Kollectivschuld, or collective wine, is simply a subject that causes discussion far from objective. In German society, the belief that the crimes of the 3rd Reich do not burden the full nation prevailed. This should have been accepted erstwhile it came to work for them, for this was the case for the perpetrators. It's different erstwhile it comes to the moral dimension. The nation is simply a community that is charged with both crime and distinguishing the good done in its name. Ukrainians have the first and the second on their conscience, due to the fact that there were no shortages of those who saved Poles and died as they did at the hands of UPA's torturers.
In the current situation erstwhile the president of Ukraine honored UPA, giving a military unit its name, 1 cannot avoid reminding what UPA actually was.
And it is not a problem of historical policy of Ukraine, and especially Poland. The values on which Ukraine wants to build its face present as a state and a nation are at stake, while claiming its presence in the European Union. You don't gotta go back to a well-known UPA arrangement. It is adequate to remind that in 1944 it counted 25-40 1000 members. It is besides known that the Ukrainian Police Battalions (Schutzmannschaft) had a full of 30 to 35 1000 people, that they were organized and led by the German business authorities and that most of their members deserted erstwhile it became clear that Germany did not think of creating an independent Ukraine.
So presenting UPA as a heroic liberation army laying the basis for a sovereign Ukrainian state is more than an exaggeration. The fact is that UPA has become the armed arm of the CNS, and this ideology derives from Dmytro Doncov, who in his Ukrainian Decalogue nationalist justified the crime for the sake of the cause. This was the function of UPA in cleaning up Polish east provinces from the Polish population. Memorising her and Bandera as a model of heroism and their function in the uprising of the Ukrainian state cannot find acceptance of the nations that are alien to the genocide of the worst species, due to the fact that combined with the unimaginable suffering of the victims. It is no wonder that the European Parliament in February 2010 condemned president Viktor Yushchenko's decision to give Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine and at the same time pointed out that the glorification of this character was contrary to European values.
The opposition to what president Żeleński did is so a substance of Poland, but to an equal degree besides of any nation for which ethics, even not necessarily religiously motivated, has any meaning.
All the more amazing and worse, however, not so much that allegedly 99 percent of Ukrainians support the Żeleński decision, which is incorrect essentially, claiming that Ukraine can honor whomever it wants without looking at someone's permission. unusual are the statements of any politicians in Poland, including Sikorski, who always has revelations, referred to in Germany as Latrinengeschichten. 1 of these is: “I wrote so many times about the fact that PiS in 2022 wanted to cooperate with Putin in the partition of Ukraine, but the moods of Poles did not let it. I was ridiculed, even though I had information about Orban's serious conversations - the closest PiS ally, in this direction going. A akin intention led Kaczyński and Morawiecki on an expedition to Kiev and in the thought of introducing NATO troops (Polish) to western Ukraine. The writers learned nothing from the communicative of Zaolzie. If they could get into an alliance with Putin, they would." Rather, it turns out that PiSowcy may, however, remember Zaolzi, while the abroad Minister likes creativity that does not oblige to check what he preaches.
In general, this amazes the threshing of straw in many environments dealing with pains in Poland. There is much ignorance here, both on the Ukrainian and Polish sides. After all, before many years Wiktor Poliszczuk warned against nesting of the OUN-shaped nationalism, but it was fought by Ukrainians and many Poles. And it took years for abroad historians like Per Anders Rudling and John-Paul Himka to admit that the OUN-UPA legacy assessment by Polishuk was accurate and that he was ahead of his time. Yuri Latysz, a Ukrainian historian working abroad, has late addressed many issues. In his opinion The CNS was a marginal movement during the interwar period and its terrorist activities, calculated to trigger retaliation by the Polish authorities (and thus to increase support for the CNS among the Ukrainian population), met with the condemnation of Ukrainian mainstream. UPA took over the fascist ideology of the CNS. [1].
Ukraine, or at least its leaders, goes into denial. Nobody plans to retaliate for the Volyn genocide. No 1 can be held accountable anymore, but it is possible and essential to require the designation of moral guilt, due to the fact that only then will a barrier be built to defend from returning to the Decalogue of Doncov, which does not fit into any civilized option determining the existence of the state and society. Honoring UPA and flagism is not the way. The sooner people like Zelenski and his kind understand, the better.
[1] Yuri Latysz, Russia’s Enemy No. 1: Stepan Bandera in Ukraine’s Politics of Memory during the Russo–Ukrainian War. past as a Battlefield: Conflicting Interpretations of the Past in Central and east Europe. Policy Papers 04/2025. Institute of Central Europe | Institute of Central Europe, Lublin
