Talk:Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists

Should Fascism be added into it´s list of ideologies?

“It should be noted that the main ideas of fascism were not confined to Italy itself, but quickly spread their influence throughout the world, strengthening and formalizing the psychological and socio-political process that spontaneously erupted among various peoples after the last war: this is nationalism. Fascism itself is, first of all, nationalism - love for one's homeland and patriotic feelings, brought to self-dedication and the cult of sacrificial fanaticism.” — Mykola Stsiborskyi, one of the main political influences of the OUN in his book Natiocracy 45.144.255.228 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Far-right" is not a political standpoint: clarification needed.

I requested that the term "far-right" is clarified, since its not a political standpoint, but is just a vague catch all description of people someone have decided are evil. 87.104.34.115 (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

See: far-right politics. Mellk (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Allies

What good enough sources regard Nazi Germany an ally to the OUN to justify having it in the infobox? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"This paper shows that large proportions of leaders and members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army served in various police and militia formations, collaborated with security and intelligence agencies of Nazi Germany, and took part in the Nazi genocide, primarily in assisting roles during mass executions of Jews in the first two years of the Nazi occupation of Ukraine." link

There's this: https://books.google.com/books/about/Stepan_Bandera.html?id=6OXJCQAAQBAJ

"On June 30, 1941 members of the OUN(b) proclamated Ukraine's independence in "close work" with Nazi Germany. OUN(b) sought to achieve this goal even at the cost of cooperation with the totalitarian, rasist regime." Lviv center

Hope that helps! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Would it be correct to conclude that OUN and Nazi Germany were "sometimes" allies from here? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I think "sometimes" is the wrong word, because it isn't very encyclopaedic. The first quote says "the first two years of the Nazi occupation of Ukraine" and the third quote mentions 1941. But it seems they were enemies between end of 1941 until end of 1944, when they resumed cooperation to fight the Soviet Red Army.

Perhaps something like

• "Allies: Nazi Germany (1941, 1944-1945)"
• "Enemies: Nazi Germany (1942-1943)"

It looks more encyclopaedic and there are sources that support this in the Stepan Bandera#World War II section. What do you think? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I think some editors may point out that such conclusions are WP:OR - To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That's why I said the sources are in the Stepan Bandera#World War II section, you can take a look and see if they support the dates. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and since you were the one to mention the issue, it'd be nice if you put some effort into resolving it. But it very well could be WP:OR to include the years.

An alternative is to have a footnote by Nazi Germany in allies and enemies and then explain in the footnote why they're added to both sections. Any idea what the footnote might look like if we go that route? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just starting to look at the article and it looks like it's in bad shape and is heavily influenced by Soviet propaganda. For example, the lead presents the reader how bad the OUN was, without mentioning anything on what it in fact was (or is). Nothing on its goals, and when they are mentioned, in article body, once, they were using the source Hitler's Europe Ablaze: Occupation, Resistance, and Rebellion during World ... - Google Books which has only passing mention of article subject.

If you have some sources elaborating on the issue, we should take care of the article body first, and then update the infobox.

you can take a look and see if they support the dates
Also, no, the issue is not with the dates. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"For example, the lead presents the reader how bad the OUN was, without mentioning anything on what it in fact was (or is)."

WP:FALSEBALANCE. If most WP:RS discuss the OUN in a negative light, then it'd be false balance not to feature those parts prominently. If you want to write that OUN-B wanted "Ukrainian independence", then you must also write that they envisioned this independence as part of a racially pure Ukraine without Jews. I don't think there is a way to separate "how bad the OUN was" and "what it in fact was", because what it "in fact" was was bad. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

And that's the problem, that editors are unwilling to actually describe article subject because it's supposedly "bad", based on unproven statements. At least we sorted out that sources aren't describing Germany as an ally. Let's apply critical thinking and find out if other statements are true or not.

they envisioned this independence as part of a racially pure Ukraine without Jews
How comes than Jews were among UPA members, according to Gogun - 2.5. Как хозяйничали «буржуазные националисты» на украинской земле. Между Гитлером и Сталиным [Украинские повстанцы]? Do we have a better source for that then one with just a passing mention of article subject? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you found the wrong person to engage in atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes with.

UPA cooperated with Nazis, this is a fact supported by WP:RS. UPA killed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Jews in Ukraine, this is a fact supported by WP:RS.

"If UPA was anti-semitic then how come there were Jews in it?!" "How can I be racist if I have black friends?!"

Are you seriously going with that argument? But not only is your argument bad, I highly doubt that "Jews were in the UPA" or if they were, it was a few individuals. Btw, those who defend Hitler and Nazi Germany always point out to Nazi party's supposed cooperation with Jews to deny that Hitler wanted to exterminate them.

You are doing the same thing by suggesting that UPA was not anti-semitic or that they couldn't have committed atrocities against Jews because "there were Jews in the UPA".

WP:NONAZIS. I recommend you drop the "just asking questions" and the "let's give genocidal Nazis a fair shake" bit.

"At least we sorted out that sources aren't describing Germany as an ally."

Neither do they describe them as "opponents" yet here we are. The infobox is limited and it can't have a category for every single relationship type on the spectrum from enemy to ally. Ally in this sense means "cooperation" or "united against a common enemy" (both things are true regarding the relationship between UPA and Nazi Germany).

"Let's apply critical thinking and find out" how we can hide the truth about UPA?

Let's not. I am done with this conversation and I categorically oppose any kind of removal, minimisation or rewriting of the crimes and atrocities committed by the UPA, that includes any description of them aa racist, anti-semitic, fascist, and so on. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing of Nazi crimes ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that "collaboration" seems like a better description of these things than being "allies". When people talk about allies, that is typically taken to mean a formal alliance, rather than various instances of co-operation, collaboration, and attempted co-operation. Tristario (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a limitation of the infobox. It has "allies" and "opponents". If allies is taken to mean a formal alliance then why is opponents not understood as declared enemies or enemies against whom war was declared? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a good point. Anything we add about this to either the Allies or Opponents sections may give the wrong impression. I have a few possible suggestions (and I'm open to any others):

A: We keep "Nazi Germany" in the allies infobox but add (collaboration) in brackets, maybe along with the rough time periods you suggested earlier, maybe with a ~ in front to indicate it's not exact. And we also keep Nazis in the opponents, maybe also with rough time period in brackets.

B: We remove Nazi Germany from both allies and opponents

C: We remove all the allies and opponents from the infobox (because of the above issues and also because maybe those categories in the infobox aren't quite appropriate for an article like this) Tristario (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I also proposed a solution.

D: We add a footnote to Nazi Germany in opponents and allies, the same letter, and the footnote would then explain the situation in a few sentences, with citations of course. We could then remove both the [citation needed] template and the "(sometimes)" from both mentions. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a solution I can accept. As long as the footnote gives the impression it was collaboration etc. rather than a formal alliance Tristario (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the footnote is for. It would clarify both their "ally" and "opponent" status. I don't want to write the first draft/suggestion of the footnote, because of the previous discussion I've had, but I am happy to comment on it and offer suggestions (if necessary). It'd be nice if the footnote was a collaborative effort by several editors so that everyone's concerns are assuaged and we reach some sort of consensus. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll get on this. :) Carlp941 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

bizarre to ask for sources when there are plenty in the article. please give it a read. i am going to remove the cn tags for allies, and organize it more encyclopedically. Carlp941 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure they would be already presented here if there are plenty. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is exhausting to read you the plain text of the sources in the article. Please take some initiative.

From Stepan Bandera The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, Fascism, Genocide, and Cult by Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe.

pages 71-72, which is cited directly in the article, describe the ideological affinity that led to the alliance.

from page 165

"After the start of the revolution, revolutionaries coming to Ukraine from the General Government were intended to get in touch with the OUN underground and to take control of radio stations for the purpose of mobilizing the masses. f7691 A very important point contained in “Struggle and Activities” was to concentrate on the ideological, propagandistic, and theatrical parts, and not to waste energy fighting, which should be limited to fighting for such crucial points as radio stations or industrial areas. f7701 If possible, the OUN was not to fight against the Red ArmyfZZl] or NKVD units£772] and was to actively prevent all Ukrainians from doing so, £773] probably because the OUN-B expected the Germans to do it for them. Using the political vacuum, that would follow the withdrawal of the Soviet authorities, was, for the OUN-B, more important than warfare. While taking advantage of the political vacuum, the OUN-B would establish the organs of the state. The officials of the state and ordinary citizens would welcome the incoming German army and express a wish to collaborate with Nazi Germany:

We treat the coming German army as the army of allies. We try before their coming to put life in order, on our own as it should be. We inform them that the Ukrainian authority is already established, it is under the control of the OUN under the leadership of Stepan Bandera; all matters are regulated by the OUN, and the local authorities are ready to establish friendly relations with the army, in order to fight together against Moscow and collaborate [with Nazi Germany] .£774]

When greeting the arriving German troops, OUN members were to inform them that they had already cleared the terrain of Soviet troops and were ready for further struggle, alongside the Germans, against the Soviet Union, f7751 Since the Jews, according to the resolution of the Second Great Congress, were the “main pillar of the Bolshevik regime, and the avant-garde of Russian imperialism in Ukraine,” they were, for the OUN-B activists, as for the Germans, synonymous with agents of the Soviet Union, f7761 In 1941, the stereotype of “Jewish Bolshevism” was prevalent in the OUN-B. Jews blurred with “Soviets” in the minds of the Ukrainian nationalists and, like the “Soviet occupiers,” were to be removed from the “Ukrainian territories.”"

Page 215

"The OUN-M leader Andrii Mel’nyk was no less eager than Bandera to collaborate with the Germans. On 26 July 1941, the newspaper Rohatyns’ke slovo republished MeTnyk’s article “Ukraine and the New Order in Europe” including:We collaborate closely with Germany and invest everything in this collaboration: our heart, feelings, all of our creativeness, life and blood. Because we believe that Adolf Hitler’s new order in Europe is the real order, and that Ukraine is one of the avant-gardes in Eastern Europe, and perhaps the most important factor in strengthening this new order. And, what is also very important, Ukraine is the natural ally of Germany."

I am happy to provide more if you'd like. Carlp941 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't say that the OUN and germany were in an alliance. It says that the OUN wanted to be allies with Germany, which they did, at least at that point.

So sure I think the sourcing supports a sentence along the lines of "The OUN sought to be in an alliance with Nazi Germany in this time period" but...that's a different thing to saying they were actually allies Tristario (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The context of that passage is when OUN was letting Nazi Germany occupy Ukranian cities... I'm not sure how much you more want than the OUN declaring, roughly summarized, "we are allies of the forces occupying us currently."

But I am happy to provide more.

From John-Paul Himka's Collaboration and or Resistance: The OUN and UPA during the War:

The fact of the matter is that OUN had no plan B in 1941, no alternative strategy to establishing a Ukrainian state in alliance with Nazi Germany. It would be an error to imagine that OUN would be content with whatever crumbs Germany threw it at this stage, but it was certainly willing to take these crumbs in the meantime, as its exploitation of opportunities in the Ukrainian police attests.

From ORGANIZED AND UNSOLICITED COLLABORATION IN THE HOLOCAUST: The Multifaceted Ukrainian Context by Vladimir Melamed:

The macro-level of collaboration, i.e. service-rendered perpetration of the auxiliary Ukrainian police and the civil Ukrainian administration in the ethnic Ukrainian territories of the former Polish state, differed from that of the Soviet Ukraine. It could be argued that the Ukrainian police and local administration of eastern Galicia and western Volhynia were more politically motivated, seeing its alliance with the Nazi regime as a thorny but an inevitable way to build up Ukrainian armed forces, laying the foundations for an eventual independent Ukrainian state, and ad hoc preserving a Ukrainian nation. Carlp941 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

So... The Himka source also doesn't say it had an alliance with Germany, it just said that was its strategy, which we already know. And the sentence in the Melamed source isn't referring to the OUN Tristario (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The collaborationist "local administration of eastern Galicia and western Volhynia" was filled to brim with OUN members, at the behest of the OUN. The majority of the "auxiliary Ukrainian police" were OUN members, who joined at the behest of the OUN. They later deserted (were the first to do so), and some Ukrainian collaborationists stayed on. He is referring to the OUN as part of this alliance with Nazi Germany.

I am kind of at a loss here. What do you want to see to have this page refer to the Nazi-OUN collaboration as an alliance? Carlp941 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, collaboration ≠ alliance. On wikipedia the aim is to provide well sourced, WP:NPOV compliant information that informs our readers well, and doesn't engage in WP:OR. Reliable academic sources are not calling this an alliance, and therefore if we wanted to follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines, generally we wouldn't either. Tristario (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This feels tedious. Instead of walking around this circle again, how about this earlier compromise that you proposed? I thought I indicated I was for this, but I wasnt clear enough, I apologize. Anywho, I like this idea:

"A: We keep "Nazi Germany" in the allies infobox but add (collaboration) in brackets, maybe along with the rough time periods you suggested earlier, maybe with a ~ in front to indicate it's not exact. And we also keep Nazis in the opponents, maybe also with rough time period in brackets."

I think this would suffice. It covers the fact that Nazi Germany and OUN-B both fought with and against each other. The sources I provided can be cited directly, but the citation can have a note stating there was no explicit declaration of an alliance between the two parties, though the OUN sought one out. I think there may have been something by Per Anders Rudling noting that the Nazis eventually (i think in 1941) explicitly rejected a formal alliance. My hold up here is that "formal alliance" and "alliance" really feel like a distinction without a difference, but I can let that go as long as the infobox notes that they acted as allies* on the battlefield and oppressors on the homefront together. Carlp941 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think A is good too. I can also accept option D (proposed above) but I'd overall have a preference for A. I'm not exactly sure what should go in the note, but I suppose it could be something along the lines of: The OUN collaborated with and sought an alliance with Nazi Germany in X time period. And for the opponents part include that the Nazis suppressed the OUN leadership and the OUN-B also fought against the Germans in some manner at some point Tristario (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggested adding years at the beginning of this discussion but adding the years was deemed WP:OR.

I still like the footnote idea the best: have a little letter ^[a] next to Nazi Germany in allies and opponents that links to a footnote where it is explained mkre closely. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Where does it say that "Allies" category in the infobox is only for formal alliances? By that logic, they were never opponents because there was no formal declaration of war between them.

Like I said before, it is a limitation of the infobox. If you look at older revisions of the Gaza war page, you'll see Houthis listed as allies of Hamas, without there ever being a formal alliance agreement drawn up between them. They were removed from the infobox not because their ally status was unsupported by WP:RS, but because they were listed as "Allies in other theatres" when the article is about the Gaza war (Gaza theatre).

I'm looking at Template:Infobox militant organization and nowhere does it say "Allies" is for formal alliances encoded in a signed document. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Well I think what we need is (academic) reliable sources saying they are allies or there is an alliance. It seems we don't have that. Including all collaboration as "Allies" in infoboxes would... make them very long, as well as being misleading. Anyway it seems we've worked out a compromise here. Either A or D. Tristario (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what consensus is. @Carlp941 joined the discussion to write the footnote (which I thought was the compromise we agreed to).

I am against adding "(collaboration)" to the infobox because we don't need an explanation in the infobox when it can be done in a footnote or the body of the articoe.

"I think what we need is (academic) reliable sources saying they are allies or there is an alliance."

That is not Wikipedia policy regarding infoboxes or the "allies" category. As I said, earlier revisions of the Gaza war article listed allies of Hamas in other theatres, despite Hamas never signing a formal alliance with those militant groups (like the Houthis).

The infobox only has the "Allies" parameter, it doesn't have "Friends", "Partners", "Fairweather friends", " Collaborators", ... so it is safe to assume that any and all important friendships and collaborations would go into the "Allies" category.

You keep ignoring my arguments and repeating the same semantic argument that is not supported by Wikipedia policy. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

repeating the same semantic argument that is not supported by Wikipedia policy

WP:OR Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves

WP:Verifiability all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources

WP:NPOV representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic

These all support the arguments I'm making. And plenty of reliable sources actually describe the Houthis and Hamas as in an alliance, not that that has a bearing on what we do in this article. Tristario (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"And plenty of reliable sources actually describe the Houthis and Hamas as in an alliance"

Just like they do OUN and Nazi Germany: "Unlikely Allies: Nazi German and Ukrainian Nationalist Collaboration in the General Government During World War II"

I think that "collaborated with" and "allied with" in this context mean exactly the same.

Your argument is a semantic one -- you're saying that because OUN and Nazi Germany never signed a formal alliance document, they aren't "allies". I am saying that "allies" and "collaborators" mean the same thing and nowhere does it say in Wikipedia Policy that a signed alliance agreement is needed to add a country as an "Ally" to the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that all entities and countries that collaborate with eachother should be added to the allies section of infoboxes?

Do you believe that would be misleading at all? Tristario (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"Do you think that all entities and countries that collaborate with eachother should be added to the allies section of infoboxes?"

That depends on the nature and level of their collaboration. A WP:RS I linked calls Nazi Germany and OUN "unlikely allies". I don't think there is a distinction between "ally" and "collaborator" to be found here.

You still seem to be working under the impression that "Allies" in the infobox means "formal alliances only" when there is no such Wikipedia Policy. You're welcome to make that policy proposal/clarification request in the appropriate places and if editor consensus is that "Allies" is for formal alliances with drawn up agreements, signatures and all that, then I will remove Nazi Germany from Allies myself.

But you also have to ask for clarification on what "opponent" in the infobox means. I don't think it is for official declarations of war or hostilities. We need to avoid a situation where the inclusion in one category requires formal documentation, while the inclusion in an opposite category doesn't. I'm sure you can see how that would result in POV issues. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A WP:RS I linked calls Nazi Germany and OUN "unlikely allies" where does it do this?

You still seem to be working under the impression that "Allies" in the infobox means "formal alliances only" when there is no such Wikipedia Policy There are wikipedia policies for verifiability, No original research, and Neutral Point of View (I linked to them and quoted them earlier). We are supposed to follow them. They do not contain an exception for infoboxes. I do not feel like this is ambiguous. Tristario (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"where does it do this?"

"Unlikely Allies: Nazi German and Ukrainian Nationalist Collaboration in the General Government During World War II"

"They do not contain an exception for infoboxes. I do not feel like this is ambiguous."

There is no Wikipedia Policy that says "Allies" in the infobox is for formal alliances only. If you have a problem with the wording of the policy or believe something was omitted from it, there are places where you can have that discussion, but this isn't one of those places. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV are the three main policies of wikipedia. We need to follow them, and they apply to infoboxes. They do not get superseded because the documentation in the infobox template doesn't explicitly say they need to be followed. As editors on wikipedia, we need to follow these policies, and I will not change my mind on the fact that we need to follow those policies.

"Unlikely Allies: Nazi German and Ukrainian Nationalist Collaboration in the General Government During World War II" This sentence does not contain the OUN. Most Ukrainian nationalists were not part of the OUN and that sentence does not say the OUN as an organization was allied with them. See WP:V. Tristario (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use large fonts to advance your argument.

The Germans were well aware of what the radical nationalists wished to achieve. Their ultimate goal was an autonomous Ukraine or independent state closely allied with Germany. However, neither of these options were in the German plans for the east. p. 39 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I had to, because an editor asked me "where does it do this?" when it was clear from my post where it was.

"Their ultimate goal was (1) an autonomous Ukraine or (2) independent state closely allied with Germany. However, neither of these options were in the German plans for the east."

This quote says Nazi Germany did not plan to establish an autonomous Ukraine or an independent [Ukrainian] state. Countries/organisations can be allies without all of their goals aligning perfectly. Nazi Germany was happy to have the OUN as allies in the fight against the Soviet Union and when it came to enact Nazi Germany's racial policies in Ukraine, but didn't want to give them an independent state. There's no contradiction there. I'd support calling OUN "useful idiots" to Nazi Germany, but I don't think that parameter exists in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was happy to have the OUN as allies in the fight against the Soviet Union
It was actually Nazi Germany which were allies with the Soviets: Hitler personally ordered the general governor to prevent any signs of Ukrainian irredentism from taking root in the eastern borderland regions so as not to upset his alliance with Stalin. p. 45 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If you'd actually try to write a chapter in the article body based on these, you'd have something like "the OUN was looking for a (collaboration/alliance) with Germany to establish a Ukrainian state, but Germany was not" : Kundt informed his guests that the Ukrainians might feel like allies of the Germans, but they were not. p. 246 Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

From your linked source: "Bandera, who arrived late at the meeting, emphasized that, in the battle against the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian nationalists were "not passive observers, but active members, in the form that the German side allows them." He explained that he had issued orders to his people to fight alongside the Germans and to establish a Ukrainian administration and government in German-occupied territory."

"active members, in the form that the German side allows them" - subordinated to Nazi Germany

"issued orders to his people [OUN/OUN-B] to fight alongside the Germans" - allies in conflict/war/combat

"establish a Ukrainian administration and government in German-occupied territory" - political allies

From this source it is pretty clear OUN/OUN-B and Nazi Germany were allies. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

From this source it is pretty clear OUN/OUN-B and Nazi Germany were allies
Please re-read the message you are responding to. There is a quote confirming they were not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That quote says that Nazi Germany did not wish to establish a Ukrainian state. On that same page is the quote I posted, where Bandera says he instructed the OUN to "fight alongside the Germans". You can't just cherrypick which quotes you like and remove them from context and then ignore anything to the contrary from the same source. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That quote says that Nazi Germany did not wish to establish a Ukrainian state
compare that to
Kundt informed his guests that the Ukrainians might feel like allies of the Germans, but they were not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say that the OUN and Nazi Germany were or weren't allies. One is an attribution to Kundt, the other is an attribution to Bandera, neither are a statement of fact. Tristario (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Could everyone please try to make sure that if they use a source for a claim, that source directly supports that claim? Tristario (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Bandera was the leader of the OUN-B, though, so his comments on OUN-B are more than just opinion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say that the OUN and Nazi Germany were or weren't allies
That's right. Statements from parties are just that. They are to be analyzed by historians, and the article is to rely on their conclusions, not on primary statements from parties. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"They are to be analyzed by historians,"

And historians agree that Nazi Germany and OUN collaborated/were allies. You will not find a historian denying that. We keep having the same semantic argument, I am afraid this isn't going anywhere before more editors can give their opinion on whether OUN "collaborating with" Nazi Germany can be called an "alliance" in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

And historians agree that Nazi Germany and OUN collaborated
both collaborated and fought
were allies
No. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, looks like we have reached an impasse. I don't think 3O would help in this situation cause there's more than two of us. This is a case for dispute resolution or an RfC. WP:RFCBEFORE has been satisfied with this thread and this is something that might have ramifications for other pages, so I think an RfC is appropriate. If you agree, we can work on formulating a neutral statement for it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

But... Is everyone okay with option D? We add a footnote to Nazi Germany in opponents and allies, the same letter, and the footnote would then explain the situation in a few sentences, with citations of course. We could then remove both the [citation needed] template and the "(sometimes)" from both mentions Tristario (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that, since I suggested it. If @Manyareasexpert agrees to it then we can just go with that and avoid an even lengthier discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It is an improvement so we should proceed.

The issue is that a chapter on collaboration and opposition should be written and the infobox filled based on that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of an article content, and I don't see the article even elaborating on the collaboration issue. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"Kundt informed his guests that the Ukrainians might feel like allies of the Germans, but they were not."

Post the whole paragraph. You can't just remove quotes out of context and present them as if they support your position. Kundt was talking about Ukraine not having the remit to establish their own state or to do things on their own (before German approval), but to wait for Hitler's decision. The dialogue between Kundt and Bandera is a dialogue of a superior and a subordinate. Again, if two countries are "allies" that doesn't mean they have to be equal in authority, decision-making or power. One party in an alliance can be the dominant one and makes all the decisions.

Furthermore, "allies" is not always used in a strict sense on Wikipedia. Look at this map:

Extended content

It says "other allies", but I don't think there was ever a "formal alliance" made between NATO and many of the "other allies" countries. In fact, many of them aren't even mentioned in the War on terror article, yet they are still included in the map as "other allies". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out, alliances and collaboration aren't the same thing. ManyAreasExpert is correct that the sources we have (as far as I can see) don't actually describe them as allies Tristario (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have read a lot on the topic, and my read of the RS's is that they do describe it as an alliance, mostly as an alliance of ideological affinity on part of the OUN but merely similar military and genocidal goals on part of the Nazis. Later the alliance fell apart due to the slow collapse of the Nazi regime. See my above comment. Carlp941 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"the sources we have (as far as I can see) don't actually describe them as allies"

That's a semantic argument. No sources call them "opponents" either (as far as I can see), but you don't seem to have a problem with that characterisation. And once more: Wikipedia Policy does not say that there needs to be a formal alliance for an entity to be included as an "Ally". The infobox is a summary of the body of the article, the body of the article explains how Nazi Germany and OUN collaborated, therefore "Ally" in the infobox is appropriate to summarise the key facts of the relationship.

Just so you know, in my opinion "Nazi collaborator" sounds much worse than "Nazi ally" and I'd much rather describe OUN-B as collaborators (because it implies a lack of agency and implies subordination to a foreign occupying power), but since the infobox doesn't have a collaborator parameter and it doesn't make sense to crowd the infobox with explanations, I have to settle for "Ally", per Wikipedia Policy. That is why I support clarifying the nature of their collaboration in a footnote. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The formatting on this page has gotten a bit mixed up. The comment of mine you're reply to wasn't actually a reply to your comment directly above it, it was a reply to a different comment. As I have reiterated above, my view is that we need to follow wikipedia's fundamental policies of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, looks like we have all arrived at our positions and we aren't going to budge without an RfC. I'm gonna start an RfC draft section so we can work on coming up with a neutral statement. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

No sources call them "opponents" either (as far as I can see), but you don't seem to have a problem with that characterisation.
The thing is, when parties fight, they're always opponents. But not every collaboration is an alliance. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"when parties fight, they're always opponents."

"when parties fight together, they're always allies". You don't need the "always". When parties fight, they are opponents; when they fight together against a common enemy, they are allies.

"But not every collaboration is an alliance."

Why did you change the case between "opponents" and "alliance"? You can write "When parties fight together, they are always allies".

I am done with these word games and semantics. Next stop: RfC (or whatever is your preferred method of dispute resolution in this case, it doesn't matter to me). TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, okay, maybe the argumentation on this page hasn't been the most productive. I don't see why we can't arrive at a compromise though? I'm fine with option D honestly, I just think people should do their best to follow wikipedia policies. As far as I can see no-one has objected to Option D Tristario (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Tadeusz Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust, p234:

"On July 15, 1944, the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (Ukrainska Holovna Vyzvolna Rada, or UHVR, an OUN-B outfit) was formed and, at the end of that month, signed an agreement with the Germans for a unified front against the Soviet threat. This ended the UPA attacks as well as the German countermeasures. In exchange for diversionary activities in the rear of the Soviet front, Germans began providing the Ukrainian underground with supplies, arms, and training materials."

I believe we've met this silly little threshold of "signed formal arrangement describing an alliance between the OUN-B and Nazi Germany." I think the "sometimes" note is pretty important, as Piotrowski goes into detail about how the OUN-B seemed to want to have it both ways - signing agreements with the Nazis and occasionally fighting them. They ultimately conclude OUN-B was fully pro Nazi, though I think, based on other RS, it is more complicated than that, so a note of "sometimes" or some kind of detailed note describing the nuance of the alliance.

However, it is the unambigous historical record that Nazi Germany and OUN were allies at various points during the war. The OUN-B signed a formal agreement. Both factions sent troops to fight for the Nazis. I am not sure what more I can do to prove that obvious historical fact. Carlp941 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

What kind of agreement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I am getting exhausted reading the plain text of sources for you. I have already read sources for you that are in the article, cited by page number.

It is even more exhausting to repost and highlight text I have already posted. But here it is:

"In exchange for diversionary activities in the rear of the Soviet front, Germans began providing the Ukrainian underground with supplies, arms, and training materials." Carlp941 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We hear you. You set yourself some "threshold" different from WP:OR. You present sources you suppose confirming what you are trying to add - that OUN and Germany were allies. But by WP:OR it's required sources to directly support what you are trying to add. The source you presented says UPA (not the article subject) entered some kind of agreement, which you suppose was "alliance" agreement, but the quotes you presented do not say so. The source says they were fighting, then it characterizes parties as collaborators. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You do not hear me. You are simply not reading the text put in front of you. Read the sources put in front of you.

"On July 15, 1944, the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (Ukrainska Holovna Vyzvolna Rada, or UHVR, an OUN-B outfit)"

I really don't know how to put this in any more plainly. Carlp941 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

an "outfit"? What is that supposed to mean?

And the main concern is left without attention: entered some kind of agreement, which you suppose was "alliance" agreement, but the quotes you presented do not say so. The source says they were fighting, then it characterizes parties as collaborators. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not re-reading any more sources for you. You are welcome to read the quoted text above, which I believe addresses your concerns adequately. I'd like to take this to an RfC instead of talking in circles with you. Thanks. Carlp941 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"an "outfit"? What is that supposed to mean?"

You can't be serious...

But in case you are:

outfit noun (GROUP): an organization, company, team, military unit, etc. Cambridge dictionary

outfit noun: a group that works as a team: organization Merriam-Webster dictionary

outfit countable noun: You can refer to an organization as an outfit. Collins dictionary TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we've met this silly little threshold of "signed formal arrangement describing an alliance between the OUN-B and Nazi Germany."
Who set this "threshold"? The real threshold is already set - see WP:OR - To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am directly citing the source. There is no original research. Carlp941 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we've met this silly little threshold of "signed formal arrangement describing an alliance between the OUN-B and Nazi Germany."
That's not what the source say. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We're talking in circles here, and I don't have anything else to discuss. Let's open an RfC and go from there. Carlp941 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Didn't everyone agree to option D though? Why is an rfc necessary? Tristario (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Carlp941 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

not sure why my comment below is blank..

anywho. I can draft something up, and if we can all live with it, no RfC necessary? Carlp941 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see why we can't come to an agreement on this. Tristario (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This sentence does not contain the OUN
— User:Tristario 09:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, the book elaborates on Kubijovyc. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Kubijovyc was loyal to the OUN.

From Markiewicz, Pawel (2016). "Volodymyr Kubijovych's Ethnographic Ukraine: Theory into Practice on the Western Okraiiny:

"He was born ...into a mixed ethnic and religious family - his father Mykhailo, a Greek-Catholic of Ukrainian extraction; his mother Maria Dobrowolska, a Catholic of Polish extraction...Throughout the wartime period, he remained sympathetic and loyal to the original OUN, represented by Andri Melnyk." Carlp941 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC Proposal

Can we try to come up with a neutral wording for an RfC here? I am thinking something like "Can Nazi Germany be considered an ally of the OUN for the purposes of the infobox?" (yes/no) or "How should Nazi Germany's relationship with the OUN be characterised in the infobox, if at all?" (several options) or something third... TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Article should not rely on wiki editors opinions. The correct way would be to write a chapter describing the collaboration issue, and the opposition issue, first. After that, it would be clear what should be included in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"The correct way would be to write a chapter describing the collaboration issue, and the opposition issue, first."

There is a section on Connection to fascism but it spends way too long defending the OUN from fascist accusations, which is WP:UNDUE. It also singles out and gives prominence to historians who go against the mainstream, WP:FALSEBALANCE, MOS:EDITORIAL. I think the section needs a rewrite where we can explain OUN's collaboration with Nazi Germany in greater detail. The sources in the article already support such a section:

"historical studies and archival documents show that the OUN relied on terrorism and collaborated with Nazi Germany in the beginning of World War II" Katchanovski, Ivan (2015)

"The émigrés developed an entire literature that denied the OUN's fascism, its collaboration with Nazi Germany, and its participation in atrocities, instead presenting the organization as composed of democrats and pluralists who had rescued Jews during the Holocaust." Rudling, Per Anders (2013).

"The OUN-B organized a militia, which both collaborated with the Germans and killed Jews independently." Rossoliński-Liebe 2014, p. 234–236

and so on... TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the phrasing of "Can Nazi Germany be considered an ally of the OUN for the purposes of the infobox?"

It's neutral and gets to the heart of the issue. Carlp941 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ and @Tristario, here's my draft of the new infobox. I'm new to sandboxing, so let me know if I've missed anything there. I decided not to include any kind of qualifier in the main text for "allies," I find TurboSuperA's argument convincing. If we're gonna consider public declarations of hostility followed by hostile acts enough to be opponents without a qualifier, there's not a compelling reason to consider public declarations of alliance followed by friendly acts to not be allies without a qualifier. However, I do think it is critical to note that the alliance/collaboration was informal, so I made sure to focus on that in the footnotes. isa.p (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That looks quite good (The footnotes, unsure if you've changed other parts besides removing Hungary and Romania). Good work. For the sentence "Both factions of the OUN pursued an alliance the Nazi regime" in the allies footnote I would probably specify this was prior to and in 1941. For the part that says "members joined the SS" in the opponents foodnote, I would specify it's the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS. And I would change the wording from "began engaging..." to "participated" or "engaged" in the final sentence.

But those are relatively minor changes, overall it looks quite good, unless there is something I'm missing Tristario (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you for your effort. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ethnically homogenous and totalitarian Ukrainian state

Reviewing the source supporting this statement in the lead - The OUN pursued a strategy of violence, terrorism, and assassinations with the goal of creating an ethnically homogenous and totalitarian Ukrainian state - The Creeping Resurgence of the Ukrainian Radical Right? The Case of the Freedom Party: Europe-Asia Studies: Vol 63, No 2, cannot find it in there. Somebody please have a look. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's in there, but the WP:LEDE is meant to summarize the body of the article and there is some content about that in the body of the article. Really for the lede the question is whether it's the best summary of what the body of the article says Tristario (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever put that there cited it incorrectly. I removed it. The content is still cited, and the first source is kosher, so we should leave it up for now. Carlp941 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ideology: Banderism

Ideology: Faction: Banderism in the infobox - what is that supposed to mean? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OUN-B = The B stands for Bandera. OUN-B was a faction of the OUN that followed Stepan Bandera after the split.

Under ideology it doesn't even say "fascism" but uses an euphimism "corporate statism". There's no mention of anti-semitism either.

But I'd like more eyes on this article than just us two, given recent events. You can submit the article for peer review at WP:HISTORY if you think there are many problems with it. I think making a topic for every separate question is very time consuming. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion about including fascism in the infobox some while ago. A good number of reliable sources describe the OUN as being fascist, some other reliable sources disagree. There was an argument that since it was not a consensus view it shouldn't be included in the infobox. I don't quite remember when or how it was removed Tristario (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In the time I've looked at academic sources on this topic, I don't think I've seen one specifically refer to "banderism" as a specific ideology. Sources do discuss the veneration of Bandera and how they did things in his name. But if sources don't label that as "banderism" and the body of the article doesn't that could be removed Tristario (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"Banderism" links to Banderite: "A Banderite or Banderovite (Ukrainian: бандерівець, romanized: banderivets; Polish: Banderowiec; Russian: бандеровец, romanized: banderovets; Slovak: Banderovec) is a name for the members of the OUN-B, a faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists."

"I don't think I've seen one specifically refer to "banderism" as a specific ideology"

"Banderism" is included as a Faction under the Ideology heading. The purpose of it seems to be to inform the reader that OUN-B became the dominant faction of the OUN in Ukraine after 1940; from the body of the article: "The OUN-M dominated Ukrainian emigration and the Bukovina, but in Ukraine itself, the Banderists gained a decisive advantage (60% of the agent network in Volhynia and 80% in Eastern Galicia)." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see how its inclusion there makes some sense, but if reliable academic sources don't describe the ideology as "banderism" we probably shouldn't either Tristario (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

What about "Faction: Banderite"? I am going to assume good faith on the part of editors who made the Banderite article and trust that there are enough WP:RS to say Banderite is a faction of the OUN. "Banderism" already links to Banderite anyway. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see why it would make sense to put that in the ideology section though? There is an "Organizations" field that could be added to the Infobox. If you wish you could add the factions there, and maybe something to indicate OUN-B was the dominant faction, in Ukraine at least Tristario (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree doesn’t make sense to put that in ideology field BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)