Jewish collaboration with followed pogroms. I have no objections if you include facts of Ukrainian collaboration in this and many other Wikipedia articles. --Slav70 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The term collaboration sounds important but it doesn't say anything tangible. For example the collaboration of some Jews in helping to disarm Polish soldiers in 1939, even if true, had nothing to do with the Ukrainians and would have been irrelevant in this article. That's why the sources you bring are rejected by the community. — For background, see M. Haltof 2012, p. 18. ISBN 0857453572. Poeticbent talk 05:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Participants in Lviv Pogroms acted out of revenge for the collaboration of some Jews with NKVD and Soviets. The Wikipedia article of Jedwabne pogrom narrates Jewish collaboration: As soon as the Soviets entered Jedwabne, the local Polish government was dismantled. At first, many Polish Jews were relieved to learn that the Soviets, rather than the Nazis, were to occupy their town, and unlike gentile Poles, publicly welcomed the Red Army as their protectors.[10][18] Some people from other ethnic groups in Kresy, particularly Belarusians, also openly welcomed the Soviets.[18] Administrative jobs were offered to Jews who declared Soviet allegiance. Some Jews joined a Soviet militia overseeing deportations of ethnic Poles organized by the NKVD. At least one witness testimony says that during round-ups, armed Jewish militiamen were seen to be guarding those being prepared for deportation to Siberia. All above mentioned sources of reputable historians link Jewish collaboration with followed pogroms since pogromists blamed collectively all Jews for some Jewish collaboration. No one in any way justifys any anti-Jewish motives of pogromists --Slav70 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Poeticbent. Your edit [7] creates an impression that the pogroms were somehow justified. Yes, they were "justified" by Nazi propaganda, but the page already tells about it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The information about facts of Jewish collaboration must be included in the article like it included in the article of Jedwabne pogrom, and, simultaneously, any anti-Jewish, antisemitic motives of pogromists, including Nazi propaganda, must be strongly condemned in the article.--Slav70 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Jewish collaboration

Information about Jewish collaboration with NKVD and soviets in Eastern Poland during soviet occupation must be mentioned in the article like it included in the article of Jedwabne pogrom since it is very relevant information. There are many books and articles on Jewish collaboration with NKVD and soviets from many reputable historians (see the above section ) .--Slav70 (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, why do you consider my edit is not neutral?--Slav70 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First, using multiple accounts is prohibited in most cases, and it's clear from your contributions to User talk:Perunslava that's what's happening. Likewise, using an alternate account to avoid a block is especially unacceptable. This is enough reason to revert. Resolve these issues before editing anywhere else on Wikipedia.

As for the edit itself, it is undue emphasis on a minor, obvious aspect of a complicated issue. This statement itself is misleading, and aligns with the anti-Semitic Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory, which is not credible. Some Polish people collaborated with the NKVD. So what? Why would we even need to mention that some of those people might have been Jewish? Judging by your defense of the discredited Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory from your other account, your motives here are not academically supported. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so this isn't a forum to spread pseudohistorical nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, Do you have any evidences about my usage of multiple accounts? Many reputable historian describe Jewish collaboration at that time.--Slav70 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't insult other people's intelligence like that, it won't work out well. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, please be specific in you accusations. Please read carefully and understand the page of User talk:Perunslava since I was not accused in using of other accounts. I never defended any discredited Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory from this and other accounts. I have been strongly condemning any anti-Semitic ideas and motives. We need to mention some Jewish collaboration as context of following events. Polish, Ukrainian and Belorussian collaboration with Soviets and NKVD like Jewish collaboration with Soviets and NKVD is described in many publications by many respectable historians.--Slav70 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to ping me. It's not actually working, but I would rather you didn't anyway. I will respond on my own time, and a lack of response on my part is not a sign of acceptance of your behavior.

Looking closer, it is reasonably possible these two accounts are not socks of each other, although I still think that's a strong possibility. Regardless, this edit is grotesquely undue for many, many reasons. It is inappropriate regardless of who makes it. The specific reasons have already been discussed above, and there is no reason for me to rehash this further. The burden is on you to get consensus for these changes, and you have so far failed to do this. I suggest you continue this in the above section, but do not restore this content until you have direct agreement from others. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I can prove that I have been using the same account from 2008 year in other Wikipedia. I do not view the information on Jewish collaboration as something objectionable or unacceptable since Yad Vashem, the Holocaust History Museum, included the translated in English polish publications on Jewish collaboration ( 1 , 2 3 ) in its website. Also, Richard J. Evans, a British historian, who testified as an expert in the lawsuit against a Holocaust denier described Jewish collaboration in his book of The Third Reich at War (see above section).--Slav70 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the reasons have already been discussed in depth in the above section, so this is a waste of time. You are not actually addressing the problem. I am not interested in validating your attempts to emphasize this perspective, as I consider it distorted, misleading, and anti-Semitic. Misusing reliable sources to emphasize and highlight an anti-Semitic detail beyond reasonable proportion is anti-Semitic. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I only included one sentence on this issue in the article, so it can not be viewed as misuse of reliable sources to emphasize and highlight an anti-Semitic detail beyond reasonable proportion.--Slav70 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That one sentence is distorted, misleading, anti-Semitic, and a misuse of reliable sources to emphasize a specific, reprehensible perspective. Cloaking anti-Semitic talking points in superficially reasonable language is not acceptable. Again, you are not addressing the underlying problem at all. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are four sentences on the same issue in Jedwabne pogrom article. Do you consider them as distorted, misleading, anti-Semitic, and a misuse of reliable sources to emphasize a specific, reprehensible perspective.--Slav70 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, there are no sentences on the Lviv pogroms at the article on the Jedwabne pogrom, and even if there were, that wouldn't mean anything here. Or are you claiming that all "Jewish collaborators" should be treated exactly the same? Every edit is judged in context as provided by sources. The content I see at that article is dramatically different in context than the sloppy, vague tidbits you're trying to cram into this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I ask you this question to know if I can use different sentences to describe the same issue in the article.--Slav70 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not have consensus for this, and your suggestions and arguments have been completely unpersuasive. What, exactly, is the "same issue" that's common to both articles? That "some" Jewish people were "collaborators"? Why should the actions of "some" people reflect on this specific event? Don't claim it doesn't also reflect on Jewish people as a group, because that's not credible. The problems with this approach have already been explained. If you don't get it by now, it's time to drop the stick. Don't bother replying unless you have something new to say, which so far you have not. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You will find answers to your questions in the historical sources and my reasonings presented in the above section and this section.--Slav70 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You can also ask your questions on this issue to the authors of the historical sources I presented in this and above section, and you will find answers to your questions and arguments in these historical sources.--Slav70 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue of some Jewish collaboration with NKVD and Soviets is common to this and Jedwabne pogrom. It explains that local crowds whose pogrom actions are condemned acted out of revenge on other Jews. This collaboration reflect on Jewish people as a group like pogrom criminal actions of local crowds that consisted of Ukrainian and Poles reflect on Ukrainian and Poles as groups. If this issue of some Jewish collaboration with NKVD and Soviets is allowed in many credible historical sources from reputable historians (see this and above section) whom publications no one suspect to justify any kind of antisemitism and pogroms why this issue is not allowed in the Wikipedia article of Lviv Pogrom? Please do not view my arguments as something intended to insult you personaly--Slav70 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Assuming my objections are personal shows a poor understanding of the problem. Your justifications are not at all consistent with your edits. You did not add context, you added a poorly sourced detail devoid of context. Repeatedly explaining why this is inappropriate is not a productive use of my time. As I said, the many problems with this have already been explained, and your refusal/inability to understand this should not become everybody else's problem. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that you do not want this inconvenient information for you to appear in the article. Otherwise, you will allow this information and provide your own context whichever you want. You only uses the pretext that I need provide the satisfying you context which you can provide yourself.--Slav70 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell Could you explain how this information in the article about the Jewish collaboration with NKVD and Soviets violates the rules of Wikipedia? Could you refer to these rules of Wikipedia?--Wise2 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I already explained this in 2018. Your behavior was disruptive then and it's disruptive now. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not cite the specific rules of Wikipedia in your explanations, and I am repeatedly asking you to it now. Therefore, your behavior is disruptive, not mine. This information about the Jewish collaboration with NKVD and Soviets is included in the article of Jedwabne pogrom and in the articles about Lviv pogroms in the Ukrainian Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia. Do you know what I mean when I ask you to refer to the specific rules of Wikipedia pertained to this issue? Wise2 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lviv pogroms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ex.ua/get/4095342
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417223849/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/maslovskij-vse.html to http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/maslovskij-vse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalists

How were the perpetrators identified as Ukrainian nationalists? All of them showed their Ukrainian passport? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Norman Davis

Re this revert, and this additional source Norman Davis is a rather polemic source, who has alleged Jewish historians have conspired against him personally, and whose views on Jews are not mainstream,[8][9] attributing an allegation of Judeo-Bolshevism with a weasly "as X observed" (as opposed to a proper attribution of this claim) and sources to a WP:SPS and another book - is UNDUE - this is the view of a very small minority in the field, and should not be represented in our article - this is WP:CHERRYPICKING from the extreme, and seeing this this is echoed by the WP:QS WP:SPS by Mark Paul rather indicates this is highly POV. Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We have to be really careful here. The ethnicity of NKVD officers may be relevant, if it was used by Nazis and their collaborators to incite the local population against local Jews. But we need a source that makes this link and not just states that there was a lot of Jewish NKVD officers. The Piotrowski link [10] doesn't work, is there an active link, User:GizzyCatBella? Alaexis_¿question? 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alaexis: The link above is to WP:QS WP:SPS by Mark Paul, held in a few web locations), which is most certainly not an appropriate source for anything contentious, see RSN discussion on Paul.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Not like there is something very wrong with M. Paul but the above is actually referenced to T.Piotrowski not Paul [11] GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (and the link is working just fine from my end by the way GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC))

Juxtaposition

I found juxtaposition unfortunate, although perhaps unintended:

The report drafted by Judge Möller singled out the Jews as responsible for the Soviet atrocities in accordance with the Nazi theory of Judeo-Bolshevism,[11] even though Polish Jews had nothing to do with the NKVD killings.[12] As observed by British-Polish historian Prof. Norman Davies: "in the [Lviv] personnel of the Soviet security police at the time, the high percentage of Jews was striking."[13][14]

What did the pogrom have to do with the ethnic composition of NKVD officers? It's not like the Germans were planning to treat Jews nicely. This reads as it was their own damn fault and is inappropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There references are still not satisfactory. Also a statement attributed to Davies is supported by references to Piotrowski (without a page number to verify it) and Paul. To reiterate, the source needs to make a connection between the ethnicity of NKVD personnel and these pogroms. Alaexis_¿question? 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Found where Paul quotes Davies. I think we need a reference to the original given abovementioned problems with Paul's reliability (he calls Jews the victims of choice, btw). Alaexis_¿question? 16:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul is a highly questionable source (and we have seen, IIRC, misquotes in Paul and well as out of context use). Davies on the other hand is a historian, but he represents ine edge of the range of views on Jews in (greate) Poland, and does not represent the mainstream in thos regard..Icewhiz (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the passage; preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

1914 pogrom and the name of this article

Seems there was a pogrom in 1914. I wonder if it is notable for a stand-alone article? This article's titles suggests it discusses all pogroms, which is incorrect, it should be moved to Lviv pogroms (1941) and Lviv pogroms should be a disambig (it seems being a Jew in Lviv in early 20th century was not a good place...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We have Lwów pogrom (1918). The 1914 one should probably go to Lwów pogrom (1914) if we're being consistent regarding naming. I think. Someone would have to write it up though.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, see Lwów pogrom (1914). I've also moved this article to a less ambigious title. TBH, Lviv pogroms should redirect to Lviv pogrom disambig, but I am not sure if we have an automated tool to change the redirects... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Himka doesn't know, let's correct him

• From the lead German commandos, local crowds and Ukrainian nationalists
• Himka "The Lviv Pogrom of 1941: The Germans, Ukrainian Nationalists, and the Carnival Crowd" Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 edits

Preserving here by providing this link. There are two sets of issues:

1. The material in the first para appears to conflate the anti-Jewish actions by EG C with the Massacre of Lwów professors; some sources are unreliable, such as http://www.lwow.com.pl/albert/albert-pl.html;
2. The second para is largely about Nachtigall Battalion which the passage seems to equate to EG C. The battalion was part of the Wehrmacht, and the recent research, i.e. Himka, suggests that the unit as a whole did not take an organised part in the pogrom.

This section needs to be written from scratch. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Further edit: diff. My rationale was: "the source listed (Headland, pp. 111-112) does not contain this information". The source is potentially useful, so I'm preserving it here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• One more edit: [12]. This was problematic for two reasons: the first part of the sentence with "20,000-30,000" indeed appears in Piotrowski, in a para mentioning various numbers, alongside with survivor accounts. The second part appears in Berkhoff, but he cites a NKVD document that was supposed to cover the entire Ukranian SSR. It does not mention Western Ukraine. I kept Berkhoff and revised per the text of the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• diff: "c/e; some relocations; primary account unneeded there, but may be useful in the section 'Historical memory' ". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lviv pogroms (1941)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 09:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Can we get a specific page number for Breitman 1991 (if you can't access the paper, I could send you a copy)
• The article lede should explain why Jews were targeted

Copyright

I have concerns about the copyright status of both photos. Both PD-Polish and PD-Ukraine rely on the photo being published by a certain date, but neither photo says when the first publication was. The first photo could be locally re-uploaded under fair use if there are no free images of the event.

Neutrality

• "Manipulation of historical memory" Maybe consider renaming this section "Historiography", I think that would be more neutral.
• Sentence starting: "The collection of documents, titled "For the Beginning: Book of Facts" (Do pochatku knyha faktiv), has been recognized by historians..." may be better as: "According to historians including...., the collection of documents..." Is it really appropriate to say in Wiki voice that it's "an attempt at manipulating World War II history"?

Otherwise I have no concerns. It's a very well researched article which overall does a good job with a touchy topic. buidhe 09:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I would appreciate receiving Breitman 1991, as I don't have this source on hand.
• I've expanded the lead.
• On the copyright, I generally go with Commons - that's the project responsible for ensuring that licensing is proper.
  • It would be nice if Commons photos were all free, but sadly there are a lot of WWII photos lying around with dubious licensing. I've nominated the second image for deletion and removed it from the article. If it's kept, it can be added back to the article. The first one may be OK, since arguably it's PD-US under seized enemy property doctrine (assuming the image description is accurate). buidhe 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• On "Manipulation of historical memory", this section was previously called "In historical memory". It was suggested by the contributor who copyedited the article that the section's name be changed to "Historical negationism".

The Discussion is here: [13]; the specific comment was: "Do you think the section header "In historical memory" should have a stronger wording, like "Historical negationism"?" I thought it was too strong and thus settled on "Manipulation..." I think that this describes OUN's and subsequent attempts to whitewash the past pretty accurately.

• On the last point, I made the change as suggested.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Could you clarify why scholars criticized the 2008 release of documents. Is this because they've been falsified, cherry-picked, or some other reason? buidhe 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have expanded on that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• • After looking into the English language literature a bit more, I think this is a fair summation of the views of scholars writing in English. Although I don't think it's a GA requirement, ideally the article would incorporate views of Eastern European scholars. (See, for example, a critical review (Ukrainian) of Himka's work by Сергій Рябенко, who works for Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance. Рябенко claims (p. 327) that Himka relies excessively on postwar Jewish testimonies, without considering German, Ukrainian or Polish sources, and that he is biased against OUN. However, I have no idea what Рябенко's academic reputation is.) buidhe 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read this article by Riabenko where he critiques Himka's work: Following in the footsteps of John Paul Khimka's Lviv pogrom (Google translate). Some observations:

• It would have more weight if it were published in a peer-reviewed setting, just like Himka's article was.
• Riabenko disputes Himka's findings and survivor testimony which Riabenko describes as "unproven", "unfounded", "contradictory", and so on. Riabenko seems to dispute that OUN or Ukrainian People's Militia spearheaded the initial pogrom, and also challenges the notion that Ukrainians participated in the pogrom in the first place, referring to the latter as "Ukrainians" (in scare quotes). However, he does not offer much of an alternative explanation, except for vaguely suggesting that Poles were the perpetrators instead. The pogrom is well enough documented in photos and newsreels so that I had to ask: Who were the civilians abusing the Jews on the streets? Another of his arguments is that since Jews did not speak Ukrainian, their identification of Ukrainian participants of the pogroms cannot be trusted. I don't speak German but I surely can recognise it. This would be especially true for anyone who lived in a city where German was frequently spoken.
• In another example, Riabenko takes issue with Himka referring to this text in Stetsko's proclamation: The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation. Riabenko argues that to understand this passage one must review other OUN documents that "put the declaration in proper context" (Google translate). This supposedly means that OUN intended for the "cooperation as an organization joint with the German troops against the USSR for the liberation of Ukraine, and this, together with mutually beneficial political and economic cooperation, is a platform for allied relations in which the rights and vital requirements of Ukraine should be respected". OUN's expectations for "allied relations" with Germany sounds deluded since OUN had entered Ukraine with one battalion while Army Group South had roughly 50–60 divisions. Riabenko seems to be taking this nonsense seriously. Etc.
• Finally, the Lviv pogrom was not an isolated, unexplainable, and unheard-of event. In fact, similar pogroms (with or without encouragement from the Germans) occurred all along the Axis front in the territories that had been recently annexed by the Soviet Union: Eastern Poland (Western Belarus & Western Ukraine); Latvia; Lithuania; and (IIRC) Bessarabia. The only territory where such pogroms did not occur was Estonia which only had 4300 Jewish people to begin with, three-fourths of whom had time to flee before the Germans arrived. This article by Aristotle Kallis explains the bigger picture well: 'Licence' and Genocide In the East: Reflections on Localised Eliminationist Violence During the First Stages of 'Operation Barbarossa'(1941).

In short, I would not put much stock in Riabenko's criticism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

However, other serious scholars give credence to Riabenko. Ksenya Kiebuzinski and Alexander Motyl write: The most concerted empirical effort to argue for the OUN’s complicity in the killings, by John-Paul Himka (‘The Lviv Pogrom of 1941’), signally fails to make a persuasive case, preferring to resort to highly circumstantial evidence and dubious inference. Himka’s effort has been the target of a devastating point-by-point rebuttal by the Ukrainian scholar, Serhii Riabenko, who convincingly demonstrates that Himka consistently misinterprets facts, resolves ambiguities in favor of his thesis, and misuses his sources (Riabenko, ‘Slidamy “L′vivs′koho pohromu” Dzhona-Pola Khymky,’ Ukraïns′kyi vyzvol′nyi rukh 18 (2013): 258-328). We need to reflect what the range of historians say, and not pick sides if there is no consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley This GAN is more than three years old. If you disagree you need to either 1) fix it yourself or 2) open a GAR. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to clarify: I am not challenging the GAN, just making an observation about the sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, I agree with your point when you were reviewing that we need to make sure we are not overreliant on specific sources, e.g. Himka, who have been challenged in the literature. I think I have fixed this in my recent edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

More photographs needed (plus Commons category etc)

If the photographs are iconic, why do we have only one (File:Lviv pogrom (June - July 1941).jpg)? We should link the others from external links, and preferably upload them to Commons, where a dedicated category should be created. They should be PD, just like the one already uploaded and present here. PS. Would be good to do this before this is on main page (Template:Did you know nominations/Lviv pogroms (1941)...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2020

I was going to redirect Eastern Poland to Kresy, due to the Lviv pogroms taking place in the region. Dilljl248 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Closing as you don't appear to be requesting an edit to this page. There is no reason to turn Eastern Poland into a redirect. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo

I would like to request that the photograph be removed as it perpetuates the poor woman's humiliation as she is chased through the streets in fear in what are clearly her undergarments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.108.166 (talk • contribs)

Conflict with other article on subject

I have been reading through various Wikipedia articles on anti Jewish violence among Ukrainian nationalists during WW2 and it seems certain articles are contradictory. In this article it seems to discredit the 2008 SBU released documents while this article seems to take them as fact. Which case is the correct answer?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army 24.200.116.208 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the lead mention ethnic Polish participation in the pogroms?

Re this edit: There is no doubt that ethnic Polish participation was a less significant factor than ethnic Ukrainian and specifically Ukrainian nationalist participation. But was it significant enough to mention? I think so.

• Kopstein: "On June 30, 1941, on the eighth day of operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, a pogrom broke out in Lviv, the capital city of Eastern Galicia. Ukrainians, and to a lesser extent Poles, massacred their Jewish neighbors and fellow citizens.
• Kiebuzinski & Motyl discuss Polish participation. E.g. The moderate Ukrainian politician, Kost′ Pan′kivs′kyi, wrote: ‘Starting on 1 July, anti-Jewish excesses went through the city [L′viv] on the initiative of the German army.… The urban scum exploited this opportunity and joined this action…. [T]his scum [was] almost exclusively Polish, robbed and beat Jews, wore blue-and-yellow insignia, and tried to speak Ukrainian. I personally experienced such actions when the street toughs attacked our Jewish and non-Jewish coworkers’ (Kost′ Pan′kivs′kyi, Vid derzhavy do Komitetu (New York; Toronto: Kliuchi, 1957), 35-36). Pan′kivs′kyi, a critic of the OUN, is credible, and his claim that he ‘personally experienced such instances’ has to be taken seriously
• Himka: Ukrainian memoirists emphasize that there was a large Polish participation in the violence. Kost' Pan'kivs'kyi said that since Poles made up the majority of the lumpen population of Lviv, it was natural that they were the ones who were beating Jews in the streets.135 Both Pan'kivs'kyi and Ievhen Nakonechnyi wrote that Polish pogromists would often don yellow-and-blue armbands, but they could be recognized by how feebly they spoke Ukrainian.136 It may well be true that Polish criminals used the occasion of the pogrom to rob Jewish apartments,137 but it is significant that they chose to disguise themselves as Ukrainian militiamen. The presence of Polish pogromists in Lviv in 1941 finds reflection in other documentation. As Tamara Branitsky remembered the crowd that tormented her, she said that they looked like Ukrainians to her and her family, but probably Polish people were there too.138 Rose Moskowitz identified the crowds that attacked Jews in Lviv as Poles. After the Germans took Lviv in July, they let the Polish population do what they pleased, she said; “and you can imagine what they liked to do”—they were beating up Jewish people on the streets.139 A member of the Mel'nyk wing of OUN sent a situational report to the leadership that characterized the Lviv pogrom as a demonstration of Polish power: “Between the departure of the Bolsheviks and the arrival of the żermans, the Poles on their own authority organized a Jewish pogrom in order perhaps to certify the Polishness of Lviv.”140 Thus, the urban crowd that participated in the pogrom was of mixed nationality.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See also discussion in:

• Mick, Christoph (2011). "Incompatible Experiences: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews in Lviv under Soviet and German Occupation, 1939-44". Journal of Contemporary History. 46 (2). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 336–363. ISSN 0022-0094. JSTOR 41305315. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
• Rudling, Per Anders (2005). "BOGDAN MUSIAL AND THE QUESTION OF JEWISH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE POGROMS IN LVIV IN THE SUMMER OF 1941". East European Jewish Affairs. 35 (1). Informa UK Limited: 69–89. doi:10.1080/13501670500191819. ISSN 1350-1674.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This needs more research. I would be surprised if no Poles participated in it, but from my reading of the sources - and I also checked what pl and uk wikis says - most sources focus on Ukrainian and German actors, with Poles a distant third. In either case, we should identify what is the current state of the knowledge and academic consensus, and that can take time that I don't currently have, I fear. PS. Kopstein's wording ("and to a lesser extent Poles") would be a step in the right direction compared to your wording, which implied equal participation of all actors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the "and to a lesser Poles" formulation might be the right answer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In Greece, we say that wolves are happy during uproars. The proverb means that predators and opportunists take advantage of social unrest to commit crimes and to enrich themselves. I would be surprised if a few ethnic Poles did not join in the massacres and the pillage, but they were not necessarily representative of the wider population and its stance during the events. Dimadick (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly we should avoid saying the Polish participants in the pogroms were somehow representative of all Poles, which was not what I was proposing. (Similarly, a minority of Ukrainians participated.) My question was about whether the participation of Poles, perhaps as predators and opportunists, was significant enough to mention in the lead, given it is mentioned in several key RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic Polish participation is mentioned in the lead - "Ukrainian militia as well as Ukrainian residents and to a lower degree Poles targeted Jews in the first pogrom" (this fragment is sourced and backed with quotes).

Your edit replaced "urban population" with "Polish residents", making it look as if the Ukrainian participation was limited to "Ukrainian nationalists" (militia, OUN members) and local Ukrainian civilians (not necessary affiliated with the OUN) didn't take part in the pogroms. Please keep also in mind the sentence from the diff summarizes more than just the pogrom from 30 June-2 July. Hedviberit (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. This was not an improvement, per reasons dicussed above (TL;DR: UNDUE). Thanks for fixing that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the current version ("lower degree") is good. My first edit was wrong as I did not notice that the next paragraph already specified the urban population included both ethnicities. Thanks everyone. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

John-Paul Himka, like other authors of the pogrom, tells about the participation of Poles in the pogrom, who constituted about 50 percent of Lvov dwellers with Ukrainian of about 17 percent, and about 33 percent of jews. The local non-jewish population tended to blame Jews for the collaboration with communist NKVD and Soviets. Very similar situations occurred in other pogrom locations of Eastern Poland that was under soviets occupation after September, 1939 year. For example, the similar pogrom of Jews occurred in Jedwabne ( see: Jedwabne pogrom ). Wise2 (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Weird language wrt Ukrainians and Poles

So, I'm aware that the general topic of Poles and the Holocaust is up there with Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan in terms of causing a fight, and I don't claim to be an expert on this topic in the slightest, so if there's a reason for this, feel free to disregard. At the same time, phrasing like "Germans, Ukrainian nationalists, local crowds" (as the "participants") feels... questionable to me. Now, again, I am FAR from an expert, but the article does state that Ukrainians, Germans, and Poles were to some degree involved in the pogrom. With that in mind, naming "Ukrainians" and "Germans" but referring (presumably) to Polish perpetrators as "local crowds" feels a little bit disingenuous, as opposed to either naming "Polish nationalists" or alternatively something like "Germans, OUN-B, Locals" if the goal is to separate organized groups from participation on the part of the masses. If Ukrainian participation was legitimately much larger in scope than Poles, something like "Germans, Ukrainian Nationalists, Polish Nationalists (limited participation)" or somesuch would be ideal, IMO. If the purpose of "local crowds" is to refer to both non-organized Ukrainians and non-organized Poles (as opposed to the OUN-B etc), again, I think the best call would be to rephrase "Ukrainian nationalists" to name the specific group, or alternatively do something like "local crowds (Polish and Ukrainian)." PaulRevered (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)