Interesting that Savenkov didn't say (it seems intentionally) that those 1,803 were executed, not once. All the time he used the word ãèáåëü (ruin). So it could be those who died in camps naturally from disease for example.Karman wrote:Some more deads were found later but Russians said that they are responsible for deaths of 1,803 people only.
The English language description of the 7 volumes at the link you gave didn't say anything about the treatment of POWs or the Katyn murders. Could it be that those subjects are outside the scope of the ROSSPEN study? Do you know whether the Katyn forest killings are mentioned there at all?Regards topic (i.e. Katyn documents) - while the politicalized Yakovlev International Democracy Fund had published these docs in it's series of books dedicated to Stalin time, the scientific community is much more careful. The scientific publishing house ROSSPEN issued THE HISTORY OF STALIN’S GULAG. Late 1920s – Early 1950s. Collected Documents in 7 Volumes.. http://www.rosspen.com/R/book/gylag_1_6_eng.html (btw among other redactors - R. Conquest). They didn't include these docs although they published other docs about Poles (about deportations etc).
Then conclusion is: the fact that ROSSPEN did not include those documents is NOT an argument for their vailidity, because including the documents would be outside the scope of their work anyway.Dmitry wrote:Err... You are probably right, David. I'm sorry. 1 Think 2 Post
I could be misleading by 2 things:
1. Having these books in my hand I read in preface myself that they cover all major repressing actions of the Stalin period. I think Katyn should be definitely one of them if it was really Stalin's decision.
2. They titled the book "Stalin's Gulag" which is rather not scientific but widely popular term that in fact has no sense, so I pay no attrntion on that.
And that is just the point! Because POWs belonged to GUPVI (Glavnoe upravlenie po delam voennoplennyh i internirovannyh = Main Directorate for POWs and internee) not to the GULAG. So formally they have the reason do not include these docs.
Anyway I would be awaiting for ROSSPEN's something like "The History of Stalin's GUPVI":D rather than rely on Yakovlev's Fund books.
Yes, you are right.Serus wrote:Then conclusion is: the fact that ROSSPEN did not include those documents is NOT an argument for their vailidity, because including the documents would be outside the scope of their work anyway.
Yakovlev IDF is political by defenition (see their mainpage - http://www.idf.ru/) and thus untrustworthy and theirs publications aren't worth to be discussed at all. Of course ROSSPEN is NOT beyond all criticism but at least it is something you can work with.Serus wrote:Btw im a little disturbed by calling ROSSPEN "scientific" vs Yakolev IDF "political". You suggest that Yakolev publications are all untrustworthy because they are "political" when all ROSSPEN publications (and choices what to publish what to skip) are "scientific" = trustworthy beyond all criticism.
Prove it. How many KGB documents have you studied?The Shelepin’s note was hand-written on a blank sheet of paper without letterhead and that is unique for an official KGB document.
Source?But if we buy it then the secrecy code of the document is wrong: it has a lower secrecy code: “совершенно секретно” but the top secrecy code in the Soviet Union starting from 20th till the 90th of the last century was: “особая папка”.
The records that were in the camp. And then, not all of them, as I have shown. And who is to say that there were no copies in the central agency?2. The text of the note says that the KGB files keep the official records of imprisoned and interned Polish officers, gendarmes, police officers and colonists, landlords etc. But according to a document published together with other Katyn documents all records for prisoners of Starobelsky camp were shredded. So Shelepin could not say that they are kept in KGB.
I have provided many examples of such anachronisms, and I have several more of them.3. Shelepin’s note stated that the execution of prisoners and internees was performed on the basis of the Decision of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It is supposed that when Shelepin was writing his note he had some documents in front of him he used to compile this note. That is strange that he used anachronism in the name of the Communist Party. In 1940 it was not called CPSU but VKP(b) – All-Soviet Communist Party (Bolsheviks).
Well, Shelepin might have made a clerical mistake. Boo hoo!4. The note says that all prisoners and internees were sentenced to death on the basis of «учетных дел» (filing records) initiated on them in camps in 1940. But that confronts the information contained in the extract from the Minutes of Politburo meeting which says that the Polish officers were executed on the basis of notes (справка) issued by the heads of camps and criminal cases «уголовное дело» (but not filing records). In accordance with the Beria’s memorandum Beria proposed to execute those officers who participated in counter-revolutionary organizations. And those were definitely kept in prisons and camps on the basis of criminal cases but not common filing records for POW and internees. And those criminal cases were reviewed by “troika” that sentenced them to death.
He omitted a word or two, IIRC. Certainly not a mistake that indicates a forgery - not even a corroborating piece of evidence for the forgery hypothesis.5. Shelepin used the wrong name of the Authorized Special Committee for Investigation of the massacre in Katyn and used wrong name of the state authorities initiated the work of that Committee.
Oh gee, back to square one: how many KGB documents have you examined in your life?6. Signing the document “Shelepin” writes: Chairman of the Committee of the State Security of the Council of Ministers of USSR. («Председатель Комитета Государственной Безопасности при Совете Министров СССР»). According to the rules of the Russian literate language only the first word in the name of an organization is written with a capital letter. There are known none of the documents where all words of the name KGB were written with capital letters.
Wow, you have seen all of Shelepin's letters? Even those still classified? Do you work in FSB?Shelepin never did it in the rest of his letters.
It's Mukhin's bald-faced lie, and I think I have even discussed it on this board.7. Shelepin himself always denied that he ever wrote this note. He always said that the first time he learnt from newspapers about the Katyn case.
Another lie.8. Nobody has ever seen the originals of those documents.
This argument looks ridiculous. What would you say of the head offices of a Roman Pope (Konstanton's donnation), Russian Orthodox Chirch (bogue chronicles supporting them in argument against old ritualists), French Foreign Ministry (last will of Peter the Great), Napoleon (forged money) and so on and so forth. So all contested documents need to be proven. All doubts discredit and speak contra not pro, And that is why all your words that Shelepin forgot or Shelepin misprinted or that Mukhin counts too much on the propper work of Soviet records doing and keeping do not kill his arguments. Even the fact that a journalist challenges but a scholar supports means nothing. Some serious scholars supported and trusted forged docs that Stalin was a Tsarist police agent till those docs were proven forged.Sergey Romanov wrote:1) The documents are not "in doubt" simply because some cranky journalist says they are. Presump[tion of innocence is proven by the mere fact that they come from the presidential archive. Now, if they would be under someone's pillow all these years, they would indeed needed to be proven authentic.
No it doesn't. It is also true for other documents from the proper archives. No one goes looking for "proof of authenticity" for each and every document properly filed in an official archive. But somehow there should be a double standard for the Katyn documents?This argument looks ridiculous.
I would say nothing since I don't see how all of this is relevant. Nobody says that the documents in proper archives can't be forged. But the burden of proof is on the accuser.What would you say of the head offices of a Roman Pope (Konstanton's donnation), Russian Orthodox Chirch (bogue chronicles supporting them in argument against old ritualists), French Foreign Ministry (last will of Peter the Great), Napoleon (forged money) and so on and so forth.
Katyn documents are not contested.So all contested documents need to be proven.
Well, prove that the Katyn documents are forged. Easy :]And that is why all your words that Shelepin forgot or Shelepin misprinted or that Mukhin counts too much on the propper work of Soviet records doing and keeping do not kill his arguments. Even the fact that a journalist challenges but a scholar supports means nothing. Some serious scholars supported and trusted forged docs that Stalin was a Tsarist police agent till those docs were proven forged.
Bwahahaha! So you have just conceded that you haven't checked these documents and have no reason at all to say that "that is unique for an official KGB document" etc., etc. So you were just bluffing.As for me I consired your replies such as: "how many your studied" or "how many you have seen" to be waffling and not convincing.
Well, that will be a lesson for you: thou shalt not rely on doofuses. Kropotov blindly believed Mukhin, so he did not even bother to check Jazhborovskaja et al.'s book, and repeated Mukhin's false claim about Shelepin. See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0As for your counter-arguments to the arguments I placed I said that I took them from D. Kropotov review and never said that I worked them out.
Blatant non sequitur and thus quite a silly point. Maybe Savenkov was misquoted. If he wasn't, then maybe he meant that legally only so many deaths could have been established, not excluding the possibility of a larger number of the murdered. Maybe he meant that only ~1800 have been killed. In both cases there is a strange use of evidence, not indicating the high intelligence or integrity of the Russian military prosecution (the thesis that only 1800 were killed by NKVD is self-destructing). Most probably Savenkov simply did not understand the data he was given by his aides. In any case I don't see how Savenkov's (or prosecution's) possible blunder can be coutned as a "strong argument supporting Mukhin's position". It may discredit the military prosecutor, but not the documents.The point of my message was that the public release of Savenkov ignored those docs and thus it is another and imho strong argument supporting Mukhin's position.