History should be written by objective and competent scholars

Print version
Sept. 22, 2010, 9:31 a.m. | Op-ed — by Askold S. Lozynskyj
Seven months after I “vehemently…responded” to his exposition of Jewish eyewitness accounts on the role of the OUN-UPA, John Paul Himka offers his defense. Frankly, I am surprised by his tardiness since I thought that he had recognized his errors and let this matter rest. More importantly, I am disturbed by his abysmal lack of scholarship and the impossibility of preventing anyone from spouting canards and defamation without recourse. Case in point, Himka confronts the hearsay charge by offering what I can only assume to be his strongest direct testimony, that of a “ten-year-old boy whose father had been killed by Banderites just two months before he testified to the Jewish Historical Commission.”
The ten-year old is a sympathetic, but traumatized, easily influenced and most eager to embellish witness whose testimony may be given weight for the proposition that his father was killed indeed, but certainly not as to who killed him. In any event , apparently, even that witness does not label the perpetrators as members of the OUN or UPA, but as Banderites. For that witness, Banderites is a generic name for Ukrainians.

On the charge of lack of supporting (corroborating) documentary evidence, Mr. Himka offers a “book of reports of UPA’s Kolodzinsky division, for example, about how they stumbled upon twelve Hungarian Jews hiding in the forest in Volhynia and “dispatched them to the bosom of Abraham.”” Official reports are generally admissible and reliable when they are kept in the ordinary course of business and thus are an exception to the hearsay rule. Naturally, reports must be distinguished from memoirs, which are fertile ground for embellishment. The big problem with this piece of “evidence” offered by Mr. Himka is that Mykhailo Kolodzinsky was the Carpathian Sich Headquarters Chief who fought the the Hungarian army after the proclamation of Carpathian Ukrainian independence. He may have killed Hungarian Jews who were in that Hungarian army which, by the way, was backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He was shot by the Hungarians in 1939 in Carpathian Ukraine. He never fought in the UPA in Volhynia. By the way, the UPA was formed in 1942, three years after Kolodzinsky was shot. Mr. Himka pays little attention to names and dates, and thus plays loosely with facts.

But wait, there’s more. Mr. Himka offers a new variety of evidence, an alleged OUN document from Soviet archives, a witness protocol from Soviet judicial proceedings, and corroboration as to authenticity of evidence offered by his colleague, Marco Carynnyk, not an attorney, not a paper or handwriting expert, and not a historian. Mr. Himka’s submissions here are disingenuous as he must be aware of Soviet predilection for forging both documents and witness protocols. As to his colleague, Mr. Himka certainly knows Mr. Carynnyk’s lack of credentials.

Finally, he attempts a condemnation of the OUN for murdering Poles in Volyhynia by quoting “the original founder of OUN, Taras Bulba-Borovets.” In this instance Mr. Himka’s playing loose with the facts is obscene as Taras Bulba-Borovets was not involved in any way with founding the OUN.

There is one statement in Mr. Himka’s piece that highlights his sparse attention to detail, his irreverence with names: “Lozynskyj also tries to discredit my research by stating that my award of a fellowship from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum shows that I am working for the Jews.” No, it shows that you are working for the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. While, I would never accuse all Jews of having an agenda, it is indisputable that the purpose (“raison d’etre”) of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is to keep the memory alive.

Sweeping generalizations such as “It is an undeniable fact, though, that OUN organized pogroms and mass violence against Jews and others throughout western Ukraine in July 1941,” or hearsay such “OUN leaders communicated among themselves…about the need to exterminate Jews,” or arguing that lack of evidence makes a negative argument “Why is there no paper trail showing similar falsification of evidence about OUN militias?”, all with no corroboration, deserve no credibility or weight. It is precisely that credibility and weight of evidence that is lacking in Mr. Himka’s work.

After the Soviets reoccupied Lviv in the fall of 1944, they set up an Extraordinary State Commission on German atrocities in the Lviv region. The Commission consisted of members of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and other influential members of the Soviet government. Its findings were published in 1945. The Commission's work consisted of hearing eyewitness accounts and reviewing medical reports. It concluded that Gestapo detachments had prepared lists of Lviv intellectuals who were slated for destruction even before the Germans entered the city. The Commission not only compiled a list of victims and description of their suffering, but also provided a record of individuals from various branches of the German security services, who had participated in the criminal activities.

These and other Soviet findings from other regions served as evidence for Soviet Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials General Roman Rudenko and Soviet Chief Counselor of Justice Lev N. Smirnov. The findings at Nuremberg did not accuse, much less even mention the OUN, the UPA, Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych or Nachtigal of any wrongdoing. Hopefully, this will satisfy even Mr. Himka.
The Kyiv Post is hosting comments to foster lively debate. Criticism is fine, but stick to the issues. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks will be removed from the site. If you think that a posted comment violates these standards, please flag it and alert us. We will take steps to block violators.
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 3:07 p.m.    

And your evidence that he's a fanatic is what? Not saying he isn't but I'm interested in knowing why you think he is.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 4:38 p.m.    

He is referring to Lozynskyj.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 4:32 p.m.    


Would not you agree that Askold sounds like a person having his own agenda and defending his cause &quot;no matter what&quot;? In the court of law, nobody would consider him as an objective witness...

He does sound awfully anti-russian, which, although too strongly, but could be perceived as somewhat fanatic

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 5:13 p.m.    

He is defending himself and pointing out the glaring holes in Himka's article...what is he supposed to do? Say nothing? Where is he anti-Russian...?

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 8:30 p.m.    

I don't know enough about Lozynskyj to have any firm views on this and it's difficult to get a complete picture based on the two articles of his I've read. But I guess if he's representing a particualr organisation and viewpoint it's difficult not to be affected by 'agenda' in your viewpoints.

At the moment, though the way I read it there's a two way spat going on between him and Himka but I also agree at the moment with the post below that on the basis of the articles he's not coming across as anti Russian. Just anti the alleged inaccuracies he's been accused of. (I'm not enough of an historian to judge the veracity myself but I do admit to on balance agreeing a tad with Lozynskyj. But always open to new evidence)

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 6:20 a.m.    

Himka has &quot;witness testimony&quot;...

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 6:22 a.m.    

and its reliable because it was collected and coerced or rewarded by the NKVD!

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 5:13 p.m.    

Well then you have to immediately rule out anyone from Russia, the mouthpieces of the Kremlin...

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 5:26 p.m.    

Russia has already lost this one... Himka ignores basic historical sources, and relies upon already discredited Soviet manufactured revisionists.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 5:32 p.m.    

Having said that, there are some Russian, a few Polish and many German, French and English scholars who basically argue Loszynsky's line... I just hate the diaspora... so can't accept anything they say, even if it is supported by all known credible fact.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 7:35 p.m.    

kremlinoids can not disprove my factual statements, so some insane evil pervert decided to use my name (LES). They are ashamed to use their own name because their comments are nonsensical, and/or they were never baptized. As usual, the kremlinoids use intentional disinformation, just like the kremlin intentionally murdered 10,000,000's of Ukrainians.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 5:39 p.m.    

Evidently, playing fast and loose with names and dates is catching.

A cursory search via Google pulls up Himka's &quot;Ukrainian Past and Ukrainian Future&quot; — an &quot;Unpublished letter to Kyiv Post&quot; in the Ukraine List #442, compiled March 15, 2010 by Dominique Arel, Chair of Ukrainian Studies, U of Ottawa.

You can find it here:

In other words, Himka hasn't been tardy. His response just wasn't published until now — for which KP's editors and not the letter's author ought to answer.

Mykhailo Kolodzinsky was the ideologue who formulated perhaps the least useful concept of the purpose of an army:

&quot;Військо є на те, щоб ворога побити, або лишити по собі міф слави.&quot;

&quot;Культ героїв та плекання нашої бойової традиції є фундаментальною справою, що на ній розвивається воєнна доктрина українських націоналістів.&quot;

&quot;Коли вже нема розумного виходу з тяжкого положення, то треба вміти вмерти по геройськи, щоб така смерть була джерелом сили для молодих поколінь.&quot;

&quot;Тільки герої, які покрили своїми кістками українську землю, є вільні від підозрінь.&quot;

In effect, Kolodzinsky wrote a license for commanders to march their men into hopeless situations in order that they might be slaughtered — and become transfigured heroes. This, Kolodzinsky promptly did in the case of Карпатська Січ — denouncing the political leadership to which an army ought to answer as traitors, and hurling three quarters of the men in his inexperienced, under-equipped and critically overmatched force to death, maiming and imprisonment — in the space of 24 hours.

Kolodzinsky earned glorious annihilation himself in 1939 — but Himka doesn't write that &quot;Kolodzinsky&quot; killed anyone at all after that. He writes that an UPA division named after Kolodzinsky did.

Taras Bul'ba-Borovets wasn't &quot;the original founder of OUN&quot;. Bul'ba-Borovets was the founder of the ORIGINAL УПА — which was organized in 1940 and operational by 1941. If there is anything in it that can and ought to be described as &quot;obscene&quot; — it is the systematic liquidation of Bul'ba-Borovets' formation, the encirclement of his headquarters, the murder of his officer corps and his wife by OUN(B) security battalions in 1943 — after which OUN(B) styles its military wing &quot;УПА&quot;.

That's why in «Армія без держави» (Winnipeg, 1981) Bul'ba-Borovets writes:

&quot;New liberators are coming: the Bandera men. They are coming with a whip, noose and bullet.&quot;

They &quot;start the future Ukrainian state by slaughtering ethnic minorities,&quot; &quot;executing Ukrainians taken prisoner from the Red Army,&quot; and &quot;strangling the finest people with rope.&quot;

&quot;Can a true revolutionary statesman submit himself to a leadership of a party which begins the construction of the nation with the extermination of national minorities and the mindless burning of buildings? Ukraine has more formidable enemies than the Poles ...What are you fighting for? For Ukraine or for OUN? For the Ukrainian state or for the dictatorship in that state? For the Ukrainian nation or only for your party?&quot;

It strikes me that the description of a witness as &quot;sympathetic, but traumatized, easily influenced and most eager to embellish&quot; accurately describes the vast majority of Ukrainians who found themselves in Displaced Persons camps at the end of the Second World War.

Why I should discount or temper one testimony and not the other is for you to argue.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 6 p.m.    

Forgot: Hungary didn't join the Tripartite Alliance until November, 1940 — so the &quot;backing&quot; Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy gave Hungarians in 1939 was limited to not protesting on the day-old Carpatho-Ukraine's behalf. In the case of Germany, this was an intervention Voloshyn actively sought — hoping to make the breakaway region a German protectorate — as had been done in the case of Slovakia.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 7:12 p.m.    

The tortured and misrepresented history below cannot go unanswered by facts.

Krivonic is a victim of fast and loose historical fact, accepted by all reputable scholars, and credibly argued by Loszynskyij.

If Himka is a poor academic and sloppy researcher, then Krivonic is a falsifier of history with malice afore thought... particularly where Borovets is concerned.

I will elaborate in due course, but the very thought that Borovets can be used to accuse OUN B of anti-semitic or Nazi sympathies is preposterous - and clearly contradicted by all sources except isolated soviet, individual 10 year old, and Borovets own fanciful accounts.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 7:15 p.m.    

Judging by your response, what I wrote can, indeed, go unanswered by facts.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 7:34 p.m.    

Not unembellished by adjectives, mind you — but wholly unaided by fact.

Before you dive too deeply into a study (I nonetheless encourage you to attempt), you'll find that &quot;anti-Semitic&quot; appears in the &quot;tortured and misrepresented history below&quot; not once; and that &quot;Nazi&quot; appears only once — in the form and as an answer to an argument formulated by Lozynskyj.

By the way, there is no &quot;s&quot; before the &quot;z&quot; and no &quot;i&quot; before the &quot;j&quot; in &quot;Lozynskyj&quot; — (the second line of your post) — and there is no &quot;d&quot; at all in &quot;cretinously&quot; (same line, three words earlier).

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 8:22 p.m.    


You were doing good until you nit-picked the petty secretarial skills...

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 8:33 p.m.    

It seems to me that if folks trading jabs about poor research, malice and sloppiness get back a little of what they are giving... it's all well and good.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 10:21 p.m.    

boring nit-picking... REALLY unimportant...

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 28, 2010, 5:07 a.m.    


See my comments re Borovets in comments under Mr Lozhynskij's latest article.

Also, understand that English language transliteration of Ukrainian words and names are always flexible.

Historical facts as you use them are not.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 28, 2010, 5:13 a.m.    

It is clear that Mr Lozhynskij demonstrates that Himka is at best a sloppy researcher, and at worst misleadingly selective in the 'facts' he seeks to use against OUN Bandera (B).

But in these forums, as demonstrated repeatedly, Himka's apologist and defender Krivonic (Kruvonic) is rightly identified as going further than even Himka has dared to do. Krivonic has no problem with directly relying upon known falsification and fraudulent use of historical information to attempt to condemn OUN (B) of war crimes against the Jews and others.

Krivonic has relied upon the thoroughly discredited wartime 'memoirs' of Maksym Borovets (Taras Bulba Borovets)- &quot;Army Without A Country&quot;...

The allegations made by BB against Bandera in this highly offensive work of fiction are easily discounted as historically accurate - and have been accepted by virtually every serious historian of the period to be a self serving attempt by BB to deny and whitewash his own shameful conduct in Ukraine, and his own treacherous activities against the Ukrainian Independence Movement of the time.

1. BB identifies himself as a supporter of the Petlura forces of the 1920's, and later appointed former Petlura Officers within his forces.

2. BB blamed Poland for the collapse of the fledgling Ukrainian State and Rada of the early 1920's.

3. Before 1939, BB attempted to obtain Polish approval for the 'self administration' of Polish governed areas of western Ukraine unsuccessfully, and his activities led to his imprisonment in a Polish prison camp at this time. Poland as a western ally, was sensitive to antagonising either the Germans or the Russians who were signatories to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact.

4. In 1939, when the Nazi-Soviet partition of Poland began, BB took the opportunity to ally his forces with the Germans, creating the &quot;Polissian Sich&quot; formations, which were funded, uniformed, armed and wholly commanded by the Germans - with himself as nominal leader.

5. The BB Polissian Sich conducted 'police actions' directed by the Germans against Poles, Jews and Soviets in the regions where it was active - particularly in and around Rivne district.

6. After the German invasion of the USSR, all Ukrainian 'Militias' were disbanded by the Germans who opposed Ukrainian Independence, as the Soviets did.

7. BB never ceased trying to reach formal alliance with his former German commanders (unsuccessfully), but he did sign a non-aggression pact with Soviet Partisans in the region, and a formal cooperation agreement with the infamous OUN Melnyk (M) who were absorbed into the German commanded Galizien Divisions.

8. OUN (B) specifically rejected the overtures of BB for a cooperation agreement on the basis of the BB continuing overtures to the Germans, the OUN (M) and the Soviets. OUN (B) rightly considered BB a rogue and destructive element (vis a vis the Ukrainian Independence struggle) and within the military melee of the time.

9. Most of the BB Officers (former Petlura combatants) and military formations were voluntarily absorbed into the OUN (B) as it was the only remaining Ukrainian force committed to Ukrainian Independence - beholden to neither the Nazis or the Soviets or their designs upon Ukrainian territory.

10. The last remaining BB formation, self styled as the OUN (and UNRA or UnRada), a rump of about 300 men, was forcibly disbanded by OUN (B) leading to casualties, which did not include BB or his wife.

11. BB escaped to Germany, where he was subsequently arrested and imprisoned in Sachsenhausen concentration camp with other Ukrainians and western POWs.

12. BBs wife, was not killed by OUN (B) as claimed in the memoirs of Borovets. She took the opportunity to escape the OUN (B) military assault on the remaining Borovets rump formation with Red Army Officer, and Soviet Partisan V.V. Lukhin, who was in alliance with Borovets, whom she later married.

Krivonic engages in deliberate historical distortion in these forums in order to defame OUN (B) and Bandera. It is undisputed historical fact, that OUN (B) specifically repudiated Nazi anti-semitic policy, refused to participate in any organised Jewish 'Pogroms' and accepted into it's ranks, many Jews who fought bravely for Ukrainian Independence against both the Nazis and the Soviets alongside non-Jews. The Jewish members of OUN (B) were specifically reknowned for their military skills as marksmen and women.

Mr Lozynskij should also be aware that whilst it is certainly possible that the so called 'Hungarian Jews' mentioned in the Kolodzynsky reports were operatives of the Soviet Partisans, it is more likely (regardless of dates in 1939 or 1943), that they were military personell from the Hungarian Army, who moved into areas of Carpatho-Ukraine in 1938-39 as a result of the Vienna Arbitrary Awards concluded by the 'pre-Axis' Germans and Italians. This 'award' forced the Czechoslovak &amp; Romanian States to cede large areas of Trancarpathia and Carpatho-Ukraine to Hungary as an encouragement to the Hungarians to formally join the Axis.

The Hungarian Military of 1939, wasted no time moving into these territories to annexe them for Hungary and the forming Axis. These moves were condemned by the Allies, as demonstrated by the subsequent Vienna Dictats.

There is a huge difference between playing fast and loose with dates and facts, being selective, and ultimately behaving fraudulently. Mr Himka, and Krivonic (Kruvonic) need to be aware that their blatant attempts to defame Stepan Bandera and OUN (B) cannot be supported by any credible historian.

Further, their single minded efforts to denigrate a Ukrainian Hero, will not be tolerated by those who respect the truth and respect the independence struggle of Ukraine, honorably conducted by OUN (B).

Link Answer Mark

Kharkivyan, Guest | Today at 04:51

Erratum: Point 10. above should read, &quot;self styled as the UPA...&quot;. BB never claimed to be OUN

Read more:

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 7:58 p.m.    

The new KGB command from the kremlin is to attack the Diaspora because they know the truth, are not brainwashed, and were not forced to be russified.

Just the kremlin’s standard policy - divide and conquer. {Now Himka is AGAIN trying to provoke the Polish and Jewish people against UKRAINIANS.} The kremlin has been trying to provoke the UKRAINIANS living in Ukraine against the UKRAINIANS living elsewhere {Diaspora}. The kremlin has been provoking Eastern UKRAINIANS against Western UKRAINIANS hoping to start a civil war so that UKRAINIANS will kill UKRAINIANS; then the kremlin can send in their red army to occupy and enslave Ukraine again, and &quot;protect&quot; their “russian citizens” that they gave passports to.

{When the kremlin gave passports to the Abkhazia and South Ossetia people, did that make them russian?}

You must have nightmares and start foaming at the mouth when you think about the 10,000,000's of UKRAINIANS that live in the Diaspora and that do not speak russian, and do not want to learn the language of the people that occupied UKRAINE and enslaved UKRAINIANS - FOR CENTURIES.

If you want to live in a rus-sin speaking country then live in russia and do not impose on your neighbors.

TRUE RUSSIAN CHRISTIANS would not want want to DESTROY their neighbor's language culture and religion. But the savage uncivilized pagan barbarians in the kremlin have been trying to exterminate the UKRAINIANS - FOR CENTURIES.

Mat 19:19

Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.&quot;

Mat 22:39

&quot;The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

Mar 12:31

&quot;The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.&quot;

Luke 10:27

And he answered and said, &quot;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.&quot;

Act 7:27

&quot;But the one who was injuring his neighbor pushed him away, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and judge over us?

Rom 13:8

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled [the] law.

1Cor 10:24

Let no one seek his own [good], but that of his neighbor.

Gal 5:14

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the [statement], &quot;You shall love your neighbor as yourself.&quot;

Eph 4:25

Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one [of you], with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.

Jam 2:8

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, &quot;You shall love your neighbor as yourself,&quot; you are doing well.

Jam 4:12

There is [only] one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?


Why is Himka fabricating animosity between UKRAINIANS and others?

Why is Himka touting the kremlin's line?

Why is Himka trying to create more useful idiots?

Why is Himka dividing UKRAINIANS?

Why is Himka helping the savage uncivilized pagan barbarians in the kremlin to occupy and enslave UKRAINE - AGAIN?

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 8:12 p.m.    

&quot;The findings at Nuremberg did not accuse, much less even mention the OUN, the UPA, Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych or Nachtigal of any wrongdoing.&quot;

Conduct the same search of Nuremberg documents with the term &quot;Ukrainian militia.&quot;

See what happens.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 4:16 a.m.    

&quot;Soviet evidence&quot; proves the Germans GUILTY of Katyn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 6:04 p.m.    

In other words, using Rudenko and Smirnov to exonerate &quot;OUN, the UPA, Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych or Nachtigal of any wrongdoing&quot; is cynical practice.

I accept your argument.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 11:42 p.m.    

Oh don't be so coy... What does happen?.. who is accused, and what credible evidence is presented, and what is the verdict?... I'm dying to know.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 5:48 p.m.    

What happens is that you discover that the scope of the Nuremberg Trials was &quot;the just and prompt trial and punishment&quot; of major war criminals and the political, military and industrial leaderships of Nazi GERMANY. The plans to expand the trials to European Axis countries and &quot;criminal organizations&quot; was never carried out.

To insinuate that because &quot;Nuremberg did not accuse, much less even mention the OUN, the UPA, Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych or Nachtigal of any wrongdoing&quot; this necessarily entailed an investigation and absolution of OUN/UPA, is — to borrow a phrase from a reliable source of same — &quot;spouting canards.&quot;

If you're interested, you will find the phrase &quot;Ukrainian militia&quot; in statements given in connection to the Einsatzgruppen trials. The transcripts are available on the websites of Harvard and Yale.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 28, 2010, 5:03 a.m.    

yeah... your hero Bulba Borovets and Melnyk!

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 22, 2010, 8:40 p.m.    

There is no such thing as objective historian.Historians don't bite the hand that feeds them and if they live/work in a nation that has a holocaust denial type law they will act to protect their career.There is only one standard to measure OUN-SUCCESS or FAILURE.They failed to achieve their stated goal a independent Ukraine and 100,200 years from now only a handful of historians will know who they were.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 3:56 a.m.    

After reading the two articles by the head of UWC and Himka I am really grateful that the UWC has at last got an articulate passionate Ukrainian in this important post. Mr. Loszinskyj I feel is a model for the Diaspora and Ukrainians who still cannot speak Ukrainian, but only Russian, or who defend those who are at every moment ready to destroy us yet again. We, in the Diaspora were looked down upon by the Anglos, discriminated against, made fun of because we had strange names which we refused to anglisize and because we insisted on maintaining our Ukrainian language and culture. We persevered, and we overcame and as a national group we are a credit to our families and Ukraine. We make no apologies for being in the Diaspora. Rather we are proud that we can now search out the truth about our history without the revisionism imposed by our occupiers and now by Yanukovich. I am both a historian and a political scientist and I am ashamed to think that Himka is a Ukrainian. But then there will always be traitors and renegades in every culture.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 23, 2010, 5:51 p.m.    

The head of the UWC since 2008 is Eugene Czolij.

Not every Ukrainian in the diaspora lives in English-speaking countries.

Since the previously accepted point of view among historians and political scientists is that WWII-era Ukrainian nationalists drew upon the principles of fascist parties in Europe, the revisionists 'R US.

Himka IS Ukrainian. He cannot be a &quot;traitor&quot; to a party to which he does not belong nor a renegade against a movement to which he does not subscribe — and whose roots lie no deeper than the late 19th and early 20th centuries in philosophical traditions until that time alien to Ukraine. The renegades 'R US.

We want someone to build in Ukraine the sort of system we would choke on here — so that we can look down upon, discriminate against and make fun of someone else. We'd like to be the &quot;Anglos&quot; in our own house — and have another people wear the sheepskin coats.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Sept. 28, 2010, 7:25 a.m.    

You and Himka both defame the Ukrainian Independence Movement of OUN (B) and the true Bandera UPA with lies and falsehood. You knowingly and unknowingly continue your defammatory allegations without the necessary acknowledgement of known and credible evidence.

OUN (B) specifically repudiated German fascist ideology regarding the Jews and rejected anti-semitism in specific terms... something that the Russian paramilitaries under Vlasov and Russian Freikorps never did. (including fascist allies and military formations from virtually all European nations - including the UK!).

You should both deriously reflect upon the significant numbers of Jewish Ukrainians who flocked into the UPA - OUN (B) formations and fought bravely alongside Bandera against the Nazis and the Soviets for Ukrainian Independence.

Your lies defame and dishonour them and their sacred memory too.

Shame on you both!

Bandera's own brother was murdered in Sachsenhausen concentration camp by 'European Fascists' specifically because he refused to adopt the sick ideology of German Nazism.

You and Himka are shameless distorters of history, and traitors to the honorable struggle for Ukrainian Independence conducted by OUN (B) and Stepan Bandera.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous March 6, 2011, 3:59 a.m.    

To me, this comment shows Askold Losynskyj's lack of integrity:

&quot;While, I would never accuse all Jews of having an agenda, it is indisputable that the purpose (“raison d’etre”) of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is to keep the memory alive. &quot;

Of course the USHMM keeps the memory alive of the Holocaust. It also functions as a research center for all genocides. Americans learned from the Holocaust. It's truly amazing how ignorant some people are in the Ukraine, all in the name of ethnic pride.

{# <-- parent id goes here


© 1995–2014 Public Media

Web links to Kyiv Post material are allowed provided that they contain a URL hyperlink to the material and a maximum 500-character extract of the story. Otherwise, all materials contained on this site are protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced without the prior written permission of Public Media at
All information of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency placed on this web site is designed for internal use only. Its reproduction or distribution in any form is prohibited without a written permission of Interfax-Ukraine.