Soviet Responsibility at Katyn: pro and con

[Rarog]

Nor can they explain why someone would go to great lengths to forge these relatively insignificant documents, while they had an opportunity to forge the documents, "proving" that Stalin shot tens of millions in GULAG and elsewhere. That one would miss such an opportunity and go for a relatively mild (in comparison) 20,000 victims is beyond me.

Good point.

But acc. to Muhin the documents are the main and only proofs of the Soviet guilt.

[Sergey Romanov]

I have to point out that Muhin is using the same logic when it comes to "Politburo documents".

Were it to be proven that, say, Shelepin's letter was forged, of course all other similar documents would be at least suspect, if not rejected outright. In this I agree with Mukhin.

[David Thompson]

The readers of this section of the forum expect to see actual evidence in support of claims, not the spoutings and insinuations of neo-Stalinist cranks or the mere unsupported personal opinions of one or two of our nearly 10,000 forum members.

Questions like:

Could you please post a quotation from a Soviet Constitution or any law authorizing Gorbachev to admit responsibility in such cases?

or:

Ok. Gorbachev gvt recognized Stalinism's guilt.
But Stalin gvt recognized Nazi's guilt.

To whom should I believe?

If Russian procurature is right then Burdenko is liar. Stalin is falsificator. Yes? Why not otherwise? Why Gorby and procurature are not falsificators? Why?

don't turn the trick either. If there’s something wrong with the evidence, state clearly what the problem is and provide a fact-based showing of what actually happened. This is a research area of the forum, and there hasn’t been any signs of research contradicting the view that the Soviet government was responsible for murdering those people.

[Sergey Romanov]

But acc. to Muhin the documents are the main and only proofs of the Soviet guilt.

In the Katyn case.
I would say that Soviet guild could be established even without them, but let's not go there. Let's assume that they're indeed "the main and the only evidence". for Soviet guilt in Katyn massacre. But Katyn massacre itself is not that significant compared to other killings. 20,000 Poles? What about millions of others? Again, why not to fudge some figures in GULAG documents to produce numbers similar to those of, say, Conquest? Why not to forge a document which says that several millions were shot in 1937-38 (compared to "mere" 600,000+)? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

[Obserwator]

Until then - nobody is guilty until proven otherwise...

And that is the reason Russian prosecutor refuses to work with Poles.
It is clear that soviets are responsible do to high number od documents and state admition of the crime.
OTOH please remember that Rarog claimed in one of his posts that Ukrainian Femine and Gulags are a lie.

[Rarog]

The readers of this section of the forum expect to see actual evidence in support of claims, not the spoutings and insinuations of neo-Stalinist cranks or the mere unsupported personal opinions of one of our nearly 10,000 forum members.

Do you call me a neo-Stalinist crank?

Maybe Sergey is a neo-Stalinist crank as well, as he, it looks, doesn't support the idea that Stalin murdered 100 000 000???

If there’s something wrong with the evidence, state clearly what the problem is and provide showing what actually happened. This is a research area of the forum, and there hasn’t been any signs of research contradicting the view that the Soviet government was responsible for murdering those people.

There hasn’t been any signs of research contradicting the view that the German government was responsible for murdering those people as well... but we're working at it.

Really, most of sources are in Russian, do you expect from us to translate zillions of pages? We're merely trying to discuss the issue, don't press us, please.

[Obserwator]

There hasn’t been any signs of research contradicting the view that the German government was responsible for murdering those people as well...

Because the evidence that USSR did it is so overwhelming there is no need for any.

[Rarog]

In the Katyn case.
I would say that Soviet guild could be established even without them, but let's not go there

Maybe we shall leave the documents and discuss "physical evidence"?

[Rarog]

There hasn’t been any signs of research contradicting the view that the German government was responsible for murdering those people as well...

Because the evidence that USSR did it is so overwhelming there is no need for any.

tha't just your personal opinion

[Sergey Romanov]

Maybe we shall leave the documents and discuss "physical evidence"?

If you wish. Though if someone rejects these documents, why shouldn't he also reject the findings of all non-Soviet research parties?

[Obserwator]

tha't just your personal opinion

Nope. A fact.
But please continue proving that it was a vast Jewish-German conspiracy to discredit USSR, after all it would be unthinkable for USSR to murder someone.

[David Thompson]

Rarog -- You asked:

Do you call me a neo-Stalinist crank?

If I have a remark which I wish to direct to you personally, I will not hesitate to use your name.

The rules of this section of the forum have been set forth, repeatedly and clearly, regarding the requirements for posting claims and accompanying proof. This thread is closed for 24 hours to allow posters to gather the evidence they should have had on hand before participating in the discussion. After 24 hours, I will re-open the thread to see if any such evidence is forthcoming. If it isn't, the thread will be locked permanently.

[David Thompson]

This thread is re-opened for posts complying with section rules on questions, claims and proof. The rules are posted for all to see at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

[Dmitry]

But Stalin was not a chief Nazi

Oh.. And Gorby was the chief of 'Stalinists'?

By this "argument" _any_ historical evidence can be swept away. If we believe that Stalin was a liar, why shouldn't we believe that historians of the Napoleon era are not liars?

That's natural argument because it's mutually exclusive that both sides aren't liars in this particular case.

Why, then, did the Commission said "December"? Because it needed to explain why the Poles wore winter uniform.

What do you call winter uniform? An overcoat (øèíåëü)? Maybe for a Western European it is a winter uniform but you know winter in the West Europe and in Russia as unlike as day and night. It's not good for the health to wear only summer uniform even in Russian September especially for unaccustomed Poles, besides not all of the bodies were in the overcoats (the grave #8 in German's report).

So, the report - Soviet only evidence on the issue - is untrustworthy.

I don't think so. The span September - December doesn't contradict with the testimonies.

Let me quote from 1952 report of the Congress commission on the Katyn Massacre

Thanks, interesting. But... 1952. A good year, you know. The peak of Cold War. It could be just a propaganda action.

Dr. Palmieri testified as follows:
“In the bodies, at least in many of the bodies, Professor Orsos ob-
served the presence of growths (corns)—in the inside of the cran-
iuin, pseudo growths in the internal part of the skull, which are
due to manifestations of reduction of the mineralization of the
brain—of the cerebral tissues and of the other substances con-
tained in the skull.”

In the German report (Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn. Im Auftrage des Auswartiges Amtes auf Grund urkundlichen Beweismaterial zusammen-gestellt, bearbeitet und herausgegeben von der Deutschen Iniormationstelle) we can read that Orsos made his conclusion examining only one skull of body # 526. So the whole medical proof about how long a time were they buried is based on the examining of one skull with some Orsos' 'new method'.

Maybe xcalibur as an expert want to comment this method? Is this real to make the conclusion of timeline from one skull using described way?

And, of course, there was a Polish Red Cross report, which was not published until 1980s (probably in order not to embrass USSR), which confirms that the exhumation was done in an orderly manner.

Really? That's my translation from this report (I hope someone provide us with link on the full English version):

Members of the Commision were not allowed to review and sort any documents on the dead bodies. They were obligated to deposit the documents found in the envelopes

these filled up envelopes were transmited into the Buero of German Secret Police Secretariat

the Commision laid special emphasis on the fact that Germans took out the diaries, letters etc for translating into German. The Commision couldn't claim that all this things were returned back

How do you like it? They had no right to look at documents they collected and they didn't know if these documents were returned! So, Germans could easy destroy all unwanted documents (with dates after spring 1940 for example) and Commision could't even learn about this. That's realy was done in an orderly manner!

These facts are alone decisive on whom one is better to trust. And, of course, there are the primary documents published in 1992. No matter how loudly some persons scream about them being forgeries, they can't prove it.

Ok. But who PROVED that Burdenko materials were forged? For example letters and other papers dated after spring 1940 that disproved Nazi version. His commission had found some such documents.

Documents found on the corpses
In addition to the information proven in the documents of the forensic medical report, the time of the shootings of the Polish prisoners of war by the Germans (autumn 1941, not the spring of 1940, as claimed by the Germans), was also established by documents discovered during the excavation of the graves, dating not only from the second half of 1940, but also from the spring and summer (March -June) of 1941.
Among the documents discovered by the forensic experts, the following merit particular attention:
1) on body 92:
A letter from Warsaw in the Russian language addressed to the Central Office for Prisoners of War, Moscow, Kuibuschewstreet no. 12. In the letter, "Sophie" asks "Sigon", to let her know the whereabouts of her husband, Thomas Sigon. The letter is dated 12.9.1940. The envelope bears German postage cancellation "Warsaw IX40", and cancellation "Moscow Post Office 9 Expedition 28/IX40", as well a notice written in red ink, in the Russian language, reading "Find camp and deliver 15/XI40" (signature illegible).
2) on body 4:
A registered postcard no. 0112 from Tarnopol with cancellation "Tarnopol 12/X40". The manuscript text and address are obliterated.
3) on body 101:
Receipt no. 10293 dated 19.XII.1939, issued in camp Koselsk, for pawn of a gold watch accepted by LEWANDOWSKY EDUARD ADAMOWITSCH. The reverse of this receipt bears a note dated 14 March 1941, stating that the watch had been sold to "Juwelirtorg".
4) on body 46:
A receipt issued in Starobelskyi camp on 16.XII.1939 for the pawn of a gold watch accepted by ARASCHKEWITSCH WLADIMIR RUDOLPHOWITSCH. The reverse of the receipt bears a note dated 25 March 1941, stating that the watch had been sold to "Juwelirtorg".
5) on body 71:
A devotional image of paper with a picture of Jesus, discovered between pages 144 and 145 of a Catholic prayer book. The reverse of the devotional image bears a legible note with signature "Jadvinja" and date "4 April 1941".
6) on body 46:
A receipt issued in camp no. 1ON on 5 May 1941 for the deposit of a sum of money in the amount of 225 rubles accepted by ARASCHKEWITSCH.
7) on the same body (46):
A receipt issued in camp no. 1ON on 6 April 1941 for the deposit of a sum of money in the amount of 102 rubles accepted by ARASCHKEWITSCH.
8) on body 101:
A receipt issued in camp no. 1ON on 18 May 1941 for the deposit of a sum of money in the amount of 175 rubles accepted by LEWANDOWSKY.
9) on body 53:
An unforwarded postcard in the Polish language with the address:
Warsaw, Bagatelja 15, house 47,
Irene Kutschinskaja, date: 20 June 1941.
Sender: Stanislav Kutschinskij.

Nor can they explain why someone would go to great lengths to forge these relatively insignificant documents, while they had an opportunity to forge the documents, "proving" that Stalin shot tens of millions in GULAG and elsewhere.

There was a wide-ranging propaganda campaign against the 'Stalinism' in the Soviet Mass Media during perestroyka. At least they claimed that Stalin shot tens of millions.

Thanks God there were no bloody civil war in perestroyka time as it was at the beginning of 20 century when Russians fiercely killed Russians but nevertheless there was a hot IDEOLOGY struggle that ended up with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was no-holds-barred struggle and as Gorby and his friend Yakovlev had later admitted themselves their mission was liquidation this 'totalitarian' system - 'Stalinism' as they call it.

Both Gorbachev and Yakovlev wrote many books and they gave many interviews in which they frankly expressed their position. That's beyond all doubt Gorby and Yakovlev played against the Soviet system in this game. Do you disagree? Maybe you think they were latent 'stalinists'?

That's why any normal Russian has valid reason to doubt those 'documents' from these guys. Since they were interested 'to debunk Stalinism and totalitarism' they were patently biased.

Foreigners could not understand this sinuosity of modern Russian history. Polish members of this forum always confound (if they are not joking) the old Soviet regime with the present Russia regime although they are antagonistic systems.

That one would miss such an opportunity and go for a relatively mild (in comparison) 20,000 victims is beyond me.

Maybe because this case has significant international importance and was not interesting for an average Russian until Poland demands become too loud. And it looks easy to deal with small figures rather than with millions.

Note: I'm not a 'stalinist' and I think this term is just a label for troublesome opponent and nothing else. I don't love when my country and countrymen are blamed without any trial under the factitious pretext that it was the 'stalinism' that is blamed not Russians and such.

And to make it clear - most my sources on that matter are from 'Voenno-Istorichesky Zhurnal' (Millitary-History Magazin) that I read long before Mukhin wrote his book. As for Mukhin's 'Katynsky detectiv' I would agree that he wrote it in a rather offensive and aggressive style but he is not an historian - he is a publicist. Although many his remarks (cleansed of swearing ) look reasonable.

[Dmitry]

As for the testimonies in Nuremberg it was an interesting reading, thank you, David. Good site. But as we know the Tribunal didn't deliver any judgement on that and it didn't make any inquiry either. For example how did they check on AHRENS, OBERHAUSER and VON EICHBORN words? The Tribunal didn't provide any potent reason why it refused to do that. They just gave witnesses and defendants hearing. That's all.

What is more the Nuremberg Tribunal demand of hearing witnesses was against CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm

Article 21.
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

So, the Nuremberg Tribunal had no any rights to refuse to take judicial notice of Soviets official governmental documents. The Nuremberg Tribunal position was due to nothing else than the Western unfriendly policy towards USSR and there was no any attempts to seek a true. Since they required proof of facts they should make a regular lawsuit (although it was against constitution of the IMT) otherwise it would be a mock trial which it was in that particular case.

On 2 Jul 1946:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov, do you want to reexamine?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness; but with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to make a brief statement.
We were allowed to choose from among the 120 witnesses whom we interrogated in the case of Katyn, only three. If the Tribunal is interested in hearing any other witnesses named in the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission, we have, in the majority of cases, adequate affidavits which we can submit at the Tribunal's request. Moreover, any one of these persons can be called to this Court if the Tribunal so desires.

That is all I have to say upon this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: I have no objection to the further presentation of evidence as long as it is on an equal basis; that is, if I, too, have the opportunity to offer further evidence. I am also in a position to call further witnesses and experts for the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already made its order; it does not propose to hear further evidence.

DR. STAHMER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

And what ??? What was the IMT's decision? No any....