Post by tufta on May 18, 2008 12:36:21 GMT -7
Historical disputes resurface 10.05.2008
9 May in Ukraine – who’s who in another victory celebration.
Halyna Pastushuk reports
According to a recent RECE-sociological research made in Austria, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine and Russia, the World War II is slowly fading in the memory of the Europeans. Sociologists underline that most often war is remembered in Ukraine and Russia. The perception of war mostly depends on a personal family experience. At the end of this week, on the occasion of 63rd anniversary of victory of the Soviet Red army in World War II, many Ukrainians are asking themselves the question about the meaning of this holiday which requires certain reevaluation every year.
Meanwhile, on 9 May WWII veterans could use any city transport in Kyiv free of charge. On the 8 and 9 May they could use any city, inter-city and even international transportation within CIS free of charge. Also, in Kyiv on 9 May, from 8 a.m. till 6 p.m. veterans of WWII had an opportunity to use city taxi service within city area free of charge in order to get to the meeting places and parades. Seven private taxi services participated in this action.
Political analysts reopened the discussion on the question of recognizing the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Ιnsurgent Army (OUN-UPA) as one of the fighting sides during the war. This problem escalates by the year as no breakthrough has been made so far neither in political nor in legislative spheres.
Prominent Ukrainian politologists suggest their ways out of the ambiguous situation. Now, when most of the politicians are only making profit on such questions as NATO, EU, religion, recognition of OUN-UPA as a fighting side during WWII, experts on the history of Ukraine and current political state of affairs in the country suggest a rational approach to the problem. Thus, a well-known Kyiv-based politologist Kost’ Bondarenko believes that the question of OUN-UPA should not be touched upon on political level. According to him, local authorities and NGO’s are to deal with it:
“I think, above all, there should be a temporary moratorium imposed onto such questions as NATO, EU, Ukrainian Ιnsurgent Army, introduction of a second state language. It must be forbidden to politicians to make accents on historical moments. As long as politicians are using complicated issues for their temporary benefits, these issues will be always discussed and they will continue to divide people and the country.”
Olexander Paliy, a politologist, an expert with the Institute for Foreign Policy at the Political Academy of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, thinks that the answer to this question lies on the surface. He says that people should be simply properly informed and then decide for themselves who these warriors were:
“What we need is time and normal adequate informing of the population, providing it with possibility to draw their own conclusions according to their experience and their understanding of the interests of their country.”
Volodymyr Melenkovych, a politologist, director of the Ukrainian affiliated branch of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political research, believes that it is next to impossible to conduct informing effectively for eventually it all turns out to be just a sheer propaganda:
“When we are using words ‘explanation’, ‘promulgate’, ‘inform the public’, as usual, in reality it ends up in propaganda of one particular point of view. Thus, to my mind, this problem will be solved only when the majority or all participants of the WWII perish. It seems to me that it’s easier to achieve understanding and peace between participants of Great Patriotic War those who fought in Red Army and those who fought for Ukraine’s independence but accepted at the same time their numerous mistakes. Whether it will happen eventually is very unlikely.”
So far, the question remains open. Obviously, to recognise Ukrainian Insurgent Army a fighting side or not is the question to historians, and not to politicians but it is difficult to remain objective. Even more difficult is to say who was a patriot and who was an enemy.
9 May in Ukraine – who’s who in another victory celebration.
Halyna Pastushuk reports
According to a recent RECE-sociological research made in Austria, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine and Russia, the World War II is slowly fading in the memory of the Europeans. Sociologists underline that most often war is remembered in Ukraine and Russia. The perception of war mostly depends on a personal family experience. At the end of this week, on the occasion of 63rd anniversary of victory of the Soviet Red army in World War II, many Ukrainians are asking themselves the question about the meaning of this holiday which requires certain reevaluation every year.
Meanwhile, on 9 May WWII veterans could use any city transport in Kyiv free of charge. On the 8 and 9 May they could use any city, inter-city and even international transportation within CIS free of charge. Also, in Kyiv on 9 May, from 8 a.m. till 6 p.m. veterans of WWII had an opportunity to use city taxi service within city area free of charge in order to get to the meeting places and parades. Seven private taxi services participated in this action.
Political analysts reopened the discussion on the question of recognizing the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Ιnsurgent Army (OUN-UPA) as one of the fighting sides during the war. This problem escalates by the year as no breakthrough has been made so far neither in political nor in legislative spheres.
Prominent Ukrainian politologists suggest their ways out of the ambiguous situation. Now, when most of the politicians are only making profit on such questions as NATO, EU, religion, recognition of OUN-UPA as a fighting side during WWII, experts on the history of Ukraine and current political state of affairs in the country suggest a rational approach to the problem. Thus, a well-known Kyiv-based politologist Kost’ Bondarenko believes that the question of OUN-UPA should not be touched upon on political level. According to him, local authorities and NGO’s are to deal with it:
“I think, above all, there should be a temporary moratorium imposed onto such questions as NATO, EU, Ukrainian Ιnsurgent Army, introduction of a second state language. It must be forbidden to politicians to make accents on historical moments. As long as politicians are using complicated issues for their temporary benefits, these issues will be always discussed and they will continue to divide people and the country.”
Olexander Paliy, a politologist, an expert with the Institute for Foreign Policy at the Political Academy of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, thinks that the answer to this question lies on the surface. He says that people should be simply properly informed and then decide for themselves who these warriors were:
“What we need is time and normal adequate informing of the population, providing it with possibility to draw their own conclusions according to their experience and their understanding of the interests of their country.”
Volodymyr Melenkovych, a politologist, director of the Ukrainian affiliated branch of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political research, believes that it is next to impossible to conduct informing effectively for eventually it all turns out to be just a sheer propaganda:
“When we are using words ‘explanation’, ‘promulgate’, ‘inform the public’, as usual, in reality it ends up in propaganda of one particular point of view. Thus, to my mind, this problem will be solved only when the majority or all participants of the WWII perish. It seems to me that it’s easier to achieve understanding and peace between participants of Great Patriotic War those who fought in Red Army and those who fought for Ukraine’s independence but accepted at the same time their numerous mistakes. Whether it will happen eventually is very unlikely.”
So far, the question remains open. Obviously, to recognise Ukrainian Insurgent Army a fighting side or not is the question to historians, and not to politicians but it is difficult to remain objective. Even more difficult is to say who was a patriot and who was an enemy.