© 24tv.ua on this day 60 years ago, on 15 October 1959 in Munich, was killed the leader of Ukrainian nationalists Stepan Bandera. Well known for his early years, formative period, the years at the peak of influence. But the post-war period many researchers sidestep. What he did one and a half postwar decades? Who and why was he killed?The post-war phase Bandera’s biography, perhaps the most unknown page of his biography. And ignoring her as sympathetic to him and those who BAnderu categorically rejects. Often, a half postwar decades are described sparingly in two or three paragraphs. Meanwhile, it is perhaps the most important period in the life of Bandera, the kind of “autumn radicals”.
His faction of the OUN increasingly mired in internal squabbles, the authority of the leader was no longer the same as before, the old comrades, one by one left him.
A crisis of ideas
The fact that the Bandera faction of the OUN after the war was in a deep crisis, can be understood by a Great number of Fees. Such fees were roughly analogous to the Congress of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. They were held every few years in the widest part and determine a motion vector for the coming years.For the first 20 postwar years competitors Melnyk (Ounm) spent 4 Great Collection OUN. The Bandera faction never had one! The first since 1943 the Collection they had in 1968, almost a decade after the death of Bandera and a half decades after the cessation of active underground activities in the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, the idea of the Collection was discussed immediately after the war when all the leaders of the Bandera faction settled in Western countries. However, then rejected it as untimely. The nationalist underground in the Soviet Union was still extensive and active UPA brought a lot of headaches of the Soviet KGB.
So instead of Collecting limited to only conference in the region in 1946. And it was conducted for reasons of change of tactics.
The UPA to the beginning of 1946 he suffered very serious losses and could no longer manage full-scale operations even with the use of guerrilla tactics kick and rush. People are too small, so it was decided to cease the armed struggle, to divide the remaining forces into small units of not more than fifty persons and to precision strikes from the deepest underground. Bandera was the same Bandera that in the old days: radical, uncompromising, ready for any sacrifice for achieving the goal. The problem was that the world around was different. Bandera spent almost the entire war in a concentration camp. Yes, the conditions of his detention were tolerant, it could still be useful to the Germans. Nevertheless, he was in isolation and had very limited influence on the organization.
In his absence, in 1943, passed the 3rd Great Collection, which adopted a new party program. It was in the spirit of the moderately left-nationalism. Proclaimed the fight against imperialism, totalitarianism, various social security and a number of democratic provisions, such as freedom of speech, religion, rights of national minorities to develop their culture, etc. items.
Part of a prominent OUN leaders were aware of the need to match the trends of the time. However, Bandera was disagree.
The first conflict
Part of Bandera, is already ripe to act against the führer and the excessive power of one old-fashioned person, tried to do it at the extraordinary conference of 1948. The reason for it was the move of the newspaper “Ukrainian tribune”, all members of which openly joined the opposition to Bandera.The leader of the faction was not going to loosen his grip so urgently convened the conference on which tried to put pressure on the opposition.
First, it was decided to seek cessation of dual loyalty. During the war, when Bandera and other leaders were imprisoned, did the Ukrainian Supreme liberation Council, which proclaimed itself genuine by the government of Ukraine. This organization was sufficiently prominent Regional leaders, for example, Mykola Lebed.
He was one of the closest associates of Bandera and formerly were almost always supported him in his conflicts and splits. Now the opposition has demanded to withdraw from the ugos. After wrangling and debate, the conference ended with the expulsion of all disaffected from the ranks of the faction.
However, the exclusion of opposition has not brought peace. Excluded initiated through the press the argument, supported by some of the remaining Regional activists. Come down to the fact that Bandera was forced to respond to the claims in the newspaper “Ukrainian independence supporters”.
The arguments of opponents of Bandera were on the whole very reasonable.
They claimed that during the war the OUN embarked on the path of political evolution to fit the spirit of the time evolution must continue. And its natural development will be the transformation of the OUN in the democratic organization.
© commons.wikimedia.org Bandera with my wife and DELMIA their opinion, inhabitants of the greater part of Soviet Ukraine will never support autocratic, authoritarian and radical nationalist organization. Because after living in the totalitarian Communist Soviet Union and life under German occupation they cherish the deepest aversion to all authoritarian and autocratic.In addition, the German and Italian regimes are too compromised führer-principle to count on the support of opponents of the Soviet Union should go to the democratic platform. Moreover, that de facto that was in 1943, when the Great collection in the absence of Bandera included in the program of the organization of a number of democratic principles.Bandera refused for a long time, discussions on policy issues, citing the fact that the program of OUN excellent, and the fact that the organization is still alive and leads a more or less active — the best proof that the program is correct and viable.
As regards democracy, the leader of faction broke out in the newspaper an angry rebuke. According to him, the slogans of democracy advanced by its opponents, suspiciously reminiscent of the Soviet slogans and generally smack of Soviet machinations and intrigues. To abandon the slogans of revolutionary nationalism in favor of abstract democracy — sycophancy and sabotage the case.
But seeing that the opponents don’t think about stopping, Bandera has launched a very unusual idea in terms of program and tactics.
The Regional leader proposed the idea, which can be called esoteric nationalism. This, of course, is not about creating some religious teachings and new principles of existence of the OUN.
Originally, the word “esoteric” means a set of certain knowledge and of the sacraments is not available to the uninitiated, of which have a view of only selected followers of some currents.Bandera put forward the idea of coexistence of two political programs.
One would be democratic, in the spirit of the time. Freedom to the minorities, let a hundred flowers bloom, long live democracy, etc., slogans that were supposed to be broadcast to the public and uninitiated people, to cause them sympathy and support.
Another program — the true, would be available only to the highest leaders of the organization. Those were the good old ultra-radical nationalism, the cult of the leader etc to deceive the public, there would be a democratic program, and for those who in the subject — old program of the OUN.
Riot Bandera underground
In 1950 arrived couriers from Shukhevych, who took him from writing. It turned out that the leader of the UPA was aware of the stormy debate in the ranks of the foreign parts of the OUN and had an opinion on this issue.
On behalf of the OUN, Shukhevych of Ukraine supported the opposition, citing the fact that the line of Bandera is clearly contrary to the decisions of the 3 Great Gathering of the OUN in 1943. He also opposed the exclusion of the opposition from the ranks of the OUN.Shortly after the arrival of the letters abroad, Shukhevych was killed. However, his replacement, Vasyl Kuk was set up even more uncompromising. In his message stated that Bandera is a policy that contravenes the resolutions of the Gathering, and is not the legitimate head of the Wire. Cook demanded the reorganization of the foreign parts of the OUN.
The result of long negotiations Bandera and Rebet Matli was the reform of the control of the OUN.
So there were three collegiate organizations: the Board of commissioners of the Political Council and Ekzekutiv. In addition, the parties agreed that the activities in the composition of ugos does not contradict the membership in the OUN.
Bandera was forced to compromise and accept the fact that OUN is on democratic and anti-totalitarian positions. However, he, apparently, decided to adopt the tactics of esoteric nationalism. In words to recognize the need for democratic changes, but in fact secretly working to strengthen its authoritarian power, and to bide his time.
Just a year later, in 1954, Bandera launched an offensive against their opponents.
He planned to purge the editorial offices of party Newspapers from those who supported a different political line. Obviously, it was supposed to be a prologue to purge the ranks of the OUN.
However, in the College of commissioners 2 of 3 of its members were supporters of the opposition. It was a Rebet and Matla. They have played a proactive and issued a decree on the dissolution of the Wire foreign parts of the OUN.Bandera accused his opponents of communism and working for U.S. intelligence and, as a decade and a half ago, began to create his own faction of the fragments of the former. In 1955, along with supporters, organized a conference, which proclaimed him head of the Wire Library.
Bandera pretended that nothing happened, and the world is the same that would be in 30 years. The organization was built on an authoritarian basis.
Opponents of Bandera organizationally formed in 1956, with the name of Ons — overseas. They proclaimed itself an organization built on democratic principles, and fully supports the decision of the Great Collection of 1943.
October 15, 1959, the body of Stepan Bandera was discovered in the stairwell of the house where he lived.
Death overtook him on the landing at the moment when he unlocked the door of his apartment. Everything looked of course, but the Germans, having learned the identity of the victim, decided to conduct the examination more thoroughly and found that the death was caused by poisoning.
No witnesses of the death of Bandera was found, and soon his case was closed.
About who could be behind the death of the leader of the faction opinions differed even among his supporters. Some suspected this zakordonnih (fraction of Ons), the leader of which Rebet died shortly before Bandera. Others believed that the case involved the intelligence agencies, maybe German, maybe Soviet.
© russian7.ru the Funeral of Stepan Banderitas in August 1961, just before the closing of the Berlin wall on the West Berlin checkpoint turned up a strange young man who called himself a KGB agent, who customized the elimination of and in exchange for non-extradition in the USSR promised to give the details.
The Americans suspected him as a provocateur and handed over to the Germans. Them person named Bogdan Stashinsky was told that personally eliminated the leaders of the two factions of the OUN — Bandera and the Bandera. He acted according to the same pattern, tracking the target and passing by shot her in the face with a special gun, equipped with poisonous capsules.Stashinsky stated that he had been forcibly recruited by the KGB and forced to act against Ukrainian nationalists. On soon followed the trial, Stashinsky was sentenced to 8 years, but disappeared from prison before the end of term.
According to the generally accepted version, he had plastic surgery to change appearance and changed the name.
Of the Soviet Union categorically denied any involvement in the death of Bandera.
Although the version of the involvement of the KGB at the present time is generally accepted as the opponents, and fans of Bandera, and we must not exclude the version of factional warfare. After the split of the OUN Melnyk and Bandera and those and others very actively exterminated each other. To a more limited extent this could happen and after the split on Bandera and zakordonnih.
Life after death
In the late 60s Owns as Ohm became part of the Ukrainian national Council, claim the title of a virtual government in exile. As for the Library, it continued to operate independently, although considerably slowed down since the early 60-ies, in fact, no longer differing from many other associations of immigrants.
Since 1968, when the organization was headed by Yaroslav Stetsko, it actually became an appendage to the Anti-Bolshevik bloc of Nations — the main brainchild Stetsko.
The postwar years were a serious challenge for Bandera.In fact, he failed to keep control over his faction. Excessive authoritarianism, intolerance, radicalism and unwillingness to accept the fact that times have changed, undermined the authority of Bandera have their supporters.
In fact, since 1946, the inside of the Bandera faction of the continued years of conflict that ended with the split of the organization 10 years later. By the time of the death of Bandera has not been the most influential figure even in the ranks of the nationalists, not to mention the whole motley of the Ukrainian emigration.
The principles, once and for all chosen Bandera, was current in the 20-ies and 30-ies on the wave of popularity of autocratic movements around the world, but after the war, the world has changed very much. His faction was doomed to quiet extinction with a permanent schisms and conflicts.
However, it is the name of Bandera became a household word to denote supporters of Ukrainian nationalism in the USSR and of insulting nicknames in recent years has become an established national. Eugene Antoniuk