Freedom for all nations

Historically, the issue of rehabilitating the heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) has been a political one. Arguments against the official recognition of the UPA’s heroic deeds boil down to references to the works of Soviet historians and some contemporary so-called “objective scholars,” primarily Russians. All arguments pro and contra notwithstanding, it is clear that Soviet historical science was implementing a specific political order in studying the issue of the Ukrainian liberation movement of the 1940s-1950s, which it labeled Banderivshchyna, or the Bandera movement.

This political task was to conceal the truth about the UPA and invent a series of legends and myths about the “boys from the forest.” One of the myths about the UPA that were imposed by Soviet historians was that the UPA was obsessively nationalistic to the point of “bestial hatred” of all non- Ukrainians. Soviet historians, and now post-Soviet Russian scholars, were not interested in the fact that this thesis clearly contradicted the programmatic statements that were developed by the propaganda departments and the leadership of the OUN and UPA and which laid the foundation of the UPA’s policy towards the representatives of other nations.

In the ideological and political struggle against both the two forces that invaded Ukraine — Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union — the UPA paid close attention to promoting a joint liberation struggle among other nations that were enslaved by Russia or Germany.

There were many non- Germans in German army police units, the occupation administration, and auxiliary police units. Exploiting all methods of covert propaganda, the UPA opened these people’s eyes to the Germans’ inhumane attitude to virtually all non-German nations and to Germany’s criminal plans regarding Ukraine and other countries. The UPA appealed to non-Germans to quit the German police and army and enlist in the UPA for a joint struggle against the common enemy.

The newsletter Our Front, edited by Ivan Mitrynga, began publishing already in 1941. It contained appeals that later became an organic part of the OUN’s liberation ideology: “Freedom for nations and the individual, freedom for all enslaved nations, and the destruction of the Russian prison of nations.”

In their propagandistic work OUN ideologists were assigned the task of recruiting non-Ukrainians to the national liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people. To this end the OUN widely promoted the political concept of fighting for national states. Special importance was assigned to the proper conduct of UPA units when they were quartered in non-Ukrainian villages. For example, directives for UPA educators, dated June 1943, emphasized that “all chauvinistic conduct was prohibited.” Directives for conducting propaganda among Red Army soldiers recommended eliciting their national feelings in conversations. For example, people conversing with Russians were instructed to “show the friendly attitude that Ukrainians have toward the Russian laboring classes — workers and peasants. Emphasize that they too suffered at the Germans’ hands together with Ukrainians, Belarusians, and others. By all means avoid such derogatory words as katsap, moskal, and bilshovytska Moskva.”

These directives attest to the fact that during the war, when there was an opportunity to retaliate against the invading nations, one of which was the Russian nation, the leadership of the Revolutionary OUN and the UPA decisively rejected a manifestly anti-Russian and anti-Jewish policy. On the contrary, every opportunity was taken to recruit Jews and Russians who were dissatisfied with the Russian regime and, even more strongly, with the so-called “new order” of the German invaders. The well- known Ukrainian historian Yaroslav Shashkevych recalls: “The Jews fought valiantly in the UPA ranks. We are not aware of any cases of their improper conduct. Stella Krenzbach, who now works in one of Israel’s ministries and whose signature is familiar to many a diplomat, has pledged to inform the world about Ukrainians and their heroic UPA.”

Jewish doctors in the UPA were highly regarded by UPA soldiers and officers. The most well- known army surgeon whose destiny became linked with the UPA was Dr. Antin Kolman of Lviv.

Soon, chauvinistic views of Russians were also dropped from the OUN’s official propaganda. The most telling example of this change is reflected in the words of Osyp Pozychaniuk, who for a time headed the Political Department in the UPA Supreme Command: “We are fighting side by side with the Russian people against Bolshevism. We aspire to this...This is our tactical task and a guarantee of our success. We do not have anything to do with political philistines and jingoists, who are “building Ukraine” upside down by pursuing their irreconcilable dreams. Similarly, it is not our business how the Russians are going to build their national state after the destruction [of the enemy] and what this new Russia is going to be like.”

Finally, the Banderites’ attitude toward the Russian people and Russia’s future are clearly defined in the propagandistic newsletter entitled “Who Are the Banderites and What Are They Fighting for?”: “Russians! Fight to overthrow the Bolshevik dictatorship and destroy the Bolshevik system of exploitation! Fight for a democratic Russia and true social equality and justice!”

It is common knowledge that in the enemy armies there were enough potential sympathizers of the Ukrainians and their liberation struggle. With this knowledge the nationalists began laying the foundation for the active engagement of other nations’ representatives in the joint front. The most responsive, as it turned out, were the nations that had gone through the same experience as Ukrainians in 1917-21: national revival and state restoration followed by subjugation to the Russian Bolsheviks. These were primarily the Georgians, Caucasian highlanders, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Turkestanis. Even more enthusiastic were the Baltic nations, which had just been forcibly dragged into the battle of interests between the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. The Czech population of Volyn was also supportive: during the siege of the village of Ivanychi they supplied food to the Ukrainian insurgents. Many German policemen of Czech origin went over to the UPA.

The simplest and most effective way to recruit non-Ukrainians was to circulate leaflets in military units where they were serving. Leaflets were published secretly, primarily in printing offices located in Odesa, where the OUN’s underground network operated. For the Caucasian nations, particularly the Georgians and Armenians, such leaflets were published in their native languages.

The thrust of the appeals contained in the leaflets was on the whole the same and followed the general idea of evoking patriotism and feelings of national dignity:

“Circassians, Kabardinians, Ossetians, Chechens, Adygeis, Lezghians, and Ingushis!

“Sons of the mountains! It is time to stop being a blind tool in the hands of German imperialism! Remember the instructions passed to you by your proud ancestors, who died to liberate the Caucasus! The Ukrainian people are appealing to you to join us in the joint struggle against our age-old oppressors! Let us form a powerful front against the exploiters of humankind!

“With weapons in hand, enlist in the national divisions of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Gather momentum for a general revolt against Muscovite Bolshevik tyranny. We are united by the combat slogans ‘Freedom for nations! Freedom for the individual!’”

Preparing an appeal aimed at various nations, UPA ideologists paid attention to their own national history and sought to recall the most painful historical episodes in the life of one nation or another in order to touch their representatives to the quick and instill awareness in them of the crucial need to launch a struggle against their oppressors. For example, in order to establish effective relations with the Kuban, Don, and Terek Cossacks, the Ukrainian nationalists played on their ancestor respect and nostalgia for the glorious days of the 1917-20 Cossack revival.

Foreigners willingly came to the UPA and fought no less valiantly than the Ukrainian insurgents. There were a number of national units in the UPA, in which representatives of several nations fought side by side with regular units. Dr. Volodymyr Serhiichuk writes that in one UPA unit in Volyn there were Uzbeks (Asharala Aribarov, Betmerza Barabajov, Dizhozhel Golismo, and Yakobzhan Usmanov), Belarusians (Hryhorii Beletsky, Ivan Ivanov, Aleksei Lobysenko, and Uladzimir Maritsak), and Russians (Nikolai Andreev, Ivan Vojnov, Vladimir Gutorov, Nikolai Golubov, Aleksandr Zolotukhin, Nikolaj Ugonov, Grigoriy Koshtelin, Ivan Mozalov, Gavriil Mikulin, and Sergei Petrov).

However, he does not specify whether there were any representatives of Don and Terek Cossacks among the Russians. A logical question arises: “So in which army were the ideals of internationalism implemented in practice: in the UPA or in the Soviet Army?” To complete the picture I will mention the most distinguished individuals in the joint struggle against the oppressors.

Easterners (those hailing from the lands east of Ukraine) were splendidly represented by the Russian general D. Sysoev, codenamed “Petro Skarha,” or, according to other sources, “Petro Skyrda.” He was the commander of the 18th Infantry Corps that was encircled near Kyiv in September 1941. Westerners were represented by the Belgian Albert Hasenbrook, codenamed “Zakhidnyi.” He worked in the UPA propaganda department and headed the underground radio station Afrodita, which broadcast special information prepared by the leaders of the nationalists’ underground network. The Bolsheviks succeeded in destroying this radio station only after military operations ceased on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR.

Entire units that were formed by the Nazis primarily to protect important facilities and supply lines went over to the UPA. These units formed the nucleus of national legions that had their own commanders, banners, and insignia. The first of these units to be created were those made up of Turkestanis, people from the Northern Caucasus, Azerbaijanis, Belarusians, Tatars, Georgians, and Cossacks. On July 27, 1943, 30 Armenians from Halychyna volunteered for the UPA. These Red Army soldiers had been captured by the Nazis and later recruited to the ranks of the UPA by an OUN member.

An UPA press release of October 1943 states: “During the night of Sept. 29-30, 1943, a 160-strong and fully armed Azerbaijani detachment from Zdolbuniv joined the UPA.” On Feb. 14, 1944, the well-known Soviet partisan commander Oleksandr Saburov, armed with information about the essence and procedure of converting non-Ukrainians to the UPA, reported to Tymofii Strokach, the head of the Ukrainian Headquarters for the Partisan Movement (UShPR): “Based on information from our agents and the testimonies of prisoners and UPA deserters, who came to us fully armed, we have established that 40 percent of the UPA insurgents are not Ukrainians.

“Among these non-Ukrainians are the following Eastern peoples: Ingushis, Ossetians, Circassians, and Turks; there are also Russians. The OUN is a strong component of the UPA.

“Red Army prisoners of various nationalities are being encouraged to join the UPA.

“UPA propagandists claim that Ukraine’s territory should extend from the Tysa River to the Volga and the Caspian Sea.”

Interestingly, besides the above-mentioned nationalities there were also Frenchmen, Serbians, Croatians, Hungarians, Italians, and even Germans who were fleeing from the front — deserting — and trying to reach their homeland with the help of UPA insurgents.

Documents show that by the fall of 1943 the UPA had as many as 15 national units. This gave rise to an event that went down in history as the first Conference of the Oppressed Nations of Eastern Europe and Asia. It took place on Nov. 21-22, 1943, in the village of Buderazh in Zdolbuniv raion, near Rivne. Thirty- nine representatives of 13 nationalities (Azerbaijanis, Bashkirs, Belarusians, Armenians, Georgians, Kabardinians, Kazakhs, Ossetians, Tatars, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Circassians, and Chuvashes) attended the conference.

As subsequent events showed, this conference had important consequences. In particular, it became the organizational form for the joint anti-Bolshevik front, both military and political, uniting the oppressed nations of Eastern Europe and Asia. It also laid the foundation for the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations. The idea of a united front and the joint effort of all oppressed nations ran through the resolutions and decisions of this conference: “Only national revolutions of the oppressed peoples will stop the mindless military massacre and bring lasting peace to the world. For the rapid and certain victory of the national revolutions we need to have a united front of oppressed nations.”

The reality that springs from the pages of archival documents is absolutely contrary to the general trend in Soviet, and now Russian, historical science. The UPA’s nationality policy was well thought- out and relied on respect for other nations, which is inherent in Ukrainians.

Military operations proved that non-Ukrainian UPA units (so- called legions) were no less effective than Ukrainian ones. This is primarily attributed to the high level of military training of these non- Ukrainian insurgents, who had received their training in the Wehrmacht or the Red Army, and secondly, to a psychological factor: Georgians, Uzbeks, Lithuanians, Belarusians, and others fought in the UPA for the interests of their own nations and countries.

The existence of non-Ukrainian military units-20,000 participants during Word War Two-dispels flawed notions of Ukrainian nationalists as relying exclusively on the Ukrainian people, who did not recruit members of other nations. In fact, the nationalists consciously abandoned the idea of monolithic military units in favor of a multinational army in which non-Ukrainians had their own units. In the UPA we have a unique example in world history of a so- called “nationalist International” in which the nations of the USSR and Eastern Europe joined forces to fight their oppressors and establish their own independent states, pursuing the right of every nation to live in its own national state rather than in an Empire, Union, or Reich.