In his last days the condemned President Yushchenko awarded Stepan Bandera with the Hero of Ukraine decoration. What actually pushed Yushchenko to do this is an open question. What is certain, though, is that the whole affair has sparked a great deal of reactions in Ukraine and the region, most of which only served to antagonize and confuse. This is a pity. Ukraine is still a young state, in great need of nation-building. A sensible debate would clarify many misunderstandings, and, hopefully, resolve many animosities.
First I must clarify a few things about myself.
I was born in the Pomeranian city of Gdansk, in its time the great melting-pot of the Baltic, whose German population was deported (or fled) as a result of the war, and which was significantly repopulated by Poles from present-day Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine (whence several of my family members are from). I grew up in a neighborhood with a great many such families, and, as a child, heard stories about the horrifying events in Volynia and Galicia. However, despite the numerous hardships that many of those families went through, I must say that I practically never heard anybody opposed to reconciliation with Ukraine. Few continue to harbor hatred in their hearts. Most are enthusiastic (though not necessarily optimistic), about Ukraine’s prospects of joining the European Union.
The European Union has recently passed a resolution in which it condemns Bandera’s posthumous award (but also contains a lot of positive statements about the future of EU-Ukraine relations), due to the latter’s war crimes and collaboration with Nazis. This has, understandably, angered many who believe that a country’s choice of national heroes is its own business. It has also led to rumors about a Polish lobby with anti-Ukrainian sentiments, and denial of the OUN-UPA’s Nazi affiliation on account of Bandera’s imprisonment in Sachsenhausen and subsequent hostilities between the two camps. In what concerns these allegations, one must consider two issues.
Firstly, the Polish reaction was much more measured than media in Ukraine and elsewhere made it out to be. While there was no support of the decision, criticism was quite balanced. Poland reproves of the award because of the Banderists’ involvement in the Volynia massacres, in the course of which tens of thousands of Poles were gruesomely murdered. Most Poles, however, are able to understand the predicament in which Ukrainians found themselves, and some even admit to the Polish repression which ultimately led to the disaster. As for Polish lobbies in Brussels, there is little to fear – most recently they have failed to pass a resolution concerning governmental repression against the 400,000 strong Polish minority in Belarus. Moreover, jingoist statements were largely limited to a few quirky League of Polish Families- and Law and Justice-members.
The second issue to be considered is the EU’s attitude towards the Second World War and Nazi collaboration. The EU’s founding myth is largely based on a postwar anti-Nazi consensus. Basically, the former “bad guys” renege upon their Nazi past, embrace European values, and we all live happily ever after. It ignores the complexities of war-time history, notably the fact that some Axis-allies were openly opposed to the deportation of Jews (such as Bulgaria), or that many countries saw an alliance with Nazi Germany as the only road to freedom. The words “Nazi collaboration” are enough to push through any condemnation, irrespective of specific context. It is undeniable that there is no way that one can reasonably condone activities carried out by Nazis. However, one should remain sensitive to the conditions under which oppressed peoples made difficult choices.
The most acrimony about the nomination, however, has been in Ukraine itself. Eastern Ukrainians (though not only), who identify themselves with the tremendous sacrifices that the Red Army made to “liberate” East Europe from fascism, are appalled. Passports have been burnt and threats issued. Without a doubt, years of propaganda have led to a huge amount of false information, complicating constructive debates. To complicate things even further, it now appears that Ukrainians must choose between complying from pressure both from Moscow and Brussels, and betraying the memory of a national hero.
Eastern Europe is still coming to terms with the ghosts of its past. After being the noble kernel of the countries’ fights for independence, nationalism has turned into a counterproductive force poisoning neighborly relations. At the same time patriotism remains necessary in order to consolidate national identities. Countries often glorify questionable characters without delving into their darker sides because of the moments of national splendor they represent. Poland has its Pilsudski, a prominent patriot and protector of Polish independence during the Polish-Bolshevik war, but who was also a train-robbing dictator largely responsible for the political alientation and economic stagnation of Poland’s Second Republic. France’s Charles de Gaulle is responsible for covering up the Paris massacre of 1961, and for numerous atrocities in the Algerian War. On the bright side, many East European governments are becoming increasingly pragmatic, and people are ready to admit the imperfections of their pasts. The Bandera crisis has laid bare the fractures in Ukrainian society. Honesty and empathy are needed to make it whole again.
