Mark, I have placed in bold your positions that I do not agree with below. What you consider ill-informed and untrue I find to be entirely plausible. TheMessage 1 of 240 , Jan 4, 2012View Source
Mark,I have placed in bold your positions that I do not agree with below. What you consider "ill-informed" and "untrue" I find to be entirely plausible. The Polish Delegation did an admirable job trying to communicate and help Polish citizens, although it did not succeed in nearly enough cases. This was due to the great numbers of those to be informed, the great numbers of those in need, the great distances involved, and the Soviet authorities.When amnesty was granted, imagine how difficult it was to communicate this information. Did each place of incarceration have a telephone? Highly doubtful. I suppose each camp perhaps had telegraph, but on the other hand maybe not. When the so-called amnesty was granted, it took time to get this information out across the Soviet Union, and then it was up to the individual commandants to disseminate it. All did not receive the information simultaneously, and some commandants "sat on" the amnesty for a while. The Polish Government tried as hard as it could, but there were many, many citizens who were not informed or were informed very late. Then began the trip south which often took a couple of months, all the while scrounging for food, oftentimes becoming very, very ill, and oftentimes dying. Who and when do you suppose all this information was given to the Polish authorities, if it was ever given? Suppose your spouse has just died, but you really can't think about this because you have to feed your family. Your family is dying, and there is no one to help you, and there is no food. Suppose in addition to your spouse dying, one of your children has also just died. (This happened to one of my families, and they are not counted!) You are barely holding on psychologically-speaking, and Polish Welfare is not available. Others are going through the same thing you are. Do you get the picture now? What about those orphaned children who lost both parents? What if these orphans were part of the 28 percent below who were not helped by the Polish Government? Do you think those orphans were counted? Who counted them since they weren't helped? Did the orphans die, or are they still in Russia? Do they know even know their real names?Do you think that trains ran on a schedule in the USSR then? From what I gather, train travel to Kazakhstan was like hitchhiking. Deportees were coming from all different areas of the USSR--at different times and from different distances across miles and miles.You seem to be making assumptions:
My source for the following is Stalin's Ethnic Cleansing. There were 19 Delegation Centers of the Embassy of Poland, with 10 located in the south in Kazakhstan and other areas. "The breadth of its work was enormous but to a large extent not very satisfactory." Estimations include:
- that everyone was freed immediately upon the granting of amnesty and at the same time.
- that deportees had the freedom of movement and so could read the communications put out by the Polish Delegation, if it was even available to them to read. Please realize that such communications were not always available or timely.
- travel vouchers - not all had these, nor were they always used or allowed by the Soviets.
After the primary evacuations, as we know there still remained a substantial number of citizens who remained in the USSR. (Perhaps this was due to not being informed of amnesty or being informed late.) In January 1943, all Polish [Welfare] Delegations came under Soviet control. This was done without notification to the Polish Government.Mark, in this instance it doesn't seem you are fully realizing the dire straits of the deportees. I hope you can see from all of the above why the numbers do not jive.Eve JankowiczUSA
- 72 percent of orphans were placed in orphanages
- 6.5 percent of invalids had shelter
- 20 percent of children were being educated
- malnutrition - 19 percent of children and 11 percent of invalids were provided with help
- 57 percent of the 6300.5 tons of aid (clothing, food, medicine) was distributed to those in need due to transportation problems caused by the Soviets
- Polish Welfare faced constant harassment by Soviets, including arrest of its social workers
--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, "Mark and Oyun" <mark_oyun@...> wrote:
> From the remainder, about 650,000, until the end of 1942 a part remains
> yet to be freed from Soviets prisons and corrective camps, without
> contact from the outside world and cut-off from sources of help. This
> number is thought to be about 50,000. A further part is in Construction
> Battalions and in the ranks of the Red Army some 100,000. Of the
> remainder only a part are able to take advantage of Polish welfare
> organized thanks to the Polish-Soviet Accord. A large part of these
> deportees were totally cut-off from the outside world and were unable to
> communicate with Polish sources of welfare due to geographical
> considerations; or they were worried that communication with Polish
> welfare would result in harassment from the Soviet authorities.
> <http://www.szukajwarchiwach.pl/800/42/0/-/72/str/1/5/#tab2> [see
> The conclusion above seems ill-informed and underestimates the work done
> by the Polish Embassy/Delegatura in the Soviet Union at the time
> the myth continues today:
> " former Polish citizens held in special settlements and prisoner
> of war camps were granted 'amnesty' and allowed to enrol in Polish army
> units. The location of reception centres was kept secret and no travel
> facilities provided." [Emphasis mine]
> This is quite untrue. The Polish Embassy in Kuibishev spent a lot of
> time and money publicizing the destinations available often a
> choice of collection centres was given. A travel voucher was issued on
> the back of the individual "Udostoverenie" (Identity Document)
> or was given as a group when a special train was organized.
I was mostly with you until you made the rather ludicrous assertion that Obama might not have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor amid other negativeMessage 240 of 240 , Jan 30, 2012View SourceI was mostly with you until you made the rather ludicrous assertion that Obama might not have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor amid other negative comments about FDR.
Your own statement show that the allies were in now shape to take on a powerful Soviet force. The operation tag of "unthinkable" pretty much sums it up. Your reference to Japan supports it. The estimated losses if the anticipated invasion of the home island was in excess of a half million.
Poland, Latvia and Estonia along with East Germany may well have been betrayed in the short term but it may well have prevented the extermination of the Polish people. It certainly would have involved nuclear weapons. Poland lives today in a better world by letting things cool. We did after all, win the cold war.
Poland was betrayed in a more fundamental way for worse consequences in the 1700's by its own magnate class who allowed foreign troops to walk thru its borders.
I think I detect some rather partisan tainting of history here.
Valders Wi. USA
--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ford <cub06h@...> wrote:
> I think you give Roosevelt too much credit for cunning. Churchill,
> perhaps, but not Roosevelt! He genuinely believed that he could parley
> with Stalin, just as Obama believed (and may still believe) that he can
> parley with Ayatollah Kamani over Iran's nuclear program. Roosevelt
> thought the Russians were just another political pressure group--like
> the Polish-Americans in Chicago, for example, whose votes he needed in
> 1944, hence the need to keep the Tehran agreements secret at least until
> the election was over.
> Churchill by contrast had a very clear idea of what Stalin intended, and
> as I have previously shown, he seriously considered what it would take
> in the way of British, American, Polish, and German (yes! German!)
> troops to roll back the Red Army to the 1939 borders of the Soviet
> Union. Truman vetoed that notion, and Churchill's own military chiefs
> were likewise opposed. (The plan was called Operation Unthinkable.)
> The choice was between throwing Poland under the bus and going to war
> against the Red Army, which was just as powerful in June 1945 as it had
> been in April, whereas the US Army was already deploying to the Pacific,
> and the British Army was pretty much spent. Poland got thrown under the
> bus. Would Cameron and Obama do any differently today?
> (I'm not entirely convinced that Obama, were he president during the
> Second World War, would have gone to war against Japan or Germany in
> 1941, let alone against the USSR in 1945.)
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
> On 1/30/2012 1:22 PM, John Halucha wrote:
> > Thanks for your work to bring this crime to the attention of more
> > people, Dan.
> > KS members who want to look at the US Congress report itself can find
> > it in our files at
> > http://www.kresy-siberia.com/1952_Katyn_report_to_Congress.pdf
> > The most interesting aspect, to me, is the West's collusion to cover
> > up Stalin's crime - something that the report to Congress steers clear
> > of. In other words, besides being interested in the coverup of the
> > crime, I'm interested in the coverup of the coverup. As you point out,
> > "the State Department refused to follow Congress's recommendation that
> > the Katyn massacres be brought up at the United Nations."
> > You say in your author's note: "It's long been an article of faith
> > among Poles in the West that the United States and Britain hushed up
> > the atrocity in the Katyn Forest and related massacre sites. This made
> > sense during the Second World War, when Churchill and Roosevelt were
> > desperate to keep the Soviet Union in the war again Germany. But why
> > would the coverup have continued after 1948, when the Cold War was in
> > full swing? It didn't, as these previously unpublished documents reveal."
> > First, it is not obvious that the coverup "made sense" during the
> > Second World War. I often wonder if apologists for Roosevelt and
> > Churchill on this count would just as comfortably countenance them
> > covering up Hitler's crimes if the allegiances been different at the
> > time, and the destruction of Stalin had been to their geopolitical
> > advantage instead. The way Roosevelt and Churchill compromised their
> > core principles on this count laid the groundwork for ongoing
> > corruption in their dealings with Stalin later.
> > While the US did an investigation and publicly released its finding of
> > Soviet guilt in 1952, it pointedly skirted the issue of when
> > Roosevelt's administration knew the truth and how hard it worked to
> > keep it hidden. The British continued a slightly different tack into
> > at least the 1970s ( see
> > http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/our-history/historical-publications/research-projects/katyn/
> > and the pages that link from it), essentially that the British
> > government "has no definite view as regards the attribution of guilt
> > for the Katyn massacre". So, it laid the groundwork to argue in the
> > future, should the crime's perpetrator ever been definitively proven
> > (as it subsequently was) that it did not know at the time.
> > Of course, we know now that both Churchill and Roosevelt were totally
> > aware of Soviet responsibility early on. They knew it when they
> > partied with Stalin at Teheran and Yalta. They knew of Stalin's
> > criminality when they countenanced him keeping the half of Poland he
> > had stolen as Hitler's partner, and they knew it when they pretended
> > to believe his promises of an independent government and free
> > elections in Poland after the war.
> > That may help answer the question, "But why would the coverup have
> > continued after 1948, when the Cold War was in full swing?" The
> > coverup of the US and British early knowledge of the crime's
> > perpetrator was not to keep polishing the image of "Uncle Joe" even
> > after he was their acknowledged enemy, but to protect the image of
> > their own heroes Roosevelt and Churchill. There was great reluctance
> > to publicize their collusion in hiding the truth while they
> > "negotiated" with Stalin. It remains easier for some people to
> > maintain Churchill's later claim amounting to that they were naively
> > bamboozled by Stalin whom they had no reason to distrust, than that
> > they knew full well that they were dealing with a mass-murderer and
> > liar but chose to go along with him for their own motives.
> > At every level of every society there have always been criminals and
> > there probably always will be. An important question is how the "good
> > guys" deal with those criminals and protect us from them and budding
> > criminals who are inevitably going to crop up. Because the Katyn
> > coverup example is an indicator of how corrupted Roosevelt and
> > Churchill were, its importance is broader than "merely" determining
> > responsibility for the cold-blooded officially sanctioned murders of
> > more than 22,000 Polish prisoners.
> > Why worry about the crime and coverup more than a half-century later?
> > Perhaps we should reflect on Santayana: "Those who do not remember the
> > past are condemned to relive it." In this instance, Stalin OK'd the
> > murders confident no one would ever know what he did, or he didn't
> > care. Roosevelt and Churchill OK'd the coverup because they hoped no
> > one would ever know what they did, or at least that by the time it was
> > known no one would care.
> > There may be others in our current governments who are tempted to
> > cover up crimes from the same perspective, much as Hitler was
> > comfortable about perpetrating the Jewish Holocaust after witnessing
> > the world's indifferent stance on the Armenian genocide by the Turks.
> > We can't let that happen: the world needs to reflect not only on
> > Stalin did, but on what Roosevelt and Churchill did to help cover it
> > up. We need to condemn being an accessory after the fact, not excuse it.
> > More evil Stalins have come up, and more will. While we may feel
> > powerless to prevent emergence of psychopaths, we should feel hope
> > that we can influence people of good will to do the right thing when
> > the criminals emerge. That's why we need to study the despicable
> > behaviour of Roosevelt and Churchill, and educate more people about
> > it. Potential imitators need to fear that eventually the truth will
> > out and their complicity will be exposed.
> > John Halucha
> > Sault Ste Marie Canada
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Dan Ford <cub06h@...>
> > *To:* Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 8:25:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Kresy-Siberia] Re: Death Rates/Survival Rates [From
> > the Archives]
> > Well, the full report--Findings of the Select Committee--is certainly
> > available. I have published it as an ebook:
> > http://www.amazon.com/Katyn-Findings-1952-intellectuals-ebook/dp/B005BZKWPW/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
> > Of course there was testimony that didn't make it into the final report,
> > and no doubt that's what Mr Paul is referring to. He seems anxious to
> > prove a cover-up, but his thesis is disproved by the fact that the
> > report was indeed published.
> > It is true that the Eisenhower administration was in 1953 trying to calm
> > the waters with Soviet Russia, those being somewhat roiled by the Berlin
> > Blockade and especially the Korean War, which he had pledged to bring to
> > an end. Accordingly, the State Department refused to follow Congress's
> > recommendation that the Katyn massacres be brought up at the United
> > Nations. That was the whole of the "cover-up."
> > Beware of writers! They feel a need to come up with the larger number or
> > the unknown conspiracy, both of which help to get books published and,
> > once published, bought.
> > There was no cover-up. People just weren't all that interested, with the
> > big War behind them and the Korean War dragging on and on. They were
> > much more interested in hunting out Communists in the US government than
> > in raking up a massacre thirteen years old.
> > (I hasten to add that Mr Paul's book is excellent, apart from that bit
> > of silliness, which I think appears only in the third edition. Perhaps
> > he needed something new to persuade the publisher to bring it out again.)
> > Blue skies! -- Dan Ford USA