An event took place in Ivano-Frankivsk oblast a couple of weeks ago that made headlines and was almost the main topic of discussion at a space bridge linking ORT (Moscow) and 1+1 in Kyiv on Saturday, March 23. A session of the city council passed a resolution recognizing the veterans of the Waffen SS Division Galizien as combatants fighting for “the freedom and independence of Ukraine.” This act of rehabilitation of servicemen that had taken an active part in hostilities during World War II on the Nazi side on the German-Soviet front and in numerous operations in Ukraine and Yugoslavia, of course, fits in the current parliamentary campaign logic. It also gives rise to many questions. There are historical, legal, political, but primarily foreign political and moral aspects to the problem.
Indeed, the men of the Halychyna Division swore allegiance to the Wehrmacht. Unlike the SS, SD, and the Nazi party, the Wehrmacht was not recognized as a criminal organization by the war crimes trials in Nuremberg (although swearing allegiance to Ukraine under the circumstance was perhaps a myth which the Halychyna soldiers wholeheartedly wanted to believe). In fact, the division’s acronym SS was claimed to mean Sichovi Striltsi [Riflemen of the Zaporozhzhian Sich]. The division was formed in 1943 and routed by Soviet troops in the vicinity of Brody, a town in Lviv oblast, in the summer of 1944.
However, one must distinguish between the Halychyna Division men and those of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army who fought in 1942-44, on three fronts: against the Soviet army and partisans, German units and armed groups staying loyal to the Polish government in exile. Can these men be placed on the same plane with the Halychyna Division? How is this problem to be solved?
Naturally, there is no statute of limitations for the SS war criminals. One could argue the Nuremberg adjudication of the Wehrmacht and SS in terms of legal and moral nuances. One thing is certain: the SS was a criminal organization. And the fact remains that the Halychyna Division was its component.
On the other hand, commentaries in the Moscow press, from the diplomatic and Duma quarters show a definite trend to equate UPA with the Halychyna Division, with much ado about “rampant Russophobic nationalism” in Ukraine. Such an approach is not likely to help settle the issue amicably. And the trend is dangerous, provoking an east-west split in Ukraine. Ironically, it causes a much greater outburst of anti-Russian sentiments than any kind of nationalist propaganda.
Once again, what makes the situation so dramatic is that the debate centered on the Ivano-Frankivsk resolution coincides with the election campaign’s finale. Obviously, many political forces will try to capitalize on this extremely sensitive issue. It should be remembered, however, that it is about a great national tragedy involving millions of human destinies, meaning that any speculations and rash decisions are unacceptable, regardless of where they come from.
Every nation has its historical sore spot that hurts when- and however touched. Our people found themselves under the Nazi yoke during World War II and went through an ordeal made even worse by their dependence on another totalitarian force, the Soviet empire. At the time it was very hard for the people to figure out who was telling the truth; the warring sides shed rivers of blood. Halychyna and Volyn in 1939-56 were a fratricidal battlefield, with Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, and Jews being participants in and victims of horrible events.
Such is a complex of factors making the “selection” of war veterans as traitors and faultless patriots so very difficult even now, 56 years after the war (plus another ten years of bloodshed in Western Ukraine after 1945). But we must be fully aware of the importance of reconciliation between the former combatants, on both sides – even more importantly, between their children and grandchildren (the sad fact remains that at this stage it is hard to believe in such reconciliation between the participants and eyewitnesses of those tragic events). Still, we must not stop trying to do just that. Another thing is that some of these attempts strongly remind one of the proverbial bull in a china shop. Trying to make SS Division Halychyna veterans equal to those of the Great Patriotic War seems to be “an expression of will rather than a planned provocation,” in the words of Our Ukraine campaign HQ chief Petro Poroshenko, who tried to make the best of a bad bargain during the Saturday space bridge. That resolution was nothing the local authorities could benefit from, however, and last Monday the press service of the Ivano-Frankivsk city council noted that “the resolution was submitted as moved by one of the council deputies and the session resolved to set up a special committee to investigate its historical and legal justification.”
Also, the Russian foreign ministry’s statement reads that “the resolution will have a negative effect on the state of Russian- Ukrainian relations as a whole.” What is it? Being justifiably alarmed? Getting hysterical and trying to conceal it? Attempted blackmail? Indeed, after World War II the international community arrived at the conclusion that acts of genocide, mass terror, gross violations of human rights cannot be considered a matter of a given country’s internal affairs. Yet who is there to dictate Ukraine how to interpret its own history and national reconciliation? Do we have to act as instructed by Moscow? No, we do not, especially considering that such recommendations are often peremptory. They can only provoke a rift among the Ukrainians. This issue is so sensitive and extraordinary that it is best dealt with after the election campaign.
The Day asked for an expert opinion about the margin, in issues like that, past which it is already interference into the internal affairs of an independent state.
Yuri SHAPOVAL, professor and Ph.D. in history:
First of all it is noteworthy that the issue under study surfaced during the election campaign. This means that one has to trace its source. Also, it is understandable that Russia under Putin (with Chechnya and the ongoing offensive on the freedom of speech) and the United States with President Bush (who currently receives more applause than Brezhnev did in the USSR) are not those to tell us how to solve such complicated problems. Interference in the internal affairs begins when we are “prompted” how to interpret our past, who we are to regard as heroes, which part of Ukraine is to be treated as a “special region” of Russia and which as a geopolitical soccer field, who are to be considered as democrats and who as godfathers.
There is, however, another aspect to the problem. I mean the unwillingness of the Ukrainian authorities to reassess sensitive issues relating to the recent Soviet past, their desire to be on both sides of the fence; also, what we have is playing on emotions rather than assessing things in a scholarly fashion, a primitive approach cultivated by some flag-waving patriots. All this will inevitably aggravate the situation. Moreover, it will serve to enhance political forces using phrases about independence and actually blocking the process of reassessing the history of the OUN and UPA. There is only one way out, a broad public discussion, free access to archival documents, approaching the problem at every angle, trying to discover the truth for ourselves, lest others ration it out for us, striving to keep us pressed tight in an embrace of brotherly or strategic partnership.
