The Inconvenient History blog prides itself on opposition to the prosecution of free speech. It is therefore odd that its articles on Zisblatt should be based on the research of Eric Hunt, who is bringing a libel case against Zisblatt and others. It is also notable that Hunt's complaint uses similar terminology to that which Inconvenient History blogger Paul Grubach uses here, where Grubach notes that laws could be used "to prosecute Jews for the pain they cause when they promote the Holocaust ideology".
Showing posts with label other denials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label other denials. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
"The Climate Swindle vs. the Holo-Lie"
Some RODOH Holocaust deniers' reactions to the latest manufactured "Climategate" nontroversy are interesting. Here's the old Nazi-Canadian Wilfried Heink:
Update: there's more!
Similarities between the "Great Climate Swindle" and the "Great Holo-Lie", taken from "timesonline":Then there's this, by another lemming:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
"[T]his weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data." (True for "The Holocaust", as well, besides, archives are still locked)
If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world's understanding of ("The Holocaust") climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: "Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a (real Holo body count) new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, 'Trust us'." (Are you listening, nickterry?)
WHERE does this leave the ("Holocaust") climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that ("The Holocaust" happened) the world is getting warmer and that (Germans) humanity (are) is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.
Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant" (this is yet to happen re. "The Holocaust").
Lawson said: "("The Holocaust") Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned ("The Holocaust") climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion."
But, the time will come when "The Holocaust" will also fall by the wayside.
Arme True Believers, armes Deutschland.
Nick Terry always likened Global Warming Denial to HD when he was trying to tar us all with the brush of lunacy and conspiracy mania. I think GWD and HD sit together very comfortably. I say screw the totalitarian liberals and their desperate desire to control thought.Yikes!
Update: there's more!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Meet Robert Stacy McCain, a neo-Confederate wacko extraordinaire
[See my comment about McCain's reaction to this article at the bottom.
Also, after you read this article, be sure to read this old item at Eschaton.]
[Necessary clarification, 22.12.2009: note that in this posting I never characterize McCain as a "white supremacist". White supremacism is a very specific subset of racism and one doesn't need to be a white supremacist to be a racist. One can even be a white separatist without being a white supremacist. I hold no position on whether McCain is a white supremacist, and this posting is targeting his wacky neo-Confederate views. I also think that his words and certain actions (like publishing an article about "racial suicide" in an openly racist publication) show that he has at least a racist past.]
While our little blog is devoted mostly to debunking the specific arguments of Holocaust deniers, from time to time we write on the topics only casually related to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial.
After all, when you're dealing with the Holocaust denial, you're dealing with a great many topics at once - the historical and scientific methodologies, antisemitism, racism, conspirology, etc.
Thus, we've skewered a Stalinist professor for his Katyn denial, we've compared evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers, we've exposed a far-right author Robert Boatman, who was hiding behind his alleged support for Israel (at FrontPageMag, no less!), for the vile antisemite he was (sic; thankfully, he has died since).
And now we will fire a shot in the blogwar that has recently erupted over the former Washington Times assistant editor and popular conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain.
But I guess an explanation is in order.
Also, after you read this article, be sure to read this old item at Eschaton.]
[Necessary clarification, 22.12.2009: note that in this posting I never characterize McCain as a "white supremacist". White supremacism is a very specific subset of racism and one doesn't need to be a white supremacist to be a racist. One can even be a white separatist without being a white supremacist. I hold no position on whether McCain is a white supremacist, and this posting is targeting his wacky neo-Confederate views. I also think that his words and certain actions (like publishing an article about "racial suicide" in an openly racist publication) show that he has at least a racist past.]
While our little blog is devoted mostly to debunking the specific arguments of Holocaust deniers, from time to time we write on the topics only casually related to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial.
After all, when you're dealing with the Holocaust denial, you're dealing with a great many topics at once - the historical and scientific methodologies, antisemitism, racism, conspirology, etc.
Thus, we've skewered a Stalinist professor for his Katyn denial, we've compared evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers, we've exposed a far-right author Robert Boatman, who was hiding behind his alleged support for Israel (at FrontPageMag, no less!), for the vile antisemite he was (sic; thankfully, he has died since).
And now we will fire a shot in the blogwar that has recently erupted over the former Washington Times assistant editor and popular conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain.
But I guess an explanation is in order.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Sergey the Goebbels Guy, or a Commie loon for a change
It's that Katyn issue again.
Today I've discovered old comments left by someone called "haisanlu" who tried to defend Grover Furr and Mukhin at seek-the-truth-serve-the-people.blogspot.com
Most messages seem to have been deleted from that blog, but here's Google cache. He calls me one of the "Goebbels Guys", "The anti-Russian Katyn Guys", etc. Here's his poem:
Read more!
Haisanlu focuses on my rejection of the alleged "Schellenberg interrogation". He repeats Furr's claim that, according to Doerries, some of the records have disappeared, but doesn't even give the page. But the main question is: who cares? If anything is missing, there is no evidence whatsoever, that these missing records contained anything about Katyn, much less Schellenberg's confession.
Here we have someone who rejects lots of authentic documents and testimonies proving that Katyn was NKVD's deed on Stalin's order in favor of allegedly unavailable records with unknown content! That's even loonier than Holocaust denial.
Haisanlu writes:
As for the question of Mukhin being antisemitic or not, in his books and articles he more than often uses the word "zhid", which is translated as "kike". True, he claims he doesn't mean Jews but rather some sort of parasitic social category. But the very choice of words betrays his true feelings.
In the library section on the site of his newspaper you'll find quite a lot of hardcore antisemitic literature, like "A note on ritual murders". Possibly, Mukhin himself doesn't believe in this crap, but he does keep it online.
Finally, Haisanlu wants to sway us with this powerful argument
Haisanlu also presents us with an outline of Mukhin's earlier book, which Western Holocaust deniers should find instructive. Mukhin's main positive argument is that absence of several thousands Polish POWs in internal Soviet documents dealing with POWs since spring of 1940 was caused not by their death, but by their change of status from POWs into prisoners. Except both Burdenko Commission report and internal NKGB report about preliminary investigation of the Katyn case always call them POWs. Moreover, the alleged "authentic" contemporary documents (like Menshagin's notebook or Vetoshnikov's report) quoted in these reports also designate the Poles as POWs. Sorry, that canard is dead.
Haisanlu then repeats all the bullshit Mukhin wrote, including his erroneous arguments about Katyn documents. E.g. Haisanlu says that the letter of Beria was dated 5.3.40, but it wasn't. There is "agreed" ("za") on the document, but Haisanlu says that there isn't. He says that Kaganovich's and Kalinin's signatures on the document are forged, because they were absent from that Politburo meeting. But exactly because they were absent, there are no signatures by Kalinin and Kaganovich - only notes by a secretary that they agreed with the decision. He says that on Shelepin's letter there is no registration number and no signature, except there is both number and a signature. Etc., etc., etc. The guy obviously doesn't know what he is writing about - just like Mukhin.
Today I've discovered old comments left by someone called "haisanlu" who tried to defend Grover Furr and Mukhin at seek-the-truth-serve-the-people.blogspot.com
Most messages seem to have been deleted from that blog, but here's Google cache. He calls me one of the "Goebbels Guys", "The anti-Russian Katyn Guys", etc. Here's his poem:
Goebbels GuysTake that, Romanov!!!
Poem dedicated to Y I Mukhin
Defending Goebbels Lies is the task of anti- communist guys
The anti-Russian Katyn Guys - Sergei Romanov being one
Well they were having so much fun
That Goebbels himself smiled
Until a a man called Mukhin gave them all a surprise
Because 20 million dead Russians said don't bend your knee to Nazi lies
Mukhin heard this and his "Katyn Detective" nailed the lies of these Goebbels Guys
For that Mukhin wins the seeker after truth prize
Now Goebbels is feeling down and wears a frown
For Mukhin kicked him in the balls
He told the truth to us all !
There will be no 21st Century Goebbels Pall
Thanks Mukhin from us all
Read more!
Haisanlu focuses on my rejection of the alleged "Schellenberg interrogation". He repeats Furr's claim that, according to Doerries, some of the records have disappeared, but doesn't even give the page. But the main question is: who cares? If anything is missing, there is no evidence whatsoever, that these missing records contained anything about Katyn, much less Schellenberg's confession.
Here we have someone who rejects lots of authentic documents and testimonies proving that Katyn was NKVD's deed on Stalin's order in favor of allegedly unavailable records with unknown content! That's even loonier than Holocaust denial.
Haisanlu writes:
There are also personal attacks against Mukhin saying that he associates with anti semites - well I think you should read a summary in English of the Mukhin's Katyn Detective of 1995 to understand the basis of Mukhin's criticisms of the Russians who did it theory and see what Y I Mukhin's thinks of anti semites in his own words. This might also help you make up your own mind about the veracity of Mr Sergei Romanov.Except if you search my article for "semit", you'll come up empty. What I do is show a photo of Mukhin in company of well-known Holocaust deniers Graf and Mattogno - and Mukhin is a denier himself. This should help you make up your own mind about the veracity of Haisanlu.
As for the question of Mukhin being antisemitic or not, in his books and articles he more than often uses the word "zhid", which is translated as "kike". True, he claims he doesn't mean Jews but rather some sort of parasitic social category. But the very choice of words betrays his true feelings.
In the library section on the site of his newspaper you'll find quite a lot of hardcore antisemitic literature, like "A note on ritual murders". Possibly, Mukhin himself doesn't believe in this crap, but he does keep it online.
Finally, Haisanlu wants to sway us with this powerful argument
I also give you an extract from Goebbel's Diary entry 8th May 1943 " unfortunately German ammunition has been found in the graves at Katyn .. it is essential that that this incident remains top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would be dropped "Um. Hello? Sure Goebbels would be concerned about the German ammo found in the graves, because common sense would've told him that this would give the Soviets a very great weapon against the German claims, and Goebbels' propaganda campaign would lose some force. As we know, though, the Germans did not hide the fact that they had found German ammo in the graves. And if Goebbels knew all along that it was the Germans who did it, why was the find such a shock to him?
Again reading Y.I.Mukhin we can see why Goebbels was so concerned about the German munitions found at Katyn.
Haisanlu also presents us with an outline of Mukhin's earlier book, which Western Holocaust deniers should find instructive. Mukhin's main positive argument is that absence of several thousands Polish POWs in internal Soviet documents dealing with POWs since spring of 1940 was caused not by their death, but by their change of status from POWs into prisoners. Except both Burdenko Commission report and internal NKGB report about preliminary investigation of the Katyn case always call them POWs. Moreover, the alleged "authentic" contemporary documents (like Menshagin's notebook or Vetoshnikov's report) quoted in these reports also designate the Poles as POWs. Sorry, that canard is dead.
Haisanlu then repeats all the bullshit Mukhin wrote, including his erroneous arguments about Katyn documents. E.g. Haisanlu says that the letter of Beria was dated 5.3.40, but it wasn't. There is "agreed" ("za") on the document, but Haisanlu says that there isn't. He says that Kaganovich's and Kalinin's signatures on the document are forged, because they were absent from that Politburo meeting. But exactly because they were absent, there are no signatures by Kalinin and Kaganovich - only notes by a secretary that they agreed with the decision. He says that on Shelepin's letter there is no registration number and no signature, except there is both number and a signature. Etc., etc., etc. The guy obviously doesn't know what he is writing about - just like Mukhin.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
And now for something not completely different...
[Update (30.03.2007): the page with Katyn discussion is now here on Prof. Furr's site (the URL has been renamed). Prof. Furr emphasizes on his site that I have put our exchange online despite his objections - you should read the whole posting to see why (the relevant info is near the end). Basically, he does the same thing to other people, so the emphasis is, let's say, misleading.]
The reason the Holocaust denial is the most prominent example of historical pseudo-revisionism in Western world is prominence of the Holocaust itself in the West. But whenever there's an "inconvenient" past to deal with, there's also an attempted denial of that past, sometimes on a state level (the Armenian genocide), sometimes on the grassroots level, as is the case with the Katyn massacre "revisionism" in Russia.
"Katyn responsibility deniers", as they may be called, are usually Stalin-admirers, but not necessarily Communists. Quite a lot of non-Communist (but pro-Soviet) nationalists and "statists" (derzhavniki) - many of them Orthodox Christians - see Stalin as a symbol of the mighty Russian empire. Thus the need for apology of Stalin's crimes - either by justifying (e.g., the purges of 1930s are often seen as "good" purges of "Old Bolsheviks" and "Jews") or denying them.
Katyn "revisionists" basically repeat the Soviet "interpretation" of evidence, blaming the German Einsatzkommandos or other units for the massacre. The Soviet version is slightly modified for "revisionist" purposes - thus, it is claimed that there was some deliberate disinformation in the Soviet Katyn report, but it was necessary for political purposes. Namely, allegedly the Polish POWs were no longer POWs since spring 1940, actually they had been sentenced to 5 years without the right for correspondence (thus the absence of letters to families after May 1940 is explained) and were sent to labor camps near Smolensk, where they were captured by the Germans and murdered. The lie about them no longer being POWs was allegedly necessitated by a need to cover up the breach of international conventions in sentencing the POWs for labor in camps. "Conversion" of POWs into sentenced prisoners also "solves" the problem of absence of these Poles in POW-related Soviet documents (whenever they were mentioned after the massacre, they were described as "sent to UNKVD in April-May of 1940"). See how neatly everything is explained?
Read more!
Of course, there are documents, published in the beginning of 1990s, which directly prove the Soviet culpability. But hey - any document can be branded a fake, if needed. And Katyn "revisionists" go as far as to suggest that graves in Pyatikhatki and Mednoe were tampered with by KGB(!) in order to make them look like the Polish graves (as if that would be possible by merely throwing some documents and stuff into bore holes).
The main proponent of Katyn "revisionism" in Russia is Yuri Mukhin, who also seems to be a good pal of Juergen Graf and Carlo Mattogno. Here's a photo of them together with Mukhin (only his back is seen):
Birds of a feather.
Just to give you an idea about Mukhin's style, here's the last paragraph of his book "Katynskij detektiv":
Here's a brief chronology to keep in mind while reading the exchange:
Such is ideology-driven denial in all its "glory". Note in the last on-topic message (before the permission-to-publish messages) how Furr tries to change the topic and how his tricks have been foreseen by me. For example, he tries to cast doubt on Russian military prosecutor Yablokov's narrative about the interrogation of Shelepin:
Furr also completely ignored what "Katynskij sindrom" authors wrote:
Of course, such evasive tricks pale in comparison with the deliberate lie about Shelepin not admitting the genuineness of 1959 letter in Yablokov's narrative. When one goes against what the text plainly says, is there a reason to continue the conversation?
I will leave it to you, dear readers, to find other parallels with the Holocaust denial.
PS: "As is the case with conservative writers generally, Horowitz has no regard for the truth. Not only does he publish false statements, but when they are pointed out he acts as though they do not matter." ~ Grover Furr.
PPS: In case you wonder about me posting Furr's messages against his wish: he does the same to other people. I contacted the person referred to in the above page and he told me that not only he did not give his permission to Furr to post their exchange online, he actually objected to this, but Furr didn't care. In fact, here's Furr's e-mail:
[Update (30.03.2007): Furr has removed Dedinas' e-mails from his site.]
The reason the Holocaust denial is the most prominent example of historical pseudo-revisionism in Western world is prominence of the Holocaust itself in the West. But whenever there's an "inconvenient" past to deal with, there's also an attempted denial of that past, sometimes on a state level (the Armenian genocide), sometimes on the grassroots level, as is the case with the Katyn massacre "revisionism" in Russia.
"Katyn responsibility deniers", as they may be called, are usually Stalin-admirers, but not necessarily Communists. Quite a lot of non-Communist (but pro-Soviet) nationalists and "statists" (derzhavniki) - many of them Orthodox Christians - see Stalin as a symbol of the mighty Russian empire. Thus the need for apology of Stalin's crimes - either by justifying (e.g., the purges of 1930s are often seen as "good" purges of "Old Bolsheviks" and "Jews") or denying them.
Katyn "revisionists" basically repeat the Soviet "interpretation" of evidence, blaming the German Einsatzkommandos or other units for the massacre. The Soviet version is slightly modified for "revisionist" purposes - thus, it is claimed that there was some deliberate disinformation in the Soviet Katyn report, but it was necessary for political purposes. Namely, allegedly the Polish POWs were no longer POWs since spring 1940, actually they had been sentenced to 5 years without the right for correspondence (thus the absence of letters to families after May 1940 is explained) and were sent to labor camps near Smolensk, where they were captured by the Germans and murdered. The lie about them no longer being POWs was allegedly necessitated by a need to cover up the breach of international conventions in sentencing the POWs for labor in camps. "Conversion" of POWs into sentenced prisoners also "solves" the problem of absence of these Poles in POW-related Soviet documents (whenever they were mentioned after the massacre, they were described as "sent to UNKVD in April-May of 1940"). See how neatly everything is explained?
Read more!
Of course, there are documents, published in the beginning of 1990s, which directly prove the Soviet culpability. But hey - any document can be branded a fake, if needed. And Katyn "revisionists" go as far as to suggest that graves in Pyatikhatki and Mednoe were tampered with by KGB(!) in order to make them look like the Polish graves (as if that would be possible by merely throwing some documents and stuff into bore holes).
The main proponent of Katyn "revisionism" in Russia is Yuri Mukhin, who also seems to be a good pal of Juergen Graf and Carlo Mattogno. Here's a photo of them together with Mukhin (only his back is seen):
Birds of a feather.
Just to give you an idea about Mukhin's style, here's the last paragraph of his book "Katynskij detektiv":
Polish officers in the Katyn forest got a German bullet in the back of the head. This is not very just. And Soviet bullet is also not good. Only the Polish bullet would do the highest justice.Anyway, Mukhin has his fans in the West. One of them is professor Grover Furr of Montclair State University. By chance I saw his response to David Horowitz's "critique" of him. To be sure, Horowitz made at least one serious blunder, when writing about "Stalin's well-documented campaign to liquidate the Jews" (it's not well-documented; in fact, it's not documented at all, and there seems to be no credible published evidence for it whatsoever). But what got my attention was this claim:
LIE: p. 187 - "...for instance denying that Stalin’s government was responsible for the Katyn Massacre of 15,000 Polish Army officers during World War II"Furr provides several links to pages with his discussion of the subject. He deleted one of the pages after our little exchange (though the link is still there). In order to understand further materials, I have to post Furr's deleted text:
I do not "deny" it, and have never "denied" it. I refuse to affirm it, however, because the evidence is not there. For three examples, see this post to the DISCUSS list at Montclair State University of April 2006, this post of mine to the H-RUSSIA list in January 2004, and this one to the H-HOAC list from October 2003.
I have looked into this in great depth, including all the central Russian-language documents, and all the historical criticism. I affirm that the question is open, in that the evidence does not exist to prove conclusively whether the Soviets or Germans killed the Polish officers.
Subject: [discuss] The Katyn Forest WhodunnitSo I wrote to Prof. Furr about certain claims in the above message, and the (somewhat) illuminating exchange is posted below in full (except for the omission of one name) - without Grover Furr's permission (see the last messages).
From: Grover Furr
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:46:48 -0400
To: MSU Discussion List
--------- DISCUSS mailing list --------
Dear Ted:
You say you know the Soviets killed the Polish officers who are buried at Katyn.
But you do not know that. You believe that.
Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.
I've looked into this a good deal. In my view, nobody knows.
There is, in fact, widespread disagreement with the thesis that the Soviets killed the Polish officers buried at Katyn
Take a look at this New York Times article from June 29, 1945. It states that Walter Schellenberg, head of Hitler's SS intelligence service, told Allied interrogators that the Nazis had fabricated the whole issue, and that this account was independently corroborated by a Norwegian prisoner.
According to the study by Reinhard Doerries, a specialist in the Schellenberg interviews (Hitler's last chief of foreign intelligence: Allied interrogations of Walter Schellenberg. London: F.Cass, 2003) records of this interrogation of Schellenberg have disappeared from the National Archives. Interesting!
* * * * *
After this, the Cold War obscures everything.
In 1993 or 1994 Eltsin finally produced some documents that, if genuine, would prove Soviet guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the genuineness of these documents is in serious dispute.
I have studied the documents in question. There is a very good argument to be made that they are forgeries. (I'm being very, very brief here). But it is not certain that they were -- again, IMO.
It's actually fascinating! The "Soviets-did-it" camp simply ignore all the evidence that the Soviets did NOT do it, plus the evidence that the "smoking gun" Eltsin-era "documents" may be faked.
* * * * *
Because of the irrationality that goes with the Cold-War, anti-communist side, many people automatically assume that, if you do not "accept" -- or better, "believe," that's the word -- the "Soviets-did-it" evidence "valid", then you are denying that the Soviets did it.
That is nonsense, of course. Even if these documents turn out to have been forgeries, that would not mean the Soviets didn't do it. It would simply mean that the evidence doesn't prove they did.
Maybe the Soviets did it! After all, either the Soviets killed the Polish officers, or the Nazis did, so maybe the Soviets did.
But the evidence is not there.
* * * * *
Here is the bottom line problem with the Eltsin "documents" -- there is no "chain of evidence."
* They were announced five years before they were published.
* Furthermore, when they were first published (I have all this stuff), they were DIFFERENT FROM WHEN THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PUBLISHED.
Yes, that's right -- different. Amazing!
* * * * *
OK, what's the problem? Here is what I think:
NOBODY CARES what happened to the Polish officers! Nobody, including the Poles.
Furthermore, nobody EVER cared, even at the time!
The Polish government-in-exile, during the war, while the Nazis were slaughtering Poles in huge numbers, chose to believe the Nazi account! They never interrogated this Nazi story. They just accepted it. If they really cared about these men, why would they do this?
IMO, they did it because they were far more hostile to the Soviets than they ever were to the Germans. The Polish gov't were fascists themselves.
And since then, the "Katyn massacre" has been a bully stick to beat the Soviets with. It still is -- more "evidence" that "communism is bad."
So the "consensus" historians have never troubled to look at the evidence in an objective fashion. And they are not going to do so.
That's why we don't know.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, there are some very good books -- in Russian, of course -- arguing the case that the Nazis, not the Russians, did it.
I spent part of my vacation last summer going over a translation into English of one of them, by a Swedish guy (in Sweden). A valiant attempt (I had read the book in Russian many times). Let's hope he finishes it, but he hasn't yet. His knowledge of English is very good, though far from perfect, and his knowledge of Russian is less good, but he has me to help him.
Still, it's not out yet, and this Russian book is already more than a decade old (1995). Meanwhile, there's lots more, newer, better stuff.
* * * * *
For you Russian-readers out there, here are the two main sites, each with a ton of documents:
"The Soviets Did It, Those Dirty Commies" -- http://katyn.codis.ru
"We Doubt That the Soviets Did It -- We Search for Truth" - http://www.katyn.ru/
That'll keep you busy for awhile, even if you speed-read Russian!
There are some interesting books, too, of BOTH schools. Again, if you want to know, email me. I've got, and have read, all of 'em.
* * * * *
I have been asked to get into this -- that is, to write about it. After all, it's a 'great mystery' -- right?
But I have refused, and am going to refuse forever. Here's why: NOBODY is really interested in the truth (almost, virtually no one).
Therefore, you simply cannot have an intelligent, calm, academic conversation about this.
No matter how objective you try to be, how long and hard you work, you will be called a lousy, dishonest propagandist WHATEVER you conclude, by those whose preconceived opinions you have failed to support.
Of course, you'll also be praised -- by the others, whose preconceived opinions you DO happen to support.
But who wants that kind of praise? Not me!
I am already called a dirty Stalin lover because I insist on evidence, not on bowing at the shrine of dishonest anti-communist historians whose works are a disgrace to the historical profession.
Well, I'm already in that soup, and have no choice but to swim in it! But I don't have to jump into ANOTHER soup just as bad or worse!
* * * * *
So here is my last thought, for now: SO WHAT?
I'm serious. I do not think it matters to very many people, and maybe to nobody.
"The Katyn Massacre" is not an historical question -- it is a WEAPON, a CUDGEL. You use it to make war on "the other side", and that's it.
Those who say "the Soviets did it" are NEVER going to accept that they did not, no matter what the evidence.
If they did accept that, that would not change their minds about the USSR.
Those who say and / or hope: "The Soviets did NOT do it" are NEVER going to shed their respect and admiration for the USSR, EVEN IF you managed to convince them that the Soviets did it. And I do not think that's going to happen either!
It's like convincing a Christian that Jesus never existed. That is, it's no longer history, it's religion.
Good luck!
* * * * *
So it is interesting. But at this point I confine myself to (a) reading about it; and (b) reminding those who "know" (= are sure they know, and do not want to hear otherwise) of their bad faith.
You can imagine how popular THAT makes me! But being unpopular in this way is something I'm very content to be.
I hope this has been interesting, maybe even helpful. Believe me, there is so much more to say that you do not even want to know!
Sincerely,
Grover Furr, English Dept.
Here's a brief chronology to keep in mind while reading the exchange:
- 1989 - Gorbachev learns about the documents in the sealed envelope (Politburo shooting order, etc.), but prefers to keep silent.
- 1990 - the Soviet government admits Soviet responsibility for the massacre, blames it on Beria and his accomplices, doesn't mention anything about Politburo order and other sealed envelope documents; the announcement is based on research by Soviet historians, which is based, in turn, on indirect evidence from the Soviet archives, such as transport lists.
- 1991 - Gorbachev gives the envelope to Yeltsin, who examines its contents.
- 1992 - Yeltsin publicly reveals the contents of the sealed envelope; all documents are immediately published in Poland as facsimiles and Polish translations.
- 1993 - Russian historical journal Voprosy istorii publishes texts and facsimiles of most of the documents from the sealed envelope. Journal Voennyje arkhivy Rossii publishes defective texts of some documents.
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
I am writing to you regarding the arguments re: the Katyn issue you have made at http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss_katyn041806.html
Namely:* They [the Katyn documents ~SR] were announced five years before they were published.Can you please provide credible evidence for these two assertions? Thank you.
* Furthermore, when they were first published (I have all this stuff), they were DIFFERENT FROM WHEN THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PUBLISHED.
Yes, that's right -- different. Amazing!
With best regards,
Sergey Romanov
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
Thanks for writing me! However, I have a question.
I get a lot of crank, right-wing emails, from individuals who simply want to engage in some kind of flame war.
So I normally don't reply to people who simply contact me with questions.
Why not introduce yourself? What's your interest in the Katyn business?
Are you the Mr Romanov who wrote the response to Iuri Mukhin's _Katynskii Detektive_, and who has been in touch with [name omitted]?
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
the answer to your question: indeed I am, so I guess that should count as an introduction. Would you agree?
With best regards,
Sergey Romanov
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
Good to hear back from you!
But I have a problem. Why are you playing games with me?
You have read Mukhin's works. You know the chronology of the announcements about the Katyn affair from the late '80s on. You know about the differences between the first published version and the later ones.
You know, therefore, that my statements are accurate. There was an approximately five-year time span between the first announcement by the Gorbachev government that the Soviets were guilty, and the official publication in _Voprosy Istorii_.
So why are you asking me?
Let me tell you straight out. 18 months or so ago I studied your criticism of Muikhin's _Katynskii Detektiv_ very carefully.
You make a number of good points! THAT part of your article is worthwhile. You don't succeed in disproving Mukhin's argument. But you do show that it has weak points. That's very useful.
However, you seriously mar your work by broadcasting your lack of objectivity, through slighting remarks about Mukhin and, by extension, anybody who does not just "accept" the genuineness of those documents Mukhin challenges.
You make good arguments in your article. But you do not concede the contrary: many of Mukhin's arguments are good ones too.
In refusing to deal with Mukhin respectfully, you cast grave doubts on your own objectivity. In essence, you seem to be "preaching to the choir" -- writing for an audience that is _already_ convinced that you, and those who "believe" the Soviets guilty, are correct, and who have nothing but contempt for anyone who doubts -- YOU!
I've just finished reading Mukhin's _Antirossiiskaia Podlost'_ for the fourth time. It is a very thorough study.
The "Soviets-did-it" school needs to stop belittling, bad-mouthing, insulting, and otherwise trying to ignore Mukhin and those who support his view, and get down to confronting their arguments in a respectful, scholarly manner.
I don't want to be unfair to you personally. As far as I know, you are the ONLY one of the "Soviets-did-it" school who has even attempted to confront Mukhin's arguments. So you deserve far more credit than the rest of those who share your view.
* * * * *
As I wrote in that page of mine you got -- from [name omitted], I guess -- Katyn has long since become a "political football," a "club" to beat the enemy -- the Soviets, Gorbachev, whomever -- over the head.
In my view, this attitude means that the Katyn massacre will _remain_ unsettled for a long, long time to come.
If that happens, it will be the fault of ONE group of people -- those who either discovered, or falsely claim to have discovered, the famous "documents", and then went about assuming they were genuine.
Mr Romanov, I don't know anything about Russian law. But I can tell you this: those documents would never, ever be acceptable as evidence in an American court of law.
Why not? Because the "chain of evidence" has not only been broken -- it never existed in the first place!
What happened to the originals of these documents, during the period from when they were supposedly discovered until they were finally published?
Why were the originals not presented in the court case against the CPSU in (I think) 1992?
Why did those who supposedly discovered them not present those originals to neutral experts for verification?
As a result of this careless, irresponsible -- really, criminal -- mishandling of these documents (if they are genuine), they can never be used as evidence by anyone who is interested in historical objectivity. A pity, but that's the way it is. And it's the fault of those who, allegedly, "discovered" them.
There have been a number of serious cases of forgeries being created in the 1990s and then inserted into Soviet archives. I'm writing about a few of them. Others have discovered others. It's a real mess!
And it means the whole burden of proof is upon those who claim a given document "from the archives" is genuine.
* * * * *
If anybody wants to solve the Katyn "mystery" -- and if you disagree with the term "mystery", think it is all "solved", then you have proven my point about your lack of objectivity -- they are going to have to use evidence _other_ than these disputed documents, which are now _useless_ as evidence.
They are also going to have to discard _all_ "eye-witness_ accounts, on all sides. There's simply no reason to accept the eye-witness accounts that support _one_ side, over those that support the _other_ side.
It's back to whatever was available in the earlier 1980s and before.
* * * * *
I personally do not care. If the Soviets "did it", I'd like to know. Frankly, I have my doubts. But it's far from impossible, too. Maybe they did?
Likewise, if the Germans "did it", I'd also like to know. Maybe they did?
The documents that Mukhin and you are wrangling over aside, it seems to me that most of the evidence is against the Germans.
But I don't expect any objective, scholarly study of Katyn. Not now; not in my lifetime.
Katyn is too politically sensitive. In reality, nobody WANTS to know the truth. They want "their" side to be supported, and "the other" side to be defeated. That's it!
A pity, but there we are.
* * * * *
One last point: HERE is what you, personally, could do to further the understanding of all of us who do, in fact, want to know (as opposed to those whose minds are already irrevocably made up).
Do a calm, dispassionate, objective study of _Antirossiiskaia Podlost'_!
Avoid any language that belittles Mukhin et al. Be scrupulously objective.
Give the doubt, whenever there is one, to your opponent. Try not only to _be_ fair and objective, but to _appear_ fair and objective.
Think of your audience not as those who agree with you, but those who, like myself, are interested, and informed, but undecided. THAT is your audience -- not those whose minds are made up!
Do that, and you will make a real contribution to moving forward our understanding of Katyn.
Otherwise, nothing and nobody is going to change.
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
I don't like incorrect information being spread around. I see incorrect claims made by you, but I'm giving you a chance to correct them yourself.
You claim:There was an approximately five-year time span between the first announcement by the Gorbachev government that the Soviets were guilty, and the official publication in _Voprosy Istorii_.This is not, however, what you stated:Here is the bottom line problem with the Eltsin "documents" -- there is no "chain of evidence."Yeltsin documents could only have been announced by Yeltsin. Gorbachev made no announcements about these documents. They were revealed before a commission (which included Yeltsin and Volkogonov) in 1992, and the announcement was made the same year. Where are the "five years"?
* They were announced five years before they were published.
Moreover, you claim to have read my refutation. However, why then do you write above that "[t]here was an approximately five-year time span between the first announcement by the Gorbachev government that the Soviets were guilty, and the official publication in _Voprosy Istorii_", if the documents have been published in 1992 in "Katyn. Dokumenty ludobojstwa" (Warszawa, 1992), the fact, which you could have gathered from my article?
Moreover, if you have read my article, why do you still claim - without substantiation - that the documents, when they had been published at first (even charitably taking your mistake concerning _Voprosy istorii_ into account) were different from the documents which we have now? Where's evidence of _that_? You wrote a long letter to me, but you failed to provide this evidence.
Although they're rather off-topic, I will comment on a couple of your remarks:In refusing to deal with Mukhin respectfully, you cast grave doubts on your own objectivity.You have obviously read lots of what Mukhin wrote, and you know that Mukhin does not deal with his opponents respectfully. Do you agree that this casts grave doubts on his objectivity?
Also, although I strongly suspected that the Swedish colleague of yours was [name omitted] the moment I saw the mention, I stumbled upon your page by other means. In fact, your exchange with Horowitz rather amused me (cf. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/boatman-to-be-removed-from-horowitzs.html ).
WBR,
Sergey
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
Thanks for your reply!
Thank you too for correcting my error. The time span is either three or four years, but not five, as I stated (see below).Dear Professor Furr,Nope!
I don't like incorrect information being spread around. I see incorrect claims made by you, but I'm giving you a chance to correct them yourself.
You claim:There was an approximately five-year time span between the first announcement by the Gorbachev government that the Soviets were guilty, and the official publication in _Voprosy Istorii_.This is not, however, what you stated:Here is the bottom line problem with the Eltsin "documents" -- there is no "chain of evidence."Yeltsin documents could only have been announced by Yeltsin.
* They were announced five years before they were published.
Under Gorbachev some kind of announcement was made to the effect that the Soviets were guilty.
Why? This could only have been because the documents in question were either "discovered" or "being forged."
Whichever is the case -- genuine or forgery -- Gorbachev's announcement could only have been as a result of these documents.
You are right about this: I should have written "four years", or maybe even "three years", not five. Thanks for that.
I haven't seen the Polish book you cite. But I do have the English version of it, dated 1993. It quotes and reprints Shevardnazdze's note of March 22, 1989. Shevardnadze is obviously convinced the Soviets were guilty. Why? It could only be because of these documents.
In fact, the cover of the documents has dates of April 1989. So the documents were either discovered or forged by April 1989.
Given that they were published first -- according to you -- in 1992, that would be a three-year, not a five-year, difference. I stand corrected!
Let me point out, however, that my objection doesn't change. Whether the time lag is three years or five, the same question necessarily arises.
If these documents are genuine, they were discovered by April 1989.
Had they been verified and published, in facsimile, at that time, Mukhin could never have written his book.
He admits himself that he first assumed, as everyone did, that the Soviets were guilty. I sure did! I remember learning from a post to the H-RUSSIA list that these documents had been published in _Voprosy Istorii_. I went to the New York Public Library and made photocopies.
I learned of Mukhin's book when it was attacked -- dismissed, actually -- by someone on the H-RUSSIA list who can only be called a crypto-fascist, a super-anti-communist.
His dismissive attitude immediately aroused my suspicions. If _he_ doesn't want me to read _Katynskii Detektiv_, then I had better lose no time, and read it!Moreover, if you have read my article, why do you still claim - without substantiation - that the documents, when they had been published at first (even charitably taking your mistake concerning _Voprosy istorii_ into account) were different from the documents which we have now? Where's evidence of _that_? You wrote a long letter to me, but you failed to provide this evidence.Mr Romanov, have a little humility. I told you I studied your article 18 months ago. I don't remember all the details.
But I looked at the version in _Voennie Arkhivy Rossii_ an hour or so ago. As you are well aware, this version is indeed different from that published in _Voprosy Istorii_.
The version published in the Polish volume I have is also different. For one thing, it doesn't show the holes punched in the original.
Why not? As it stands, it _looks_ as though the holes were punched into the originals _after_ these photocopies were made for the Polish volume. But what idiot archivist would do that?
This does not clarify things. It just makes them murkier than ever.
Again, though, the main point is this: it's way, way too late!
Because the chain of evidence was long, long broken, it is impossible to prove to anybody that these documents are genuine. Anybody, that is, who is not _already_ convinced.
Museums, with their teams of specialists and experts, are fooled by clever forgeries all the time. Therefore, even expert, _destructive_ examination involving scraping off and analyzing ink, paper, and so on, is not foolproof. The chain of evidence is everything.
The only way to have done this was to have been scrupulous from the beginning, and publish those documents back in 1989, having first made them public.
Handing photocopies of them over to Poland three years later, in 1992, is no substitute. Three years! That is enough time to forge anything three times over.
Documents like this would never be admissible in a court.
And historians can't go around saying: "You can believe US -- WE are honest! Not like those horrible pro-Stalin people!"
That's just ludicrous. But, in effect, that is exactly what you and the "Soviets-did-it" people, those who _accept_ the documents as genuine, are doing. _Pretending_ there is no problem, when there is a problem big enough to drive a truck through!
You will have noticed that, on the web page of mine you refer to, I do _not_ conclude that "the Soviets did not do it." I say that I don't know, and neither does anybody else. They _think_ they know; are _sure_ they know. I _know_ that I don't. I also know that YOU don't.
You, on the other hand, do not acknowledge in your study the problems with the documents. You can hardly be unaware of them -- yet you do not discuss them.
Why not? You want to be the "anti-Mukhin" -- like Mukhin, but his mirror image? No?
But that's what you are doing! And YOU are better than the rest of them!
BTW, there are lots of other problems, starting with Shelepin's failure to acknowledge the "Shelepin" letter as genuine, and his insistence that he only knew about Katyn what he had read in the papers.
Then there's the whole business with Walter Schellenberg, going way back.
This whole Katyn thing is a mess! It is obvious -- to me. Why isn't it obvious to you?
My guess is: It IS obvious to you. But you do not want to acknowledge that. "Let's pretend" there is no problem with the Katyn issue!
"Let's pretend. We'll just "explain away" any problems. The Shelepin letter? He was lying. The 1941 date in the German report _Amtliches Material..._? A misprint."
And so on and so on. This kind of thing is never, ever going to convince anybody who isn't already convinced.
Well, I am sure you get the point!
You can still make a big contribution, Mr Romanov. You can do that detailed, calm, objective, dispassionate study of _Antirossiiskaia Podlost'_ that I mentioned earlier.
Pretend -- if you have to -- that you do NOT "know" what "really happened." Do that, because MOST of the world does NOT know, and is NOT married to any given interpretation. I know I'm not!
Do the study. Maybe you will prove you were right all along, and Mukhin's arguments are all wet (English slang, = invalid).
Maybe -- just maybe -- you will change your mind. In principle, at least, you have to be prepared to do just that.
And maybe you will change MY mind, from "I don't know, but I'm leaning towards 'the-German-did-it'" to "OK, now I see -- the Soviets did it."
And I will thank you for teaching me something else important.
I'll also buy your book. It';ll take a book-length refutation. Better get started!
OK, you wrote:You have obviously read lots of what Mukhin wrote, and you know that Mukhin does not deal with his opponents respectfully. Do you agree that this casts grave doubts on his objectivity?Of course it does! But that does not mean it is "all right" for you to act the same way.
A great many people question Mukhin's objectivity. Why would you want to imitate him, and have people question _your_ objectivity?"Take the high road", Mr Romanov! Always reply in a scholarly, measured, objective fashion. Anything else just arouses suspicion. Also, although I strongly suspected that the Swedish colleague of yours was [name omitted] the moment I saw the mention, I stumbled upon your page by other means. In fact, your exchange with Horowitz rather amused me (cf. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/boatman-to-be-removed-from-horowitzs.html ).I have never written Horowitz in my life, so I have had no "exchanges" with him. Also, the page you cite doesn't mention me, or Katyn, or my web page.
But all that's an aside. I'm curious -- but it's not important to the point we are discussing, namely: the Katyn mess.
Thanks again for pointing out I should have written "three years" instead of "five years." I'm going to make that change in my page, and thank you for it!
Now, get busy and write that critique of _Antirossiiskaia Podlost'_!
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
you wrote:Nope!You're obviously not acquainted with that story. The announcement was made based on the transportation lists of the Poles from the camps (plus critical analysis of Burdenko Commission report; cf. http://katyn.codis.ru/kdocs2.htm#falin ). No documents from the "sealed envelope no. 1" were mentioned then, and their existence was denied to the Polish side for several years afterwards. Therefore, there wasn't a single year before the announcement of the documents (in 1992) and their publication (in 1992; http://www.incipit.home.pl/incb/odk1_2/odk2055.html ).
Under Gorbachev some kind of announcement was made to the effect that the Soviets were guilty.
Why? This could only have been because the documents in question were either "discovered" or "being forged."
The announcement did not contain any mention of the documents from the "sealed envelope no. 1", and you can't show otherwise.Whichever is the case -- genuine or forgery -- Gorbachev's announcement could only have been as a result of these documents.Non sequitur. Besides, even if true, this is irrelevant to your original claim:They were announced five years before they were published.These particular documents weren't announced during Gorbachev's time, and you can't show otherwise. Even Mukhin doesn't make such an absurd claim. Although Gorbachev did check them out during that time (according to Falin's memoir), he sealed them back and gave them personally to Yeltsin during the power transfer some time later.In fact, the cover of the documents has dates of April 1989. So the documents were either discovered or forged by April 1989.But this is the matter of your original claim:They were announced five years before they were published.They weren't announced five years before they were published. Theywere being checked out from time to time by the Soviet ruling elite, as follows from writings on the envelope itself (e.g., by Chernenko and Andropov; http://katyn.codis.ru/kdocs1.htm ). They were announced in 1992.Let me point out, however, that my objection doesn't change. Whether the time lag is three years or five, the same question necessarily arises.There was no lag.If these documents are genuine, they were discovered by April 1989.They weren't "discovered by April 1989" - no more than they were "discovered by April 1981", when they were checked out by Chernenko and Andropov. The matter, however, is not of discovery. The matter is of your original claim:They were announced five years before they were published.They were published the same year they were announced.
Do you agree with that?But I looked at the version in _Voennie Arkhivy Rossii_ an hour or so ago. As you are well aware, this version is indeed different from that published in _Voprosy Istorii_.But VAR didn't publish facsimiles. Defects in typescripted documents, introduced by hapless editors, can hardly serve as a credible argument against the originals themselves (which had been published in 1992 anyway, so the whole point is mute).The version published in the Polish volume I have is also different. For one thing, it doesn't show the holes punched in the original.So your only "credible" claim to difference is the alleged absence of holes on black and white copies of not the best quality? The claim which is wrong anyway. For if one compares the color version of this document:
Why not? As it stands, it _looks_ as though the holes were punched into the originals _after_ these photocopies were made for the Polish volume. But what idiot archivist would do that?
http://katyn.ru/images/pages/f17op166d621l130.jpg
with b/w copy:
http://katyn.codis.ru/beria1.gif
one can see the exact place where the hole is supposed to be (namely, parts of "K" and "T" are missing in accordance with the hole placement). This is but a typographical issue.The only way to have done this was to have been scrupulous from the beginning, and publish those documents back in 1989, having first made them public.They were published the same year they were made public. Therefore, by your own criterion, the chain of evidence was not broken.
Do you concede the point?
---
And now for the new matters you bring up:BTW, there are lots of other problems, starting with Shelepin's failure to acknowledge the "Shelepin" letter as genuine, and his insistence that he only knew about Katyn what he had read in the papers.Again, I can see that you know about the issues only what you have read in Mukhin's sloppy and deceptive books. Thus, it will be a surprise for you when you actually open "Katynskij sindrom" and on pp. 393-396 read the true description of Shelepin's interrogation, which contains the following bits:Shelepin said that he is categorically against the use of video and audio recording, that he was just three months in the office when somebody shoved these documents to him, that he signed them, practically without carefully considering the essence of the problem, so he remembers nothing. Regarding the letter he said that signed it in 1959, but for some reason there's CC CPSU stamp of 1965.
[...]
Specifically, Shelepin didn't like that it was written down [in the protocol ~SR] that (as he himself had actually told) after some subordinate's report (probably from the archival section) about a room in the archives that is permanently filled with top secret documents which were useless for work, and his proposal to ask CC CPSU for permission to destroy them, he gave his permission, not knowing the problem itself. Some time later the same subordinate brought him the excerpt from the Politburo decision and the letter to Khruschev with Shelepin's byline. At that time he [Shelepin ~SR] was in office only for three months and before that he hadn't had experience with KGB's activities. From his words, when he was being appointed to that post, he refused several times and obeyed the order only thanks to the Party discipline. In the first months he didn't feel himself to be a professinal in this area, he always trusted everything subordinates were preparing and that's why he had signed the letter to Khrushchev and the draft of the decision of Presidium of CC (as Politburo had been called then) without a careful consideration of the problem.
About crimes against Polish citizens in Katyn and elsewhere he knows only what had been reported in newspapers.
[...]
In general, Shelepin interrogated as a witness confirmed the authenticity of the analyzed letter and the facts related in it. He also explained that he personally signed the 1959 CC Presidium decision draft about destruction of Katyn affair documents, and he thinks that this is what had been done.
One may as well dismiss this description by a military prosecutor (as you will probably do), but the fact remains: Mukhin "interpreted" the text completely reversing its meaning. If that's not enough, I don't know what it will take to shake your faith in Mukhin's honesty and thoroughness.
(Oh, and Shelepin was in no way involved in the massacre itself, and, according to his own words, he didn't study the issue, so there is no problem at all with his claim about lack of knowledge.)Then there's the whole business with Walter Schellenberg, going way back.There's no "business" with Schellenberg. There is no published interrogation, period. And even if there was one... the Soviet side made no claims whatsoever about the corpses being taken from camps to Katyn and masqueraded as Polish officers. This is in complete contradiction to the Soviet report and "witnesses", of course, which always assume the Poles to be true Poles shot in Katyn.
---
Now that the initial points have been refuted, will you correct them on your site?
WBR,
Sergey
PS: And that funny "1941" claim - well, do you see 1941 _anywhere_ on the photo itself? Nobody does, but maybe you will be the first.
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
Drop the sarcastic tone! What the hell is wrong with you? Filled with righteous indignation?
Lose it!
Gorbachev did announce the Soviets were guilty.
Unless I find out otherwise, I'll accept your word that he did not announce that any documents had been discovered, and correct my page accordingly.
But do not ask me to believe that Gorbachev would not have known about these documents, if they were genuine.
It is not possible that he did not know about them, if they had really existed. For example, if Chenenko and Andropov had been told, why not Gorbachev? If Gorbachev had been told, it would have been shortly after he was appointed First Secretary, in 1985. Why wait? You don't think that "Galkin", whoever he is or was, would have withheld them from the First Secretary, do you?
Yet you wrote:They weren't "discovered by April 1989" - no more than they were "discovered by April 1981", when they were checked out by Chernenko and Andropov. The matter, however, is not of discovery. The matter is of your original claim:It is not credible to suppose that Gorbachev had not been shown them long before April 1989 -- IF they existed, as is alleged.
But, to repeat: I accept your statement that Gorbachev did not "announce" their discovery.
You wrote:They were published the same year they were made public. Therefore, by your own criterion, the chain of evidence was not broken. Do you concede the point?Evidently you still do not see the problem here.
Whether they were "announced" or not is not pertinent. When they were "discovered" -- known about -- is what is important.
Let me say it again: You cannot convince me that "Galkin" would have withheld knowledge of these documents from the First Secretary. On whose authority could he have done that?
Andropov supposedly saw them in 1981, right? Gorbachev would have _had_ to be told about them early in his Secretaryship, 1985 or 1986, IF they existed then.
So _what happened to them between 1989 -- when "Galkin" put a date on the cover -- and 1992, when they were first published in the Polish volume?
Why didn't Galkin put a date on the cover when he showed them to Gorbachev? He never did show them to Gorbachev? FORGET IT. But then, why no date?
This calls into question ALL the dates Galkin put on that folder! When did "he" -- or whoever -- actually write them? In 1989? In 1981?
How about Khrushchev? Brezhnev? Why does the story with this packet start in 1981?
And so on. THAT's the "chain of evidence" issue.
Mr Romanov, I understand that you are completely committed to accepting the genuineness of these documents.
That's the problem! Because _anybody_ who is not already convinced, as you are, can see that there is a real issue with them.
You can "deny" it all you want. It will do no good.
You can challenge the intelligence, or honesty, of those who disagree with you. Frankly, go that route and, in the long run, you will forfeit any credibility you have now.
You -- and the others who insist the "Soviets did it" -- seem determined to ignore or malign those who do NOT see the "documents" issue _your_ way. And that is simply wrong of you.
It is NOT the case that "people who do not agree with ME, S. Romanov, are ignorant, deluding themselves, or trying to delude others."
As for your insulting statementAgain, I can see that you know about the issues only what you have read in Mukhin's sloppy and deceptive books.please find attached the two pages you cite. I emailed them to a colleague a year or so ago.
Your own translation concedes the point I made. Shelepin does NOT acknowledge either the document itself or, more to the point, knowing anything about Katyn from his years as head of the KGB.About crimes against Polish citizens in Katyn and elsewhere he knows only what had been reported in newspapers." This is a VERY telling statement -- to anybody whose mind is not already made up, that is.Could Shelepin have been lying? Sure! So could virtually everybody else who has made any kind of eye-witness or first-hand statement about Katyn.That's what makes the documents we are discussing so important. And that is why it is so suspicious that the "chain of evidence" was broken.
I don't care whether you see this point, or not.. It's not my job to educate you.
You can either genuinely not understand it, or _pretend_ not to understand it. But there is a _huge, huge problem_ with these documents.
You don't concede this? It doesn't matter at all. Plenty of others do, and will, because it exists!
I do not say Mukhin has proven they are forged. He has made a very good case! I'm not convinced -- if I were, I'd have said so on the web page of mine you have.
But I am convinced of one thing: _these "documents" cannot be used, period._ It is impossible to establish, now, that they are genuine.
I assume you are aware that documents have been forged and inserted into Soviet archives. The mere fact that they are "declared" genuine is not going to cut any ice with anybody who is not already convinced.
There IS a problem with Shelepin. Had he agreed that his letter was genuine, and that he had seen those documents in 1959, the documents would be genuine, period. NOBODY'd deny it! But he didn't.
That doesn't mean the documents are _not_ genuine. For one thing, he could be lying. And it is impossible to prove a negative, in principle.
But is it possible that "he had forgotten, he didn't remember"? The Katyn massacre? Don't ask me to believe that! Forget it. He signed that letter without knowing what it said? He got to be head of the KGB _that_ way?
Forget it! You want to believe that fairy tale, go ahead. NOBODY who is not already convinced of Soviet guilt is going to follow you down _that_ path!
There's "no problem" with Schellenberg? See my last sentence: NOBODY who is not already convinced is going to believe _that_, either!
Why do you keep pretending that there are no complications in all this, that it is "cut and dried"?
For that matter, why keep pretending that, e.g., Mukhin is dishonest in some way? Get real! There are people -- MANY people -- who just do not "buy" the official Gorbachev / Russian government version of the Katyn story.
And -- obviously, at least to me -- there would be many, many MORE such people, if the full story of all these problems were made widely public.
But you do yourself no credit by insisting that Mukhin is dishonest, or crude, or "not credible", or whatever dismissive term you prefer. That is, frankly, nonsense.
I've been told that by others too. But I have actually read his work. It is neither crude nor dishonest.
It's strongly partisan, far from objective history. The same thing -- exactly the same -- is true of your own work, and that of all the "Soviets-did-it" Katyn stuff I've read.
"Mukhin and anti-Mukhin", only it's the other way around -- YOU guys came first!
You wrote:the Soviet side made no claims whatsoever about the corpses being taken from camps to Katyn and masqueraded as Polish officers.Mr Romanov, I have read the accounts that make exactly this claim! I have to assume you have read them too.
What do you gain by pretending they don't exist?
* * * * *
To conclude:
* Thanks, once again, for correcting some errors in my web page. I will correct them, and give you full credit.
However, these are minor issues. The collection of documents we are discussing simply cannot be taken as evidence.
Once again: too bad Shelepin didn't acknowledge them! we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But, he didn't, and that MIGHT be because he didn't remember, or it MIGHT be because he was lying.
Or, it just MIGHT be because he was NOT lying, and they are forgeries.
You don't know, and neither do I. The difference between us is: I acknowledge that I do not know. You are trying to convince somebody: Others? Yourself? that you _do_ know.
I urge you to undertake that detailed study of _Antirossiiskaia Podlost'_ I mentioned. It would help everybody who wants to know the truth about Katyn.
The more I discuss with you, though, the more I think: Not many people really _want_ to know "the truth about Katyn." One side or the other, pro- or anti-Soviet, pro- or anti-Stalin, the vast majority of people who _claim_ to want to know the truth, really don't _act_ that way.
Frankly, at this point I do not believe YOU want to know "the truth." You're not acting like it.
Open up! Recognize the problems and issues that exist. Stop spending so much energy in _denial_!
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
you wrote:But do not ask me to believe that Gorbachev would not have known about these documents, if they were genuine.Let's look at the very message you're replying to:Although Gorbachev did check them out during that time (according to Falin's memoir), he sealed them back and gave them personally to Yeltsin during the power transfer some time later.The only mistake there is that it was Boldin's memoir, which I can correct now, after having refreshed my memory of "Katynskij sindrom".
Next:It is not possible that he did not know about them, if they had really existed. For example, if Chenenko and Andropov had been told, why not Gorbachev?I don't see the relevancy of this question. And I can ask: why Gorbachev? At the time Chernenko was "CC manager", having access to a lot of Party documents, Andropov was the head of KGB. Chernenko had the sealed package for some time, then sent them to Andropov for whatever reason. There is no indication that anything had been discussed at Politburo level.
"Katynskij sindrom" has a good chapter on Gorbachev's decisions, so I'm not sure why all the questions.It is not credible to suppose that Gorbachev had not been shown them long before April 1989 -- IF they existed, as is alleged.He was shown them when he asked to search for Katyn documents - when he thought that he might need them. Why would the matter interest him before that?Evidently you still do not see the problem here.They were never lost in the first place. I'm afraid your "conditions" are rather arbitrary and unfounded. By this logic, any document which had been classified is worthless. After all, it had not been published right after its creation.
Whether they were "announced" or not is not pertinent. When they were "discovered" -- known about -- is what is important.So _what happened to them between 1989 -- when "Galkin" put a date on the cover -- and 1992, when they were first published in the Polish volume?Nothing. They lay in the archive of the IV sector of the General department of CC CPSU (and whatever it had been called later). http://katyn.codis.ru/kdocs1.htmWhy didn't Galkin put a date on the cover when he showed them to Gorbachev? He never did show them to Gorbachev? FORGET IT. But then, why no date?Boldin showed them to Gorbachev (according to his memoir). There is a date put by Galkin on the envelope - 18.IV.89. This corresponds fully to Boldin's memoir (which is quoted in "Katynskij sindrom") that Gorbachev asked to find Katyn documents not long before one of the meetings with Jaruzelski. There was a meeting with Jaruzelski on 27-28.IV.89.How about Khrushchev? Brezhnev? Why does the story with this packet start in 1981?Who said that it does? Inside the packet there's a removed-from-the-record protocol of PB with the decision, on which it is written that it was removed from Osobaya Papka into the sealed packet in agreement with Chernenko on 4.III.1970. That means that the packet existed already in 1970. Actually, it probably was filled gradually, starting with Khrushchev (first the excerpts from PB decision, then in 1965 - Shelepin's letter, then in 1970 - the excerpted protocol). This doesn't really influence anything.please find attached the two pages you cite. I emailed them to a colleague a year or so ago.Unfortunately, the very fact that you have read at least this part of "Katynskij sindrom" before making your statement shows that you have told deliberate untruth, i.e., lied. Just like Mukhin.
Your own translation concedes the point I made. Shelepin does NOT acknowledge either the document itself or, more to the point, knowing anything about Katyn from his years as head of the KGB.
As I have shown, according to the text of KS, Shelepin did acknowledge knowing the document in 1959 and signing it. That you continue to insist otherwise even having the text in black and white before you is truly mind-boggling.
(The part which you have marked has been explained in my previous message, if you didn't notice. The issue is not the extent of Shelepin's knowledge on the topic, which could have been very scarce indeed (his statement is fully consistent with his claim that he did not pursue the matter). The issue is whether Shelepin confirmed the authenticity of the letter - and that he did, according to KS. You may not accept KS' claim, but you can't claim that there is something opposite written in that book.)There IS a problem with Shelepin. Had he agreed that his letter was genuine, and that he had seen those documents in 1959, the documents would be genuine, period. NOBODY'd deny it! But he didn't.You're lying again. Why?
To repeat:Shelepin said that he is categorically against the use of video and audio recording, that he was just three months in the office when somebody shoved these documents to him, that he signed them, practically without carefully considering the essence of the problem, so he remembers nothing. Regarding the letter he said that signed it in 1959, but for some reason there's CC CPSU stamp of 1965.Re: Schellenberg:
[...]
Specifically, Shelepin didn't like that it was written down [in the protocol ~SR] that (as he himself had actually told) after some subordinate's report (probably from the archival section) about a room in the archives that is permanently filled with top secret documents which were useless for work, and his proposal to ask CC CPSU for permission to destroy them, he gave his permission, not knowing the problem itself. Some time later the same subordinate brought him the excerpt from the Politburo decision and the letter to Khruschev with Shelepin's byline. At that time he [Shelepin ~SR] was in office only for three months and before that he hadn't had experience with KGB's activities. From his words, when he was being appointed to that post, he refused several times and obeyed the order only thanks to the Party discipline. In the first months he didn't feel himself to be a professinal in this area, he always trusted everything subordinates were preparing and that's why he had signed the letter to Khrushchev and the draft of the decision of Presidium of CC (as Politburo had been called then) without a careful consideration of the problem. About crimes against Polish citizens in Katyn and elsewhere he knows only what had been reported in newspapers.
[...]
In general, Shelepin interrogated as a witness confirmed the authenticity of the analyzed letter and the facts related in it. He also explained that he personally signed the 1959 CC Presidium decision draft about destruction of Katyn affair documents, and he thinks that this is what had been done.Mr Romanov, I have read the accounts that make exactly this claim! I have to assume you have read them too.You haven't addressed my point. The Soviets' claim (based on "witnesses'" statements) was that most corpses in Katyn belonged to the Poles from ON camps who were shot in that exact location, not to 12,000 corpses from unknown concentration camps who had been transported to Katyn and disguised as Polish officers.
What do you gain by pretending they don't exist?
Here's one such "witness'" claim:
http://katyn.codis.ru/cccp054.htmIn early March 1943, he was sent to the Katyn forest with a column of 100 prisoners of war from the camp. There they were all ordered, including Jegorow, to excavate graves containing corpses in Polish officers's uniforms, to drag these corpses out of the graves, and to remove all documents, photographs, and other objects from their pockets.True, then there are "testimonies" which mention transportation of Polish corpses into Katyn from elsewhere, but that does not negate the point above, because there is the issue of the forensic conclusions of Burdenko's commission. The report reads:... we must conclude that the bodies of the Polish prisoners of war in the Kosji Gory region were interred about 2 years ago.This simply excludes fresh corpses of non-Poles. This does not exclude old corpses of Polish POWs brought from elsewhere, but the NYT note about Schellenberg clearly states that the corpses from concentration camps were attired in Polish uniforms (i.e., they haven't been in them initially) - which is simply absurd for old corpses. Besides, there is the issue of the uniform itself - it should have been lying in the grave for 2 years too... So, if there would be any fresh non-Polish corpses, that would have been established by the Commission.
Therefore, that note about Schellenberg is simply absurd. It is permissible, of course, to hypothesize that the "broken phone" is at work here, and the alleged Schellenberg testimony has been garbled by a reporter. However, this brings up the main point which you simply ignore: there is NO Schellenberg interview. It is as good as non-existent, NYT's alleged anonymous "special channels" notwithstanding.
Thus, just as I said, there is no Schellenberg "business".
---However, these are minor issues.I agree that given "the big picture", these are "minor issues". However, they're rather illustrative of your modus operandi. Obviously, you have not "looked into this in great depth", contrary to your bold claim. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made such elementary mistakes.
WBR,
Sergey
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
I have looked into this matter "in great depth" -- in comparison with
most people. Not in comparison with you, of course. But so what?
You wrote:Unfortunately, the very fact that you have read at least this part of "Katynskij sindrom" before making your statement shows that you have told deliberate untruth, i.e., lied. Just like Mukhin.No, I did not "lie." And I am not going to discuss this stuff with someone who accuses me of dishonesty.
Mr Romanov, get this. YOU are dishonest. You refuse to see the problems with the documents. You do not WANT to see them.
That is intellectual dishonesty. I did not put it this way before. But
that's what it is.As I have shown, according to the text of KS, Shelepin did acknowledge knowing the document in 1959 and signing it. That you continue to insist otherwise even having the text in black and white before you is truly mind-boggling.No, he didn't. He said it was his signature. Nobody denies that. It is not the same thing.
You are never going to convince me, or anybody else, that Shelepin could have signed this document without reading it.
Shelepin neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the letter. He tried to have it "both ways." Who knows why? To protect his pension? To avoid prosecution? I don't know. Evidently you do not know either.
But to pretend, as you do, that he confirmed its authenticity, is to delude yourself. It is simply not credible that he signed this document and still did not know anything about Katyn except what he read in the newspapers.
Do you believe this? Well, go ahead! But you are not going to fool anybody else.
Over and above this, there is the fact that _we really do not know what Shelepin said_. We have the account of the authors of _Katynskii Syndrom_. Why didn't they record this conversation? Why not film it? Why not have a transcript?
Listen, Mr R -- I do not give a damn whether Stalin did it or not. To me, this is an interesting historiographical question. If Stalin had all these Polish officers shot, then he did. If he didn't, then the Germans did.
Do you care? If so, why? What happened, happened. We should be interested in _the truth_, period.
* * * * *
From this and your previous emails, it seems clear that you are determined
* to accept the genuineness of these disputed documents, despite all the problems with them,
* by labelling those who do not accept them "liars."
You are simply not going to convince anybody this way.
Frankly, you are so exercised about this matter that my suspicions are aroused. Why all the passion?
I suspect that the Germans really did this. I'm not at all certain of that. But the antics of the "Soviets-did-it" group, yourself among them, makes me thing: "What do these people have to hide?"
You keep coming back to the Burdenko report. I said nothing about it, and still don't. It may be right; wrong; or some of each.
It is NOT the case, as you seem to believe, that if the Burdenko Report is "wrong," then the Soviets did it!
* * * * *
I'll give you my guess, based on all this plus on reading Mukhin, your stuff, Lebedeva, et al.
You are all right. And you are all wrong.
* The idea that the Germans "told the truth" is ridiculous. They may have told _part_ of the truth. But to take the _Amtliches Material..._ as "true" is just Cold War nonsense.
* To accept the "Eltsin documents" as genuine simply shows that you don't want to know what happened.
My guess is this: a little of both.
* The Soviets executed some of the Polish officers -- somewhere! Those who had been tried and convicted of something against the Soviets, either in 1920 or at some other time.
* The Germans executed a LOT of Polish officers, hence the German bullets (as for the Soviets having used German firearms -- forget it. No jury would ever believe it, and I don't either).
The Germans mixed up the two, and then wrote up the report.
* Why the "1941" date in the German report? Because the material was sent back to Berlin to be printed, and some clerk actually READ the document, and put in the right date. Likewise, Burdenko said he'd found dates after 1940 - perfectly credible.
So who is right, by this theory: Both -- and neither.
You and Mukhin are, in a basic way, very similar. You both want it "all one way." How neat! if history -- reality -- worked like that!
My guess is that it is not so neat.
* The Nazis did not "tell the truth."
* Neither did Burdenko -- whose study was very short in any case.
* The Nazis did bring bodies to Katyn. But there were some there already.
The disadvantage of this theory is that it will make nobody happy. So what?
* * * *
As for yourself -- you are simply not objective.
That is true of all the Cold-War anti-Soviet "scholars" that I have read. It's too bad it's the case with you too.
"Stories" about the documents -- "they were seen in 1970", and so on -- are simply that, stories. We have no evidence. It's just paper.
The fact that Gorbachev did not mention them, and his seeing them was not recorded, is devastating, no matter what Boldin says.
I know you don't see this. OK, I don't see your perspective.
That's the way this exchange is going to end. You have not convinced me of the genuineness of these documents. Much less that the Soviets did it -- although I concede they may have. But the evidence isn't there.
I haven't convinced you? but that was never, ever going to happen, was it, Mr Romanov.
You were either going to convince me, or label me a "liar". That is your problem!
You may achieve fame and fortune -- who knows? But you will never, ever be a good historian unless you learn to be objective.
O yes -- and to stop calling those who disagree with you "liars."
Sayonara!
Grover Furr
Montclair SU
Dear Professor Furr, I'm going to publish our exchange on the Holocaust Controversies blog. Do you have any objections?Grover Furr:
WBR,
Sergey
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
No, you may not publish what I wrote to you. Those emails are private.
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
why you don't want the exchange to be published?
WBR,
Sergey
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
Pardon my saying the obvious, but yours is a dishonest question. Dishonest, because you know the answer.
In the letter of mine I put on the Internet and which you saw, I stated very firmly and clearly that I am NOT going to publish anything about Katyn.
Here's what I wrote -- as you know very well:I have been asked to get into this -- that is, to write about it. After all, it's a 'great mystery' -- right? But I have refused, and am going to refuse forever.I have not reread all this Katyn stuff in at least 18 months. If I HAD wanted to publish anything about the Katyn business -- and as you know, I have written that I do NOT want to do so -- I would have only written it after thoroughly studying all the materials again, with -- no doubt -- new material that I'd not previously studied.
Here is what is dishonest -- I use the word advisedly -- about your request.
You KNEW, before you wrote me even one time, that I was not going to publish anything about Katyn.
Yet here you are, "asking." What's THAT about?
Mr Romanov, you have a big problem. You're an intelligent and, for all I can see, a hard-working person.
But you have a big, big failing, or a couple of them.
You think that history is some kind of "debate." If you "win" the "debate", then YOU are right.
You think that people who study the same documents you do, but come to different conclusions, are "liars".
These faults have led you to want to publish our exchange, when
1. you knew from the beginning I'd never agree.
2. you knew you are more up-to-date with all the Katyn materials than I am, who have never made it a special study.
So you want to "win" some kind of debate with me. Nonsense -- and, dishonest.
These attitudes can ruin all the good that you might conceivably do.
Think about it. Change!
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr,Grover Furr:
so, basically, you don't want anything published because during our exchange you wrote some rather embarrassing things off the top of your head (even though very embarrassing (as I have shown) claims have _already_ been _published_ on your own site for anyone to see, which was the reason I wrote to you in the first place)?
WBR,
Sergey
Dear Mr Romanov:Sergey Romanov:
A word about "embarrassment" -- something you should have learned long before now.
When I make an error, it does not "embarrass" me. There is NOBODY who does not make errors. Errors are part of the process of discovering the truth. They are unavoidable.
You corrected me on a few points. I thanked you. What do you want -- a medal?
But there are plenty of foolish people who ARE embarrassed when they make errors.
If I had written the emails you wrote during our exchange -- or, the emails you have sent me yesterday and today -- THEN I'd be embarrassed. Embarrassed that I had acted with self-righteousness and arrogance.
This is your problem, Mr R. You just HAVE to be "right"!
I TOLD you why I don't want to publish anything on Katyn. But no, YOU can't accept that! YOU must "know best."
Your arrogance is what spoils you as an historian. I've explained that to you before.
You don't want to listen! No problem -- for me. A big problem for you.
IF you were dedicated to discovering the truth, you would stop denying the interesting aspects of the Katyn affair that contradict your neat story.
But you are not interested in the truth.
You are dedicated to showing everybody how "smart" YOU, Sergey Romanov, are. And how "dishonest", what "liars" those who disagree with you are.
You don't agree with Mukhin? So what? Nobody forces you to, or says you should.
But Mukhin's version has many compelling aspects. Instead of forthrightly dealing with them, you prefer to deny them.
Mukhin disagrees with Romanov? Mukhin must be a liar, unprincipled, biased. As though YOU are not biased!
What are you looking for, anyway? Some kind of "verbal triumph"? You want to "show off", on your blog maybe, how "smart" you were, how you "defeated" me about Katyn? Or, perhaps, how you think I am a "liar", like Mukhin, and everybody who disagrees with YOUR version of events? How pathetic!
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
Dear Professor Furr, thanks for another long-winded, ad-hominem-filled reply. If you're indeed not embarrassed about our illuminating exchange, there is no credible reason not to make it public. Indeed, it would be a shame not to publish it.And it did.
With this, I hope, our "discussion" comes to an end.
WBR,
Sergey
Such is ideology-driven denial in all its "glory". Note in the last on-topic message (before the permission-to-publish messages) how Furr tries to change the topic and how his tricks have been foreseen by me. For example, he tries to cast doubt on Russian military prosecutor Yablokov's narrative about the interrogation of Shelepin:
Over and above this, there is the fact that _we really do not know what Shelepin said_. We have the account of the authors of _Katynskii Syndrom_. Why didn't they record this conversation? Why not film it? Why not have a transcript?Furr completely ignored what I wrote earlier:
One may as well dismiss this description by a military prosecutor (as you will probably do), but the fact remains: Mukhin "interpreted" the text completely reversing its meaning. If that's not enough, I don't know what it will take to shake your faith in Mukhin's honesty and thoroughness.I.e., it's not even the correctness of the narrative that matters, but rather its distortion by a dishonest Stalin-apologist.
Furr also completely ignored what "Katynskij sindrom" authors wrote:
Shelepin said that he is categorically against the use of video and audio recording ...I quoted this twice! Moreover, since Furr has an access to the original Russian text, he also fully knows about the issue about the transcript, which completely answers his question, even if not to his satisfaction.
Of course, such evasive tricks pale in comparison with the deliberate lie about Shelepin not admitting the genuineness of 1959 letter in Yablokov's narrative. When one goes against what the text plainly says, is there a reason to continue the conversation?
I will leave it to you, dear readers, to find other parallels with the Holocaust denial.
PS: "As is the case with conservative writers generally, Horowitz has no regard for the truth. Not only does he publish false statements, but when they are pointed out he acts as though they do not matter." ~ Grover Furr.
PPS: In case you wonder about me posting Furr's messages against his wish: he does the same to other people. I contacted the person referred to in the above page and he told me that not only he did not give his permission to Furr to post their exchange online, he actually objected to this, but Furr didn't care. In fact, here's Furr's e-mail:
Sent: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:23 AMWell, I sure think that Prof. Furr's students and many other people will find this page amusing and instructive! ;-)
Subject: Re: one (maybe last) thing
Dear Mr Dedinas:
Good to hear from you again!
You wrote:
> You do not have my permission to do so. I will not be part of any
> Stalinist propaganda. Do this and I'll see you in court.
> You really want the publicity you'll get in court being a Stalinist
> Holocaust denier? Think about it.
Mr Dedinas, I do not need your permission to make such a page.
Please find it attached, as a PDF file. You will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to open it.
My students and, no doubt, many others, will find it amusing and instructive.
Thank you for such a productive exchange of views! Good luck to you in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Grover Furr
[Update (30.03.2007): Furr has removed Dedinas' e-mails from his site.]
Monday, May 22, 2006
Evolution denial, Holocaust denial. Same stuff, if you ask me.
A noted anti-evolutionist moonbat Casey Luskin makes a fuss about atheist anti-creationist Larry Darby, who also happens to be a Holocaust denier.
He also complains that some "Darwinists" have compared ID creationism to Holocaust denial. Well, boo-hoo! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Orac urges to be cautious about such analogies. I respectfully disagree.
It is true that every time evolution denial methodology is compared to Holocaust denial methodology, both denier groups tend to be offended (that is, unless someone is both an evolution denier and a Holocaust denier).
That does not detract from the validity of the comparison. Moreover, the comparison is almost perfect - moon landing denial does not come close. Here are several most important similarities - as I see them.
1) No credible alternative (scientific/historical) theory.
Evolution deniers cannot account for existing evidence for evolution. At best they don't offer any alternative, at worst they appeal to some sort of miraculous Designer and implausible ad hoc arguments.
Holocaust deniers cannot account for the missing Jews. Stupid deniers simply say that none are missing, without explaining where millions of Jews deported to specific places, and not found there after the war, went. Smart deniers are silent on the issue.
2) "We don't deny micro...!" tactic.
With some exceptions, evolution deniers love to repeat that they accept microevolution, but not macroevolution.
Not quite in the same terms, but Holocaust deniers use the same rhetoric. You can often read that such and such does not deny the [micro-]Holocaust. Sure, bad things happened to, maybe, a million or so Jews - typhus, you know. But there were no gas chambers and no systematic extermination [i.e., no macro-Holocaust].
3) "No empirical evidence" whine.
Evolution deniers often claim that there is no empirical evidence for evolution, e.g. speciation, or transitional fossils.
Holocaust deniers claim that there are no credible documents proving the Holocaust, or that there are no mass graves.
4) "What do they have to hide?/Persecution!" demagoguery.
Evolution deniers sometimes claim to be persecuted, and charge that "Darwinists" are out to stifle the "debate", as if they have something to hide.
Holocaust deniers at least have grounds for claiming that they're persecuted (in several countries), and they also argue that this persecution has something to do with stifling the "debate", and hiding something.
5) Search for irrelevant "icons".
Evolution deniers are fond of complaining about the so-called "icons of evolution" (gill slits, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths), which complaints, even if true, would not establish the falsifty of evolution. This has nothing to do with truth-seeking, these "icons" are used for purely rhetorical purposes.
In exactly the same fashion Holocaust deniers try to "debunk" the Holocaust by bringing up minor and irrelevant details, such as human soap and lampshades, Dachau gas chamber, or Auschwitz plaque with 4,000,000 victims.
6) "Show me, step by step!"
Evolution deniers (especially ID creationists) are fond of demanding to describe, step by step, evolutionary pathways leading to the biological systems of their choice (usually, the so-called "irreducibly complex" systems). When plausible, though maybe not "step-by-step", pathways are presented, they're routinely dismissed. If no pathway is presented, evolution deniers claim victory.
Many Holocaust deniers are fond of Robert Faurisson's "Show me or draw me a gas chamber!" slogan. Of course, when the drawing is presented, this changes exactly nothing.
7) "Exception disproves the rule" rule.
A widespread tactic. E.g., evolution deniers argue [PDF] that variant genetic codes prove that the genetic code itself is not universal, and that these codes actually present a challenge to common descent.
Similarly, Holocaust deniers argue that if Anne Frank was deported to Auschwitz, but wasn't gassed there, and rather died of typhus in Bergen Belsen, then the "story" about murderous selections in Auschwitz is not true (regardless of specific circumstances which may have caused the exception).
Addendum: 8) And, of course, both Holocaust and evolution deniers claim that, respectively, the Holocaust and evolution are religions, and blame all sorts of real and alleged social ills on them. Holocaust deniers usually blame the "Holocaust industry" for persecution of Palestinians and post-war liberalism. Evolution deniers usually associate evolution with moral decay, atheism and liberalism. Holocaust deniers sometimes produce an alleged quote by Claude Lanzmann that "Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ" to prove that the "Holohoax" is an attack on Christianity. In the same vein evolution deniers like to quote Dawkins' attacks on Christianity.
There are more similarities, but that's already enough to show the almost identical modus operandi of both denial groups.
Now, on a purely rational level it is absolutely irrelevant that Holocaust denial is extremely offensive. If it were a legitimate critique, it should have been taught without any regard for "offensiveness". If it is factual, it should be taught.
Therefore the question about why we can teach evolution denial ("the controversy") but not Holocaust denial (also "the controversy") is absolutely legitimate. Those evolution deniers who would try to change the topic and complain about unfair comparison to "the Nazis" are demagogues, pure and simple.
He also complains that some "Darwinists" have compared ID creationism to Holocaust denial. Well, boo-hoo! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Orac urges to be cautious about such analogies. I respectfully disagree.
It is true that every time evolution denial methodology is compared to Holocaust denial methodology, both denier groups tend to be offended (that is, unless someone is both an evolution denier and a Holocaust denier).
That does not detract from the validity of the comparison. Moreover, the comparison is almost perfect - moon landing denial does not come close. Here are several most important similarities - as I see them.
1) No credible alternative (scientific/historical) theory.
Evolution deniers cannot account for existing evidence for evolution. At best they don't offer any alternative, at worst they appeal to some sort of miraculous Designer and implausible ad hoc arguments.
Holocaust deniers cannot account for the missing Jews. Stupid deniers simply say that none are missing, without explaining where millions of Jews deported to specific places, and not found there after the war, went. Smart deniers are silent on the issue.
2) "We don't deny micro...!" tactic.
With some exceptions, evolution deniers love to repeat that they accept microevolution, but not macroevolution.
Not quite in the same terms, but Holocaust deniers use the same rhetoric. You can often read that such and such does not deny the [micro-]Holocaust. Sure, bad things happened to, maybe, a million or so Jews - typhus, you know. But there were no gas chambers and no systematic extermination [i.e., no macro-Holocaust].
3) "No empirical evidence" whine.
Evolution deniers often claim that there is no empirical evidence for evolution, e.g. speciation, or transitional fossils.
Holocaust deniers claim that there are no credible documents proving the Holocaust, or that there are no mass graves.
4) "What do they have to hide?/Persecution!" demagoguery.
Evolution deniers sometimes claim to be persecuted, and charge that "Darwinists" are out to stifle the "debate", as if they have something to hide.
Holocaust deniers at least have grounds for claiming that they're persecuted (in several countries), and they also argue that this persecution has something to do with stifling the "debate", and hiding something.
5) Search for irrelevant "icons".
Evolution deniers are fond of complaining about the so-called "icons of evolution" (gill slits, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths), which complaints, even if true, would not establish the falsifty of evolution. This has nothing to do with truth-seeking, these "icons" are used for purely rhetorical purposes.
In exactly the same fashion Holocaust deniers try to "debunk" the Holocaust by bringing up minor and irrelevant details, such as human soap and lampshades, Dachau gas chamber, or Auschwitz plaque with 4,000,000 victims.
6) "Show me, step by step!"
Evolution deniers (especially ID creationists) are fond of demanding to describe, step by step, evolutionary pathways leading to the biological systems of their choice (usually, the so-called "irreducibly complex" systems). When plausible, though maybe not "step-by-step", pathways are presented, they're routinely dismissed. If no pathway is presented, evolution deniers claim victory.
Many Holocaust deniers are fond of Robert Faurisson's "Show me or draw me a gas chamber!" slogan. Of course, when the drawing is presented, this changes exactly nothing.
7) "Exception disproves the rule" rule.
A widespread tactic. E.g., evolution deniers argue [PDF] that variant genetic codes prove that the genetic code itself is not universal, and that these codes actually present a challenge to common descent.
Similarly, Holocaust deniers argue that if Anne Frank was deported to Auschwitz, but wasn't gassed there, and rather died of typhus in Bergen Belsen, then the "story" about murderous selections in Auschwitz is not true (regardless of specific circumstances which may have caused the exception).
Addendum: 8) And, of course, both Holocaust and evolution deniers claim that, respectively, the Holocaust and evolution are religions, and blame all sorts of real and alleged social ills on them. Holocaust deniers usually blame the "Holocaust industry" for persecution of Palestinians and post-war liberalism. Evolution deniers usually associate evolution with moral decay, atheism and liberalism. Holocaust deniers sometimes produce an alleged quote by Claude Lanzmann that "Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ" to prove that the "Holohoax" is an attack on Christianity. In the same vein evolution deniers like to quote Dawkins' attacks on Christianity.
There are more similarities, but that's already enough to show the almost identical modus operandi of both denial groups.
Now, on a purely rational level it is absolutely irrelevant that Holocaust denial is extremely offensive. If it were a legitimate critique, it should have been taught without any regard for "offensiveness". If it is factual, it should be taught.
Therefore the question about why we can teach evolution denial ("the controversy") but not Holocaust denial (also "the controversy") is absolutely legitimate. Those evolution deniers who would try to change the topic and complain about unfair comparison to "the Nazis" are demagogues, pure and simple.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
'Commentary' mangles Prof. Charny's letter
[Source]
`Protestcide' - The Killing of Protest of a Denial of Genocide
Armenian News Network / Groong
March 27, 2006
by Israel W. Charny
To what extent does a publication have the right to alter a Letter to
the Editor that criticizes the publication, and then to publish their
altered version of the letter without the full permission of the
letter writer, especially in light of his explicit refusal to approve
their revision?
In December 2005, Commentary published a lengthy article denying the
Armenian Genocide by one, Guenter Lewy, a retired professor who has
previously published denials of other genocides as well, including a
denial that the Gypsies were victims of genocide in WW II (Simon
Wiesenthal defended the role of the Gypsies as fellow victims of the
Holocaust, and on several occasions wrote and told passionately of
seeing the Gypsies in Auschwitz in the barracks right next to his);
and including a denial that the Native Americans (Indians) were
victims of genocide in America. It is clear that Lewy has established
himself as an arch specialist in denial who has now relegated no less
than three victim peoples to some kind of status of sufferers other
than victims of genocidal mass murder. I think that readers of this
current Commentary piece denying there was a genocide of the Armenians
had a right to know of the author's previous publications of denials
(one of which was also in Commentary), but not a word was mentioned.
Lewy's article in Commentary is entitled, `The first genocide of the
20th century?' Lewy himself mentions in his article that the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, of which I am the
current president, had passed a unanimous resolution some years ago
confirming the validity of the Armenian Genocide. When Commentary was
approached by a colleague as to whether they would publish a rejoinder
to Lewy's article by me, the editor agreed immediately to receive a
600-word statement from me. So far to their credit. But then in the
grotesque sequence of censorship and revisions of my rejoinder that
follows, Commentary at first refused to identify my connection to the
same Association that passed the resolution, and finally did in fact
identify me as somehow affiliated with the Association but eliminated
identifying my leadership role. A personal slight? Then it's
irrelevant. Or is it a diminution of the significance of my protest?
In the meantime, Commentary published a lengthy rejoinder by Lewy in
the same issue with the following statement that, by a wave of the
Lewy-Commentary wand removes any significance to our association's
informed judgment: `I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian
case `was one of the major genocides of the modern era' writes Denier
Lewy conclusively and then presumptuously slams the members of the
association that virtually no one (but him) has done real research.
No matter. Commentary commits more serious infringements to the point
of not allowing me to voice my definite judgment about their question,
`The first genocide of the 20th century?'
In my letter I write about how the Turks also killed other Christian
(therefore non-Turkish) groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks as
well as the Armenians (the first Christian people of Europe) and that
this was `outright genocidal murder.' Commentary removed this vital
statement from my letter. Remember, the article by Lewy they have
published is asking explicitly if this was genocide, and the section
of Letters to the Editor in February is re-entitled, `Genocide?' but
my clear-cut rejoinder that it was `outright genocidal murder' was not
permitted.
Moreover, what does Lewy do? I say in my letter that I wonder if
readers of the Jewish-sponsored Commentary (this remark by me is also
censored out) know that the Turks were also responsible for two forced
expulsions of Jews from Jaffa-Tel Aviv in 1914 and 1917, both of which
resulted in losses of life of the elderly, infirm and ill. As if
referring to this information, Lewy says to me in his rejoinder,
`Mr. Charny stops short of calling these occurrences `genocide,'' but
he and the hard-working editor who we have seen manages to censor my
writing so fastidiously, thus manage to get across a message that
seems to refer to the whole bigger original issue of the Armenian
Genocide. Now, not only have I not been allowed to say what I did say
that there was clear-cut genocide, but it is as if claimed explicitly
that I too don't call the Ottoman murders genocide.
Higher-class deniers, like Lewy and Commentary, are a fascinating
study in the propagandistic logic-defying language mechanisms they
employ -- Commentary also removed from my letter a reference to an
article that Daphna Fromer and myself published in the British
journal, Patterns of Prejudice in which we analyzed the language-logic
of earlier deniers of the Armenian Genocide.
Ultimately, my most serious criticism is that Commentary is fully
responsible alongside of its author for publishing a bald exposition
of denial of an established major genocide. Thus, I conclude my
letter, `Regrettably, Mr. Lewy and Commentary too have now earned
places in the pantheon of genocide Deniers,' but -- by now you guessed
it -- you will never see that sentence, or an earlier statement
similarly critical of Commentary in the letter they published.
I ask, do responsible publications in a free world have the right to
censor and arbitrarily revise Letters to the Editor beyond
considerations of space, bad language such as epithets, and ad hominem
attacks (but not legitimate major criticisms of an author or the
publication!)? Obviously a publication holds the ultimate power and
can simply decline to publish a letter (who will ever know?). But to
cut and revise and remove and distort the thrust of the original
message, and fail to advise and fail to get approval of changes? I
don't know if there are legal controls against such tampering with the
lowly institution of a Letter to an Editor and/or op-ed writing, but I
do know such tampering violates the `natural law' of journalistic
integrity, and I think Commentary should be told so by an informed
public.
--
Prof. Israel W. Charny, Ph.D. is President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide [www.abc-clio.com/product/109124] Executive Director,
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem Prof. of Psychology
& Family Therapy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel & Fax:
972-2-672-0424 e-mail: encygeno@mail.com Author of forthcoming book,
Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind, by the University of Nebraska
Press, May 2006
An e-mail transcript of all texts and correspondence between me and
Commentary is available immediately on request to encygeno@mail.com
`Protestcide' - The Killing of Protest of a Denial of Genocide
Armenian News Network / Groong
March 27, 2006
by Israel W. Charny
To what extent does a publication have the right to alter a Letter to
the Editor that criticizes the publication, and then to publish their
altered version of the letter without the full permission of the
letter writer, especially in light of his explicit refusal to approve
their revision?
In December 2005, Commentary published a lengthy article denying the
Armenian Genocide by one, Guenter Lewy, a retired professor who has
previously published denials of other genocides as well, including a
denial that the Gypsies were victims of genocide in WW II (Simon
Wiesenthal defended the role of the Gypsies as fellow victims of the
Holocaust, and on several occasions wrote and told passionately of
seeing the Gypsies in Auschwitz in the barracks right next to his);
and including a denial that the Native Americans (Indians) were
victims of genocide in America. It is clear that Lewy has established
himself as an arch specialist in denial who has now relegated no less
than three victim peoples to some kind of status of sufferers other
than victims of genocidal mass murder. I think that readers of this
current Commentary piece denying there was a genocide of the Armenians
had a right to know of the author's previous publications of denials
(one of which was also in Commentary), but not a word was mentioned.
Lewy's article in Commentary is entitled, `The first genocide of the
20th century?' Lewy himself mentions in his article that the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, of which I am the
current president, had passed a unanimous resolution some years ago
confirming the validity of the Armenian Genocide. When Commentary was
approached by a colleague as to whether they would publish a rejoinder
to Lewy's article by me, the editor agreed immediately to receive a
600-word statement from me. So far to their credit. But then in the
grotesque sequence of censorship and revisions of my rejoinder that
follows, Commentary at first refused to identify my connection to the
same Association that passed the resolution, and finally did in fact
identify me as somehow affiliated with the Association but eliminated
identifying my leadership role. A personal slight? Then it's
irrelevant. Or is it a diminution of the significance of my protest?
In the meantime, Commentary published a lengthy rejoinder by Lewy in
the same issue with the following statement that, by a wave of the
Lewy-Commentary wand removes any significance to our association's
informed judgment: `I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian
case `was one of the major genocides of the modern era' writes Denier
Lewy conclusively and then presumptuously slams the members of the
association that virtually no one (but him) has done real research.
No matter. Commentary commits more serious infringements to the point
of not allowing me to voice my definite judgment about their question,
`The first genocide of the 20th century?'
In my letter I write about how the Turks also killed other Christian
(therefore non-Turkish) groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks as
well as the Armenians (the first Christian people of Europe) and that
this was `outright genocidal murder.' Commentary removed this vital
statement from my letter. Remember, the article by Lewy they have
published is asking explicitly if this was genocide, and the section
of Letters to the Editor in February is re-entitled, `Genocide?' but
my clear-cut rejoinder that it was `outright genocidal murder' was not
permitted.
Moreover, what does Lewy do? I say in my letter that I wonder if
readers of the Jewish-sponsored Commentary (this remark by me is also
censored out) know that the Turks were also responsible for two forced
expulsions of Jews from Jaffa-Tel Aviv in 1914 and 1917, both of which
resulted in losses of life of the elderly, infirm and ill. As if
referring to this information, Lewy says to me in his rejoinder,
`Mr. Charny stops short of calling these occurrences `genocide,'' but
he and the hard-working editor who we have seen manages to censor my
writing so fastidiously, thus manage to get across a message that
seems to refer to the whole bigger original issue of the Armenian
Genocide. Now, not only have I not been allowed to say what I did say
that there was clear-cut genocide, but it is as if claimed explicitly
that I too don't call the Ottoman murders genocide.
Higher-class deniers, like Lewy and Commentary, are a fascinating
study in the propagandistic logic-defying language mechanisms they
employ -- Commentary also removed from my letter a reference to an
article that Daphna Fromer and myself published in the British
journal, Patterns of Prejudice in which we analyzed the language-logic
of earlier deniers of the Armenian Genocide.
Ultimately, my most serious criticism is that Commentary is fully
responsible alongside of its author for publishing a bald exposition
of denial of an established major genocide. Thus, I conclude my
letter, `Regrettably, Mr. Lewy and Commentary too have now earned
places in the pantheon of genocide Deniers,' but -- by now you guessed
it -- you will never see that sentence, or an earlier statement
similarly critical of Commentary in the letter they published.
I ask, do responsible publications in a free world have the right to
censor and arbitrarily revise Letters to the Editor beyond
considerations of space, bad language such as epithets, and ad hominem
attacks (but not legitimate major criticisms of an author or the
publication!)? Obviously a publication holds the ultimate power and
can simply decline to publish a letter (who will ever know?). But to
cut and revise and remove and distort the thrust of the original
message, and fail to advise and fail to get approval of changes? I
don't know if there are legal controls against such tampering with the
lowly institution of a Letter to an Editor and/or op-ed writing, but I
do know such tampering violates the `natural law' of journalistic
integrity, and I think Commentary should be told so by an informed
public.
--
Prof. Israel W. Charny, Ph.D. is President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide [www.abc-clio.com/product/109124] Executive Director,
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem Prof. of Psychology
& Family Therapy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel & Fax:
972-2-672-0424 e-mail: encygeno@mail.com Author of forthcoming book,
Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind, by the University of Nebraska
Press, May 2006
An e-mail transcript of all texts and correspondence between me and
Commentary is available immediately on request to encygeno@mail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)