Western Ukrainian History WWII

[Boethius]

These were just some of his actions prior to being detained, which resulted in the huge financial reward the Nazi's gave to him.

excerpt


Bandera was one of the main organizers of terror campaigns intended to prevent Ukrainians from accepting the Polish government by provoking Polish retaliation. The main targets of their assassination attempts were Ukrainians and Poles who wished to work together. The OUN assassinated the leading advocate of Ukrainian-Polish rapprochement, Tadeusz Holówko, in his sanatorium bed. They also sought (but failed) to kill Henryk Józewski, who was implementing a policy of national concessions to Ukrainians in Poland.

In the interwar period.  Bandera was put on trial for the assassination of Bronisław Pieracki.  Before the Germans had even planned Operation Barbarossa.  Again, your google search/wiki level of knowledge is evident. 
 
 

[AC]

Still all irrelevant to the issue, which is that Bandera ordered the massacre in Volyn.

More silly denials by a Holocaust revisionist.  Tell our audience please why the Germans did not kill Bandera while he was in a barracks for political prisoners, but instead released him to continue their dirty work?

The fact that Bandera and the Nazi's were just using each other which is what Marples alleges, does not change the reality of his true nature.

I already crushed you on this subject once before.  You go on and keep being the denier that you are.


“He wanted to create a Greater Ukraine reaching from the River Danube to the Caspian Sea,” said Per Anders Rudling, an expert on Ukrainian history at Sweden’s Lund University. “He and his followers, similarly to the Nazis, advocated selective breeding to create ‘pure’ Ukrainians.”

By 1941, however, Bandera’s relationship with Hitler had gone south, and he was thrown into the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. He was released in 1944, however, to aid the Nazis (and Ukrainian nationalists) in black operations behind Soviet lines. On KBG orders, he was poisoned, dying in Munich in 1959.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-ghost-of-world-war-ii-history-haunts-ukraines-standoff-with-russia/2014/03/25/18d4b1e0-a503-4f73-aaa7-5dd5d6a1c665_story.html

[AC]

In the interwar period.  Bandera was put on trial for the assassination of Bronisław Pieracki.  Before the Germans had even planned Operation Barbarossa.   

I already knew that.  You forgot to mention that he escaped from prison under mysterious circumstances (he was aided by the Germans) and then was given 2.5 million German marks to work for the Nazi's.

Nice try at yet another ad hominem attack.  It's really all you've got.  The World has spoken about this "man". 

[Ed S.]

Ed,
Based on your comments in the thread about Armenian genocide it seems you like to study this sort of thing.  It would do you well to learn more about Ukraine, if you want to visit there.  But the more you know, the more likely you will understand more than many Ukrainian's themselves.  Why?  Because in W. Ukraine in particular there's been an active effort to white-wash their history.  This link is a paper from some Jewish scholars.  Read it very carefully and you will begin to see what's been going on there.


http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20130500-holocaust-in-ukraine.pdf

I did a lot of research back in the day when I was a ROTC cadet. I was an odd duck because I actually was fascinated by the Iraqi insurgency, counter-guerrilla and asymmetrical warfare in general. I spent a lot of time going over information from Vietnam, Algeria, even the WWII partisans. Of course, fate had its own plans and that never happened.

I knew Bandera was a controversial figure, and that there's some kind of attempt at rehabilitation like in a lot of other Eastern European nations. I'll definitely read up on it, rather sad how rough the 20th Century was. 

[AC]

This seems like an attempt to deflect the reader away from what really happened in 1941 and blame the Soviets or blame the messenger for what many West Ukrainians did to their former Jewish neighbors. 

excerpt
BACKGROUND: THE UKRAINIAN POGROMS OF SUMMER 1941

"Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, pogroms took place
in virtually every Galician town or village, from the capital Lemberg/Lwów/L’viv to
provincial towns such as Złoczew/Zolochiv, Tarnopol/Ternopil, Żółkiew/Zhovkva,
Drohobych/Drohobycz, Borysław/Boryslav, Brzeżany/Berezhany, Sambor/Sambir,
Stryj, Kolomyja, Obertyn, and others, as well as in dozens of villages and hamlets in
which the Jewish population was simply wiped away by its peasant neighbors.
The pogroms broke out with extreme violence. Perpetrators used household or
agricultural tools such as bats, axes, sickles, and sticks with razor blades to kill at
random any Jew they encountered. Although in some places only men or professionals
(lawyers, doctors) were targeted, in others, women, elderly people, and even children
were attacked. The violence took place during the last days of June and during July
1941, in several waves: simultaneous with or even before the arrival of the German
troops; during the “prison actions” (after the discovery of prisoners massacred by the
NKVD just before the Soviet withdrawal); during several actions aimed at humiliating
and beating down the local Jewish population; and finally in late July during the
“Petliura days,” when the Nazis offered the Ukrainian populace an opportunity to
avenge the assassination of the Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura by a young Jew in
Paris in 1926. The acts of violence and murder were associated with the looting of the
Jews’ property, the burning of synagogues, and the widespread abuse of Jewish
women. They occurred with or without the presence of the occupying forces: Germans
participated only in about half of the incidents, even if in some instances—such as in
Zolochiv—they played a major role.4"


http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20130500-holocaust-in-ukraine.pdf

[Boethius]

No deflection.  OUN-B was riddled with Bolshevik supporters.  Had it not been, UPA (which was not all pro OUN-B) may have been successful.   You underestimate the level of paranoia among Bolsheviks, and minimize the fact that most Ukrainian Jews did not die at the hands of Banderites, but at the hands of Germans.
 
Even in Western Ukraine, the level of collaboration with the Germans was consistent with what it was in other occupied countries, i.e., less than 2%.
 
 

[AC]

According to the historical research in this paper, participation rates were 50% by Ukrainians, and 50% by special German units.  Many of the pogroms took place before the Germans arrived.  Jews were murdered and their land and farm animals were confiscated.


BACKGROUND OF VISUAL EVIDENCE

excerpt
The full Ukrainian collection, though, is much larger and reveals a story of
emigration. Approximately 10,000 Visual History Archive interviewees were born in
what is today Ukraine,5
 meaning that, by the time of their interview, almost two-thirds
had emigrated to Israel, the United States, or other countries. The emigration occurred
in three waves: the first immediately after the war, the second in the 1970s, and the
third in the early 1990s. Hence, this collection was gathered in 45 different countries
and is in 23 different languages (see Appendix 2A).


http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20130500-holocaust-in-ukraine.pdf

[AC]

A brief summary

excerpt
"It is telling that one of the few articles on this topic penned by a Ukrainian
citizen was published back in 2005 by a graduate student, Sofia Grachova, under the
title “Did They Live Among Us?” 38 The youth of this researcher, her intellectual
honesty, her roots in Eastern Ukraine, and the fact that she had worked for years as an
assistant to Omer Bartov help explain how this author came to pen the first widely
available article to seriously question Ukrainian historians on this subject. She analyzed
the weaknesses of some of the previous research and called on her Ukrainian
colleagues to exercise “collective moral responsibility,” a plea that constituted a major
milestone in Ukrainian popular consciousness about coexistence between Ukrainians
and Jews. One can only agree with her assertion that: “When the memory of the dead is
not honored and people continue to bow before criminals as if they were heroes, ‘we’
[Ukrainian civil society] are held responsible for it.” I similarly expressed the strong
wish that one day, not far off, either the Zolochiv castle massacres or the
Zamarstinivska Street pogrom will be openly discussed in a public debate in which the
entire Ukrainian nation will participate"


http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20130500-holocaust-in-ukraine.pdf

[Boethius]

Red Army veterans, UPA veterans, and ATO soldiers sit shoulder to shoulder at Remembrance Day celebrations in Kyiv.
 
http://www.facebook.com/viktor.kryvenko.1/posts/1593490050925916
 
If Red Army veterans have no issue with UPA, no one else should either, and it lays to rest all accusations of "fascism" bandied about here.
 
From the facebook page (rough translation) -
 
In Ukraine today there are no Banderivtsi - this is a myth created by propaganda and imposed upon us by alien ideologues. All the soldiers who fought for our land are heroes to us. We have to bow our heads in  thanks to the Soviet Army and to UPA veterans. Otherwise there will be no peace in Ukraine." said MP and co-founder of the "Kolo Foundation" Viktor Kryvenko.

[AC]

They're upset because they believe the wrong side won and not their Waffen SS heroes.

Unfortunately this does seem to be true of some in W. Ukraine, regardless of their protestations to the contrary.  There is a museum in L'viv (L'vov for Russian speakers) which has SS Galician uniforms on display, but interesting enough they removed the SS insignia as if that would make it all okay, that they were actually working for one of Hitler's most ruthless units.

Try as they might to ignore this issue or sweep it under the rug, eventually the issue may have to be dealt with, that is if Ukraine wants to keep borrowing money from the IMF and if they want the Soros bailout (Soros is Jewish, and I am quite certain he will push the issue when the time comes).

This article by a Jewish historian and scholar is fascinating.


excerpt

First and foremost, because the attempts to falsify it are untrue and rooted in justification for and glorification of a racial-superiority nationalism that is inimical to the core values for which America made such enormous sacrifices during the Second World War. Ukrainian nationalists who worship statues, banners and monuments to Holocaust mass-murderer Stepan Bandera are inherently far-right racists, even when they dress up as centrists for the benefit of CNN. Anyone who has visited Ukraine at length knows that the Bandera-worshippers regard Jews, Russians and Poles (among others) as inferior beings whose existence is an unwelcome stain on the desired ethnic purity of the nation-state. Precisely in the spirit of 1930s Aryanism, in fact, Banderism in fact “gave them” pure(ish) ethnic enclaves in some of Ukraine’s west. But these are not American values. These are not values worth fighting for, even when they are invoked with the lame excuse of it being all just “against Russia,” as if this is a moral license to abrogate values. Russia’s misbehavior can and must be countered as a separate issue, not by giving succor to pro-Nazi forces whose attraction for us is that they are anti-Russia.

Incidentally, this echoes the excuse offered for the Holocaust period itself with regard to the wiping out of races. One often hears that participation in the genocide of the Jewish civilian population was “part of what we had to do to get the Russian Communists out, because it’s what Hitler wanted, and we were sure that upon victory, Germany would restore our nation’s independence.” Aside from the moral repugnance of linking worthy independence with genocide of a minority living in your country, it is of course utter historic nonsense. The East European Slavs and Balts were themselves slated for future extinction as their lands were to become the new eastern pleasure-grounds of the master race’s Reich. Had the Nazis won the war, there would have been no Latvia, Lithuania or Ukraine to become independent in 1991."


http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-bonanza-for-upgraded-holocaust-denial/

[AC]

They're upset because they believe the wrong side won and not their Waffen SS heroes.

Tell me about it.  Read more about it here.


excerpt
MANY ELITES IN THE REGION have chosen to build national myths of heroism not on great artists, thinkers, poets or scientists but on their own nation’s Holocaust collaborators and perpetrators. Most typically, the basis for this is that these Holocaust perpetrators were also anti-Soviet and anti-Russian (which is in most cases absolutely true of East European collaborators and perpetrators of the Holocaust). The fact is that in the territories conquered by Hitler following upon the Barbarossa invasion of the USSR launched on 22 June 1941, local nationalist “heroes” in the Baltics and (western) Ukraine started humiliating, molesting and murdering Jewish neighbors even before the first German forces arrived. They went on to voluntarily and enthusiastically provide extensive manpower to do much (in some areas most) of the actual killing (very different from collaboration in the west, which entailed betrayal to the Gestapo, participating in deportations, and the like). During a quarter century of our thousands of interviews with Holocaust survivors from Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine, virtually all credit their survival (in contrast to their betrayal by nationalist neighbors) to the Soviet Union, which was the only serious force in Eastern Europe opposing the Nazis from Barbarossa through to the end of the war. There were no American or British troops in those parts. Most of this small remnant of East European Jewry survived by fleeing eastward to Russia early on (the flight survivors). Some escaped ghettos to join up with the Soviet-sponsored partisans in the forests (the Jewish partisans). And some were saved by inspirationally brave, righteous gentiles (the real local heroes of 1941, who should be honored with statues and streets named for them) who hid them until the Soviets came and freed them in 1944."



http://jewishcurrents.org/neocons-holocaust-revisionism-eastern-europe-30613

[AC]

Someone bandied about recently that there were no fascists of import in Ukraine today; that whatever happened must have been confined to 70 years ago.  Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case.  This photo is not from 1939, it is from 2011.

[Boethius]

Nobody has posted there are no fascists in Ukraine.  What has been posted is that the current government, contrary to assertions, is not fascist.  That a far right movement exists in Ukraine is not exactly news.  However, it is smaller, and less popular, than are far right movements in Western Europe or Russia, for that matter.


The flag originates from Social-National Party of Ukraine.  It was a KGB project, founded by a former Komsomol leader whose PhD thesis was on "bourgeois nationalism" shortly before the collapse of the USSR.  Rukh was a KGB project as well, founded even earlier.

[AC]

Historical footage of the Germans being welcomed into what was then Lemburg (L'viv today) back in 1939 occurs about 9:35 into the video and goes until about 14:50, at which point there is a modern march in L'viv in 2014.

Also features historical footage of SS Galician soldiers being congratulated by Himmler (at about 12:30 and after).

Pretty difficult to say that there was not Nazi collaboration when one looks at all historical sources and facts including this video.

[Boethius]

This is from Alexander Motyl's blog.


Alexander Motyl is a professor at Rutger's, specializing in Russia, Ukraine and the USSR.  This piece is important, in terms of explaining the history of why UPA-OUN are viewed as they are by those who understand Ukraine's history.

It's about 100 days since Ukraine passed its de-communization laws and guess what?  The sky hasn't fallen.  The fascists haven't taken over.  Repression hasn't set in.  which is exactly what those of use who were arguing for the laws were saying all along. 

The first bill provides a long list of “fighters for Ukraine’s independence in the 20th century” with legal status.  The second one gives people open access to secret police archives. The third reconceptualizes the Soviet-era Great Patriotic War as World War II.   The fourth prohibits the propaganda of the Communist and Nazi totalitarian regimes and their symbols.

Most of the controversy has centered on the first bill’s list of “fighters,” who include over 100 governments, organizations, movements, and parties, all excoriated by Soviet propaganda. They also include the controversial organized Ukrainian nationalist movement that flourished in western Ukraine in the interwar period and survived in the anti-Soviet underground until the mid-1950s.

Opponents of the laws, in both Ukraine and especially the West, have argued that they amounted to carte blanche to persecute nationalist critics.

In fact, the brouhaha over the laws has exposed, yet again, one of the most depressing features of the Ukrainian intellectual landscape: the perennial war between absolutist supporters and absolutist critics of the interwar organized Ukrainian nationalist movement. Supporters uncritically produce hagiographies.
Critics uncritically produce jeremiads. Neither side tolerates nuance, complexity, or ambiguity: the nationalists must be either the whitest of heroes or the blackest of devils. People who hope to find a middle ground by arguing that the Ukrainian nationalists, like all nationalists, were black, white and gray, are lost in the noise. As you can imagine, the hagiographers have supported the laws (hey, even F students occasionally get an answer right), while the jeremiahs have damned ’em.

Both sets of absolutists would do well to read Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, which unintentionally demonstrates that knowledge is not infallible even when its claims appear to be beyond dispute.

Israeli intelligence agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann in Argentina on May 11, 1960, and brought him to Jerusalem, where he was tried as a Nazi war criminal and hanged on May 31, 1962. Arendt’s account of the trial’s philosophical and legal shortcomings, her criticism of the wartime Jewish Councils for effectively abetting Nazi policy, and her description of Eichmann as an ordinary man, and not a monster, whose behavior deserved to be characterized by the now-famous term, the “banality of evil,” provoked a storm of protest.    There were even attempts to revoke her teaching position at the New School for Social Research. 

It was in the epilogue that Arendt addressed an issue of interest to contemporary Ukrainian debates. “Those who are convinced that justice, and nothing else, is the end of law will be inclined to condone the kidnaping act,” she writes. “In this perspective, there existed but one real alternative to what Israel had done: instead of capturing Eichmann and flying him to Israel, the Israeli agents could have killed him right then and there.” Arendt does not disagree. “The notion was not without merit,” she says, “because the facts of the case were beyond dispute.”

Arendt then discusses “two precedents” that involve taking the law into one’s own hands: “There was the case of Shalom Schwartzbard, who in Paris on May 25, 1926, shot and killed Simon Petlyura, former hetman of the Ukrainian armies and responsible for the pogroms during the Russian civil war that claimed about a hundred thousand victims between 1917 and 1920. And there was the case of the Armenian Tehlirian, who, in 1921, in the middle of Berlin, shot to death Talaat Bey, the great killer in the Armenian pogroms of 1915.” (Petliura is not on the “fighters” list, but the governments he headed are.)

Importantly for Arendt, “neither of these assassins was satisfied with killing ‘his’ criminal, but that both immediately gave themselves up to the police and insisted on being tried. Each used his trial to show the world through court procedure what crimes against his people had been committed and gone unpunished.”

Although she never openly says it, it’s clear that Arendt does not disapprove of both assassins’ actions—because they gave themselves up and because the facts do appear to be beyond dispute.

Except that the facts turned out not to be beyond dispute, at least with respect to Petliura.

Arendt’s brief description of Petliura is woefully inaccurate. He was never hetman—that was Pavlo Skoropadsky in 1918; he was not in charge of the “Ukrainian armies” in 1917–20, but in 1919–20; the Russian Civil War began in mid-1918 and not in 1917; and the pogroms that swept Ukraine in 1919 were the work of Ukrainians armies, Red Russian Bolshevik armies, White Russian armies, anarchists, and bandits.

But no matter. The key question is whether Petliura was “responsible for the pogroms.”   For years, Petliura’s defenders argued that he was a philo-Semite, while his detractors argued the opposite. Recent academic research by Touro College historian Henry Abramson has shown that Petliura was indeed a philo-Semite who neither instigated, nor ordered the pogroms. Joshua Rubenstein neatly summarzies Abramson’s complex conclusions: 

After a close review of the documentary record, Abramson rejects the       accusation that Petliura was the architect of the pogroms or that he initiated the infamous attacks in Proskurov (where 1,500 Jews were slaughtered) by his subordinate Semesenko in 1919, an incident that rumor and accusation have long linked to Petliura… At the same time, Abramson accepts the view that Petliura’s hands were tied, and that if he had “chastised his troops adequately,” he would have lost the loyalty of his already disintegrating army at a time when the Red Army was able to field many more soldiers. Petliura was desperate to preserve Ukrainian independence. As Abramson implies, he could not hope to do this and protect Jews in far-flung towns and villages.  In the end, though, Petliura's failure to act decisively against the pogroms did not save Ukraine.



Did Petliura do enough to prevent the pogroms? Some say yes, some say no. Some argue that Ukraine was a “failed state” and that no one could have stopped the killing. Meanwhile, don’t forget that further research could revise Abramson’s conclusions.

Many Ukrainians came to lionize Petliura after he was shot; many Jews demonized him because he “deserved” to be shot. Both sides are wrong. Petliura was a weak leader who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Schwartzbard thought he was killing a bloodthirsty demon. In reality, he slaughtered a hapless man who was no match for the historical circumstances he faced. The putative hero, Schwartzbard, thus turns out to be a tragic half-devil, and the putative villain, Petliura, turns out to be a tragic half-angel. Both men appear rather more “banal”—and more like each other—than either imagined himself to be.

There is a lesson here for absolutist supporters and critics of Ukrainian nationalism.

Both sides should remember that, if as impressive a scholar as Arendt could have been dead wrong about Petliura, then significantly feebler minds than hers may be wrong about the targets of their venom or adulation. Only unfettered research, an open debate, and the abandonment of absolutist claims and hegemonic narratives can enable scholars to approximate the “facts of the case” about anything. Which is exactly what the de-communization laws will do.

It may be wise to remember that approximations of the truth are the best we can attain. The number of facts comprising the truth about something is always infinite. Moreover, although facts, as by definition true statements about the world, may be “beyond dispute,” their interpretation never is. The claim that the Ukrainian nationalists were angels or devils is at best a weak interpretation only partly supported by “the facts.”

Just as most heroes and villains come and go, so, too, do seemingly infallible academic truths. Both hagiographers and demonizers of Ukrainian nationalism would do well to consider taking a pinch of intellectual and moral humility before they launch their next noise campaign.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/de-communization-hannah-arendt-and-ukrainian-nationalism

[Boethius]

This is a fascinating piece on German's current responsibility for Ukraine's past.  Timothy Snyder is a professor of history at Yale.  He has written extensively about Ukraine during WWII and in the interwar period.  This link is to a speech he gave in the German parliament.

From the link-

When we think about the German occupation of Ukraine, we have to remember some very simple banal points that often escape our attention. Like for example,there was no particular correlation between nationality and collaboration. Russians collaborated, Crimean Tatars collaborated, Belarusians collaborated. Everyone collaborated; there is no, as far as we can tell, correlation between ethnicity and collaboration, with the partial exception of the Volksdeutsche, of course,  But in general, there is no correlation between ethnicity and collaboration.

Something else to remember: the vast majority of people who collaborated with the German occupation were not politically motivated. They were collaborating with an occupation that was there, and which is a German historical responsibility. Something that is never said, because it’s inconvenient for precisely everyone, is that more Ukrainian communists collaborated with the Germans than did Ukrainian nationalists.This doesn’t make sense, and so no one ever says it, but it is precisely the case. Vastly more members of the Communist Party collaborated with the German occupation than did Ukrainian nationalists.  . .

For that matter, very many of the people who collaborated with the German occupation had collaborated with the Soviet policies in the 1930s . . .

Incomparably more Ukrainians died fighting against the Wehrmacht than fighting on the side of the Allies, which is not something one can say about every country that is considered an ally.  It's not something that someone can say about, for example, France, which which is why there's no official French history of WWII and why there won't be one even under Macron.  There are some things that Macron cannot do, and one of them will be this:  he will not write about the official history of WWII in France, because more French soldiers fought on the Axis side than the Allied side. . .
 
Now, more Ukrainians fought and died on the Allied side than the French, British, and the Americans put together. Why do we not see this? Because we forget that Ukrainians were fighting in the Red Army. We confuse the Red Army with the Russian Army, which it most definitely was not. The Red Army was the army of the Soviet Union, in which Ukrainians because of the geography of the war were substantially over-represented.

and this -

All of the language about Ukraine as a failed state, or Ukrainians not as a real nation, or Ukrainians divided by culture – in the German language, that is not innocent. That is an inheritance of an attempt to colonize a people not regarded as a people.

Judgments about Ukraine where Ukraine is held to other standards (not that it’s a beautiful wonderful place, in every respect, it’s not), but the application of terms like there not being a Ukrainian nation, or there not being a Ukrainian state, if those things are said in German without a direct confrontation with the German attempt to enslave Ukrainians, those words are not innocent, those words have to be reflected historically in Germany. There’s a particular problem with all of this, which I’m going to mention last briefly.  The temptation for Germans to avoid responsibility, which is always a great temptation, is encouraged by precisely Russian foreign policy. It is Russian foreign policy to divide the history of the Soviet Union into two parts. There’s the good part, which is the Russian part, and the bad part, which is the Ukrainian part.

I can sum this up for you faster than the official memo of the Russian foreign policy does it: liberation – Russian; collaboration – Ukrainian.  That is the line that they follow very consistently, and in this country, to great effect.  Because Russian foreign policy regards the German sense of responsibility as a resource to be manipulated, and the great temptation here is that Germany which has done so much and in many ways is so exemplary in its treatment of the past will fail in this centrally important are of Ukraine in part of the temptation that Russia offers.  It is so easy to confuse Soviet Union with Russland. It happens all the time. But it is not innocent. Russian diplomats do it, but no German should do it. No German should confuse Soviet Union with Russland, that simply should not ever happen.

But the way that Russia handles its memory policy is to export its irresponsibility. It’s to tempt other countries into the same attitude about Ukraine that it has itself. And this is particularly evident in its concept of Ukrainian nationalists, which is a real historical phenomenon, but it’s vastly, vastly inflated in the discourse between Russians and Germans.

Ukrainian nationalism was one of the reasons given by Stalin for the great famine of 1933-1934, for the massive deportations of inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine after WWII, and for the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

The article is far more substantive than the above, for those interested in the topic.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/06/23/nazi-dreams-of-an-enslaved-ukraine-the-blind-spot-of-germanys-historical-responsibility-colonialism/