The most important things remain unsaid
In the debates around the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) and the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) which have been waged for many years, the most important point has not been expressed: what is the reason behind the opposing views of this historical phenomenon? Ukrainian citizens are divided into two camps, with the representatives of one camp denouncing OUN and UPA veterans as traitors, and the representatives of the other calling them heroes and fighters for Ukraine’s independence. Why is this happening?
I believe it is entirely a problem of self-identification, i.e., the fact that the process of consolidating the Ukrainian nation is still unfinished despite 14 years of independence. To this day Ukraine is very heterogeneous. There is no denying, however, that the last decade has seen significant improvements. National and patriotic sentiments in society have intensified, as evidenced by Viktor Yushchenko’s victory in the presidential elections.
However, in order to understand the cause of the rift in our society regarding this question, we must look at the political forces that condemn the OUN and the UPA. These are primarily communists, progressive socialists, and a number of other parties that support the closest possible ties with Russia and are traditionally hostile toward the national idea. They draw the bulk of their electoral support from Ukraine’s east and south, and partly the center — the most Russified territories, both politically and culturally. People in those parts say that they fought against fascism and liberated Ukraine from foreign occupiers, whereas the OUN and UPA fighters shot them in the back. According to them, the OUN and the UPA did not fight for Ukraine, but helped Hitler invade it. Underlying this position is the belief that the USSR was not an oppressor of Ukrainians but, on the contrary, that it was their Fatherland.
This is the root of the problem.
The Russian communist rulers of the Soviet Union implemented a policy of the so-called merging of nations to create a new supranational community — the Soviet people. This new community was supposed to form on the Russian linguistic and cultural basis, absorbing the best things that the constituent nations had to offer. In practice it meant that Ukrainians, much like all the other nations, had to vanish, having been transformed into this new ethnopolitical entity. The merging of nations was not a new idea. It was the Russian tsars’ old idea known as the “Russification of foreign nationals,” camouflaged in communist rhetoric. However, during the Soviet period, much like in the days of tsarist Russia, its implementation was accompanied by cruel persecutions of opponents. We must admit that the policy of the merging of nations achieved a certain degree of success. At least in Ukraine the sense of national identity was damaged among a considerable number of Ukrainians, who began to identify themselves not with Ukraine but with the USSR, considering themselves not so much Ukrainians as Soviet people. The question of Ukraine proper, its linguistic and cultural identity, not to mention its political and economic independence, no longer concerned them. And it could not possibly concern them, since Ukraine was no longer their Fatherland, as it had been replaced by the great Soviet Union. They accepted the idea of the merging of nations and agreed that Ukraine as an independent entity must disappear. By all accounts, such acceptance is tantamount to betrayal — betrayal of our ancestors, ethnos, and blood. But let us not judge them too harshly, as we must bear in mind the difficult circumstances in which they lived and the extreme cruelty of the totalitarian regime that dominated the USSR.
Thus, if we realize what is at the core of those Ukrainians who considered themselves Soviet people, we will not be surprised to hear their criticism of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. After all, the OUN and the UPA upheld the national idea, i.e., the idea of the political, economic, and cultural affirmation of Ukraine, thereby openly rejecting the idea of Ukraine’s dissolution in the new supranational community. By inference this meant that the OUN and the UPA wanted to destroy their Fatherland — the USSR. After all, an independent Ukraine and the Soviet Union were incompatible. The existence of the former ruled out the existence of the latter and vice versa. Soviet Ukrainians could not possibly admire a force that denied their basic life principles.
When war broke out between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, some Ukrainians who had remained true to the national idea and did not recognize the USSR as their Fatherland hoped to realize their dream of creating an independent Ukrainian state. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists became the main mouthpiece of their ideas and led the struggle for independence. The OUN was most active in the western oblasts, where the population had the strongest sense of national identity and clearly identified themselves with Ukraine, not the USSR, considering themselves Ukrainians, not Soviet people.
Before the German-Soviet war, the OUN hoped to use Germany as an ally and held a series of talks with the Germans in this connection. Their illusions soon evaporated, however. The Third Reich viewed Ukraine only as prey. The OUN proclaimed the Germans to be conquerors and launched a struggle against them. That was when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army emerged. UPA battalions fought against German punitive units. After the frontline moved past Ukraine’s western borders, they also fought against NKVD forces. Thus, the OUN and the UPA fought against both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, viewing both countries as Ukraine’s enemies. In this situation the OUN and the UPA were the third side in World War II, because after declaring its goal to create an independent Ukrainian state they could not fight on the side of Nazi Germany or on the side of the Russian- communist USSR — the two states for whom this goal was unacceptable.
This collision cannot be grasped by many contemporary politically color-blind people, who say: since they fought against the Soviet Union, it means they were allies of the Third Reich. These politicians do not seem to understand that some people could have had interests that did not fit into the dualistic vision of the world: if you are not with us then you are with them.
In this matter those who condemn the OUN and the UPA engage in unfounded speculations and refuse to recognize even the falsehoods that were deliberately crafted by the Soviet government. But facts are very stubborn things. For example, there is no denying that the OUN’s objective was to create an independent Ukrainian state. After all, apart from the nationalists, nobody proclaimed this goal so openly. It is present in all OUN documents. It is also impossible to deny that the UPA fought against the Germans. There are volumes of documentary evidence to this effect. Meanwhile, it is a mistake to speak of the OUN’s contacts with representatives of the Third Reich as proof of the fact that the nationalists were German allies during the entire war. Yet they repeat the same words in the face of common sense. It is only natural to ask why. What makes the negators of the OUN and the UPA close their eyes so insistently to the truth?
I repeat: there is only one reason: the problem of self-identification. Ukrainians who condemn the OUN and the UPA belong to that part of Ukrainian society that has not yet accepted Ukrainian independence or has done so reluctantly. Meanwhile, Ukrainian independence was the overriding goal of the OUN and the UPA. In essence, they live in the Ukrainian state as its de facto citizens, but do not identify themselves with Ukraine. This is a big tragedy for these people. The Ukrainian state exists as a real entity and has been recognized by the entire world. How can people who live in Ukraine and have Ukrainian blood in their veins picture themselves outside Ukraine? Indeed, if they do not identify themselves with Ukraine and do not consider themselves Ukrainian citizens, then what is their citizenship? Russian? Belarusian? Kazakh? However, to be able to identify themselves with Russia, Belarus, or Kazakhstan, they have to renounce Ukraine. But they cannot do this either, because they have lived on Ukrainian land all their lives, and it is their native soil. Or maybe they still consider themselves citizens of the USSR? Apparently they do. They are nostalgic for the Soviet Union, a state that no longer exists. You must agree that it is difficult and impossible to be a citizen of something that does not exist. I therefore believe that we must treat their feelings with a certain degree of understanding. They have lost their old Fatherland, the USSR, but still cannot accept the new Fatherland — Ukraine. Hence all these pro-Russian sentiments. After all, for this segment of our society Russia, Moscow, the Russian language and culture are their very own, Soviet, language and culture. For them Russia, much like Ukraine, is a part of the Soviet Union. Yet they cannot identify themselves with Russia alone, much like they cannot identify themselves with Ukraine alone, since they used to feel that they were citizens of a whole entity, not only a part of it. This is why their souls are torn apart. But there is no other way than to feel that you are a citizen of a real country where you live. There is also no other way because any country is a powerful factor of its citizens’ self-identification. It is an objective process that takes place regardless of anyone’s wishes.
Still, we have to provide a clearer answer to the question of why a certain part of Ukrainian society condemns the activities of the OUN and the UPA? I think that after what has been said above, the answer will seem sufficiently substantiated, because the OUN and the UPA fought against the Soviet Union, a state that this segment of Ukrainian society considered its Fatherland; because the OUN and the UPA fought for an independent Ukraine, which was something Soviet Ukrainians did not want; and finally, because the OUN and the UPA provided ideological inspiration to those Ukrainians who did not renounce their Ukrainian roots and did everything to destroy the USSR. Thanks to them, the contemporary Ukrainian state was created — a state that the Soviet Ukrainians cannot accept even today. They did not accept it then and do not accept it now. They do not accept it because they considered, and still consider, the USSR, not Ukraine, to be their Fatherland.
In general, we have to rid the discussion around the OUN and the UPA of numerous speculations that are weighing it down. Such speculations include, for example, mutual accusations of betrayal. The parties to the discussion must start by determining fundamental values. If they have such common values, then it makes sense to start looking into who departed from what and who betrayed what. If there are no such values, their discussion will be reminiscent of a dialog between a hare and a fish. That is, they will not even acknowledge or understand each other’s arguments.
When nationally conscious Ukrainians tell Soviet Ukrainians that “by fighting as part of the Red Army you betrayed Ukraine because you served the Russian communist oppressors,” this outrages them. “Why?” ask Soviet Ukrainians. “We fought against fascism and liberated Ukraine. How dare you call us traitors?” “Yes, you liberated Ukraine from the German fascist invaders only to let the Russian communists run roughshod over it. Therefore you did not fight for Ukraine but for its oppressor — the Soviet Union,” they are told. “Lies!” Soviet Ukrainians choke with outrage: “Ukraine enjoyed equal rights as part of the USSR, and Ukrainians knew no discrimination.” “They didn’t?” Now nationally conscious Ukrainians become infuriated: “What about the persecution of the Ukrainian language and culture? What about the trials of Ukrainian patriots? Was this not enough?” “Nobody persecuted the Ukrainian language and culture,” Soviet Ukrainians disagree: “The people freely chose their language of communication. They prosecuted nationalists, those who tried to sow enmity between Ukrainians and Russians.” “Russian-communist Russia destroyed our statehood, turning Ukraine into a colony without rights,” nationally conscious Ukrainians shout. “Not at all!” Soviet Ukrainians respond: “Ukraine was an independent state within the Soviet Union and had the right to withdraw freely from the USSR, and even had its representatives at the UN.”
This is the kind of dialog you will hear today between supporters and opponents of the OUN and the UPA. It is a dialog of deaf people.
Let us now try to determine whether the two sides’ mutual recriminations of betrayal are justified. The immediate question is: Betrayal of whom and of what values? Let us consider Ukraine, for example. Then let us take the wellbeing of Ukraine and the Ukrainian nation as a value common to the two sides. To nationally conscious Ukrainians, Ukraine’s welfare is the realization of the national idea that takes Ukraine to world heights politically, economically, and culturally, especially as regards the role of the Ukrainian language. They view state independence as a prerequisite for bringing this idea to life. Do Soviet Ukrainians treat Ukraine’s welfare the same way? Of course not. They see Ukraine’s wellbeing in the idea of the merging of nations, i.e., the idea of assimilation. According to this idea, the Ukrainian nation would have to dissolve in the Russian national and cultural essence, thereby rising to world heights. Therefore, the elimination of all kinds of political, economic, and cultural (especially linguistic) barriers that stand in the way of this dissolution is viewed by them as a positive thing. For this reason Soviet Ukrainians did not feel any discomfort in connection with the declining state of the Ukrainian language and unique Ukrainian culture, and the loss of economic and scientific independence. That is why they considered the sham statehood of the Ukrainian SSR “full-fledged.” They saw all of this as a positive thing, not a threat.
As we can see, the two sides have no common values. They are driven apart by diametrically opposing ideas: the national idea versus the idea of assimilation; Ukraine’s affirmation versus its dissolution. Where there are no common values, betrayal is impossible. OUN and UPA veterans did not betray anybody because they never favored the idea of assimilation. Red Army veterans (Soviet Ukrainians) did not betray anybody because they never supported the national idea. Neither of them can be called traitors. They are simply ideological opponents, except that nationally conscious Ukrainians wanted there to be a Ukraine, whereas Soviet Ukrainians wanted it to disappear.
We, contemporary Ukrainians, face a concrete choice: Who are we with and whose side are we on? Are we for Ukraine’s affirmation or assimilation? Are we for independence or against it? These questions must be answered before we can discuss the role of the OUN and the UPA in Ukrainian history. If we are for independence and if we recognize the independent Ukrainian state as our Fatherland, will we presume to condemn OUN and UPA veterans, our compatriots, who half a century ago made the ultimate sacrifice by fighting for this independence? If we condemn them, then we must honestly admit to ourselves and to society that we are opponents of the independent Ukrainian state. It is impossible to support independence while condemning the OUN and the UPA. Those who do so are conscious hypocrites or haven’t done enough soul searching.
