What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre: The Evidence, the Solution
In April 1943, German authorities claimed that they had found the bodies of more than 4,000 Polish prisoners of war buried near Katyn, in the Western Soviet Union. The Polish exile government in London agreed with the Germans. In January, 1944, Soviet authorities issued a report claiming that the Germans had murdered the Polish POWs. In 1990-92 Soviet, then Russian authorities agreed that the Soviets were indeed the guilty party. But by 2010 serious evidence had been discovered that cast doubt on Soviet guilt. There has never been an objective, thorough study of this mystery - until now. All mainstream accounts blame the USSR - Stalin - for the deaths, while all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Grover Furr has identified, obtained, and studied all the evidence, and has also studied all the supposedly "authoritative" scholarly accounts of Katyn, with skill and - what is most important - with objectivity. In this book he lays out the evidence and solves this mystery for once and for all.
269 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2018
3 people are currently reading
131 people want to read
About the author
Grover Furr
28 books146 followersGrover Furr (Dr. Grover Carr Furr III) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
He has researched and published extensive material on Soviet history (with an emphasis on the Stalin period) and on academic Sovietology from a critical perspective, for over four decades. Furr is a critic of anglophone and Western historiography of the USSR and of what he calls "the anti-Stalin paradigm" (a critique to which much of his bibliography attends).
He has researched and published extensive material on Soviet history (with an emphasis on the Stalin period) and on academic Sovietology from a critical perspective, for over four decades. Furr is a critic of anglophone and Western historiography of the USSR and of what he calls "the anti-Stalin paradigm" (a critique to which much of his bibliography attends).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 26, 2019
The Katyn massacre
This is an engrossing work of historiography on a topic that even such a great historian as Domenico Losurdo (probably in order to get published) has conceded as a Soviet action but that was explainable as against elements of a fanatical cadre of Polish nationalists who were captured fighting the Soviet Army that, once there ceased to be a Polish government, after some due consideration moved iinto the “Krezy (or borderlands)” to meet the Nazi armies that had invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Losurdo offered examples of analogous plans by the U.S. military against the Nazi leadership proclaimed at Yalta to balance with supposed Soviet guilt. That even Losurdo accepted Soviet guilt for the Katyn massacre shows just how generally it has been accepted. The story of a Soviet massacre of Polish officers they captured when the USSR “invaded” Poland supposedly in conjunction with the nazi blitzkrieg in the autumn of 1939 is part of a matched set of tales of anti-Soviet mythology about Poland and World War II, that includes the USSR supposedly agreeing with Hitler to partition Poland, a subsequent invasion supposedly in conjunction with the Nazi war machine and then supposed Nazi-style massacres of captured Polish officers. The story of this new study by Grover Furr is that the Soviets-did-it massacre scenario doesn’t (nor have the other elements) withstand unbiased scholarship. But the fascination is in the details.
Grover Furr has previously debunked the notion of an invasion of Poland by the USSR here: (http://www.cjournal.info/2009/09/01/D...) By Archivist39 (http://www.cjournal.info/author/archi...). The Polish government fled into Romania (then neutral), leaving the country without a government which the USSR could have helped reestablish in eastern Poland. One reason for the Soviet decision to enter Poland was based on the need to prevent the German armies from reaching the border of the USSR. Additionally, Furr and others have debunked the ludicrous notion of the German-Soviet non-aggression treaty as an “alliance”. Exemplifying how the nonaggression treaty is typically characterized in historical writing in the west, a shabbily dishonest title of a book I once read about the treaty was “The Deadly Embrace”.
EVIDENCE
Only a tiny proportion of the voluminous published material on the Katyn Massacre is primary source material. All the primary evidence is in four collections of documents. The version of the Katyn massacre that is accepted without serious question is essentially based on the report of a Nazi government investigative commission.
Furr focuses on what best qualifies as reliable evidence from the four reports or documents that could not be fabricated. Such evidence fits these two descriptions: 1) goes against the bias of the source and 2) cited by a source without at the time understanding its significance. This turns out to be a powerful body of evidence.
The German report is parsed and shown to be full of unfounded assertions or distortions : all the bullets found in the mass graves at the massacre site are of German origin, from a single manufacturer, who informed the German commission how markings on the bottom of shell casings would indicate when the bullets were made. No Soviet shells were found by the German investigators. If any had been found, they surely would have been reported by the Germans. The Germans claimed that the markings on all the shells indicated ammo of a period that could have been sold to the Soviets 10 years before. Presenting photographs of the markings on the base of shell casings would have confirmed the German claims (of all the bullets being from 1930-31) beyond dispute. Instead, photos of the supposed 10 year-old shell casings the Soviets supposedly used were only side views. The West accepts the German conclusions about Katyn despite all the bullets being German and despite the suspicious failure of the German to provide confirmation of their claims when they could have. Someone new to the subject of the Katyn Massacre would be astounded that despite such a gaping hole in the story propagated by Nazis, there was not instant, serious and enduring doubt about its veracity.
The Soviets-did-it side has relied on the German report of Katyn-NONE OTHER-to impute guilt to the Soviets, All the reports and “takes” on the Katyn massacre agree that the Soviet transit lists are genuine. Without any evidence, proponents of the accepted version of Katyn have construed these lists to be transport-to-execution lists. This was because the German report asserted that prisoners were sent from the original three POW camps to three NKVD camps for execution, one of the NKVD camps being near Katyn. But Polish POWs who were supposed to have been executed at other than Katyn kept turning up at Katyn and another site in the Ukraine, Volodymyr-Volyns’kiy (V/V) which is a recognized Nazi massacre site. Mention of such "outsider" prisoners is omitted in the updated western narratives of the massacre/massacres. As one of many examples, the body of a man named Zigon was found among the dead at Katyn. He was previously at one of the Soviet NKVD camps where it is claimed by the official version, all prisoners were executed, thus he and many others shouldn’t have been there if the official narrative was true. His presence at Katyn among the dead means neither he nor those he was buried with were executed by other than the Germans (documents on his person indicate he lived past the time it was claimed the Soviets executed POWs at Katyn). The German report stated that none of the paper documents found in the graves were dated after April 1940 as proof that the Poles were killed prior and up to this date (the forensic principle of terminus post quem actually means the holders of the documents were killed sometime after that time period of April-May 1940, even long after). The error in logic that the dates of documents found on the victims to be indicative of the approximate date of death rather than, correctly, the date sometime after which the killings occurred was made by both the Germans and the associated Poles, despite the error being both so fundamental and unlikely to have been made by qualified personnel of any background. Thus above, three clear and irrefutable instances of German dishonesty.
To believe the German report on Katyn one must dishonestly dismiss the Soviet report out of hand. This is done uniformly in the anti-Soviet literature. The Soviet Burdenko Commission investigators looked for proof of life beyond when Soviets were alleged to have massacred the Polish POWs. One prisoner found at Katyn who had documents dated only to 1939 was therefore not of interest to the Soviet commission, who were looking for documents dated after May 1940. However, this Katyn prisoner was otherwise found to have an evidence trail that proves that he was killed after when the Soviets were alleged to have executed Polish POWs and that his presence in the mass graves at Katyn supports the Soviet version of how the POWs got there. Four others with similar histories are known, serving in conjunction with additional evidence to fatally undermine the official story. Such evidence was covered up by pro-Soviet-guilt operatives. The Soviet inquiry did not have the transit lists at the time of the investigation so could not have known that the presence of numerous prisoners in the burials at Katyn were unimpeachably contradictory to the Nazi and eventual western-accepted timeline and scenarios of the massacre.
Polish experts on Katyn have covered up irrefutable evidence that Polish POW's were executed by the Germans in 1941-42. The discovery of two police badges by a Polish-Ukrainian anti-Soviet investigation that in summary fatally impugns the official Nazi / Western version is mentioned in such an abbreviated way, i.e. buried, as to be recognizable only by an expert in the matter. The Soviet lists of POWs to be moved from three original POW camps to three NKVD camps were assumed without evidence to be execution lists. Prisoners on the Soviet transportation lists were shown to be alive later than they would be if the lists were execution lists. The official version placed one policeman’s execution at the NKVD camp at Kalinin and burial nearby at Mednoe (no bodies identifiable as Katyn victims have been found at Mednoe). The POWs were proven with later evidence to have been transferred to work camps near Katyn, where they were when the German invaders arrived. Thus, the official narrative was thus invalidated. The Ukrainian side of the joint investigation at V/V does not even mention the presence of the two Polish policemen at V/V who were presumed to have been executed by the NKVD elsewhere and reflects that the Poles now blame the Nazis and their Ukrainian Nationalist auxiliaries and not the Soviets. The Poles provide images of the headstamps of German-made shell casings found in the mass graves at V/V, the UKR do not, more indication of their divergent positions. In summary, the Poles maintaining their stance on Germans executing the Poles and others at V/V effectively undermines the “blame-Soviet” stances on Katyn. 96% of the shell casings are German, dated 1941
The now-familiar forensic presence and the life stage of insects on the corpses when examined would differentially indicate when they had been killed. The German report reported a lack of insects on the exhumed bodies which would indicate they were killed at a time of year when only the Soviets would have killed the prisoners. In reality the Italian expert in the group in his personal minutes associated with the report reported an insect fauna that would indicate a timeline that implicated the Germans.
Evidence of collusion. The Soviets accused the Poles of collaborating with the Germans. The Polish govt-in-exile refused to deny the accusation as absurd (while in fact Polish Red Cross actually collaborated with the German commission at Katyn). The historical evidence is that the anti-communist Polish factions began collaborating with the Nazis after Stalingrad. Others are cited who provide more evidence on how fraudulent the German report on Katyn is.
Either the Germans failed to scrub controverting evidence of their scenario of Soviet guilt for Katyn or they altered evidence so carelessly that it revealed their fraud.
Documents associated with victims were altered so sloppily that incongruities were created that exhibited a pattern of fabrication by the Germans in their report.
There were numerous instances of documents on exhumed Katyn victims that contradict a scenario of Soviet guilt or point directly to German culpability. The Germans also falsified dates on documents otherwise not altered.
Anti-communist historians on Katyn have taken a cue from the Katyn German commission’s pattern of alteration, omission and mischaracterization of evidence. Grover Furr’s typical application of source analysis, as in his other books, exposes the long, pervasive practice of malfeasance by western anti-communist historians. The authors of “definitive” depictions of the official versions of the Katyn massacre are shown to commit a host of malpractices common to those who adhere to the anti-communist paradigm of historiography with:
• several major assertions without supporting evidence of any kind e.g., a purported recantation of his Soviet commission’s findings by Burdenko while two other anti-communist Russians concur that Burdenko remained convinced that the Germans were guilty of the Katyn massacre.
• assumption of truth from anti-communists such as the Nazi commission on Katyn, while rotely dismissing any and all evidence that contradicts to this accepted scenario.
• citation of sources in their work that in fact contain nothing of what they are attributed with
treating of testimony contradictory to the accepted version as coerced without proof while not mentioning evidence that indicates German coercion of witnesses
serial omission of evidence that contradicts the official version.
• misstated events to create a story that would discredit an important witness
selective exclusion of important context or additional facts would greatly modify facts or even serve to devastate the notion of Soviet guilt
distortion or withholding of facts
questionably attributed inconsistencies in testimony by witnesses that would impugn the accepted western scenario
ad-hominum arguments (for example, someone would be dismissed be “silly”)
unfounded characterization of the findings off the Soviet Report, baseless attribution of dishonest motives to the Soviet researchers.
This behavior creates an air of evasion of full, honest elucidation of the best-supported, fullest explanation of the events. The authors of the resulting shoddy literature bring shame on the history profession, and without the cover provided by this smokescreen of malfeasance, the mythology of a Katyn massacre conducted by the USSR would be erased.
To emphasize, the lying by western historians of note is wide-ranging in attempting to minimize what little they will admit to that contradicts the official version of Katyn or blithely treating ambiguous evidence as favoring their position using bald unsupported assertions. For example, that bodies found at Katyn having winter clothing fits the official timeline for when the prisoners were massacred despite the fact that Polish soldiers at war in September 1939 would have been equipped with winter clothing and such clothing was likely still being worn in April/May1941. Furr lays out the atmosphere under which the expert scientists summoned or pressed into service by the Germans worked investigating the Katyn bodies. It is clearly a threatening one if not starkly so. The cursory nature of the program of work, the inclusion of a prominent fanatically racist leading member of the delegation and operating under the mortal threat implied by supervision by the German military in a war zone could have deeply affected the outcome. But this coercive atmosphere is left unmentioned in histories of the Katyn evidence, while any and all evidence by the Soviet Burdenko Commission despite corroboration from multiple sources is treated as evilly motivated when not coerced and fabricated. To attribute any credibility to the German report on Katyn, anti-Soviet partisan historians needed to commit every grade of distortion, omission, and withholding/concealing of facts. The Nazi-German motives are treated by anti-communist historians as if they were benign, impartial. This historical position of supporting the official Nazi version amounts to complicity with a criminal cover-up most vile. This book leaves no other honest conclusion. The Nuremburg hearings on Katyn, obviously free of Nazi military supervision with its atmosphere of mortal threat are totally ignored by the anti-communist historians.
Multiple lines of evidence show that the accepted version of the Katyn massacre is fabricated. Multiple instances of demonstrated malfeasance by proponents of the Nazi-concocted version of Katyn buttress the case that the accepted scenario of Katyn is false. Finally, Furr’s close analysis of a “closed packet”, Soviet documents as evidence materializing in the “post-Soviet space” (meaning with Gorbachev) as “smoking-gun” proof for Soviet guilt for Katyn show them to be fabricated. The long previous history of fabrication of documents meant to incriminate the Soviet Union for various motives and actions is not to be forgotten in this context.
This is an engrossing work of historiography on a topic that even such a great historian as Domenico Losurdo (probably in order to get published) has conceded as a Soviet action but that was explainable as against elements of a fanatical cadre of Polish nationalists who were captured fighting the Soviet Army that, once there ceased to be a Polish government, after some due consideration moved iinto the “Krezy (or borderlands)” to meet the Nazi armies that had invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Losurdo offered examples of analogous plans by the U.S. military against the Nazi leadership proclaimed at Yalta to balance with supposed Soviet guilt. That even Losurdo accepted Soviet guilt for the Katyn massacre shows just how generally it has been accepted. The story of a Soviet massacre of Polish officers they captured when the USSR “invaded” Poland supposedly in conjunction with the nazi blitzkrieg in the autumn of 1939 is part of a matched set of tales of anti-Soviet mythology about Poland and World War II, that includes the USSR supposedly agreeing with Hitler to partition Poland, a subsequent invasion supposedly in conjunction with the Nazi war machine and then supposed Nazi-style massacres of captured Polish officers. The story of this new study by Grover Furr is that the Soviets-did-it massacre scenario doesn’t (nor have the other elements) withstand unbiased scholarship. But the fascination is in the details.
Grover Furr has previously debunked the notion of an invasion of Poland by the USSR here: (http://www.cjournal.info/2009/09/01/D...) By Archivist39 (http://www.cjournal.info/author/archi...). The Polish government fled into Romania (then neutral), leaving the country without a government which the USSR could have helped reestablish in eastern Poland. One reason for the Soviet decision to enter Poland was based on the need to prevent the German armies from reaching the border of the USSR. Additionally, Furr and others have debunked the ludicrous notion of the German-Soviet non-aggression treaty as an “alliance”. Exemplifying how the nonaggression treaty is typically characterized in historical writing in the west, a shabbily dishonest title of a book I once read about the treaty was “The Deadly Embrace”.
EVIDENCE
Only a tiny proportion of the voluminous published material on the Katyn Massacre is primary source material. All the primary evidence is in four collections of documents. The version of the Katyn massacre that is accepted without serious question is essentially based on the report of a Nazi government investigative commission.
Furr focuses on what best qualifies as reliable evidence from the four reports or documents that could not be fabricated. Such evidence fits these two descriptions: 1) goes against the bias of the source and 2) cited by a source without at the time understanding its significance. This turns out to be a powerful body of evidence.
The German report is parsed and shown to be full of unfounded assertions or distortions : all the bullets found in the mass graves at the massacre site are of German origin, from a single manufacturer, who informed the German commission how markings on the bottom of shell casings would indicate when the bullets were made. No Soviet shells were found by the German investigators. If any had been found, they surely would have been reported by the Germans. The Germans claimed that the markings on all the shells indicated ammo of a period that could have been sold to the Soviets 10 years before. Presenting photographs of the markings on the base of shell casings would have confirmed the German claims (of all the bullets being from 1930-31) beyond dispute. Instead, photos of the supposed 10 year-old shell casings the Soviets supposedly used were only side views. The West accepts the German conclusions about Katyn despite all the bullets being German and despite the suspicious failure of the German to provide confirmation of their claims when they could have. Someone new to the subject of the Katyn Massacre would be astounded that despite such a gaping hole in the story propagated by Nazis, there was not instant, serious and enduring doubt about its veracity.
The Soviets-did-it side has relied on the German report of Katyn-NONE OTHER-to impute guilt to the Soviets, All the reports and “takes” on the Katyn massacre agree that the Soviet transit lists are genuine. Without any evidence, proponents of the accepted version of Katyn have construed these lists to be transport-to-execution lists. This was because the German report asserted that prisoners were sent from the original three POW camps to three NKVD camps for execution, one of the NKVD camps being near Katyn. But Polish POWs who were supposed to have been executed at other than Katyn kept turning up at Katyn and another site in the Ukraine, Volodymyr-Volyns’kiy (V/V) which is a recognized Nazi massacre site. Mention of such "outsider" prisoners is omitted in the updated western narratives of the massacre/massacres. As one of many examples, the body of a man named Zigon was found among the dead at Katyn. He was previously at one of the Soviet NKVD camps where it is claimed by the official version, all prisoners were executed, thus he and many others shouldn’t have been there if the official narrative was true. His presence at Katyn among the dead means neither he nor those he was buried with were executed by other than the Germans (documents on his person indicate he lived past the time it was claimed the Soviets executed POWs at Katyn). The German report stated that none of the paper documents found in the graves were dated after April 1940 as proof that the Poles were killed prior and up to this date (the forensic principle of terminus post quem actually means the holders of the documents were killed sometime after that time period of April-May 1940, even long after). The error in logic that the dates of documents found on the victims to be indicative of the approximate date of death rather than, correctly, the date sometime after which the killings occurred was made by both the Germans and the associated Poles, despite the error being both so fundamental and unlikely to have been made by qualified personnel of any background. Thus above, three clear and irrefutable instances of German dishonesty.
To believe the German report on Katyn one must dishonestly dismiss the Soviet report out of hand. This is done uniformly in the anti-Soviet literature. The Soviet Burdenko Commission investigators looked for proof of life beyond when Soviets were alleged to have massacred the Polish POWs. One prisoner found at Katyn who had documents dated only to 1939 was therefore not of interest to the Soviet commission, who were looking for documents dated after May 1940. However, this Katyn prisoner was otherwise found to have an evidence trail that proves that he was killed after when the Soviets were alleged to have executed Polish POWs and that his presence in the mass graves at Katyn supports the Soviet version of how the POWs got there. Four others with similar histories are known, serving in conjunction with additional evidence to fatally undermine the official story. Such evidence was covered up by pro-Soviet-guilt operatives. The Soviet inquiry did not have the transit lists at the time of the investigation so could not have known that the presence of numerous prisoners in the burials at Katyn were unimpeachably contradictory to the Nazi and eventual western-accepted timeline and scenarios of the massacre.
Polish experts on Katyn have covered up irrefutable evidence that Polish POW's were executed by the Germans in 1941-42. The discovery of two police badges by a Polish-Ukrainian anti-Soviet investigation that in summary fatally impugns the official Nazi / Western version is mentioned in such an abbreviated way, i.e. buried, as to be recognizable only by an expert in the matter. The Soviet lists of POWs to be moved from three original POW camps to three NKVD camps were assumed without evidence to be execution lists. Prisoners on the Soviet transportation lists were shown to be alive later than they would be if the lists were execution lists. The official version placed one policeman’s execution at the NKVD camp at Kalinin and burial nearby at Mednoe (no bodies identifiable as Katyn victims have been found at Mednoe). The POWs were proven with later evidence to have been transferred to work camps near Katyn, where they were when the German invaders arrived. Thus, the official narrative was thus invalidated. The Ukrainian side of the joint investigation at V/V does not even mention the presence of the two Polish policemen at V/V who were presumed to have been executed by the NKVD elsewhere and reflects that the Poles now blame the Nazis and their Ukrainian Nationalist auxiliaries and not the Soviets. The Poles provide images of the headstamps of German-made shell casings found in the mass graves at V/V, the UKR do not, more indication of their divergent positions. In summary, the Poles maintaining their stance on Germans executing the Poles and others at V/V effectively undermines the “blame-Soviet” stances on Katyn. 96% of the shell casings are German, dated 1941
The now-familiar forensic presence and the life stage of insects on the corpses when examined would differentially indicate when they had been killed. The German report reported a lack of insects on the exhumed bodies which would indicate they were killed at a time of year when only the Soviets would have killed the prisoners. In reality the Italian expert in the group in his personal minutes associated with the report reported an insect fauna that would indicate a timeline that implicated the Germans.
Evidence of collusion. The Soviets accused the Poles of collaborating with the Germans. The Polish govt-in-exile refused to deny the accusation as absurd (while in fact Polish Red Cross actually collaborated with the German commission at Katyn). The historical evidence is that the anti-communist Polish factions began collaborating with the Nazis after Stalingrad. Others are cited who provide more evidence on how fraudulent the German report on Katyn is.
Either the Germans failed to scrub controverting evidence of their scenario of Soviet guilt for Katyn or they altered evidence so carelessly that it revealed their fraud.
Documents associated with victims were altered so sloppily that incongruities were created that exhibited a pattern of fabrication by the Germans in their report.
There were numerous instances of documents on exhumed Katyn victims that contradict a scenario of Soviet guilt or point directly to German culpability. The Germans also falsified dates on documents otherwise not altered.
Anti-communist historians on Katyn have taken a cue from the Katyn German commission’s pattern of alteration, omission and mischaracterization of evidence. Grover Furr’s typical application of source analysis, as in his other books, exposes the long, pervasive practice of malfeasance by western anti-communist historians. The authors of “definitive” depictions of the official versions of the Katyn massacre are shown to commit a host of malpractices common to those who adhere to the anti-communist paradigm of historiography with:
• several major assertions without supporting evidence of any kind e.g., a purported recantation of his Soviet commission’s findings by Burdenko while two other anti-communist Russians concur that Burdenko remained convinced that the Germans were guilty of the Katyn massacre.
• assumption of truth from anti-communists such as the Nazi commission on Katyn, while rotely dismissing any and all evidence that contradicts to this accepted scenario.
• citation of sources in their work that in fact contain nothing of what they are attributed with
treating of testimony contradictory to the accepted version as coerced without proof while not mentioning evidence that indicates German coercion of witnesses
serial omission of evidence that contradicts the official version.
• misstated events to create a story that would discredit an important witness
selective exclusion of important context or additional facts would greatly modify facts or even serve to devastate the notion of Soviet guilt
distortion or withholding of facts
questionably attributed inconsistencies in testimony by witnesses that would impugn the accepted western scenario
ad-hominum arguments (for example, someone would be dismissed be “silly”)
unfounded characterization of the findings off the Soviet Report, baseless attribution of dishonest motives to the Soviet researchers.
This behavior creates an air of evasion of full, honest elucidation of the best-supported, fullest explanation of the events. The authors of the resulting shoddy literature bring shame on the history profession, and without the cover provided by this smokescreen of malfeasance, the mythology of a Katyn massacre conducted by the USSR would be erased.
To emphasize, the lying by western historians of note is wide-ranging in attempting to minimize what little they will admit to that contradicts the official version of Katyn or blithely treating ambiguous evidence as favoring their position using bald unsupported assertions. For example, that bodies found at Katyn having winter clothing fits the official timeline for when the prisoners were massacred despite the fact that Polish soldiers at war in September 1939 would have been equipped with winter clothing and such clothing was likely still being worn in April/May1941. Furr lays out the atmosphere under which the expert scientists summoned or pressed into service by the Germans worked investigating the Katyn bodies. It is clearly a threatening one if not starkly so. The cursory nature of the program of work, the inclusion of a prominent fanatically racist leading member of the delegation and operating under the mortal threat implied by supervision by the German military in a war zone could have deeply affected the outcome. But this coercive atmosphere is left unmentioned in histories of the Katyn evidence, while any and all evidence by the Soviet Burdenko Commission despite corroboration from multiple sources is treated as evilly motivated when not coerced and fabricated. To attribute any credibility to the German report on Katyn, anti-Soviet partisan historians needed to commit every grade of distortion, omission, and withholding/concealing of facts. The Nazi-German motives are treated by anti-communist historians as if they were benign, impartial. This historical position of supporting the official Nazi version amounts to complicity with a criminal cover-up most vile. This book leaves no other honest conclusion. The Nuremburg hearings on Katyn, obviously free of Nazi military supervision with its atmosphere of mortal threat are totally ignored by the anti-communist historians.
Multiple lines of evidence show that the accepted version of the Katyn massacre is fabricated. Multiple instances of demonstrated malfeasance by proponents of the Nazi-concocted version of Katyn buttress the case that the accepted scenario of Katyn is false. Finally, Furr’s close analysis of a “closed packet”, Soviet documents as evidence materializing in the “post-Soviet space” (meaning with Gorbachev) as “smoking-gun” proof for Soviet guilt for Katyn show them to be fabricated. The long previous history of fabrication of documents meant to incriminate the Soviet Union for various motives and actions is not to be forgotten in this context.
January 22, 2022
Complete nonsense.
July 18, 2021
Over 90% of the ammunition casings found in the graves were German manufacture, stamped 1941.
This book looks at the indisputable evidence and leaves out the possible fabrications. Emulating Holmes in uncovering what really happened in Poland in world war 2 (now we know it was in 1941).
Looks like the Nazis and their allies did it. The Soviets didn't do it!
Setting history straight is invaluable 5/5.
This book looks at the indisputable evidence and leaves out the possible fabrications. Emulating Holmes in uncovering what really happened in Poland in world war 2 (now we know it was in 1941).
Looks like the Nazis and their allies did it. The Soviets didn't do it!
Setting history straight is invaluable 5/5.
June 24, 2025
Basura, no se si sus conexiones con La URSS o si estaba amenazado, pero negar las masacres perpetradas por los comunistas en zonas de Polonia es del nivel de negar el Holocausto. Le he dado dos estrellas porque una me resulta demasiado poco por un libro de fantasia de este nivel.
February 23, 2025
Brednia brednię brednią pogania. WCzK Gestapo UB i da capo.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews