Talk:Polish–Ukrainian ethnic conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: There seems to be a lot of red links in the infobox which are illegal per the WP:MOS. Can these be removed until an article is created? Great article besides that. 

scope_creepTalk 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the red links, but can I replace it with ordinary text or a interlanguage link? Olek Novy (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject[edit]

What is the subject of this article? According to its name, it should cover the whole Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the 1940s, in which no side clearly won, as the main "battlefield" was occupied by the Soviet Union and UPA was fighting there against the Soviets, while the Polish gov suppressed UPA behind the Curzon line.

Instead, the article covers the conflict behind the Curzon line, which is just a part of the whole. This is misleading. Dƶoxar (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it until the problem is solved.--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the causes of the conflict Olek Novy (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The article is covering only part of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the 1940s, not the whole. So to avoid misleading I rename it. --Dƶoxar (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And was there a Polish-ukrainian conflict after? Olek Novy (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it overall makes more sense to cover up the topic behind the Curzon line because Volhynia and Galicia are already mentioned here. Olek Novy (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two problems with it:
  • interwiki links lead to articles about the whole conflict
  • the current article's name, "Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict", refers to the whole conflict.
My suggestions: either change the article's name and remove current interwiki links, or rewrite the article to make it cover the whole conflict. Otherwise there's a clear misleading. I'd prefer rewriting the article to make it more general.--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the point of rewriting the article to add Volhynia when its already mentioned in a another article? Olek Novy (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is: Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict has geographical and temporal frames. Geographical frame includes Galicia, Volhynia, Chełm Land (we can also list other smaller places). There's no sense in excluding Volhynia from it. Fot example: The Second World War includes the Easten Front, Western Front, etc., but the article Second World War contains information about the whole war, including all fronts and events, and its result summarizes the final result of the conflict worldwide, not only in a particular country/continent.--Dƶoxar (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the entire article? Olek Novy (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake using "Lublin Voivodeship" in the name, as it also covers other territories behind the Curzon line. I guess "Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict behind the Curzon line" would be a better choice for now.--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion still hasnt ended why are you renaming the page? Olek Novy (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clearly explain your position? Use Polish or any other language if needed, cause I still can't get the idea of what you mean.--Dƶoxar (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

@Dƶoxar the result should remain the same as a Polish victory. Olek Novy (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)L=[reply]

Can you tell what is wrong with current "Result"?--Dƶoxar (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I propose to change/add (changes marked bold):
Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine
--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add A See Aftermath section as the Result parameter in the Templates parameter suggests. Soviet Occupation of Western Ukraine refers only to one part of the conflict and can basically have nothing to do with it. Olek Novy (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Would Write it like this:
See Aftermath
  • Polish Military victory
  • Politically inconclusive
  • High Civilian Casualties on Both Sides
  • Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine
Olek Novy (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or the last point should be : Soviet intervention in Western Ukraine Olek Novy (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no Polish military victory as Poland lost territories. --Dƶoxar (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More political then military Olek Novy (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you call "Polish victory" here? What events? Please add sources and quotes.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Liquidation of UPA on the territories of post-war Poland can be considered a Polish victory. Olek Novy (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in the result you deleted. But this particular episode doesn't summarize the whole conflict. --Dƶoxar (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet intervention in the conflict doesent summarize the conflict neither. And Operation Vistula is the end of the conflict resulting in a Decisive Polish victory. Olek Novy (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why there was a quite long list of events beneath. Soviet intervention is what defined the conflict result, it is accepted as a fact by both Polish and Ukrainian historians.--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the instructions of the Result parameter on the templates page. Olek Novy (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Parameter should stay on how it is. Olek Novy (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments?--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter should stay the same on See Aftermath, Soviet Intervention lasts for 1 year and it definitely didnt end the conflict. Olek Novy (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Motyka (page 409): Undoubtedly, the stop of UPA actions was primarily due to the expulsion of Poles. By the end of 1945, almost 800,000 people left. So, Polish migration from Westen Ukraine that was caused by the Soviet occupation effectively stopped the Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Eastern Galicia and Volhynia. Instead I still don't see sources proving your statements.--Dƶoxar (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not only about the conflict in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia , did you even read the article? Olek Novy (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Soviet intervention interrupted the conflict, as both sides kept military strenght as for 1944 (they proved this with post-war anti-Communist resistance).--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, here are quotes:
This is what Motyka writes: The epilogue of "Burza" was tragic. The Polish troops who revealed themselves were disarmed. The officers were arrested. The Home Army soldiers were given an alternative - going to the labor camps or joining the army of General Zygmunt Berling. At the same time, NKVD began actions aimed at detecting and destroying the Polish conspiracy. --Dƶoxar (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a Davies' quote: On July 26, when the 3rd Guards Tank Army was approaching the outskirts of Lemberg, Polish soldiers of the underground Home Army surfaced, clashed with the German garrison and captured both the citadel and the city center. About 5,000 Home Army members were then unceremoniously arrested by the NKVD. By July 28, former Eastern Galicia was under Soviet control.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the conflict Olek Novy (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments? Quotes? Looks like just your opinion.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Lviv uprising has nothing to do with the conflict. Though Grzegorz Motyka's book is about the UPA the quote you provided is irrelevent to the conflict. i would add this to Lviv Uprising Olek Novy (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes? Sources? It's not enought to say "it has nothing to do", especially if your words contradict historical literature. It is not your blog.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lviv uprising has nothing to do with the UPA, but with the germans, i agree with the fact that The Soviets interrupted the fighting for 6 months, but the quotes or sources you gave mention nothing about this. Olek Novy (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Motyka's quote from the same page: As we know, the attack of Soviet troops was accompanied by the activities of the Polish underground carried out as part of Operation "Burza". In Eastern Galicia, Home Army troops took over Lemberg and many other towns during "Burza". During the operations, there were also actions against Ukrainians. Some Ukrainian activists were interned in Lemberg. According to Ukrainian historians, there were also murders of Ukrainians there, but the number of over seven hundred people given by them seems to be greatly exaggerated.--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Tempest achieved a Military success and what Grzegorz Motyka means that in the Political sense the Operation was tragic. Olek Novy (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Burza" was only one episode. This didn't stop the conflict, and in next pages Motyka describes UPA'a anti-Polish actions in 1944. To make things even more complicated there was collaboration between Polish underground and UPA against the Soviets: The most surprising thing may be that in some places the Polish underground concluded non-aggression agreements with the UPA against the Soviets. This was possible thanks to a change in UPA tactics. This was achieved, for example, in the winter of 1945 in Stryi County. There are reasons to believe that such an alliance, in one case, survived until 1946. (Motyka, page 409) --Dƶoxar (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its stated in the infobox that WiN collaborated with UPA. If you want to you could add an entire section about AK-UPA talks. Olek Novy (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored the fact Burza didn't end the conflict. You still didn't provide any sources for "Polish military victory" in the whole conflict.--Dƶoxar (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the aftermath section there is a source for a polish military victory Olek Novy (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we see in sources UPA stopped its anti-Polish actions because of two reasons: 1. (In Western Ukraine) Population exchange (no Polish victory). 2. (In PRL) Operation Vistula (Polish victory). That means the result is more complicated than "Polish military victory". According to Wikipedia policy you mentioned we should omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Also, I didn't see sources for "Polish military victory" in the whole conflict, could you provide with them here?--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiw About "Polish victory on Post-war territories, Inconclusive in Eastern Galicia and Volhynia"? Olek Novy (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the word "victory" is so important to you? This conflict ended with disastrous deportations for both people, and the undergrounds in both countries continued struggle against the communists. The actual winner was Soviet Union for that time.--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was not "inconclusive" in Eastern Galicia and Volhynia: most of Poles left those territories (that was UPA's goal, even despite this happened mostly due to the Soviet occupation).
Let's stop with see Aftermath. This is OK according to Wikipedia policy and this has more sense. --Dƶoxar (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish migration from Western Ukraine was rather a defeat than a victory, and the Soviets were rather UPA allies in that case: In summer 1944 many Poles in Ukraine could still believe that Poland would, in the end, regain or even extend its Ukrainian territories, and faith that Britain and the United States could dictate conditions to the Soviet Union was widespread. A few months of Soviet rule changed many minds. NKVD pressure revived memories of 1939–41, while the UPA continued the attacks on Polish civilians begun in 1943–44. Well after the end of the war, the UPA in Soviet Ukraine ethnically cleansed Poles who had not registered for “repatriation.” It is likely that the NKVD created false UPA units and used them to destroy Polish settlements; it is also quite possible that NKVD units “unofficially” attacked Poles. However that may be, the “repatriation” of Poles from Soviet Ukraine is best seen as an unofficially cooperative effort of the NKVD and the UPA. [Snyder, Timothy. The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. - p. 188]

Also, UPA units behind the Curzon line were a small part of UPA, their defeat cannot be described as defeat of the whole UPA: After the informal border shift of 1944, the main body of the UPA fought Soviet power in Soviet West Ukraine, its commanders regarding Poland as a peripheral field of operations. In early 1945, Iaroslav Starukh organized a new UPA command for Poland within its new westerly frontiers. Reorganization was complete by August 1945, when the new Soviet-Polish border was publicized. In 1945 in Poland, UPA units probably never numbered more than twenty-four hundred troops. [Snyder, Timothy. The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. - p. 191]--Dƶoxar (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet union was against the UPA and carried out many actions against them it's definitely a victory for Soviet and Polish Communists Olek Novy (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's use sources. I cited a book by a historian who teaches history at Yale; he published a lot of books about the history of Eastern Europe. He stated that the “repatriation” of Poles from Soviet Ukraine is best seen as an unofficially cooperative effort of the NKVD and the UPA, while after the informal border shift of 1944, the main body of the UPA fought Soviet power in Soviet West Ukraine, its commanders regarding Poland as a peripheral field of operations. This gives us a broader context that cannot be described as The Overall result of the conflict was a victory for the Polish and Soviet communist governments, and a struggle of WiN and UPA units against both governments. At least, in that case, you should mention Ukrainian communist gov. as a winner as well (agreement on the population exchange was signed by Ukrainian SSR [1]).
The determination of the result of a conflict depends on the goals of the belligerents. The main goal for both was to keep control over Eastern Galicia and Volhynia. In the context of UPA this included the expulsion of Poles from these regions (Motyka, p. 303; Snyder, p. 203). Ultimately, Polish and Ukrainian nationalist undergrounds failed to achieve their main goals, while some of their goals were achieved (in the case of the UPA, Poles left Western Ukraine). So, if in that context UPA was defeated, the Polish underground was defeated as well.
But the main problem with your statement regarding "The Overall result..." is that UPA was not defeated in the frame of this conflict. It kept its strengths and was fighting the Soviets afterwards. Those units that were defeated in PRL were just local remnants (as stated in Snyder's book). And the ultimate cessation of UPA's activity in the Soviet Union goes beyond this conflict.
To summarize, the more precise result from your perspective should look something like this: "Polish Communist and Ukrainian Communist victory over UPA and AK". But this is misleading, as
1) it makes an impression that the conflict was ideological, not ethnic,
2) that Polish and Ukrainian communists were independent forces, while they weren't,
3) and that UPA and AK were complitely defeated while they weren't.
Do you have any sources for you statement?--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ets go on one of you're first edits on this article: "Polish victory over the UPA on the Polish post-war territory" Olek Novy (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has no sense, read the text above carefully.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polish victory over the UPA units in Post-war Poland Olek Novy (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you both noticed that we are talking about several separate conflicts here? Therefore, it is impossible to clearly declare the parties and also the final result of the conflict? Marcelus (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's another point. I'm just trying to explain to Olek Novy it's difficult to talk about someone's victory in the context of these events.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty obvious; there was several local conflicts, without clearly expressed goals and without clear conclusions in form of treaties or deals; in general the whole conflict ended with the Soviet offensive that "resolved" all the issues. Marcelus (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be continued by a guerilla war in Post-War poland. Olek Novy (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edit. Here's the quote you use: "...and the Polish communist regime legitimated itself through its victory over the UPA and the creation of a monoethnic state." This means that the Polish communist regime used the victory over some of the UPA remnants behind the Curzon line (see Snyder, 191) as a propaganda tool to hide the AK and the Polish Republic de facto defeat. --Dƶoxar (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the same page of Przegląd polityczny: "The resettlements of 1947 destroyed the UPA in Poland, which the OUN-B considered a less important theater of war anyway. The UPA fought mainly in Soviet Ukraine..." [2]--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither the American nor the British government showed any interest in the past of the Ukrainians, who were recruited for difficult and dangerous operations. Soviet officers killed or sent UPA soldiers and their families to exile. And the Polish communist regime legitimized itself through its victory over the UPA and the creation of a nationally uniform state." Olek Novy (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed you edit. Reasons explained above.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I wonder if this is the best name for this? What sources support it? Pl wiki uses "Polish-Ukranian partisan conflict", not necessarily better. @Olek Novy @Marcelus @Dreamcatcher25 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict" makes more sense, and even in the article about Ethnic conflicts it says that it's a conflict between Two or more ethnic groups. Olek Novy (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, @Olek Novy: current name is scandalous, it wasn't an "ethnic conflict", because it wasn't a conflict between two ethnoses Marcelus (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then what was it? Olek Novy (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a genocide perpetrated by the OUN-UPA against Polish people, which resulted in the short partisan warface in Lublin region in 1944. Marcelus (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ARticle mentions partisan warfare from 1942 and not from 1944 and the genocide is explained in another article. Olek Novy (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And genocides are also examples of a ethnic conflict. Olek Novy (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just "conflict"? Polish-Ukrainian conflict during the Second World War? Marcelus (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were also fights after WW2 Olek Novy (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polish-Ukrainian relations (1939-194?); on the second thought I don't think we should frame this as conflict. Marcelus (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relations dont make any sense as the article talks about battles between the two ethnic conflict makes more sense. Olek Novy (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battles are also part of the relations? Your argument makes no sense Marcelus (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes a conflict marked by targeted killings, retaliations, formation of self-defense units, and territorial disputes between Poles and Ukrainians. The current title accurately reflects the content's focus on a ethnic conflict rather than a more general overview of relations between the two groups. Olek Novy (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you arbitrary lumped them together without giving any diplomatic or political overview. Marcelus (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not arbitrary but i translated the text from the Polish wikipedia, and i eventually expanded the article time after time. Olek Novy (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Polish article is about "partisan fights" and then the scope and content is ok, but if you want to name this article "conflict" or even "ethnic conflict" then the scope is much bigger. Marcelus (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Waldemer Lotnik Calls it a ethnic conflict, while David R. Marples calls it a Conflict. Olek Novy (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just started to read it and it seems like a big POV push. First of all Operation Zamość wasn't about removing Polish and Ukrainian inhabitants, but about removing Polish people, and settling there German and Ukrainian settlers. That's why Polish underground was attacking these villages.
Also the first event of this conflict is now some unspecified attacks on Ukrainians by Polish underground in Nov 1942. Why start then? Why not from 1939 OUN diversion? Or not from Ukrainian massive collaboration? Marcelus (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it mentions The Ukrainian operation aswell not just Operation Zamóść an the OUN Diversion didnt really start the conflict as there wasnt any fighting for 2 years. Olek Novy (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no fighting in 1942 either, but for some reason you make it a starting point. For some reason you changed the name of the Polish article. Can you say what was the reason? Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the Polish article name wasn't changed on pl wiki. I assume you are asking why Olek did not use the same name as the pl wiki article uses? "Polish-Ukrainian partisan warfare"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean, my wording wasn't the best. Marcelus (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Olek Novy why did you moved article back to this wrong name? I think it was proven in the discussion why this name is wrong. Marcelus (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source proving the name Olek Novy (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source doesn't prove anything. Also Lotnik's memoires is hardly WP:RELIABLE source. First of all why did you change name of the original Polish article "Polsko-ukraińskie walki partyzanckie"? You still didn't answer that. Marcelus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I did so is because Ethnic conflict makes more sense, "Polish-Ukrainian partisan fighting" Hardly does. Olek Novy (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the article describes partisan fighting, not an "ethnic conflict" (WP:SCOPE); also you need to have strong, reliable sources for the latter, so far you failed to present even one. Also you still don't really answer my question: why it makes more sense? Preciesly. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As i said earlier the article has examples of an ethnic conflict. Olek Novy (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Olek Novy this is not a child's play, we are talking serious issues here. You need to answer comprehensively. Present series of citations of reliable sources which describes this event as an "ethnic conflict", otherwise rest your case. What you are doing now is WP:BLUDGEON. Wikipedia is built on certain rules, and you need to follow them. Marcelus (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David R. Marples mentions it as a conflict in his book "Heroes and Villians" Olek Novy (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't; he uses the term "ethic conflict" once in the whole book and not in a relation to the WW2 events. Marcelus (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what would @Dƶoxar say about a change? Olek Novy (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a simpler Polish-Ukrainian conflict for now? Considr Arab–Israeli conflict, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Gaza–Israel conflict, Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, Islamic State–Taliban conflict, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Kurdish–Turkish conflict, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1942-1947) sounds good Olek Novy (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a problem all and not most of these articles have ongoing conflicts, I think ethnic conflict is best here like Polish-Belarusian ethnic conflict Olek Novy (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the existence of another problematic article we need to review. Sigh. For our article here, I'd prefer Polish-Ukrainian conflict or Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1942-1947) - but is the date range correct? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article with the name "Polish Ukrainian conflict" would make more dense if it would be from 1848 to 1947. Olek Novy (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but why 1848 and not 1648 for example? As for the narrower scope here, I'd 1939 rather than 1942 might be better too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, @Olek Novy: I don't think we should be talking about conflict at all, we don't have sources that supports that. If there was any conflict it was only with the OUN-UPA faction, not with "Ukraine" or "Ukrainians". There was an attempt to frame relations between OUN-UPA and Polish underground as "war" or "Second Polish-Ukrainian War", but it was largely rejected by academy, and it's only supported by ideologist such as Viatrovych.
@Olek Novy proposition of the 1848-1947 Polish-Ukrainian conflict is another POV OR, not supported by any sources.
In fact Polish-Ukrainian relations in such a long span of time, but also in the years 1942-1947, cannot be described simply as "conflict", that's why I propsed someting more neutral or with a bigger scope. Whole another thing is arbitrarity of the date range. 1942 was proposed by Viatrovyvh simply to put blame on the Polish underground for instigating this "conflict", ignoring everything that happened before that date. Marcelus (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pl wiki article seems to be based on Polish sources only but is also giving the 1942-1947 date range. Right now I think Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1942-1947) is the best name. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept it but at the start there should still be "or Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict" Olek Novy (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative names are fine, but should be referenced to a source that uses this term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polish article is about partisan clashes, and even them didn't start before 1943; Polish article also has many issues, and in general it's based on older literature. Newer Motyka books should be used more extensively, and there is no reference to Zajączkowski or Hałagida. Even the one book of Motyka that Polish article is using, is called: Tak było w Bieszczadach. Walki polsko-ukraińskie 1943-1948 (This is how it was in the Bieszczady Mountains. Polish-Ukrainian fights 1943-1948), as you can see date range is completely different. Also term "conflict" isn't used. Marcelus (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zajączkowski is mentioned 3 times. Olek Novy (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't notice that. Nonetheless my argument still stands: there is no source that would describe some countywide Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the years 1942-1947. There were particular conflicts in certain areas. Actual partisan fighting was basically limited to them. Marcelus (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
partisan fighting doesent only prove an ethnic conflict, massacres aswell are a example of one. Olek Novy (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I don't think so, nonetheless you need to present reliable sources that bakc up your claims Marcelus (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, adding a year range to the article name is a good idea since there was Polish-Ukrainian conflict at other times (ex. before '39, during early stages of Polish-Soviet War, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents[edit]

@Olek Novy I noticed that you revert some of my changes without giving any rationale ([3]). Can you explain why you think that

  • Freedom and Independence Association should be on Ukrainian side of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict?
  • Germany should be on Ukrainian side, and Hungary should be on Polish side?
  • Soviet commanders should be leaders of Polish formations?

Marcelus (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a line seperatnig the sides and the Freedom and Independence Association has a note same with hungary i would remove germany entirely. Olek Novy (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous to put WiN on Ukrainian side just because there was a brief anit-Soviet alliance between it and OUN. Marcelus (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, however hungary still should be on the Polish side. Olek Novy (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Can you explain your line of thinking? And preferably present any reliable source? Marcelus (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the Hungary footnote is unreferenced... that needs to be fixed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2024[edit]

Polish–Ukrainian ethnic conflict → Polish–Ukrainian relations (1939–1947) – The article's author was unable to demonstrate the source basis for the existence of a Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict in 1942-47; the very fact that he places the Polish anti-communist and pro-independence Freedom and Independence Association on the Ukrainian side demonstrates his poor grasp of the subject, but also, and above all, the inability to narrate the entire history solely through the optics of "ethnic conflict."

For indeed, this is a misleading take. First, because it is difficult to define the actors. The Polish side is not homogeneous: there are many organizations, and the three main currents (the Home Army, the Nationalists and the Communists) had different attitudes toward the Ukrainian cause and did not pursue a uniform policy. Likewise, on the Ukrainian side, there is the OUN-M, OUN-B (and UPA), UCK collaborators, Bulbovets, Ukrainian Soviet partisans, Ukrainian SSR authorities, etc.

Second, despite generally hostile relations, there were also periods of peace, attempts at agreement, and actual alliances. There is an entire book by Grzegorz Motyka and Rafał Wnuk on this subject: "Pany and rezuny. Cooperation of the AK-WiN and the UPA 1945-1947". Many Ukrainians served in the Polish army in 1939 and in the Polish armed forces in the west. Pavlo Shandruk cooperated with the Polish government in exile etc. These are things largely not currently described on Wikipedia.

In the current situation, I see two choices:

  1. due to the fact that the article is a translation from the Polish Wiki of the article under the title " Polish-Ukrainian partisan fighting", we can move it under this title and change the scope to describe the skirmishes between the two partisan movement.
  2. or, as I suggest, move it under the title I proposed and describe the whole of Polish-Ukrainian relations during the war. I believe that such an article would be valuable and would be a " container" tying together all the topics currently described in isolation (the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, the Hrubieszów revolution, the WiN-UPA alliance, etc.).

Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the presence of various organisations and factions on both the Polish and Ukrainian sides, the central issue of the conflict is rooted in ethnic identities - Poles and Ukrainians. The fundamental ethnic tensions underlying the conflict are not affected by the diversity of the groups involved.
  • The overarching narrative of ethnic conflict that characterises much of the interaction between Poles and Ukrainians during this period is not negated by instances of cooperation or peace between particular individuals or factions. Such periods of cooperation are the exception rather than the rule and do not diminish the significance of the ethnic conflict as a whole.
  • For readers seeking information on this particular aspect of Polish-Ukrainian history, the title of the article "Polish-Ukrainian Ethnic Conflict" provides clarity. It accurately reflects the focus of the conflict. It facilitates access to relevant information and promotes a deeper understanding of the historical context.
Olek Novy (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source for claims such as:
  1. the central issue of the conflict is rooted in ethnic identities - Poles and Ukrainians,
  2. the fundamental ethnic tensions underlying the conflict are not affected by the diversity of the groups involved,
  3. periods of cooperation are the exception rather than the rule and do not diminish the significance of the ethnic conflict as a whole?
Marcelus (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the discussion of the article's title, framing the conflict as an ethnic one highlights the fundamental nature of the tensions between Poles and Ukrainians during the period in question. It emphasises that ethnic identities of the groups involved, rather than purely ideological or political differences, were the main drivers of hostilities. This perspective provides a context for the various events and interactions described in the article and allows for a more accurate understanding of the dynamics at play. In addition, identifying the conflict as ethnic helps to distinguish it from other types of conflict and emphasises the importance of addressing underlying ethnic tensions when seeking solutions or reconciliation efforts. Olek Novy (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you need to present that it's a general consensus in literature that "fundamental nature of the tensions between Poles and Ukrainians" was of ethnic nature. Marcelus (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Olek Novy (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's about this random link? Marcelus (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It calls it a "ethnic conflict" and there are more sources like this: [5] Olek Novy (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sources are unavaible, you should provide citations, or at least describe what these sources are saying Marcelus (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wdym by the sources are unavailable? Olek Novy (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, konflikt narodowściowy... but "po 1989 roku". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions the conflict in the 1940s Olek Novy (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the substance involved, please use en dashes instead of hyphens. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the rename per my comments from before. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And hat was the reason for the name problem? Olek Novy (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current content of the article is about armed conflict. If someone else wants to have an article with a broader focus, they are welcome to write it, but shouldn't do so by hijacking an existing article on a notable topic. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your linked query was not for adjective "ethnic" but "armed". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe which of the sources you googled confirms the existence of the "Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict between 1942 and 1947"?
    As far as I can see, the first result is about the " conflict of memory," the second about the current Ukrainian-Russian war, the third about the war of 1918-1919, etc. Snyder writes about ethnic cleansing, while Rapawy writes about the "Polish-Ukrainian civil war," which according to him seems to have lasted from 1942 to 1944.
    It doesn't help that the term you search is " polish Ukrainian armed conflict," not "ethnic conflict." And the use of that phrase is the subject of controversy.
    Moreover, contrary to what you say, now the topic of the article is "Polish-Ukrainian partisan fighting", because such an article was translated from Polish. If you read my proposal then you will see that I propose to stay with this scope, or expand it to general article about P-U relations during World War II. Marcelus (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, there is an entire book about it: [6] The common name on Google Scholar seems to be "Polish–Ukrainian conflict", so I would support that renaming, even though it is also called an ethnic conflict. I haven't seen any English-language sources calling it "partisan fighting", so I could not support that title. (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are completely missing the point. Rapawy's book isn't about "ethnic conflict in 1942-47" years, but about "civil war" in a different date range, it's right in the title. Also the artcilce "The Strength of Diversity: A Micro-History of Ethnic Conflict and Coexistence in Rural Southeast Poland" is about ethnic relations in the southeast Poland, especially in a small Komańcza region - so it cannot be used as a reference for the current title. Really @Buidhe at least examine sources you are referencing, that's very dissapointing on your part.
    If "partisan fighting" isn't ok, then the article should be renamed to "Polish-Ukrainian relations (1939-1947)", because it's both neutral and descriptive. It's also supported by the literature ([7], [8]). If we really want to focus on the violent aspect of them, then we should rename it "Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1943-1947)", following the literature ([9]).
    However, I would encourage the first option as it will show the whole phenomenon in a multi-faceted way. It will also avoid problems with the wiki infobox, which does not deal with conflicts that took place over a longer period of time, in which different actors were involved, sides and alliance changed and so on. Marcelus (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the book made by Sowa he mentions it as an ethnic conflict: [10] Olek Novy (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he does not Marcelus (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    he does. Olek Novy (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Olek Novy, I noticed your tendency to bludgeon discussion and slack approach to constructing an argument. The link you pasted only shows that Sowa used in his book once phrase: "polsko-ukraiński konflikt narodowościowy" (Polish-Ukrainian national conflict), which for once isn't the phrase we are looking for (ethinc conflict), but also not an argument in this discussion, because it's not a prove that there was a continous ethnic P-U conflict in the years 1942-1947. Marcelus (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National conflict and ethnic conflict have the same meaning. Olek Novy (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one missing the point. The book is about the armed conflict during and after wwii. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not phrases, so it does not matter for inclusion in the article that the author calls it both a conflict and a civil war. It only matters what it's called when we are determining the common name. (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, simplifying this to Polish-Ukranian conflict, while not my #1 choice, would be indeed better than keeping this under current conflict. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article talks about, massacres, skirmishes, battles, political tensions, so it should still be considered an ethnic conflict Olek Novy (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The conflict is too complicated and stretched in time to be explained as an ordinary military conflict without provoking endless discussions regarding the correct belligent sides, winners, and losers. I see more sense in rewriting the article in the broader context of Polish-Ukrainian relations at that time.--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A seperate article should be made on reoations between the Polish and Ukrainuian underground like on the Polish wikipedia: [11] Olek Novy (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you linke is about "Attempts at Polish-Ukrainian settlement during World War II" Marcelus (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it discusses Relations between the Polish and Ukrainian underground. Olek Novy (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It discuss attempts at the settlement between Polish government-in-exile and Polish underground state on one side, and various Ukrainian bodies (Petlurists, UNDO, OUN, UCC etc.) on the other side. It's just a part of the Polish-Ukrainian relations during WW2. Marcelus (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah so whats the point of rewriting this article if you could make a second one? Olek Novy (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two different articles would also make sense; in that case, this article should be named more precisely (I think Polish-Ukrainian partizan clashes would be OK). The term "conflict" is too broad if the content regards just military actions.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan fights and conflict have the same meaning and after 1945 there werent realy any "Partisan fights" Olek Novy (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Per User talk:NightWolf1223#Talk:Polish–Ukrainian ethnic conflict#Requested move 14 March 2024 NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT the proposed title change. Virtually no political dispute can be simplistically reduced to two homogeneous – "ethnic" or other – sides. There are typically diverse shades of opinion. Various factors indeed, such as the rise of a common threat, can even bring previous opponents into common alliance. Nihil novi (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For readers seeking information on this particular aspect of Polish-Ukrainian history, the title of the article "Polish-Ukrainian Ethnic Conflict" provides clarity. It accurately reflects the focus of the conflict. Olek Novy (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in Ethnic conflict? Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article covers a series of armed clashes that occurred between Ukrainian guerrillas (UPA) and Polish underground armed partisans.

A suitable title for this article should be "The clashes between Polish and Ukrainian guerrilla forces in WW2". However, the proposed title is also an acceptable option but not ideal. Sleetleos (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish–Ukrainian_ethnic_conflict&oldid=1220607298"