Talk:Huta Pieniacka massacre

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Lysytalk 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Why are Polish Institute of National Remembrance and Sol Littman marked as unreliable sources? --Hedviberit (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Tymek (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Perhaps you could stub Sol Littman? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sol Littman a credible source?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[My Lai Massacre]]

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

message: 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. It's also inconsistent with information provided by Melnyk.--Hedviberit (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: From KGB agent Prus to a Russian nationalist blog.  Nice choice of reading materials.Faustian (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Historian's Opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  formally under Polish jurisdiction: the 1945 and 1939 dates 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good eye--Львівське (говорити) 02:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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: .Faustian (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melnyk source again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Crystal clear now, thanks. -Львівське (говорити) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPA involvement 

message: 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:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#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)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias