Katyn Massacre Documents
Karman, your last comment is not a sound argument in the discussion, i hope you understand it.Karman wrote:Molobo: I have to repeat again and again that the only solution is the demand to check the authenticity of the documents clearly stating who, when and for what perpose killed the Polish internees. Unless the Polish side does not do that it evidently does not want to find the truth. With regard to his words of "highly placed state officials from former USSR" . Do not you know their names from the published docs? Besides he did not say of the top state officials. The meaning is lost via translation.
you said:IPN was really restraining itself but they were shocked when Russian officials refused to conclude presecuting Soviet officials responsible for the genocide.And of course they started their own invisitigation
We know from the experience that when the Polish side is shocked they do not keep the mouth shut .
The question of "cheking authenticity" of the documents was already discussed TWICE in this thread - between You and Sergey Romanov and later between You and Me, no reason to go back there for the 3rd time, just let the readers wage the arguments of both sides.
I beg your pardon. Molobo's post is in line with the English speaking audience raised on the Western works. In Russia it is very different. Please understand that from our perspective we are not rewriting the history but you are. And thus you have to provide the evidence. So far nobody has. If the Western audience accepted the conclusions of the German investigation Russians based their judgements on the conclusions of the investigation performed by Burdenko. I think we can presume that both committees were bias. To find the truth the joint Soviet-Polish committee was formed under Gotrbi. I think that if such a committee were formed under Brezhnev everybody of our opponents would have siad that it were bias. For no reason (and I think that this is Rarog's and mine point) it is taken per granted that the committee under Gorbi (from Russian side headed by notorious Yakovlev) was neutral. Well yet that committee has discovered nothing. They still are sure that Russians killed those people (at least more than 10 thousand) but do not know who, how and after whose order. What makes you to believe that Russians did it after all? Their letters to families, newspapers found in their pockets and others constitute collateral evidence and can be easily contested (as Sean-Lamb showed it). Those people could have been expatriated to the German occupation zone and thus their correspondence to home stopped and newspapers and letters from year 1940 could have been put into their pockets and so on and so forth. On the other hand both German made bullets and cords they were tied are just excluded form the case. The "coogle-society" say that could not NKVD people use those bullets and cords? There was a chance! So Russians did it. Anyway, Smolensk NKVD archive is in US let them produce the ultimate evidence that Russians did it. There is none.Andreas wrote: Molobo's post is very clearly in line with the current knowledge outlined by reputable sources such as e.g. the UK FCO, as a quick Google search using the term 'Katyn Massacre' will show. You are challenging the historical consensus. The burden is on you to provide the evidence if you want to rewrite history.
That said the work of Soviet-Polish joint committee finished up in the conclusion of Savenkov's investigation. Savenkov said that Soviets are responsible for 18 hundred (I am saying of that to answer Molobo's continuous claims). But Savenkov added that according to the investigation that responsibility was not equal to the responsibility for genocide and even a war crime.
Karman wrote:I beg your pardon. Molobo's post is in line with the English speaking audience raised on the Western works. In Russia it is very different. Please understand that from our perspective we are not rewriting the history but you are.
Judging from this there is no clear-cut 'in Russia' opinion, as you try to make out. It appears a controversial issue, mixed up in internal and external politics, in Russia, and not an issue where Russian historians have taken a single view?In 1992, Moscow suddenly "discovered" the original 1940 execution ordered signed by Stalin and five other Politburo members-- in Gorbachev's private archive. 17 Gorbachev almost certainly had read it in 1989, if not earlier. 18 In October 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin presented a copy of the order along with 41 other documents to the new Polish president, former Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. In doing so, he made a point of chiding his arch enemy Gorbachev, with whom he was locked in a bitter domestic political battle. During a 1993 visit to Warsaw's military cemetery, Yeltsin knelt before a Polish priest and kissed the ribbon of a wreath he had placed at the foot of the Katyn cross. 19 In a joint statement with Walesa, he pledged to punish those still alive who had taken part in the massacre and make reparations--a promise that has not been kept. Meanwhile, Soviet and Polish teams were permitted to excavate at Katyn and the other two sites, on a selective basis, where Polish prisoners had been executed. In 1994, a Soviet historian published a book that for the first time called Katyn a "crime against humanity." 20
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/art6.htmlRussians cannot look at Katyn without seeing themselves in the mirror of their own history. Thus official Moscow resists using the "g" word (genocide) to describe the atrocity. When Gorbachev's advisers warned him in 1989 that Poland's demand for the truth contained a "subtext . . . . that the Soviet Union is no better--and perhaps even worse--than Nazi Germany" and that the Soviet Union was "no less responsible" for the outbreak of World War II and the 1939 defeat of the Polish Army, they were also thinking of undercurrents in their own country. 28 Russian intellectuals were already beginning to equate Communism with fascism and Stalin with Hitler. Reports of vandalized war memorials and looted battlefield cemeteries underscored growing popular disillusionment with the cult of triumphalism built around Stalin and the USSR's victory over Nazi Germany. 29 Now some Russian revisionists go so far as to claim that Hitler's invasion launched a preventive war aimed at forestalling Stalin's plan to strike Germany first--a view that even Western historians reject. 30
In the rest of the world it appears to me that there is little doubt about who committed the crime. But that is not the point - the point is that it is very easy to find reputable sources asserting that the generally accepted view (or call it the orthodox view) held in the west (and parts of Russian society as well) is correct, i.e. that the NKVD committed the crime. There is very little if nothing in the English language world that is reputable enough to put much trust into it - and I do not see proclamations by the Russian judiciary as reliable, since in my view it is not independent of the political powers in Russia.
I have not researched the matter though, and I do not have an axe to grind, so I am quite open to be convinced that the crime was committed by the Germans. Just so far I have not seen the evidence that could do so, but that does not mean that there is none, just that I have not seen it.
So if you want to challenge the orthodoxy, flat out statements of denial or turning around other people's arguments by changing some words are not good enough - you need to bring some evidence.
I will not interfere with posts debating the matter rationally, and by providing facts, but I will interfere with posts that are nothing but childish attempts to derail the discussion and that add nothing at all to it. That applies to both sides.
It would also help if Russian sources provided could be translated, since many people do not speak Russian, and on many computers Cyrillic will not even be shown correctly.
I hope that is clearer now.
All the best
Andreas
-
Musashi
- Member
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 13 Dec 2002, 16:07
- Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]
- Contact:
If you want to read a Russian text and you use MS Internet Explorer choose Edit->View->Coding->[more]->Cyrillic (Windows). You just have to change the coding in other browsers. Some sites and texts require the other coding, for example Cyrillic (ISO), (DOS), (COI8-U) or (COI8-R).Andreas wrote: It would also help if Russian sources provided could be translated, since many people do not speak Russian, and on many computers Cyrillic will not even be shown correctly.
Here you have Karman's message to test the coding. I used Cyrillic (Windows) method and I have no problems.
Karman wrote: 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:http://toyota-rus.narod.ru/files/03-09-18/kd-2/t12.htmlÍà 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..
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.
As for the link of the CIA file you provided.
Swianiewicz also recalled that all Polish internees were vaccinated before moving out of the camp. Explanation is simple - disorganized work of the Soviet system. Too much of the bad work of the Soviet system. in this case
Benjamin Fischer also refers to the documents contested in this thread. And actually this is the ONLY reference to any documents confirming the Soviet guilt for the murder.
ANd still there is the question that author failed to clarify though started his article in propper manner with the description of the then international political situation. The question is why? Why did Stalin order to execute Poles if he almost at the same time ordered Beria to work among Poles on organization of Polish national military troops on the territory of Russia.
Regards
Following Mukhin I am asking about the logic of this event. basing on the traditional (Orthodox has the other better meaning for me) version the execution was initiated by Beria's note advising to execute the Polish officers pursuant to their anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary activities. Swianiewicz was taken to Smolensk NKVD prison and then was moved to Central NKVD office in Moscow. There he was prisonned. Swianiewicz himself explains it as that he was separated from the others and prisonned as a dangerous spy for his works on the Soviet economics. Where is the logic? 14 thousand people got shot for their counter-revolutionary activities and 1 person got prisonned in Lubianka for the same accusition. Leopold Ezhewski wrote that the reason was that Soviets wanted to use his knowledge of the Soviet economics. But evidently they did not. Swianiewicz was freed together with other Poles on the basis of Sikorski-Maiski agreement.Professor Stanislaw Swianiewicz was the sole survivor of Katyn. He was waiting to board a bus to the forest area when an NKVD colonel arrived and pulled him out of line. Swianiewicz was an internationally recognized expert on forced labor in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, who had been born in Poland when it was still part of the Russian empire, and had studied in Moscow. He ended up in Siberia, and after the war emigrated to the United States, where he taught economics at the University of Notre Dame. At least one CIA analyst remembers the professor from his days in South Bend.
Swianiewicz also recalled that all Polish internees were vaccinated before moving out of the camp. Explanation is simple - disorganized work of the Soviet system. Too much of the bad work of the Soviet system. in this case
Benjamin Fischer also refers to the documents contested in this thread. And actually this is the ONLY reference to any documents confirming the Soviet guilt for the murder.
ANd still there is the question that author failed to clarify though started his article in propper manner with the description of the then international political situation. The question is why? Why did Stalin order to execute Poles if he almost at the same time ordered Beria to work among Poles on organization of Polish national military troops on the territory of Russia.
Regards
A real awfull case of propaganda here.Why did Stalin order to execute Poles if he almost at the same time ordered Beria to work among Poles on organization of Polish national military troops on the territory of Russia.
First of all, it wasn't at the same time.Secondly Stalin wanted to create a division made of Poles, controlled by communists, which would serve as puppet army for him.Calling it a "national military troops" is a bit like calling Jewish Police in ghetto, a Jewish paramiltary organisation created by Hitler.
So the both things don't exclude each other, even if they would be true, since the Allied soldiers murdered at Katyn wouldn't serve the intended purpouse of being loyal servants to Stalin.
What were the counter-revolutionary activities of the people shot ? Can you fill me in on that ?people got shot for their counter-revolutionary activities
KarmanKarman wrote: 1) Where is the logic? 14 thousand people got shot for their counter-revolutionary activities and 1 person got prisonned in Lubianka for the same accusition.
2) Why did Stalin order to execute Poles if he almost at the same time ordered Beria to work among Poles on organization of Polish national military troops on the territory of Russia.
Regards
Some thoughts on the matter:
1) I think that using standard logic to analyse the Stalinist system of suppression is a doomed attempt right from the start.
2) It is easier to organise Communist Polish military troops if you dispose of their conservative anti-communist officers first.
All the best
Andreas
Molobo: Here:Molobo wrote:A real awfull case of propaganda here.Why did Stalin order to execute Poles if he almost at the same time ordered Beria to work among Poles on organization of Polish national military troops on the territory of Russia.
First of all, it wasn't at the same time.Secondly Stalin wanted to create a division made of Poles, controlled by communists, which would serve as puppet army for him.Calling it a "national military troops" is a bit like calling Jewish Police in ghetto, a Jewish paramiltary organisation created by Hitler.
So the both things don't exclude each other, even if they would be true, since the Allied soldiers murdered at Katyn wouldn't serve the intended purpouse of being loyal servants to Stalin.
What were the counter-revolutionary activities of the people shot ? Can you fill me in on that ?people got shot for their counter-revolutionary activities
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
I provided the article of Russian scholar Lebedeva (in Russian) who referred to the note of Beria to Stalin (which I believe was made after a certain period of time needed for investigation). The note was made on November 5, 1940 (His "note" with the proposal to execute Polish officers is dating back to March 5, 1940). So it is almost at the same time with two-three months difference. Besides the note proves that Beria's people questionned not only communists but people of various political views. And people whe were not "loyal servants to Stalin" survived in mass and made Anders' troops.
About the "counter-revolutionary activities" I quoted the contested Beria's note to Stalin. Got you filled in?
Last edited by Karman on 29 Jul 2005, 14:08, edited 1 time in total.
1. The attitude of Stalin to communist movement was a very complicated thing. For example Yugoslavian Royal Government in exile easily cooperated with Stalin simply convincing him that Yugoslavian communists supported Trozkiy. Stalin supported chetniks of Mikhailovic much longer after Britts started to support communist partisans of Tito. In Spain NKVD more fought against Trozkists alliances then against rebellian forces. Besides many conservative anti-communist officers were kept in camps. And Beria continued negotiating with them.Andreas wrote:KarmanKarman wrote: 1) Where is the logic? 14 thousand people got shot for their counter-revolutionary activities and 1 person got prisonned in Lubianka for the same accusition.
2) Why did Stalin order to execute Poles if he almost at the same time ordered Beria to work among Poles on organization of Polish national military troops on the territory of Russia.
Regards
Some thoughts on the matter:
1) I think that using standard logic to analyse the Stalinist system of suppression is a doomed attempt right from the start.
2) It is easier to organise Communist Polish military troops if you dispose of their conservative anti-communist officers first.
All the best
Andreas
2. I cannot agree with you that Stalin lacked standard logic. Soviet gvt under him was probably severe, rude, merciless but it alwasys was very practical and efficient. As Chirchill called them cynical egoists.
Regards
You probably could explain what so special did happen during those two-three months that made Stalin to change his views so radically?Molobo wrote:Thank you for confirming that the two events are not in the same time.the note was made on November 5, 1940 (His "note" with the proposal to execute Polish officers is dating back to March 5, 1940). So it is almost at the same time with two-three months difference