Katyn, Injustice and the IMT

[ChristopherPerrien]

Quote:
This section of the forum needs plagiarism, whether the theft is from reputable scholars or "Revisionists," about as much as it needs a dead rat.

Judging by this statement, Is there some reason a revisionist can't be " a
reputable scholar"? Or are accepted facts of WWII of the 40's and 50's considered the ultimate TRUTH?

All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.

[xcalibur]

Quote:
This section of the forum needs plagiarism, whether the theft is from reputable scholars or "Revisionists," about as much as it needs a dead rat.

Judging by this statement, Is there some reason a revisionist can't be " a
reputable scholar"? Or are accepted facts of WWII of the 40's and 50's considered the ultimate TRUTH?

All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.

I don't think that's what DT was saying considering the agenda of the website whence the material was lifted.

And, fyi, that's "Katyn" not "Katlyn". You are quite correct that such errors need to be set straight.

[xcalibur]

Quote:
This section of the forum needs plagiarism, whether the theft is from reputable scholars or "Revisionists," about as much as it needs a dead rat.

Judging by this statement, Is there some reason a revisionist can't be " a
reputable scholar"? Or are accepted facts of WWII of the 40's and 50's considered the ultimate TRUTH?

All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.

I don't think that's what DT was saying considering the agenda of the website whence the material was lifted.

And, fyi, that's "Katyn" not "Katlyn". You are quite correct that such errors need to be set straight.

Thanks, any way I am just trying to do something with this dead topic.

I just see the problem both ways, firsat, when revisionism is hijacked by "Deniers" like at some so-called "revisionist" sites, or due to generalized statements if real spirit of revisonist theory and revisionism is automactically associated with some sort of neo-nazi denier bullshit.

In short , Not all revisionists are dis-reputable, and all revisionism is not "Denial".

Ageed.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Quote:
This section of the forum needs plagiarism, whether the theft is from reputable scholars or "Revisionists," about as much as it needs a dead rat.

Judging by this statement, Is there some reason a revisionist can't be " a
reputable scholar"? Or are accepted facts of WWII of the 40's and 50's considered the ultimate TRUTH?

All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.

I don't think that's what DT was saying considering the agenda of the website whence the material was lifted.

And, fyi, that's "Katyn" not "Katlyn". You are quite correct that such errors need to be set straight.

Thanks, I am just trying to do something with this dead topic.

I see the problem both ways, first, when revisionism is hijacked by "Deniers" like at some so-called "revisionist" sites, or due to generalized statements if real spirit of revisonist theory and revisionism is always associated with some sort of neo-nazi denier bullshit.

In short , Not all revisionists are dis-reputable, and all revisionism is not "Denial".

[David Thompson]

Chris -- I said:

This section of the forum needs plagiarism, whether the theft is from reputable scholars or "Revisionists," about as much as it needs a dead rat.

You replied:

Judging by this statement, Is there some reason a revisionist can't be " a reputable scholar"? Or are accepted facts of WWII of the 40's and 50's considered the ultimate TRUTH?

My remark was primarily directed against plagiarism, but your point is well taken.

There is a difference, to my mind, between "Revisionists" and revisionist historians. The revisionist historians use historical methods to collect, examine and assess evidence in order to resolve historical problems. They may be interested in WWII, or any other interesting period of history. The persons I term "Revisionists" are Nazi apologists and anti-semitic cranks who distort or conceal evidence in order to inflame regional, religious or racial prejudice. They rarely take an interest in subjects which do not involve Jews in some way or another. "Revisionists" are people pretending to be revisionist historians. They have the same relationship to history as advertising has to journalism.

This can be readily seen on the site which gave rise to this thread. In addition to the list which was posted, the site offered essays on the following subjects:

Mel, Christ and the Jews ... more
Seven Jewish-Americans Control Most US Major Media ... more
This is no hate, it is Jewish tolerance! ... more
Jewish logic: According to Jews, Christianity is a lie, a hoax! ... more
No Hijackers For 911 ... more
Declaration of the Founding of the Committee "Freedom for Horst Mahler, Reinhold Oberlercher and Uwe Meenen" and appeal! ... more
Once more, the much maligned "racists" are proven right
"Multiculturalism tends to lead to weaker communities." ... more

The purpose of the forum is to provide an area where information and viewpoints on historical information can be exchanged in an atmosphere of civil discourse. The forum was not intended to function as a bullhorn for the foam-flecked rants of racist bigots and sectarian fanatics.

You also said:

All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.

The IMT judges did not convict any person or organization for the Katyn forest massacre, nor was there any judicial finding that the Germans perpetrated the crime. Consequently, I think it is inaccurate to term the Katyn forest allegations of the Soviet prosecutor a "judicial error in Nuremburg."

[Penn44]

On account of the mess with Holocaust denial, the term "revisionist" is now so pejorative that I would not use it to describe any legitimate historian.

Every generation, every socio-economic/ethnic/racial group needs to reexamine and reassess history in light of its own experiences. Under such circumstances, history is often "revised." As a result, there is no one history, and no "history" that can stand the test of time.


Penn44

[ChristopherPerrien]

You also said: Quote:
All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.
The IMT judges did not convict any person or organization for the Katyn forest massacre, nor was there any judicial finding that the Germans perpetrated the crime. Consequently, I think it is inaccurate to term the Katyn forest allegations of the Soviet prosecutor a "judicial error in Nuremburg."

I wiil get back tommorrow on this, I believe Katyn is specifically mentioned in the blanket charge/indictment of "crimes against humanity". I will go back and look at the Goering transcripts as that was the last one I read in full.

[David Thompson]

Chris -- You're right about Katyn being specifically mentioned. It is mentioned by the Soviet prosecutor, however, and not by the judges, who ignored the allegation in rendering their final judgment.

This is the same problem that is frequently seen in posts here contending that the IMT judges ruled that the entire SS was a criminal organization. That's what the prosecutors charged, but it is not not what the judgment says.

For some discussion on the treatment of the Katyn forest massacre at the IMT trials take a look at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=23385 on p. 2, and

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15072 starting on p. 1.

The first of these threads has a characteristically helpful and on-point post by Roberto, which reads:

What follows is my translation of an assessment of the handling of the Katyn killings at Nuremberg on a German web site under

http://www.h-ref.de/ar/misc/katyn.shtml

In April 1943 German units found mass graves with the corpses of more than 4,100 murdered Polish officers next to the village of Katyn. Examinations revealed that the shootings had taken place in March and April 1940. During the Nuremberg Trials the Soviets tried to blame these mass murders on the Germans.

The other prosecutors urged Rudenko to do without this accusation which – whatever it was that had happened in reality – would give the German defense the right to reject it and thereby to implicate the powers charged with carrying out the trial in a horrible atrocity.
T. Taylor, The Nuremberg Trial [German translation by Heyne editors, 1996], page 148 and following.

But the Soviets would not give in. They insisted in changing the indictment accordingly and charging the Germans with the murder of 11,000 captured Polish officers ( Taylor, p. 157), which seems to more or less correspond to the number of those actually murdered. The Russians for this purpose submitted an "expert report" that dated the murders to the autumn of 1941, when the area was already controlled by German troops.
Taylor points out that the question who was to blame for these mass murders did not constitute a "tu quoque" – argument, for in the case of Katyn

the circumstances were such that only the Soviet Union or Germany could have committed the atrocity. Thus there was only one way for one of these countries to prove its innocence: it had to prove that the other was guilty.
Taylor, p. 541

Thus, as Taylor goes on explaining, a strange situation had come about. Until now the prosecutors had always tried to prove the defendants guilty of concrete deeds. In this case, however, as Taylor presumes, the Soviets were out not so much to incriminate [emphasis in original] a given defendant as to relieve [emphasis in original] themselves.
With a procedural trick and a self-serving interpretation of the statutes General Nikitshenko tried to block the German objections against the unjustified accusations,

but Biddle rightly recognized that he and the others could not give in this time, for if the tribunal allowed the Soviet prosecution to pronounce the Germans guilty of the Katyn massacre but blocked every German counter-argument, this would render the trial an absurdity.
Taylor, S. 543

Against the vote of Soviet judge Nikitshenko German witnesses for the defense were admitted. Thereupon Soviet prosecutor Rudenko submitted to the tribunal another petition in which he accused the tribunal of not fulfilling its duty. Biddle, the American judge, called this submittal "outrageous" (Taylor, p. 543) and instructed his assistant Herbert Wechsler […] to clarify the issue.

When the tribunal on 6 April discussed the petition, Biddle had armed himself with an opinion prepared by Herbert Wechsler, which was as full of dignity as it was convincing and swept Rudenko’s petition off the table.
Taylor, p. 543

Rudenko’s petition, Biddle declared, was defamatory and could in the US have led its author to be charged with disrespecting the court.

The he turned to Nikitshenko and asked him what he thought was to be done. The completely flabbergasted general murmured something that could not be understood. Biddle thereupon read the opinion to his listeners and said that it could be "read in open session before we arrest general Rudenko".
Taylor, S. 543

After some negotiations the issue was off the table, and besides three German three Soviet witnesses were interrogated. As the Soviets stuck to their version, the question who was responsible for the Katyn massacre could not be finally clarified, but Taylor remarks: "According to all indications the guilt for Katyn lay heavily on the Soviet Union ..." (Taylor, p. 546). Rudenko had through his insistence only made things worse, Taylor states at the end.

At that time there was not yet a clear proof that the Russians rather than the Germans were responsible, but many thought so and thus the tribunal had a hot iron on its hands. Cleverly it allowed both the Russians and the Germans to make their depositions about the Katyn massacre, but did not mention this tremendous occurrence with a single syllable in the judgement.
Taylor, pages 738 and following

And indeed you will find nothing about Katyn in the IMT’s judgement, which is transcribed under

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judcont.htm

[xcalibur]

Chris -- You're right about Katyn being specifically mentioned. It is mentioned by the Soviet prosecutor, however, and not by the judges, who ignored the allegation in rendering their final judgment.

This is the same problem that is frequently seen in posts here contending that the IMT judges ruled that the entire SS was a criminal organization. That's what the prosecutors charged, but it is not not what the judgment says.

The Soviets insisted on the inclusion of it as a Nazi crime. Iirc, Rudenko's assistant, Pokrovsky introduced this into evidence, much to the chagrin of the Anglo-American prosecutors and justices as they felt the Soviets were, quite rightly, trying to fob off a Russian crime on the Germans. It was a shabby attempt: The Soviets knew it, the Anglo-Americans knew it and the Nazis knew it.

It seems there was some battle over the forensic evidence put forth by the Soviets, and, at the end of the day, the evidence having gone against the Russians, the whole matter was allowed to die a quiet death.

[xcalibur]

Sorry DT, wasn't trying to repeat what you said... My browser seems to be cutting off half of the last post on a particular page. Weird.

[tonyh]

One wonders how many other Kaytn's there were, simply blamed on the German's and equally simply "overlooked" by the allies.

Tony

[ChristopherPerrien]

At that time there was not yet a clear proof that the Russians rather than the Germans were responsible, but many thought so and thus the tribunal had a hot iron on its hands. Cleverly it allowed both the Russians and the Germans to make their depositions about the Katyn massacre, but did not mention this tremendous occurrence with a single syllable in the judgement.
Taylor, pages 738 and following


And indeed you will find nothing about Katyn in the IMT’s judgement, which is transcribed under

Chris -- You're right about Katyn being specifically mentioned. It is mentioned by the Soviet prosecutor, however, and not by the judges, who ignored the allegation in rendering their final judgment.

Herein lies the problem, If Katyn was a "count" of the original indictment for "Crimes against humanity" of which these war criminals were convicted of, It does not matter if Katyn itself was mentioned in the judgement as they were convicted of the "blanket charge" . The fact that
Katyn is not mentioned in the judgement means something in itself legally. As you know "Silence is consent". If the judges had wished to exclude the Katlyn crime "count", they should have SAID something to that effect in the record, they did not , so legally, guilt for Katyn, was assigned to the German war criminals as part of the conviction for "Crimes against Humanity".

I am working from memory right now, I suppose some research could be done to see if they were "convicted on all counts" of the indictment or not, or if we have a "silence is consent" issue, as I think we may.
I will go back and look at the wording of the judgements. Right now I am pressed for time.

Regards
Chris

[David Thompson]

Chris – I said:

You're right about Katyn being specifically mentioned. It is mentioned by the Soviet prosecutor, however, and not by the judges, who ignored the allegation in rendering their final judgment.

You replied:

Herein lies the problem, If Katyn was a "count" of the original indictment for "Crimes against humanity" of which these war criminals were convicted of, It does not matter if Katyn itself was mentioned in the judgement as they were convicted of the "blanket charge" .

The arrangement was a little more complex than that. There were 74 charges (divided into 4 general categories) brought against the 22 defendants. 52 of these charges were found to be proven, 22 were dismissed. Three defendants were entirely acquitted.

You also said:

Katyn is not mentioned in the judgement means something in itself legally. As you know "Silence is consent". If the judges had wished to exclude the Katlyn crime "count", they should have SAID something to that effect in the record, they did not , so legally, guilt for Katyn, was assigned to the German war criminals as part of the conviction for "Crimes against Humanity".

The IMT brought different charges against the various defendants. For each defendant, the indictment specified which acts that defendant allegedly committed. The supposed criminal acts varied from one defendant to another -- in other words, Wilhelm Keitel and Hans Fritzsche were charged with different acts. The category into which the specific acts were grouped -- war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, etc. -- are only descriptive categories of a type of crime. For that reason, it is inaccurate to say that there was any "blanket charge" against any of the defendants.

I'm having some difficulty seeing how the maxim "silence is consent" applies to the Nuernberg situation. The prosecutor accuses a defendant of having committed a crime. The judge hears the evidence and does not convict the defendant of that crime. To what has the judge consented? In any event, I don't think that the refusal of the IMT judges to convict any of the defendants of the Katyn forest massacre can accurately be termed a “judicial error.”

[Dan]

It was covered in depth here a year or so ago. The Soviet prosecuter, a Ukrainian IIRC, demanded that the Germans be tried for the Katyn killings, but everyone knew the Soviets were guilty so the other 3 nations representitives refused to use the evidence accepted to prosecute the Germans. The Soviet made a scene, the American threatened him, and the Soviet finally shut up.

What still isn't resolved anywhere on line as far as I know, is whether or not several Germans were executed by the Soviets for the killings at a seperate Soviet Military Tribunal. There are enough Soviet scholars online now that I hope they can clear this up soon.

[xcalibur]

Chris ? I said:

You're right about Katyn being specifically mentioned. It is mentioned by the Soviet prosecutor, however, and not by the judges, who ignored the allegation in rendering their final judgment.

You replied:

Herein lies the problem, If Katyn was a "count" of the original indictment for "Crimes against humanity" of which these war criminals were convicted of, It does not matter if Katyn itself was mentioned in the judgement as they were convicted of the "blanket charge" .

The arrangement was a little more complex than that. There were 74 charges (divided into 4 general categories) brought against the 22 defendants. 52 of these charges were found to be proven, 22 were dismissed. Three defendants were entirely acquitted.

You also said:

Katyn is not mentioned in the judgement means something in itself legally. As you know "Silence is consent". If the judges had wished to exclude the Katlyn crime "count", they should have SAID something to that effect in the record, they did not , so legally, guilt for Katyn, was assigned to the German war criminals as part of the conviction for "Crimes against Humanity".

The IMT brought different charges against the various defendants. For each defendant, the indictment specified which acts that defendant allegedly committed. The supposed criminal acts varied from one defendant to another -- in other words, Wilhelm Keitel and Hans Fritzsche were charged with different acts. The category into which the specific acts were grouped -- war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, etc. -- are only descriptive categories of a type of crime. For that reason, it is inaccurate to say that there was any "blanket charge" against any of the defendants.

I'm having some difficulty seeing how the maxim "silence is consent" applies to the Nuernberg situation. The prosecutor accuses a defendant of having committed a crime. The judge hears the evidence and does not convict the defendant of that crime. To what has the judge consented? In any event, I don't think that the refusal of the IMT judges to convict any of the defendants of the Katyn forest massacre can accurately be termed a ?judicial error.?

This may help:

The Western judges had thought it foolish of the Soviet government to insist on introducing the Katyn massacre during the prosecution phase. Now, at the close of the defense phase, they had no choice but to allow the Germans to rebut the charge.

For two days, July 1 and 2, forensic experts battled in room 600. Guilt turned on fixing the date when the Poles had died. The Russians claimed the deaths occured in the autumn of 1941, after the Soviet Union had been invaded and while the Germans occupied the Katyn forest. The Germans claimed the Poles had died earlier, in 1940, when the Russians still held this territory.

In the end, the Germans had the better of it. Among their most persuasive evidence was the fact that all letters from he Poles had ceased after April 1940, at which time the Russians controlled the forest. The judges, with the exception of Nikitchenko, were dismayed that the issue had ever arisen. To conclude that the Russians themselves had shot thousands of Poles would dilute the horror of the crimes of the Nazis. What was the court to do with this moral morass? Their resposibility, they decided, was not to place blame on either one of the countries, but to determine if a specific charge against German war criminals was proved. They simply took the position that the Russian accusation against the Germans lacked sufficient evidence, and let the Katyn issue drop.

-Joseph E. Persico, Nuremberg. Penguin Books, 1994. pp. 358-359.