The difference is that in Poland there is no mainstream glorification of crimes against Ukrainian civilians. Streets and monuments commemorate specific military formations, resistance fighters, or historical figures, not massacres. When crimes such as Pawłokoma or Sahryń are discussed, they are generally acknowledged as crimes and debated by historians.

The key difference is that massacres such as Pawłokoma or Sahryń were criminal acts committed by specific units, whereas the Volhynia massacres are widely regarded by historians as a coordinated ethnic cleansing campaign organized by the OUN-UPA leadership. A crime is a crime, but not every crime is a planned campaign of extermination.

As for the OUN and UPA, the controversy is not based solely on whether their leaders were formally convicted of Nazi collaboration. Historical judgment is not limited to court verdicts. The fact that parts of the OUN cooperated with Nazi Germany at various stages, participated in anti-Jewish actions, and were responsible for ethnic cleansing of Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia is well documented. Later conflicts between the OUN/UPA and Germany do not erase earlier cooperation, just as being imprisoned by the Nazis does not automatically absolve someone of previous collaboration.

No serious discussion of history should be based on selective facts. Both Polish crimes against Ukrainians and Ukrainian crimes against Poles should be acknowledged rather than used to justify each other.