Soviet Responsibility at Katyn: pro and con

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Soviet Responsibility at Katyn: pro and con

Post by Sergey Romanov » 13 Aug 2004 13:55

A contiuation of this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=56805

1) Frankly, I don't see why both sides make such a big deal out of Gorbachev's admission. We're dealing with history here and admission is not a historical argument. It doesn't prove that the Poles were murdered by NKVD. So reading time after time "even Gorbachev admitted this", as if this supposed to end the debate, is tiring.
Anyway, both Soviet and Russian governments recognized Stalinism's guilt at Katyn, Kharkov and Tver'.

2) 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. The "independent examination" should have been undertaken only if the documents were held by some third party all this time (say, at some party official's home).
It's up to the deniers to prove that there was a conspiracy to forge the documents. Until proven false, the documents should be considered authentic, just as _any other_ documents with a known provenance.

3) Mukhin's parrots often talk about a need for a "trial", repeating their guru's silly claim. But what "trial" they are talking about? _Who_ is to be tried? Besides, all this talk about trial is no more than a silly red herring. While trial may (or may not) be relevant to the question of the reparations, it is wholly irrelevant to the historiography. Historically, the guilt of NKVD and Politburo is established with 100% certainty.

4) The question of the bullets is irrelevant for the following reasons:

a) The Germans themselves first described these bullets. They could have simply omitted this fact and if the subsequent findings contradicted them, they could've just dismissed them as forgeries.

b) These same bullets were found in the graves at Mednoe. Germans never were in Mednoe.

5) Katyn deniers have no straws to grasp at, so they grasp at leaves. Mukhin's argument is based on this excerpt from Jaworowski:
That the crimes was committed in spring-time is clear from the birch leaves in the graves, which [the leaves] were fresh at that time.

Mukhin doesn't give context and his argument is based on "common sense" (as he sees it): that the leaves would decay up to that time if the murder was committed in the spring of 1940, but there could be some dry leaves if it was committed in the autumn of 1941. Basically, one would need to conduct some studies to see what would decay when (e.g. it seems to me that in the wax-fat leaves might not decay for a long time), and what exactly was the state of the leaves the Polish commission has found.

6) Antisemite Mills wrote:

It is interesting that Stalin was not the main person pushing for the execution of the imprisoned Polish army officers and policemen, but took advice from his subordinates.

It is also interesting that a number of those subordinates, such as Voroshilov, the People's Commissar for War, were in favour of releasing the prisoners.

It is also interesting that Lev Mekhlis, head of the Political Commissars in the Red Army, was the one who insisted on the executions of the prisoners on the grounds that there were "enemies" among them

Could it be that Mekhlis had some specific ethnic and/or ideological grudge against the Polish officers? Did his own ethnic origin and cultural background play a role in his assessment of the prisoners as "enemies"?

In that regard, we should note that Mekhlis was not a Russian. He was not a Ukrainian. Nor a Belorussian. Nor a Georgian or Armenian, or from the Caucausus. Not a Tartar either, or a member of the Baltic peoples, or of any of the peoples of Soviet Asia.


Of course this vomit-inducing post is based on two wrong premises, one false, another quite shaky: that the Jew Mekhlis had anything to do with the Katyn massacre and that "Stalin was not the main person pushing for the execution". It was Georgian Beria who drafted the Politburo order, and Georgian Stalin was likely the person who decided that such order would be drafted at all. There was only one Jewish "yes" on the shooting order - that of Kaganovich (and it was written in by the secretary). Three were Russian (Molotov, Kalinin, Voroshilov), 1 Armenian (Mikojan), 1 - and deciding - was Georgian (Stalin; Beria did not sign the order for whatever reason).

One wonders whether the misinformation on Mills' part was deliberate...

7) Rarog wrote:

There is at least one forged "document" in the Katyn archive.

Ex-KGB head Shelepin refuses to acknowledge he wrote/signed the documents which are now the Katyn archive.


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.
Mukhin's claims are fully refuted by the text of the book! On p. 395 Jablokov writes that Shelepin told him (in Semichastnyj's presence) that some executive complained to him in 1959 that the whole room was taken by some secret documents which were not needed for work anyway, that after some time this same executive brought him the excerpt from the Politburo protocol with the shooting order and the draft of the letter which Shelepin signed. I.e. Shelepin acknowledged the authenticity of the letter and the fact of signing it. The letter was not written by Shelepin's hand, this fact is clear. This corresponds to Shelepin's story and was confirmed to Jablokov by several archivists and officials. It is more probable that Shelepin did not tell the truth that he just signed this document almost without looking (he was just for three month at KGB at that time, he said, so he trusted the professionals there). Anyway, Mukhin lied and his parrots are advised to verify his claims before spouting them.

8)
Anyway, it is obvious to me that modern Russia is a continuation of Soviet Union. Why? They nourish Soviet's murders and thugs, refused to consider Katyn massacre as genocide.


I'm not sure whether Russian govt. considers this genocide or not, or whether this question has been ever raised with them (I don't trust journalists' rendition of the fact, they often omit nuances). But in the expert opinion for the Russian prosecution Katyn massacre is considered an act of genocide according to the IMT charter (!). (See "Katynskij sindrom", p. 484).

9)
Argument that since Geobbels announced that Russian did what they did it must have been a lie is preposterous.


Readers might be interested in reading the excerpts from Goebbels' diaries (courtesy of Scott Smith):

http://p067.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm1 ... D=27.topic

10) Dmitry wrote:

Yes that's a good question. I don't know what exactly could happen at the time... In the USSR there was kind of punishment - prisoners could be deforsed of carry on a correspondence.

As we know Polish officers (in Gryazovets camp) that weren't on the ocuppied by Germans Soviet territory survived. What did they tell - why they stop to wrote?


That claim is familiar to those who have read Mukhin. OK, let's suppose they were sentenced to 5 years without the right to write ( ;] ). Where were they? According to Burdenko report, they were concentrated in the three camps near Smolensk called 1-ON, 2-ON, 3-ON. There are grave problems with this claim:

a) There is not a trace of these camps in the extensive NKVD documentation. These Poles do figure in some documents about the camps for POWS as "transferred to UNKVD". There are no "ON" camps in the lists of NKVD camps - and they would be there is they existed. Deniers might argue that they were under GULAG jurisdiction - but GULAG documentation is just as extensive, and no trace of these Poles or camps there, sorry.

b) Soviet report states:

The former head of camp no. 1ON, Major of Security WETOSCHINIKOW W.M., interrogated by the Special Commission, stated:

"I awaited the order relating to the dissolution of the camp. But <phone> connections with the city of Smolensk were interrupted. Therefore I drove together with a few fellow employees to Smolensk to clarify the situation. I found the situation in Smolensk tense. I turned to the head of railway traffic for the Smolensk stretch of the western railway, Comrade IWANOW, with a request to provide the camp with <train> carriages to evacuate the Polish prisoners of war. Comrade IWANOW answered, however, that I could not count on that. I made attempts to get in connection with Moscow to obtain permission to cover the distance by foot, but I was not successful.

"At this time, Smolensk was already cut off from the camp by the Germans, and I don't know what happened to the Polish prisoners of war and the guard personnel who remained behind in the camp."


Even Mukhin concedes that Vetoshnikov was a mythical figure dreamed up by Soviets to cover the fact that they sentenced(!) POWs to hard labor.

c) There were more than 4000 bodies in 7 graves, 1 grave remained largely unopened, but it contained only several hundreds of corpses. Where are 11,000 more bodies?!

d) The answer to the previous question: at Tver and Kharkov, as was decisively established by Russian and Polish investigation teams.

So there is really no question about who killed these Poles.

11) Dmitry wrote:
I've read Red Cross commission report. They were working under close attention of Nazis who came there before them and could prepare things in their favour, nonetheless Red Cross commission wrote that Polish officers were killed by German weapons.


Let's not forget that they also testified about it AFTER the war. Of course two of them, who were in the Soviet hands, testified differently.

12) Rarog wrote:
Yeah, and one of the "documents" mentiones not VKP(b) but ZK KPSS!!!


It's another of Mukhin's ignorant claims. In fact, KPSS was often mentioned instead of VKP(b) in the official documents. And the fact that it mentioned "TsK" instead of "Politburo TsK" hardly matters, since often there was a confusion of these terms (e.g. on June 3, 1946, in Politburo order it was written that "TsK VKP(b) orders...", in February 3, 1941 Politburo order for the division of NKVD into two narcomates it was again written "TsK VKP(b) orders").

13)
Of course in Russia there always were and are those who'll support in fact anti-russian claims. A sort of 'vlasovists' like one Russian here with tzar's surname.


An all too familiar "Nestbeschmutzer" argument we all know and love :] I'm anti-Vlasov, BTW. And while some ignorant persons on the both sides of the "controversy" may consider this argument "anti-Russian", it's strictly anti-Stalinist. Nobody can blame Russians for the murder of Poles at Katyn.
Last edited by Sergey Romanov on 13 Aug 2004 16:33, edited 1 time in total.

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 13 Aug 2004 15:07

Excelllent post, Sergey.

I would only add that the issue of the leaves in the graves as advanced by those who say it was a German crime have totally failed to make the case that thse leaves prove anything definitive. As I mentioned to Tospeed in the locked thread, one has to be very familiar with the taphonomy of the materials (human, as well as any other flora and fauna) found in those graves. As expressed in Mukhin's arguments, the issue of the leaves is hardly compelling , and (to anyone familiar with forensic pathology and its methods) should be considered unscientific conjecture at best. It may sound reasonable to a lay reader but it's level of analysis is more appropriate to a TV detective program than any serious inquiry.

Furthermore, one poster here suggested that by some unknown means the Germans were able to "fake" the state of the decomposition of the corpses in order to make their appearance conform to a particular timeline. That may have been the most audaciously ridiculous assertion I've ever read here, and suggests either baboon-like ignorance in the service of pre-conceived politcal motivations and/or a total contempt for any serious discussion of the topic.

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:20

Sergey,

1. Is this refutation of the Muhin book was written by you?

http://katyn.codis.ru/muhin.htm

2. Are you aware of any counter-arguments (to your writings) of Muhin, including those in "Anti-rossijskaja podlost"? Please tell us about them.

3. And is that true that by the time of the supposed massacre in 1940 two Politburo memebers - Kaganovich and Shvernik (both Jewish) were vacationing in the Kozji Gory - just 100 meters away from the shooting place? How can you comment it? (I read it in a discussion somewhere in the Net, the author mentiones "Pamyat i bol' Katyni").

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Aug 2004 15:28

Rarog wrote:
And is that true that by the time of the supposed massacre in 1940 two Politburo memebers - Kaganovich and Shvernik (both Jewish) were vacationing in the Kozji Gory - just 100 meters away from the shooting place? How can you comment it? (I read it in a discussion somewhere in the Net, the author mentiones "Pamyat i bol' Katyni").

Is there supposed to be some relevance to the ethnic identity of Kaganovich and Shvernik? If so, what? If not, either avoid such comments entirely or start posting the ethnic backgrounds of every person you mention by name.

What significance, if any, does the claimed vacation in the Kozji Gory have to the identity of the murderers of the Polish officers?

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:33

Sergey, I also kindly ask you to comment the post refuting your refutation of the refutation of Muhin of the documental (Politburo documents) proofs of Katyn.

Разбор г-ном Сергеем Романовым главы «Протоколы геббельсовских мудрецов и тройка с бубенцами» из книги Ю.Мухина «Катынский детектив» (см. http://katyn.codis.ru/muhin.htm ) – типичный пример методов пропагандистской борьбы, применяемых сторонниками немецкой версии.
Первые лет пять книга Мухина подвергалась сторонниками немецкой версии полному замалчиванию. Потом стала удостаиваться издевательских упоминаний в 1-2 фразы типа: «Но, к сожалению, и сегодня в России появляются «труды», напрочь отвергающие факт уничтожения польских граждан по прямому указанию советского политического руководства. В наиболее сконцентрированном виде эта позиция изложена в «монографии» Ю.Мухина «Катынский детектив»» (сборник Катынь. Пленники необъявленной войны. М,1999)
Но, поскольку книга Мухина появилась в интернете во многих местах, полностью замалчивать ее стало неприлично.
Разбор изданного в 1995 г. «Катынского детектива» был анонсирован на сайте http://katyn.codis.ru хозяином сайта Юрия Красильниковым еще аж в 1999 г. в самых уничижительных выражениях относительно нравственных качеств и умственных способностей автора «Катынского детектива».
В итоге за 4 года смогли что-то возразить Ю.Мухину смогли только по одной главе «Детектива».

Однако автор статьи «Псевдоревизионизм во всей "красе"» Сергей Романов избегает в своем разборе полемизировать с Мухиным по существу и делает вид, что в упор не замечает самых СИЛЬНЫХ аргументов Мухина.
При этом подробнейшему, чуть ли не с микроскопом, анализу подвергаются второ- и третьестепенные детали, неточности, неудачные стилистические обороты, опечатки и т.д.
Как всегда получается у сторонников немецкой версии, получилось всё очень эмоционально, наукообразно и красиво оформленным, но … совершенно бездоказательно и неубедительно для специалистов в этом вопросе.
Зато достигнут главный результат – появилась свежая публикация, на которую можно сослаться как на «разбор» книги Мухина «специалистом», который «поймал Мухина на вранье, разнес Мухина в пух и прах, убедительно доказал, что поляков расстрелял НКВД и т.д. (нужное подчеркнуть) »
Заинтересовавшийся, но неискушенный в методах спецпропаганды читатель (а таких большинство) зайдет по ссылке, мало чего поймет по существу дискуссии, но уйдет с впечатлением, что Мухину «врезали по первое число».
Самое забавное, что большинство претензий к Мухину в этой статье являются претензиями вовсе не к Мухину, а к стронникам немецкой версии, организовавшим вброс фальшивок в научный оборот через журнал «Военные архивы России» и допустившим при этом кучу опечаток и нарушений правил публикации исторических документов.
Кстати, ввод трех ключевых для Катынского дела документов в научный оборот через специально созданный для этой цели сомнительный журнал-однодневку является, согласно принятой в источниковедении методики определения подлинности документов, одним из признаков их подложности.

Когда же С.Романов пытается что-то возразить Мухину по существу (причем пытаясь полемизировать далеко не с самыми сильными аргументами Мухина), он демонстрирует свою полную беспомощность.

Только один типичный пример из статьи (остальные примеры аналогичные):

Цитата из Мухина:
105. Но главное в другом. Отличие военнопленных и интернированных в том, что они находились в лагерях для военнопленных и интернированных. Только в лагерях на них заводились учетные дела на военнопленных. А те, кто был арестован и посажен в тюрьмы, имели следственные или уголовные дела, но никак не учетные на военнопленных. Откуда же тогда у Шелепина появилось 7305 учетных дел на военнопленных, если эти люди сидели в тюрьмах и не являлись военнопленными?

Комментарий Романова:
Мухин, как всегда, невнимателен. Шелепин пишет: "7.305 человек были расстреляны в других лагерях и тюрьмах", а у Мухина лагеря исчезают и остаются только тюрьмы. Ничто не мешало помещать бывших военнопленных в тюрьмы. Вот одна из директив Меркулова (22 февраля 1940 года; с. 350):
№ 641/6 Сов. секретно
Начальнику Управления по делам о военнопленных
майору тов. Сопруненко
НКВД Украинской ССР
комиссару госбезопасности III ранга
тов. Серову
Начальнику Ворошиловградского УНКВД
капитану госбезопасности
тов. Череватенко
Начальнику УНКВД Смоленской области
капитану госбезопасности
тов. Панфилову
Начальнику УНКВД Калининской области
полковнику
тов. Токареву
По распоряжению народного комиссара внутренних дел тов. Берия предлагаю всех содержащихся в Старобельском, Козельском и Осташковском лагерях НКВД бывших тюремщиков, разведчиков, провокаторов, осадников, судебных работников, помещиков, торговцев и крупных собственников перевести в тюрьмы, перечислив их за органами НКВД.
Все имеющиеся на них материалы передать в следственные части УНКВД для ведения следствия.
О порядке дальнейшего направления этих дел указания будут даны дополнительно.
О количестве переданных арестованных донесите.
Зам. народного комиссара внутренних дел Союза ССР
комиссар государственной безопасности III ранга
В. Меркулов
А вот распоряжение УПВ НКВД СССР начальникам лагерей для военнопленных об исполнении директивы Л. П. Берии о переводе в тюрьмы содержащихся в лагерях тюремщиков, разведчиков, провокаторов, осадников и других (23 февраля 1940 года; КПНВ, с. 358, 359):
№ 25/1869 Сов. секретноТолько лично
Начальнику _______лагеря НКВД
Начальнику УНКВД __________области
Народный комиссар внутренних дел Союза ССР тов. Берия дал распоряжение всех содержащихся в Вашем лагере тюремщиков, разведчиков, провокаторов, осадников, судебных работников, помещиков, торговцев и крупных собственников перевести в тюрьмы, перечислив их за органами НКВД.
Все имеющиеся на них материалы передать в следственные части УНКВД для ведения следствия. (Указания зам. наркома внутренних дел СССР тов. Меркулова № 641/6 от 22.II.1940г.).
При осуществлении этой операции Вам надлежит руководствоваться следующим:
1. В пятидневный срок уточнить количество состоящих на учете в лагере:
а) тюремщиков и чиновников тюремного ведомства (независимо от занимаемой должности);
б) разведчиков (офицеры и сотрудники 2-го отдела польского Генштаба, офицеров информации, военных цензоров и кадровых офицеров КОПа, ведших разведывательную работу против СССР);
в) провокаторов;
г) осадников;
д) судебных работников;
е) помещиков;
ж) торговцев и крупных собственников.
2. Связаться с начальником УНКВД и по получении от него указаний, в какие тюрьмы должны быть направлены лица, перечисленные в п. 1, донести в Управление по делам о военнопленных количество лиц каждой категории и пункты направления.
3. Отправку в тюрьмы производить по получении нарядов из Управления НКВД СССР по делам о военнопленных.
4. Учетные дела на военнопленных в законвертованном и запечатанном виде сдаются начальникам конвоя для передачи вместе с арестованными в тюрьмы.
Все имеющиеся в особом отделении материалы на каждого из отправляемых передать в следственную часть УНКВД.
5. Работу по выявлению тюремщиков, разведчиков, провокаторов, осадников, судебных работников, помещиков, торговцев и крупных собственников продолжать и, по мере выявления таких лиц, немедленно сообщать в Управление НКВД по делам о военнопленных для направления их в тюрьму.
6. О количестве переданных в тюрьмы немедленно доносить в Управление по делам о военнопленных. Одновременно высылая на каждого переданного подробную справку, составленную на основании учетных и оперативных материалов.
Предупреждаю, что вся работа по переводу военнопленных в тюрьмы должна проводиться с соблюдением строжайшей конспирации.
Начальник Управления НКВД СССР
по делам о военнопленных
майор П. Сопруненко
Комиссар Управления НКВД СССР
по делам о военнопленных
полковой комиссар Нехорошев


Выглядит на первый взгляд наукообразно, солидно и убедительно, а по существу – ахинея.
Мухин пишет о серьезнейшем вопросе Катынского дела – наличии среди пропавших поляков нескольких ТЫСЯЧ человек, арестованных в декабре 1939 г. и в начале 1940 г. органами НКВД на территории Западной Украины и Западной Белоруссии, среди которых было много офицеров. Они с самого начала (с момента своего ареста) НЕ БЫЛИ ВОЕННОПЛЕННЫМИ.
Учетные дела военнопленных на них НЕ ЗАВОДИЛИСЬ, на них после ареста в тюрьмах заводились СЛЕДСТВЕННЫЕ дела.
Романов же подменяет несколько ТЫСЯЧ таких поляков примерно 200 «тюремщиков, разведчиков, провокаторов, осадников, судебных работников, помещиков, торговцев и крупных собственников», выявленных в лагерях военнопленных и переведенных в тюрьмы для следствия по директиве Меркулова №641/б вместе со своими УЧЕТНЫМИ делами (в тюрьмах, кстати, на них сразу же заводились СЛЕДСТВЕННЫЕ дела).

При этом Романов, сам того не подозревая, указывает на еще один признак подложности «письма Шелепина» (Мухин этого признака не заметил).
Обратите внимание на фразу Романова: «… Шелепин пишет: "7.305 человек были расстреляны в других лагерях и тюрьмах", а у Мухина лагеря исчезают и остаются только тюрьмы…»
Дело в том, что в ДРУГИХ ЛАГЕРЯХ не было расстреляно НИ ОДНОГО поляка. Это сейчас можно утверждать уверенно – сами поляки проследили судьбы своих пленных по всем лагерям. Клянут НКВД почем зря – издевались, заставляли пленных работать, плохо кормили, арестовывали и сажали в лагеря ГУЛАГА на 5-10 лет, многие пленные умерли и т.д.
Но претензии по РАССТРЕЛАМ есть только к тюрьмам и трем спецлагерям – Козельскому, Старобельскому и Осташковскому.
А вот решениями Особого Совещания при НКВД военнопленные поляки в ДРУГИХ ЛАГЕРЯХ действительно осуждались (так же, как и многое заключенные в ТЮРЬМАХ).
Автор «письма Шелепина» имел перед глазами подлинный документ с фразой «7.305 человек были осуждены ОСО НКВД в других лагерях и тюрьмах» и заменил её на «7.305 человек были расстреляны …», не заметив возникшего смыслового противоречия.

А уж фантастическую наглость, с которой С.Романов обвиняет в ошибочной датировке письма Берии не сторонников немецкой версии, с самого начала с пеной у рта утверждавших, что письмо написано Берией именно 5 марта 1940 г. и ни днем раньше (такая датировка чрезвычайно важна для их версии!), а Юрия Слободкина и Юрия Мухина, убеждавших всех, что подобная датировка неверна, просто невозможно прокомментировать в цензурных выражениях
Да ведь ложная датировка письма Берии 5 марта 1940 г. сторонниками немецкой версии с самого начала была одним из ОСНОВНЫХ аргументом Мухина в поддельности этого документа !!!

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Aug 2004 15:40

Sergey -- You wrote:
Frankly, I don't see why both sides make such a big deal out of Gorbachev's admission. We're dealing with history here and admission is not a historical argument. It doesn't prove that the Poles were murdered by NKVD. So reading time after time "even Gorbachev admitted this", as if this supposed to end the debate, is tiring.

A confession or admission by an authorized spokesman of a government is conclusive, absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a clearly established explanation for why the admission was made. The fact that one reader finds such conclusive material "tiring" to read can hardly affect the question.

I locked the original thread on this subject because of the lack of any evidence, documentary or forensic, for the proposition that the Soviet Union was not responsible for the murders. I intend to do the same thing again if such evidence is not forthcoming.

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:45

David Thompson wrote:Is there supposed to be some relevance to the ethnic identity of Kaganovich and Shvernik? If so, what? If not, either avoid such comments entirely or start posting the ethnic backgrounds of every person you mention by name.


As I understand, the author of the post is contemplating about the possibility to explaine presence of two Politburo members camping right among mass burials of Polish officers and withnessing mass executions (and fishing in their free time) by their ethnicity. Kaganaovich and Shvernik were Jewish and came to celebrate the mass murder of well known anti-Semites - the Poles.

It looks like the author mocks this possibility and accuse the opponents in Anti-Semitism, as otherwise it's impossible to explaine how the abovementioned persons were "vacating" there...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Aug 2004 15:47

Rarog -- Where's the translation for the quotation you provided? Just two days ago we had this discussion at:

viewtopic.php?t=56831&start=0

in which I said:
Rarog -- You said:
I can just translate selected quotes or give the summary, I'm afraid.


Do one or the other or don't post it at all.

When you didn't comply, I locked the thread. I will do the same here if you don't start complying with the forum rules.

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:47

David Thompson wrote:Rarog -- Where's the translation for the quotation you provided?


Uhmmm... May this piece be considered "private" as I'm addressing personally to Sergey?

Or do I have to move it on another board and post the link to avoid unnecessary translation?

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33931
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 13 Aug 2004 15:50

Rarog wrote:Uhmmm... May this piece be considered "private" as I'm addressing personally to Sergey?

Or do I have to move it on another board and post the link to avoid unnecessary translation?


No, either provide a translation or don't post it / link to it at all.

/Marcus

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:51

David Thompson wrote:A confession or admission by an authorized spokesman of a government is conclusive, absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a clearly established explanation for why the admission was made. The fact that one reader finds such conclusive material "tiring" to read can hardly affect the question.


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

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:52

Marcus Wendel wrote:
Rarog wrote:Uhmmm... May this piece be considered "private" as I'm addressing personally to Sergey?

Or do I have to move it on another board and post the link to avoid unnecessary translation?


No, either provide a translation or don't post it / link to it at all.

/Marcus


It'll take at least an hour... may just give a summary?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Aug 2004 15:54

Rarog -- That's fine. Continue to provide such translations whenever you cite to a non-English source.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Aug 2004 15:55

Rarog -- You said:
As I understand, the author of the post is contemplating about the possibility to explaine presence of two Politburo members camping right among mass burials of Polish officers and withnessing mass executions (and fishing in their free time) by their ethnicity. Kaganaovich and Shvernik were Jewish and came to celebrate the mass murder of well known anti-Semites - the Poles.

It looks like the author mocks this possibility and accuse the opponents in Anti-Semitism, as otherwise it's impossible to explaine how the abovementioned persons were "vacating" there...

This is merely an insulting speculation on your part, made with no proof of your premise -- that "Kaganaovich and Shvernik were Jewish and came to celebrate the mass murder of well known anti-Semites - the Poles." We don't permit that sort of thing here. It is a slur to suggest that the Polish people are anti-semitic as a group, it is a slur to suggest that they were regarded as such, and it is a slur to suggest that the murders of the Polish POWs were taken as some sort of semitic revenge.

Rarog
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 10:16
Location: Russia

Post by Rarog » 13 Aug 2004 15:59

David Thompson wrote:Rarog -- You said:
As I understand, the author of the post is contemplating about the possibility to explaine presence of two Politburo members camping right among mass burials of Polish officers and withnessing mass executions (and fishing in their free time) by their ethnicity. Kaganaovich and Shvernik were Jewish and came to celebrate the mass murder of well known anti-Semites - the Poles.

It looks like the author mocks this possibility and accuse the opponents in Anti-Semitism, as otherwise it's impossible to explaine how the abovementioned persons were "vacating" there...

This is merely an insulting speculation on your part, made with no proof of your premise -- that "Kaganaovich and Shvernik were Jewish and came to celebrate the mass murder of well known anti-Semites - the Poles." We don't permit that sort of thing here. It is a slur to suggest that the Polish people are anti-semitic as a group, and it is a slur to suggest that the murders of the Polish POWs were taken as some sort of semitic revenge.


First of all, not on my part, I'm just quoting another person.

Second, maybe you misunderstand:

Kaganovich and Shvernik, according to the mentioned source (a documentary) were vacationing on the place when the supposed executions took place (decomposing bodies etc). It's a good argument against the theory that the executions took place in that time. Or, as the author says with SARCASM, one has to suppose that as Shvernik and Kaganovich were Jewish probablythey must be celebrating, and it's Antisemitism.

But, hell, I understand your predicament!!!!!

One has eithe to suggest that there were no executions by that time or admit that two Jews were "vacationing" at the moment.

Of course, I don't care for their ethnicity, but it's a powerful argument for Anti-Semites...

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”