Les fascistes ukrainiens sont les fers de lance de la lutte des Américains et de l’OTAN et de ses vassaux européens contre la Russie et sa société. Les Américains répètent en caricature pestilentielle ce qu’ils ont fait après la seconde guerre mondiale, ils ont enrôlé les nazis dans leur lutte contre les russes.
Je suis tombé sur le lien ci-dessous via une section de commentaires et j’ai été vraiment impressionné par ce travail en tant qu’aperçu sérieux de l’histoire de l’OUN-UPA, en particulier du projet de réhabilitation des organisations fascistes ukrainiennes auquel les puissances occidentales collaborent. En le lisant j’ai eu la conviction que c’était le scandale du siècle et je maintiens que le processus de réhabilitation du fascisme dans le monde est en cours et bien avancé.
Cette réhabilitation est une opération. C’est une opération cynique, pourrie de long terme , bien avancée, méthodique qui a , qui avait, pour objectif de faciliter l’intégration de l’Ukraine dans la Construction Européenne. Mais aussi la diffusion des idées concernées. C’est une page d’historie secrète scientifiquement établie , exposée par un chercheur dans le cadre d’un travail dont vous trouverez références ci dessous.
Cela vaut le temps passé .
l’ident du travail de 76 pages
No. 2107, November 2011
© 2011 by The Center for Russian and East European Studies, a program of the
University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh
Per A. Rudling
The OUN, the UPA
and the Holocaust:
A Study in the Manufacturing
of Historical Myths
Per A. Rudling is a postdoctoral fellow at the Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität
Greifswald, Germany. His research interests include memory, identity, and
nationalism in the Polish-Belarusian-Ukrainian borderland
During the past decade, particularly under the presidency of the third Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko (2005–2010) there have been repeated attempts to turn the leading figures of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)
and its armed wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) into national heroes.
As these fascist organizations collaborated with the Nazi Germany, carried out ethnic
cleansing and mass murder on a massive scale, they are problematic symbols for
an aspiring democracy with the stated ambition to join the European Union.
Under Yushchenko, several institutes of memory management and myth making were
organized, a key function of which was to deny or downplay OUN-UPA atrocities.
Unlike many other former Soviet republics, the Ukrainian government did not need
to develop new national myths from scratch, but imported ready concepts developed
in the Ukrainian diaspora.
Yushchenko’s legitimizing historians presented the OUN and UPA as pluralistic and inclusive organizations, which not only rescued Jews during the Holocaust, but invited them into their ranks to fight shoulder to shoulder against Hitler and Stalin.
This mythical narrative relied partly on the OUN’s own post-war forgeries, aimed at cover up the organization’s problematic past. As employees of the Ukrainian security services, working out of the offi ces of the old KGB, the legitimizing historians ironically dismissed scholarly criticism as Soviet
The present study deals with the myth-making around the OUN, the UPA,
and the Holocaust, tracing their diaspora roots and following their migration back
and forth across the Atlantic
Brought to power by the so-called Orange Revolution, the administration of Ukrainian
president Viktor Yushchenko (2005–2010) expressed a clear ambition to orient Ukraine away
from Russia and toward the EU, NATO, and the Western world.
One step in this direction was the reassessment of modern Ukrainian history. Old Soviet heroes were reexamined, and the anti-Soviet nationalist resistance to Soviet rule reinterpreted in heroic terms.
This is all part of a long and painful process of nation building and national consolidation, as Ukraine
moves away from Soviet historiography into nation-based history writing.1
Following independence, and particularly after the Orange Revolution, nationalist and diaspora historical
interpretations were adopted as the basis for new national myths.
This essay addresses one particularly sensitive and delicate part of this mythology, the relation of Ukrainian nationalists—the Bandera wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the OUN(b), and its armed forces, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the UPA—to the Jews, a polarizing topic
which has come to have important political connotations.
The purpose here is not to restore one single historical “truth.” Rather, it is to study the political use of history, the manipulations of the historical record, by tracing the genealogy of a set of historical myths, circling key mythmakers, their choice of material, and its potential for political mobilization, impact
and political consequences.2
The fi rst part of this essay considers the legacy of the OUN and the UPA, their political
ideology, goals, and political orientation.
The second part is the story of the manufacturing of the legends of these organizations and the genealogy of these myths as they have migrated from Ukraine, developed within the diaspora community, and, after the fall of communism, been reimported to Ukraine.
The third part examines the apologetic narrative of the myth-makers, the impact of the myths on Ukrainian society and on its neighbors after they were elevated to state ideology and promoted by the state security organs and government propaganda agencies.
The essay concludes with an assessment of, and refl ection upon, the consequence of the legitimizing narrative and its role in the rise of the far right in Western
Ukraine following Yushchenko’s defeat in 2010.
The OUN, the UPA, and the Holocaust
Founded in 1929, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists became the dominant
political movement of the Ukrainian far right. It was formed out of a number of radical
nationalist and fascist groups and was, initially, led by war veterans, frustrated by their failure to establish a Ukrainian state in 1917–1920. In the increasingly authoritarian political
environent of interwar Poland, radicalized the Ukrainian nationalists.
The term integral nationalism was applied to the OUN by the American historian John
The term has stuck, and many pronationalist historians find it preferable to the
term fascism, which today carries strong negative connotations and is used colloquially as a
term of abuse. There is no contradiction between fascism and integralism, which is a variety
within the fascist tradition.4
As for the OUN, integral nationalism is a problematic term.
The Ukrainian nationalists themselves did not use it, whereas references to fascism and national
socialism abound in nationalist texts from the 1930s and 1940s.5
Belonging to a tradition of European generic fascism, the OUN emerged out of an amalgamation between the Ukrainian Military Organization and a number of other extreme right-wing organizations, such as the Ukrainian National Association, the Union of Ukrainian Fascists, and the Union for
the Liberation of Ukraine.6
From the moment of its founding, fascists were integral to, anplayed a central role in, the organization. The OUN avoided designating itself as fascist in order to emphasize the “originality” of Ukrainian nationalism.7
In 1941 the organization split between a more radical wing, the OUN(b), named after its leader, Stepan Bandera, and a more conservative wing, the OUN(m), led by Andrii Mel’nyk.
Both were totalitarian, antiSemitic, and fascist.
In terms of tactics, the OUN(m) was more cautious and stayed loyal toNazi Germany throughout the war, whereas the OUN(b) took a more independent line.
The OUN(m) was a smaller and weaker organization and plays a minor role in the nationalist
The main focus of this essay is therefore the OUN(b) and its offshoots.
Roger Griffin offers a broad conceptual model to suggest an eclectic interpretation of
fascism, seeing it as the main consequence of European society’s yearning for a new beginning.8
Fascism was hardly a historic anomaly but a well-integrated part of the European
history in the twentieth century. Following academic tradition, I refer to the generic fascist
tradition to which the OUN belonged as fascism in lower case, while using upper case to
refer specifi cally to Italian Fascism.9
The OUN shared the fascist attributes of antiliberalism, anticonservatism, and anticommunism, an armed party, totalitarianism, anti-Semitism, Führerprinzip, and an adoption of fascist greetings. Its leaders eagerly emphasized to Hitler and Ribbentrop that they shared the Nazi Weltanschauung and a commitment to a fascist New Europe.
Franziska Bruder, the author of the most detailed study of the organization describes
“[t]he OUN as a classic representative of a nationalist movement with fascist characteristics
that appeared in East-Central Europe,” an analysis shared by other non-nationalist scholars
of the OUN.10
The ideology of the organization was heavily infl uenced by the philosophy of Dmytro
Dontsov, Italian Fascism, Nietzsche, and German National Socialism, combining extreme
nationalism with terrorism, corporatism, and the Führerprinzip.11 Dontsov translated the works of Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels, Rosenberg, and Franco and published Ukrainian translations of their works in Visnyk and other OUN-affi liated intellectual journals.12 “
Ukrainian nationalism uses the term nationalism in the same way German and Italian nationalisms use
the terms ‘National Socialism’ and ‘Fascism’ . . . Nationalisms: Fascism, National Socialism, Ukrainian nationalism, etc. are different national expressions of the same spirit,” wrote
Iaroslav Orshan, an infl uential OUN ideologue.13
The OUN slogan “The Nation Above Everything” was taken quite literally, as was the slogan “Ukraine for the Ukrainians.” The Decalogue of the OUN explicitly called upon its members not to hesitate to enslave foreigners and “treat enemies of Your Nation with hatred and ruthlessness.”14
In 1936 Stepan Bandera indicated the magnitude of the crimes the OUN was prepared to consider in order to achieve this goal. “The OUN values the life of its members, values it highly; but—our idea in ourunderstanding is so grand, that when we talk about its realization, not single individuals, nor
hundreds, but millions of victims have to be sacrifi ced in order to realize it.”15
The maintenance of racial purity was an important call to the nationalist faithful.
OUN members were guided by a list of behavioral rules the called “the 44 rules of life of a Ukrainian
nationalist.” Number 40 read: “Cherish motherhood as the source of re-generation of life.
Make your family the ciborium for the racial purity of your Nation.”16
The OUN embraceda highly racialized discourse, borrowing heavily from the Nazi racial theoreticians Alfred
Rosenberg and Hans Günther.17
“Raciology [rasoznavstvo] is the key to world history;
mastering of the race is the path to world politics.”18
The commitment to racial purity and the preservation of the race were taken very seriously by nationalist activists who promoted national awareness to police the sexual relations of their imagined community. Mykola Sukhovers’kyi, an OUN(m) activist, reminisced about how they enforced ethnic separation
among students in Chernivtsy, which in the interwar era was part of Romania:
In the “Zaporozhe” [student fraternity] we had decided that no member was
allowed to marry an alien girl—a non-Ukrainian. That decision was made on
the basis of Mykola Mikhnovs’kyi’s Decalogue, 19 which was printed in the
Samostiina Ukraina and which stated: “Don’t marry a foreigner, since your
children will become your enemies.” It needs to be recognized that Ukrainians
who married Romanian girls of course ceased to be good Ukrainians, and their
children directly came to belong to Romanian culture. . . . I came up with two
suggestions: 1) if we want to preserve our order, then no aliens are supposed
to be invited to our parties or dance courses and 2) we should invite Ukrainian
girls only from peasant homes, from the surrounding areas.20
The OUN(b) perceived the nation as a biological organism:
The nation emerged organically. In the world there is a constant struggle for
existence, development, and power. There is a struggle between the species:
. . . dogs, cats, lions, eagles are animal species; peoples, nations, and tribes
are human species (Ukrainians, Germans, Muscovites, Gypsies, and Jews);
there are differences between humans, animals and plants, just as there are
between human species.21
Family life must be of Ukrainian character. Its content: the parents (fathermother) and children have to be Ukrainians. Mixed marriages (UkrainianPolish, Ukrainian-Muscovite, Ukrainian-Magyar, Ukrainian-Jewish) will be
banned, forming such unions will be made impossible. We regard their very
existence and the making of such unions a crime of national treason.22
Central to the OUN’s racism was the concern that miscegenation would lead to
degeneration of the racial stock.
Racial biology [Natsiia-Nauka] also underwrites these conditions. Professor
Dr. St. Rudnyts’kyi, in his book On the Basis of Ukrainian Nationalism, writes
that “mixed marriages with our neighboring peoples are disadvantageous,”
as they lead to the denationalization of many, and the degeneration of others.
. . . The refl ex against mixed marriages is natural, as it rises out of the instinct
of self-preservation and growth of the Nation. It is typical for all national[ly
conscious] societies. Nations in the process of expansion strictly adhere to this
law. For instance, in Germany racial laws determine the destiny of the people
and of the individual throughout his entire life (The same is true for Italians,
and others.) Peoples in decline (spiritually as well as physically) ignore this
law, which appeals to the instinct of self-protection. They are deaf to the health
and the growth of life.23
OUN propaganda material identifi ed the Ukrainians in biological terms, but also with
Biblical undertones: “Ukrainians are those who are blood of our blood and bone of our bone.
Only Ukrainians have the right to Ukrainian lands and Ukrainian names, and Ukrainian
The OUN embraced the romantic notion of a national revolution, a mixture of Cossack
nostalgia, glorifi cation of violence, and sacrifi ce in the name of the biologically defi ned nation.
In the 1930s the OUN press contained enthusiastic references to the Hajdamaki uprising in
which many Poles, Uniates, and Jews were slaughtered.
When this new, great day [of national revolution] arrives, we will have no
mercy. There will be no cease-fi re, the Pereiaslavl or Hadiach peace treaties
will not be repeated. A new Zalizniak, a new Gonta will come. There will be
no mercy, neither for the big, nor the small, and the bard will sing: ‘And father
The 1935 program for the military education of OUN combatants stressed that “a
fi ghter should not hestitate to kill his father, brother, or best friend if he gets such an order.”26
While the infl uences from Nazi Germany had a significant impact on the anti-Semitic
attitudes of the OUN, the organization had its own anti-Semitic tradition, independent of
Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia had developed a narrative already in the late
nineteenth century, complete with an elaborate anti-Jewish discourse.28
The Ukrainian nationalist press of the 1930s carried anti-Semitic articles on a regular
Dontsov himself regularly published anti-Semitic articles in the OUN-affi liated
press, either under his own authorship or as translations from the leading Nazi theoreticians.
In a 1929 article in the journal Rozbudova Natsii, the OUN’s “intellectual laboratory” and
leading ideological journal,30 Iurii Mylianych described the Ukrainian Jews as “an alien and
predominantly hostile body within our national organism” and urged Ukrainians to develop
guidelines for a Ukrainian policy toward the Jews.
How to deal with the Jews? We have over two million of them in Ukraine.
. . . Should we allow them to further abuse the Ukrainian national organism?
Assimilate them? Take them in? Amalgamate them? Get rid of them from
Ukraine? How? Expel them? Where? It is neither that easy to expel 2 million
people, nor get rid of them altogether. Nobody wants them; everybody is
only happy to get rid of them. In practice, other than the Spaniards, no single
European Christian nation has been able to solve the Jewish problem in a
fully satisfactory way. Various methods have been tried, and not a single one
of them has solved this issue.31
In 1938, Volodymyr Martynets, the editor of Rozbudova Natsii, described Jews as a
“parasitical,” “morally damaging,” “corrupting” and “hostile element,” “racially unsuited for
miscegenation and assimilation.” Rather than violent pogroms and mass murder, Martynets’
argued that “a total and absolute isolation of the Jews from the Ukrainian people”32 would
be a more effective solution to the “Jewish problem.”
It is easier to liquidate 44,000 Jews using these methods, than to liquidate 3¼
million with more radical methods. . . . All of the possibilities, especially if
combined, will decrease the current strength of Jewry and will not only bring
an end to their expansion in our country, but assure a continuous decline in
the number of Jews, not only through emigration, but also through the decline
of their natural growth rate. As the Jews will not be able to make a living, the
Jews will take care of this themselves.”33
Visnyk subscribed to a conspiratorial worldview. It perceived Bolshevism as a tool
of Jewish dominance. The United States, as well as the Soviet Union, were controlled by
Jewry, nationalist ideologues argued, and Jewish interests were setting Britain, France, and
the United States against Nazi Germany. Referring to the United States, Visnyk spoke of
“120 million Aryans over the ocean, under the yoke of Israel.”34 When Mussolini introduced
anti-Semitic legislation in 1938, Visnyk approvingly cited the “practical realization” of the
“Jewish question” in Fascist Italy.35 Nationalist intellectuals like Dontsov and Martynets
presented the OUN with a racial theory. Their repeated rejection of assimilation suggests
that the OUN had internalized and “wholeheartedly accepted” a full-fl edged, racial, antiSemitic discourse by the late 1930s.36 The OUN described the 1918–1919 pogroms during
the civil war in Ukraine as part of a “social liberation struggle.”37 Radicalized over the
1930s, anti-Semitism became particularly prominent between 1939 and 1943, reaching a
high point in 1941–1942.38 Leading members of the Bandera wing wanted Ukrainian Jews
killed or removed, and offered to participate in the process.39 In April 1941, the OUN(b)
declared that they “combat Jews as supporters of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime.”40 Its
propaganda directives in the following month demanded the destruction of the Jews: “Ukraine
for the Ukrainians! . . . Death to the Muscovite-Jewish commune! Beat the commune, save
Ukraine!”41 There is no shortage of radical, even eliminatory, anti-Semitism in the writings
of senior OUN ideologues and intellectuals, either during the interwar period or following
the outbreak of the war.42 During the Holocaust, the nationalist Ukrainian press in occupied
Poland, Ukraine, Germany, and Bohemia published anti-Semitic articles commissioned or
endorsed by the German authorities.43
Nazi Germany and the Establishment of
New national States in Central Europe
The OUN cooperated closely with other fascist states and movements—Italy, Japan,
Spain, and, in particular, Germany. It established contacts with the Iron Guard in Romania
and later the Chetnik leader Draža Mihailović.
44 The OUN’s relations with the Ustaše were
close; the organizations trained their terrorists together in Fascist Italy. The OUN assassinate
La suite sur