Katyn Massacre Documents

[Karman]

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?
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.

Come on. You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested. I provided some examples when documents supplied from renowned organizations and pretended to be properly filed in those offices were proven to be forged. I do not accept any burden of proof. I am not properly skilled and do not have proper instruments to do that. I review the arguments and collect the reasons pro and reasons contra then evaluate them (reasons but not documents) and infer my own conclusion. The accuser also cannot take the burden of proof. He simply challenges the docs and place his own reasons to accept or do not accept those docs. Then specialists, professionals can either ignore them (as it is so far with regard to those Katyn docs) or do the professional research of those docs taking into consideration the reasons of deniers. They have not done it yet. This is the reason contra Mukhin’s arguments (for me at least) since it shows that specialist o not consider them to be strong. But basing on my review of Savenkov’s announcement I inferred that professionals reviewed those docs, evaluated them and advised to ignore them in Savenkov’s press-release. And this is the strongest argument pro Mukhin’s position (at least for me).

Well, prove that the Katyn documents are forged. Easy :]
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.

I repeat that I provided the arguments of Kropotov. But you have not provided nothing in reply.

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.

Thank you for the lesson. But you are wrong. Do not bother next time. Kropotov does not “blindly believed” he agrees with Mukhin (he is even probably from Mukhin’s nest) but he applied Kozlov’s approach and I found it interesting.

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.

That cannot be serious to wit: maybe that or maybe that. Tell me then if the Polish Prosecutor office quoted those docs in reply to Savenkov’s announcement (they did not afaik) and if I am right that they did not why do you think they also ignored those docs in their argument against Savenkov?
You words: “Most probably Savenkov simply did not understand the data he was given by his aides” is the “it” of all your reasons against Mukhin and now against Savenkov. Yeap all of them are nuts in the opposite team.

[Sergey Romanov]

Come on. You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.

No. I said that in such cases the burden of proof is on those who claim that the documents have been forged (or that there is a doubt about their authenticity). Please, stop twisting my words. Thank you.

I provided some examples when documents supplied from renowned organizations and pretended to be properly filed in those offices were proven to be forged. I do not accept any burden of proof.

If you claim that the documents from proper archives have been forged, the burden of proof is automatically on you.

I review the arguments and collect the reasons pro and reasons contra then evaluate them (reasons but not documents) and infer my own conclusion.

You are certainly free to do so. But please, don't expect that your conclusions and assumptions will be taken seriously.

The accuser also cannot take the burden of proof. He simply challenges the docs and place his own reasons to accept or do not accept those docs.

The accuser does have a burden of proof not to accept the documents which have not been shown to be forgeries AND which come from the proper sources. Now, if there are good reasons not to accept the document as authentic, by stating these reasons the accuser does just that - she provides proof. If these reasons turn out not to be satisfactory, the accuser still has the burden of proof (or drops her accusation). Otherwise the document is accepted as a forgery. The point is, it's up to Mukhinists to show that the documents are fakes, not for historians to show that they aren't.

I fully accept that Mukhinists have tried hard to meet their burden of proof and provide their 30+ or 40+ reasons for rejecting these documents. In my estimation these reasons are either false or irrelevant. In your estimation they are enough to throw the documents into doubt. While ultimately this boils down to opinion, you cannot expect others to agree with you that the case - not even for forgery - but for mere doubt - has been made.

If you personally don't accept these documents, it's no skin off anybody's butt.

They have not done it yet. This is the reason contra Mukhin’s arguments (for me at least) since it shows that specialist o not consider them to be strong.

It so happens that specialists almost always ignore such people - at least initially. It was so with AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, evolution denial, etc. Somehow they think that ignoring these people is OK. I disagree. But gradually scientists/scholars/researchers usually come down from their ivory towers and try to deal with the cranks. Maybe some day Mukhin's time will come. I don't know. Personally, I had a plan for paragraph-by-parahraph critique of AP, and maybe I will do it later. But surely it would be much better in principle if people like Lebedeva did this work.

But basing on my review of Savenkov’s announcement I inferred that professionals reviewed those docs, evaluated them and advised to ignore them in Savenkov’s press-release. And this is the strongest argument pro Mukhin’s position (at least for me).

If we accept, so to say, "Mukhin-friendly" interpretation of Savenkov's passages, and don't allow for any misquotations, misunderstandings, etc. - this statement couldn't have been made by any sort of Katyn professional, because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't explain what happened to the rest of the Poles. And what is this supposed to mean?

... all in all on ex-USSR's territory 14542 persons have been in custody.

What is he talking about? There were many more of interned Poles. If he meant the three camps, he should have said so. And he also forgot about the Poles in prisons.

So this is surely not a statement made by a professinal (I don't mean Savenkov here, but the person who wrote it in the first place).

Again, if Savenkov's speech discredits anything, it is only current (!) military prosecution's credibility.

I repeat that I provided the arguments of Kropotov. But you have not provided nothing in reply.

Wrong. I have rebutted several statements. For other general statements I have pointed out that they haven't been proven. Did Kropotov prove that in all other letters Shelepin did not capitalize "KGB"? No, he simply made such a statement. (Not that it is relevant, since the letter has not been written by Shelepin's hand anyway.) Did he prove that no other KGB documents have not been written on simple pieces of paper? No, he didn't, but he claimed it nevertheless.

(As a side note, we even have Politburo decisions written on scraps of paper (it's mentioned in one of IDF volumes, I think the one about culture and Soviet power - if needed, I'll try to find it.)

Thank you for the lesson. But you are wrong. Do not bother next time. Kropotov does not “blindly believed” he agrees with Mukhin (he is even probably from Mukhin’s nest) but he applied Kozlov’s approach and I found it interesting.

You haven't learned anything. OK, I'll have to chew it for you.

1) Mukhin made a claim that, according to Jablokov, Shelepin did not recognize the letter as authentic, claimed that he had not signed it and even learned about Katyn affair only in recent times.

2) This claim is directly rebutted by the text of "Katynskij sindrom" (see the link I gave you).

3) Kropotov blindly (repeat: blindly) parroted Mukhin's lie without checking the primary source.

4) And now you state that I am wrong and that Kropotov did not believe blindly.

And unfortunately it does not even seem that you're joking.

That cannot be serious to wit: maybe that or maybe that.

So, in your world everything is absolute and is either black or white? Oh my.

Tell me then if the Polish Prosecutor office quoted those docs in reply to Savenkov’s announcement (they did not afaik) and if I am right that they did not why do you think they also ignored those docs in their argument against Savenkov?

I have no idea whether there has been any such response, and if there has, I am not acquainted with its text.

You words: “Most probably Savenkov simply did not understand the data he was given by his aides” is the “it” of all your reasons against Mukhin and now against Savenkov. Yeap all of them are nuts in the opposite team.

This is the most charitable (and probably reasonable, if Savenkov himself is not directly related to the Katyn case - and he probably isn't) interpretation. Because otherwise either the current people in charge of Katyn case are incompetents, or someone simply lied.

[Karman]

Come on. You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.

No. I said that in such cases the burden of proof is on those who claim that the documents have been forged (or that there is a doubt about their authenticity). Please, stop twisting my words. Thank you.

You said: "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". Would you be so kind to point out in what manner I twisted your words?

If you claim that the documents from proper archives have been forged, the burden of proof is automatically on you.

Exactly. So Mukhin claimed and tried to back up his words. he provided dozens of proves and some of them were funny. But some of them look really strong. He challenged "the presumption of innocence". But nobody ever challenged his claims but you. I find your counter-claims to be very weak since they are basing on the assumption that Mukhin is a crank, and it is a common deal for a Soviet bureaucrat to execute a doc with the date missing, on a wrong letterhead, to ommit couple of words in the name of an organization, to confuse one term with another one. That all might have been happenning I beleive but for me Mukhin's claims give enough reasons to launch a professional expertise of those docs.

I review the arguments and collect the reasons pro and reasons contra then evaluate them (reasons but not documents) and infer my own conclusion.

You are certainly free to do so. But please, don't expect that your conclusions and assumptions will be taken seriously..

You are right again. And I do not expect anybody to refer to my conclusins as to an ultimate proof (or any proof at all). I just share my opinion.

The accuser also cannot take the burden of proof. He simply challenges the docs and place his own reasons to accept or do not accept those docs.

The accuser does have a burden of proof not to accept the documents which have not been shown to be forgeries AND which come from the proper sources. Now, if there are good reasons not to accept the document as authentic, by stating these reasons the accuser does just that - she provides proof. If these reasons turn out not to be satisfactory, the accuser still has the burden of proof (or drops her accusation). Otherwise the document is accepted as a forgery. The point is, it's up to Mukhinists to show that the documents are fakes, not for historians to show that they aren't..

I fully accept that Mukhinists have tried hard to meet their burden of proof and provide their 30+ or 40+ reasons for rejecting these documents. In my estimation these reasons are either false or irrelevant. In your estimation they are enough to throw the documents into doubt. While ultimately this boils down to opinion, you cannot expect others to agree with you that the case - not even for forgery - but for mere doubt - has been made.

If you personally don't accept these documents, it's no skin off anybody's butt.[/quote]

Here you are wrong. I believe that Mukhin cannot personally perform the professional expertise of the docs. This is not his undertaking. He did the textual review. May be all his work is crap. Maybe. But now the official examination of the case provided the results that fully confront the data contained in thise docs and all interested parties seem to miss it. And I find it the proper time to initiate the professional expertise of the docs and to prove finally were they forged or not. But even Poles do not insist on that.

If we accept, so to say, "Mukhin-friendly" interpretation of Savenkov's passages, and don't allow for any misquotations, misunderstandings, etc. - this statement couldn't have been made by any sort of Katyn professional, because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't explain what happened to the rest of the Poles. And what is this supposed to mean?

... all in all on ex-USSR's territory 14542 persons have been in custody.

What is he talking about? There were many more of interned Poles. If he meant the three camps, he should have said so. And he also forgot about the Poles in prisons.

So this is surely not a statement made by a professinal (I don't mean Savenkov here, but the person who wrote it in the first place).

Again, if Savenkov's speech discredits anything, it is only current (!) military prosecution's credibility..

I can't beleive that you so much count on the presumption that your opponents are nuts. How does it fit your attitude towards assumption of innocence? Savenkov either ignored or challenged all the figures of all results of previous (Russian-Polish) investigation: the number of interned people, the number of executed people, the number of exhumed people - all. And nobody requires any clarification of his actions. Perfect silence.

Wrong. I have rebutted several statements. For other general statements I have pointed out that they haven't been proven. Did Kropotov prove that in all other letters Shelepin did not capitalize "KGB"? No, he simply made such a statement. (Not that it is relevant, since the letter has not been written by Shelepin's hand anyway.) Did he prove that no other KGB documents have not been written on simple pieces of paper? No, he didn't, but he claimed it nevertheless.

(As a side note, we even have Politburo decisions written on scraps of paper (it's mentioned in one of IDF volumes, I think the one about culture and Soviet power - if needed, I'll try to find it.)

You haven't learned anything. OK, I'll have to chew it for you.

1) Mukhin made a claim that, according to Jablokov, Shelepin did not recognize the letter as authentic, claimed that he had not signed it and even learned about Katyn affair only in recent times.

2) This claim is directly rebutted by the text of "Katynskij sindrom" (see the link I gave you).

3) Kropotov blindly (repeat: blindly) parroted Mukhin's lie without checking the primary source.

4) And now you state that I am wrong and that Kropotov did not believe blindly.

And unfortunately it does not even seem that you're joking.

That cannot be serious to wit: maybe that or maybe that.

So, in your world everything is absolute and is either black or white? Oh my.

Tell me then if the Polish Prosecutor office quoted those docs in reply to Savenkov’s announcement (they did not afaik) and if I am right that they did not why do you think they also ignored those docs in their argument against Savenkov?

I have no idea whether there has been any such response, and if there has, I am not acquainted with its text.

You words: “Most probably Savenkov simply did not understand the data he was given by his aides” is the “it” of all your reasons against Mukhin and now against Savenkov. Yeap all of them are nuts in the opposite team.

This is the most charitable (and probably reasonable, if Savenkov himself is not directly related to the Katyn case - and he probably isn't) interpretation. Because otherwise either the current people in charge of Katyn case are incompetents, or someone simply lied.

Well, with regard to Kropotov-Mukhin and Shelepin's denial of this letter. In the thread you referred to you wrote: "By this he repeats the false claims made by Jurij Mukhin made in his 760+ page book "Antirossijskaja podlost'". Mukhin claims that late Shelepin refused to acknowledge the 1959 letter, basing his claim on the book "Katynskij sindrom", written by the Katyn historians Inessa Jazhborovkaja and Valentina Parsadanova and former prosecutor Anatolij Jablokov, who investigated the Katyn crime."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

This is wrong since Mukhin equally quotes the Yakovlev words that Shelepin recognized this note in general. Here is the extract from his AP in this regard:

Íà íåñ÷àñòüå ãåááåëüñîâöåâ áûë åùå æèâ Øåëåïèí, è òåïåðü åãî ïîëàãàëîñü äîïðîñèòü â ñâÿçè ñ “åãî” íàéäåííûì “ïèñüìîì”. Êàê âû ïîíèìàåòå, â ýòîì ñëó÷àå íè àóäèîçàïèñè, íè âèäåîçàïèñè äîïðîñà íå âåëîñü, à â ïðîòîêîë äîïðîñà Øåëåïèí çàñòàâèë ßáëîêîâà çàïèñàòü òîëüêî ïðàâäó. Ïîýòîìó ïîâåñòâóÿ î ñâîèõ ïîäâèãàõ, ßáëîêîâ áðåøåò òî, íà ÷òî åãî ôàíòàçèè õâàòèëî, è â êîíöå ðåçþìèðóåò:

“ öåëîì, äîïðîøåííûé â êà÷åñòâå ñâèäåòåëÿ Øåëåïèí ïîäòâåðäèë ïîäëèííîñòü àíàëèçèðóåìîãî ïèñüìà è ôàêòîâ, èçëîæåííûõ â íåì. Îí òàêæå ïîÿñíèë, ÷òî ëè÷íî çàâèçèðîâàë ïðîåêò ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ Ïðåçèäèóìà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ îò 1959 ã. îá óíè÷òîæåíèè äîêóìåíòîâ ïî Êàòûíñêîìó äåëó è ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ýòîò àêò áûë èñïîëíåí”. [58] Îäíàêî ýòîò íàòóæíûé îïòèìèçì ßáëîêîâà “â öåëîì” êàê-òî ïëîõî ñîãëàñîâûâàåòñÿ ñ ôàêòàìè äîïðîñà Øåëåïèíà..

http://toyota-rus.narod.ru/files/03-09-18/kd-2/t12.html

But his claim that Shelepin denied the authenticity of this note he is basing on another book: Rudinsky "Case of KPSS". here it is (extract from Mukhin's AP": Êîãäà áûâøèé ïðåäñåäàòåëü ÊÃÁ Øåëåïèí, êîòîðîãî ïðîêóðîðû ñêëîíÿëè ïîäòâåðäèòü ïîäëèííîñòü ôàëüøèâîê, ïîòðåáîâàë ïîêàçàòü åìó ïîäëèííèê îäíîé èç ôàëüøèâîê — ÿêîáû åãî ïèñüìà, — òî ÃÂÏ ïîïðîáîâàëà åãî ïîëó÷èòü. Íî òîãäàøíèé äèðåêòîð Àðõèâà Ïðåçèäåíòà ÐÔ Êîðîòêîâ íàãëî çàÿâèë, “÷òî ïîäëèííèêè äîêóìåíòîâ íè ïðè êàêèõ óñëîâèÿõ âûäà÷å èç àðõèâà Êðåìëÿ íå ïîäëåæàò”.

So you see that Mukhin supports his claim stating that Shelepin could not recognize the authenticity of his note and requested to see the original. But his request was refused .
And later Mukhin quotes Yakovlev again saying that according to Yakovlev Shelepin said that all he knows about the Katyn case he learnt from newspapers.

[Sergey Romanov]

Come on. You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.


No. I said that in such cases the burden of proof is on those who claim that the documents have been forged (or that there is a doubt about their authenticity). Please, stop twisting my words. Thank you.



You said: "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". Would you be so kind to point out in what manner I twisted your words?

Gladly. I said:

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

You distorted:

You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.

As anybody who knows English well will understand, I never said that the documents from proper archives "cannot be contested".

So Mukhin claimed and tried to back up his words. he provided dozens of proves and some of them were funny. But some of them look really strong. He challenged "the presumption of innocence". But nobody ever challenged his claims but you. I find your counter-claims to be very weak since they are basing on the assumption that Mukhin is a crank, and it is a common deal for a Soviet bureaucrat to execute a doc with the date missing,

And I cited many examples, and can cite more.

on a wrong letterhead,

No wrong letterheads have been used.

to ommit couple of words in the name of an organization,

One word. Since when it is a big deal?

For those who don't know, the argument goes like this: the name of the commission was "Special Commission for the examination and investigation of the circumstances of the shooting of Polish prisoners of war in the Katyn forest by the German fascist invaders". In Shelepin's letter the word "circumstances" is omitted by mistake. This is counted as a sign of forgery by Mukhinists.

This example pretty much characterizes them.

To drive point home: clerical msitakes hardly prove anything. In one of the Shvernik's commission reports, for example, the date of birth of one of the shot generals has been given wrongly, as has been promptly pointed out by the people who published it. Does that mean that the whole report is fake? Does that even _hint_ at such a conclusion? I think only cranks would say that it does...

to confuse one term with another one.

Assuming that Shelepin was the author of the text (he claimed that he had only signed it, but this claim should be taken with a grain of salt), for someone who was the KGB head only for 3 months, was quite inexperienced according to his own words and did not deal with the camp documents before, a clerical mistake such a this (incorrectly using the term "uchyotnoje delo") is indeed not a big deal. Personally, in my essay I have tried to explain his use of this term and I think that my explanation indeed fails - reality was much simpler.

------

So, these you call "very strong reasons"? They're hardly worth attention. Thanks for inadvertently proving my argument here.

That all might have been happenning I beleive but for me Mukhin's claims give enough reasons to launch a professional expertise of those docs.

Well, you are free to believe what you wish. I see no warrant for such expertise.

Here you are wrong. I believe that Mukhin cannot personally perform the professional expertise of the docs.

Well, I don't say that he should do it, but he should build a case for such an expertise. In my opinion he has no case. His most "strong" arguments are false (e.g. that the date has been removed from Beria's letter or that Shelepin denied his letter's authenticity). Some points are indeed curious (Shelepin's incorrect use of the term "uchyotnyje dela"), but that's about it.

But now the official examination of the case provided the results that fully confront the data contained in thise docs and all interested parties seem to miss it. And I find it the proper time to initiate the professional expertise of the docs and to prove finally were they forged or not. But even Poles do not insist on that.

The needed expertises have been done long ago - see the expert report in "Katynskij sindrom" (reprinted in "Antirossijskaja podlost'"). We haven't seen the results of the official examination. We have only seen the unprofessional statement at the press-conference, which cannot serve as a substitute for the official conclusion of the prosecutor's office (which hasn't been published) and thus in no way supports Mukhin's contetion about the documents.

I can't beleive that you so much count on the presumption that your opponents are nuts. How does it fit your attitude towards assumption of innocence? Savenkov either ignored or challenged all the figures of all results of previous (Russian-Polish) investigation: the number of interned people, the number of executed people, the number of exhumed people - all. And nobody requires any clarification of his actions. Perfect silence.

All I pointed out is that Savenkov's statement has not been written by a professional. What was probably meant in the document is that in the three camps in question 14000+ Poles have been interned, and that accords with all the documentation (I mean the usual camp documentation, not challenged by Mukhin). The doofus who concocted the statment obviously did not know that aside from the three camps there were many other quite "innocent" internment points, the existence of which even Mukhin does not deny (and why would he?).

Statement's author probably did not really challenge the accepted statistics about the overall number of interned Poles (although even if he did, that's just another reason to put this "statement" into a trash bin), probably he just didn't know any better. Cut it any way you wish, but the statement was not prepared by an expert and is not help to Mukhinists, just an embarassment to our main military prosecutor. His statment has been challenged in the Russian press - I'm sure you know how to use Google.

As for the Poles, I don't know Polish and can't say what was the reaction. It seems that you do know Polish, that you have pored over the Polish news websites and did not find any critique, condemnation etc. (Or could it be that you're just shooting bull? ;] )

Well, with regard to Kropotov-Mukhin and Shelepin's denial of this letter. In the thread you referred to you wrote: "By this he repeats the false claims made by Jurij Mukhin made in his 760+ page book "Antirossijskaja podlost'". Mukhin claims that late Shelepin refused to acknowledge the 1959 letter, basing his claim on the book "Katynskij sindrom", written by the Katyn historians Inessa Jazhborovkaja and Valentina Parsadanova and former prosecutor Anatolij Jablokov, who investigated the Katyn crime."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

This is wrong since Mukhin equally quotes the Yakovlev words that Shelepin recognized this note in general. Here is the extract from his AP in this regard:

Who is "Yakovlev"?

Jablokov gave a detailed account of his meeting with Shelepin and Semichastnyj, during which Shelepin did acknowledge the authenticity of the letter. Mukhin tries to make it seem that Shelepin did not, that's why he writeS:

637.  èòîãå, åñëè èç ãëóïîãî ñëîâåñíîãî ïîíîñà ßáëîêîâà ïî ïîâîäó åãî äîïðîñà Øåëåïèíà âû÷ëåíèòü òî, ÷òî Øåëåïèí äåéñòâèòåëüíî ñêàçàë, òî îñòàíåòñÿ òîëüêî: “Î ïðåñòóïëåíèè â Êàòûíè è äðóãèõ ìåñòàõ â îòíîøåíèè ïîëüñêèõ ãðàæäàí îí çíàåò òîëüêî òî, ÷òî ñîîáùàëîñü â ãàçåòàõ” [60]. ×òî è ñëåäîâàëî îæèäàòü. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýòî .çàÿâëåíèå Øåëåïèíà ÿâëÿåòñÿ åùå îäíèì äîêàçàòåëüñòâîì òîãî, ÷òî âñå ýòè ãåááåëüñîâñêèå “äîêóìåíòû” — ôàëüøèâêè.

This needs no comments: Mukhin implicitly says that Shelepin denied the authenticity of the document, while he did exactly the opposite. (BTW, at no stage Rudinskij comes into play here, you've confused everything.)

So you see that Mukhin supports his claim stating that Shelepin could not recognize the authenticity of his note and requested to see the original. But his request was refused .
And later Mukhin quotes Yakovlev again saying that according to Yakovlev Shelepin said that all he knows about the Katyn case he learnt from newspapers.

The only reason why Mukhin is able to deceive naive persons like you or Kropotov is because naive persons usually don't check primary sources. I did, and I found that Shelepin did acknowledge the authenticity of the letter and explicitly said that he signed it. Mukhin omitted these facts and Jablokov's account, and, though he did cite Jablokov's correct conclusion that Shelepin did authenticate the documents, his own conclusion is exactly the opposite of the facts stated in his own source. And Mukhin's lie has been parroted by Kropotov, who did not even bother to check "Katynskij sindrom" for himself.

In conclusion, here's a long excerpt from "Katynskij sindrom", pp. 393-396, which fully shows the lying nature of Mukhin:

Áûëè ñíÿòû ïîêàçàíèÿ è ñ áûâøåãî ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ ÊÃÁ À. Í. Øåëåïèíà, àâòîðà çàïèñêè-ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ Õðóùåâó îò 3 ìàðòà 1959 ã. îá èñïîëíåíèè ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ Ïîëèòáþðî ÖÊ ÂÊÏ(á) îò 5 ìàðòà 1940 ã.

Óíèêàëüíàÿ èíôîðìàöèÿ î ðàññòðåëå 21.857 ïîëüñêèõ ãðàæäàí, õîòÿ íåäîñòàòî÷íî òî÷íàÿ â îòíîøåíèè ìåñò ðàñïðàâû, òðåáîâàëà íåìåäëåííîé ïðîâåðêè, òåì áîëåå ÷òî â ïîëå çðåíèÿ ñëåäñòâèÿ ïîÿâèëàñü íîâàÿ êàòåãîðèÿ ðåïðåññèðîâàííûõ - 7.305 óçíèêîâ òþðåì è ëàãåðåé Çàïàäíîé Óêðàèíû è Çàïàäíîé Áåëîðóññèè.

Ìåñòî æèòåëüñòâà À. Í. Øåëåïèíà - "æåëåçíîãî Øóðèêà" - áûëî óñòàíîâëåíî ÷åðåç àäðåñíîå áþðî Ìîñêâû.

Âîò ÷òî çàïèñàë À. Þ. ßáëîêîâ.

"×òîáû íå ñòîëêíóòüñÿ ñ îòêàçîì îò äà÷è ïîêàçàíèé, ÿ ðåøèë äîãîâàðèâàòüñÿ î äîïðîñå íå ïî òåëåôîíó, à ïðè ëè÷íîé âñòðå÷å, è 9 äåêàáðÿ 1992 ã. â 16 ÷àñîâ ïðèáûë íà êâàðòèðó Øåëåïèíà íà óëèöå Àëåêñåÿ Òîëñòîãî, íûíå îïÿòü Ñïèðèäîíîâêå. Åñòåñòâåííî, äîì áûë ýëèòíûé, îðèãèíàëüíûé, íåñòàíäàðòíîé àðõèòåêòóðû. Øåëåïèí ïðîæèâàë â ýòîì äîìå â íåáîëüøîé êâàðòèðå íà òðåòüåï ýòàæå âìåñòå ñ ñåìüåé ñâîåé äî÷åðè. Ïîñëå âûÿñíåíèÿ öåëè ìîåãî âèçèòà Øåëåïèí çàÿâèë, ÷òî íè÷åãî íå çíàåò, íå ïîìíèò è, êðîìå òîãî, ïëîõî ñåáÿ ÷óâñòâóåò. Ïîýòîìó äàòü ïîêàçàíèé íå ñìîæåò. Ïðèøëîñü ñäåëàòü çàÿâëåíèå, ÷òî óêëîíåíèå îò äà÷è ïîêàçàíèé ìîæåò ñåðüåçíî ñêàçàòüñÿ íà ïîëíîòå ñëåäñòâèÿ. Íà âîïðîñ Øåëåïèíà î òîì, êàêèå êîíêðåòíî âîïðîñû ìåíÿ èíòåðåñóþò è â êàêîì ïîðÿäêå áóäóò îôîðìëÿòüñÿ ñëåäñòâåííûå äåéñòâèÿ, ÿ îáúÿñíèë, ÷òî ïëàíèðóþ ïðîâåñòè åãî äîïðîñ â êà÷åñòâå ñâèäåòåëÿ ñ ïðèìåíåíèåì âèäåîçàïèñè è ïðåäúÿâëåíèåì äëÿ äà÷è ïîÿñíåíèé åãî ïèñüìà Õðóùåâó. Øåëåïèí çàÿâèë, ÷òî îí êàòåãîðè÷åñêè ïðîòèâ ïðèìåíåíèÿ âèäåîçàïèñè è çâóêîçàïèñè, ÷òî îí áûë âñåãî òðè ìåñÿöà â äîëæíîñòè, êîãäà åìó ïîäñóíóëè ýòè äîêóìåíòû, ÷òî îí ïîäïèñàë èõ, ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå âíèêàÿ â ñóòü ýòîãî âîïðîñà, è ïîýòîìó íè÷åãî íå ïîìíèò. Ïî ïîâîäó ïèñüìà îí çàÿâèë, ÷òî ïîäïèñàë åãî â 1959 ã. à íà íåì ïî÷åìó-òî øòàìï ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ 1965 ã. Óöåïèâøèñü çà ýòó òåìó, ÿ ïðåäëîæèë åìó äàòü ïîÿñíåíèÿ õîòÿ áû ïî ïîâîäó ýòîãî ïèñüìà.

Øåëåïèí îòâåòèë, ÷òî îí äàñò ñîãëàñèå íà ýòî òîëüêî ïðè óñëîâèè, åñëè ÿ âûÿñíþ, êòî ãîòîâèë åìó ýòî ïèñüìî è ïî÷åìó îíî çàðåãèñòèðîâàíî â 1965 ãîäó, åñëè óçíàþ, íå ñîõðàíèëîñü ëè åãî êîïèè â Ìèíèñòåðñòâå áåçîïàñíîñòè Ðîññèè (â òî âðåìÿ òàê íàçûâàëñÿ ÊÃÁ) ñ óêàçàíèåì èñïîëíèòåëÿ äîêóìåíòà, è ïðåäúÿâëþ åìó êîïèþ èëè ïîäëèííèê ïèñüìà. Îí ïîæåëàë, ÷òîáû â äîïðîñå ó÷àñòâîâàë ñìåíèâøèé åãî íà ïîñòó ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ ÊÃÁ ÑÑÑÐ Â. Å. Ñåìè÷àñòíûé, êîòîðûé ïðîæèâàåò â òîì æå äîìå. Ïîíèìàÿ, ÷òî â ñëó÷àå íåïðèíÿòèÿ âûäâèíóòûõ óñëîâèé, Øåëåïèí ìîæåò óêëîíèòüñÿ îò äîïðîñà ïîä ïðåäëîãîì áîëåçíè, ñëàáîé ïàìÿòè èëè ëþáûì èíûì ñïîñîáîì, ÿ áûë âûíóæäåí ñîãëàñèòüñÿ.

Ãîòîâÿñü ê äîïðîñó Øåëåïèíà è âûïîëíÿÿ åãî ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûå óñëîâèÿ, ÿ 10 äåêàáðÿ 1992 ã. ïåðåãîâîðèë ïî òåëåôîíó ñ äèðåêòîðîì Àðõèâà Ïðåçèäåíòà ÐÔ Êîðîòêîâûì. Îí ñêàçàë, ÷òî ïîäëèííèêè äîêóìåíòîâ íè ïðè êàêèõ óñëîâèÿõ âûäà÷å èç àðõèâà â Êðåìëå íå ïîäëåæàò. Âñå äîêóìåíòû â àðõèâå, â òîì ÷èñëå ïèñüìî Øåëåïèíà Õðóùåâó, õðàíÿòñÿ â åäèíñòâåííîì ýêçåìïëÿðå. Êîïèè ýòîãî äîêóìåíòà, ãäå áûëè áû âèçû èñïîëíèòåëåé, â àðõèâå íå èìååòñÿ, è ñóùåñòâóåò ëè âîîáùå òàêàÿ êîïèÿ, îí íå çíàåò. Íà ïèñüìå Øåëåïèíà Õðóùåâó äåéñòâèòåëüíî ñòîèò øòàìï ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ îò 9 ìàðòà 1965 ã., íî â ÷åì ïðè÷èíà äëèòåëüíîãî âðåìåííîãî ðàçðûâà ìåæäó äàòîé èçãîòîâëåíèÿ äîêóìåíòà è åãî ðåãèñòðàöèåé â ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ, îí íå çíàåò. Êàêèõ-ëèáî äðóãèõ äîêóìåíòîâ, ðàçúÿñíÿþùèõ ýòó ñèòóàöèþ, â àðõèâå íåò.

 òîò æå äåíü ÿ ïî ïðåäëîæåíèþ Êîðîòêîâà ñâÿçàëñÿ ïî òåëåôîíó ñ åãî çàìåñòèòåëåì À. Ñ. Ñòåïàíîâûì, êîòîðûé ïîÿñíèë, ÷òî â ïðàêòèêå ÊÃÁ â 50-60-õ è ïîñëåäóþùèõ ãîäîâ ñóùåñòâîâàë ïîðÿäîê èçãîòîâëåíèÿ îñîáî âàæíûõ äîêóìåíòîâ â åäèíñòâåííîì ýêçåìïëÿðå, ðóêîïèñíûì ñïîñîáîì è îñîáî äîâåðåííûìè ëþäüìè. Î òîì, ÷òî ïèñüìî èñïîëíåíî òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò êàëëèãðàôè÷åñêèé ïî÷åðê, êîòîðûé ÿâíî íå ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ïî÷åðêó Øåëåïèíà. Êàæäàÿ áóêâà òåêñòà âûïîëíåíà îòäåëüíî è ñ îñîáûì ñòàðàíèåì. Íà äîêóìåíòå íå ïðîñòàâëåí íè íîìåð ýêçåìïëÿðà, íè èõ êîëè÷åñòâî. Äîêóìåíò äëèòåëüíîå âðåìÿ, ñ 3 ìàðòà 1959 ã., íå ðåãèñòðèðîâàëñÿ, î÷åâèäíî ïîòîìó, ÷òî íàõîäèëñÿ â ñåéôå ó çàâåäóþùåãî îáùåãî îòäåëà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ Ìàëèíà. Òàêîå ïîëîæåíèå èìåëî ìåñòî ñ ìíîãèìè äðóãèìè äîêóìåíòàìè àíàëîãè÷íîãî çíà÷åíèÿ.  1965 ã. Ìàëèí óõîäèë ñ ýòîé äîëæíîñòè, è ïîýòîìó 9 ìàðòà 1965 ã. ïîä íîìåðîì 0680 äîêóìåíòû áûëè çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíû â òåêóùåì äåëîïðîèçâîäñòâå ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ, à 20 ìàðòà 1965 ã. ïîä íîìåðîì 9485 ïåðåäàíû â Àðõèâ ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ.

11 äåêàáðÿ 1992 ã. ÿ ïî òåëåôîíó ïåðåãîâîðèë ñ íà÷àëüíèêîì Öåíòðàëüíîãî àðõèâà ÌÁ ÐÔ À. À. Çþá÷åíêî, êîòîðîìó òàêæå çàäàë âîïðîñû, ïîñòàâëåííûå Øåëåïèíûì. Çþá÷åíêî îòâåòèë, ÷òî ïî âñåì ïðèçíàêàì ïèñüìî Øåëåïèíà Õðóùåâó ñîñòàâëåíî â åäèíñòâåííîì ýêçåìïëÿðå. Ýòî ïèñüìî ãîòîâèë íåèçâåñòíûé åìó ñîòðóäíèê ÊÃÁ ÑÑÑÐ èç ãðóïïû îñîáî äîâåðåííûõ ñîòðóäíèêîâ ñåêðåòàðèàòà ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ ÊÃÁ, êîòîðûõ çíàë òîëüêî ñòðîãî îãðàíè÷åííûé êðóã äîëæíîñòíûõ ëèö ÊÃÁ. Îí ïðåäëîæèë äëÿ âûÿñíåíèÿ, êòî èìåííî ñîñòàâèë ýòî ïèñüìî, îáðàòèòüñÿ ê ìèíèñòðó áåçîïàñíîñòè ÐÔ ñ ïèñüìåííîé ïðîñüáîé ïîðó÷èòü ïðîâåñòè îïðîñ ñðåäè áûâøèõ ñîòðóäíèêîâ ñåêðåòàðèàòà ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ ÊÃÁ. Íà íàø çàïðîñ ìèíèñòðó Â.Ï. Áàðàííèêîâó ïîñòóïèë îòâåò, ÷òî ýòîò ñîòðóäíèê óæå óìåð è îïðîñèòü åãî íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âîçìîæíûì.

11 äåêàáðÿ 1992 ã. ñ 11 ÷àñîâ 50 ìèíóò äî 14 ÷àñîâ 50 ìèíóò íà êâàðòèðå Øåëåïèíà ïðîâîäèëñÿ åãî äîïðîñ ñ ó÷àñòèåì Â. Å. Ñåìè÷àñòíîãî, êîòîðûé ïîâòîðÿë è ðàçúÿñíÿë ïëîõî ñëûøàùåìó Øåëåïèíó ìîè âîïðîñû è ïîìîãàë ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü îòâåòû íà íèõ. Ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ âûñîêèì, êðåïêèì, ñàìîóâåðåííûì Ñåìè÷àñòíûì, îùóùåíèå âëàñòíîñòè è ñèëû êîòîðîãî óñèëèâàëîñü âñåé åãî âíåøíîñòüþ - êðåïêèì òåëîñëîæåíèåì è êðóïíîé ãîëîâîé ñ ðåçêèìè ÷åðòàìè ëèöà, Øåëåïèí î÷åíü ïðîèãðûâàë. Íèæå ñðåäíåãî ðîñòà, ñ ìåëêèìè ÷åðòàìè ëèöà, Øåëåïèí èìåë âèä îáû÷íîãî ïîæèëîãî ðóññêîãî ÷åëîâåêà. Ïðåæäå ÷åì äàâàòü îòâåòû íà ìîè âîïðîñû, îí îáñòîÿòåëüíî ñîâåòîâàëñÿ ñ Ñåìè÷àñòíûì. Ïîñëå îçíàêîìëåíèÿ ñ êñåðîêîïèÿìè äîêóìåíòîâ è ïîäãîòîâëåííûìè ìíîþ ñïðàâêàè î áåñåäàõ ñ Êîðîòêîâûì, Ñòåïàíîâûì è Çþá÷åíêî, îòâå÷àÿ íà ïîäãîòîâëåííûå âîïðîñû, Øåëåïèí äàë ïîêàçàíèÿ, êîòîðûå áûëè çàïèñàíû ïðàêòè÷åñêè äîñëîâíî.  õîäå âîñïðîèçâåäåíèÿ çàïèñàííîãî Øåëåïèí è Ñåìè÷àñòíûé çàÿâèëè, ÷òî â òàêîì âèäå ïîêàçàíèÿ â ïðîòîêîëå îñòàâëÿòü íåëüçÿ, ïîñêîëüêó "ïðåäñåäàòåëü â ýòîì ñëó÷àå âûãëÿäèò íå íà âûñîòå". Ìíå æå ÿêîáû âñå áûëî ðàññêàçàíî íå äëÿ çàïèñè, à ÷òîáû ÿ ñ èõ ñëîâ ëó÷øå ïîíÿë ñèòóàöèþ òîãî âðåìåíè.

 ÷àñòíîñòè, Øåëåïèíà íå óñòðîèëî, ÷òî áûëî çàïèñàíî (êàê îí â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè è ðàññêàçûâàë), ÷òî ïîñëå äîêëàäà êîãî-òî èç åãî ïîä÷èíåííûõ (ñêîðåå âñåãî èç àðõèâíîãî ïîäðàçäåëåíèÿ) î òîì, ÷òî öåëàÿ êîìíàòà â àðõèâå ïîñòîÿííî çàíÿòà íåíóæíûìè äëÿ ðàáîòû ñîâåðøåííî ñåêðåòíûìè äîêóìåíòàìè, è ïðåäëîæåíèÿ çàïðîñèòü â ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ ðàçðåøåíèå íà èõ óíè÷òîæåíèå, îí äàë íà ýòî ñîãëàñèå, íå çíàÿ, î êàêîé ïðîáëåìå øëà ðå÷ü. ×åðåç íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ òîò æå èñïîëíèòåëü ïðèíåñ åìó âûïèñêó èç ðåøåíèÿ Ïîëèòáþðî è ïèñüìî îò åãî èìåíè Õðóùåâó. Ê ýòîìó âðåìåíè îí áûë â äîëæíîñòè âñåãî òðè ìåñÿöà, à äî òîãî íå ñîïðèêàñàëñÿ ñ äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ ÊÃÁ. Ïî åãî ñëîâàì, ïðè íàçíà÷åíèè íà ýòîò ïîñò îí íåñêîëüêî ðàç îòêàçûâàëñÿ è ïîä÷èíèëñÿ ïðèêàçó î íàçíà÷åíèè ïðåäñåäàòåëåì êîìèòåòà òîëüêî â ïîðÿäêå ïàðòèéíîé äèñöèïëèíû.  ïåðâûå ìåñÿöû, íå ÷óâñòâóÿ ñåáÿ ïðîôåññèîíàëîì â ýòîé îáëàñòè, îí âî âñåì äîâåðÿëñÿ òîìó, ÷òî ãîòîâèëè ïîä÷èíåííûå, è ïîýòîìó ïîäïèñàë, íå âíèêàÿ â ñóùåñòâî âîïðîñà, ïèñüìî Õðóùåâó è ïðîåêò ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ Ïðåçèäèóìà (òàê â òî âðåìÿ èìåíîâàëîñü Ïîëèòáþðî) ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ.

Î ïðåñòóïëåíèè â Êàòûíè è äðóãèõ ìåñòàõ â îòíîøåíèè ïîëüñêèõ ãðàæäàí îí çíàåò òîëüêî òî, ÷òî ñîîáùàëîñü â ãàçåòàõ.

Áûë ëè ïðèíÿò ïðåäëîæåííûé ïðîåêò ñîâåðøåííî ñåêðåòíîãî ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ î ëèêâèäàöèè âñåõ äåë, êðîìå ïðîòîêîëîâ çàñåäàíèé "òðîéêè" ÍÊÂÄ ÑÑÑÐ?

Øåëåïèí è Ñåìè÷àñòíûé ïîÿñíèëè, ÷òî îòñóòñòâèå ðåçîëþöèè Õðóùåâà íà ïèñüìå Øåëåïèíà îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ ñóùåñòâîâàíèåì â òî âðåìÿ ïðàêòèêè äà÷è óñòíûõ ñàíêöèé íà òîò èëè èíîé çàïðîñ èñïîëíèòåëåé. Òàêàÿ ñàíêöèÿ ìîãëà ïîñòóïèòü êàê îò ñàìîãî Õðóùåâà, òàê è îò ðóêîâîäèòåëÿ åãî àïïàðàòà.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå íà âòîðîì ýêçåìïëÿðå äîêóìåíòà èñïîëíèòåëü äåëàë ñîîòâåòñòâóþùóþ îòìåòêó. Ýòî ïèñüìî Øåëåïèíà Õðóùåâó èñïîëíÿëîñü â åäèíñòâåííîì ýêçåìïëÿðå, è ïîýòîìó íà íåì íå îêàçàëîñü íèêàêèõ îòìåòîê, òàê êàê îíî îñòàëîñü â ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ. Ïîýòîìó, âèäèìî, è íå ïîòðåáîâàëîñü (íå áûëî îôîðìëåíî) ðåøåíèå Ïðåçèäèóìà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ.

Âìåñòî ïðîòîêîëèðîâàíèÿ ýòèõ ïîÿñíåíèé Øåëåïèí è Ñåìè÷àñòíûé ïðåäëîæèëè çàïèñàòü, ÷òî ïðè÷èíà îòñóòñòâèÿ âèçû Õðóùåâà íà ïèñüìå Øåëåïèíà è ïðîåêòå ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ Ïðåçèäèóìà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ èì íå èçâåñòíà. ß áûë âûíóæäåí ïåðåïèñàòü ïðîòîêîë çàíîâî â ñîîòâåñòâèè ñ ïðåäëîæåíèÿìè Øåëåïèíà è Ñåìè÷àñòíîãî, è òîëüêî òîãäà îí áûë ïîäïèñàí.

Ïîñëå îêîí÷àíèÿ äîïðîñà Øåëåïèí è Ñåìè÷àñòíûé ïîèíòåðåñîâàëèñü ó ìåíÿ, ïëàíèðóåòñÿ ëè äîïðîñ áûâøåãî ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ ÊÃÁ È. À. Ñåðîâà. Îíè ðàññêàçàëè, ÷òî Ñåðîâ è Õðóùåâ î÷åíü òåñíî ñîòðóäíè÷àëè íà Óêðàèíå, â òîì ÷èñëå â 1939-1940 ãã. Çà Ñåðîâûì ïðî÷íî óêðåïèëàñü ñëàâà "ïàëà÷à" è ïðàâîé ðóêè Õðóùåâà (èõ îáúåäèíÿëè è ðîäñòâåííûå ñâÿçè: îíè áûëè ñâîÿêàìè). Ñî ñëîâ Ñåìè÷àñòíîãî, Ñåðîâ áûë çàìåøàí â ðàññòðåëàõ âî Ëüâîâå è Õàðüêîâå. Ïðîâåðèòü ýòó èíôîðìàöèþ ó íåãî ñàìîãî íå ïðåäñòàâèëîñü âîçìîæíûì, ïîñêîëüêó Ñåðîâ ÷àñòî è òÿæåëî áîëåë è ÷åðåç íåñêîëüêî ìåñÿöåâ ñêîí÷àëñÿ. Ïðè âñå ýòîì áûëî î÷åâèäíî ëè÷íîå íåïðèÿçíåííîå îòíîøåíèå Øåëåïèíà è Ñåìè÷àñòíîãî êàê ê Ñåðîâó, òàê è ê Õðóùåâó, êîòðîå è ðàçâÿçûâàëî èõ ÿçûêè.

Ó ìåíÿ ñëîæèëîñü âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî îáà ñòàðèêà íàõîäèëèñü â ñîñòîÿíèè êàêîãî-òî áåñïîêîéñòâà ïî ïîâîäó ïðîèñõîäûùåãî â ñòðàíå è òðåâîæíîãî îæèäàíèÿ òîãî, ÷òî îíè ñíîâà ñòàíóò îáúåêòàìè ïðèñòàëüíîãî îáùåñòâåííîãî âíèìàíèÿ.  õîäå äîïðîñà ïî èõ íàñòîÿíèþ äåëàëèñü ïåðåðûâû äëÿ ïðîñìîòðà âñåõ èíôîðìàöèîííûõ íîâîñòåé ïî âñåì òåëåâèçèîííûì êàíàëàì, êîòîðûå îíè æàäíî âïèòûâàëè â îáñòàíîâêå ïîëíîé òèøèíû è íàïðÿæåííîãî âíèìàíèÿ.

 öåëîì, äîïðîøåííûé â êà÷åñòâå ñâèäåòåëÿ Øåëåïèí ïîäòâåðäèë ïîäëèííîñòü àíàëèçèðóåìîãî ïèñüìà è ôàêòîâ, èçëîæåííûõ â íåì. Îí òàêæå ïîÿñíèë, ÷òî ëè÷íî çàâèçèðîâàë ïðîåêò ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ Ïðåçèäèóìà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ îò 1959 ã. îá óíè÷òîæåíèè äîêóìåíòîâ ïî Êàòûíñêîìó äåëó è ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ýòîò àêò áûë èñïîëíåí.

Âûÿñíåíèå ïðîáëåìû ïðîäîëæàëîñü. Èç ïîêàçàíèé áûâøåãî çàâåäóþùåãî êàíöåëÿðèåé Ïðåçèäèóìà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ Ä. Í. Ñóõàíîâà ñëåäîâàëî, ÷òî îñîáåííî øèðîêîå ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå ïðàêòèêà ðåøåíèÿ ìíîãèõ ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ âîïðîñîâ ïî òåëåôîíó, áåç âèçèðîâàíèÿ äîêóìåíòîâ, ïîëó÷èëà ïðè Í. Ñ. Õðóùåâå. Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ïèñüìî Øåëåïèíà Õðóùåâó îò 3 ìàðòà 1959 ã. è ïðîåêò ïîñòàíîâëåíèÿ Ïðåçèäèóìà ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ, çàâèçèðîâàííûé Øåëåïèíûì, îêàçàëèñü íà õðàíåíèè â "îñîáîé ïàïêå" Ïîëèòáþðî ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ, ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò îá èñïîëíåíèè ýòèõ äîêóìåíòîâ".

[Sergey Romanov]

Jablokov states that Shelepin's letter gave them a clue about the new, previously unknown category of victims - the inmates of Belorussian and Ukrainian prisons. Later the Ukrainian lists have been found (I have a Polish edition at home), and, what's important, judging by the document numbers they are the part of a single deportation scheme, which also included Kozelskij, Ostashkovskij and Starobelskij camps. These lists strongly corroborate Shelepin's letter.

[Sergey Romanov]

Addendum: Mukhin writes that Shelepin said that he learned about Katyn from the "perestrika newspapers". It's just another easily refutable lie. Shelepin never said that it were perestroika newspapers from which he had learned about Katyn - the Special Commission's report had been published in Pravda in 1944, and from it Shelepin obviously learned about Katyn, as many other people.

[Karman]

Come on. You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.


No. I said that in such cases the burden of proof is on those who claim that the documents have been forged (or that there is a doubt about their authenticity). Please, stop twisting my words. Thank you.



You said: "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". Would you be so kind to point out in what manner I twisted your words?

Gladly. I said:

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

You distorted:

You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.

As anybody who knows English well will understand, I never said that the documents from proper archives "cannot be contested".

First here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
you said:

Since the Politburo documents came from the "Osobaja papka" (the "special file") part of the archive, their forgery is out of question. In "osobaja papka" there could be no forgeries, by definition .

I said:

You said that if a document is brought from a proper archive then it cannot be contested.

I intermpreted your words "forgery out of question" as "authenticity out of question". This is the only "distortion" I allowed. But I am ready to apologize if you really meant that "forgery is out of question" that said: that all docs that came from "Osobaja papka" are out of question forgeries. I would very much appreciate if you provide clarification in this regard to avid any doubts. And probably my English betrayed me again and your words: "In "osobaja papka" there could be no forgeries, by definition" allow to contest the docs. I probably failed to grasp the meaning of the English set expression "by definition" . It should mean something like : check is reuired.
Thank you very much again.

[Karman]

It is a vicious circle and I do not mean to over-pursuade you. Yes Shelepin was a stranger in the KGB and could ommit words, confuse organizations and put down wrong names. But the officer who prepared the document for him could not had done that. Sure ther could be a mistake but those docs are staffed with mistakes.

You appearently do not have much experience in documents preparation to be so arrogant to say that the Soviet bureaucratic machine was tolerant to this way of the execution of documents.But you arguments do not grow heavier if you repeat them again and again.
The professional expertise of the documents was not published. Rudinskiy said that the douments had not been reviewed.
Wrong letterhead? The document executed in 1940 was performed on the letterhead of 1930. Everyuthing might happen. But too many "if" with those docs.

Your explanation that the Savenkov's report was unprofessionally executed is ridiculous. Why? Only because it does not match your assumptions? Give me a break.

[Sven-Eric]

Whether the documents that Yeltsin handed over to the Poles in 1992 are forged or not should be easy to check. Just check how old the paper is, the ink etc.

[Serus]

Whether the documents that Yeltsin handed over to the Poles in 1992 are forged or not should be easy to check. Just check how old the paper is, the ink etc.

Sorry Sven but its irrelevent... the point is there is no SERIOUS claim that these documents are forged... all interested parties (Russian and Polish authorities and Russian and Polish historians (i mean "real" historians, academic ones not amateurs likes Mukhin with some agenda) all agree that those documents are authentic, there is simply no doubt about it.

About Polish reaction on Savenkov's statement - it was discussed and criticized by Polish side but the main focus was on the decision of closing the investigation, not some strange numbers taken out of context (probably many people missed that part - the fact of closing the investigation was so much more important). But the truth is that Savenkov statemnt was for Russian press, it was only oral, no full written document was officialy published AFAIK (maybe Poland received it later via diplomatic channels but i dont know nothing about it - anyway the point is, it was never presented to the public in Poland or in Russia) - how can anyone blame Polish side about not answering it is beyond my understanding.
Anyway Poland started its own investigation.

[Karman]

Whether the documents that Yeltsin handed over to the Poles in 1992 are forged or not should be easy to check. Just check how old the paper is, the ink etc.

Sorry Sven but its irrelevent... the point is there is no SERIOUS claim that these documents are forged... all interested parties (Russian and Polish authorities and Russian and Polish historians (i mean "real" historians, academic ones not amateurs likes Mukhin with some agenda) all agree that those documents are authentic, there is simply no doubt about it.

Very Interesting. I have read a Polish historian who was an internee in one of Soviet camps in that time. His book is called The Katyn Forest ans was published in 1988 (if my memory serves me well). He has a double-name I have to check. He questionned many German POWs and performed his own investigation. His conclusion was: NKVD forces killed about 2000 Poles. All the others were brought by Germans from different places and were executed by Germans. So, please, do not tell that all serious historians rely on numbers stated in those docs. Besides I fail to undersrtand how people can admit those docs to be authentic if they have never seen them. And there was no official expertise.

[Sven-Eric]

I think that you are referring to Romuald Swyatek, karman. If I remember it correctly he spent some time in Vorkuta with a German officer, who said that this was a deed by the Germans.
Regards,
Sven-Eric

[Karman]

I think that you are referring to Romuald Swyatek, karman. If I remember it correctly he spent some time in Vorkuta with a German officer, who said that this was a deed by the Germans.
Regards,
Sven-Eric

Exactly, Sven-Eric. Thank you very much.
Regards,
karman

[Serus]

Whether the documents that Yeltsin handed over to the Poles in 1992 are forged or not should be easy to check. Just check how old the paper is, the ink etc.

Sorry Sven but its irrelevent... the point is there is no SERIOUS claim that these documents are forged... all interested parties (Russian and Polish authorities and Russian and Polish historians (i mean "real" historians, academic ones not amateurs likes Mukhin with some agenda) all agree that those documents are authentic, there is simply no doubt about it.

Very Interesting. I have read a Polish historian who was an internee in one of Soviet camps in that time. His book is called The Katyn Forest ans was published in 1988 (if my memory serves me well). He has a double-name I have to check. He questionned many German POWs and performed his own investigation. His conclusion was: NKVD forces killed about 2000 Poles. All the others were brought by Germans from different places and were executed by Germans. So, please, do not tell that all serious historians rely on numbers stated in those docs. Besides I fail to undersrtand how people can admit those docs to be authentic if they have never seen them. And there was no official expertise.

Is it a joke ? IF this book was published in 1988 - how could he "rely on numbers stated in those dosc" - docs that were UNKNOWN to the public in 1988 ? I can agree with you on one thing: historians that wrote books about Katyn before those documents were known weren't relying on them . As you can see there is no point to even check this "serious historian".

And please next time give a full name of the author and tittle of the book, in what language you read it, etc... if possible. (I guess you talk about a guy called Romuald Świątek-Horyń but im not sure, he wrote something about soviet Russia so it should be him)

About "people admiting that those documents are authentic" - the discussion is turning in circles, Sergey Romanov already answered this more than one time (in this thread too)... really no need to repeat once again all the same arguments.

[Sven-Eric]

The full credit of the book is as follows:

Romuald Swiatek: The Katyn Forest, Panda Press, London 1988, ISBN 1-870078-30-6

Swiatek ended up in Soviet labour camps in 1950 and were there for seven years. He says he met several German officers and also some Smolensk residents who said that the Polish officers were alive when the Germans arrived. Swiatek claims that the whole thing were used by some Polish exile groups in London as a political weapon against General Sikorski.