You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2011.

Consciously or unconsciously, I have largely avoided the controversy concerning Ukrainian–particularly Ukrainian nationalist–participation in the Holocaust.  Two primary reasons for this are that there is still considerable debate about the issue even among historians, which makes me reluctant to speak definitively, and because much of the debate among non-historians, which is where I would fit in, is inane.  There is scant effort among non-academics (and sadly even among some academics) to determine the truth.  Rather, the WWII-era Ukrainian nationalist resistance is often branded, as it was by Soviet propaganda, a fascist, Nazi-collaborating band of barbarians.  There is no attempt to see the movement in its historical context, and any misdeed by a Ukrainian during the war is held as evidence of every Ukrainian’s attitude.  (To be fair, there are some defenders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army who deny any member of either group ever committed an atrocity, a statement that, if true, would make OUN-UPA the only armed group in history of which such a thing could be said.)

In short, I have been afraid to wade into the controversy, because it is fraught with bitterness and pain on both sides.  I have spent almost seven years now writing about Ukraine; I have my biases.  But I am not Ukrainian, nor am I Jewish.  I have been loathe to offend either group by proffering absolute pronouncements on their history.

I wrote about the issue recently, though, not here but in comments on two other blogs.  Even as I was commenting, I feared I was making a mistake.  The issue is delicate to begin with, and comments sections on the Internet tend to be where critical thinking and civility go to die.  To my surprise, the exchange that followed, while passionate, even heated at times, became a respectful, thoughtful conversation.

The conversation began when I read this post on Clarissa’s Blog.  I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but to sum up, the author was objecting to a piece on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart about the unhappiness among some Ukrainian-Canadians that the Holocaust is receiving greater attention than the Holodomor (Stalin’s genocidal famine of Ukrainians) in the new Canadian Museum of Human Rights.  Among Garnel Ironheart’s comments was the claim that “the Ukraine has an extensive history of Jew hatred.”  Clarissa condemned the post, commenting that she found it particularly objectionable as a Ukrainian Jew.

On both blogs, I shared a quote from “The Anti-Imperial Choice: The Making of the Ukrainian Jew” by Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, in which Shtern describes the anti-Ukrainian sentiment that predominated in Israel.  Petrovsky-Shtern explains how Soviet efforts to stigmatize the Ukrainian nationalist movement led many Jews to equate Ukrainian nationalism with antisemitism.  Garnel Ironheart replied to my comment, and in the initial exchange we were both testy, as you can read in the comments section of the post to which I linked above.  But rather than follow whatever animosity was present, Garnel and I explained our points of view in somewhat greater detail.   I do not think it is necessary for me to summarize his views, because he can present them better than I, and they are available on his blog.  I expressed frustration that the Ukrainian nation is often judged by the worst actions of any Ukrainian during the war, and that efforts to explain–not condone–antisemitic attitudes in Eastern Europe during WWII (by noting the disproportionate Jewish membership in the Soviet NKVD secret police, for example) is often dismissed as antisemitic itself.

I am certain that Garnel and I have not reached significant agreements, but I am pleased that we conveyed strongly held views without resorting to the kinds of tactics that often pass for debate on the Internet.  The experience taught me that rather than leaving the most sensitive issues to ideologues, I might do better by saying my piece and by trying to understand how others arrive at their conclusions.