Talk:Ukrainian National Army

Ukrainian or German

Was UNA a Ukrainian or German unit ? Please discuss it here instead of revert warring. --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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)

That seems strange, Shandruk seems Ukrainian rather than German to me. Do we have any source to support that they were under German command ? And if they were, why the Germans allowed them to withdraw instead of fighting against the Soviets ? --Lysy^talk 22:05, 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)

for your information :

During a ceremonious session of the Verkhovna Rada on August 22, 1992 in Kiev, Mykola Plaviuk gave in to the President of Ukrainian Independent State proclaimed on August 24, 1991 Leonid Kravchuk, a declaration of delegation of power and a cessation of activity of the state center of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) in exile.

taken from Mykola Plaviuk

In this declaration, it is specified that the new Ukrainian State is the lawful successor of the UNR.

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

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?

A little more than you...

Ok, enlighten me. --Bogdan ^що? 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

This your interpretation. What I mean that you should use exact term, and not approximative word, because vagueness could lead to some false interpretation and dubious amalgam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.93.82 (talk) 15:56, 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...

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???

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.

Ok, which one did you attend? And where did you find Масловський being critisized/rejected? --Bogdan ^що? 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here from University of Lviv

З колишніх працівників інституту лише двоє залишилися прибічниками й діяльними захисниками тоталітарного режиму : Адам Мартинюк (який згодом став другим секретарем Комуністичної партії України і за її підтримкою - першим заступником Голови Верховної Ради України) та Віталій Масловський (нині - покійний), автор низки виданих в Україні й Росії публіцистичних текстів, спрямованих на дискредитацію борців за національну незалежність України.

from http://www.inst-ukr.lviv.ua/getdownload.php?downloadid=18 p 13. (PS traduction will cost 46 euros...)

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)

So you've read it? --Bogdan ^що? 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

here the objective of the UNC

Ukrainian National Committee (Ukrainian: Український Національний Комітет) was a Ukrainian political structure, created on March 17, 1945 in Weimar with the intention to release Ukrainian Nazi-sponsored military units from German command . After a series of negotiations, the authorities of the Third Reich officially acknowledged their recognition of the Committee as the sole and independent representation of Ukrainian nation, with the extraterritorial rights and the right to command the Ukrainian National Army under Ukrainian flag and national symbols.

it was not written by me ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.88.213 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it was written by Lysy, what's your point? --Bogdan ^що? 07:49, 18 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)

From Melnyk, Michal James (2002). To Battle, The History and Formation of the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, second updated edition 2007, Helion and Co, p268

On 25April, this is the text of the oath repeated by soldiers of the 1st division of UNA

I swear to Almighty God on his Holy Gospel and his living Cross, sparing neither life nor health, always and everywhere to fight with weapons in my hand under the Ukrainian National Banner for my people and for my homeland, Ukraine. Aware of my great responsibility as a soldier of the Ukrainian National Army, I swear that I would carry out all orders of my superiors obediently and without question, and to keep secret all service orders. So help me God and the Holy Virgin. Amen

no reference to any German state....

from http://vijsko.milua.org/v3.htm

Українська Національна Армія (УНА) - назва, під якою робилися спроби сформування української армії під час Другої світової війни 1939-45. Наприкінці війни деякі урядові кола Німеччини намагалися залучити до боротьби проти СРСР народи Сх. Європи. З цією метою у Веймарі 12-14.1945 утворено Український національний комітет (УНК; голова - П.Шандрук, заст. - В.Кубійович та О.Семененко). 12.3.1945 німецький уряд визнав УНК єдиним представником українського народу, який “має право своє настановлення до майбутнього України заступати та у відозвах і маніфестах проголошувати”. Подібні комітети створили й ін. поневолені більшовизмом народи - білоруси, грузини, гірські народи Кавказу, татари, туркестанці, які доручали П.Шандрукові представляти їхні інтереси перед вищим німецьким командуванням. 17.3.1945 з метою продовження боротьби за українську державність ухвалено Декларацію Українського національного комітету, яка проголошувала створення УНА. Особовий склад УНА мав бути одягнений в українські однострої, підпорядковуватися українському командуванню. Декларація передбачала, що ідеологічний і політичний провід належатиме УНК, а також налагодження співпраці з національними комітетами ін. народів. Згідно з наказом війську і флотові УНР від 15.3.1945, виданому Урядом УНР в екзилі на чолі з А.Лівицьким, та постановою Президії УНК (від 8.3.1945) генерал-поручник П.Шандрук був призначений командувачем УНА. У всіх документах УНК (згодом видано відозву до українського громадянства та до українських вояків) не йшлося про жодні зобов'язання щодо Німеччини. Вирішено негайно вилучити дивізію “Галичина” з підпорядкування СС і зробити її 1-ю українською дивізією УНА. Незабаром розпочалося формування 2-ї української дивізії, командиром якої призначено полковника П.Дяченка. Ця дивізія формувалася у м. Німеку під Берліном з радянських полонених-українців, які мали відповідний військовий вишкіл і складалася з 3 куренів загальною чисельністю 1900 осіб. Протягом 10 днів (24.3.-5.4.1945) сформовано бригаду особливого призначення (парашутну), командиром якої призначено отамана Т.Боровця. Бригаду, що складалася з 2 куренів (бл. 400 вояків), направили на вишкіл до Чехії. Проголосила про своє входження до УНА й бригада вільного козацтва під командуванням полковника П.Терещенка (350 осіб), яку теж перевезли до Чехії. Незабаром повідомили П.Шандрукові про своє підпорядкування УНА командир 281-ої запасної бригади полковник Ф.Гудима (5000 осіб; дислокована в Данії), два охоронні полки (близько 1000 осіб; дислоковані у Голландії і Бельгії). Командування УНА ставило перед собою завдання зібрати всі формування УНА в Австрії, недалеко від фронту, що його тримала дивізія “Галичина”. Щодо входження дивізії “Галичина” до складу УНА у квітні 1945 проведено переговори з командиром частини ген. Ф.Фрайтагом. Особовий склад дивізії присягнув на вірність Україні. Під час відступу на захід генерал П.Шандрук зі своїм штабом старався випередити головні частини дивізії, щоб поінформувати союзницькі командування про характер дивізії та УНА в цілому. Офіційним наказом П.Шандрука від 27.4.1945 оголошено про перехід дивізії до союзників. У травні 1945 частина дивізії була інтернована англійцями у м. Філлаху, інша - американцями у м. Тамсвензі. Після капітуляції Німеччини командир дивізії Ф.Фрайтаг покінчив життя самогубством. Українських вояків було зосереджено в околиці Шпітталю. Згодом зі Шпітталю дивізію перевели до Белярії (Італія), а звідти - до табору полонених у Ріміні. І українська дивізія УНА перестала існувати. Українські вояки отримали статус членів ворожих збройних сил, що здалися добровільно. Після розслідування прийнято ухвалу не застосовувати до них секретного параграфу ялтинських угод щодо примусової репатріації радянських громадян: дивізія складалася з галичан, які станом на 1.9.1939 мали громадянство Польщі. У 1946-47 українські військовополонені були звільнені з таборів й емігрували до Великої Британії, США і Канади. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.111.161 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that this self-published website (who is "Евгений Пінак?) examined all the UNC documents and reserves the right to summarize them in half a sentence? --Bogdan ^що? 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that YOU writing on Ukrainian military history without knowing the co-author of the only booklet about History of Ukrainian Armies written in English ???? Are you kidding???? See Ukrainian Armies 1914–55 by Peter Abbott and Eugene Pinak, Men-at-Arms 412 , Ospreybulishing, 2004 (see here http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Ukrainian-Armies-1914%E2%80%9355_9781841766683) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.140.252 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Diaspora has paid more attention to these booklets then I have, sorry. But either way, why does co-authoring these booklets give him the right to summarize all the UNC documents in a sentence (on a self pubished website)? --Bogdan ^що? 11:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the same question for Mr Malsovskyj : which sources did he use, and how can he summerize all document about UNC and UNA in one sentences? How did he have access to sources??? (Mostly in Germany and USA)

Of course he doesn't summerize them in one sentence. There is a 45 page section called "ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ УКРАЇНСЬКОГО НАЦІОНАЛЬНОГО КОМІТЕТУ І УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ НАЦІОНАЛЬНОЇ АРМІЇ", and the quote I am using is from a 6 1/2 page sub-section called "Створення УНК і УНА". Would you like me to rewrite all the references that he gives for the 45 page section? There are over 30 of them. --Bogdan ^що? 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question Why create a UNA when there already exists an UVV???

Because the UVV, along with other Ukrainian formations in the German army was grossly under-strengthed. --Bogdan ^що? 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the sources used to confirm what you said??? And this does not answer at all the creation of the UNC ....

I think it's strange that you are so keen to ask for sources for everything I say. Let's take a look at your sources shall we?

First we have "Melnyk, Michal James (2002). To Battle, The History and Formation of the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, second updated edition 2007, Helion and Co, p 268". What are you citing to here? An oath? Does this answer the question "to the armed forces of which sovereign state does this formation belong to"?

Second we have "Peter, Pinak Eugene, (2004). Ukrainian Armies 1914 - 1955, p 41". What are you citing to here? It's just a random page, mostly on the [projected] uniforms of the UNA.

And you forgot to cite

Shandruk, Pavlo (1959). Arms of valor, 1st ed., New York: Robert Speller & Sons Publishers. Retrieved on 2008-08-18.

and

АРМІЯ БЕЗ ДЕРЖАВИ , by Taras Bulba-Borovets 1952 revised on 1981.

Both your sources are flawed. --Bogdan ^що? 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an unjustified opinion, of someone who didn't understand what is written, who do know nothing about ukrainian military history, and who rely on Ukrainian misunderstanding.

The problem is that I HAD PROVIDE SOURCES which just precise that YOUR SOURCES (Mr Maslowskyj) is absolutely not an objective source, and that YOU HAVE just GIVE your PERSONAL OPINION about MY SOURCES! Or Wikipedia is not about YOUR OPINION, but about objective sources. So FIND an OBJECTIVE CRITICS about my sources, and stop pushing your personal point oe view

No need to get emotional, start writing in caps, and say "your opinion" five times. I'm asking you, in the two little blue numbers next to "Ukrainian Popular Republic in Exile", what are you citing to, specifically? --Bogdan ^що? 13:55, 19 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.

What do you think "при німецьких збройних силах" means? --Bogdan ^що? 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

not the same as "в складі німецьких збройних силах". I just wonder why you forgot this :

!!! Yes it does mean the same, how is it different? --Bogdan ^що? 08:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Навіть перекинення першого батальйону Групи „Б", що вже в квітні 1945 року був готовий і з яким я мав намір відлітати з своїм штабом в Україну, не відбулося, бо в німецькій авіяції вже не вистачало на такі операції пального. Нам, натомість, запропонували робити короткі десанти зараз за фронтом — на польсько-чеську територію — на що ми не дали згоди . Так операція відкладалася аж до капітуляції Німеччини.

How could a German Units refuse German orders, without being sent to military tribunal ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.85.81 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote says "it was proposed" which means the option was considered, what military tribunal? Furthermore, I don't understand how they could fly to Ukraine in 1945, German forces were nowhere near Ukraine then. --Bogdan ^що? 08:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Формування української армії в Німеччині не було закінчене через капітуляцію. Була оформлена Перша Дивізія, як частина УНА, одна протитанкова бригада під командуванням полковника Петра Дяченка та два батальйони Групи „Б". Перша Дивізія була передана німецьким командуванням під команду генерала П. Шандрука. йшла активна робота по організації нових окремих бригад та відділів Групи „Б".

So? --Bogdan ^що? 08:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably you haven't noticed that some citation are needed in the article . I try to give some information about that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.111.161 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Let me try to summarize what we've found so far.

1. 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.
2. UNC was created with the purpose to make it possible to command the Ukrainian units independently from the Germans (and Russians from RONA).
3. UNA was created in German territory and consisted mostly from former Nazi Ukrainian units that were under German command.
4. UNA itself had a Ukrainian command, that did not report to the Germans but to UNC.
5. UNC/UNA obviously were the allies of the nazis.

Do we all agree with the above ? --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How so? --Bogdan ^що? 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you define military allegiance, then ? --Lysy^talk 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." --Lysy^talk 23:13, 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)

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. --Lysy^talk 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, ...)

---

Lets remember what it is that we are debating; this edit. Now, the use for that little country tab is defined as follows: if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state. So, as we have seen from Mr. Масловський and even Bulba Borovets, this was a formation in the Wehrmacht (Heer). If anyone has any questions or objections please ask them in a civil manner, without crying "NKVD extremist". --Bogdan ^що? 09:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mister Borovets does not say that : thi is your intepretation. Mr Borovets says its an Ukrainian Army on the German side, in Germany... You should also been more polite, and not insulting everyone you disagre with to be a fascist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.85.81 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is only one way to interpret "при німецьких збройних силах". So is this a language issue? --Bogdan ^що? 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I conclude that you don't understand Ukrainian .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.85.81 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Translate it for me then. --Bogdan ^що? 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) What no translation? OK, since there are no other questions, I've changed the article. --Bogdan ^що? 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Noproblem : translation will cost 1 euro the word. 20 words minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.111.161 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So in other words:

• • • You either don't understand what that says, or you refuse to acknowledge your own source.
    • You don't know anything about Ukrainian universities, while boasting that you know which sources they dismiss and which sources they praise.

I'll repeat myself: per Mr. Масловський and Mr. Borovets, this was a formation in Wehrmacht. Questions? --Bogdan ^що? 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , but Mr. Масловський and Mr. Borovets do not say the same thing : where have you read in Mr. Borovets books that UNA was formation in Wehrmacht???? He never wrote this!. Concerning Mr Масловський, I have provided the critics made on his work by University of Lviv (see from http://www.inst-ukr.lviv.ua/getdownload.php?downloadid=18 p 13). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.140.252 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what does при німецьких збройних силах mean? Please tell me! P.S. What is the page number of this critism. (sorry, didn't see the page number) --Bogdan ^що? 11:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see it saying that his works are factually inaccurate? It writes that he (along with another man) was a worker of the institute (he died in 1999) that defended of the Soviet regime, and that his texts are aimed at discrediting the Ukrainian nationalists. Sure, accusations of bias can be made in both directions, but neutrality is irrelevant here. We are disputing the simple statement that the UNA was within the structure of the Wehrmacht, it either was, or it wasn't; there is no biased way to put it. Mr. Масловський is a historian and he undoubtedly had the necessary documents available to him to make that statement.--Bogdan ^що? 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

нової української армії при німецьких збройних силах does not mean the same as що під керівництвом вермахту і в його складі .

If you do not understand the difference, please avoid using Ukrainian sources and learn Ukrainian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.28.141 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And as you had talk about command structure(as a reason for undoing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_National_Army&diff=231427154&oldid=231268628) , could you please detail UNA command structure, according to your mind??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.28.141 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then tell me what it means with your great diaspora knowledge of Ukrainian. Why do you refuse to translate the simple phrase, and instead make silly insults? P.S. Again, I don't understand your English, what does "could you please detail UNA command structure, according to your mind" mean? Can you use your great knowledge of Ukrainian to rewrite that note?

при does not mean under, as you translated ! It means with , or along with or in tis case allied with. I was just waiting to read your own translation : nice try!

Alright, I'm going to assume good faith I and continue thinking that this is a language issue. So, since your IP points to France ([1]) I though we would try another language, French. I have a mild understanding of it, and I assume it is your best language. "при німецьких збройних силах" translates to French ([2]) as "sous allemandes armées forces". So I ask you, what does "sous" mean? --Bogdan ^що? 10:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why there still exist a job called translator : an automatic translator could not translate something with the meaning (it is not grammatically correct french. Have you tested the translation to english???)

This has nothing to do with grammar. And of course I tried translating to English, it reads "at" which doesn't make sense, I just thought you would understand a French word better. --Bogdan ^що? 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

you should use тлумачний словник for undestand the meaning of the word... при means коло

при translates to your native French as "sous", use any dictionary to understand that. But if you deny translations in three languages then there is nothing left to assume; you're just a liar. --Bogdan ^що? 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what is called a personal attack, which is not tolerate in WIKIPEDIA as far as I know ...

If the translation is correct from Ukrainian to French, so translate it back to Ukrainian and you got :

під озброєними allemandes вимушуєш which means ..... Thank you for the good translation lessons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.88.213 (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) The relative quality of the translator doesn't change anything; get any French dictionary and see what "при" translates to, my French friend. --Bogdan ^що? 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding, Ukrainian Armies 1914 - 1955, what is it that you are citing to? Quote it for me. --Bogdan ^що? 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

to solve the problem :

A military unit infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military unit or formation, such as a regiment or division.. taken from [3] UNA was an army not a unit or a division! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.84.140 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An army is a military unit. --Bogdan ^що? 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A formation is not a division , an army is not a unit ... please to be bad faith! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.84.140 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

military units

APP-6A Symbol	Name	No. of personnel	No. of subordinate units	Unit leader
XXXXXX	region or theater or front	1,000,000 +	4+ army groups
XXXXX	army group	250,000 +	2+ armies
XXXX	army	60,000-100,000+	2-4 corps	colonel general or general or army general
XXX	corps	30,000-50,000+	2+ divisions	lieutenant general
XX	division	10,000–20,000	2-4 brigades or regiments	major general
X	brigade	3000–5000	2+ regiments or 3–6 battalions or Commonwealth regiments	brigadier general, brigadier or colonel
III	regiment or group	2000–3000	2+ battalions or U.S. Cavalry squadrons	colonel
II	battalion (of infantry), (U.S. Cavalry squadron or Commonwealth armoured regiment)	300–1000	2–6 companies, batteries, U.S. Cavalry troops, or Commonwealth squadrons	lieutenant colonel
I	company (of infantry), artillery battery, U.S. Cavalry troop or Commonwealth armoured squadron	70–250	2–8 platoons or Commonwealth troops	chief warrant officer and captain or major
•••	platoon or Commonwealth troop	25–60	2+ squads, sections, or vehicles	warrant officer and first or second lieutenant
••	section or patrol	8–12	2+ fireteams	corporal to staff sergeant
•	squad or crew	8–16	2+ fireteams or 1+ cell	corporal to staff sergeant
Ø	fireteam	4–5	n/a	lance corporal to sergeant
Ø	fire and manoeuvre team	2	n/a	any/Private First Class

Sol Littman a credible source

Sol Littman - a credible source????? During the Deschenes Commission under oath, Sol Littman testified that his "documentation" to support his outrageous allegation that Josef Mengele had entered Canada, was "analyzed" by two "retired" civil servants, but that both had "exacted" from him a pledge not to reveal their names.

Under threat of a criminal charge, he did reveal their names as Al Naylor and Corporal Fred Yetter. Under oath, Naylor testified that he had analyzed no document for Littman nor had he exacted any pledge of confidentially [Vol. 25, p.3446] --- he had never seen the documentation until it was shown to his by the commission [Vol. 25, p.3426]. He also testified that Littman deliberately made up his "retired" status in order to deceive the Deschenes Commission [Vol. 23, p.3417]. Inquiring minds would like to know why Littman was never charged with perjury for lying to a Royal Commission.

Articles attesting to Sol Littman's deceptions appeared in: Hamilton Spectator, Dec. 7, 1985 - Windsor Star Dec 5, 1985 - Globe and Mail Jan 23, 1985 - Toronto Star Jan 23, 1985 - Ukrainian Echo Feb. 1986 - Globe and Mail Jan 31, 1997.

I don't think he is credible.