Soviet Responsibility at Katyn: pro and con

[xcalibur]

@ Dmitry:

Sure, I'd be willing to comment, but I need to see the full autopsy report. Perhaps you can post it (or a link) here?

[Sergey Romanov]

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

No. But you know chief of what he was

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

So what? Your logic seems to be that if _someone_ is a liar, anything goes.

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

What do you call winter uniform?

From Butz's report:

All the corpses from the graves 1-7 had winter clothes, specifically, overcoats, fur and leather jackets, sweaters and scarfs. Only two corpses exhumated on June 1, 1943 from the grave #8 wore overcoats, but they did not have warm underwear; all others were in summer clothes.

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,

Sure, especially during the Indian summer. That must've been called "Polish Sauna" ;]

besides not all of the bodies were in the overcoats (the grave #8 in German's report).

Yes, just one grave.

I don't think so.

Of course they do. BTW, you conveniently forgot about Vetoshnikov.

The span September - December doesn't contradict with the testimonies.

Why? Because you say so? Try making an argument for a change.

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

What "propaganda action"? We're talking about the testimonies of doctors here, not of some Cold Warriors. Not that it matters much, but Dr. Naville was ready to testify during the Nuremberg trial, when Allies were ready to ignore some Soviet deeds.

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'.

AFAIK, Orsos' method turned out to be unscientific. But that's totally irrelevant. We're talking about the Nazis' and Soviets' actions here, not about whether some experts' methods were scientifically sound. If Soviets made Markov lie (and they did, according to the testimonies of five other experts), then Soviets lied in this case about the Nazi coercion. I hope I won't have to explain what that means?

How do you like it?

I would have liked it much more if you did not skip some passages like this one:

Preliminary study of the documents and establishing of the surnames was done in presence of three Germans and the members of the Technicak Commission of the Polish Red Cross. Opening of the envelopes was done in presence of Poles and Germans.

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.

Russian investigators analyzed these documents (which are kept in the materials of the Central Commission) and proved that they're either forged or prove nothing.

1) Sofija Zigon's letter. Soviet experts did not mention that there is a sentence written in violet ink: "Napravit' v Upravlenie po delam vojennoplennykh", which means that this letter could not have been sent to Zigon' since according to Soprunenko's orders all the relatives' letters were to be sent to UPVI NKVD, where they were either destroyed or used for other purposes. Besides, there is no "Tomasz Zigon'" in the lists of the three camps. ("Katynskij sindrom", pp.371, 372).

2) Postcard from Tarnopol'. It is almost fully discolored, but there is a post stamp: "Tarnopol' 12.II.1940 g." - that is, February 12, 1940. (ibid., p. 373)

3) Lewandowski's golden watch receipt from Kozel'skij camp. Lewandowski was not in Kozel'skij, but in Ostashkovskij camp and was sent "to UNKVD" from that camp according to the list-order from UPVI NKVD no. 051/2 (27.IV.1940) (p. 373).

4) Arashkevich's golden watch receipt from Starobel'skij camp. Arashkevich was not in Starobel'skij, but in Ostashkovskij camp and was sent "to UNKVD" from that camp according to the list-order from UPVI NKVD no. 062/2 (19.V.1940).
"The reverse of the receipt bears a note dated 25 March 1941, stating that the watch had been sold to "Juwelirtorg". Why? Arashkevich should have been carrying this receipt with him, and if he did, how did that "Juvelirtorg" stamp got there? Or was it sent from Starobel'skij camp? This is unlikely, since Arashkevich should have had this receipt all the time, but even if we assume that he didn't, camp administration should have issued another receipt, a copy of which Arashkevich might have had. (p.372)

5) Kuchinskij's postcard. The name of the sender on the postcard is "Stanislav Stanislavovich Kuchinskij - Iskander Bej". There were Stanislavs Kuchinskies in all three camps, but only this one was not shot at Katyn, since, according to the 16.02.1940 note from Fedotov and Iljin to Khokhlov he was transferred to Moscow and thus could write such a letter anytime NKVD wished it (p. 371).

There is no sense in discussing other documents since these ones are obvious fakes. And the alleged documents from ON camps have to be fakes since there is not a trace of them in NKVD documentation.

It is also notable that in the secret list of the documents that were really found by the Commission from January 16 to January 21, 1944 all the documents are dated from 1939 to May 1940 (among them were newspapers, envelopes, stamps, letters, etc.). (pp. 333, 334).

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.

Which again begs the question: why didn't they forge any documents to prove it? It was so easy. Now Jakovlev himself edits the series in which real documents with far lower numbers are mentioned. Ironic, ain't it?

That's why any normal Russian has valid reason to doubt those 'documents' from these guys.

Oh gosh, don't pretend to speak for normal Russians.

are blamed without any trial

Oh yeah, again that talk about "trial". I bet that if there will be trial (and I'm sure it won't be to deniers' liking), they will call it a show-trial anyway. So all this talk about a "trial" is simply a red herring.

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?

Whether they did or not is irrelevant, we can judge these testimonies ourselves. And when Prozorovskij says that they found Geco cartridge cases and no mention of this is made in the report, it's quite clear that he lies.

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.

It is exactly because NT was relatively objective (at least for that time) that they refused to swallow this hoax. Besides, as was explained by the judges, article 21 does not mean that the defense could not argue with these reports, documents, etc. "Taking judicial notice" is not the same as "accepting no matter what". The Tribunal itself did not require proof for Katyn charges. But when defense began to argue with it, they had a right to call their witnesses.

[Dmitry]

Preliminary study of the documents and establishing of the surnames was done in presence of three Germans and the members of the Technicak Commission of the Polish Red Cross. Opening of the envelopes was done in presence of Poles and Germans.

after being in Nazis Secret Police... Well, well... Poles emphasized that they are not sure all things were back, remember?

Russian investigators analyzed these documents (which are kept in the materials of the Central Commission) and proved that they're either forged or prove nothing.

Ok. They gave us their version and opinion. It would be proofs if they manage to prove it at a trial. But, for some reason, those very investigators or their bosses attempt to persuade us that everything quite clear-cut and there is no need in a trial.

Now Jakovlev himself edits the series in which real documents with far lower numbers are mentioned. Ironic, ain't it?

Honestly speaking, the fact that Yakovlev edits something makes me flesh creep.

It is exactly because NT was relatively objective (at least for that time) that they refused to swallow this hoax. Besides, as was explained by the judges, article 21 does not mean that the defense could not argue with these reports, documents, etc. "Taking judicial notice" is not the same as "accepting no matter what". The Tribunal itself did not require proof for Katyn charges. But when defense began to argue with it, they had a right to call their witnesses.

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules.
And even if you are right... Soviet side was willing to carry on an investigation.

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.

And what? Tribunal ignored that.

[Dmitry]

About so called winter uniform stuff...

Today is summer not autumn. August. Look at the weather in Moscow:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/l ... &y=10&x=10

55F or 13C

I'm just back home from the street. Some people there wear leather jackets and sweaters. As the Poles in Butz's report.

[Obserwator]

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

First of all.Poland isn't Italy and weather in Russia is rather know to Poles, and would be even more to those born in the east.
Second of all-I seriously doubt that any prisoner in Soviet camp would have a choice of clothing.

[Rarog]

There is no sense in discussing other documents since these ones are obvious fakes. And the alleged documents from ON camps have to be fakes since there is not a trace of them in NKVD documentation.

Knowing professionalism of NKVD in such issues and the significance of the case (due to international interest) one can only wonder why there were so little "evidences" and why those evidences can so easily be "exposed" as fakes...

[Rarog]

Sergey,

Why the Poles had their IDs with them, what do you think?

[Dmitry]

First of all.Poland isn't Italy and weather in Russia is rather know to Poles, and would be even more to those born in the east.
Second of all-I seriously doubt that any prisoner in Soviet camp would have a choice of clothing.

I didn't mean that you, Poles, are Western Europeans I know you are Easterners, and saying 'unaccustomed' I was half-joking.
But for German proffesor Butz and those Westerners who were in the pro-Nazi International Commission it was winter clothes. Their winter is our autumn.

AFAIK now in Europian Russia soldiers changed summer uniform to winter one in October. But POWs weren't soldiers. I don't know if authorities took their overcoats out.

[Sergey Romanov]

Preliminary study of the documents and establishing of the surnames was done in presence of three Germans and the members of the Technicak Commission of the Polish Red Cross. Opening of the envelopes was done in presence of Poles and Germans.

after being in Nazis Secret Police... Well, well...

Which does not matter in the slightest since they were sealed. Skarzinski in his report complains about several things concerning German involvement, but not about their handling of these sealed envelopes.

Poles emphasized that they are not sure all things were back, remember?

Right. This proves what? This happened after the envelopes were opened in PRC deputies' presence and all the documents were studied. Whatever happened to them after is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Ok. They gave us their version and opinion.

Not merely "version and opinion", but documented arguments.

It would be proofs if they manage to prove it at a trial.

Trial is always against someone, right? Again, who is to be tried? Besides, we're talking about historical matters. Nobody should prove in a trial that Julius Caesar was murdered. It's history.

But, for some reason, those very investigators or their bosses attempt to persuade us that everything quite clear-cut and there is no need in a trial.

Perhaps because it doesn't make any sense in a legal sense?
Actually I don't know if there should be a trial at all, we must ask some Russian jurists. If the trial should follow the closing of the criminal case no. 159, then there will be a trial eventually.

It is exactly because NT was relatively objective (at least for that time) that they refused to swallow this hoax. Besides, as was explained by the judges, article 21 does not mean that the defense could not argue with these reports, documents, etc. "Taking judicial notice" is not the same as "accepting no matter what". The Tribunal itself did not require proof for Katyn charges. But when defense began to argue with it, they had a right to call their witnesses.

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules.

Mere disagreement does not amount to an argument. Besides, it's not my interpretation, it's Justice Lawrence's intepretation, which was confirmed by Justices Biddle and de Vabres.

And what? Tribunal ignored that.

They didn't. They ruled beforehand that both sides will present no more than three witnesses/affidavits.

About so called winter uniform stuff...

Do they wear scarfs and overcoats?

DR. STAHMER: According to your autopsy report the corpse of the Polish officer which you dissected was clothed and you described the clothing in detail. Was this winter or summer clothing that you found?

MARKOV: It was winter clothing including an overcoat and a woollen shawl around the neck.

[Sergey Romanov]

Rarog wrote:

Knowing professionalism of NKVD in such issues and the significance of the case (due to international interest) one can only wonder why there were so little "evidences" and why those evidences can so easily be "exposed" as fakes...

Now, that is a cool argument! "You debunked them so easily, so they are authentic". Wow! At _that_ time independent observers had no means to check if they are authentic. They weren't even presented at the NT (only their transcriptions).

Why the Poles had their IDs with them, what do you think?

If you have an argument to make, make it.

[Sergey Romanov]

But for German proffesor Butz and those Westerners who were in the pro-Nazi International Commission it was winter clothes. Their winter is our autumn.

All 12 of them were pro-Nazi and Westerners? Now, that's news to me. Alert the media! 8)

[Dmitry]

Which does not matter in the slightest since they were sealed. Skarzinski in his report complains about several things concerning German involvement, but not about their handling of these sealed envelopes.

Who stand surety for Nazis from Secret Police didn't break open envelopes and after sorting sealed it again. Do you think that honest Nazis incapable to do such bad things?

They didn't. They ruled beforehand that both sides will present no more than three witnesses/affidavits.

And result was ... ?

[Fredd]

Sergey,

Why the Poles had their IDs with them, what do you think?

When the genocide occured noone in Soviet Union thought that ever that soil would fall in German hands. So they don't bother to remove these ID's. What for - personals of victims were established, so what would be a point in removing it.

[Sergey Romanov]

Who stand surety for Nazis from Secret Police didn't break open envelopes and after sorting sealed it again. Do you think that honest Nazis incapable to do such bad things?

From Skarzinski's description it follows that each day at certain times the envelopes were sent to the secret police office 6 km away. There they were opened in the presence of 2-3 members of the PCR. In order to sort out the post-May 1940 documents and to put some incriminating newspapers, letters etc. in the envelopes the German on the motorcycle should have travelled to some other place than the secret police office, there he should've opened all the envelopes, sorted out all the papers, planted the new ones, closed all the envelopes and travelled to the office. It would take considerable time to do all this and the Poles waiting in the office would notice it.

Besides, while the Commission members did not have the right to "look through them and to sort them", it was up to them to decide what would be put into the envelopes and what wouldn't. This would automatically mean that the PCR members would look at and through the documents, if only briefly. Now, if Nazis wanted to fake/destroy the documents, why did they allow the Poles handle them? And it is interesting to note that Poles were told that it was not necessary to put the newspapers (among other things) into the envelopes, i.e. Germans did not understand then that newspapers were very important for establishing the dates. Which means that even if they were ready to fake the personal documents, etc., they were not ready to plant the newspapers. Ultimately, the Polish Commission, then, was responsible for gathering the newspapers, so one must accuse them of faking the evidence together with the Germans (as Mukhin does).

(All of this is irrelevant, of course, since in 1990s there were many new exhumations and many new documents were found, which point to the spring of 1940 as a date of the murder. And, once again, they were found at Mednoje (where there were no Germans) and Pyatikhatki.)

[Sergey Romanov]

They didn't. They ruled beforehand that both sides will present no more than three witnesses/affidavits.

And result was ... ?

There was no result. The matter was unresolved. NT could not accuse Soviets, their allies. Neither it could accuse the Germans, who were innocent in their view.