Christoph Mick. Journal of Contemporary History. Volume 46, Issue 2. April 2011.
Perceptions of reality, and not reality itself, determine the behaviour of people. Such perceptions are at the same time subjective and socially determined. While most historians would agree with these statements, in historical practice such truisms are often disregarded. When the perceptions of historical actors diverge from the reconstructed reality, this is seen as an expression of false consciousness. To avoid such specious conclusions I have chosen an approach based on what in German is termed Erfahrungsgeschichte: that is, the history of experience. In German both Erlebnis and Erfahrung translate as ‘experience’, but they have different meanings. Erlebnis is the event and the emotions experienced during the event, while Erfahrung is the result of a successful interpretation of events: the events are given meaning. Following Reinhart Koselleck, Erfahrung (experience) is defined as a process in which perception, interpretation and actions are continuously adjusted to one another. Expectations regarding the future, as well as the previous conditioning of people, affect this process of adjusting experiences. Both expectations and conditioning function as filters through which events are perceived, and they provide models with the help of which reality is then interpreted. The same events can result in completely different Erfahrungen, depending on the factors mentioned. In this article I will use the term ‘experience’ in this sense: that is, as Erfahrung rather than Erlebnis.
What do such considerations have to do with my topic? The end of communism in Eastern Europe initiated a revision of the history of the second world war. Two key questions in this context are the extent of local antisemitism and the anti-Jewish pogroms in Eastern Poland after the German attack on the Soviet Union. Popular interpretations in Poland and Western Ukraine attribute the outbursts of violent antisemitism to an assumed wide-scale collaboration of Jews with the Soviet power. The old stereotype of Judeo-communism has remained very influential, even appearing in scholarly works. In Polish and Ukrainian collective memory, Poles and Ukrainians are seen as the main victims of German and Soviet occupation. The glorification of the heroic struggle of national resistance fighters against oppressors makes it difficult to engage with the question of Polish and Ukrainian participation in nazi crimes, especially in crimes directed against the Jewish population. In Poland a controversial debate on Polish antisemitism was initiated when Jan Gross published his book on the Eastern Polish village Jedwabne, where Polish inhabitants had murdered their Jewish neighbours on 10 July 1941. The Kaczynski government subsequently announced the launch of a new history policy to preserve the traditional heroic image of the Polish nation. In independent Ukraine several governmental and parliamentary commissions have focused on the question of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Orhanizatsija Ukralns’kykh Natsionalistiv, OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrains’ka Povstans’ka Armiia), and how to site these mostly Western Ukrainian nationalist organizations within a new, unifying Ukrainian national narrative. In Eastern Ukraine many people share the dominant Polish and Jewish view of the OUN and UPA as war criminals who collaborated with the nazis, while in Western Ukraine the same nationalists are glorified as heroic fighters against foreign oppression. One person’s hero is another person’s villain. Jewish, Polish and Ukrainian memories of the war contradict each other. Piotr Wrobel spoke of the ‘double memory’ of Poles and Jews, and the Holocaust survivor and historian Philip Friedman wrote of the ‘wide gulf separating the Jewish and Ukrainian interpretations’. Similar mechanisms occur in the debate on Ukrainian-Polish relations, with Ukrainians and Poles accusing each other of having started the ethnic cleansing of the Polish-Ukrainian borderlands.
These multiple, often conflicting memories of the war can be traced back to contradictory experiences. I take these experiences seriously, as an expression of how the groups perceived themselves and others. The article focuses on the multiethnic Eastern Polish, now Western Ukrainian city of Lviv. Located in an ethnographically mostly Ukrainian region, in the interwar period the city was part of the Second Polish Republic, with a Polish majority population. In 1939, 157,490 of the 312,231 inhabitants were Polish, 49,747 were Ukrainian and 99,595 Jewish.
Diaries, memoirs and other autobiographical documents are the most important sources for war experiences in this city. This article uses wartime documents created by eyewitnesses of events. The main sources for Jewish views are the notes and diaries of refugees from Eastern Poland collected in the Warsaw ghetto by Emanuel Ringelblum and his co-workers. Many of them have been published in the third volume of the Ringelblum archive. I also use some published diaries and eyewitness accounts of Jewish survivors, which were collected or inspired by the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw in the immediate postwar period. They give trustworthy accounts of events after July 1941, but are less useful for the period of Soviet occupation. In postwar Poland most authors did not dare to write about Soviet repressions or the prison murders of June 1941. For the Polish side I used diaries and documents from the Lviv Command of the Home Army (Armia Krajowa) and its predecessor organization, the Union for Armed Struggle (Zwiqzek Walk Zbrojnej). The reports summarize the views of the local Polish population. For the Ukrainian side I have very few suitable wartime documents. Here my main sources are a few diaries and reports by the local group of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Bandera faction) OUN-B. In a few cases I have supplemented these sources with material taken from memoirs or from accounts which were written after the war. The sources cannot do justice to the multitude of different experiences of Polish, Ukrainian and Jewish societies, but they represent discourses which were prevalent during the war and were to deeply influence the postwar memory.
I will be concentrating on key events which have a firm place in Jewish, Polish and Ukrainian collective memory: the reciprocal perceptions during the Soviet occupation; the pogroms which occurred during the transition from the Soviet to the German occupation; and the violent settlement of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the second half of the war.
The Soviet Army invaded eastern Poland under the pretext of liberating Belarusians and Ukrainians from the ‘Polish yoke’ and of bringing social liberation to the toiling masses. And indeed, the end of Polish domination pleased Osyp Nazaruk, the editor-in-chief of the Greek-Catholic weekly newspaper Nova Zoria, but his joy was clouded by the uncertain future ahead. Soon, the occupiers turned against the pre-war elite, including the leaders of the Ukrainian political parties. Nazaruk fled to the Germans.
During the Soviet occupation, class theoretically mattered more than ethnicity, but in everyday life class and ethnicity were interlinked and ethnic categories played an important role. The Soviet authorities attempted to win the allegiance of the lower classes, the younger generation and parts of the intelligentsia. In government-controlled elections, the population elected a western Ukrainian national assembly, which voted for union with the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. The Ukrainians were the titular nationality, which meant that they took precedence in the administration, and in culture and education over Poles and Jews.
The city was sovietized, flooded with Soviet symbols and inundated with propaganda directed against the Second Polish Republic. Newcomers from eastern Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union occupied key positions in the administration and economy, but local Ukrainians were also given positions which had previously been the sole province of Poles. The Ukrainian scholar Myroslav Semchyshyn writes in his recollections how beautiful it was to hear Ukrainian words and songs on the street and to read Ukrainian inscriptions.
The Soviet policy changed once it became apparent that its aggressive strategy to win the sympathies of western Ukrainians was doomed to disappointment. Once the occupied territories had been incorporated into the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, many local Ukrainians supported the anti-Soviet OUN. After the summer of 1940 the Soviet Union turned more towards the Poles, who were courted in their turn and granted concessions in the area of cultural policies.
Terror and repression were an integral part of sovietization. Victims were defined either exclusively by their class status (as members of the pre-war social and political elite); by the combination of ethnicity and social status (e.g., Polish military settlers); by their status as aliens (e.g., the mostly Jewish refugees from German-occupied Poland); or by their political convictions (Jewish socialists—Bundists, Zionists or Ukrainian nationalists). Poles, Ukrainians and Jews were affected differently and at different points in time by the waves of repression. Initially, a large part of the social pre-war elite was arrested or deported. Many of them, such as the Polish officers who were taken by the Red Army as prisoners of war, were later shot. The Polish population was therefore most deeply affected by this first wave of arrests and deportations, followed by the Jewish population. On the night of 12-13 April 1940, some 7000-8500 Poles, mostly family members of officers and policemen, were deported from the city of Lviv. The second wave primarily hit the economic elite; Jews and Poles in particular, but also the few existing Ukrainian entrepreneurs were imprisoned or deported. The last wave of arrests and deportations was specifically directed against Ukrainian nationalists. When the Germans invaded, many Ukrainians were still in the jails of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodnyj Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, NKVD). Additional groups of victims included Polish peasants who had settled in the eastern areas as part of the population policy of the pre-war Polish government, well-to-do Ukrainian and Polish peasants and about 70,000 refugees, the majority of them Jews, who had fled from German-occupied territories in the autumn of 1939 to the Soviet sphere of influence. No group escaped Soviet repression, but Poles and Jews were proportionately more affected by the terror than the Ukrainian population.
It is not surprising that the Polish population was broken-hearted. An eyewitness wrote in his diary of ‘complete chaos’ and ‘immeasurable tragedy’. The Polish resistance organizations in Lviv reported that Poles and Ukrainians did not differ much in their reception of the new Soviet power. The working class was initially quite enthusiastic, while the middle class was hostile to the Soviet occupiers. Some reports noted that the majority of the Jewish population had received the Soviets with open pleasure, even enthusiastically, and that some Jews had turned against Polish soldiers, disarmed and bound them.
Jewish authors paint a more differentiated portrait of the behaviour of the Jewish population. While the persecution of Zionists, Bundists and the destruction of the Jewish middle class are mentioned, all reports agree that a large part of the Jewish youth greeted the Soviets enthusiastically and later participated in Soviet events. One Jewish eyewitness even confirmed that after the entry of the Red Army, Jews declared their aversion to Poles:
For us Jews it was politically very unwise that a part of Jewish society behaved very badly to the Polish population and to Polish soldiers.
Some Jewish Polish authors severely censured the friendly behaviour of fellow Jews towards the Soviet power. One refugee from Warsaw believed the tense relationships of other nationalities with the Jews were due ‘exclusively to the Jews seeking top positions’, and another refugee reported that Jewish teachers went to the country to propagate collectivization; thus, for the peasants, the impression was given that everything was the fault of the Jews. Jewish authors account for the friendly reception of the Red Army by pointing to the unpopular German alternative and recalling the experiences of antisemitism and discrimination suffered by Jews in the Second Polish Republic. The equal treatment vouchsafed to Jews and the fight against antisemitism are repeatedly given as the most important reasons justifying Jewish pro-Soviet sympathies.
The Polish resistance monitored the behaviour of the Jewish population. High- ranking members of Polish resistance organizations located in Warsaw were usually more understanding than the local resistance organizations in Lviv. General Michal Tokarzewski-Karaszewicz, for example, reported in January 1940 that the Jewish population had welcomed the Soviet occupation not out of pro-communist sympathies but in the hope of improving their situation. Tokarszewski also noted a growing antisemitism in the general Polish and Ukrainian population. The Polish population especially hated the Soviet militia, with its overwhelmingly Jewish and Ukrainian members. Two months later, Colonel Stefan ‘Grot’ Rowecki, commander of the ZWZ in the German zone of occupation, reported that the occupiers threatened the propertied Jewish classes, but he also confirmed that the hatred directed against the Bolsheviks had unleashed a hatred of Jews.
Members of the Polish underground in Lviv shared this hatred, even as late as 1942. Although they were aware that many wealthy Jews, Zionists, members of the Bund and other socialist parties had been arrested and deported, they quickly passed over such incidents, as they considered the Zionists as having ‘no influence over the masses’. The reports took the behaviour of some Jewish youths as the basis for more general accusations. Jewish communists in particular were accused of having used meetings to incite the ‘hatred of the Jewish masses’ against the Polish population under the pretext of fighting the Polish bourgeoisie. The ‘Jewish masses’ was shorthand for the general threat posed by Jews. Jews were accused of collaborating with the Soviets, of denouncing Poles, profiting from their misery and taking over their positions. This was interpreted as the outbreak of a secret and long-standing Jewish hatred of Poles. Only Jewish Polish patriots were excluded from this collective accusation. The reports leave no room for doubt that Poles believed that the Jews were following a policy which was hostile to Poland. In a memorandum from the summer of 1942, the Jewish population was still considered to form a ‘natural sphere of influence for Soviet Russia’ and as the principal supporters of Bolshevik rule in eastern Poland. Some counter-examples were noted; however, these had no impact on the general opinion:
Among the Jews there are cases of active aid given to persecuted Poles, their liberation from the hands of furious and shouting Jewish mobs, but this behaviour on the part of certain Jewish groups can never take away the blame for the behaviour of Jews during the Bolshevik invasion.
Ukrainian reports also linked the Jews with Soviet rule. The Ukrainian press appearing in the Generalgouvernement took up the old propaganda slogan of ‘Judeo-communism’ and accused the Jews of profiting from the Soviet occupation and of denouncing Ukrainian resistance fighters to the Soviet security forces. This was consistent with the antisemitic attitude of the OUN. Jews were seen as a ‘second-rate enemy’ linked to Bolshevism and collectively held responsible for Soviet measures. The Second General Congress of the OUN-B in April 1941 stated in its resolution:
The Jews in the U.S.S.R. constitute the most faithful support of the ruling Bolshevik regime and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in the Ukraine. The Muscovite-Bolshevik government exploits the anti-Jewish sentiments of the Ukrainian masses to divert their attention from the true cause of their misfortune and to channel them in times of frustration into pogroms on Jews. The OUN combats the Jews as the prop of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime and simultaneously it renders them conscious of the fact that the principal foe is Moscow.
However, other voices also persisted. Milena Rudnytska, the chairwoman of the women’s organization Soiuz Ukrainok, did not agree with the general accusation of collaboration levelled against the Jews.
In the authorities they [the Bolsheviks, CM] have employed Jews, but with the exception of them they often have nobody else on whom they can depend.
Rudnytska believed that the ‘Jews in general are as dissatisfied as we are’. The Jewish middle class had been destroyed, as had their trade. However, Rudnytska does find something positive in the latter:
This is more important for us from a national standpoint than the dissolution of large landed properties.
This is a reference to a Polish and Ukrainian nationalist discourse which went back to the end of the nineteenth century. In this discourse, the strong position of Jews in the free professions and in the middle class was perceived as hindering the rise of a Polish or Ukrainian middle class and preventing the modernization of both societies.
The Polish underground organization accused not only Jews but also Ukrainians of disloyalty to the Polish state, of collaborating with the Soviets and driving out Poles from the administration, from industry, trade, the universities and the education system. However, this behaviour by Ukrainians was not interpreted as an expression of communist or pro-Soviet feelings and differs fundamentally from the Polish interpretation of Jewish behaviour. One report explicitly stated that the Ukrainian elite remained thoroughly nationalist and kept its distance to the regime, despite being granted privileges. Jewish authors also accused the Ukrainians of opportunism, but they also realized that it was an opportunism which took advantage of the additional freedoms obtained to pursue their own nationalist interests.
Ukrainian nationalism—one author noticed—survived under the cloak of collaboration (pod plaszczykiem wspolpracy).
Almost all inhabitants shared the hatred of the NKVD, of the political commissars and the party bigwigs. The Galicians—according to one Jewish author—were united by their distrust of the new colleagues from the Soviet Union. This is confirmed by the Ukrainian scholar Semchyshyn: ‘In short—it was US and the newcomers were THEM’. But for the Jewish population, Soviet rule was—as the Jewish Pole Stanislaw Rozycki underlines—the only hope.
Only the Jews do not waver, regardless of their feelings or their rational and moderate attitude towards the Union, although they suffered, although their possessions were seized, their families were deported, nevertheless they counted solely on Russia, because everything is better than the Germans.
The Polish and the Ukrainian population were—according to reports from the Polish underground—not just united by their common hostility against the regime but also by a shared hatred of Jews, who were perceived as having profited from Soviet rule. Indeed, Jews were collectively linked with Soviet communism. A Polish eyewitness called it a ‘sad paradox’ that the hatred of Jews represented practically ‘the only bridge of communication between Poles and Ukrainians’. This hatred—he continued—extended even beyond the hatred of the Bolsheviks, and the pressure was only waiting for the right moment to be released.
The Jews did not yet know the terrible fate awaiting them, but the German attack horrified them. The refugees prepared for another flight and the local Jewish communists left. Jewish eyewitnesses observed that the mood of the Polish population appeared to be contradictory. On the one hand there was a certain Schadenfreude vis-a-vis Jews, Bolsheviks and Russians; on the other hand the Poles secretly feared the Ukrainians and Germans. Already, prior to the entry of the Wehrmacht, Ukrainian nationalists had attempted an uprising and taken advantage of the confusion to attack Soviet officials, but also to carry out the first attacks against Jews. The uprising failed, but immediately after the withdrawal of the Red Army the Ukrainians controlled—according to Rozycki—every house, and handed Jews and Poles over to the newly founded Ukrainian militia. Long queues formed in front of grocery shops. Jews standing in the queues were insulted by Poles and Ukrainians and pushed out of the queue. Some Ukrainians and Poles stopped greeting Jews. However, not everybody behaved like this. Rozycki noticed that many workers and intellectuals had not changed their behaviour. He came to the conclusion that the Ukrainians actually only hated Poles. But, acting from base motives, they were also prepared to carry out anti-Jewish pogroms. Every day he expected a pogrom to break out, a fear—he believed—which was also shared by Poles. Another witness, writing in Yiddish, feared not only the Ukrainians, but also the Poles, considering both groups ‘capable of sinking their teeth into the Jews’.
The first German troops reached the outskirts of Lviv on 30 June 1941. The Jewish population, which had increased in the last two years to more than 150,000, remained fearfully inside their homes. Opinions differed regarding the behaviour of the Polish population. Some reported that the Poles—with individual exceptions—remained indifferent. One Jewish author reported that the Poles greeted the German soldiers joyfully and that the whole Polish population hurried to them with flowers in their hands. No other eyewitness reports such a reception, but the Lviv Command of the Home Army confirms that after the experiences under Soviet occupation the Germans were received in a friendly manner, sometimes even with sympathy.
All Jewish authors were agreed that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian population greeted the German units enthusiastically or, in the words of an eyewitness, ‘The Ukrainians welcomed the Germans with flowers, laughter, joy, full of hope and illusions, as rescuers and liberators’. The gold and blue Ukrainian flag flew next to the swastika. Posters of the Bandera faction of the OUN calling for a ‘Ukraine for the Ukrainians’ were everywhere.
The Nachtigall battalion—a Ukrainian unit of the German military counterintelligence service Abwehr—and several Ukrainian so-called expeditionary groups (pokhidni hrupy) entered the city together with the German troops. The Ukrainian expeditionary groups worked for the German Army as translators and functioned as intermediaries to the local population, but they had a hidden agenda. Stepan Bandera, the leader of the OUN-B, had ordered them to establish a Ukrainian administration and lay the foundations for a Ukrainian state. The intention was to confront the German authorities with a fait accompli.
Bandera’s emissary Yaroslav Stets’ko ignored German orders and met local Ukrainian leaders in the Prosvita building to form a Ukrainian government and proclaim a Ukrainian state. Shortly afterwards, two German Abwehr officers (Hans Koch and Ernst zu Eickern), who had learned of Stets’ko’s intention when they had arrived at the residence of the Greek-Catholic archbishop, succeeded in entering the building through a side entrance. The main entrance was blocked by a large crowd. The assembly greeted them with ‘unmeasured enthusiasm’. Hans Koch addressed the meeting but carefully avoided offering any recognition of the proclamation. Later, the local Ukrainians were informed that the proclamation had not been approved by the German government. In the next few days Stet’sko tried to obtain German approval of the proclamation, but failed. In the German plans for the ‘Lebensraum im Osten’ there was no space for an independent or even semi-independent Ukrainian state.
At the same time as Stets’ko was proclaiming a Ukrainian state, members of the Ukrainian expeditionary groups (pokhidni hrupy) and local people went to the prisons to look for friends and relatives. Before the Red Army had left the city, the NKVD had murdered at least 3000 prisoners. The mass graves were discovered a short time later. The real culprits—the Soviet prison guards—had already left the city, but many Ukrainians and Poles believed that the NKVD was dominated by Jews. Jewish eyewitnesses understandably rejected the suggestion of any collective responsibility of the local Jewish population for the NKVD murders in the Lviv prisons, or for other Soviet crimes. But the emissaries of the OUN had formed a local militia which turned against the Jewish population. Ukrainian militiamen and civilians chased down Jews, took them to the prisons, forced them to exhume the bodies, mistreated and finally killed them.
Rozycki was shocked that local Ukrainians were accompanying German officers through the streets and helping them to hunt out ‘hostile elements’: that is, Jews. Rumours of terribly tortured and crucified prisoners circulated in the city. Ukrainian patrols rounded up Jews in the street and beat men and women, young and old. From the window of his house, on 1 July 1941, retired law professor Maurycy Allerhand saw Ukrainians beating Jews, using sticks and whips. He recognized them as Ukrainians not just by their blue and gold armbands, but also by the Ukrainian insults they used against the Jews. In front of the prisons an enormous crowd had assembled; Jews were made to run the gauntlet of the crowd. Allerhand’s grown-up son Jonatan was captured by Ukrainians. A German soldier took him to the Brygidka prison. While his wife and son were able to escape with the help of a German officer, in the Brygidka Jonatan Allerhand was forced to help remove and clean the corpses. The German soldiers wore gas masks and watched the scene. Ukrainian militiamen beat Jews and constantly threatened them with shooting. Jonatan Allerhand was one of the very few who survived. After his return 12 wounds were counted on his body. It is not known how many Jews were murdered in this pogrom. Estimates range from 4000 to 8000 victims.
The German military authorities tolerated this antisemitic violence. A secret order by Reinhard Heydrich, the SS Chief of Security Service and Security Police and head of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office), had recommended inciting the local population to anti-Jewish violence, but there is no evidence that German agitators were responsible for the Lviv pogrom. The first nazi killing squad, the Sonderkommando 4b, arrived after the pogrom had already started.
Some observers reported that the Ukrainian Nachtigall battalion had marched through the streets chanting ‘death to the Moscow-Jewish commune’. For Rozycki, the Ukrainians collectively were responsible for the pogrom. Other authors did not blame the entire Ukrainian population. They accused ‘janitors, Ukrainian youths, hysterical women and simple people from the underworld’, absolving the Polish population and the Ukrainian intelligentsia of any responsibility for such acts:
The pogrom and repressive activities were carried out only by lower classes, the scum of the Ukrainians.
This was also the standpoint—according to Maurycy Allerhand—of the Ukrainian elite, even if they did not directly accuse antisocial Polish elements of being the offenders. Allerhand believed that the German front-line soldiers had not behaved badly on the first day, but that the military had given the Ukrainian population a free hand to carry out this ‘legal pogrom’. Another eyewitness believed that ‘sinister Ukrainians, Petliura supporters and old pogromists’ had begun the pogrom on their own initiative. But Allerhand and other eyewitnesses also reported the active participation of German soldiers, who, in some streets, helped Ukrainians to round up Jews. German soldiers and officers watched the atrocities; some took photographs and even a film crew was present. The actual killing was done by the Ukrainian militia, and members of the local population participated in beating up the victims. Often the Jews had to run a gauntlet before they could enter the prison yard. According to a report of the Polish underground, the pogrom had been ordered by the Germans and ‘had been carried out by Ukrainian and Polish scum’. However, no other Polish sources mention any participation of Poles in the pogrom.
In the first days of the occupation the Germans began flooding western Ukraine with antisemitic pamphlets, posters, caricatures and proclamations. Their arguments were taken up and disseminated further by radio and in the legal Ukrainian press. Apart from propaganda articles in the press, it is difficult to find any contemporary Ukrainian documents which refer to the pogrom against Jews or discuss Jewish-Ukrainian relations during the war. Therefore I must rely here mostly on memoirs. Semchyshyn held ‘urban scum’ to be responsible for the bloody pogrom, believing that many wore badges in the Ukrainian colours yellow and blue without being Ukrainian. How difficult it was for the urban Ukrainian elite to accept the fact that the pogrom was carried out by Ukrainians is shown by reports of conversations between Jewish eyewitnesses and their Ukrainian acquaintances. The Greek- Catholic archbishop Andrii Sheptyts’kyi evaded the question of the participation of Ukrainians in his letter to Pope Pius XII, written in August 1942. He merely noted that at the beginning of the war the German occupying forces had tried to prove that local citizens or policemen were the offenders, but then the Germans began to kill their victims on the streets in front of all eyes without any shame. In Lviv the NKVD prison murders seemed to be an important motivation for the pogrom, but pogroms also occurred in villages and towns where no prison murders had taken place. We therefore have to look for additional reasons. The Ukrainian pokhidny hrupy seemed to have played an important role in inciting the local population, but it is not clear whether they were executing German orders or whether they had been instructed by leaders of the OUN. As in most pogroms, an important motivation was greed. The Jews were not only beaten, but also robbed and blackmailed.
Shortly after the German invasion the Ukrainian militia was dissolved and the occupying power created a Ukrainian auxiliary police. This police force participated in the day-to-day chicaneries and cruelties against Jews, as well as in many murders. It searched houses and harassed Polish passers-by. It is therefore not surprising that, next to the Germans, the Ukrainian auxiliary police became the chief object of hatred for Poles and Jews alike. One Jewish author believed that the Ukrainian police were recruited from the lowest classes of society. Their members had low moral standards, no sense of responsibility and bestial instincts, inclining them to robbery and acts of terror. Another author believed, on the contrary, that the Ukrainian police was recruited in part from among the academic Ukrainian youth, who only shortly before had held—together with young Jewish men—positions in the Soviet youth organization Komsomol. Now they were showing their true bloody, nationalist and antisemitic face. On 25 and 26 July the German authorities allowed three days during which it was permissible to torture, kill and rob Jews without fear of reprisal. The auxiliary policemen were joined by Ukrainian peasants and by individual Poles greedy to rob and murder. These so-called Petliura days—the name given to them by the occupiers—were not spontaneous; the auxiliary police specifically targeted members of the Jewish intelligentsia. Policemen went from house to house, driving men, women and children like cattle to the Gestapo prisons. In the prisons the Jews were tortured and often subsequently murdered.
Jewish eyewitnesses noted that the relationship between Germans and Ukrainians had already begun to cool after the Germans annulled the proclamation of a Ukrainian state, took over the city, and began to give it a German appearance. The Ukrainian flag disappeared from the streets, leaving only the swastika. However, Ukrainians were again given positions of authority in the city administration. One Jewish witness remarked that Poles were very busy trading, smuggling and speculating.
And once again dreams come true: Poles are busy in ‘trade’, the Ukrainians are in the administration and the Jews do the physical work.
All the documents tell of endless hours of work, cruelty, murder, hunger, epidemics and innumerable casualties among the Jewish population. Right from the start, the Jews were given much less food than the Poles and Ukrainians; by the middle of July 1941, Jews had to wear special armbands and were only permitted to use the last car in trams; later on they were not allowed to use trams at all. Some Poles and Ukrainians took advantage of the emergency, buying valuable goods for little money and selling food for a lot of money to the Jews. Blackmail was common. When the Jews had to move to the ghetto, on their way there they were robbed and beaten by Germans, Poles and Ukrainians. The perpetrators went to Jewish houses and took anything they wanted. Jewish eyewitnesses confirm that, without the help of locals, the Germans would not have been able to find so many of the Jews in hiding.
Maurycy Allerhand believed that only in exceptional cases did Poles participate in the plundering of Jewish homes. He placed all the blame on the Ukrainians, who were trying to get rich by any means possible. Thus, for example, they would go from house to house asking the caretakers whether any Jews lived there. Then they would enter the houses and claim the flats for themselves, allowing themselves to be paid off with high sums of money. Poles—according to Allerhand—never participated in such activities. But some Ukrainians also helped Jews:
In an atmosphere of brutal racist hatred, there were some cases, if not many, of humane behaviour on the part of Poles and Ukrainians.
Jewish eyewitnesses were also critical of the Jewish ghetto police, the Jewish Ordnungsdienst, who helped the German authorities to control the ghetto before its members themselves became victims of the Holocaust. This police force was a great misfortune for the Jewish population, because it included many corrupt elements. Leon Weliczker Wells echoed this view in his memoirs: ‘Those who had any self-respect did not join this group, and it was composed essentially of those from the Jewish rabble’.
In these inter-ethnic relationships Jews appear exclusively as the victims of violence and attacks. Jewish society itself underwent an internal restructuring, which thereafter only partially reflected the old pre-war structures of Jewish society. From June to September 1941, many Lviv Jews were killed in pogroms and by German Einsatzgruppen. From October 1941 to June 1942, as the ‘Endlosung’ was prepared, members of the Jewish intelligentsia and ‘unproductive’ people were murdered, the Lviv ghetto was established, mass murders intensified and many Jews were deported to the Belzec death camp. From July 1942 to June 1943 the ghetto was scaled down and finally liquidated. Almost all Jews in the city or surrounding villages were killed—only about 800 survived the war, either with the help of Poles and Ukrainians or by successfully hiding their identity.
After the establishment of the Lviv ghetto, the Jewish eyewitness accounts of the war break off or change in character. Now reports focus predominantly on hunger, misery, murders and fear. Reflections on Jewish relations to other ethnic groups become rare. With the destruction of the Lviv ghetto they stop altogether. On his flight by train to Warsaw, one author of a report who was travelling with fake papers met Aryan smugglers. Despite the whole-scale murders of Jews they were still full of hatred against Jews: ‘The only area where we profit from the Germans is when they deal with the Jews’.
Numerous actions against Jews who had fled to the forests show that, even after the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews, Ukrainian partisan groups were still strongly anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed from this that the entire Ukrainian population supported such exterminatory antisemitism. At least 100 death sentences were passed against Ukrainians who had aided Jews. Hundreds of Jewish adults and children were hidden in the residence of Archbishop Sheptyts’kyj and in Uniate monasteries.
Despite the murder of tens of thousands of Jews from Lviv, a memorandum by the local Command of the Home Army still considered the Jews in Spring 1942 to be a danger to the Poles. In this memorandum, stereotypes from the arsenal of Polish pre-war antisemitic accusations are combined with nazi antisemitic tropes. Jews were seen as the most important internal enemy, whose final plan it was to replace the Poles as the ruling class. The argument was that the Jews had not been defeated, only weakened, as only the weakest parts of the Jewish society had been murdered. Indirectly, this had even somehow strengthened the Jews, because those who had survived were ‘not weighed down in the struggle for existence by this ballast’.
One can say without reservation that the problem of the Jewish minority has the aspect of a difficult chronic disease among us which complicates the normal functioning of the social organism.
Traditional national-democratic antisemitic arguments are used here, even though the context had changed fundamentally. The Jewish minority prevented—the report continued—the development of an independent third estate and thereby prevented the modernization of society. The rise of talented Poles from the lower classes was being hampered by Jews. In this way Jews not only weakened the Poles but also stood in the way of a democratization of society.
Yet this does not mean that the Polish population supported the murder of the Jewish population which took place directly before their eyes. The Lviv Command of the Home Army called the German plan to destroy the Jews in Lviv ‘ultrabestial’ (ultrabestialski) and gave a detailed description of the so-called ‘August action’ in 1942, in the course of which the German police and Ukrainian auxiliary police murdered at least 40,000 Jews or had them deported to the extermination camp at Belzec. The scenes witnessed moved even people who were hostile to Jews:
The Aryan population witnessed this action with pain, even if in the relationships to Jews a strong aversion had developed after the Bolshevik invasion, nevertheless, when their own eyes saw what was done to Jews, it made a pitiable impression on them.
The reaction of the masses to the murder of Jews was relatively uniform:
All condemn the bestiality and the premeditation with which the Jews are being murdered, but generally it is said that the Jews are getting the punishment of history.
Deep sympathy was often felt for individual Jews, to whom help was at times given even at the risk of the helper’s own life. But in ‘relation to the Jews generally there is a subconscious satisfaction that there will be no more Jews in the Polish organism’.
While the nazi regime had decided by the end of 1941 to kill all Jews, a more differentiated policy was employed vis-a-vis Poles and Ukrainians, which depended on the general military situation and the willingness of the respective groups to co-operate with the Germans. The German occupiers gave Ukrainians preferential treatment and relied heavily on Ukrainian collaboration. This does not mean that Ukrainian national ambitions would have had a future under German rule. According to the Generalplan Ost, Lviv and East Galicia were earmarked as future German settlement areas. The Ukrainian dreams of an autonomous state were finally crushed when East Galicia was included in the Generalgouvernement as ‘District Galicia’ and not in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine. The German secret police, the Gestapo, arrested Bandera, Stets’ko and other leaders of the OUN-B and brought them to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Such acts disillusioned the Ukrainian population and drove the OUN-B underground. For the Ukrainian nationalists, the main enemy was the Soviet Union and resistance against the German occupiers was mostly limited to actions of self-defence and preventing the deportation of Ukrainian Ostarbeiter to the Third Reich.
The antagonism between Ukrainians and Poles increased under the German occupation. Their mutual hatred—as reported by the Lviv Command of the Home Army—permeated all social classes. The Polish ‘general opinion’ held the Ukrainians to be responsible not only for the deportation of Polish settlers and of thousands of members of the Polish intelligentsia during the Soviet occupation, but also accused them—falsely—of complicity in the murder of 25 professors during the first days of the German occupation. One report listed numerous cases in which the Ukrainian auxiliary police had shot Poles. The Command also believed Ukrainians to be behind numerous robberies and murders. Moreover, Ukrainians were believed to be the main informers of the Gestapo and the ‘eyes and ears’ of the occupying forces. The Poles, wrote another underground report, now had more reservations towards the Ukrainian police than about the German police.
The Ukrainian auxiliary police were hated by Jews and Poles alike. In contrast, both the OUN and other Ukrainians had a different perception of the Ukrainian police. The OUN noted that the police were greatly respected by the Poles. In a report dated March 1944, the Ukrainian police are referred to as ‘ours’ (nashi politsianty). The fact that Ukrainians did not see the auxiliary police as hostile can be deduced from a diary entry of Arkadii Liubchenko dated 7 April 1943. He notes that the majority of Ukrainian policemen in Galicia were people with middle and higher levels of education. Many engineers, teachers and scientists had entered the police, raising the general level of the auxiliary police.
In addition, one sees in it [the police] here the new seed of the Ukrainian army. They hate Poles, and the yellow and blue badge with its trident is a knife in the heart of every Pole.
The Polish underground recognized the fact that Ukrainian society was not monolithic. However, only the OUN appears as an actor, terrorizing the Ukrainian population, enforcing unconditional support and using the Germans to liquidate the Poles. Ukrainian youth were primed to fight the Poles ‘even if this battle should be lost’. However, the Home Army was aware that the Bandera faction of the OUN also fought against the Germans and reported waves of arrests among Ukrainians.
At the beginning of 1943 hope germinated on the Polish side that a rapprochement might be possible. Talks were held between the OUN-B and the Home Army. The fear of a return of the Bolsheviks softened the behaviour of Ukrainians towards Poles. However, this rapprochement was only of short duration. The talks clearly showed that positions were incompatible. Neither side was ready to renounce their claim to Lviv. Polish and Ukrainian underground organizations alike expected a new Polish-Ukrainian war, similar to the battle for East Galicia and Lviv in 1918-19.
After the defeat of Stalingrad, the nazi occupiers changed their strategy and attempted to win over Poles, and more especially Ukrainians, with the hope of inducing them to contribute more actively to the war against the Soviet Union. In 1943 the Ukrainian SS division ‘Galicia’ was formed, and tens of thousands of Ukrainians volunteered to fight against the Soviet Army. While the leaders of the OUN-B and the UPA initially warned against joining the SS division, they later changed their position. The SS would provide Ukrainians with weapons and military training. Both could become important in a future fight for an independent Ukrainian state, not least against Polish military organizations in East Galicia and Volhynia.
In the spring of 1943 Ukrainian nationalist partisans in Volhynia began attacking Polish villages and massacring the inhabitants. Their aim was to expel all Poles from these territories, which were claimed for an independent Ukrainian state. Soon the first refugees began arriving and the Volhynian murders became the talk of all Polish homes. In July 1943 the wave of murderous attacks reached East Galicia. The local Command of the Home Army stated that ‘our Ukrainians’ assumed that this was their biggest opportunity yet to drive away all Poles. While the Germans were considered the main enemy, followed by the ‘Bolsheviks’, the ‘next and the most terrible’ enemy was ‘the Ukrainian’.
The Ukrainian writer Arkadii Liubchenko wrote in his diary that ‘now one also begins to destroy Poles here’. He shows a certain sympathy for the Poles, who had already suffered much under Soviet and German occupation, and from the Ukrainian insurgents in Volhynia. Liubchenko noted that the Poles trembled with fear and the Ukrainians hated them with an exceptional hatred, which was returned by the Poles.
The aggravation of the relations between Ukrainians and Poles increases. The individual murders of each group by the other are escalating. There is much consternation in both groups.
Polish society was ‘lethally tired’. Their physical and psychological strength was dwindling and nerves were stretched to breaking point. Poles overheard Ukrainian policemen greeting each other in the summer of 1943 with the slogan ‘death to the Lachi [Poles]—death’. Similar slogans appeared on many trains and on many walls. In June 1943 one slogan on the walls of the Lviv ghetto read: ‘The ghetto for Poles’. The Poles, according to a report by the Polish underground, all thought the Ukrainians should be punished for their crimes.
The OUN-B accused the Home Army of attacking Ukrainian villages. It did not connect this to the murders carried out by Ukrainian combat units in Polish villages. Most Poles counted on a quick English victory and were prepared for a revolt ‘against us, the autochthonous population of Western Ukraine’. In November 1943 the OUN reported that everywhere Poles were increasing their activities and stepping up the armed struggle against Ukrainians. The OUN observed that as the situation of the war changed, the self-confidence of the Polish population grew. This led to patriotic proclamations in public (on the streets, in the trams and in the markets). On 1 November 1943, Poles decorated the graves in the military cemetery for the 1918-19 ‘Defenders of Lwow’ with Polish flags and lit candles. On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the battle for Lviv, pamphlets appeared bearing titles such as ‘Leopolis—semper fidelis’, calling for a ‘free Poland with a Polish Lwow’. The Poles felt themselves to be so strong that they even carried out a compulsory collection of monies for the ‘battle against the Germans’ in a cinema. The Ukrainian population was shaken by the strength of the Home Army. Several prominent Ukrainian professors were assassinated and their deaths were followed by attacks on both Ukrainian auxiliary policemen and German targets. But this did not deter the Ukrainian auxiliary police from continuing to murder Poles.
While the Home Army was strong in Lviv and in some towns, the situation of the Polish population in the villages was desperate. Open war raged between Poles and Ukrainian nationalist partisans, who were attempting to cleanse the eastern areas of Poles. The OUN reported that Ukrainian retaliatory actions filled the Poles with fear, so much so that they fled even from safe areas to the big cities or to central Poland; moreover, the OUN accused Poles of terrorizing the Ukrainian population and of using the Germans, and also Soviet partisans and the NKVD to settle their score with the Ukrainians. The OUN talked of a ‘Polish-Ukrainian front’. At night armed Polish commandos patrolled the streets in Lviv and shot at least 11 auxiliary policemen. In several incidents, Polish units left the city in retaliation for UPA actions against Polish villages and killed about 130 Ukrainians. Liubchenko noted that the Poles had a ‘scornful expression on their faces’ as they waited for the Bolsheviks.
By this time the retaliatory acts of the Home Army were making the auxiliary police more cautious, and by April 1944 desertions among Ukrainian auxiliary policemen were increasing. In July the attacks on Polish villages also began to die down. The Polish population took heart again from the landing of the Allied Forces in Normandy. The OUN noted how the Poles on the street were full of self-confident triumph.
The approach of the Red Army unnerved the Ukrainian population. The intelligentsia reacted panic-stricken, and by February many were already trying to flee to the West with their families. The OUN accused the intelligentsia of having forgotten their patriotic duty and their responsibility for the national destiny. In the spring of 1944 the Ukrainian intelligentsia had completely lost hope and lacked—according to the OUN—a positive sense of the struggle. Dantesque scenes were described as taking place at the railway station shortly before the return of the Red Army. The OUN, for its part, placed its hopes in those who awaited ‘the new evil’ with dignity and calm.
The majority of the Polish population was inclined to support a radical solution for the Ukrainian question. The average Pole—as the Polish underground had already noted at the end of 1941—was in favour of deporting all Ukrainians over the river Zbrucz to Soviet Ukraine. Any thoughts on a possible reconciliation were, at best, voiced by only a few members of the elites of both groups; but as soon as the question touched on possible borders between a Ukrainian and a Polish state, all talks ceased. In their memoranda on the ‘solution of the Ukrainian question’, the staff of the Home Army of Lviv mirrored the mood of the population. In July 1942 it recommended deporting between one and one and a half million Ukrainians to the Soviet Union and settling the remainder in other parts of Poland. In the eastern areas of Poland not more than 10 per cent of the population should consist of national minorities. Any suggestions regarding a limited autonomy for Ukrainians, as was being discussed in Warsaw and London, would find no support among the local population.
The attacks of Ukrainian partisans on Polish villages in Volhynia increased the Polish determination to remove the Ukrainian population living in the eastern Polish areas by resettling them. After the war, as one author stated in a memorandum, the conditions would be ideal, because the Ukrainians could expect to be punished for their criminal behaviour. One report recommended expropriating the Ukrainian peasants and resettling them. Such a resettlement would guarantee a Polish majority in the Kresy. The battle against the Ukrainians and the Soviets was seen as in the tradition of a ‘centuries old battle to ensure that these areas belonged to Europe’. The authors still firmly believed in the civilizing mission of Poles in the east—‘our historic mission is to carry religion and culture to the East’—with the Ukrainians considered as belonging to the East. The education of the Ukrainian intelligentsia at Western universities had changed this perception as little as had their Catholic affiliation, since Ukrainians were held to possess an ‘eastern, Byzantine mentality’.
But all such mooted plans came to nothing. Poles and Ukrainians underestimated the strength of the Soviet Army and overestimated the willingness of Britain and the United States to confront the Soviet Union over the question of the Eastern borders of Poland. On 9 September 1944, the government of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic and the communist Polish proto-government agreed in Lublin on a large-scale population exchange between the Soviet Union and Poland. All Poles, including the Lviv Poles, had to leave the territory of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. Lviv became a Soviet city with a predominantly Ukrainian population.
The analysis of contemporary sources has shown that the incompatible recollections of Poles, Jews and Ukrainians can be explained by their incompatible experiences (Erfahrungen). The Soviet occupation policy in Eastern Poland was based, first of all, on Realpolitik or class politics, and only in the second instance on ethno-political categories. However, the impressions of the local populations were structured by their respective ethnic patterns of perception. Soviet measures were reinterpreted accordingly. When the Soviet power implemented its class-conflict policies against the pre-war elites, this affected all ethnic groups; however, because of their dominant position before the war it affected the Poles most, followed by the Jews. Survival strategies, which were accepted and understood as such when employed by members of their own group, were used to reproach the ‘other’ group if they employed them, and were categorized using traditional ethnic patterns of interpretation. Only behaviour which strengthened and confirmed ethnic stereotypes was taken in. Contradictory information was noted, but did not flow into the process of interpretation. Before the NKVD murders in the prisons in June 1941, many Poles and Ukrainians were already collectively blaming the Jews for Soviet actions. After the German invasion and in the absence of the real culprits—the NKVD—the Polish and Ukrainian populations reverted to their traditional scapegoating of the Jews. Traditional local antisemitism and antisemitic stereotypes, German antisemitic propaganda, grievances for injuries suffered under the Soviet occupation and terrible hatred came together. The first pogroms followed the pattern of pogroms during the first world war and earlier. But this time there was a big difference. The Austrian and Polish authorities had tried to prevent pogroms, and, despite their strong antisemitic sentiments, even the Russian military authorities in 1914-15 did not incite the local population to commit pogroms. The new nazi German authorities not only did not lift a hand to prevent the pogroms, but actually encouraged them. To win over the local population and make them accomplices in the mass murder of Jews was part of their programme of annihilation.
It is unclear what role the German propaganda played in this interpretative process, which did everything to encourage antisemitism among Ukrainians and Poles and massively propagated the identification of Jews with Bolshevism, minting the slogan of ‘Jewish Bolshevism’. The German propaganda used the old stereotype of Judeo-Communism to link antisemitism and anti-Bolshevism. It made use of antisemitism in its war against the Soviet Union and utilized anti-Bolshevism to destroy the Jews.
There was no shared feeling of common suffering. After the war all groups perceived themselves as the principal victim. The Poles thought they had suffered most, not least from Ukrainian attacks. The Ukrainians thought they had endured most, first from the Poles, then from the Soviets, whom they bracketed with the Jews, and later from the Germans. But in the end, Poles, Ukrainians and Jews formed different categories of victims. The Jews were not only the victims of an unexampled programme of murder by the state, but also victims of their Polish and Ukrainian neighbours. In Jewish analyses of Polish and Ukrainian behaviour, it was not merely a question of passivity; of reproaching Poles and Ukrainians for having stood aside and let the Holocaust happen, but of accusing them of having actively participated, first in the pogroms at the beginning, then—with particular reference to the Ukrainian auxiliary police—as active agents in the murder of Jews. The auxiliary police had connections to the OUN and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which was thereby also implicated as jointly responsible. Moreover, many Jews who were able to escape to the forests were subsequently killed by Ukrainian partisans.
The German occupiers had given a terrible example of how to get rid of a whole ethnic group. They created the frame within which the Polish-Ukrainian conflict was played out. But it was less exterminatory racism than an ideology of integral nationalism which, until the spring of 1944, determined the antiPolish actions of the UPA. One can say that the mass murder of Polish villagers by Ukrainian partisans attempting to force all Poles to leave Volhynia and East Galicia drew its inspiration from the cynical and murderous German population policies. But they were not identical. The same applies to the Polish underground. Particularly in Lviv, the ‘Polish-Ukrainian front line’, the Polish population and parts of the leadership of the Home Army were unable to imagine that it would be possible to live side by side with Ukrainians after the war and favoured the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians from East Galicia.
The Polish experience was shaped by the devastating attacks of Ukrainian partisans on Polish villages and finally by the loss of their homeland. The west Ukrainian experience was closely linked to the fight against the Poles for East Galicia, the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, the failure to build a nation in the postwar period, the terrible Soviet repression after 1944 and the bloody and exhausting guerrilla war against sovietization.
In Ukrainian-Polish relations, crimes stand against crimes. The task here is for each side to accept the suffering of the ‘other’ side and condemn the crimes committed by its ‘own’ side.
This is difficult enough in itself, but in connection with the Jews we have an asymmetric relationship. Firstly, there are virtually no Galician Jews left in Western Ukraine or in Poland. Secondly, it is difficult to accept that the dimension of victimhood is extremely unequal. This was already a problem during the war. Neither the Poles nor the Ukrainians were able to come to terms with the unique aspect of Jewish suffering. They categorized the annihilation of the Jewish community in East Galicia using stereotypes inherited from a very different past. Traumatized by their own experiences of suffering, they were unable to adapt the old categories which they used to interpret Jewish behaviour to the new circumstances. Until 1942 there were still people who believed that, in the last instance, the Jews would profit from the war. Linking the Jews to the Soviet regime and Soviet crimes was one way of exculpating the members of one’s own group from their participation in pogroms and mass murders. In the last two years of the war the Jewish question disappeared from the agenda of the OUN and the Home Army. Only a few Jews remained, and they played no role in the Polish and Ukrainian plans for the postwar period. The Jews were marginal in Polish and Ukrainian perceptions of the war, and stayed marginal for over 40 years.