Anarchists are wrong about U.S.S.R.

[Verix]

(the title was mend to be sarcastic)
The '''Vinnytsia massacre''' was a mass execution of mostly Ukrainians people in the Ukrainian town of Vinnytsia by the Soviet secret police NKVD during joseph Stalin's Great Purge in 1937–1938. Mass graves in Vinnytsia were discovered during the Nazi GermanyGerman occupation of Ukraine in 1943. The investigation of this site coincided with the discovery of a similar site in Katyn Because the Germans wanted to use this evidence of Communist terror to discredit the Soviet Union it became one of the better researched sites of mass murder among many in Ukraine.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Vinnycia16.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Victims_of_Soviet_NKVD_in_Lvov_%2CJune_1941.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Katy%C5%84%2C_ekshumacja_ofiar.jpg

[Catbus]

Jesus Christ, what are you trying to accomplish?

[Bright Banana Beard]

You don't even explain about the incident about each of those picture?

How about famine in India, Africa, the massacre of many people by the military dictatorship supported by USA, the Israel discrimination on Palestinian, the Romanis, the Jews, the massacre by the White Russian, the starvation of the Irish Potatoes Famine?

Or how about the general picture of how life is under USSR? The average citizen, the wish by many Russian to see USSR return? Why DOES IT HAPPENS? What causes them to do so?
Again, go back to your fantasy thinking your revolution will be clean, moralism, and quick.

[Verix]

oh sure lets see the average citizin and ignore the pics of streets full of dead bodys yep everyday thing nothing out of the ordinary (and about other genocides, yea they were just as bad if not worse however EVERYBODY on this site agrees they were bad were as with the purges midguided assholes think they did not happen so i decided to show some pics)

[Bright Banana Beard]

Where did I suggest about ignoring the picture of full of dead bodies when I said why does it happen? I would like know what those incident were but you did not tell me anything, thus your argument is childish and sectarian.

And secondly, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG when you think that Leninist doesn't believe massacre happen at all, we all aware that it did happen, and it is inevitable it will happen again, and we prefer where the life will be progressive for them rather than seeing suffering under landowner, capitalist, discrimination for another 200 years more as betraying them because we consider every human being should be alive and the revolution is not.

But again, you are affected by THESE picture instead of seeing the general picture.

So which one were more alive, the massacre or the civilian?

[gorillafuck]

http://www.knitemare.org/cats/king-o-thread.jpg

[ArrowLance]

So. . . What was the point of this thread? Did you have a bad day and come here for some attention and positive reassurance from your anti-Stalin budbuds? I don't mean to sound like a jackass, even though I am. But so many threads like this already. Also the topic is very troll like. The whole thread is troll like.

[Verix]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Katyn_massacre_1.jpg
found another one Katyn
i'm just sick of stalinists saying the purges never happened and theres no proof also i'm loving how the stalinists dont explain the photos and just pass me off as a troll

[ArrowLance]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Katyn_massacre_1.jpg
found another one Katyn
i'm just sick of ML's they the purges never happened and theres no proof also i'm loving how the stalinists dont explain the photos and just pass me off as a troll

Because you are one. "lol, dead bodies, stain is evil, ussr bad. lets make another thread about it, lol."

[gorillafuck]

and before anybody accues me of trolling i'm just sick of ML's they the purges never happened and theres no proof also i'm loving how the stalinists dont explain the photos and just pass me off as a troll
1. No Marxist-Leninists think that there were no purges
2. I also dislike Stalin but that doesn't mean you're not a troll

[Guerrilla22]

So you are posting pictures taken by the Nazis of supposive Soviet atrocities, yeah that's credible. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Mass graves in Vinnytsia were discovered during the Nazi GermanyGerman occupation of Ukraine in 1943

l
o
l

l
o
l

I am far from a Stalinist btw.

[Verix]

a troll for putting up photos of a event that quite a few people on this site say never happened and presenting it sarcasticly....ok maybe the sarcasm was to much i'll remove it and while i understand spectacism about the fact the were taken by nazis photo number 2 was not....the corpses are too old to have been killed by the nazis

[Bright Banana Beard]

The Katyn massacre:

The Poland during between WWI to the day they got invaded: Poland government were fascist, so fascist that even Jews and Romanis are consider inferior under the Poland government. They even make anarchists and communists disappeared under their government and are enjoying exploitative on the Poles.

Surprisingly, these officer server under the Polish fascist government. Why do they serve it if they already aware about the suffering?

Thus, my conclusion, I support to destroy those fascist. Why you sympathize to them? I know why! because they are human being, right? Torturing on the Poles, Romanis, and Jews is a good reason for them to stay alive.

Secondly, why there was Canadian and American officer? They supported this government. and The Poland government in exile are actually enjoying doing business with the Germany until the Germany demanded them to give them Danzig and Prussian.

So, should we let those fascist reign and keep killing their people?

No.

[ArrowLance]

a troll for putting up photos of a event that quite a few people on this site say never happened and presenting it sarcasticly....ok maybe the sarcasm was to much i'll remove it and while i understand spectacism about the fact the were taken by nazis photo number 2 was not....

The sarcasm along with the fact that you made almost no argument and there are already plenty of anti-Stalin/USSR threads. It's still trollish.

[mykittyhasaboner]

a troll for putting up photos of a event that quite a few people on this site say never happened and presenting it sarcasticly....ok maybe the sarcasm was to much i'll remove it

No, no, its fine...who cares anyways? There just a bunch of dead people, there are millions of those things in history. What better is there to make sarcastic jokes about? Let alone the half-assed liberal 1-up nature of this thread. go troll somewhere else.

[JimmyJazz]

Katyn was not a "purge", they are different events.

eta: and the purges aren't even controversial (everyone agrees they happened), so why you chose to go with Katyn I'm just not sure.

[Verix]

yes but i have not seen a anti-stalin thread with pics yet. my sarcasim was a bad idea and my sources are sketchy i'll ammit that

[Verix]

No, no, its fine...who cares anyways? There just a bunch of dead people, there are millions of those things in history. What better is there to make sarcastic jokes about? Let alone the half-assed liberal 1-up nature of this thread. go troll somewhere else.
i wasnt making a joke about the people in the photo i was making one about assholes like you who say it never happened and i explained about the other genocides in history before we all agree they were bad

and the purges aren't even controversial (everyone agrees they happened), so why you chose to go with Katyn I'm just not sure. they were the only photos i could find and the first 3 are not Katyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia_massacre
also Poland's conscription system required every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer so many of the evil fascists killed at katyn were forced into the army

[JimmyJazz]

my sarcasim was a bad idea and my sources are sketchy i'll ammit that

Yeah, I actually think this thread could have gone over OK without the sarcasm.

[StalinFanboy]

You don't even explain about the incident about each of those picture?

How about famine in India, Africa, the massacre of many people by the military dictatorship supported by USA, the Israel discrimination on Palestinian, the Romanis, the Jews, the massacre by the White Russian, the starvation of the Irish Potatoes Famine? This is a fallacy. Just because other countries did some fucked up shit doesn't take away from the fact that some of the things the USSR did were just as bad.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i wasnt making a joke about the people in the photo



After much thought i have decided anarchists are wrong about the U.S.S.R. it was not a bad place at all just to prove it i will show photos of how great live in the U.S.S.R. was.


Look at all these people gathered in one place all because of there love for comrade Stalin i dont see anarchist photos like that....

Why look these women are so happy about living in the great U.S.S.R. they are crying from joy, beat that anarchists

and look! comradry was so great in the U.S.S.R. these people were willing to share the same bed...wow i would love to see a anarchist try to beat that :rolleyes:
Those sound like knee-jerk, sarcastic, and stupid jokes to me. Maybe your just really insensitive?




i was making one about assholes like you
Wait, wait, hold on... what the fuck are you talking about? Assholes like me? I wasn't aware that I did anything to push your buttons. But now that you've mentioned me as an asshole, push push.


who say it never happened
Really, and where did I even talk about this?

and i explained about the other genocides
What? You explained something in your post? Don't bother telling me your definition of an explanation.



they were the only photos i could find and the first 3 are not Katyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia_massacre
I don't care, the photos are completely unnecessary and insensitive, it doesn't even have a fucking graphic warning. What is wrong with you? Do you need such 'shock value' to defend your political positions?

[Invariance]

Some of those photos are of executions of prisoners conducted after Germany had invaded Poland; the USSR leadership & co. was probably concerned that if Poland was overrun that those same prisoners would join Germany, a fear not entirely unfounded. In Spain, the anarchists and republicans did a similar thing; numerous right-wingers, fascists and nationalists whom were already imprisoned were summarily executed in the threat of imposing nationalist forces. The nationalists also did the same - see the Badajoz massacre.

The difference is, I wouldn't dismiss anarchism over it.

[Il Medico]

Yeah, the purges happened. Nobody fucking denies that. The only point I see this this thread is to start some bullshit tendency war. Grow up, your a troll.

[Abc]

this is pointless someone please trash this

[ArrowLance]

this is pointless someone please trash this

I agree.

[spiltteeth]

I presume Stalin and Lenin personally killed everyone of these people with their bare hands because like the terrorists they hate freedom.

As a newcomer I'm trying to sort out whats what and unsubstantiated claims without historical analysis amount to simple shock propaganda that the Right uses to exploit peoples emotions over rationality.

[9]

What a piece of shit thread, why is this still open?

[Mindtoaster]

These are the same shock tactics pro-lifers employ in their propaganda. No research into the situations, no objective evidence, nothing.

Yawn

[Invader Zim]

These are the same shock tactics pro-lifers employ in their propaganda. No research into the situations, no objective evidence, nothing.



What, pictures of mass graves (in this context) are not objective evidence of mass murder? Are you attempting to argue that they didn't happen? Or that evidence of the regime's criminality is in some way faked?


So you are posting pictures taken by the Nazis of supposive Soviet atrocities, yeah that's credible.

What, the Nazis took the photos thus the massacres never occured? Lets just extend your logic here, "the capitalist Allies took photos supportive of Nazi atrocities, yeah that's credible."

Does not compute.

[ArrowLance]

What, pictures of mass graves (in this context) are not objective evidence of mass murder? Are you attempting to argue that they didn't happen? Or that evidence of Stalin's criminality is in some way faked?



What, the Nazis took the photos thus the massacres never occured? Lets just extend your logic here, "the capitalist Allies took photos supportive of Nazi atrocities, yeah that's credible."

Does not compute.

Well, it would have helped if an argument or any point at all was actually expressed. Other than, oh here's some dead bodies in the soviet union. The original sarcastic captioning was also horrible.

And yes, I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies.'

[Invader Zim]

And yes, I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies.'

And presumably the testimony of allied troops?

Basically you are parrotting one of the chief arguments that white nationalists employ to try to legitimise their conspiricy theories, they too proclaim that the visual evidence and eye-witness accounts of the allies were not trust worthy.

[ArrowLance]

And presumably the testimony of allied troops?

Basically you are parrotting one of the chief arguments that white nationalists employ to try to legitimise their conspiricy theories, they too proclaim that the visual evidence and eye-witness accounts of the allies were not trust worthy.

And you're trying to link me to white nationalists. In the end, I don't care that much about whether or not the genocides in Nazi Germany happened or not. I'm against Fascist politics, I don't need mass murders to discredit them.

You can't just accept any given evidence that seems convenient. If the only testimony is given by those who benefit from the version of the story they are telling, then you need more. However, there is also no need to be that picky when dealing with things you don't really care about, or that don't matter. If it doesn't make a difference one way or another to a situation, then there is no need to make anything of it.

Obviously a positions opponents are not the most credible source of information on that position. But neither are the proponents of that position. It's not an easy process to decide what to trust and who to believe. But that's what reasoning skills are for.

[Invader Zim]

And you're trying to link me to white nationalists.

No, I'm saying that you employ the same dubious conspiracy theory they do to cast doubt upon the historical evidence proving that the holocaust occured.

[ArrowLance]

No, I'm saying that you employ the same dubious conspiracy theory they do to cast doubt upon the historical evidence proving that the holocaust occured.

'Dubious conspiracy theory?' You mean questioning proposed evidence not only on believability, but also source? I really don't see the problem, mind explaining?

[Invader Zim]

'Dubious conspiracy theory?' You mean questioning proposed evidence not only on believability, but also source? I really don't see the problem, mind explaining?


'Dubious conspiracy theory?'What, you think it is unfair to describe holocaust denial as a 'dubious conspiracy theory'? Indeed, calling it only 'dubious' doesn't go anywhere near far enough.


You mean questioning proposed evidence not only on believability, but also source?

I certainly think it is extremely dubious to dismiss a source of evidence because you don't like it. Put bluntly the assumption you're labouring under is that because you think the Allies may have had an agenda to place the Nazis in a bad light, it is reasonable to assume that they potentially engineered a massive, and enduring, conspiracy to destroy the image of the German people. That isn't to say that the Allies potentially did not have a strong motive for exposing Nazi attrocities, but you are taking that as an excuse to dismiss or cast doubt upon their findings without any evidence that it has been falsified. That is precisely what holocaust deniers do. And it is a fallacy, "'x' source says 'y', there is something objectionable about 'x' thus 'y' is false."

As I said before, does not compute.

[ArrowLance]

What, you think it is unfair to describe holocaust denial as a 'dubious conspiracy theory'?



I certainly think it is extremely dubious to dismiss a source of evidence because you don't like it. Put bluntly the assumption you're labouring under is that the Allies didn't tell the truth and therefore engineered a massive, and enduring, conspiracy to place the Nazis in a bad light. That isn't to say that the Allies potentially did not have a strong motive for exposing Nazi attrocities, but you are taking that as an excuse to dismiss or cast doubt upon their findings without any evidence that it has been falsified. That is precsely what holocaust deniers do.

Who said anything about holocaust denial? Or dismissing evidence because you dislike it? I'm not assuming they made it up, I'm simply saying that they had motive to fabricate, and since the topic could be considered important, further investigation into the 'evidence' should be required.

[khad]

I've seen the evidence for Katyn. It is far from conclusive. The only two documents that have any bearing the incident are the original order for execution and another order in the 1950s calling for the destruction of all documents pertaining to the case. (Somehow, the one original document that started it all miraculously survived?) Everything in this case is far too coincidental. Nevertheless, going by what we know from the documented sources, the blame seems to fall on the USSR.

That said, I don't really have any moral stake in who killed those officers. Stalin, the Nazis, whatever. You all act as if the Poles were all innocent little imperialist nationalists who didn't help the Nazis carve up Czechoslovakia and murder Jews and Communists.

The point remains that the topic starter is a troll.

[Invader Zim]

Who said anything about holocaust denial?

Well, you:

IZ: "Lets just extend your logic here, "the capitalist Allies took photos supportive of Nazi atrocities, yeah that's credible."

Does not compute"

AL: "yes, I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies"

Which quite clearly is a statement suggesting that the evidence of the holocaust is dubious based not upon its own merits but who provided it. That is the primary justification for holocaust denial.

When I brought up the notion of evidence of the holocaust provided by the Allies and linked it to the arguments being levelled at the evidence for the massacres cited in this thread, what did you suppose I was talking about?


Or dismissing evidence because you dislike it?

Again, you:

"I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies'."

You are stating that because you believe that there is something questionable about the Allies it is legitimate to mistrust their evidence. That automatically implies that you accept the possibility that they engineered that evidence as part of a vast conspiracy against the Nazi regime. Surely you can see why that is the argument of holocaust deniers?

[khad]

In the interest of fairness, I suggest to Verix to post photographs of the 20,000 Soviet prisoners who perished in Polish concentration camps during the Russian Civil War.

[Invader Zim]

I've seen the evidence for Katyn. It is far from conclusive. The only two documents that have any bearing the incident are the original order for execution and another order in the 1950s calling for the destruction of all documents pertaining to the case. (Somehow, the one original document that started it all miraculously survived?) Everything in this case is far too coincidental. Nevertheless, going by what we know from the documented sources, the blame seems to fall on the USSR.

That said, I don't really have any moral stake in who killed those officers. Stalin, the Nazis, whatever. You all act as if the Poles were all innocent little imperialist nationalists who didn't help the Nazis carve up Czechoslovakia and murder Jews and Communists.


Well this may be of passing interest to you, during the inter-war years, and the Second World War the British intelligence community was engaged in aquiring military and diplomatic intelligence from Nazi Germany. A very large part of that intelligence came from the attacking of German encrypted radio messages, a fact that the Nazis were never aware of during the couse of the war. These messages included the initial discovery of Katyn by the Wehrmacht. They knew full well, from the horses mouth, that the Nazis didn't commit the massacre. And you can be assured that they didn't just make it up because the British didn't allow public knowledge of their intelligence activities, keeping it a national secret until 1974, and didn't allow full access to the decrypts until after that. Presumably if they had invented the evidence they would have shouted it from the rooftops. As it happens they wished to keep a lid on the fact that they had broken high level German signals, and as a result were unable to publicise the information they had gathered from it. So it isn't like they put forward what they knew to discredit the soviet union and thus opening them, in the eyes of ArrowLance here, to inventing evidence.

I'll get you a reference when I next go to the library.

[ArrowLance]

Well, you:

IZ: "Lets just extend your logic here, "the capitalist Allies took photos supportive of Nazi atrocities, yeah that's credible."

Does not compute"

AL: "yes, I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies"

Which quite clearly is a statement suggesting that the evidence of the holocaust is dubious based not upon its own merits but who provided it. That is the primary justification for holocaust denial.

When I brought up the notion of evidence of the holocaust provided by the Allies and linked it to the arguments being levelled at the evidence for the massacres cited in this thread, what did you suppose I was talking about?



Again, you:

"I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies'."

You are stating that because you believe that there is something questionable about the Allies it is legitimate to mistrust their evidence. That automatically implies that you accept the possibility that they engineered that evidence as part of a vast conspiracy against the Nazi regime. Surely you can see why that is the argument of holocaust deniers?

Whats wrong with looking further into a given evidence when the source has something to gain by you believing it. Since they have something to gain from it, there is an increased possibility they fabricated it.

I don't care if it is the argument holocaust deniers use, it is a valid argument.

[ArrowLance]

Well, you:

IZ: "Lets just extend your logic here, "the capitalist Allies took photos supportive of Nazi atrocities, yeah that's credible."

Does not compute"

AL: "yes, I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies"

Which quite clearly is a statement suggesting that the evidence of the holocaust is dubious based not upon its own merits but who provided it. That is the primary justification for holocaust denial.

When I brought up the notion of evidence of the holocaust provided by the Allies and linked it to the arguments being levelled at the evidence for the massacres cited in this thread, what did you suppose I was talking about?



Again, you:

"I would think twice before accepting photos taken by the 'capitalist Allies'."

You are stating that because you believe that there is something questionable about the Allies it is legitimate to mistrust their evidence. That automatically implies that you accept the possibility that they engineered that evidence as part of a vast conspiracy against the Nazi regime. Surely you can see why that is the argument of holocaust deniers?

FFS. You got it all wrong. I am not a holocaust denier. I am not discarding the evidence. I'm simply saying that it takes more to believe something provided by someone who has something to gain by lying than it is to accept something that isn't.

[Invader Zim]

Whats wrong with looking further into a given evidence when the source has something to gain by you believing it.

And what do you suppose there is to look into? Either the source is genuine or, in this instance, it is a part of a massive conspiracy manufactor false evidence of a genocide. Certainly historians should be critical of their sources, and attempt to establish what the source tells us but also what the author of the source wants us to believe. But there is a massive difference between that and entering the archive we the preconcieved notion that the evidence itself is not to be trusted, unless you have a reason to believe - based on firm evdience - that the sources are deliberately misleading. As staed in this case, if you take that attitude, you automatically must at least consider the ludicrous possibility that the British and the American governments were enaged in an attempt to fake the holocaust. Why else would you be mistrustful of the evidence to the extent that you entertain the possibility that they would fabricate evidence?


it is a valid argument.

No, it isn't. Source criticsm is one thing, proposing that their is potential reason to believe that the Allies (because you think they may have had something to gain from public knowledge of Nazi criminality) concoted a massive conspiracy to fabricate evidence of the holocaust is quite another.


I am not a holocaust denier.

I never said you were, and nor am I trying to suggest that. What I am attempting to do is point out the flaw in your argument.

[Pogue]

I dno't think we need these photos to realise the crimes of Stalinism, which are welld documented in betrayals of the working class such as collaboration with Nazi Germany in Poland and killing revolutionaries in Spain.

[The Author]

Or that evidence of Stalin's criminality is in some way faked?

Odd, I thought we were above this Great Man bullshit. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to say "Soviet criminality" for the sake of objective consistency, considering an entire bureaucracy was involved in these executions?

Anyway, explain "criminality" in this situation. Explain the class nature of the purges and killings. I have no sympathy for priests, military officers, intellectuals, or other members of the exploiter class who actively help that class and take advantage of the working masses and keep them in their life of toil, misery, and want for their own personal gain. But then if we throw out class struggle and put in British morals, it would certainly be considered "criminal." But then, I couldn't be fucked to care about British morals, and in this case, these executions weren't "criminal" but the proper thing to do in the class war.

[manic expression]

Well this may be of passing interest to you, during the inter-war years, and the Second World War the British intelligence community was engaged in aquiring military and diplomatic intelligence from Nazi Germany. A very large part of that intelligence came from the attacking of German encrypted radio messages, a fact that the Nazis were never aware of during the couse of the war. These messages included the initial discovery of Katyn by the Wehrmacht. They knew full well, from the horses mouth, that the Nazis didn't commit the massacre. And you can be assured that they didn't just make it up because the British didn't allow public knowledge of their intelligence activities, keeping it a national secret until 1974, and didn't allow full access to the decrypts until after that. Presumably if they had invented the evidence they would have shouted it from the rooftops. As it happens they wished to keep a lid on the fact that they had broken high level German signals, and as a result were unable to publicise the information they had gathered from it. So it isn't like they put forward what they knew to discredit the soviet union and thus opening them, in the eyes of ArrowLance here, to inventing evidence.

I'll get you a reference when I next go to the library.

Invader Zim, is it possible that not all Nazi atrocities in Eastern Europe were reported through encrypted code? Did British intelligence know about all of the Nazi's massacres through those broken codes?

For the record, I'm undecided when it comes to Katyn.

[Luís Henrique]

Photographs in and of themselves prove nothing.

These are photos of dead people in mass graves, which suggests they were collectively murdered and buried (but not necessarily; indigents in capitalist societies are also often buried collectivelly, as well as victims of natural catastrophes). Questions about when and by whom those people were killed cannot be answered by the photographs before a closer analysis.

Photographs only become significant together with reliable witness ("this is a photo of a young man killed by the Army of country X; I know it because I took the photo and saw the killing") or other material or written documents (ammonition used by Army of country X found within the grave; written execution order issued by authorities of Army of country X).

As for the Katyn massacre (of which those photographs are purported evidence), it seems reasonably proved, without necessity of posting photographs. There is a written order, Soviet ammonition was found in the graves, etc. Attempts to "justify" such massacre by reminding us of crimes of the Polish State/Army/ruling class are lame; even if those men were the worst imaginable criminals, they were unarmed, and under responsibility of the Red Army or NKVD. Apparently, they were killed for no other reason than being officers of the Polish Army, which is, quite obviously, a war crime.

This, as has been noted, is not the same as "purges" whose victims were members of the CPUS or of the Soviet State apparatus. They also cannot be equated with the behaviour of Nazis in occupied Poland.

Evidently, also, the Katyn massacre is quite lateral in the history of Stalin's crimes. I frankly don't see the reason to "denounce" it in this way, as if it was something a) new, or relatively unknown; b) representative of life conditions in the Soviet Union (American soldiers wiped out the village of My Lai; it doesn't mean that the US Army regularly shot American civilians); c) significant among Stalin's crimes, when compared to the dekulakisation campaign, the internment of dissenters in Siberian camps, the elimination of democracy in the CPUS and the Soviet Union in general, etc.

Luís Henrique

[NecroCommie]

I am now going to collect the few insignificant random reps by stating that anarchists are wrong, and that Marxism-Leninism rules.

[Pogue]

I am now going to collect the few insignificant random reps by stating that anarchists are wrong, and that Marxism-Leninism rules.

No, it did rule. It ruled over the proletariat, killing them if they got out of line, scabbing their strikes and generally muddying the name of socialism.

If opposing that makes me wrong then I will quite happily admit I am, and always will be, 100% wrong.

[NecroCommie]

No, it did rule. It ruled over the proletariat, killing them if they got out of line, scabbing their strikes and generally muddying the name of socialism.

If opposing that makes me wrong then I will quite happily admit I am, and always will be, 100% wrong.
This whole post is incorrect.
More rep please.

[Mindtoaster]

What, pictures of mass graves (in this context) are not objective evidence of mass murder? Are you attempting to argue that they didn't happen? Or that evidence of Stalin's criminality is in some way faked?




No,

What the poster did was show a photo of a grave, and go "Look, these dead bodies prove that the anarchist critique of the soviet union is correct!"

I'm comparing that to say, when a pro-lifer shows a photo of a mis-carried 8-month old infant and then says something along the lines of "this proves abortion is murder and evil!"

[ArrowLance]

No, it isn't. Source criticsm is one thing, proposing that their is potential reason to believe that the Allies (because you think they may have had something to gain from public knowledge of Nazi criminality) concoted a massive conspiracy to fabricate evidence of the holocaust is quite another.

Because there is, it's normal for countries to defame their enemies.

[Verix]

In the interest of fairness, I suggest to Verix to post photographs of the 20,000 Soviet prisoners who perished in Polish concentration camps during the Russian Civil War.
could not find any photos of the bodys but found one of the consintration camps were they were held http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Tuchola_1919.jpg
Tuchola internment camp

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

could not find any photos of the bodys but found one of the consintration camps were they were held http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Tuchola_1919.jpg
Tuchola internment camp

The language your caption is written in is written in is pre-1918 Russian, which suggests a Czarist katorga camp or something out of White emigre propaganda, Vertix. You can see that the last letter in the fourth word is not in the 1918-present alphabet: http://vladivostok-russia.info/images/cyrillic_1918.gif

On second thought, Tuchola was a German POW camp in WWI (and also a Polish POW camp for Soviet soldiers in 1919-1920), so it looks like it came from Czarist propaganda during the Great War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camps_for_Russian_prisoners_and_internees_in_Polan d_(1919%E2%80%931924)

The caption reads: "Camp for the interned in Tuchola. Barrack where the students lived."

It was probably in worse shape by 1919 if this is a WWI picture.

[Invader Zim]

Odd, I thought we were above this Great Man bullshit. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to say "Soviet criminality" for the sake of objective consistency, considering an entire bureaucracy was involved in these executions?

You are quite correct, that was a slip on my part. I shall edit my post accordingly.

Thanks, have some rep.


Explain the class nature of the purges and killings. I have no sympathy for priests, military officers, intellectuals, or other members of the exploiter class who actively help that class and take advantage of the working masses and keep them in their life of toil, misery, and want for their own personal gain. But then if we throw out class struggle and put in British morals, it would certainly be considered "criminal." But then, I couldn't be fucked to care about British morals, and in this case, these executions weren't "criminal" but the proper thing to do in the class war.

Aside for your worrying apologism for mass murder as long as those murdered are the 'correct class', those murdered in the Katyn massacre were, among others, Polish civilians and POWs. And naturally the Soviets knew it to be criminal because they covered it up, and denied it until 1990. Had they considered the mass killing to be perfectly legitimate, as you seem to be suggesting, why attempt to hide it?

[Invader Zim]

Invader Zim, is it possible that not all Nazi atrocities in Eastern Europe were reported through encrypted code? Did British intelligence know about all of the Nazi's massacres through those broken codes?

For the record, I'm undecided when it comes to Katyn.

It is more than likely, indeed certain, that not all of their massacres were A. Intercepted, B. broken, C. broadcast. However in this instance the message reported the discovery of a massacre. Why would they report back to Berlin finding a mass grave that they had created and Berlin had sanctioned? That makes no sense.


Did British intelligence know about all of the Nazi's massacres through those broken codes?

No. As stated above, that would involve not only that the Nazis discussed all their massacres in radio traffic, but also that the relevent messages were intercepted and broken by allied cryptanalysts. However the allies were certainly aware of nazi criminality through this source, you can go to the National Archives in London and read decrypted messages which discuss mass murder. For example a summary document, created by Britain's Signals Intelligence agency, from the 26th of September 1942 reports that the British were aware that at least 6,829 men and 1,525 women had been killed in August 1942 at Auschwitz. If you are in London anytime soon, you can go to the National Archives at Kew and read this document yourself, it is in HW16/6 and it has '40/42. 2.' printed in the top right corner. So certainly they were aware that massacres were ongoing. The historian Richard Breitman wrote a book on this topic entitled Official Secrets, and was co-editor of another U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis.

[Misanthrope]

What a terrible attempt at an emotive plea.

"stalin had consintration camps!!!!"

please, stop making anarchists look bad.

[Intelligitimate]

Well this may be of passing interest to you, during the inter-war years, and the Second World War the British intelligence community was engaged in aquiring military and diplomatic intelligence from Nazi Germany. A very large part of that intelligence came from the attacking of German encrypted radio messages, a fact that the Nazis were never aware of during the couse of the war. These messages included the initial discovery of Katyn by the Wehrmacht. They knew full well, from the horses mouth, that the Nazis didn't commit the massacre. And you can be assured that they didn't just make it up because the British didn't allow public knowledge of their intelligence activities, keeping it a national secret until 1974, and didn't allow full access to the decrypts until after that. Presumably if they had invented the evidence they would have shouted it from the rooftops. As it happens they wished to keep a lid on the fact that they had broken high level German signals, and as a result were unable to publicise the information they had gathered from it. So it isn't like they put forward what they knew to discredit the soviet union and thus opening them, in the eyes of ArrowLance here, to inventing evidence.

I'll get you a reference when I next go to the library.

I can't find anything relating Operation ULTRA to Katyn. Given that you are a notorious liar, I wouldn't trust anything you say, and await the references.

[Arlekino]

Well absolutely agree with Khan who killed them Stalin or Hitler. There one issue I wish to point in past Polish invaded Lithuania there was as well massive killings. So shall we try to be more neutral and speak out the truth.

[mosfeld]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Katyn_massacre_1.jpg
found another one Katyn

I love how certain 'Anarchists' on this forum need to use Nazi propaganda to reinforce their bankrupt views on the Soviet Union. Let me guess, do you also use the Holodomor as evidence for nightmarish "Soviet crimes"? For those interested, there's a good video playlist on Youtube which authentically debunks the myth that the Soviet Union perpetrated the Katyn forest massacre, which can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4EBBDBB8ED6E8D49).

From "The Katyn Massacre" playlist description..




Ella Rule explains the truth behind the Katyn Massacre. An interesting discussion follows. Based upon Ernie Trorie's research work and available in print and as pdf free here: http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/katyn... This was a crime - the execution of thousands of imprisoned Polish army officers during WW2 - that was acknowledged at the Nuremberg trials to have been a NAZI crime. Goebbels' own diaries confirm this. So why do western imperialist sources insist on parroting Goebbels' war-time anti-Soviet propaganda, by trying to lay the blame for Hitlers crimes on the Soviet Union?

Timeline:

1 Sep 1939: Nazi Germany invades Poland

17 Sep 1939: USSR enter that part of 'Poland' (ethnically and historically parts of Byelorussia in the North and the Ukraine in the South) east of the Curzon Line. This had originally been Soviet territory, but was forcibly colonized by the Polish aristocracy during the war of intervention (in which 15 capitalist states attempted to strangle the fledgling Soviet Republic between 1918 and 1921). In so doing 6 million (among them 2 million Jews) were saved from NAZI occupation. 10,000 Polish officers were interned. They were tasked with public works, primarily road building.

28 Sep 1929: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (treaty of amity) signed, acknowledging new de facto border.

22 June 1941: NAZI Launch attack on USSR along a thousand mile 'eastern front'. The surprise element gave them initial success, and the Ukraine was rapidly taken. Soviets were forced to evacuate hurriedly and many were caught behind enemy lines - including the Polish Officers previously interned, who fell into NAZI hands. German policy was to exterminate Slavs, in order to provide 'lebensraum' to German colonists.

17 July 1942 - 2 February 1943: Soviets ultimately triumphed at the decisive battle of Stalingrad (now volgograd) .

April 1943 - Katyn area threatened to be re-taken by Soviet troops. Majority of Polish troops (more than 75%) are fighting with Soviet forces in the Eastern Front - despite the hostility of the aristocratic Polish government in Exile in London, led by General Sikorsky. In a typically cynical attempt to disrupt this Polish-Soviet co-operation, Goebbels broadcast the first accusations that the Soviets had slaughtered Polish officers. These are the origins of the tale of the Katyn Massacre as a Soviet Crime. They embellished the tale with their usual 'Jewish-Communist conspiracy' theories, inventing Jewish names for the alleged Soviet assassins. Pravda pointed out that these publicity stunts indicated that the Germans must have executed the Poles, and went on to highlight the fictitious names of the alleged NKVD officers.