No matter whether they are politically engaged or not, no Ukrainians are indifferent to the date of Oct. 14, 1942. On that day 66 years ago the soldiers of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought their first battle against the Nazi occupiers in the forests of the Volyn region. This is a fact, despite the denials of those who are incapable of viewing the past with its tragedies other than through the lens of the Short Course of the History of the AUCP(B)) and the theses of the all-victorious Leninist-Stalinist party, which were proclaimed on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of “Ukraine’s reunification with Russia.”
Why is it difficult-indeed, practically impossible-to remain neutral during discussions about the dramatic path on which the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) set out and even more so about the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the political arm of the UPA? It is not even the fact that people may have totally different views of Roman Shukhevych, Vasyl Kuk, Yurii Lypa, Mykola Lebed, Mykola Stsiborsky, and other organizational and military leaders and ideologists of the UPA. The problem is not so much the personal assessment of historical figures-that is an entirely different issue.
For all these personalities and their comrades in arms, a sovereign Ukrainian state, rather than their personal rise to power and authority, was at the top of their system of values. This is a strict warning to our present-day politicians, especially those who seek recognition as national patriots. The issue at hand may be formulated this way: what was the idea of the Ukrainian state for which the OUN and UPA leaders fought, and how has this idea been implemented in the past 17 years, including the four post-Orange Revolution years?
Therefore, the attitude to the UPA and its history is the political attitude of the real Ukrainian state that exists in the tough, merciless, egoistical, and globalized world-the attitude of those who are either unable to imagine a different Ukraine or, on the contrary, see the Ukrainian SSR as the only, and almost perfect, model of our statehood. This is the crux of the problem. Some people claim that the UPA issue is “splitting” our society, and that is why it needs to be left in a “frozen” state, removed from our agenda for an unspecified period of time (“until Ukraine resolves its economic problems”).
But how can a society resolve its political and economic problems if it is not aware of its historical and spiritual roots and does not understand its historical antecedents: was it the Ukrainian SSR or perhaps some other entity? I am talking here about fundamental things.
In the grand scheme of things, it is about choosing a historical course for our nation’s development. Vladimir Lenin, one of the most formidable politicians and tactical geniuses of the 20th century, once said: “Before we unite, and in order for us to unite, we first need to be divided.” Is this dictum not related to resolving the UPA question and the fact that sitting on the fence is what is splitting our society?
How people should treat the anniversary of the creation of the UPA, and how it should be marked, are questions of personal choice. It is also a question of conscience.
