Ukrainian Nationalists and the Holocaust

26 Mirchuk, In the German Mills of Death.

27 Mirchuk, Narys, 582-83.

28 Kovaliv, “Herasymenko.” I am grateful to Marco Carynnyk for first informing me that the pseudonymous H. Polikarpenko under whose name the history appeared was actually P. Herasymenko.

29 Herasymenko, Orhanizatsiia Ukrains’kykh Natsionalistiv, 43; see also 40-44, 50-51.

30 Ibid., 8.

31 Ibid., 131.

32 The UHVR or Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council is discussed below, 375-76. Shankovsky was a founding member.

33 Yurkevich, “Ukrainian Nationalists and DP Politics.” Rudling, “‘Not Quite Klaus Barbie.’“

34 By southern Ukraine Shankovsky meant the Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Odessa, Stalino (now Donetsk), Voroshylovhrad (now Luhansk), and Zaporizhzhia oblasts in their wartime boundaries as well as Crimea. Shankovs’kyi, Pokhidni hrupy, 27.

35 This narrative permeates the book, but this particular summary is based on ibid., 21-22. On workers wanting free and fair elections and democracy and on their opposition to the leader principle, see 107. On the August 1943 program, see below, 368-70, 377.

36 Shankovs’kyi, Pokhidni hrupy, 317-18.

37 Ibid., 19.

38 Ibid., 20, 56.

39 Ibid., 110.

40 Ibid., 163-64, 175.

41 Ibid., 66 n. 27.

42 Ibid., 237, 249.

43 Ibid., 249.

44 A well known example of this subjectivist scholarship is Hellbeck, “Fashioning the Stalinist Soul.”

45 Kuromiya, Freedom and Terror in the Donbas, 281.

46 Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 3-4.

47 Shankovs’kyi, Pokhidni hrupy, 169, 172.

48 Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 226. In addition, she continued, her husband enjoyed the trust of the German authorities.

49 Ibid., 218, 231.

50 Ibid., 221.

51 Ibid., 247.

52 Ibid., 265, 270-71, 273, 275-77, 291, 293.

53 “Ukraintsi do pratsi!” Reproduced in Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 342. Ukrains’kyi Donbas came out in Horlivka in Donetsk oblast.

54 “Ukrains’ka molod’!” Reproduced in Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 343.

55 “Uchyteli ukraintsi!” Reproduced in Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 344. A similar proclamation appeared in Ukrains’kyi Donbas on 18 January 1942: “Do napolehlyvoi pratsi!” Reproduced in Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 346.

56 Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 273-74; photoreproduction of first page of the order, 339. Olhynka is no longer a raion capital.

57 Ibid., 268. For other indications of anti-Jewish sentiment among OUN members in the Donbas see 135, 215. On truth and legend about OUN in the Donbas, see also Radchenko, “‘Two Policemen Came.’“

58 Lewytzkyj, “Natsional’nyi rukh pid chas Druhoi svitovoi viiny,” is an interview, but to my knowledge it is the only attempt to sketch the history of the Mitrynga faction of OUN during World War II.

59 Bahrianyi, “Natsional’na ideia i ‘natsionalizm,’“ in Bahrianyi, Publitsystyka, 63.

60 Armstrong, “Heroes and Human.”

61 As I wrote in 2010: “In the mid-1980s the Solidarity underground in Poland wanted to publish texts about Ukrainian nationalism and requested through an intermediary, the late Janusz Radziejowski, that I convey to them copies of Armstrong’s book as well as Alex Motyl’s Turn to the Right. After reading them in Polish translation, Janusz wrote to me in 1988 that for all the scholarly value of these books, he was very disappointed that they took no cognizance of the tremendous tragedy of the Jews.” Himka, “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,” 87. Radziejowski’s criticism was unfair in relation to Motyl’s book, which only encompassed the period through 1929. For more on Armstrong’s position, see Berkhoff and Carynnyk, “The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,” 175 n. 22.

62 Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 110-12.

63 Ibid., 54, 56 (a map appears on p. 55). See below, 225-303.

64 Ibid., 79 n. 28, 118.

65 Dobrovol’s’kyi, OUN na Donechchyni, 294 (reprint of excerpts from Stakhiv’s memoir of 1956).

66 Shankovs’kyi, Pokhidni hrupy, 85-86, 94, 101-02, 147.

67 “...The authors have been guided, and this needs to be strongly emphasized, by Marxist-Leninist criteria in the national question and in the evaluation of social problems.” Szcześniak and Szota. Droga do nikąd, 6.

68 Nowak, “‘Droga do nikąd.” This is a review of a reprint of Droga do nikąd in 2013.

69 Kedryn Rudnyts’kyi, Zhytiia—podii—liudy, 356.

70 Gitelman, “Politics and the Historiography of the Holocaust in the Soviet Union.” Amar, “Disturbed Silence.”

71 On developments in America, see the classic study by Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life.

72 There is an obituary of Hanusiak in the communist newspaper People’s World: “Michael Hanusiak.”

73 To be discussed below, 105-10.

74 “Hanusiak’s publication is utterly tendentious, and I refer to it with great caution.” Weiss, “Jewish-Ukrainian Relations,” 420 n. 36. Weiss’s article cited here was originally delivered as a paper at a conference on Ukrainian-Jewish relations in 1983. At the same conference, during the roundtable discussion, I am recorded as having said: “...no matter how one claims that one is careful about this source, Hanushchak [sic] being a Ukrainian communist front, cannot be believed and one shouldn’t even mention it in a text.” “Round-Table Discussion [first edition],” 494. For the second edition of the conference proceedings I was permitted to clean up the language of my intervention and phrased the same thought somewhat differently, saying that Hanusiak was “a Ukrainian-American Communist with a political axe to grind; he is not a source to be cited in a scholarly text.” “Round-Table Discussion [second edition],” 494. Somehow Taras Hunczak managed to misread this entirely: “I understand that when Aharon Weiss called Hanusiak’s work ‘utterly tendentious,’ John-Paul Himka came to Hanusiak’s defense.” Hunczak, “Problems of Historiography,” 136.

75 The organization was originally founded as the United Ukrainian Toilers Organization in 1924 and renamed the Union of Ukrainian Toilers in 1938 and the League of American Ukrainians in 1940. Kuropas, The Ukrainian Americans, 184, 196.

76 This was Sam Pevzner, a writer who contributed to such communist publications as The Daily Worker and Jewish Life. He had been subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a communist propagandist in 1958.

77 HDA SBU, fond 16, op. 4, spr. 2, tom 2, ff. 275-76.

78 Szcześniak and Szota’s book came out while I was a graduate student at the University of Michigan. Our library had a publication exchange with Poland and received a copy of the book before it was removed from circulation.

79 The kinds of sources made available by the momentous changes of 1989-91 will be described in the next chapter.

80 The fact that “today” (the mid-1980s) Volhynia “lies outside the Polish territory poses delicate political problems for Polish authors.” Spector, Holocaust of Volhynian Jews, 4.

81 Mirchuk, Narys, 9. Herasymenko, Orhanizatsiia Ukrains’kykh Natsionalistiv, 4. Shankovs’kyi, Pokhidni hrupy, 184, 198, 266, 291, 302 nn. 100-01, 329. Shtul’, V im”ia pravdy, 7.

82 Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung, 316.

83 Ibid., 40, 48-49, 375, 382.

84 Ibid., 316-17.

85 Ibid., 374-75.

86 Himka, Review of Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung, 99.

87 Burds, “AGENTURA.” Burds, Early Cold War. Burds, “Gender and Policing.”

88 See 42, 105-10.

89 Berkhoff and Carynnyk, “The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,” 152-56; quotations 156.

90 Marples, Heroes and Villains, 79-165.

91 Kul’chyts’kyi, Orhanizatsiia ukrains’kykh natsionalistiv i Ukrains’ka povstans’ka armiia. Fakhovyi vysnovok, 40.

92 Koval’, “Za shcho i z kym borolysia OUN-UPA.” Quotation, 92. Koval’s original report is reprinted in this article, 95-116. An entire section of Koval’s report, “What Did UPA Fight for?” (112-14), is simply a long extract from the OUN program of August 1943.

93 Khonigsman, Katastrofa l’vovskogo evreistva, 2.

94 Khonigsman, Katastrofa evreistva Zapadnoi Ukrainy, 76, 122.

95 Ibid., 113, 125.

96 Kovba, Liudianist’ u bezodni pekla, 203.

97 For example, Kovba sometimes suggested that the Poles, not the Ukrainians, were the real antisemites (e.g., 116). In her opinion, while the Polish and Jewish press printed tendentious accounts of the pogroms of 1917-20, Ukrainian publications offered “objective information” (29-30). She stated (29) that the “educated, tolerant Greek Catholic clergy was in its large majority free of antisemitic superstitions,” but see the attempt in 1930 to prove the reality of the blood libel by the young Basilian monk Irynei Nazarko, “Piznaimo zhydiv!” (After World War II Nazarko became an influential church historian in the Ukrainian diaspora.)

98 Kovba, Liudianist’ u bezodni pekla, 224, 228-29.

99 I have explored this theme also in “Debates in Ukraine,” 354, 356.

100 Polishchuk, Hirka pravda, 30-39, 215-16.

101 Ibid., 20-22, 25-26, 57, 245, 437-38.

102 Ibid., 10.

103 Kulińska, “Dowody zbrodni.”

104 Polishchuk, Integralny nacjonalizm ukraiński, vols. 3-5 (these volumes bear an additional title: Nacjonalizm ukraiński w dokumentach).

105 Polishchuk, Hirka pravda, 12, 26.

106 E.g., ibid., 22. His insistence on the innocence of the local Volhynian population and the guilt of the Galician nationalists led him to state categorically, and unfortunately incorrectly, that the local population of Volhynia took no part in the mass murder of the Jews, only the auxiliary police set up by OUN. Ibid., 342.

107 Marples, Heroes and Villains, 208. I also had been dismissive of Polishchuk’s publications until I began my own research on the role of OUN and UPA in the Holocaust; before then I had absorbed the negative opinions of colleagues in Ukrainian studies and had only consulted his works superficially. I changed my thinking about Polishchuk when I read him carefully and with an open mind.

108 Serhiichuk, Nasha krov—na svoii zemli, 4.

109 Shapoval, “Chy podolano ‘volyns’kyi syndrom’?”

110 Isaievych, “1943 rik.”

111 Torzecki, “Mav ia do dila z endets’kym murom.”

112 Wnuk, “Recent Polish Historiography,” 10.

113 Polishchuk in fact criticized Prus more than once in his publications. For example, he wrote that Prus was wrong to seek the reasons for Ukrainian nationalist atrocities “in genetic or cultural factors of the Ukrainian people.” Polishchuk, Integralny nacjonalizm ukraiński, 2:486.

114 The destruction battalions were militias that the Soviets organized to fight the nationalist insurgency after the reconquest of Western Ukraine. Many of the fighters were recruited from the Polish minority. On the battalions, see Statiev, Soviet Counterinsurgency, 209-29. Although these units are usually referred to as destruction battalions in the English-language literature, a more literal translation from the Russian would be exterminatory battalions.

115 Prus, Holocaust po banderowsku, 186-87.

116 Ibid., 156.

117 HDA SBU, fond 13, spr. 372, vol. 1, ff. 21-59.

118 “Vytiah z protokolu dopytu chlena tsentral’noho provodu OUN M. Stepaniaka,” Pol’shcha ta Ukraina u trydsiatykh-sorokovykh rokakh XX stolittlia, 220-72, 442-44.

119 As we will see below, 112-15, Stella Krenzbach and her memoir were Ukrainian nationalist fabrications.

120 Prus, Holocaust po banderowsku, 164.

121 Ibid., 189.

122 The Polish version appeared first, in 2000, the English version a year later.

123 Boll, “Złoczów” (2002); Bechtel, “De Jedwabne à Zolotchiv” (2005); Carynnyk, “Zolochiv movchyt’” (2005); Struve, “Ritual und Gewalt” (2005); Pohl, “Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Western Ukraine” (2007); Himka, “Dostovirnist’ svidchennia” (2008); Kopstein and Wittenberg, “Deadly Communities” (2010); Kruglov “Pogromy v Vostochnoi Galitsii” (2010); Himka, “The Lviv Pogrom of 1941” (2011); Lower, “Pogroms” (2011); Struve, “Rites of Violence?” (2012); Prusin, “A ‘Zone of Violence’“ (2013); Rossoliński-Liebe, “Der Verlauf und die Täter” (2013); Struve, “Tremors in the Shatter-Zone of Empires” (2013); Kopstein and Wittenberg, Intimate Violence (2018).

124 Struve, Deutsche Herrschaft (2015).

125 Himka, “Ethnicity and the Reporting of Mass Murder” (2013); Kiebuzinski and Motyl, The Great West Ukrainian Prison Massacre (2017); Struve, “Masovi vbyvstva v”iazniv.” Among earlier works on the same subject are Gross, Revolution from Abroad (1988), 144-86, and Romaniv and Fedushchak, Zakhidnoukrains’ka trahediia (2002).

126 “The Ukrainians had never been considered pro-Jewish. Ukraine had been the scene of intermittent pogroms and oppression for 300 years. On the other hand, these people had no stamina for the long-range systematic German destruction process. Short violence followed by confession and absolution was one thing, organized killing was quite another.” Hilberg, Destruction, 545. Aside from the essentialism here, Hilberg seemed unaware that some Ukrainians had proven quite capable of long-range systematic and organized killing—of the Polish population of Volhynia and Galicia.

127 Shortly after Ordinary Men was published, Browning visited Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, where Israeli scholars questioned his neglect of survivor testimony. Browning’s arguments in defense of his approach are well laid out in Browning, Collected Memories, 40-42.

128 “Christopher Browning Talks.”

129 Rossoliński-Liebe has also himself written several surveys of the historiography: “Debating, Obfuscating and Disciplining the Holocaust”; “Die anti-jüdische Massengewalt”; and “Survivor Testimonies.”

130 See Polonsky and Michlic, The Neighbors Respond; Forum on Jan Gross’s Neighbors; Michlic, “Coming to Terms with the ‘Dark Past’”; Törnquist-Plewa, “The Jedwabne Killings.” The government of the rightist, nationalist Law and Justice Party in Poland initiated libel proceedings against Gross in 2015 and attempted to strip him of his Order of Merit in 2016, but backed down in the face of protests. At issue was not Neighbors alone, but two other books by Gross, Fear and Golden Harvest.

131 Pohl, review of “Konterrevolutionäre Elemente sind zu erschießen,” and Rudling, “Bogdan Musial and the Question of Jewish Responsibility.”

132 There is a sympathetic account of Kulchytsky’s career and the evolution of his views on the Holodomor which does not mention his contribution to the rehabilitation of OUN: Klid, “Stanislav Kulchytsky.”

133 There is an excellent study of the working group within the context of a wider discussion of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of historical commissions to resolve conflicts based on historical memory: Myshlovska, “Establishing the ‘Irrefutable Facts.’“

134 Kul’chyts’kyi, Problem OUN-UPA.

135 Kul’chyts’kyi, Orhanizatsiia ukrains’kykh natsionalistiv i Ukrains’ka povstans’ka armiia. Fakhovyi vysnovok.

136 Kul’chyts’kyi, Orhanizatsiia ukrains’kykh natsionalistiv i Ukrains’ka povstans’ka armiia. Istorychni narysy.

137 “Thus, the struggle of OUN-UPA was not about the destruction of the Poles as an ethnic minority on the territory of Ukraine, but about the removal of the ‘Polish factor’ as a weapon in the hands of the enemies of the Ukrainian liberation movement,” i.e., the Germans and the Soviet partisans. Kentii in Kul’chyts’kyi, Problem OUN-UPA, 89-90.

138 Kul’chyts’kyi, Orhanizatsiia ukrains’kykh natsionalistiv i Ukrains’ka povstans’ka armiia. Fakhovyi vysnovok, 3.

139 Amar et al., Strasti za Banderoiu. Arel, Ukraine List, nos. 441 and 442.

140 On historical politics in independent Ukraine, see Kasianov, “History, Politics and Memory.”

141 See McBride, “How Ukraine’s New Memory Commissar Is Controlling the Nation’s Past”; McBride, “Who’s Afraid of Ukrainian Nationalism?” 657-62; Himka, “Legislating Historical Truth.”

142 Himka, “The Lontsky Street Prison Memorial Museum.”

143 The partnerships are featured on the Center’s website, www.cdvr.org.ua (accessed 12 October 2018).

144 V”iatrovych, Stavlennia OUN do ievreiv.

145 This is discussed in the next chapter, 112-15.

146 Kurylo and Himka, “Iak OUN stavylasia do ievreiv?”

147 Bolianovs’kyi, Dyviziia “Halychyna”; Bolianovs’kyi, Ukrains’ki viis’kovi formuvannia.

148 Hrytsak, Strasti za natsionalizmom.

149 E.g., Rasevych, “L’vivs’kyi pohrom”; Rasevych, “Vyverty propahandy.”

150 Zaitsev, Ukrains’kyi integral’nyi natsionalizm.

151 Zaitsev, “Defiliada v Moskvi ta Varshavi”; Zaitsev, “Voienna doktryna.”

152 He has also written his own account of the historiography. Radchenko, “Ukrainian Historiography.”

153 Usach, “Chy mozhemo pochuty holos.”

154 Shliakhtych, “Arkhivno-slidchi spravy politsaiv”; Shliakhtych, “Stvorennia ta funktsionuvannia”; Shliakhtych, “Uchast’ mistsevoi dopomizhnoi politsii.”

155 Kolesnichenko, “Reabilitatsiia ta heroizatsiia.”

156 “Kolesnichenko vydav zbirnyk.” Solod’ko, “Iak Kolesnichenko oskandalyvsia.” “Kolesnichenko znovu potsupyv chuzhu pratsiu.”

157 Diukov, Vtorostepennyi vrag (two editions).

158 Bakanov, “Ni katsapa.”

2. Sources
The Increased Availability of Primary Sources

When I began my work as a historian in the early 1970s, conducting research was very different from what it is now. I wrote all my notes by hand on half-sheets of paper and all my bibliographic data on three-by-five index cards. I could photocopy texts and documents if I was working in the West, but photocopiers were not available in the communist bloc, where my most substantial research was undertaken. Microfilm and microfiche seemed to be the wave of the future, though now they seem mainly to take up valuable storage space in libraries and other repositories. I mention all this to underline just how different the world of research has become for scholars today. Had I been able to write this book, say, in the 1980s, my discussion of sources would have advanced from archive to archive, pointing out the relevant material that could be found in each.1 But now the physical location of documents is not as determinative as it once was.

This is especially true for Holocaust studies. Much of the documentation most relevant to the history of the Holocaust in Ukraine was first microfilmed and later scanned by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in Washington, DC, and by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. It is particularly easy to work with the materials at USHMM. On a trip there in spring 2018, it took me just a few hours to put thirteen thick volumes of Soviet Ukrainian war crimes trials on a USB drive.

Digitization has made a great difference to the work of a modern scholar. While tackling this project, I had vast source collections at my beck and call, including all the inestimably valuable survivor testimonies collected in Poland immediately after the war (the AŻIH collection) and the documentation on the wartime activities of OUN and UPA in Volhynia collected by Viktor Polishchuk. Both fit easily on an external hard drive. Colleagues in the field have also usually been generous in sharing documents among themselves, giving us all the opportunity to develop rather large personal collections of documentary material. Furthermore, an abundance of sources is available on the Internet: vast electronic libraries of Ukrainian and Polish periodicals and books (such as a collection of publications from the Ukrainian diaspora, http://diasporiana.org.ua/) and specialized document collections (such as the electronic archive of the Ukrainian liberation movement, which comprised about 25,000 documents in autumn 2018, http://avr.org.ua/).

There are now also numerous printed collections of documents. In the mid-1950s Roman Ilnytzkyj, who was associated with the dviikari, published a collection of primarily German documents concerning relations between OUN and the Third Reich. While the title of his work promised that the compilation would encompass events from 1934 to 1945, the two volumes that appeared extended only into early 1942.2 As John A. Armstrong noted, the collection was “highly partisan.”3 Philip Friedman pointed out a telling selective omission in Ilnytzkyj’s collection. Ilnytzkyj cited a German police summary of a letter sent from the Bandera faction of OUN to the Gestapo in Lviv in October 1941. The part Ilnytzkyj cited indicated that the Banderites were breaking with the Germans, but omitted the phrase: “Long live greater independent Ukraine without Jews, Poles, and Germans. Poles behind the San, Germans to Berlin, Jews to the gallows.”4 This was typical of other source collections that emanated from the dviikari: they simply omitted or modified embarrassing passages and documents. For example, a collection of official OUN documents published in 19555 included portions of a text from May 1941, “Borot’ba i diial’nist’ OUN pidchas viiny” (The Struggle and Activities of OUN during the War). As we will see below,6 this document contained explicit instructions for OUN militants and security agents to “liquidate” and “neutralize” Jews in certain positions and to incite Red Army soldiers to murder Jews and Russians. But in the dviikari collection, “the passages about minorities were purged, without ellipses to mark the cuts.”7 Another example: in 1960 the dviikari published a small volume of documents about the NKVD murders of summer 1941.8 Some of the documents were taken from the wartime newspaper Krakivs’ki visti. I carefully compared all the texts that were reprinted in the said volume with the originals published in the newspaper. Several of the original articles were vehemently antisemitic, but the offending passages were all eliminated or modified in the compilation of reprinted pieces.9 Similar problems have dogged the documentary publications of OUN veteran Volodymyr Kosyk,10 although the four volumes that came out in Lviv at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s do not omit or modify particular passages as they include photoreproductions of the German originals.

Another documentary and monographic series important for its sheer size is the Litopys UPA, which issued fifty volumes in its “main series” and another twenty-four (as of 2014) in its “new series.” The volumes of the new series, which are academically superior to their predecessors, are all available online in the electronic library of the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NANU).11 The series was initiated following a resolution of a congress of UPA veterans in 1973 to publish source materials on the nationalist army, and the first volume appeared in 1977 under the editorship of two UPA veterans, Peter J. Potichnyj and Yevhen Shtendera. Potichnyj had joined UPA as a fifteen-year-old child soldier; he cooperated with the dviikari in emigration and made an illustrious career in Ukrainian studies (he was a professor of political science at McMaster University in Canada). As one might expect of a veterans’ publication, it tended to paint events with extra glory on its palette and was reticent or apologetic when it came to matters of ethnic cleansing and participation in the Holocaust. Litopys UPA has also been caught out omitting material that showed the nationalist army releasing German soldiers and murdering national minorities.12

On the whole, the best collections of OUN-UPA documents have been published in independent Ukraine since the mid-1990s, using material from archives that were not open under communism. Though they vary somewhat in quality, they are reliable on the whole. They might alter orthography or transcribe incorrectly, but they are freer of the ideological interference that sullied collections published by OUNites in the diaspora. Even collections put together by nationalists in Ukraine have not exhibited squeamishness about antisemitism, xenophobia, and ethnic cleansing. We saw an instance of this in the previous chapter, in the confrontation of Lev Shankovsky’s idealized history of OUN-B in the Donbas with a post-Soviet documentary collection on the same topic.13 Even Volodymyr Serhiichuk, whom we have already met as an UPA apologist polemicizing with Viktor Polishchuk,14 included in his documentary collection on OUN-UPA a report from 1943 that frankly recounted that UPA had burned down a Polish village of eighty-six households, murdering all its inhabitants, and that it had completely cleansed another region in Volhynia of ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche).15 Among the best of the post-Soviet Ukrainian source collections are Ukrains’ke derzhavotvorennia edited by Orest Dziuban and a series on OUN during the years of World War II edited by Oleksandra Veselova and others. There is also a two-volume source collection published in Moscow on OUN and UPA during World War II containing documents from archives in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and elsewhere.16

In summary, today documents relevant for research on OUN-UPA and the Holocaust are not as profoundly bound up with repositories in specific locations as they once were. A document that is in an archive in Ukraine might also be in Washington or Jerusalem, or in a scholar’s personal collection of digitized literature and sources, or available on the Internet, or reprinted in a source publication. For this reason, this chapter on sources is not organized by particular repositories, as once was traditional in East European studies, but rather by types of sources. And for our study, in which cognizance of the individual perspectives of any given source is mandatory, this procedure makes the most sense.