The President and Fellows of Harvard College
Problems of Historiography: History and Its Sources
Author(s): TARAS HUNCZAK
Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1/2 (Spring 2001), pp. 129-142
Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036827 .
Accessed: 06/06/2014 12:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
ProblemsofHistoriography:
HistoryandIts Sources
TARAS HUNCZAK
of UkrainianNationalistsand Its AttitudetoThe article"The Organization
wardGermansand Jews:IaroslavStetsTco's1941 Zhyttiepys"
by Karel C.
andMarcoCarynnyk
leavestheimpression
thatall thosewhostudied
Berkhoff
and publishedon the subjectof the OUN somehowevaded the "crucialiswhatit is thatwe, theresearchers
sues."1Theyseemintenton demonstrating
andauthorsin thefield,havebeenmissing.Forthesakeofclarityit shouldbe
of Ukraistatedthatthearticledeals onlywiththeissuesof theOrganization
its
in
nianNationalists
and
the
authors
maintain
(OUN)
leadership 1941; yet
that"manyofthepapersthattheOUN itselfproduced[inthatperiod]endedup
in Sovietrepositories,
and fewresearchers
wereallowedto see them."Hence,
we couldnotpresent
thosecrucialissues.
As a researcher
who spentalmostthirty
yearsworkingin variousarchives
a respectablecollectionof documents,
I can statethatthe
and accumulating
authorsarewrongin theirassertion.
I also workedin thearchivesof Ukraine,
includingtheArchiveof theSecurityServiceof Ukraine(Sluzhba Bezpeky
or SBU). If theauthorshad examinedcarefully
thedocuments
availUkraïny,
in Germany,
able in theWest,particularly
theywouldhave discoveredthat,
whether
we are talkingabouttheAndriiMel'nykfactionof theOUN or the
an indeStepanBanderafaction,thecrucialissue forbothwas reestablishing
state.
Other
issues
Ukrainian
were
subordinated
to
this
pendent
objective.The
in variousofficial
positionof bothfactionsof theOUN is well documented
thosesentbytheOUN leadership
totheGermanauthorities.2
papers,including
HarvardUkrainian
StudiesXXV (1/2)2001: 129-142.
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130
HUNCZAK
The Banderafactionof the OUN (henceforth
OUN-B) held its second
thatemphasizedthat
congressat theendofMay 1941 andadoptedresolutions
theprincipalstrugglewas fora sovereignand unified[soborna],Ukrainian
state.3A monthlater,on 23 June1941,theOUN sentto theGermangovernmentan extensivememorandum,
signedby StepanBanderaand Volodymyr
thecentralthemeofwhichis therenewalofan independent
Ukrainian
Stakhiv,
at least once on seven different
The
memorandum
state,mentioned
pages.4
includeda warning,
indeeda threat:"Germantroopsentering
Ukrainewillbe,
ofcourse,greetedatfirst
as liberators,
butthisattitude
can soonchange,incase
Germanycomes intoUkrainewithoutappropriate
promisesof [its] goal to
reestablish
theUkrainian
state."5
Fromall availabledocuments
it is quiteclear,regardlessof theoccasional
interminology,
thattheultimate
OUN objectivewas thereestablishdepartures
Ukrainian
state.I think,
thatspecumentofa sovereign,
therefore,
independent
lationsaboutthe"territorial
administration"
a
(kraiovepravlinnia), termthat
a limitedpoliticalobjectiveoftheOUN,
appearsfromtimeto time,conveying
are notusefulsinceit is takenoutof thecontextof theprogramof theOUN.
of 30
The authorsof thearticlesuggestthatIaroslavStetsTco's
proclamation
of an "independent"
but
one
of
a
state
Junewas nottheproclamation
state,
of thewartimeSlovakor Croatiankind."6In fact,nothing
could
"presumably
theauthors'argument,
be farther
fromthetruth.
Almostanticipating
theOUN,
in itsmemorandum
of 23 Juneto theGermans,statedclearly"thatthereis no
analogyforthesolutionoftheUkrainian
question.Since 1938,twostatescame
intoexistencein Europe:Slovakiaand Croatia.Apartfromthedifference
in
ofthecountries,
theUkrainian
size and strength
of thepopulations
problemis
solution
will
effect
ofmuchgreater
because
its
decisive
significance
changesin
oftheEuropeancontinent,
whichwillhave
thepoliticalandeconomicstructure
The memorandum
endson a powerful
note:"a
intercontinental
significance."7
determined
to createconditionsthatwill guaranteenaUkrainianis strongly
in an independent
state.Each power,pursuingits own
tionaldevelopment
in buildinga new orderin theEast Europeanspace,musttakethis
interests
resolution
intoaccount."8I quoteherethelast sentencein theoriginal:"Mit
die eigeneInteressen
dabei
mussjede Machtrechnen,
dieserEntschlossenheit
im
Raum
herbeifuehren
eine
neue
Ordnung osteuropaeischen
verfolgend,
will."Whata powerful
statement!
loudandclear.Yet when
ThepoliticalobjectivesoftheOUN comethrough
on behalfof theOUN, theGermanauthorities
StetsTco
madetheproclamation
- for
seemed shockedand took immediatestepsto neutralizea potentially
them complicated situation. On 3 July, Berlin sent the German
of StateErnstKundtto CracowfordiscussionswithBandera.
Undersecretary
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROBLEMS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
131
Kundtasked Bandera whethertheproclamationover theradio was his decision
and whetherhe wanted to take over the leadership of the Ukrainian state.
Bandera answeredthatin the absence of any otherorganized Ukrainianpolitical entity,the OUN was acting on behalf of the nation in proclaiming the
establishmentof a Ukrainian state. Kundt countered that in the territories
conquered by the German armythe authorityto decide such statusbelonged to
Hitleralone. Bandera rejected thatargument,maintainingthatthis rightproperlybelonged to theUkrainianpeople.9
As the German authoritiespressed the OUN leadershipto annul the proclamationof theLandesregierung- which forthemwithinthe contextof the time
was butanothername fora Ukrainianstate- Bandera and his followerstook an
uncompromisingstance in its defense. That position is reflectedin Iaroslav
StetsTco'slettersto Germanauthoritieson behalfof the Ukrainiangovernment.
On 3 July1941, forexample, in a letterto Hitler,StetsTcospeaks of Ukraine as
the "sovereignUkraine state" and as a "completelyequal [and] freememberof
theEuropean familyof nations."10Surely,thisdoes not sound like a "territorial
administration."
On the basis of available documentaryevidence one can say that all the
subsequent letters and memoranda of the OUN leadership to the German
authoritiesreinforcethe position on the rightof the Ukrainianpeople to independent statehood,while praising the victories of the German army and its
leadership, and expressing a willingness to participate in the fight against
communistRussia.11 The Germans,however,had already made theirdecision
concerningthe futureof Ukraine and were in no mood to compromise since
theyviewed whattranspiredin Lviv as "a surprisecoup d'etat by the people of
Bandera."12
Unable to pressuretheminto renouncingthe proclamationof 30 June,the
German police arrestedBandera and Stetsico and sent them to Berlin. There
theyremainedunderhouse arrestuntil 15 September,at which time theywere
sent to the main jail on Alexanderplatz. Concurrentlythe Sicherheitdienst
organized a dragnet against Bandera' s followers and arrested many OUN
members.Some were sentto concentrationcamps, and otherswere executed.13
Bandera and Stets'ko themselves were transferred in January to the
Sachsenhausen concentrationcamp, where theystayeduntilfall 1944.14
So, who were Bandera and Stetsico? Were they willing collaborators,as
suggestedby Berkhoffand Carynnyk?Or were theypursuinga nationalpolitical ideal forwhich theyhad to pay a heavy price?
I thinkthatthe OUN memorandumof 14 August sets the record straight
when it statesthat"the OUN wishes to work togetherwithGermanynot from
opportunism,but froma realization of the need of such cooperation for the
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132
HUNCZAK
well-beingof Ukraine" ["die OUN wuenschteine Zusammenarbeitmit
der
Deutschlandnichtaus Opportunizmus
[sie], sondernaus der Erkenntnis
dieserZusammenarbeit
fuerdas Wohl der Ukraine"].15DisNotwendigkeit
someoftheauthors'uselessverbiage,thepolicypursuedbytheOUN
counting
leadershipwas aimed at statebuilding.Withinthe politicalcontextof the
on thepart
twentieth
thispolicywas notsomeact of moralaberration
century
of the OUN, as Berkhoffand Carynnyksuggest.Afterall, the two most
countries
in theworld,theUnitedStatesandGreatBritain,
became
democratic
alliedwiththegreatest
theworldhas everseenin orderto achievetheir
tyrant
thatnationsandevenindividuals
politicalobjectives.Indeed,itis no revelation
have acted accordingto the aphorismthat"theenemyof my enemyis my
- thatis,untilthingschange,as theydidintheGerman-Ukrainian
friend"
(read
OUN-B) relations.
In theirarticleBerkhoff
and Carynnyk
of the
emphasizetheimportance
that
Iaroslav
wrote
StetsTco
zhyttiepys
(biographicalsketch)
allegedly
during
thiswould-beautobiography
hishousearrestin Berlin.Fortheauthors,
seems
to confirm
everything
theyhavebeenlookingfor- thelimitedscopeofthe30
andtheantithepro-German
Jewishbias ofthe
Juneproclamation,
orientation,
OUN-B. Havingalreadydealtwiththefirsttwoissues,I proposeto examine
thethird:theOUN andtheJewishquestion.
is important
The authorswritethat"StetsWs zhyttiepys
[because]it proifthedocutowardJews."16
even
videsa keyto theOUN-B attitude
Frankly,
thatitis I do notsee howonecan
mentis authentic andthereis no certainty
whentheindividual,in
ascribetheviewsof an individualto an organization
he
refers
to
what
thiscase IaroslavStetsTco,
repeatedly
says as his personal
views. He speaks,forexample,of "my worldview," "my positionis," "I
think."17
Nowheredoes he referto thepositionof theOUN on theseissues.
to theentire
How thencan anybodyin good conscienceascribehis statements
his
toward
the
whenhe
That
to
Jews
organization? appliesparticularly position
wrote
it
"I
therefore
that
it
was
StetsTco
who
supportthe
says provided
destruction
of theJewsand theexpedienceof bringingGermanmethodsof
to Ukraine."18
Froma historical
pointof view,whatdid
exterminating
Jewry
inJulyorAugustof 1941?The Germansdidnotyet
"Germanmethods"signify
oftheJews,norwas thereyeta formalprogram
to
conductmassextermination
1942 that,accordingto WilliamKeylor,
It was onlyon 20 January
thateffect.
"a top secretmeetingof seniorNazi officials... in the Berlinsuburbof
Wannsee,usheredin ... thewaragainsttheJews."19Keylor,ofcourse,refers
SinceStetsTco
was
to thecriminal"FinalSolution"planofReinhardHeydrich.
s planwas adopted,howcould
campwhenHeydrich'
alreadyin a concentration
to exterhe havewritten
beforethefactabout"Germanmethods"as referring
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROBLEMS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
133
mination? And an even larger question is: Did StetsTcoreally write the
zhyttiepys?
As forthe OUN-B, which the authorstryto connectwiththezhyttiepys,
one
can emphaticallystatethattherewas no anti-Semitismin its political program,
despite Dieter Pohl' s argumentthatit did have "an antisemiticideology, especially in the springand summerof 194 1."20 The authorsthinkvery highlyof
Pohl' s researchand quote him extensively.For example, theycite his reporton
the session of Rada sen'ioriv(Council of Seniors) on 18 July,where some antiSemitic remarkswere made by Oleksa Hai-Holovko and Stepan Lenkavsicyi.
At that session, Kosf LevytsTcyi,they write, also spoke. I examined all the
minutesof the Council of Seniors and can categorically state that this is an
unmitigatedfabrication.There never was a meetingof the Council of Seniors
on 18 July!There was only a veryshortmeetingon 17 July(session no. 7) and
a long meeting (no. 8) on 19 July.21Furthermore,at no time was there a
separate discussion dealing with the minorities.It should be noted that,contraryto the authors' assertion, neitherHai-Holovko nor Lenkavsicyi was a
memberof the Council of Seniors.
Berkhoffand Carynnykmake anotherserious mistakewhen theywritethat
the Council of Seniors was establishedon 6 July"to advise the StetsTcoadministration."22The minutesof the firstmeeting,however,statethat"the Council
of Seniors was elected as an emanationof the will of societyforthepurpose of
directingthe society toward unityand maintainingcontacts with the German
militaryand civilian authoritieswiththe objective of reachingand realizingthe
nationalideal."23 Had the authorsexamined theirsources more carefully,they
would have discovered thatindeed thereis a documentreportinga meetingof
individuals(withoutmentioningtheirfirstnames), whichprobablybegan on 18
Julyand continued,according to the minutes,on 19 July 194 1.24 It is most
unfortunate
thatBerkhoffand Carynnykinclude among theradical participants
Kosf LevytsTcyi,
the distinguishedcivic leader withimpeccable credentialsof
serviceto Ukrainiansocietyand ideals, only fourmonthsbeforehis death. As a
matterof recordI should note thattherewas indeed a LevytsTcyiin the group,
but who he was nobody really knows. I mightadd thatthereis no signature
underthe document.
The Jewishquestion thatBerkhoffand Carynnykpresentshould be raised,
but this should be done on reliable evidence and withinthe historicalcontext.
The problem of Ukrainian-Jewishrelationscannot be reduced, as the authors
seem to do, to anti-Semitismwithinthe ranksof the OUN. It is a problemthat
is historicaland political, in the course of which stereotypesabout the Jewish
people on theone hand and Ukrainianson theotherhave spawned attitudesthat
have foundexpressionin concretesituations.In several of the statementsof the
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134
HUNCZAK
OUN leadersmaybe foundsuchexpressionsas "Jewish-Muscovite
dictator"JewishBolshevism,"
and"Jewish-Bolblood-rule,"
ship,""Jewish-Bolshevik
to mentionbuta fewvariations.25
Also theGermans,
shevikruleof terror,"
forOperation
BarbarossainEasternEurope,place as the
managing
propaganda
fourpages) "theJewish-Bolshevik
firstitem(on a setof instructions
running
Sovietgovernment
withtheirfunctionaries
andtheCommunist
Party."26
Why
did theGermansthinkthattheycould exploitthesloganof "Jewishcommunism"in EasternEurope?
Thatquestionbringsus to eventspriorto WorldWar II, in particular
the
Revolutionandtheroleof someJewsin it.The problemhas been
Communist
scholarsandthinkers
suchas ArnoldMargolin,
addressedbysomeoutstanding
civic
who
said
that"Jewswerepromia distinguished
leader,
juristandJewish
in theranksof theBolsheviks."27
Arthur
Adamsdiscusses
nentlyrepresented
thisproblemin greaterdetailin his studyBolsheviksin theUkraine:"In the
coalescedintoan imageofa
peasant'sbrain,JewandcitymanandCommunist
hook-nosedcommissarwho deprivedpeasantsof land rightfully
theirs,enand weapons,and
forcedgrainrequisitioning,
confiscated
movableproperty
LeonardSchapiro,professor
ofpolitical
carriedouttheCheka'sexecutions."28
scienceattheLondonSchoolofEconomics,whostudiedtheroleoftheJewsin
on all levels
concludedthatJewishparticipation
therevolutionary
movement,
was
Of
the
of theCommunist
twenty-one
Partyorganization verysignificant.
fivewereJews.Even moresignificant,
membersof theCentralCommittee,
in thelowerechelonsof theorganization.
AcJewsparticipated
prominently
cordingto Schapiro,"Jewsaboundedat thelowerlevelsof thepartymachintofallintothe
ery- especiallyintheCheka,[andifanyone]hadthemisfortune
himselfconfronted
handsoftheChekahe stooda verygood chanceoffinding
withandpossiblyshotbya Jewishinvestigator."29
Thiswas buta prologuetotheeventsofthe1920sand 1930s,whentheJews
establishedtheirdominantpositionin the secretpolice knownas the State
or GPU)
PoliticalAdministration
(Gosudarstvennoe
upravlenie,
politicheskoe
forInternalAffairs(Narodnyi
and, lateron, in the People's Commissariat
komissariatvnutrennikh
del, or NKVD). Untilrecently,lackingaccess to
we couldspeculatewhodidwhatin thesecretpolicefunctions
Sovietarchives,
in theSovietUkraine.However,in 1997 or perhapsearlier,Yuri Shapoval,
and VadymZolotafovgainedaccess to thearchivesof
Prystaiko,
Volodymyr
unavailable.Acthesecretpolice and wereable to establishdetailshitherto
in Moscow,
the
of
their
associates
to
their
as
well
as
research
cording
findings,
andNKVD
and
the
officials
of
the
GPU
St. Petersburg,
Samara, Kharkiv, high
in the1920sand 1930scan be groupedintothefollowing
categories:30
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROBLEMS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
Jews
Russians
Ukrainians
Latvians
Poles
Belarusians
Germans
Georgians
Karaims
Moldavians
Hungarians
Armenians
Italians
Czechs
Members unidentified
by nationality
135
261
106
48
30
16
8
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
69
Jews in high positions of the secret service in Ukraine exceeded in number
all the othernationalitygroups put together.Georgii Sannikov, a formerKGB
functionaryin Ukraine,commentingon the Jewishparticipationin the Soviet
secretservices, stated: "I knew, not only fromstoriestold by old membersof
the Cheka, but also fromdocuments that many Jews worked in the security
organs and even earlierin the Cheka."31
On the basis of these statisticsone can conclude thatthe preponderanceof
Jews in high positions created a stereotype.Since in the Soviet system the
secret police was an ever-presentinstitution,its functionarieswere well rememberedby the people who were theirvictims.I would suggest thatit was
this perceptionand not anti-Semitism,which is an entirelydifferentphenomenon, that may explain the sentimentsof the OUN-B leadership identifying
Jews,togetherwithPoles and Muscovites, as a hostileminorityin Ukraine.
The OUN statedclearlyits positiontowardtheJews,based on its perception
of the role of the Jews in the USSR, in the resolutionsof the Second Congress
of the OUN. Resolution 17 reads:
In theSovietUniontheJewsare themostreliablesupporters
of theruling
Bolshevikregimeand a vanguardof Muscoviteimperialism
in Ukraine.. . .
The Muscovite-Bolshevik
Jewishsentiments
of
government
exploitstheantitheUkrainian
massesin orderto diverttheirattention
fromtherealperpetratorsoftheirmisfortunes
andto incitethem,in timesofupheaval,to carryout
of UkrainianNationalistsoppogromsagainsttheJews.The Organization
atthe
posestheJewsas a propoftheMuscovite-Bolshevik
regime,explaining
sametimetothemassesthatthemainenemyis Moscow.32
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
HUNCZAK
The positionof the OUN is clear: it was fighting
thosewho supportedthe
enemy.ThattheOUN didnotholdan anti-Jewish
positionbasedon nationality
or religionis attestedby numerousexamplesof cooperationthroughout
the
war.Accordingto a GermanreportofMarch1942,forexample,in Zhytomyr,
andStalino(Donetsk)severalfollowers
ofBanderawerearrested
Kremenchuk,
fortrying
to winoverthepopulationto theidea of politicalindependence
for
thattheBanderagroupsupplied
Ukraine.At thesametimeit was established
foritsmovement
withfalsepassports.33
itsmembers
andtheJewsworking
were
reflectedin the large
Towardthe end of 1942, significant
changes
ofJewishprofessionals,
medical
number
doctors,
particularly
joiningtheranks
of theUkrainianInsurgent
armiia,or UPA).34
Army(UkraínsTca
povstansTca
andaccording
toPhilipFriedmanspecialcampswere
Theirnumbers
increased,
in
created.One suchcampnearPoryts,
Volhynia,contained100 Jews;another
some
400
There
is
also
a
about
the
UPA'
s
story
attacking
Kudrynky,
people.35
severalhundred
theGermanguardsoftheghettoin Rivne,liberating
Jewsand
finding
placesforthemto stayin variousnearbyvillages.361 notetheseitems
simplyto make the pointthathad the OUN-UPA pursuedan anti-Semitic
ofJewswould
andCarynnyk
ideology,as Berkhoff
suggest,
perhapsthousands
nothavesurvived.
of StetsTco's
The lastissueI wishto addressis theauthenticity
biographical
aboutwhichthereare seriousdoubts.The authorsof the
sketchor zhyttiepys,
shouldask about theirsource
articledo not ask questionsthatresearchers
is in Ukraine
materials.
Forexample,I wouldliketo knowwhythedocument
a party
was
it
in
that
and notin Germany?
Cherednychenko,
Why
only 1970
who serveda specialpurposewithintheSovietpropagandamafunctionary
Since MichaelHanusiakis the"author"of
chine,discoveredthezhyttiepys?
- whydoes not
Nationalismus
twobooks- Lest We Forgetand Ukrainischer
his name,as thatof Berkhoff,
appearon the user's page in the archive?I
tendenthatwhenAharonWeiss called Hanusiak's work"utterly
understand
Beforechampioning
tious,"John-PaulHimkacame to Hanusiak's defense.37
Himkashouldhave carefully
examinedthe
Hanusiak's intellectual
integrity,
contents
ofthetwobooksthatappearedunderHanusiak's name.The duplicity
contentsof the book Ukrainischer
of Hanusiak,discounting
the fabricated
twophotographs.38
can be easilyrecognized
Nationalismus,
justbyexamining
who
on
21
On page 35 we see Metropolitan
August1930 was
SheptytsTcyi
identiUkrainian
awardeda distinguished
Scoutingaward.Hanusiak,however,
Medaille.On thenext
fiesthisaward(in August1930!) as einefaschistische
showinaccurate
captionbeneatha photograph
page he includesa shockingly
leaders:
"A
with
two
senior
Scout
picstanding
ingMetropolitan
SheptytsTcyi
tureof Metropolitan
A. Sheptytsicyi
duringa militaryexercisein 1939 in
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROBLEMSOF HISTORIOGRAPHY
137
of
Poland.The swastikaon thereverseofhisjacketis proofofthesympathies
this'PrinceoftheChurch'fortheNazi regime."
anddiscovered
In archivesinLviv I examinedtheoriginalsofthesereprints
thattheyweretakenon 21 August1930 in theSokil Scout Camp,whichis
Mountains.
The factthattheMetropolitan
is standing,
locatedintheCarpathian
in thephotograph
indicatesthatHanusiakwas wrongto date the
notsitting,
could have been seen onlyin an
eventin 1939. By 1939 the Metropolitan
in theearly1930s.SheptytsTcyi
sincehe was physically
armchair
incapacitated
could not have been standingduring"a militaryexercise in 1939," and
thesubjectmatter.
Hanusiak's captionmisidentifies
Thereis anotherelementof deceitin thepictureon page 36, whichshows
and an unknownindividual.
only the Metropolitan,SeverynLevytsTcyi,
cut offthelowerpartof thepicturethatportrays
a
Hanusiak's collaborators
It is also a lie thatSheptytsicyi
Scoutinsignia.39
was
Scoutmasterwithdistinct
a
What
we
see
is
in
the
swastika.
Sokil
wearing
Metropolitan
SheptytsTcyi
Scout Camp wearinga Cross of Merit,whichhe was awardedwhileat the
of Scouting."40
Reflecting
campforbeinga "benefactor
uponHanusiakas a
I mightadd thatBerkhoff
sourceof unreliableinformation,
and Carynnyk
wouldhave done well notto mix respectablescholarswithsuch authorsas
EdwardPrus,KlymDmytruk,
and VitaliiCherednychenko
withoutputting
themintoa properperspective.
I concludethatthe documentis
Regardingthecontentof thezhyttiepys,
filledwithfactual,terminological,
and chronological
mistakesthat
linguistic,
StetsTco
would nothave made,had he been its author.Its content,one can
was written
by somebodywholivedunderthe
argue,showsthatthedocument
Sovietsystem.The languagereflectshis use of h wherean individualfrom
in 1941,wouldhave used theletterg. I made a
westernUkraine,particularly
list of wordsthatshow such substitutions:
Erklerunh
insteadof Erklerung,
Henui insteadof Genui (Genoa),propahandainsteadof propaganda,HPU
insteadof GPU, Raisrehirunh
insteadof Raisregirung,
hen.Petrivinsteadof
and
so
forth.
Also
on
the
first
of
I founda
gen. Petriv,
page thezhyttiepys
Russianvariationof theUkrainian
pidpillia,whichis laterwritten
transparent
as pidpolnoi,pidpolnoho,and pidpolnykh.
As forthe problemswithg's I
atfirst
thatthetypewriter
didnothavetheletter
Buton
g in Ukrainian.
thought
I
162
of
the
Ukrainian
text
found
the
letter
Hence
the
was
g.
page
typewriter
nottheproblem.It was theSovietorthography
of theUkrainianlanguagethat
was usedbytheauthorinthepreparation
ofthezhyttiepys.
Based on theabove,
itis verydoubtful
thatStetsicowas theauthorofthisdocument.
I also notethestrangecollectionof titlesforan individual
In thezhyttiepys
structure
of the OUN. For example,
who workedwithinthe organizational
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138
HUNCZAK
alreadyin 1932 Stetslcois presentedas a politicalleiterand shef [chief]
resortu.Laterin thetexthe becomesa politleiter
withintheOUN. Afterthe
SecondCongressoftheOUN StetsTco
becamea shefshtabu
oftheOUN. Some
oftheformer
members
of
the
Resistance
Movement
toldme
Ukrainian
leading
thatmembers
oftheOUN wouldnotuse suchterminology.
The ultimate
fraudwas perpetrated
bytheauthororauthorsofthezhyttiepys
whenhe ortheyquoteStetsicoas saying:"I editedtheOUN ideologicaljournal
to notethat,accordingto thezhyttiepys,
he
Ideia i chyn."41 It is interesting
allegedlyeditedthisjournalwhilestayingin Italyfromthesummerof 1939
couldbe farther
fromthetruth.
untilAugust1940.42In fact,nothing
According
the
withDmytroMaivsTcyi
inpreparing
toMyroslavProkop,whocollaborated
firsteditionof Ideia i chyn,whichwas publishedon 1 November1942,the
editorialworkwas done in 1942. IaroslavStetsicohad nothingto do withit.
Besides,on 15 September1942 he was alreadyinjail.43Afterthefirstissue,
ofIdeia i chyn,a positionhe heldthelongest
Prokopbecametheeditor-in-chief
amongtheeditorsofthejournal.
ofthejournalreflect
thepoliticalrealityof 1942.
I also notethatthecontents
of the OUN leadersWhereaspriorto 15 Septemberthe correspondence
their
desireto reach an
and
Bandera
that
of
StetsTco
conveys
particularly
on theirprinciples,that
withBerlinwhilenot compromising
understanding
standquicklychangesafterthenumerousarrestsof OUN members.The conas an "occupier"and
tentof Ideia i chyn,in whichGermanyis characterized
the
time
of
discussions
had
ended.
tellsus that
Commemorating
"imperialist,"
the Gestapo's killingof DmytroMyron,a leading memberof the OUN,
MykolaLebed',theactingleaderoftheOUN, wrote:"LettheGermanoccupier
rejoice[withhis] successof murder.Mesmerizedwithvictoryon all fronts,
violenceandmurder
[he]does notsee thathismindlesspolicyofenslavement,
leadstohisowncatastrophe."44
evidenceit shouldbe clearthatStetsicodid noteditthe
Fromthisinternal
Ideia
i
which,I believe,was
chyn,nor did he writethezhyttiepys,
journal
written
in theofficesofKGB functionaries.
I wish to concludethiscommentary
by statingthatveryoftenan entire
victim
of
an
created
becomes
the
history
image
by a few.Throughout
society
thereare alwaysindividualswho promotesterotypes,
selectinglimitedand
across
those misconceptions
and transmitting
unsubstantiated
information,
formsthebasisforstereotypical
Zvi Gitelmanexplainsthat"myth
generations.
and aboutothers.It is not
developaboutthemselves
imagesthatnationalities
buttheinterpretowardeachother,
historical
factthatshapespeople'sattitudes
individualsor groupsengagedin thedissemitationof fact."45Unfortunately
nationof suchstereotypes
andmythsneverconsiderthedamagethattheyare
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROBLEMS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
139
doing to society as a whole. Perhaps it is not superfluousfromtime to time to
ask oneselfthequestion: What is the purpose of history?
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140
HUNCZAK
NOTES
1.
2.
KarelC. Berkhoff
andMarcoCarynnyk,
"TheOrganization
ofUkrainian
Nationalists and Its AttitudetowardGermansand Jews: Iaroslav StetsTco's1941
" HarvardUkrainian
Studies23, no. 3/4(1999): 149-84,herep. 149.
Zhyttiepys,
In the "Memorandumueber die Ziele der ukrainischennationalistischen
Nationalisten"
(14 April1941),
Bewegungvon derFuehrungderukrainischen
ofUkrainian
we readin theveryfirstsentencethat"thegoal oftheOrganization
of an independent,
Nationalists
(OUN) is thereestablishment
sovereignUkrainianState. . .," Bundesarchiv,
NS 43/41.
3.
Ukrainischer
For detailssee "Beschluessedes ii. Kongressesder Organisation
Nationalisten-OUN," T 120,rollno. 2533: E 292940,E 292943,E 292944.
4.
Ibid.,T 120,rollno. 2533: E 292922-35.
5.
casts aside all speculationsas to thereal objectiveof the
Since thisstatement
OUN, let me quotetheoriginal:"Wennauchdie deutschenTruppenbei ihrem
Einmarschin die Ukraineselbstverstaendlich
dortzuerstals Befreierbegruesst
bald aendernkoennen,fallsDeutschland
werden,so wirdsichdieseEinstellung
des ukrainischen
Staates
indie UkrainenichtmitdemZiel derWiederherstellung
and den entsprechendenParolen kommt." See ibid., T 120, roll no.
2533: E 292927.
6.
ofUkrainian
"The Organization
Berkhoff
andCarynnyk,
Nationalists,"
p. 151.
7.
For the originaltext see "Beschluessedes ii. Kongressesder Organisation
Nationalisten-OUN," T 120,rollno. 2533: E 292934.
Ukrainischer
8.
Ibid., E 292935; see also "Denkschriftder Organisation Ukrainischer
R 43 11/1500,
Nationalisten
zurLoesungderukrainischen
Frage,"Bundesarchiv,
pp. 63-77.
9.
ueber die Ruecksprachemit Mitgliederndes ukrainischen
"Niederschrift
onWar
undStepanBanderavom3.7.1941,"HooverInstitution
Nationalkomitees
andRevolution,
NSDAP, no. 52.
10.
T 120, roll no. 2533: E
"SeinerExzellenz dem Fuehrerund Reichskanzler,"
292957.
- OUN
Nationalisten
Ukrainischer
For detailssee "Denkshrift
derOrganisation
betreffenddie Foerderung,die am 30 Juni 1941 in Lemberg gebildete
UkrainischeStaatsregierung
aufzuloesen,"14 August1941; "Deklarationder
15 July1941; "Zur
3 July1941; "Erklaerung,"
ukrainischen
Staatsregierung,"
E
21
T
120
no.
2532:
292421-26.
in
1921,
roll,
Lwiw,"
July
Lage
durchBandera
der'Ukrainischen
See theBaumreport"Ausrufung
Staatsgewalt'
Anhaengerin Lemberg am 30.6.41," 21 July1941, T 120, roll no. 2533:
E 292423. The Germansecuritypolice understoodquite well the Ukrainian
in thereportof 3 July1941,whichstated:
politicalobjectives.This is reflected
theorganizaof a Ukrainianrepublic[and]through
"Throughtheproclamation
undertheleadershipof Banderatryto
tionof militiatheUkrainiannationalists
11.
12.
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROBLEMS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
141
withaccomplishedfacts."See Bundesarchiv,
presentthe Germanauthorities
UdSSR, no. 11,p. 58.
R58/214,Ereignismeldung
13.
For a partialrecordof OUN-B membersarrested
duringtheperiod1941-1943,
no. 41;
R 58/223,Meldungenaus denbesetztenOstgebieten,
see Bundesarchiv,
T 175/279andT 175/146.
see also theNationalArchives,
14.
15.
thearrests,
see RomanIlnytzkyj,
Deutschland
Forsomeofthedetailsconcerning
ein Vorbericht
unddie Ukraine1934-1945: TatsacheneuropäischerOstpolitik,
(Munich, 1955-1956), 2:186-8. See also Bundesarchiv, R58/214,
UdSSR, no. Il, pp. 3-4.
Ereignismeldung
See "Beschluesse des ii. Kongresses der Organisation Ukrainischer
Nationalisten-OUN," T 120,rollno. 2533: E 292433.Foran interesting
perception of the Ukrainianquestionby the Germans,see Hans von Herwarth,
unddie ukrainische
fuerZeitgeschichte
"Deutschland
Frage1941-1945,"Institut
MO
87.
51,
(Munich),
16.
Berkhoff
andCarynnyk,
"The Organization
ofUkrainian
Nationalists,"
p. 152.
17.
Ibid.,pp. 161,162.
Ibid.,p. 152.
18.
19.
WilliamR. Keylor,TheTwentieth-Century
World,4thed. (New York,2001), p.
196.
20.
"The Organization
BerkhoffandCarynnyk,
ofUkrainian
Nationalists,"
p. 152.
21.
Fordetails,see "Protokoly
naradRadysenlorivi UkramsTcoí
Natsional'noï
Rady
vidlypnia1941do liutoho1942,"p. 15. Personalarchive.
andCarynnyk,
"The Organization
Berkhoff
ofUkrainian
Nationalists,"
p. 154.
22.
23.
24.
25.
"Protokoly
Radysenloriv,"p. 1.
arkhivvyshchykh
orhanivvladyi upravlinnia
Tsentral'nyi
derzhavnyi
Ukraïny,
3833,op. 1,spr.9.
See telegram
to Hitlerof 10 July1941,Bundesarchiv,
UdSSR,
Ereignismeldung
no. 23, p. 174; OUN memorandum
of 14 August1941, "Beschluessedes ii.
- OUN," T 120,rollno.
Ukrainischer
Nationalisten
KongressesderOrganisation
2533: E 292431.
26.
derPropagandaim Fall "Barbarossa,"T 312, roll
ENTWURF, Handhabungen
no. 674, 83084444.
27.
ArnoldD. Margolin,TheJewsinEasternEurope(New York,1926),p. 130.
Arthur
E. Adams,Bolsheviksin theUkraine:TheSecondCampaign,1918-1919
(New Haven,1963),p. 142.
LeonardSchapiro,"The Role of theJewsin theRussianRevolutionary
Movement,"Slavonicand East EuropeanReview40 (December1961):164-5.
28.
29.
30.
Forextensivebiographical
dataforeach official,
see YuriShapoval,Volodymyr
Prystaiko,
Vadym Zolotarbv,ChK-HPU-NKVD v Ukraïni:Osoby,Fakty,
Dokumenty(Kyiv, 1997), pp. 431-579; see also Yuri Shapoval, Vadym
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142
HUNCZAK
VsevolodBalyts'kyi:
osoba, chas,otochennia(Kyiv,2002), pp. 362Zolotartov,
445.
31.
32.
Georgii Sannikov,Bol'shaia okhota: razgromvooruzhennogopodpol'ia v
ZapadnoiUkraine(Moscow,2002),pp. 371-2.
Aktenbetreffend
Bundesarchiv
Ukraine,A. A. Ukraine,
(Berlin),Reichskanzlei,
E
292947-8.
1500,
33.
undLagebericht
nr.11 derEinsatzgruppen
derSicherheitspolizei
und
Taetigkeit
des SD in der UdSSR (Berichtzeitvom 1.3.-31.3.1942),20, Bundesarchiv,
Koblenz,R70/31.
34.
MykolaLebed',head of the OUN-B in 1941-1943, stated:"The majorityof
doctorsin the UPA wereJewswhomthe UPA rescuedfromthe destructive
Hitleriteactions.The Jewishdoctorsweretreatedas equal citizensof Ukraine
of theUkrainianArmy."See MykolaLebed',UPA, Ukraïns'ka
and as officers
narodu
povstans'kaarmiia:tiheneza,risti diï u vyzol'niiborot'biukraïns'koho
Samostiinu
SobornuDerzhavu,2d ed. (s.L, 1987),p. 69.
za Ukraïns'ku
JewishRelationsduringthe Nazi Occupation,"
Philip Friedman,"UkrainianYIVOAnnualofJewishSocial Science12 (1958-1959): 286.
35.
36.
37.
D. Kulyniak,"Ievreiv UPA: Problema,kotrashchechekaiesvohodoslidnyka,"
3 December1997,no. 29 (2275), p. 6.
Shliakhperemohy,
ofUkrainian
Berkhoff
andCarynnyk,
"The Organization
Nationalists,"
p. 156.
38.
Nationalismus:Theorieund Praxis (Vienna,
Michael Hanusiak,Ukrainischer
1979).
39.
arkhivUkraïnym. Lviv,Fundno. 746 (colistorychnyi
Tsentral'nyi
derzhavnyi
lectionsofphotographs),
1,
opys sprava28. At thispointI wishto thankDiana
who were
of thearchive,and OksanaHaiova, a sectiondirector,
Pelz, director
mosthelpfulduringmyresearchinLviv.
40.
Ibid.
41.
and Carynnyk,
"The Organization
of UkrainianNationalists,"
Berkhoff
p. 160.
FortheEnglishtext,see p. 168.
Ibid.,p. 168.
42.
43.
44.
45.
of thevariousissues,see Litopys
For thehistory
of thejournaland thecontents
armii(Toronto,1995),vol. 24.
Ukraïns'koï
povstans'koï
Ibid.,p. 41.
of Ukrainians:Some
SovietJewishPerceptions
Zvi Gitelman,"Contemporary
in PeterJ.Potichnyjand HowardAster,eds., UkraiEmpiricalObservations,"
RelationsinHistoricalPerspective
nian-Jewish
1988),p. 440.
(Edmonton,
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:11:15 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions