As for the Ukrainian material applicable to this law, it is obvious that the division of the Galichina SS, which cooperated with the occupation regime established in Ukraine in 1941-1944, as well as OUN members and UPA fighters, who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition. In the case of Ukraine 1941-1945, under this specifically should be understood units of the Red Army and the NKVD.
* * *
Next, we consider how the material on the Second World War, currently taught in the school course, corresponds to the adopted law.Stories Of Ukraine ". We take as an example the history textbook of Ukraine for 2011 class Olena Pometun and Nestor Gupan published in 11. (1) The marked textbook" History of Ukraine "in March 2011 of the year passed a scientific examination at the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and It was recommended by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine for general educational institutions.The heading of the textbook corresponds to the "academic", that is, the highest scientific level.
In the introduction to the topic, the authors of the Ukrainian textbook recognize that "an important component of the history of Ukraine in the 20th century is the Second World War - one of its most controversial, tragic periods", which is hereinafter referred to as the "Great Patriotic War". Obviously, the "inconsistency" is associated with the need to weave the fabric of the national ideology of an independent Ukraine into the well-established Soviet content of the Ukrainian SSR.
The drama of the pre-war situation, according to the authors, "was that the Ukrainian people could not independently decide their own fate." The fate of Ukraine depended on the balance of interests of the great powers and the balance of their forces, as demonstrated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This text is used in the Ukrainian textbook. In the textbook of Ukrainian history, Pometun and Gupan unequivocally state: "In fact, A. Hitler and I. Stalin, having given their consent to the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" (known in history as the non-aggression pact), according to which Poland was divided, initiated World War II ". (S. 8) The Munich Agreement and the Czechoslovak section that affected the Transcarpathian Ukraine is not mentioned at all in the textbook.
The invasion of the Red Army into the territory of the Commonwealth 17 September 1939 was not called a "liberation campaign." However, it is recognized that "Ukrainians in Western Ukraine rejoiced at the collapse of the Polish state and did not hide this." Here, the authors of the textbook do not hesitate to add pepper to schoolchildren, referring to the unfriendly testimony of an eyewitness to the event: “It was not so much consolation from the arrival of the“ liberators ”, who had a rather miserable appearance, but also the joy that the hostile oppressors fled.”
The authors of the textbook do not give a concrete definition of the event and suggest that the student choose for the "entry of Ukrainian lands into the Ukrainian SSR on the eve of the Second World War" the appropriate answer from the following set: "annexation" (D. Boff), "inclusion" (N. Wert) , "formal incorporation, called" reunification "(S. Zhukovsky, O. Subtelny)," reunification, which had the character of an occupation of the type of occupation "(S. Kulchitsky).
"In the local Ukrainian population,” the textbook admits, “some transformations introduced by the Soviet authorities found a positive response.” "However, later the Soviet government, having changed its position, began to impose its own interests on the local population." (S. 13) "Immediately after the Red Army entered the Western Ukrainian lands, the new government banned all parties and social movements. The Ukrainian intelligentsia felt the pressure, the teachers, scientists and cultural workers became victims of Stalinism." (S. 14) "The Soviet government widely used this kind of punishment as deportation in Western Ukraine." "In addition, a significant number of people on various false accusations were thrown into prison." “Not everyone managed to get out of there alive. The population began to fade illusions about" happy life in the country of the Soviets. "As a result of all this," the fight against Stalinist totalitarianism in the province was headed by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which numbered about 20 thousand people. " (S. 14) Thus, the anti-Soviet nationalist movement in Western Ukraine began in 1940.
The textbook for the 11 class claims that on the eve of World War II, the OUN agreed to cooperate with Hitler’s Germany, as Hitler de planned, “that Ukraine will become a separate state focused on Germany and at the same time a counterweight to Russia.” Tensions have developed between the OUN factions. “However, with the approach of Germany’s attack on the USSR, both currents relied on Germany, trying to make the most of all the factors that, in their opinion, could contribute to the revival of Ukrainian statehood.” (S. 39) Thus, the textbook recognizes the fact of the cooperation of the Ukrainian nationalists with the Nazis during the German invasion of the USSR. "However, the Führer later changed his mind, increasing the emphasis on expanding the" Great German space "to the East. There was no longer talk of Ukraine as a state: it was assigned the role of a close and convenient for the Reich colony -" German India. "(C. 17). After when the Germans refused to recognize the “renewal of the Ukrainian state” proclaimed in Lviv 30 on June 1941 on the initiative of the OUN (B), the Ukrainian nationalists broke with Hitler’s Germany. (S. 39) However, the textbook admits that the decision “to move to armed struggle against the Germans in and their allies, the units of the Home Army and the Polish population, the Soviet partisan detachments, and later the Red Army units "were taken by the OUN only in February 1943 of the year. (C. 48)
In the textbook of the history of Ukraine Pometun and Gupan in the subject "The occupation of Ukraine" the term "collaborationism" is used, interpreted as "voluntary cooperation of certain groups or segments of the population with the invaders in the territories of the countries they occupied." (S. 25) However, the collaborators, of course, have an excuse, because "mainly they were those who suffered from the Soviet government during collectivization, famine or mass political repression. They were the basis of collaborationism." (S. 25) At the same time, the authors of the textbook believe that military, administrative, domestic and political collaborationism affected the Ukrainians to a lesser extent than other peoples of the USSR. Of the 1,5-2 million collaborators, "250 - 300 thousand were Ukrainians, the rest - in the majority - were Russians." (C.25) Along the way, a Russian hairpin is inserted in the material presentation.
The fifth topic of the textbook is devoted to the “Deployment of the resistance movement”. In the interpretation of the authors of the textbook in Ukraine, it consisted of two components: a) the “Soviet partisan movement” and b) the “Ounovsky underground and the UPA”. At the same time, the former sought "the restoration of Soviet power", and the latter, the "state independence of Ukraine." (S. 38) It is clear that in the light of the ideology of anti-Sovietism and nationalism prevailing in Ukraine for the last quarter of a century, the OUN underground and UPA, which allegedly fought within the framework of the Resistance movement for independent Ukrainian statehood, would look more preferable to the Ukrainian schoolchild. However, here the authors of the textbook resort to a Jesuit reception, when they invite students to make this “choice” themselves. The textbook recognizes that in modern Ukrainian society there is a “psychologically understandable confrontation” associated with the problem of the OUN and UPA, and this historical problem divides the society into two camps. As a result, "the unresolved problem of the OUN and UPA has a destructive effect on the state-forming process." The authors of the textbook, putting a question mark, offer to agree with this assessment. (S. 42) The interpretation of the resistance movement by the occupation regime, consisting of two hostile but equal components, is thus in the interest of building a single Ukrainian nation. Moreover, it is further stated that "the guerrilla struggle, as well as the resistance movement as a whole, was initiated by the people themselves, international in composition." (S. 48)
According to the text, a paradoxical thing is obtained: the movement of Ukrainian nationalists within the framework of the OUN and UPA was “international in composition”. This conjecture on an indirect basis is further directly confirmed by the text: "The growth of the ranks of the UPA, in which people of different nationalities and political views fell, necessitated a substantial revision of ideology and politics." (S. 49) "Based on the new positions, the leadership of the nationalist movement tried to find a common language even with the Soviet partisans." (S. 49) But it did not work, because "in 1944, the main enemy in the struggle for future Ukrainian independence was Soviet power. In early June, 1944 held talks in Lviv between representatives of the UPA and the Wehrmacht on possible military cooperation" . (S. 49) "The Germans agreed to transfer the UPA weapon and ammunition, which, while retreating, they were no longer able to evacuate, and the UPA pledged to provide the Nazis with intelligence about the Soviet troops ... However, despite the agreement signed with the Germans, the UPA troops did not stop attacking the military units of the occupiers. "(S. 50) "As for the Soviet troops, the UPA during the offensive operations of the Red Army avoided battles with its units. But when the front moved west and after the army came the troops of the NKVD, they began to fight the nationalist formations. "(S. 50) Note the semantic stylistic error in the marked fragment.
So, the new fact of cooperation between the OUN and the UPA with the Nazi occupiers is again recognized by the authors of the textbook for the 11 class, but it is argued that the UPA, despite the agreement with the Germans, still fought with the Wehrmacht. As for the Red Army, the textbook claims that the UPA did not attack its units. The units of the NKVD, in the sense of the fragment, as if they themselves were the first to attack the UPA, which was refraining from military actions. Next came the confrontation of warfare.
The textbook acknowledges that “at the final stage of the war, the population of Western Ukraine, tired of socio-economic and political instability, began to lean toward accepting Soviet power, which was supported by the Red Army. The leadership of the OUN and UPA, predicting prospects for strengthening the positions of Soviet power , took the path of tough radical actions even against unstable members of the rebel movement. At the same time, the UPA carried out a series of terrorist actions against the communists, NKVD employees and those who mined with the Soviet government ... The population of Western Ukraine was between the hammer (Soviet organs) and the anvil (OUN and UPA). (S. 55) Following the logic of the aforementioned fragment, the UPA as if again did not touch the army units of the Red Army. Nevertheless, on page 86, it’s stated: "The total expenditure of the UPA over the years of struggle amounted to 20 thousand, Soviet soldiers and officers killed 22 thousand."
In conclusion, the textbook concludes: "The main role in the victory of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition belonged to the Soviet Union and its Armed Forces. The Ukrainian people made a significant contribution to the victory." (S. 56) By the latter, apparently, it is necessary to understand, including all of these Bandera, Melnikovites, Bulbovtsev, Ukrainian nationalist OUN Be and Em and UPA. After all, their authors of the textbook for the 11 class were recorded in the second stream of the anti-Hitler resistance movement on the territory of Ukraine during the Great Patriotic War.
It can be stated that the authors of the History of Ukraine textbook for the 11 class Olena Pometun and Nestor Gupan for “publicly denying or justifying the crimes of fascism against humanity” in the particular case of the OUN and UPA - “those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with Fascist occupiers "fall entirely under the law N 16-VII adopted on January 2014 of January 729.
(1) Pometun OI, Gupan N.M. History of Ukraine. Tutorial for 11 class. Kiev, Osvita, 2011.
The specified textbook is replete with annoying minor errors that betray the general lack of professionalism of the authors. Let us list what we noticed in the text: “Brigadier commander Mikhailov, head of the KOVO political propaganda department,” should write “brigade commissar” (S. 2); "The Ukrainian and South Russian directions were constantly the main ones on the Eastern Front, on the entire European theater of operations until the end of 1944." - should I write "south-west and south directions", since it was the "Eastern Front" for the Germans, do the authors of the textbook look at the war from Germany? (S. 4); "soviet Tanks BT-7, T-25 had such weak armor that heavy machine guns pierced it "- should write" T-26 "(S. 19);" In accordance with it, defensive battalions were to be created for every shooting division within five days "- should write" rifle divisions "and" barrage detachments "(p. 22);" Guest workers from Ukraine were used in hard work "- it is more appropriate to use the term" ostarbeiters "in this case (p. 32).
A table from the textbook "Stories of Ukraine" O. Pometun and N. Gupan, illustrating the existence of two currents in the resistance movement to the occupation regime during the Great Patriotic War in Ukraine.