Some 80 years ago Ukrainian resistance against the imposition of Moscow’s rule was akin to David against Goliath. In fact, David was alone facing more than one Goliath. No one supplied lethal weapons. The Ukrainian soldiers used their own – sometimes very primitive, or those which they had managed to sizer. Nevertheless, by some accounts the struggle lasted into the late 1950s.
It was partisan warfare supported by the population, mostly sporadic with the element of surprise as the main weapon.
In considering historical events, we look for current relevance. In other words, we seek effect on current events. The more significant or lasting the effect, the greater the importance.
So, let’s go back to events 80 years old. How can they be relevant today? They can be and they are.
Ukraine is in the midst of a savage war that no one expected it to stand up to, let alone have a chance of winning. The war was to last days according to the aggressor. Yet here we are, more than six months later, with the likelihood of a Ukrainian victory.
There is an intangible reason why Ukraine has been so indomitable and, perhaps, so persevering. Frankly it is because of its history.
The Ukrainian nation as a substantive entity with a history of statehood has been existent for 1,200 years. The city of Kyiv was founded in the fifth century and the Kyivan state appeared in the ninth century.
But Ukrainian independence and statehood has generally been intermittent and short-lived over the years. Today’s independence of 31 years is the longest such period in modern times. Perhaps for that reason, Ukrainian historiography is replete with tragedy and struggle.
This year we can take time to observe one such heroic struggle. Some 80 years ago in the midst of the conflict of World War II, largely fought on Ukrainian land in 1942, the people of Ukraine created an army – a national people’s army to fight the many enemies of Ukraine. There were the Nazi Germans; there were the Soviet Russians, the Polish partisans of a government in exile, and the Polish communist forces. Even the Hungarians, Romanians and Czechoslovaks were not friends or allies, but were aligned with the Nazis or the Soviet Russians.
The OUN-UPA
The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) combined with the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) are often referred to as a singular term for the Ukrainian liberation struggle from 1929 through to the 1950s at least.
Without the OUN there would not have been a UPA. Still, the UPA was a nationwide phenomenon. However, the core of its first squads consisted of members of the OUN. They were integral parts of one movement – essentially, the OUN’s structure included a military wing. A varied format was used in order to attract non-OUN conscripts.
At its peak, the UPA’s personnel consisted of some 200,000 personnel, including an armed underground as well as security services, communications, medical and sanitary services. A comparison with the number of members of UPA fighters, their organization and duration with other non-government partisan formations, suggests that the UPA was not just a fighting guerilla formation — in many respects it was a well-organized army albeit without a state or government, but not without leadership.
Daria Husiak, the last scout for General Roman Shukhevych, the commander in chief of the UPA, passed away recently on Aug. 12, aged 98. She was a member of both the OUN and the UPA. Her life was that of many Ukrainian nationalists of that time. She first joined the OUN youth section, then the ranks of full membership.
In 1947, she became the personal scout of General Shukhevych. According to Soviet evidence, in January 1950 she was directed by Shukhevych to go to Moscow using false documents to establish liaison with the U.S. Embassy – which she did. Upon her return, on March 4, 1950, she was arrested. She spent the next 25 years in Soviet prisons and concentration camps. Her duty was to carry on the struggle in prison and camp.
Husiak served as an example for the younger generation. Upon her release in 1975, together with other former political prisoners, she pursued an active role in community and cultural matters on behalf of Ukraine.
Daria Husiak
Traditionally, October 14, 1942, the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Protectress, is often referred to as the date that the first UPA unit was formed. The year is accurate, but the actual date is symbolic. The UPA declared this day its official holiday. In fact, in September and October 1942, a member of the OUN, “Ostap,” began his work in the woods of Polissya (Northwest Ukraine) to form the first armed units to actively fight against the Nazi invaders. After a few months, these armed groups took shape as the first units of the UPA.
The OUN-UPA has been the subject of many treatises, research papers, articles, etc. as well as diatribes, and propaganda written by historians, journalists, political activists and propagandists – Ukrainian and foreign, friendly and hostile. Enemies of the OUN-UPA, have furnished assessments on the OUN-UPA as well.
Heinrich Schoene, Nazi General Commissar of Volyn-Podillya, reported at a meeting in Rivne on June 5, 1943, to Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories Alfred Rosenberg that “Ukrainian nationalists cause more difficulties than the Bolshevik gangs” to his administration.
Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs, lamented the UPA’s success, because of his own mistakes.
A mortal enemy of the OUN-UPA was Pavel Sudoplatov. He had been deputy director of Soviet Foreign Intelligence from 1939 until 1942, then appointed the director of the Administration of Special Tasks, until finally the director of the Fourth Directorate. His assessment of the Ukrainian nationalist struggle during and after World War II was expressed in his memoirs published in 1994 with much animosity but equal respect.
Following World War II, The New York Times carried several articles about the Ukrainian nationalist struggle affecting the political environment in Eastern Europe.
Just after the war, the general staff of the UPA issued an appeal to all Ukrainians who had been interned or exiled: “Wherever you are, in the mines, the forest or the camps, always remain what you have formerly been – remain true Ukrainians and continue our fight.”
The role of the OUN-UPA in Soviet camps was significant and dramatic. Leading OUN members such as Kateryna Zarytska, Mykhaylo Soroka, Yuriy Shukhevych, the son of the Commander-in-chief of the UPA, or the aforementioned Daria Husak who were interned, became symbols of resistance in camps and prisons.
U.S. journalist Anne Applebaum in her book “Gulag” noted, in particular, the Ukrainian political prisoners in the Gulags. She stressed that by far the most influential ethnic groups in the camps were Ukrainians and Baltic nations. Their influence was both in their large numbers and their open opposition to the Soviet Union.
Applebaum offered up as an example of Ukrainian organization and discipline, a specific event – the “Kingir uprising” in one of the Kazakhstan camps. She described the uprising and concluded that the strike committee had been chosen by a “Center” and assessed that the Ukrainians behaved as if they were united by some “organization.”
Legacy
The legacy of the OUN-UPA translated in Soviet society into a jargon and colloquialism that denoted hostility, especially by the Russian segment. Ukrainian patriots in everyday life were referred to as “Bandery” or “Banderivtsi,” and “Banderists” in English.
Ivan Dziuba, one of the more noteworthy Ukrainian dissidents in the Soviet Union in his seminal publication “Internationalism or Russification” cited this in one of the events he narrated:
“When in 1963 the Young Writers’ and Artists’ Club decided to honor the memory of Ivan Franko and organized a torchlight procession to his monument, you could hear Russian murmuring from the crowd along Kiev’s main street: ‘Look! Banderists!(sic) What a lot of them!’”
This label has survived. The connotation remains hostile on the part of Ukraine’s enemies or detractors. Those so labelled have accepted the term readily as a badge of honor. One of the most popular war songs in Ukraine today includes the words: “Bandera is our father…”
Russian brutality notwithstanding, and consisting of all four crimes specified by the International Criminal Court – aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide – Ukraine has been largely successful in the current war, much to the surprise not only of the aggressor but of most people.
The future may not be certain, but it is clear that Ukraine will not surrender. There could be outright victory for Ukraine, or the worst-case scenario that the war will continue in hybrid and partisan fashion. But every Ukrainian grandmother will be equipped with explosives.
There is no illusion that Russians will accept to abide by international norms respecting democracy, international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their neighbors. There is an expectation, however, that the entire civilized democratic world will never again bury its head in the sand.
Ukraine’s perseverance has been a testimonial to the resilient people of Ukraine and the military and humanitarian assistance of the West. One reason why Ukraine has needed, and will continue to require, military, humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for the foreseeable future, is that despite Ukraine’s independence for 31 years, a Russian fifth column has been operative in Ukraine for many years. It has used sophisticated and crude attempts at cultural genocide and political subversion.
Western naivete has contributed much to Russia’s ability to stall Ukraine’s development. The Financial Times actually endorsed the Russian dupe Viktor Yanukovych for president of Ukraine in 2010. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitored the 2010 election and scored it fair and transparent when actually it was marred by gross fraud, consisting of intimidation and use of administrative resources.
As a result, when Yanukovych was ousted by the people of Ukraine, leading to Russia attacking both Crimea and the Donbas region, the Ukrainian armed forces were estimated at only 6,000 able personnel.
What ensued in the post-Revolution of Dignity Ukraine, was a military and economic buildup and development. Only now has the West truly recognized the Russian menace and perhaps, the “opening of eyes” is one of the silver linings of this brutal war.
And so, with its indomitable spirit, honed by a historical struggle as exemplified by the heroes of the OUN-UPA, and the enhancement of its military capability through personal dedication and assistance from the West, Ukraine today is not only competing on the field of battle against what was considered great odds, but is also democracy’s best chance of saving the world.
This is the legacy we observe on the 80th anniversary of the formation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the 31st anniversary of renewed Ukrainian statehood.
Askold S. Lozynskyj is a New York attorney and president of the Ukrainian Free University Foundation. He was president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America between 1992-2000 and president of the Ukrainian World Congress between 1998-2008.
The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.
