An Analysis of Polish and Ukrainian Historical Discourse over the Polish-Ukrainian Conflict of 1943-1947

Abstract

In 1990 Polish and Ukrainian historians started an intensive historical discourse about the Polish- Ukrainian conflict of 1943-1947. Until 1990 there was a need for Polish and Ukrainian historians to discuss their historical disagreements but it was not possible because of the soviet censorship in both countries. After the soviet censorship had disappeared 1989-1991 Polish-Ukrainian historical conferences about this controversial part of their history started to take place and several Polish and Ukrainian historians published monographs or essays on the subject. It turned out quickly that Polish and Ukrainian historians did not agree about what happened in the Polish-Ukrainian borderland 1943-1947 and how the history of this Polish-Ukrainian conflict should be written. Furthermore the historical discourse got very positivistic and objectivistic because some historians tried to persuade other historians that their version of the history was right. In this article I analyse the discourse of the Polish and Ukrainian historians. To do that I subdivide Polish historians into “warriors” (“Krieger”), “aggressors” (“Angreifer”) and “forgivers” (“Versöhner”) and the Ukrainian historians into “legitimisers” (“Legitimisten”), “defenders” (“Verteidiger”) and “forgivers” (“Versöhner”). I analyse the historiographies of these six groups of historians and compare them, asking, which facts do the historians construct? What meaning do the facts get in the historical narratives? What kind of symbols and metaphors do the historians use? Where do the historians see the causes of the conflict? What plots do the historians invent to make sense from the very eventful history?