Talk:Katyn massacre

No mention of Grover Furr's views?

The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre by Grover C. Furr purports to prove that the Soviets were not responsible for the massacre. Is it worthy of mention on the page as a controversy, or is it merely pseudo-history by a Stalin apologist? I came here to see if Furr's views were mentioned, but it may be that he's essentially a Flat Earther on this topic. PapayaSF (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Furr essentially is the equivalent of a Flat Earther on this topic. His work is not subject to peer review by any serious scholars or academic publications. Furr's main claims are that the documents released during the Glasnost era proving full Soviet guilt for the crime—as well as the admissions of full guilt by both the Soviet government in 1989 and the Russian government in 2010—are mere forgeries created to demonize Stalin, while NKVD's own self-absolving reports from 1944 are completely genuine. He bases a lot of this on the "reseach" of a Stalinist member of the Russian Duma who has a history of denying all the evidence of Stalin's crimes as mere forgeries. Don't take any of Furr's research seriously. ImperatorPublius (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

> His work is not subject to peer review by any serious scholars or academic publications.

Perhaps not by mandate, but many have reviewed it and found it highly credible. There's lots of reviewing of it, and it's fairly solid.

> He bases a lot of this on the "reseach" of a Stalinist member of the Russian Duma who has a history of denying all the evidence of Stalin's crimes as mere forgeries.

I wouldn't consider this "a lot", and either way it's an ad hominem attack. "There's no way that someone critiquing someone else who I personally don't like can be credible" is the argument made here. 47.145.96.69 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

His work is absolutely dismissed by anyone with credentials on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become a sect and a joke. Imperator's answer illustrates why. I encourage everyone to look into Grover Furr's work, censured by narrow minds like Imperator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.88.141 (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not read this book but I reflect that a Stalinist like Mr Ilyukin could have a vested interest in deflecting criticism or blame that gets put to Stalin's regime, so I would question what he has to say as well.Cloptonson (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as Stalinism, Wikipedia's point of view notwithstanding. If 100 historians attack the hegemony's enemy, and one defends him at great personal cost, does that make the latter less truthful or credible than the former? Jesus Christ, man. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:FDAB:DE17:63D:1386 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Katyn denial redirects here, but the topic is not discussed in the article. A section about such revisionist views could be added, IMHO. What do you think, User:Buidhe? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't object to that but it has to be written from a non-Fringe perspective. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a fringe perspective, it's commonly accepted among many groups. It's also significantly more accurate - it should at least get a mention, and the credibility contained within it warrants the page at least giving the potential for doubt. Instead of saying "this absolutely without a doubt happened", it should outline the disagreement, giving both sides. At least acknowledge opposition exists instead of completely shutting it down. We aren't here to debate whether it happened or not, we should be showing a broad range of opinion. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, we aren't here to give a summary of one source. 47.145.96.69 (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Furr's writings are considered fringe at best. The only "groups" that accept his writings are fringe groups. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

katyn & justice for uncle joe stalin

• Katyn massacre, a mass execution of Polish generals, military commanders and intelligentsia in April & May 1940 by Joseph Stalin & NKVD[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.38.149.60 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Soviet version underrepresented, German pistols were the weapon of choice

So, the biggest evidence for "the Germans did it version" is literally the fact that the execution was done with the German weapons... And this is explained away with "Soviet pistols had too much recoil"? Is this a joke?--Adûnâi (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The claim is supported by this ref: "See for instance: Polak, Barbara (2005). "Zbrodnia katyńska". Biuletyn IPN (in Polish): 4–21. Archived from the original on 8 December 2009. Retrieved 22 November 2007 (in Polish). Do you have good reason to doubt that source and/or argue that it has been mis-translated? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For example, look at this section of the article on Vasily Blokhin, who killed maybe a third of them himself, and look at the references provided. Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

German perpretators?

@Baztain: please help us understand why you want to make your major change to the article. I will take some time to dive deeper into your sourcing, but my first glance suggests that the sources for 'the Nazis did it' are not as reliable as existing sources. Grover Furr's book, for example, is on the fringe of historical scholarship. In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to highlight the most reliably sourced changes your proposing? It's important for you to gain consensus for changes like these. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Grover Furr, the research made by the Russian historians, are all apparently in opposition to the widly established view regarding this historical event. Although this does not imply their falseness. Everyone who is genuinly intrested in the truth will read the both sides and I cannot for one see how you would then come to the conclusion that the "official" (western) picture is in any sense truthful. Being stapeled as "fringe" by an obviously corrupted "academia" is in this context of no intrest if truth is what we seek. And if we don't seek to republish truth.. then what are we even doing on this platform.

I hate to say it but tbh wikipedia is not in any way as it is right now merley an objectivly informative platform. There has been thousands of editors employed by the cia and fbi who edits these pages in an attempt to reshape public opinion and what i edited was countering this interferance. . this is not even something they are shy about as they openly admitt in their own newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baztain (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I can empathize with the frustration of knowing the truth is not adequately covered by reliable sources. You might push for venues outside of Wikipedia to increase coverage of your view. Until then, the consensus of this community is to afford the view as much prominence as is due based on its coverage in reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, "There has been thousands of editors employed by the cia and fbi who edits these pages...". Do you have any evidence at all that even one of the editors who have edited here is "employed by the CIA and FBI"? If so, I'd be very interested to see it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. oh, and that Reuters report was 14 years ago?

@Baztain: I'm keeping an eye on this article. Do not edit war or I will take administrative action, such as a page block or locking the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Burdenko Commission: major blunder

While reviewing the previous issue with Katyn negationism by Grover Furr et al., I was thinking there must be an article about Katyn denial, similar to Holocaust denial, and I noticed a major blunder. The section "Soviet actions" contained a reference to a wrong commission (and I unwittingly contibuted to the perpetration of this blunder by creating a wrong redirect Burdenko Commission based on this text.

I suspect that the root of the confusion was a grave misuse of wikipiping. At that moment ( 23 October 2015‎ ) the article contained this wikipipe: [[Extraordinary State Commission#Controversial communiqués|Special Commission for Determination and Investigation of the Shooting of Polish Prisoners of War by German-Fascist Invaders in Katyn Forest]] The current version of Extraordinary State Commission (ESC) does not have section "Controversial communiques" and someone without much thinking replaced the wikipipe by direct link to ESC. Anyway, long story short, "Special Commission for Determination and Investigation..." «Специальная комиссия по установлению и расследованию обстоятельств расстрела немецко-фашистскими захватчиками в Катынском лесу (близ Смоленска) военнопленных польских офицеров» is a differnt commission set up by the ESC in 1944 (ESC was set in 1942). Polish Wikipedia has a separate article for it: pl:Komisja Nikołaja Burdenki, however IMO a more comprehensive text to address the issue is the ruwiki article ru::Советское расследование Катынского дела (1943—1944) (1943-1944 Soviet investigation into the Katyn massacre), which also includes a preliminary 1943 investigation by NKVD by yet another commission headed by a Sergei Kruglov.

And it looks like en-wiki does not cover this topic adequately, beyond the brief section, Katyn massacre#Soviet actions. I carried out a quick remedy in this section, but I have no stamina to write an adequate article. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

After all, I decided to create the missing article and I am wondering which title to use: IMO Burdenko Commission is a bit too narrow title, but the Russian title is kind of POV: the "Soviet investigation" was not really investigation, but a cover-up effort. What would be your suggestions? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure Burdenko Commission is too narrow. It's narrow in the sense of being precise. It's common enough in reliable sources, though sometimes not as a proper noun ('Burdenko commission, 'Burdenko's commission'). I agree that "Soviet investigation..." is inapt. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

USSR did not invade Poland

Check the very first paragraph. USSR did not invade Poland in 1939. Nazi Germany did. This page has errors out the wazzoo. Dtss2017 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course they did. Two and a half weeks after the Nazis, but they did. That was in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Antandrus (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they did. And, no, not in accordance. Read, e.g. G. Roberts. The text of the secret protocol did not stipulate what the party were supposed to do, it defines what the parties are not allowed to do (Germany does not go East from Kurzon's line, and vise versa). Contrary to Ribbentrop's attempts to present it as a military pact, it contained no military obligations. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Secret Additional Protocol. Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party. Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments. In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

— Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, 22 August 1939

The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. consider it as exclusively their task, after the collapse of the former Polish state, to re-establish peace and order in these territories and to assure to the peoples living there a peaceful life in keeping with their national character. To this end, they have agreed upon the following: ARTICLE I. The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. determine as the boundary of their respective national interests in the territory of the former Polish state the line marked on the attached map, which shall be described in more detail in a supplementary protocol. (...) Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

— German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty, 28 September 1939

The latter resulted in subsequent NKVD-Gestapo collaboration. Cloud200 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not discussing the second agreement, because it was signed after the USSR invaded Poland.

With regard to MRP, it literary says: Germany and USSR can do whatever they want, but they should not cross Vistula, Narev and San. I see no sign of any agreement about any joint military actions in this document.

However, that is a primary source, so its interpretation may be wrong. Let's see what experts say about that.

"The signing of the pact with the erstwhile enemy was indeed rationalised in ideological terms; for the Comintern, for example, it meant the abandonment of the anti-fascist popular front politics of the 1930s (at least for a time). The decision itself, however, was based on perceptions and calculations in which ideology played only a marginal role. Moreover, in adopting this course of action Stalin and Molotov, it seems, had no clear idea of its precise practical outcome. This only emerged in the wake of Germany’s rapid conquest of Poland in early September 1939. In response Moscow decided to invade and occupy its sphere of influence in Poland and subsequently to incorporate Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine into the USSR. " (G. Roberts, Review of International Studies (1999), 25, 655–673)

It is easy to see that that Kremlin agent from Cork University says essentially what I say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

1) Vistula is a river on the territory of Poland, not USSR or Germany; 2) the line on the territory of Poland was drawn in August, before invasion, not September 1939, after invaion. Where you say "it literally says", it's 100% your personal WP:POV. Cloud200 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

On 23rd of August, the line was drawn that was not supposed to be crossed by Germany or USSR, had they decided to invade Poland. However, this document stipulated no military action, and, especially, no joint military action. Roberts clearly say that Stalin or Molotov had no clear idea on what to do, and the text of the protocol contained nothing concrete. That is exactly what the source says, and these are not my speculations. Moreover, he clearly says that Stalin's decision to invade Poland was triggered by unexpectedly rapid German advance. I remember other sources say that too.

By accusing me of POV pushing, you are engaged in personal attacks. Remember, this area is under DS, and you seem to have been duly warned about that.

By the way, if you have time to comment here, maybe, you will make your statement at the DR noticeboard? we all are waiting for you. Do me a favour, make your DR statement (unless you lost interest in participation). Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition, drawing various lines on other state's territory was not an unusual thing in XX century. Thus, in Munich (1937) British and French leaders drawn a line at the territory of Czechoslovakia. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but unlike the Soviets with Poland, the British and French never annexed Czechoslovakian territory. --Nug (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. However, it seems you don't understand my argument. I object mostly to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: since the USSR invaded Poland after signing the secret protocol, that means it did that in accordance with it. That is a logical fallacy, and Roberts points at that. It was ok (during those times) to have secret protocols (and many other treaties signed in 1930s also had them). It was ok to draw some lines on other state's maps (Munich agreement did that too). It was ok to discuss possible territorial changes of other states (thus, Britain seriously discusses a possibility of transferring Danzig to Germany: its treaty with Poland was a guaranty of her independence, but not of her territorial integrity). I would say, even invasion of other state's territory was ok (Britain, jointly with USSR, invaded a neutral Iran). What was not ok was invasion, military occupation, and full annexation (followed by massive repressions). That was not ok, but that was not stipulated by the MRP's secret protocol.

What happened after 17th September was not only a crime, that was a mistake. There can hardly be any disagreement about that, but to attribute that to MRP is incorrect. The pact created prerequisites for those actions, but it did not stipulate them. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And incidentally, action followed the prerequisites in only two weeks, but that was by pure coincidence. Cloud200 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, post hoc non propter hoc.

Of course, that was not a pure coincidence. However, historians argue that the course of events could be different: for example, Hitler could just occupy Danzig (which most likely caused no war declaration of Germany by UK/France). Or UK/France provided some real help to Poland, which stopped German advance, and so on and so forth. In that case Stalin hardly took any actions, and nobody would claim that MRP's secret protocol stipulated any joint actions. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)