Talk:Huta Pieniacka massacre

Dis

This article is about the massacre. Huta Pieniacka is about the place.Xx236 11:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian divisions

The more I read the more tangled everything becomes. It seems that there was a large number of "Ukrainian" divisions in the German army, many with similar names. Some were combined together for short periods of time, then separated. Some had name changes. The same is true looking at the UPA. No wonder there is such confusion,as there is no lists or histories for all these hundreds of groups which could help sort out everything. Bandurist (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

World War Two in Eastern Europe is very complicated indeed. But I have doubts if the section Other information should belong here. Fate of the Ukrainian SS Division, with its losses in the Soviet attack as well as height of soldiers simply does not belong to the article. Tymek (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, however could we agree for it to remain for a short period. I just want to see what it will bring in.

From what I am beginning to piece together a detachment from the SS Galizien division was there for a number of weeks helping out policing the area and then returned for training and it seemed that it was not involved in the massacre.

However in the same region there was a Police unit "Schutzmanschaftbattalion" also labelled Galizien (Number 4 Galizische - Frewillige Regiment) made made up of raw recruits of Ukrainian ethnicity who were not accepted into the SS Galizien division (mainly because of height but possibly other reasons as well) although they probably really wanted to be in it. This is the group which seems to have been involved in the massacre, and which was ultimately wiped out by the Soviets.

I feel that the two groups have somehow been mixed up, however this is still just OR at the present moment. I'm still looking for hard evidence. It would however explain the statements from both sides - that the soldiers were in the Galizien group, were Ukrainian from the Polsih side and that the SS Galizien group was not directly involved from the Ukrainian side. It requires a lot of cross referencing etc. Bandurist (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist, this chapter Other information is very interesting and encyclopedic, but it simply does not fit with the topic. Anyway, this is your effort, you took your time, this is your work and I will not remove it. I am just awaiting opinions of other contributors. Tymek (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section and placed it below for the time being. I am compiling info here on all the military units in order to sort out everything. Please be free to make contributions. Bandurist (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Other information

According to Chuyev H. Himmler ordered on July 5, 1943 the formation of 5 regiments - Number 4-8 Galizische - Frewillige Regiment. According to some documents these regiments were Police battalions. These regiments were trained in German police methods. The command was made up of German Volksdeutsch from Slovakia although medical and clerical positions were Ukrainian. The regiment was placed in the absurd position of keeping the peace between the police divisions and the SS. Youths who were not suitable to serve in the SS battalions, being between 160-164 cm of height were recruited. According to Chuyev most of the combatants were "raw material" and did not have any military training. 90% of the volunteers had just turned 18 years of age.

The 4th regiment (which on January 4, 1944 became known as the 204th Ukrainian Police battalion) was commanded by Major Bintz and was stationed in the region of Zolochiv, Brody, Radekhiv and Zbarazh. The regiment had huge losses during the Soviet attack durintg the Lviv-Sandomir operation. The regiment was in the centre of the attack by the Soviet tanks in the region of Zbarazh. During the battle over 100 soldiers died.

The weekly publication of the Polish Home Army – the Biuletyn Ziemi Czerwienskiej (Land of Czerwien Bulletin) for 26 March 1944 (№ 12) stated that during the Battle at Pidkamene and Brody, Soviet forces took a couple of hundred soldiers of the SS Galizien division prisoner. All were immediately shot in the Zbarazh castle on the basis that two weeks earlier that had apparently taken part in the killing of the Polish inhabitants of Huta Pienacka, and as a result could not be catagorized as POW’s [216, p. 8].

Disputed

Identifying German army units a "Ukrainian" is based on a stereotype. Even though the units were made up mostly of ethic Ukrainians they were under German (Nazi) command. They should be clearly identified as NAZI units. Bobanni (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

SS Galicia division is one of the best known Ukrainian units during WW2, formed of Ukrainian volunteers. After the war, Soviet Union demanded deportation of the former SS Galicia soldiers as traitors of the Soviet Union. They were saved only after personal intervention of Polish general Anders at the British command, and due to the fact that officially, until 1945, the Ukrainians from SS Galicia were Polish citizens and under Polish jurisdiction. --Lysy^talk 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The newest results of investigation

Source in Polish. UPA participated in violence--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All the article states is that the investigation is looking for evidence on UPA participation - I quote from google translation:

There were queries in the German archives, from where he obtained the files of SS officers to Galizien. The materials are being translated into Polish, then will be analyzed, taking into account the time and place of performance of those services in the division. Continue the query is in the stocks of Ukrainian in their search for documents relating to the potential perpetrators of crimes, especially the members of UPA and the paramilitary groups of Ukrainian nationalists.

Bobanni (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the part that Pawel is probably referring to is this: "Z zeznań świadków i publikacji naukowych wynika, że formacjom tym towarzyszyli nacjonaliści ukraińscy, w tym zarówno członkowie Ukraińskiej Powstańczej Armii jak i mieszkańcy okolicznych wsi, których udział określono jako "działania w celu zaboru mienia znajdującego się w pacyfikowanych domostwach". "

"It follows, from witness accounts and scientific publications, that the formations (of SS Galizien) were accompanied by Ukrainian nationalists, including members of the UPA, as well as inhabitants of local villages whose participation has been described as "activity with the purpose of taking of property found in pacified households" radek (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice that source has 3 pages. This article needs some updates.

Most important: Co do ustalania sprawców zbrodni, z zeznań naocznych świadków wynika, że w zbrodni - obok osób w niemieckich uniformach - uczestniczył oddział paramilitarny składający się z nacjonalistów ukraińskich, pod dowództwem Włodzimierza Czerniawskiego. Wymieniony został uznany za winnego popełnienia między innymi zbrodni w Hucie Pieniackiej i wiele lat temu skazany na karę śmierci. Analiza dowodów pozwala na stwierdzenie, iż sprawcami zbrodni dokonanej w Hucie Pieniackiej 28 lutego 1944 r. byli żołnierze 4 Pułku Dywizji SS "Galizien" w liczbie jednego lub dwóch batalionów, przy czym zapewne był to I Batalion, tzw. policyjny, stacjonujący w tamtym czasie w Złoczowie. [...] Kontynuowana jest kwerenda w zasobach ukraińskich w poszukiwaniu dokumentów dotyczących potencjalnych sprawców zbrodni, szczególnie członków UPA oraz paramilitarnych grup nacjonalistów ukraińskich.

It means that not only Galizien particpiated in massacre. There were UPA and a paramilitary unit of Ukrainian nationalists, under Włodzimierz Czerniawski's command. He was convinced guilty of committing a crime and sentenced to death.

Radek could you write it to article, your english is better.--Paweł5586 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing, Grzegorz Motyka, Ukrainian guerillas 1942-1960 at p. 383-384, wirtes about UPA too.--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Melnyk

Faustian, could you add page numbers to the Melnyk cites? Also can you stub him? Who is he? All I can find is that he appears to be the son of a soldier of Waffen SS 'Galicia' and in fact dedicates his book to his father. Given your previous objections to sources which are written by former AK members, I don't see how this is any different.

In particular can you clarify this part: "According to Ukrainian accounts, in addition to attacking German supply columns the partisans based in Huta Pienicka terrorized neighboring Ukrainian villages raiding them. Furthermore, according to Ukrainian accounts many of the fires in the village were not deliberately set but were the result of ammunition stored in the houses exploding." - is this what Melnyk says, or what former soldiers remember (is he quoting soldiers' memoirs)?radek (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Since work by former AK members remains all over wikipedia I do not see how you can object to this info being here. Actually, Melnyk's is superior to the other stuff for various reasons. It is published by Helion which is a major British publisher of military history. It also comes with an excellent recommendation by David Glantz, editor of the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies and considered one of the top specialists of the Eastern Front during World War II. Glantz writes [1]:

"This book is a fine addition to literature on WWII and serves as a model of how history should be written. Recently a host of poorly researched and often sensationalised works have been published on the German Army and in particular SS formations. This work stands in vivid counterpoint to these 'potboilers'. The author's impeccable scholarship is readily apparent and the book will be of lasting value." David M. Glantz

So he seems to be a fine source. As for page numbers, I do not have them. However if you insist I can e-mail you the chapter if you do not trust me (which is okay). The passage was in the section of the 5th Chapter titled "The Ill-omened Deployment of the 4th & 5th Galizischen SS-Freiwilligen Regiments" and read

"In late February, parts of the II battalion were involved in an attack on the large Polish village of Huta Peniatska. This village (with approximately 488 inhabitants) is openly acknowledged to have become a well fortified outpost for both Polish and Soviet led partisan groups whose numbers along with civilians from neighbouring villages increased the population to nearly 1,000. These partisans, in addition to attacking German supply columns and disrupting the rear areas of the German Army, also are known to have fought against the UPA as well as terrorising the local Ukrainian population by raiding the surrounding villages.

The first attack which was made on 23rd February, 1944, failed and resulted in the deaths of two Ukrainian soldiers. Their bodies, reported to have been found naked and mutilated, were recovered for burial after a second successful assault made five days later during which between 8-12 Ukrainians were wounded, one of whom fatally.

The subsequent 'pacification action' which included the destruction of the village and the liquidation of many of the civilian population which is known to have taken place shortly after has remained the subject of a great deal of controversy to this day.

Mykhailo Khronoviat, one of three members of the Military Board, who visited the Regiment at the time, witnessed the entire event. In the account that he gave, he described how after the village had finally fallen and the Ukrainians had moved on, a German [Schutzpolizei] unit (unspecified) arrived which destroyed the village, setting fire to the houses (which began exploding because of the ammunition stored in them), and killing many of its inhabitants.

In contrast, several Polish and Soviet sources allege that Ukrainian soldiers from the battalion were present and took part in the pacification but have produced inconclusive evidence in support."

Footnotes:

"While the higher German authorities actively opposed any association with the UPA, in at least one instance (i.e. 6./II), contact was instigated by the German company commanders who instructed the Ukrainian soldiers to give the daily password to the local UPA units in order to avoid any unnecessary conflict. Later, this co-operation was further extended when one UPA unit acted as an escort for the company. Verbally Maksymiw, 27 November, 1995."

"Positive verification of Soviet collaboration with the Poles in Huta Pieniacka can be found in Mieczyslaw Juchniewicz, "Z dzialalnosci organizacyjno-bojowej gwardii ludowej w obwodzie lwowskim ppr-gl," in Wojskowy Przeglad Historyczny, (Warsaw), Nr. 4 (48), pp. 153-154."

" The first two casualties were Roman Andriichuk & Oleksa Bobak, lavish funerals for whom took place at the Heldenfriedhoff, Brody, on 2 March, 1944, accompanied by a Luftwaffe band. Alfred Bisanz was present as was Governor Wächter who laid a wreath. The third soldier Yurii Hanusiak, was wounded and died a few days later in hospital in L'viv. He was buried in the city on 7 March. Gal. SS Freiw. Regt. 4, O.U., den 3.3.1944, Regiments Tagesbefehl Nr. 10. AA."

"See for example Antoni B. Szczesniak and Wieslaw Z. Szota, Droga do nikad (Warsaw, 1973), p.127. This account as well as those of other Polish or Soviet authors is largely based on the report on the action sent less than a month later by the underground Polish Armia Krajowa to the Polish Government in exile in London which states;

"On February 27, 44 at 5.00am the 14th Division of the Ukrainian SS (sic) surrounded the village Huta Pieniacka from three sides, shooting from a distance at houses, set some buildings on fire and then entered the village, plundering all the belongings of the inhabitants. The people were gathered in the church or shot in the houses. Those gathered in the church, men women and children were taken outside in groups, children killed in front of their parents, their heads smashed on tree trunks or buildings then thrown into the burning houses. Men and women were partially shot in the cemetery, partially gathered in barns, where they were shot at and then set on fire with a grenade. The village was completely burned down. The only people who saved themselves were those who on finding out about the approaching Ukrainian SS, managed to hide in the forests (only men) or those who pretended to be dead or managed to hide in potato holes in the basements. Right now it is difficult to establish how many survived as they spread themselves around the area. Many injured with burned arms and legs are being treated, impossible to say how many since people from surrounding villages took them to their homes after the SS left. Not a single shot was fired on the SS division on the part of the inhabitants since they were considered part of the German army.

Reported by Uta WSK Huta Pieniacke who survived badly burned. The action of the SS was to be a revenge killing for 4 SS men on Feb 23 who in the number of about 60 entered the village in the evening and begun to plunder the houses. Since they wore German uniforms and spoke Ukrainian, they were taken for a disguised band. Thus the local defense action started killing 2 for sure and wounding several. Since the Ukrainian SS came to the area such cases may repeat themselves in every Polish village." A copy this report can be found in the Huta Pieniacka Case files at the Cracow Regional Office of the Polish Main Commission [for the investigation of crimes against the Polish nation]. This version of the events and subsequent witness statements by survivors, relate the event in graphic and dramatic detail but contain several significant discrepancies. At the time of writing the author has found no evidence which is sufficient to substantiate either sides contention beyond all reasonable doubt." (my emphasis added).

I have labelled info from Melnyk's book as "according to Ukrainian accounts" so as not to claim it as the only Truth.Faustian (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, my position was that the background of an author does not disqualify them as a potential reliable source, if in other respects the source is reliable. So I don't think Melnyk's background makes him unreliable, but I would ask for consistency - since you think he's fine here, please drop the objections to sources by former AK members, based solely on the fact that they're former AK members. There's also a difference between "according to Ukrainian accounts" as in Melnyk, and "according to the soldiers of the division involved in the massacre" which would apply to direct statements quoted by Melnuk, or those directly ascribed by him to them.

Thanks for the text, I think that should be sufficient. The only reason I asked is because I couldn't find the relevant parts in Amazon's book search but of course, large chunks of the text were not available for preview.radek (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not object automatically based on background (that it must completely exclude someone), I just stated that we need to be extra careful in such cases. I have stated that Filar and Siemaszko are reliable sources, although we ought to be very careful with them. Just as MElnyk ough to (and I believe is, here) scrutinized.15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is he a historian? --Hedviberit (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Melnyk claims are funny and not reliable. Motyka mention about that.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. David Glantz, editor of the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies and is considered one of the top specialists of the Eastern Front during World War II. Glantz writes about Melnyk's book:

"This book is a fine addition to literature on WWII and serves as a model of how history should be written. Recently a host of poorly researched and often sensationalised works have been published on the German Army and in particular SS formations. This work stands in vivid counterpoint to these 'potboilers'. The author's impeccable scholarship is readily apparent and the book will be of lasting value."

Glantz is certainly no worse than Motyka.Faustian (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Why are Polish Institute of National Remembrance and Sol Littman marked as unreliable sources? --Hedviberit (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Tymek (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sol Littman a credible source?

Sol Littman - a credible source????? During the Deschenes Commission under oath, Sol Littman testified that his "documentation" to support his outrageous allegation that Josef Mengele had entered Canada, was "analyzed" by two "retired" civil servants, but that both had "exacted" from him a pledge not to reveal their names.

Under threat of a criminal charge, he did reveal their names as Al Naylor and Corporal Fred Yetter. Under oath, Naylor testified that he had analyzed no document for Littman nor had he exacted any pledge of confidentially [Vol. 25, p.3446] --- he had never seen the documentation until it was shown to his by the commission [Vol. 25, p.3426]. He also testified that Littman deliberately made up his "retired" status in order to deceive the Deschenes Commission [Vol. 23, p.3417]. Inquiring minds would like to know why Littman was never charged with perjury for lying to a Royal Commission.

Articles attesting to Sol Littman's deceptions appeared in: Hamilton Spectator, Dec. 7, 1985 - Windsor Star Dec 5, 1985 - Globe and Mail Jan 23, 1985 - Toronto Star Jan 23, 1985 - Ukrainian Echo Feb. 1986 - Globe and Mail Jan 31, 1997.

He is also not a historian and none of his writtings have been published by credible academic publishing houses.

I don't think he is credible. Bandurist (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And what does a personal life has to do with his publications? It is like saying that historian "X" is not credible, because he was driving drunk, and caused an accident. Do not mix apples and oranges here. Tymek (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A number of things. Firstly he is not a scholar nor a historian. Secondly his credibility is nigh. --Bandurist (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could stub Sol Littman? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice excerpt from Littman sppech: "Now the Soviet occupation from 1939 to 1941 was relatively benign. The Soviets really went out of their way to try to win the hearts of the Ukrainians and Poles in that particular neighborhood." He also refers to Huta Pieniacka as "Huktyniachka". Repeatedly. Littman is clearly not a relaible source.Faustian (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My Lai Massacre

My Lai is not peripheral, so it fails WP:ALSO: My Lai was a different time, place, and people. Unfortunately, by adding this link, you are saying that Huta Pieniacka was like My Lai - which is original research. Indeed, the article makes clear that there is no consensus about exactly who the perpetrators were in Huta Pieniacka or why they did it, whereas we know exactly who perpetrated My Lai and why. Contrast this link with the other "See also" links which (I assume) shed additional light on the parties directly involved in the events described in this article. Rklawton (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Both were massacres of civilians by soldiers involved in anti-partisan operations, so there is a similarity. The usefulness of such links is that it enables readers to see similar events or phenomena in different contexts. It also, I think, gives modern readers a taste of the horrors from the times of World War II, making those older horrors more accessible or "real" (there are no color photos from Huta Pieniacka). Reading the accounts of My Lai helps one to experience and understand Huta Pienacka better, by bringing it in sharper focis and making it less abstract, in my opinion. I wonder the others' opinions are about the see also; I will defer to majority opinion.Faustian (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the original research part - the link infers the events are comparable when there is no reliable source that says they are. Why not Wounded Knee Massacre or some other massacre? By including My Lai, you have created the inference that the military was strictly and entirely at fault in an article where the cause is in dispute, and that's just not appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute that soldiers were involved and villagers killed in both cases. I don't think a source needs to explicitly point out that the two incidents are similar. With respect to "you have created the inference that the military was strictly and entirely at fault in an article where the cause is in dispute" - I did not mean for any inference such as that and I don't see it. But if others do that's a legitimate concern. I wonder what other editors think about this.Faustian (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Włodzimierz Czerniawski ?

Volodymyr Cherniavsky is a painter. Vasyl Cherniavsky was in the UIA.-- СНЯТИНСЬКИЙ РАЙОН (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe were two with same name and surname.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they made a mistake. I searched all the lists. Volodymyr Cherniavsky is a respected Ukrainian painter born after the war. Vasyl Cherniavsky was the commander in the UIA. He was buried in Sniatyn. There are no references to a Volodymyr Cherniavsky in that time period. --Bandurist (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to sources Włodzimierz Czerniawski was sentenced to death by Russian/Ukrainian court. How Vasyl died?--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian Historian's Opinion

Article here], from a Ukrainian newspaper, written by Professor Mykola Lytvyn who holds a Ph.D. degree in history and heads the Research Center for Ukrainian-Polish Relations, Krypiakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

"Polish literary sources have for many years propagated the thesis that the Huta Pieniacka massacred in February 1944 was committed by a unit of the Division Galicia. However, documents retrieved from Ukrainian and Polish archives testify to the contrary. Andrii Bolianovsky, a researcher from Lviv, has proved that none of the division’s units could have operated in the locality at the time. It is true, however, that the 3rd Battalion of the 4th Galician Volunteers Regiment was briefly stationed in the vicinity of this village toward the end of February 1944, but this unit was not subordinated to the Waffen SS or the division. This unit did take part in the hostilities near the village, but it was against a Soviet detachment commanded by Kundius, including a team of saboteurs made up of ex-convicts. Kundius filed a progress report to T. Strokach, Chief of Ukrainian Partisan Staff, on his unit’s activities from May 1943 to July 1944. It read: “In the summer of 1943, I made contact with N. Stepan’s team of hardened criminals, promising him that his past as a bandit would be forgotten if he worked for the benefit of our Fatherland. I succeeded in putting him to good use… He was killed by Yosyp Naida, resident of the village of Malyi Trostianets and volunteer member of the SS Division Galicia.” He went on to report that toward the end of February 1944 his unit fought Ukrainians “in the vicinity of Huta Pieniacka.” This document is stored in the State Archives of Lviv oblast (Collection P-183 — Group of Underground Organizations in Lviv oblast. — Folder No. 1, Case No. 107; Paper 39-40, pp. 64-65). There is an eyewitness account by M. Khronoviat. He testified before the division’s Military Board on March 7, 1944: “Our men retreated, but the Germans — there was a detached unit of them — stayed and burned down the village.” This testimony is stored at the Central State Archives of Civic Associations of Ukraine (Collection 3971, Folder No. 1, Case No. 7, Paper 43)."

"Bolianovsky dug up in the former Archives of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party (PORP) in Warsaw the original text of a memorandum by W. Banaczek, a minister of the Polish Government in Exile (London), that has it in black and white: “On Feb. 24, 1944, a unit of the German Secret Field Police passes by Huta Pieniacka; the populace, believing they were facing a Ukrainian unit, opened fire. As a result, six to eight Germans were killed. On February 27, a punitive squad of the Secret Field Police entered Huta Pieniacka, completely destroying the village; approximately 500 residents were killed.” (AAN. — Ministerstwo Spraw Wewn., Wydzia Sprawozdanie sytuacyjne Nr. 15/1944. — S. 24.)

This Polish document makes it perfectly clear that the Polish residents of Huta Pieniacka were annihilated by the German police and that the massacre was provoked by Soviet partisans who were carrying out saboteur missions behind the Wehrmacht rear lines, paving the way for the Red Army’s offensive against the large garrison deployed in Ternopil. The SS Division Galicia was being formed at the time.

It does say that Huta Pieniacka was destroyed by a police unit. According to Ukrainian sources, the responsibility for these atrocities lies exclusively with the German Police battalions (from Huta Pieniacka massacre) - The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences concluded that the 4th and 5th SS Police regiments did indeed kill the civilians within the village, but added that the grisly reports by alleged eyewitnesses in the Polish accounts were "difficult to believe" and noted that at the time of the massacre the regiments had been separated from the Division and were under German police rather than Divisional command[2]. It's also inconsistent with information provided by Melnyk.--Hedviberit (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. But as wikipedia editors we are reporters (basing our reports, of course, exclusively on reliable sources). If the sources contradict each other we just say so. In this case, this particular historian writes things that are contradicted by other ones.Faustian (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not my intention to dismiss reliable sources. Another opinion is that of Viatrovych: Germans used Ukrainians in the mission - the members of police units in the Wehrmacht regiment (not SS Police).

According to Jewish eyewitness accounts, toward the end of 1944 “this village was surrounded by Germans who poured gas over the village houses and barns and burned down the village and its residents.” There is a passage to this effect in The Black Book: The Ruthless Murder of Jews by German-Fascist Invaders Throughout the Temporarily-Occupied Regions of the Soviet Union and in the Death Camps of Poland during the War 1941–1945 [also known as The Black Book of the Holocaust, or simply The Black Book], edited by Ilia Ehrenburg and Vasili Grossman, Kyiv, 1991, p. 146). Regrettably, no German military or civilian sources have been found to determine the involvement of particular army or police units in this February massacre in Brody raion. Hopefully, this is just a matter of time.

Regrettably, the noted Warsaw-based Polish historian Grzegorz Motyka refers to no archival sources when he claims in his book Ukrai ska partyzantka 1942-1960 — dzia alno Organizacji Ukrai skich Nacjonalist w i Ukrai skiej Powsta czej Armii (Warsaw, 2006) that Huta Pieniacka was “pacified” [i.e., annihilated] by the 4th Regiment of the SS Police, which was made up of Ukrainians, and by the UPA’s Siromantsi Company under D. Karpenko’s command, which allegedly reinforced the regiment (p. 383–384 of the original Polish publication). Polish historians and authors of memoirs, former combatants, are reluctant to recall the acts of terrorism against villages in Nadsiannia perpetrated by individual units of Armia Krajowa and [Soviet-controlled] Polish Army.Faustian (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a document (espionage case "Zwiera"), in which Dowhań Justin (a member of UPA group) testified about the destruction of Huta Pieniacka and the mass killing of its inhabitants by SS Galizien troops, some group from Volhynia and UPA unit. Motyka briefly mentions it (although I doubt he uses this document as a main source of knowledge about the action in Huta Pieniacka). Melnyk, son of Zachar, is described as a one of the leaders, but I don't think he is a father of our Melnyk. The document also includes a testimony of Franciszek Kobielański – inhabitant of the village and another unidentified villager, can be found in this publication: [3] p. 977.

The terrains called "Nadsanie" are in present Poland. Am I right? I'm not sure what terrorist acts exactly is this historian talking about (in what years and where). --Hedviberit (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimony is not in itself considered to be reliable. For example I recall reading how one witness at Huta remembered that there were no partisans in the village at all and that the police battalion of 60 or so armed (some with machine guns) police retreated after being fired upon by one person not armed with an automatic weapon. Which, of course, is not very realistic unless that one "civilian" was Rambo.Faustian (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but we shouldn't use double standards here. Melnyk and Krypiakevych also use eyewitness testimonies. Some people under great stress (or because of the amount of time that passed since...) aren't able to recall events correctly. That doesn't mean that e.g. all Polish testimonies should be treated as unreliable. As to this testimony, there are some possibilities - for example - the real reason why they retreated could have been completely different. According to IPN, there was self-defence unit in the village.--Hedviberit (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Eyewitness testimony alone is not reliable, but when used by a reliable source it is certainly acceptable as long as it is used in accordance with the way the reliable source uses it. If a witness claims there was no armed unit in the village, the wikipedia article shouldn't say, based on the witnesses's claim alone, that there was no armed unit in the village. But if a relaible source states there was no armed force in the village, and bases his conclusions on eyewitness testimony, then that it acceptable because it's not our job to second-guess reliable sources - we just report what they conclude.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Viatrovych is the man who is trying to whitewashing the UPA and the SS-Galizien. For sure he isnt reliable source.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not very scientific is it? Your statement makes no sense. It is just POV.If you find Viatrovych an unreliable source state on what information you base your personal opinion on, i.e. In such a such a document, in such and such a review he said this and this, which was incorrect because such and such. Character assassination with no basis on facts is quite petty and really reflects mainly back on yourself and the manner in which you make your enquirees. --Bandurist (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Regards eye-witness testimony. I have been intimately involved in the research of one account. In 1978 a report went out about how the Soviets massacred a group of people. I remember it being read over the Voice of America. The cogs went into movement. Half a dozen "scholarly" articles were published. Eyewitness accounts were also found and published. A monument was erected, but later, however, it turned out that the event did not take place and the initial 1978 account was a sensational forgery put togther by a Soviet dissident mainly to make money from its publication. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens too often. I have visited 3 monuments so far in Ukraine where I know the victims were alive and kicking in Australia or the USA.--Bandurist (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Regards eye-witness testimony. I have been intimately involved in the research of one account. In 1978 a report went out about how the Soviets massacred a group of people. I remember it being read over the Voice of America. The cogs went into movement. Half a dozen "scholarly" articles were published. Eyewitness accounts were also found and published. A monument was erected, but later, however, it turned out that the event did not take place and the initial 1978 account was a sensational forgery put togther by a Soviet dissident mainly to make money from its publication. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens too often. I have visited 3 monuments so far in Ukraine where I know the victims were alive and kicking in Australia or the USA.--Bandurist (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or all the eyewtinesses fronm Kosovo - based on their accoutns it was assumed that 100,000 or even 200,000 Albanians were killed when the actual number was no more than 10,000.Faustian (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article about Viatrovych's exhibition. How to make heroes of criminals--Paweł5586 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From KGB agent Prus to a Russian nationalist blog. Nice choice of reading materials.Faustian (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

formally under Polish jurisdiction: the 1945 and 1939 dates

In an old revision (15:18, 14 September 2009), user Bandurist changed the year from 1945 to 1939 in the following passage:

"The judicial case adheres to Polish law, attested by the fact that the crimes were perpetrated by ethnic Ukrainian citizens of Poland, residents of Eastern Galicia, which up to 1945 formally fell under Polish jurisdiction."

However, 1945 was the correct date here and so I am puttingg "1945" back. Explanation: up to 1939 the area was under Polish jurisdiction both formally and actually. After the German and Soviet invasions of Poland in 1939 the area stopped being _actually_ under Polish jurisdiction, but remained Polish _formally_ (there was no treaty in which Poland ceded these areas). From 1945 these areas were given to the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference and since then they were no longer even formally under Polish jurisdiction. 46.126.184.223 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

tags in the lede

I have removed the tags from the lede because the lede just summarizes the article and doesn't need every single detail or citation mentioned.

For example According to Ukrainian sources, it was committed by the German police battalions is covered in the "Ukrainian account" section by the sentence Furthermore, according to Ukrainian accounts many of the fires in the village were set by a German Schutzpolizei unit who arrived afterward (although the whole section is very clumsily written, both trying to deny the responsibility of SS Galizien, UPA and at the same time trying to justify it)

Another instance From witness accounts and scientific publications,[by whom?] - the by whom is explicitly listed in the article text itself.

including members of the UPA[dubious – discuss] - also discussed in the article text itself.

Polish historians[who?] - also answered by reading of the article.

Basically, the lede is a summary and you can't tag it because it doesn't replicate the main body word for word.VolunteerMarek 22:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Would have been nice if you just threw the citations in there, if they were already present in the article somewhere.--Львівське (говорити) 23:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, if the article was well written and organized, then the lede would not have any inline citations, since it's just a summary. But in this case - I'm happy to leave some inline citations in - the relevant citations can easily be found within the article.VolunteerMarek 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions: - what scientific publications? I'm not seeing it. Chuyev 'assumes' something, he alone is not "publications" and the line makes no mention of witnesses. - you reverted the need for a citation for the Polish historians (who) documenting testimony from 80 witnesses (cite); there is no mention of these 80 witnesses in the article so what gives - have any scholars reciprocated the dubious UPA claims? --Львівське (говорити) 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific" is somewhat of a bad translation or something here. A more appropriate adjective would be "scholarly" - and those are given in the article. Changed accordingly.

You're right about the lack of explicit citation for the number "80" though it's probably somewhere. I'll remove it.VolunteerMarek 23:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC

)

Ah, I see the sentence in the source now.--Львівське (говорити) 02:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Melnyk source again

Above I mentioned some reservations about the usage of the Melnyk source, since it is written by a son of a SS Galizien officer and in fact the book is dedicated to the memory of this officer.

But putting that aside for now - I've tried looking at the source and most of the info in article is cited to Chapter 5 which you can't see online (ILL time!). However, there is a reference in the book which mentions the incident which is visible and it does state:

"Additional convincing evidence that Ukrainians were responsible for the pacification can be found in the Reports of the representatives of Ukrainian Aid Committees (...) One report that mentions the incident at HUTA states unequivocally that the 'pacification' (scare quotes in original - VM) was conducted by soldiers of the Galician Division in retaliation for the death of their two comrades on the outskirts of the village. - pg 352

So maybe I'm missing something but it does appear from that like Melnyk does acknowledge SS Galizien's role in - and the responsibility - in the massacre and even puts the word "pacification" in scare quotes himself. Since I think Melnyk can be reasonably described as representing the "Ukrainian account" and indeed, is cited throughout that section, this seems like a pretty glaring omission from the source. Right now, the article only makes use of Melnyk to claim that Furthermore, according to Ukrainian accounts many of the fires in the village were set by a German Schutzpolizei unit who arrived afterward, and that explosions occurred as a result of ammunition stored in the houses - which may be true - but it omits the fact that Melnyk seems to accept SS Galizien's main responsibility for the event. That's um, pretty selective, use of sources right there.VolunteerMarek 23:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Good eye--Львівське (говорити) 02:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The detailed work from the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Acaemy of Sciences clarifies that it was the 4th and 5th regiments from the Division, temporarily removed from the Division against the Division's leadership's wishes and placed under German police command who committed this and other atrocities. So it would be incorrect to state that the Division did it, although some (400-500?) of its soldiers did. Page 284 here: [4].Faustian (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Preserving here by providing this link; the concerns are the same as outlined above. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

UPA involvement

So right now we have a source saying "one could assume that members of this police force included previous members of the UPA", another citing witness accounts alleging that some involve (with the civillians) were (former? current? dressed?) UPA soldiers/members? And that during this time, the German police "units enjoyed a close relationship with local UPA units"; correct? I'm still confused about the latter part, I thought Poles were close with the police units at this point, with the former police deserting to become UPA soliders, and the German forces being quite pissed bout the whole ordeal. --Львівське (говорити) 21:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The 4th Police regiment, consisting of soldiers temporarily removed from the 14th SS Division and placed under German command, maintained a good relationship with a local UPA unit and coordinated its activities with them. The Poles were close with German police too (they wanted protection from UPA, and served the police in order to avenge themselves, per Snyder). The entire situation was, of course, a bloody mess.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Crystal clear now, thanks. -Львівське (говорити) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Huta Pieniacka massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jY7j5Ua1?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.org.ua%2Foun_upa%2FUpa%2F16.pdf to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/Upa/16.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jY7j5Ua1?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.org.ua%2Foun_upa%2FUpa%2F16.pdf to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/Upa/16.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/Upa/16.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jY7j5Ua1?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.org.ua%2Foun_upa%2FUpa%2F16.pdf to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/Upa/16.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Vasyl Veryha

He is, according to Rossolinski-Liebe, a Waffen SS veteran. Is it the same person? It doesn't make him a neutral historian.Xx236 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• As usual, I ask you please to link your source here. Notably, Veryha is not being used directly, but indirectly, via an anchor to Michael Melnyk (2007), To Battle: The Formation and History of the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division. Helion and Company. Chapter 5: Galizischen SS-Freiwilligen Regiments.[page needed] Via Kindle Book.[unreliable source?] — Waffen SS fan-pages and primary sources are not acceptable for our purposes. Neither are publications devoted to the Waffen-SS myth-making. Poeticbent talk 20:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not this criticism applies to Michael Melnyk (2007), To Battle: The Formation and History of the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division. Melnyk's book had the following description: ""This book is a fine addition to literature on WWII and serves as a model of how history should be written. Recently a host of poorly researched and often sensationalised works have been published on the German Army and in particular SS formations. This work stands in vivid counterpoint to these 'potboilers'. The author's impeccable scholarship is readily apparent and the book will be of lasting value." by David Glantz, one of America's greatest historians of World War II and chief editor of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies.Faustian (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

http://defendinghistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DRAFT-OF-ROSSOLINSKI-LIEBE-ON-DEBATING-OBFUSCATING-THE-HOLOCAUST.pdf, page 205, a list of Ukrainian nationalist activists.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thestar/obituary.aspx?n=wasyl-veryha&pid=122059363 "he served in the Ukrainian Division"

https://www.amazon.com/Wasyl-Veryha/e/B001HOTXEC Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"The actions at Huta Pienacka were researched by Ukrainian historian Vasyl Veryha" . Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"Glantz is known as a military historian of the Soviet role in World War II" Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think we do have enough sourced material here already to justify making some serious revisions to this article. Clearly, an SS soldier with the Ukrainian Division "Galicia" is the last person to weigh in on the massacre. He never was a professional historian anyway according to Wasyl Veryha Obituary. Poeticbent talk 19:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasyl was born in Kolodribka, Ukraine (Ternopil region). His youthful years were disrupted by World War II, and he served in the Ukrainian Division "Galicia". After spending several years in Italy and England, Wasyl emigrated to Canada in 1951. In spite of the obligations of a young family and full-time employment, he resumed his studies culminating in a degree in library science from the University of Toronto...

Sources

• Source 3 isn't available
• 2008 paper by Motyka — Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Grzegorz Motyka, Kolaboracja na Kresach Wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej 1941-1944. Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość 7/1 (12), 183-197, 2008, pp.5-6 in PDF. (Relevant quote) Poeticbent talk 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

W samym końcu wojny, 25 kwietnia, dywizję SS „Galizien” przemianowano na 1. Dywizję Ukraińskiej Armii Narodowej (UAN). W formowanej 2. Dywizji, dowodzonej przez płk. Diaczenkę, przedwojennego oficera WP, znalazło się ponad 2 tys. ludzi. Utworzono 1 8 6 z nich brygadę „Freue Ukraine”, która brała udział w walkach w Saksonii, gdzie Diaczenko otrzymał Krzyż Żelazny z rąk dowódcy dywizji „Hermann Göring”.[14] Problemem spornym w śród historyków pozostaje kwestia zbrodni wojennych popełnionych przez pododdziały dywizji.[15] Spory dotyczą przede wszystkim pacyfikacji wsi Huta Pieniacka oraz udziału dywizji w tłumieniu powstania warszawskiego. W Hucie Pieniackiej w lutym 1944r. zginęło najpewniej około 500-800 Polaków. W pacyfikacji brał udział 4. pułk policji, złożony z ochotników do dywizji. Z daniem niektórych ukraińskich historyków ukraińscy żołnierze SS opanowali wieś, łamiąc opór miejscowej polskiej samoobrony, po czym... odeszli,[16] a masowego mordu ludności cywilnej dokonała przybyła później niemiecka grupa egzekucyjna. Wersji tej w świetle zeznań świadków wydarzeń oraz dostępnych dokumentów nie da się utrzymać.[17] Co więcej, jak się okazuje, w pacyfikacji brał udział nie tylko 4. pułk policji, ale także lokalne oddziały UPA.[18]
---
[15] Por. A. Korman, Nieukarane zbrodnie SS-Galizien z lat 1943-1945. Chodaczków Wielki, Huta Pieniacka, Podkamień, Wicyń i inne miejscowości, Londyn 1990; E. Prus, SS-Galizien, patrioci czyzbrodniarze, Wrocław 2001; W. Weryha, Dorohami...
[16] T. Hunczak, "U mundyrach worocha," Kyjiw 1993, s. 75-76.
[17] W. Bąkowski, Zagłada Huty Pieniackiej, Kraków 2001.
[18] Zob. "Polacy i Ukraińcy pomiędzy dwoma systemami totalitarnymi" [in:] Polska i Ukraina w latach trzydziestych - czterdziestych XX wieku. Nieznane dokumenty z archiwów służb specjalnych, t. 4, Warszawa - Kijów 2005 , s. 976-981.

Bias

This article has got ridiculously biased.

It was very balanced several yearsa go, but now has bene amalgamated into osomething completely different.

I suggest we attempt to retain an unbiased article once again Chaosdruid (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)