Professor Grzegorz Motyka, late appointed, at the request of the head of the MON, a associate of the government's Russian Influence Commission, published an article on the 27th AK Division in the historical supplement "Gazeta Wyborcza" ("The Biggest Unit of the Home Army", GW, 15-16.06.2024). On the occasion, he attacked dead border activists for allegedly torpedoing the “fruitful” Polish-Ukrainian dialogue.
It concerns the dialog between the 27th AK Division and the Ukrainian Union in Poland and Ukrainian historians between 1996 and 2002. At 1 point, the "dialogue" ended. Why? Motyka explains this: “The openness and desire for dialog between the Volinese combatants has been severely criticized by the radicals. At her insistence, the seminars were yet abandoned. It is characteristic that the AK soldiers, as it later turned out, criticized the environment, among which 2 erstwhile members of the russian militia aiders (astrebitious battalions) and Colonel of the interior safety Corps were leading".
It does not mention a name, but in the end environment they are well known. These are: Stanisław Jastrzębski, Szczepan Siekierka and Colonel Jan Niewiński (both in the 2013 photo). They're all dead. The usage of the “Colonel of the interior safety Corps” at the address of Jan Niewiński is, of course, despicable, due to the fact that at the time erstwhile the CWB fought UPA (end of the 1940s). Niewiński was 26 years old and Colonel of the CBW was not. Furthermore, Mr. Motyka "missed" the fact that Niewiński was an AK associate and commandant of self-defense in Rybcza k. Krzemieniec from 1943 to 1944.
But that's not the crucial thing. The problem is that it was not the 3 end activists who led to the end of the Polish-Ukrainian dialogue. The reasons were completely different, and Mr. Motyka knows it, but he hopes that no 1 remembers what truly happened. 1 of the participants in this "dialogue" explained this very sincerely. Andrzej Żupanskiwho represented the 27th AK Division and believed in whispers Jack Kuroniathat specified dialog must be undertaken. To remind you of the facts, I will mention to the text I published in our articles in 2008:
"When the planet Union of National Army Soldiers, or, in fact, part of it, bringing together the 27th AK Division (Wołyńska) brought forward the thought of joint Polish-Ukrainian historical conferences aimed at "getting to the truth" about the latest Polish-Ukrainian past – most of the end environments were skeptical. In time, erstwhile it turned out that the Polish side was going to far-reaching concessions to the Ukrainian partner (e.g. consent to usage the word "national-library formation" at UPA) – the moods towards Polish organizers of this task became hostile. Under peculiar fire was Andrzej Żupanski from the environment of the 27th AK Division. All the more so, due to the fact that initially the task was sponsored by “Gazeta Wyborcza”, and 1 of the promoters was Jacek Kuroń. In addition, the partner of the Polish side was the Ukrainian Union in Poland – an organization that openly glorifies the CNS-UPA, among another things in its body “Our Word”.
Nevertheless, conferences were held, both in Poland and Ukraine (from 1996 to 2002). In the book published now ("Tragic Events Behind Bug and San more than sixty Years ago – learn the verdict of Polish and Ukrainian historians", planet Union of Soldiers AK, RYTM, Warsaw 2007, p. 80) Andrzej Żupański describes, synthetically, their course. It was, as the text shows, a way through torment. From the very beginning, the Ukrainian side treated the full task after the stepmother – a terrible organization, a biased selection of historians who were in addition not substantively prepared to take up the subject or cultivated primitive flag propaganda. The participation excluded those Polish historians who did not like the Ukrainian (Bander) side. During the meeting, she struggled to pass the blame on the Polish side, and erstwhile the Polish side refused to condemn the “Wisła” Action – the Ukrainian Union in Poland withdrew from participation in conferences, and the Batory Foundation, which supported financially the organization of the conference – withdrew grants. It came to light at this point that the Ukrainian Union in Poland had only 1 goal – to condemn the “Wisła” Action and thus someway equalize UPA crimes with Polish actions against it. During the duration of the conference they were held at the full indifference of the Polish and Ukrainian state authorities. Finally, a protocol of arrangements and discrepancies was drawn up and that was the end. Ukrainian historians who admitted in the course of the gathering that there was a tragedy in Volyn and Podolu, did not take up this subject for intra-Ukrainian use, due to the fact that they would have been consensual. In the end Andrzej Żupanski expresses his disappointment with the effects of the project. He writes:
“In 2005, the neo-nationalist agition began in Ukraine, so that UPA would receive the Kombatan powers. In this case, Poland has behaved freely. no of the institutions of the Polish State considered it essential to talk on this matter. The Ministry of abroad Affairs, the Institute of National Memory and the Council for the Protection of the Memorial of Combat and Martyrdom have remained silent and silent to this day. After all, UPA's nomination and its classification as national heroes Ukraine would mean that this country accepts the killing of 100,000 Poles. Is that how he cares about his close relation with his neighbor? After all, specified an act closes the doors to NATO and the European Union to the Ukrainians! A country supporting terrorism cannot be a associate of these organisations (such as Turkey), and Polish Cress organisations in and abroad have adequate evidence and adequate decication to effectively protest Ukraine's acceptance of these structures. Isn't silence in our country the best way to get Ukraine closer to Russia and push it distant from Europe? ...
We hope that the book will besides scope the Presidents of the States and will facilitate a decisive decision on this key issue, which is an obstacle to the further approximation of both our nations. Poland has 3 acts of repentance towards Ukraine and the Ukrainians (not counting a fewer apologies of Alexander Kwasniewski): 1990 legislature Resolution on the Vistula Action; A message by 200 intellectuals in 1997 on the same subject and participation in the ceremony in Pavlocom. Ukraine only one: in Poryck (Pawliwce) 11 July 2003.
There is simply a clear deficiency of interest in akin acts on the part of Ukraine, even though it is her and not Poland, to condemn. Poland's organisation of ceremonies in Pawłokoma did not meet with a akin intention of Ukrainians. And the Polish authorities do not request it. For respective years now there have been conclusions from the Council for the Protection of the Memorial of Walk and Martyrdom on the exhumation of the remains of Poles murdered in the Borderlands and their transfer from burial sites to the nearest Catholic cemetery. The Council’s monitors shall not have effect. We besides regret the deficiency of any support from the Council by the Ministry of abroad Affairs or another sufficiently advanced Polish institutions, specified as the Catholic Church. As if it were indifferent to our Church that tens of thousands of murdered Catholics have been resting for sixty years in unconsecrated land...
The planet Union of National Army Soldiers believes that the only act that should be done to guarantee that the past ceases to stand in our way is the condemnation by the Ukrainian public and authorities of the crimes committed during planet War II by the Ukrainian nationalists on the population of the Polish confederate east Borders of the Republic of Poland. To accomplish this, the Ministry of abroad Affairs should represent this position in its contacts with representatives of the Ukrainian authorities. The 2003 Presidential Declaration did not give emergence to any negative effects. Ukraine is not only nationalists and communists, but besides a large intellectual center which knows that crimes should be condemned, specified as the crime of starving millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s.
Poland's influence in Ukraine is very limited, but otherwise it is with Polish Ukrainians who are Polish citizens. The Ukrainian Union in Poland, representing this national minority, should besides condemn the officially and publically known criminal past of Ukrainian nationalists.
In the meantime, all questions of our Association of Ukrainian Unions in Poland are sold in silence. The Ukrainian Union in Poland seemingly believes that, surviving in Poland, it is possible to praise this crime with silence. The last president of the General Board of ZUwP on the question of whether UPA should become a national bohathete of Ukraine, he replied yes. Thus there are no criminals, assassins of tens of thousands of Poles: men, women and children, mostly killed in a cruel way. There are only heroes!
To conclude, after the investigation of Polish and Ukrainian historians, after they have established all the basic facts, it remains only to condemn the crimes by Ukraine and Ukrainians. Whether it will come to this – it is unknown. It can only be assumed that if the Ukrainians in Poland do not do so, there is small chance. But if the Ukrainian Union in Poland did what it should do, an example from Poland would be of large importance to the average Ukrainian. The planet Association of National Army Soldiers aims, after the publication of this book and its affirmative reception, to release its Ukrainian and English version.”
So was it worth it? – 1 can ask a question. most likely Polish initiators of this task had different expectations – they felt that dialog was the better way to get to the truth. In the meantime, all they've accomplished is to uncover the actual face of their partners. I think it's an infinite effect, but it's good both. Now no 1 from the Ukrainian Union in Poland, for example, will be able to claim that in Poland the end environments are irresponsible and do not want to talk about history. Now it is certain that ZUwP does not want to discuss if this 1 does not go his way. Andrzej Żupański's harsh words are besides an expression of his deep disappointment about what happened. possibly you had to go through it to get free of illusions.”
So much of my line from years ago. I have only 1 question – does Mr. Motyka know this publication Andrzej Żupański? If so, what motives do they follow by lying to the surviving eyes on the pages of the “Gazeta Wyborcza” and branding the dead end activists?
Jan Engelgard
