Talk:Katyn massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

So basically there is no proof?

Read the article, checked some of the defunct YAHOO news links (really?) and it's all pretty much hearsay. Keep on red baiting.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Riiiiighhhht. I assume you read the cited books, other news sources and the ton of reliable sources that are in the article. Keep on trollin'radek (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What about opinions of the Russians?

Why in Wikipdia there is presented only anti-Russian point of view? The article lacks any objectivity and should be completly rewritten, taking into account also the Russian point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.129.55 (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.129.55 (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like NPOV doesn't really matter much when most readers are anti-Russian, and who will read the article, but the anti-Russian Poles?FeelSunny (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How these opinions could possibly look like? And, BTW., FeelSunny, you either have read the article, or you haven't. In the first case, according to your remark, you must be an anti-Russian reader. In the latter case, how can you have any opinion on its contents? ;) Давай часы (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is anti-russian at all. Seeing as their government has admitted that its own forces carried out this massacre, the only real debate is whether this qualifies as a genocide or not, and I believe that the article does touch on both sides of that debate. There is no way of sugarcoating an event like this, the systematic, high-level murder of 25,000 unarmed and defenceless people is a ghastly crime that is bound to provoke revulse, and though most rational thinking people will not associate the modern russian government with this crime, it is evidently still a very sensitive issue. Personally I think it should just be accepted as a genocide and let the world move on. When there is a wealth of evidence against Russia, an admittance of guilt, and very little apart from crazy conspiracy theories with no factual evidence about falsified papers, it is very hard to represent a pro russian view, personally I think the article is perfectly fair. (Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Rather than talking of the opinion of "the Russians", it would be wiser to remember that the leadership of the U.S.S.R. came from several nationalities and adjust this and similar articles accordingly; nor did they discriminate among those they murdered. The fact that there were a disproportionate number of Georgians among them did not spare Georgians from their murderous policies. That said, I'd be very interested to read any point of view that tried to claim Katyn was anything but mass-murder.86.170.77.152 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Baltimore photo

1. Photo is very poor.
2. NY memorial is better. [1]

The Einsatzgruppen memo that mentions the Nazis being the guilty party - who controlled this memo ( after the war)? Who controlled all of the captured Einsatzgruppen memos - Russians? 159.105.80.141 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Odkryto grzebień z nazw--HanzoHattori 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)iskami Polaków pochowanych w Bykowni

Grzebień z wyrytymi nazwiskami Polaków zamordowanych przez NKWD i pochowanych w lesie w podkijowskiej Bykowni odnaleźli pracujący tam specjaliści Rady Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa - poinformował w piątek polskich dziennikarzy przebywający na Ukrainie sekretarz ROPWiM Andrzej Przewoźnik.[2] --HanzoHattori 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

also someone archive this page. --HanzoHattori 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please translate the authenticated documents from Russian into English? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.122.253 (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'Incident' vs. 'Massacre'

On the archive page here, someone repeats a deranged statement made by Ruy Lopez, who wrote: "Soviet troops shooting Polish army officers is a massacre. US troops shooting Korean civilians is an incident." You can see this statement on an older version of his user page here.

I would like to point out that at No Gun Ri, between 8 and 150 civilians were killed. At Katyń, around 18,384 were killed. Assuming 150 deaths at No Gun Ri, the difference between the two is a factor of 122.56.

The contrast between the two is therefore a valid one. -- 87.98.217.43 (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, No Gun Ri was the action of some panicky troops, while Katyn was approved at the highest levels of the Soviet regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.6.47 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said that No Gun Ri was not a massacre. It was! Wallie (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Estimates"

The text says now that the "estimates of the number of dead range from 15,000[2][3] to 21,768.[4]". This is very misleading.

First of all we must decide whether we care about all estimates or only about the credible ones. As an analogy, one can point to the Nazi camps Majdanek and Auschwitz. Many estimates were made throughout the decades, most of them clearly erroneous. Thus, for a long time an estimate of 4,000,000 victims in Auschwitz was rather widespread (especially through the Soviet-dominated Europe - but not exclusively). So it is for Majdanek, where there was an estimate of 1.5 million victims (contrast this with the current estimate of 78,000 victims). Then there are deniers' "estimates"...

Thus, one could write something like "estimates of the number of dead in Auschwitz range from 70,000 to 4,000,000", and that would be true in a sense that there are such estimates. But this would mislead the reader unnecessarily.

Now, there is no controversy about the number of the victims of Katyn massacre (when the term is used in the extended fashion, to denote all the victims murdered according to the 5.3.1940 order). It is about 22,000, take or add a thousand.

Now, when dilettantes write about the Katyn massacre, they often have in mind numbers like "14,000" or "15,000". But those denote only the number of Polish victims from the three camps. They ignore about 7000 or so victims from the prisons. So one cannot really compare the numbers like 15,000 and 22,000, saying that they're just "estimates". It's apples and oranges - 15,000 is for the victims from the three camps, 22,000 is for the victims from the three camps AND from an unknown number of prisons.

So I will edit this portion accordingly.--Sergey Romanov (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Trials, etc.

I have heavily amended the Leningrad trial section, which was basically full of misinformation and was relying on Holocaust "revisionist" sources. I have used the book "Katynskij sindrom", written by two Russian Katyn historians and a former head of the Military Prosecutor's Office Katyn team who have actually examined the Leningrad trial record.

Also, putting Nuremberg part in "Soviet-run trials" section is weird, isn't it? Thus, renamed. The Savenkov part was also flawed. --Sergey Romanov (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Has Poland gone after its Western Friends for their role in the cover up? I think Poland is very selective on who it goes after for redress of past injustices. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Duere/Diere/Dürer

JFYI, in Poland there is a book by almost the same authors:

Inessa Jażborowska, Anatolij Jabłokow, Jurij Zoria, Katyń: Zbrodnia Chroniona Tajemnicą Państwową.

http://biblionetka.pl/ks.asp?id=58705

I've been told it's more or less the same as Katynskij sindrom, so Polish colleagues can try to check Diere info in it.

And one more thing: I spell it "Diere" because it's been so spelled in contemporary English-language news items posted at Axishistory Forum, the authors actually spell it "Duere" (but still not "Duerer", as in one of Axishistory pages).

However, I see that A.V.Prusin in Holocaust and Genocide Studies [3] also calls him "Duere" (if you can't access the page, you can google for "arno duere" and its cache will be one of the search results), so perhaps this is the spelling we should use after all.

--Sergey Romanov (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The German historian Gerd R. Ueberschär gives the name as Arno Dürer in source note 31, page 258 of Der Nationalsozialismus vor Gericht: Die alliierten Prozesse gegen Kriegsverbrecher und Soldaten 1943-1952 (Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1999). Prusin's sources for the name appear (note 74, p. 28) to have been Russian newspaper reports; might the correct spelling have been lost in transliteration from cyrillic? Whilst I'm on the subject, am I correct in assuming that note 56 indicates the source for the information about Arno D's "confession" and retraction? Tyler's Boy (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NKVD/Gestapo filmed Katyn Masscre together ? Movie might exist-alledged reason for Russia's refusal to reveal most of documents related to the atrocity

[4]

Polish foregin ministry is going to ask Russia's government to reveal documents and ask if the movie exists.--Molobo (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trials

I run into the pararagraph, which indirectly indicates Nuremberg trials insisted on blaming the Germans on Katyn massacre (I didn't know that):

"The investigations that indicted the German state rather than the Soviet state for the killings are sometimes used to impeach the Nuremberg Trials in their entirety, often in support of Holocaust denial, or to question the legitimacy and/or wisdom of using the criminal law to prohibit Holocaust denial. Still, there are some who deny Soviet guilt, call the released documents fakes, and try to prove that Poles were shot by Germans in 1941."

It should simply say directly what it implies and naturally it does diminish the creditability of Nuremberg trials a bit. I don't see any reason for saying this could be considered a part of Holocaust implying, that taking blame off Germans is a crime true or not!

"After the war the Nuremberg trial investigations falsely indicted the German state for Katyn massacres. Also today some deny all Soviet guilt, call the released documents fakes, and try to prove that Poles were shot by Germans in 1941." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlander (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately many Americans including Truman hated the German people. Truman had also listed to Roosevelt's lies on the subject. the Ameericans knew the truth, but wanted to carry on their hatred of the German people. Wallie (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

At that time, I think many people in many countries hated the German people. This was not "unfortunate", it was a natural response to German behaviour under Hitler. Soviet behaviour under Stalin was arguably no better, but people in America and in most European countries weren't directly affected by it, and most people didn't even know about it. Torve (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

?!

"the Soviets were able to round up much of the Polish intelligentsia, and the Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian[5] and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship."

I think that they were simple Poles because nothing like Belarus or Ukraine existed, same thing with Jews, you didn't have "Jewish country" at that time. Everyone was Polish. These people weren't of "Polish citizenship", they were Poles.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that neither Belarus nor Ukraine existed doesn't mean that the Belarusian or Ukrainian nationality didn't. Also, probably some portion (I don't have an idea how big) of Jews in Poland counted themselves as Poles, but the other part was really aware of its origin.... Irwing (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is mildly insulting. Surely a Polish citizen can be aware of his origins and still see himself as a Pole? More to the point - to the extent that we are talking about people who led their intellectual lifes in Polish, we are talking about a Polish intelligentsia; we could speak of a Belarusian or Yiddish-speaking intelligentsia if (say) we were talking about essayists who wrote for Belarusian or Yiddish periodicals. Feketekave (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationality =/= ethnicity. There were plenty of Polish citizens who had non-Polish ethnicity (about 1/3 of pre-war Poland had non-Polish ethnicity).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe speculations do not belong in an encyclopedia

In a long forgotten, 2 page opinion piece in a 1981 edition of Commentary magazine, English professor George Watson speculated (rather than "concluded", as editors keep insisting here) that "Katyn may have been discussed" in the April 1940 meeting. There are exactly zero reliable sources supporting this speculation. In a response to a critical letter to the editor, Watson went out of his way to point out he was merely speculating. This totally fringe theory, by a Fellow in English (not a historian) does not belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise, the source being used, a master's thesis by a Louis Robert Coatney a board game developer, is hardly a reliable source. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite and ref where Watson calls it a speculation? Academics do a lot of reliable speculations (it's called a hypotehsis), and master thesis are part of the academic dialog.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Coatney's master's thesis is definitely not a reliable source, period. I truly hope you understand that. 2. The full quote by Watson is "Katyn may have been discussed, even sponsored, at Cracow in April 1940 in a secret conclave." Commentary 6/81. That's all he says about the meeting; he also discussed what he says are similarities in Nazi and soviet murder techniques, towards a different part of his speculation (the Nazis learned their techniques from the Soviets, another view with no academic/scholarly support). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with anyone being a game designer ? Would birdwatching be a more acceptable hobby for you ? --Lysy^talk 02:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, except when he is being used as a reliable source for an encyclopedia article without any published work on the subject. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, so the fact that he has designed a board game is not relevant ? --Lysy^talk 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source means a peer reviewed source. Master thesis are reviewed, hence they are reliable. And if a history major decideds to become a game designer instead of a history professor, that does not make his MT any less valuable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please review WP:RS again. It obviously means published in peer reviewed academic journals: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories....Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. It's moot anyway, I inserted the proper direct source the student was quoting, rather than a non- WP:RS thesis. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. But in any case, I find your current wording acceptable, please apply it to G-NKVD conferences article, and let's move to other issues.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Existence of the Jersey City Katyn Massacre Monument

The monument exists. The photograph is an accurate view of it. I attest to it. Please assume good faith.

Links to flickr.com photographs exist throughout the Wikipedia, and where the license permits, they can be uploaded. WP:RS applies to sources and flickr.com is not a source, it is a photo collection site; the source is a flickr user, wallyg. I am making the editorial judgment that the link to this photograph meets the WP:EL criteria and since I myself have seen the monument, the photo satisfies any WP:V challenges, of the form:

• The Jersey City Katyn Massacre Monument does not exist.
• The Jersey City Katyn Massacre Monument does exist, but wallyg's photograph does not accurately depict it.

It is correctly cited. patsw (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What is being disputed? That the monument doesn't exist, or that the photograph is not accurate, or that stipulating that the monument does exist and the photograph is accurate -- that flickr.com cannot be linked to in the general case, or that flickr.com cannot be linked in specific case of the Katyn Massacre article? patsw (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a question about how reliable a source flickr is should be asked at WP:RSN.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "the Nazis did it in 1943, not the Soviets in 1940" view

The Katyn story is of course of immense and lasting interest, not only for its incomprehensible body count, but for the understanding and interpretation of WW2, the Soviet Union, the German war story, etc. etc. We ought not to be surprised that there are conflicting views. I do think the current version of the article is quite fine and represents the consensus view rather well. Nevertheless there are "Soviet apologists" and I suppose a small minority of historians still eager to demonstrate that somehow the NKVD could not have done what most of us believe they did. I've decided to add just one more link to the article, under "External Links", of this sort, to represent the "the Nazis did it in 1943, not the Soviets in 1940" view; this is Ella Rule's 2002 article, which I found at The Stalin Society. I wish us to include this link, not because I believe in its truth, but because I judge it better to have these arguments in the open. Two lines on this could also be operated into the main text of the Katyn article. Slavatrudu (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your desire to include all significant points, however do note that Stalin Society is not considered a reliable source by any standards.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I agree that the Stalin Society is not (IMHO) a credible source. They also have done an amazing number on the Ukrainian Holodomor. Having said that, I do agree that putting this link in is important and acknowledging that such revisionists and crackpots exist. Hell, there are people that still thing the Earth is flat (See here. Put the info up and let the reader make his choice. Bandurist (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Who does the Polish government now blame? The Poles also blamed the Nazis at the time. This is documented. Note that only the Swiss (red cross) blamed the Soviets during the war. That view was considered treason at the time in Britain and the US. Wallie (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A source

A list of NKVD people who received honors and monetary bonuses (800 rubles) for this "operation", including women who printed lists of executed Polish officers (published by Novaya gazeta). One of the executioners describes: «Водку, само собой, пили до потери сознательности. Что ни говорите, а работа была не из легких. Уставали так сильно, что на ногах порой едва держались. А одеколоном мылись. До пояса. Иначе не избавиться от запаха крови и пороха. Даже собаки от нас шарахались, и если лаяли, то издалека».

Last phrases: "... We had to wash ourselves with fragrance. Otherwise, it was impossible to remove the smell of blood and gun powder. Even dogs run away of us, and barked at us only from a large distance". Biophys (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

who exactly is disputing the neutrality of this article and why? to me it seems there aren't any problems with it. Loosmark (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is definitely very point of view. I suggest you read the following sources:

1. Goebbels J (1948) «The Goebbels Diaries (1942-1943)», translated by Louis P. Lochner (New York: Doubleday & Company)(about the Katyn massacre)

2. «Pravda» 19 April 1943

3.Fisher B «The Katyn Controversy: Stalin's Killing Field»,

4. Furr G. at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss-katyn041806r.html

5. Roberts G «Stalin's Wars» (New Haven: Yale University Press) (footnote 29)

6. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States: diplomatic papers: the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference), 1945, Volume II (1945), page 803

7. Experts of Nuremberg Archives: Nikzor.org - 59th Day, Thursday, 14 February 1946 and Conot R E (1984) «Justice at Nuremberg» (New York: Carol & Graf Publishers) page 454

8. US Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Katyn Forest Massacre, 82d Congress, 1st and 2nd Session, 1951-1952, 7 parts (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1952)

9. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. United Nations affairs, Volume III (1952-1954), page. 13 and 15

10. Rule E, «The Katyn Massacre», www.stalinsociety.org.uk/katyn.html

11. Furr G. στο http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss-katyn041806r.html

12. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/03/andnow-for-something-not-completely.html

13. "Katyn Graves Story Declared Grim Fraud" ("New York Times", 28 June 1945) Spastas (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the dates on any of the possible RSs above (like NY times). The rest are junk.radek (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why all these sources are junk and I don't think the dispute has been resolved just because you think it has. What about the dates of the times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.52.186.36 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources are from 1940's. The rest, for one thing, have broken URLs. And yes this dispute has been resolved.radek (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am posting new links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-now-for-something-not-completely.html http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss_katyn041806r.html

The fact that they are sources from the 1940s does not mean they are not true... So I guess the dispute has not been resolved. Please do not remove the tag again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spastas (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many serious scientific works by respected scholars, discussing the nature of caloric, Luminiferous aether and a lot of other interesting things, that were superceded by modern science and are no longer regarded as current. With the public disclosure of the original documents in 1992, this has happened to the "Nazis did it" version, that has now degenerated into a conspiracy theory supported by a small number of Russian Communist politicians and "opposition" writers. The corresponding article part might need expansion, but I'm not sure it's all that notable outside of Russia. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: first user. These are blogposts and personal correspondence. They're not reliable sources. We've been over this a dozen times.radek (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears that this view is adopted in other countries except for Russia. A lot of people in Greece believe this, as well as people from the USA. I think we should discuss this first and then we can remove the tag. Why are you so unwilling to discuss the matter? Spastas (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people believe a lot of things that a lot of other people do not. that's why we have the WP:Reliable sources policy to show what to include into our articles and under which sauce. Surely, you realize that your own words, or outdated sources (pre-1990) will not help change the general perspective of this article? To start a discussion regarding its POV, you first need to present modern (post-1992 or so) reliable sources written by peer-reviewed professional historians, who are still supporting this view. I'll remove the tag now. Feel free to add it, once you've found reliable sources demonstrating that the perspective of this article (and every version of it in other languages) is skewed.

This is concerning the POV. As for the underrepresentation of the modern "those traitors sold Russia and falsified everything" view - it can be expanded into a subsection, as long as the perspective is preserved as it is. But this isn't a POV problem, more of an expansion suggestion. --Illythr (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to explain the reference to Goebels diary. If you can, we will see about removing the tag. I also urge you to read Fisher's book, as well as Robert's book. If these are not reliable sources, then what is? Also note the date on the official documents handed to the court and the names of the person's signing them. If you do a bit of search, already done by Dr Furr, you will find out that these people were not in the same city on that date. This and a lot more. So I have to disagree with you again and I will put the tag back up. Please do not remove it, until we have reached some consensus. Spastas (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor (and not a reliable source) I must explain nothing - my personal opinion holds the same value as that of every other non-specialist editor - very very little. Ah, whatever. So, what is that Goebbels reference exactly? Fisher condemns Katyn as a Soviet crime most throughly, can you pinpoint the exact location in his book that even remotely looks like support of the "Nazis did it" version? Likewise, Roberts, on pages 169-171 of his book writes pretty much the essence of this article (thanks, btw, that fills a fact tag I placed previously). Furr - that one, the worst scholar of the year? Not exactly a reliable source. --Illythr (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been brought to the attention of Neutral Point of View Noticeboard here [5].

I'm not sure exactly what the etiquette is, but my comments regarding this dispute can be found there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert's book(Yale University press)(2003): In the footnote (n.29, p. 400) Roberts records Harriman's summarizing his daughter's conclusion that "from the general evidence and the testimony Kathleen and the Embassy staff member believe that in all probability the massacre was perpetrated by the Germans."

In the TEXT (pp. 171-2) there's a much longer quotation from Kathleen Harriman.

First, she remarks on how "fresh" the bodies looked. This was a big issue with Burdenko. The Germans said the Soviets had shot the Polish officers in the Spring of 1940, which would have meant they'd have been in the ground during three whole summers, when the earth is warm and decomposition would be rapid.

The Soviets contended that the Germans had shot the Poles in the Fall of 1941, so they'd have been in the ground during only two summers (1942 and 1943). Logically, therefore, better preserved bodies would point towards German guilt.

Goebel's diary might not be new, but if Goebbels admits to the crime...

Supposedly they were "discovered" in 1989. But Gorbachev denies having seen them, or knowing about them at all, at all until December 23, 1991, two days before he left office. (On these points see New York Times articles of October 15, 1992, p. A1 and October 16, 1992, p.A6, available from the Historical New York Times database).

Surely these are reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spastas (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On the very same page Roberts describes this as a Soviet cover up ploy. Kathleen Harriman was a lay person, not a forensic specialist and her opinion is therefore useless. I also find it curious how you ascribe her opinion to Roberts, whereas he clearly states the opposite just a few sentences earlier.

Do you have a reference of Goebbels addmitting the responsibility of the massacre? that would be a great argument if it were true.

Gorby's behavior is explained in Fisher's book - a flunked attempt at damage control. -Illythr (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I already gave you a reference from the Goebbel's diaries: Goebbels J (1948) «The Goebbels Diaries (1942-1943)», translated by Louis P. Lochner (New York: Doubleday & Company)(about the Katyn massacre) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spastas (talk • contribs) 10:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they're a bit long. Can you provide a quote and a page number, where he claims responsibility for the massacre? --Illythr (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what difference does it make? First, anything Goebbels wrote has been superceded by subsequent research by reliable, third-party sources. Second, even if Spastas's theory is correct, we're not supposed to overturn established history. That's called original research and it's not allowed on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In my experience in dealing with editors who present a... dissenting point of view, demanding exact references to reliable sources usually does the trick better than declaring their ideas nonsense. This way, they do an excellent job discrediting themselves by either posting links to works of conspiracy theorists or, as is the case here, failing to produce a single piece of evidence supporting the acceptance of this view in academic sources. As you can see, the sources produced by Spastas actually directly contradict his view (those that are not outdated). I wonder why did he list sources like Fischer at all. I suspect, the quote of Goebbels' Spastas refers to is this one (first quote). Just leave out the apostrophes around 'find'. ;-) If, however, there is indeed such a quote, that had somehow eluded dozens of reseachers for over half a century, then we can present it as an argument of that POV, provided a known proponent cites it. --Illythr (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Page 354 of the English translation, if it counts for something. Goebbels admits that German ammunition were found in the graves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spastas (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

German ammunition and weapons: those are known and explained facts, you'd need to come with something new.... Irwing (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that there's not a word about this here, whereas the Russian Wikipedia has an entire article about this topic. --Illythr (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter what sources I give you, you guys are never going to change this are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spastas (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How about some RELIABLE, sources that are LESS THAN 40 YEARS old?radek (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spastas wikipedia is a serious project and there is no place for your so called "sources". Loosmark (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your sources is that they don't say what you claim they do. In fact, those that are still relevant (i.e. not outdated) say exactly the opposite. As long as no serious source supports this other version - sorry, no way. --Illythr (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

removed

21,857 vs. 21,768

Why is the latter considered the "most commonly cited number" and not the former? I've seen 21,857 cited more often by historians and experts on the subject.

Example:

"He (Wheatcroft) is right in saying that only 21,857 of the 25,700 ordered to be shot by the Politburo seem actually to have been `executed’" - Robert Conquest

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Comments_WCR.pdf

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Orsof?

Prof. Orsof (left) with Leonardo Conti, 1943

What's the full name of Prof. Orsof (?), pathologist from Budapest/Hungary. Has he survived the end of WW2? 78.55.3.218 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• The correct name is Prof. Ferenc Orsós from Budapest.
• I have found a list of the commission: http://www.warsawuprising.com/doc/katyn_documents1.htm
• And this: ..... In fact, however, Prof. Ferenc Orsós was not executed. On December 6, 1944, he left Budapest with the retreating German army and settled in Halle an der Saale, from where he moved to the University of Mainz in West Germany in 1946. There he lived as a respected Professor of Artistic Anatomy until his retirement in 1955. Orsós died in Mainz on July 25, 1962 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2297 78.55.208.134 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Now available: de:Ferenc Orsós, hu:Orsós Frenc, sv:Ferenc Orsós. Regards Mutter Erde 92.227.128.228 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What Czech

The text says:

The Germans assembled and brought in a European commission consisting of twelve forensic experts and their staffs from Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Croatia, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, and Hungary. After the war, all of the experts, save for a Bulgarian and a Czech, reaffirmed their 1943 finding of Soviet guilt.

What Czech? I see Slovakia in that list, but I don't see Czechoslovakia, Czechia, or Bohemia.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Russian article, that was him. Here's the text of his statement in Russian. --Illythr (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the term Katyn Massacre apply to lots of massacres in different places far from Katyn?

The article is advancing the POV that the term Katyn massacre also applies to murders of prisoners in various locations some far from Katyn:

"It now is applied to the simultaneous executions of prisoners of war from geographically distant Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps,[9] and the executions of political prisoners from West Belarus and West Ukraine,[10] shot on Stalin's orders at Katyn Forest, at the NKVD headquarters in Smolensk, at a Smolensk slaughterhouse, and at prisons in Kalinin (Tver), Kharkov, Moscow, and other Soviet cities."

The citations for this contention seem to be citations that various murders happened. It is of course possible that some people from the west who are unfamiliar with Eastern European geography have muddled the various locations, but that does not justify the assertion. -Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't POV - it's directly from the source. Originally the one in Katyn was the only one, or the main one, known about. Later it turned out that there were several coordinated massacres in several places. But the various massacres are still often collectively referred to as "the Katyn massacre" - as it states in the sources. This is also explained in the text.radek (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please quote page numbers in the sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh.... there's no "page numbers". Just click the links.radek (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Citation 4 - Polish Government Decision to commence investigation into Katyn Massacre - this does not actually say that the various mass murders during "the period between 5 March and an unspecified date in 1940 in Moscow, Kharkov, Smolensk, Katyn, Kalinin (now Tver), and other locations on the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" are known as the Katyn Massacre - the title of the documents are "Decision to commence investigation into Katyn Massacre" - but that is merely a snappy title mentioning the most famous of the murders. There are references to so-called Katyn lists - that refer to lists of prisoners murdered or to be murdered in Belarus and Western Ukraine, though no references so-called Katyn lists referring to lists of the many prisoners murdered in Eastern Ukraine (e.g. Kharkov)
• Citation 9 - IN THE FOREST The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre by J. K. ZAWODNY UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS • 1962 is a 235 page book.
• Citation 10 - Excerpt from the minutes No. 13 of the Politburo of the Central Committee meeting, shooting order of 5 March 1940 - this is a source for what happened, not for the allegation that murders in, for example, Kharkov are known as the Katyn Massacre
• Citation 11 - a page from the British state TV organisation - this says "The massacre - in Katyn Forest near the Russian city of Smolensk - happened while the Poles were held prisoner... The Nazis discovered the bodies of several thousand Polish officers at Katyn in 1943, but Moscow did not admit responsibility for the killings until 1989." It does not claim that the murders in Kharkov are known as the Katyn massacre.

There does seem to be a serious problem with this article: at various places, including the introduction, it seems to muddle the distinction between the total number of people killed during the Stalinist occupation (around 22 000?) and the total number of people (mainly NCOs, plus many officers) buried in Katyn forest (about an order of magnitude less, to judge from figures provided by the article). The fact that Katyn has become emblematic in Polish public consciousness (and elsewhere) does not excuse this ambiguity. Until it is cleared, the article is seriously flawed. Feketekave (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The 21,768 were all PoWs, executed in several prisons and prison camps simultaneously, by the same order (pictured). The total number of people killed in the Soviet-occupied territories of eastern Poland is mentioned here and is greater by about an order of magnitude. --Illythr (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have made clear that what I had in mind by "people killed during the Stalinist occupation" I meant people executed by Stalin's apparatus, rather than people who are stated as having perished after being deported. We need precise statistics on who died where, and possibly a change of title. A massacre is generally understood to mean an incident of slaughter, not the result of a country-wide policy. Feketekave (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The 21,768 can't have been all PoWs, according to the page itself as it currently stands: "About 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, the rest being Poles arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, saboteurs, landowners, factory owners, lawyers, priests, and officials."[4]" (Aside: not to be pedantic, but, since the article is for an English-speaking audience, we should make a distinction between officers and NCOs (blurred in this sentence).)Feketekave (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point there - "civilian PoWs" is kind of an oxymoron. I'll try to rephrase the lead sentence to fix that. The most exact numbers available are those from Shelepin's memo (first para in the "Executions" section). Still, that resolution regarded these PoWs and civilian prisoners specifically (NCOs were apparently excluded), so I'm not sure what you mean to accomplish in dividing the victims of the same order. --Illythr (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link error

Under the "Memorials" section:

"A golden statue, known as the National Katyn Massacre Memorial, is located in Baltimore, Maryland, on Aliceanna Street at Inner Harbor East."

The link to "National Katyn Massacre Memorial" takes you back to the beginning of the page and then back to the Memorials section. It does not take you to a new page on this memorial. I couldn't find the page on the Baltimore memorial or I would have fixed it. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Executions!

JScottJ (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Killings, yes. Murders, yes. Massacre, yes. Genocide, probably. Executions, no! Executions are legal killings, awarded by a judge or some kind of judicial commission, carried out in accordance with the relevant law(s). What's described in the article is anything but executions; even the Russians don't refer to them as such. I recommend each instance of the term "execution" be removed from the article and replaced by words such as killings, murders, massacre, genocide as appropriate to context.

Don't confuse wikt:execution with capital punishment - the former is used in the article only in its 3rd sense - "The act of putting to death or being put to death as a penalty, or actions so associated." and is there to avoid the overuse of "killings", "murders" and "massacre" in the article, which are synonymous in this context. --Illythr (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition, this letter does put the killings in a judicial context (well, for the 1940 Soviet Union, anyway). --Illythr (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims

There is a contradiction in the article about this - "at least 22,436 POWs and prisoners were executed" and "personal files of 21,857 ... Shelepin's data for prisons should be considered a minimum..." In addition, source 27 cites 21763 as a verified figure and states that Shelepin's figure is accepted by Polish historians. If no one objects by presenting another modern source (from 2007 onwards), I'll rewrite the first paragraph of the "executions" section in accordance with note 329 of the book. --Illythr (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mezhvedomstvennaia Commission

This unreliable source [6] ( which we cannot use because of WP:SELFPUBLISH ) refers to a demand by NGO 'Memorial' demanding Medvedev "Overturning the Mezhvedomstvennaia Commission’s December 2004 decision to reclassify the materials relevant to the investigation of Katyn". Has anyone got an Eng Lang ref about the Mezhvedomstvennaia Commission’s December 2004 decision ? We should add it to the 'Recent Developments' section. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the "Revelations" section --Illythr (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Would you agree that the last paragraph of the "Revelations" section could be improved and possibly tied better to "Recent Developments" ? Maybe the Mezhvedomstvennaia Commission even deserves its own sub-head ? Also, maybe we should put it all together, chronologically? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I understand the article structure, the "Revelations" section is supposed to deal with the disclosure of the Soviet documents and the subsequent investigations, which established the current level of understanding of what happened back then. The last official one ended in 2004 with the results noted in the last para. What followed are rather "unrevealing" things such as political statements, complaints, fruitless court suits and so on, so I moved them to the "recent developments" section, which, as I see it, is meant for such things. The Commission seems to have been part in the 1990-2004 investigation, I'm not sure the detail on who exactly classified the files is all that necessary.

Now, there's been some recent development that can potentially help expand the "Revelations" section, but we'll have to wait and see. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to take that blog's word for it. Ezhdnevnyi zhurnal, a popular Russian liberal daily, published the text of Memorial's appeal to President Medvedev. Run it through Google Translate, and you'll see the content of their announcement.

Official trial

Is it worth mentioning that there was an official trial in Constitutional Court of Russia on Katyn massacre in 1992 (as part of the trial against CPSU)? Witness of prosecution had to resign since about 40 signs of falsification were found in those "official documents"? Ledpoison1 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean, the CPSU defense claimed the documents' copies were false? --Illythr (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean prosecution resigned before the verdict was sentenced. And about the trial itself. Is this fact worth mentioning? Ledpoison1 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Got a link to that? All I know about the trial was that the court added the documents (copies) to the case, but they had no effect on the verdict. The trial itself might be worth mentioning, though. --Illythr (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not Genocide rather than Massacre

I would like other members to consider well the title of this article. I have not edited any wikipedia articles before and do not wish to go in boldly and change things myself immediately - so I will wait for comments and then edit this.

The word and definition of genocide is clearly known since it was brought into use by the U.N..

What happened in 1940 was the killing of a very precisely defined group of people. They were Polish officers and intellectuals. Not only defined by nationality (as in the Armenian Genocide for example) but also by their social class.

Let us assume for a minute that 'who' killed these 22'000 men is a separate issue. It follows that whether any court has found any person or group guilty of this genocide is irrelevant.

When murder has clearly been committed - the police will declare it as murder regardless of whether anyone is found guilty of the crime.

1. Over 22'000 Polish men are found shot in the back of the head buried in a number of forests in an area of the old USSR. --> We agree that they have all been murdered.

2. They are all of the same nationality and most of the same social class. --> By the definition of the U.N. the above crime is defined as genocide.
See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3. The collection of varying definitions among genocide scholars can be compared to the simple facts documented in this article. --> The deliberate nature of the Katyn killings in 1940 and clearly defined group being killed indicates that by wikipedia's standards at least this is Genocide.

I would be grateful to have this questioned as fully as possible. (wrote User:SMORGON, these are the only two his contributions to this Wikipedia)Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points 2 and 3 are classic examples of original synthesis and original research and cannot be used in the article. Instead we can use reliable sources to say that this and this organizations considers the murders genocide, while this and this refuses to do so. Compare. --Illythr (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent developments - wrong timing

There is something wrong with the timing - 2007 Russian articles and later 2005 Sejm action.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because the section is used as an information dump by people who confuse Wikipedia articles with news aggregators. I suggest to use this section only for important official events, such as court decisions, investigations of state commissions (there's currently a Polish one active, right?) and recent disclosure of important documents (which can be later moved to the "revelations" section if deemed notable enough). Modern opinions that "the Nazis did it" should get a separate section (like "Fringe theories"), whereas the rest should go or be incorporated into other relevant sections. --Illythr (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash
Therefore it is necessary to close the edition of the article, because a vandalism can appear. One already appeared.

after the batle magazine

http://www.afterthebattle.com/magazine/issues76-100.html ... had an excellent article about the Katyn events. forgot what year and what issue it was...

???

what the heck is this all about the pages are way 2 much how can i print it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.142.5 (talk • contribs)

Weapon of execution

"The executioners used German weapons rather than the standard Soviet revolvers, as the latter were said to offer too much recoil, which made shooting painful after the first dozens of executions." Too funny to believe. How could you imagine painful revolver recoil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krimskijhan (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. --Illythr (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody proved that Nagant M1895 revolvers recoil too much (http://www.makarov.com/nagant/m1895.htm "recoil was very mild"), therefore recoil is just author's version explaining why the shells were german. So it has to be told as a doubtable version, not as a true fact. Actually with my posting I ment that it is worth adding some ohther witnesses & evidences to ensure neutral point of view.

WP:NPV -Krimskijhan (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources citing these witnesses or additional evidence regarding the weapons used, please, post them here. This topic is rather inadequately covered both here and in the Russian version. --Illythr (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Katyn massacre or Katyn Massacre?

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Katyn massacre a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Katyn Massacre? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

• "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"

The response was:

• "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."

to which I queried further:

• "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"

and got this answer:

• "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."

Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Katyn Massacre, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.

Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:World War II

Katyn is currently under discussion at Talk:World War II, specifically on whether or not its controversy makes it especially notable and whether or not it should be included in the article. Editors with access to reliable sources on whether or not Katyn is any more notable in the context of other WW2 massacres, for example the Babi Yar Massacre or the Massacre of the Acqui Division, may be able to help in discussion. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with six cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Memo caption

The caption under the image of the memo from Beria to Stalin reads "5 March 1940 memo from Lavrentiy Beria to Joseph Stalin, proposing execution of Polish officers"

This is inaccurate, as the text in the image does not make any mention of execution- it describes the "Former polish military officers, policemen, and intelligence personnel" in NKVD POW camps as people "sworn to hatred of the Soviet system" who are "waiting for liberation only to actively join in the battle against the soviet state". Either the image should be changed to the page of the memo which orders the execution, or the caption should be changed to actually describe what is in the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.121.91 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the caption to mention that this is just the first page of the memo. Also, the memo itself was written one or two days before 5 March 1940 - that date is when the clerk processed it. --illythr (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Duma admits it, so what (?)

Gorbachev admitted it in 1990, I think. This is not news. What would be NEWS would be someone official in the Russian government (the Duma, ha; Putin, or Medvedev) actually apologizing for this crime. It has never happened yet. Kochamanita (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It happened at least twice: In 1990 "The Soviet side, expressing deep regret regarding the Katyn tragedy, affirms that it constitutes one of the grievous crimes of Stalinism" (second sentence from the end); and in 1993 (Yeltsin's "Forgive us!"). --illythr (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead does not say why this happened and in what context. Chesdovi (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Background and motivation

The question of motive is not addressed in the article. The article on Stalin suggests that Stalin had a personal motive for liquidating the Polish officers, because of his frustration when commanding the southern sector of the Polish front during the Polish-Soviet War, and the perception that Stalin caused the disastrous failure of this campaign in 1920. If these claims are accepted as reliable then they might be worth including here. Spike (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

Can anyone find a free-use photo of Katyn's monument of the four religions at 3:06 in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_M9tYWtIjg&feature=player_embedded#! -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cherry Picking sources

This article demonstrates serious issues with Cherry Picking, see the previous miscitation of Nicholas Werth, "A state against its people: violence, repression and terror in the Soviet Union" in Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. pp. 33–268: p.209. ISBN 0-674-07608-7 as Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. p.209. ISBN 0-674-07608-7. This indicates deep google searching without reading. It is a serious shame as it reduces the article quality and means that the level of sourcing and research is under par. As a result I'm about to determine if it meets its A-class criteria based on cherry picking. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I propose to take this to FAR in two weeks if editors cannot demonstrate that sources have been read appropriately (at the chapter level); due to evidence of cherry picking in relation to Werth 1999. This is a sourcing FAR issue. I hope it can be easily resolved by editors checking over their sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• And misuse of PRIMARIES, "Data combined from Alexander Shelepin's letter to Khrushchev and Soviet data from 03.12.1941 UPVI note in Katyn. 1940–2000, Moscow, "Ves' mir", 2001, pp. 384, 385)"
• And claiming fictive sources are secondaries for fact, "^ "Katyn documentary film". Wajda.pl. http://www.wajda.pl/en/filmy/katyn.html. Retrieved 2010-03-19."
• There are general deep 1c issues increased by 2c issues. Can someone check if rolling back to the FAC approved version helps? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• It passed FAC in 2006; rollback doesn't help. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rolling back is now definitely not an option - the article was promoted almost 5 years ago. Most of the original editors have either left or are currently topic banned from editing this article. We'll just have to fix appearing issues on the spot. Please list here anything you can find. --illythr (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  To start with we need to get the citations corrected to current standard, which means consistency and adequacy. A variety of the sources lack authors, containing work title, date, place of publication, publisher. Then we need to determine which ones are primary, or not high quality scholarly sources, and are inappropriately used, and remove them substituting better ones. Then we need to determine if the article meets the standard historiography, or if it is synthesis produced from cherry picking. They seem to be able to be completed one after another, and there's no need to take to FAR if it is naturally progressing.

  As a basic example there's one slavonic language source cited using << Title >> format instead of Italics as common in English. Many Slavonic titles are cited without Italics. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Zygmunt Staniszewski

Vargob (talk · contribs) claims that a certain "Hillary Zygmunt Staniszewski" died in the massacre. I think the name 'Hillary' is spurious, because it does not sound at all like a Polish name, and if this person had three names, the second would probably end in '-owicz' or some such. Can someone check this? --Smack (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know off hand about this but "Hillary" while rare, can in fact be a Polish name (there's even a famous children's poem by Jan Brzechwa Julian Tuwim about "Pan Hillary" who lost his glasses). Likewise the ending -owicz for the 2nd name would be in Russian or Ukrainian, but not Polish. Will look into it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There might be something to this. If this source is reliable [7], then it appears to confirm that a Hilary (one l) Zygmunt Staniszewski was killed in Katyn [8]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to post on this by whoever said that Hillary Zygmunt Staniszewski does not sound correct he was my great grandfather and it is most definitely correct. Amy Staniszewski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.36.24 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ceremony of military upgrading of Katyn massacre victims, Piłsudski Square, Warsaw, 10 November 2007."

A picture in the article bears the comment "Ceremony of military upgrading of Katyn massacre victims, Piłsudski Square, Warsaw, 10 November 2007.", however there is no reference to this in the article. What does this mean? Were the Katyn massacre victims given posthumous promotions in the Polish armed forces? It would be good if somebody could add a comment in the article. Thanks. Cyan22 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe claim: Germans knew about the massacre beforehand?

I removed the following fringe claim. The source is not linked and thus hard to verify. I am not sure where to even add it if we wanted to keep it. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Writing in the Commentary magazine in 1981, George Watson, a Fellow in English at St. John's College, Cambridge suggested that the fate of Polish prisoners may have been discussed at the April 1940 conference.<ref>George Watson. "Rehearsal for the Holocaust?" ''Commentary'', 71 (June 1981), 60–61</ref>

• George Watson is generally unreliable for these claims. George Watson is a literary historian and is working outside of his field. Two page articles are rarely of significance in the humanities. Commentary is a magazine of opinion with a political agenda (nothing wrong there); but Watson lacks the expertise to comment on these issues, and is publishing outside of the mode for this work. Moreover, Watson has published poison pen books regarding Central European History in the past. Good removal. If the concept is addressed elsewhere, it may be valid to include. But it sounds like a FRINGE theory by a non-expert deliberately publishing a short piece in a non-scholarly opinion magazine with a political bias. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fringe claim: Arno Diere's trial

Per comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn massacre/archive1, Arno Diere's trial seems poorly referenced. The English website seem to be rather controversial (Irving's website for example). It would be nice if somebody could verify the Russian and/or French sources found, but the sparsity of sources makes the mention of his trial problematic. Could it be a hoax? Or maybe his name is misspelled? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced content removed

I removed the following unreferenced content. Feel free to restore with references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

After the executions, there were still more than 22,000 former Polish soldiers in NKVD labour camps.

This is probably a reference to the members of the future Anders Army. --illythr (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I couldn't find a ref for the 22,000 number, and it was a bit out of place in the section it was in anyway. No prejudice to some expansion on that, if somebody can find a good source and place in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

It was unveiled by Stefan Staniszewski, whose father Hillary Zygmunt Staniszewski (a high court judge) died in the massacre. Preserved below a small stone monument bearing a plaque with the inscription "In memoriam to the 14,000 members of the Polish Armed Forces and professional classes who were executed in Katyn Forest (1940)" are phials of soil from both Warsaw and the Katyn forest.

This was an uncited part of the para that begun with ref sentence: "Another memorial was erected three years later, in 1979, in Cannock Chase, Staffordshire.". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:KatynPL-grobyBS.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:KatynPL-grobyBS.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:KatynPL-mogily.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:KatynPL-mogily.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all officers in the camps were killed

Polish Wikipedia mentions that a number of officers were spared by the Soviets. [9]

It includes Polish officers who declared willingness to cooperate with Soviet Union in case of war with Nazi Germany, those who declared that they were communists, and officers listed by Italy, Germany and Lithuania. Interestingly the Polish group was divided into two camps, one led by Zygmunt Berling who while declaring loyalty to Polish Government in Exile wanted to work with Soviets, and lieutenant M.Morawski who according to the text believed Soviet Union of European States will be formed after the war. It also lists a couple of more famous people who were set free.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unref claimr remvoeved (Allies were aware of the massacre due to decrypted German messages before the official annoucement)

I've removed the following claim, as it was unreferenced, and not supported by any nearby source. I couldn't find this in any reliable source; but I'll note that this claim is part of one of the fictional movies about Katyn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Allies were aware that the Nazis had found a mass grave as the discovery transpired, through radio transmissions intercepted and decrypted by Bletchley Park.

Self-referential citation?

The present article contains the following sentence: "Many sources claim that prominent mathematician Stefan Kaczmarz was among the victims, but the Polish version of Wikipedia states that he died in 1939, most likely in combat operations near Warsaw." This "corroboration" by another version of the same article unnerves me somewhat -- what if the Polish version in turn contains a reference to the article in English? Also, the citation has not been hard-coded in, so no one can verify if the Polish article even makes such a claim. I vote for someone to remove the second half of the sentence unless a different, more appropriate source is found. 75.175.174.83 (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I removed it since it was essentially unsourced and speculative. My understanding is that he died in "unknown circumstances" which in turn led to lots of speculation that he died in Katyn, but it was never conclusively established. Good catch.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Revelations ? Perestroïka views !

Why not entitled the section "Revelations" as simply "Prestroïka views". This follows "Cold War Views". It sounds more logical and more historic and more chronological. Tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.231.177 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess "Revelations" is indeed too "flowery" for an encyclopedia, but the described events (disclosure of the documents) are not "views" either. --illythr (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

info

Not sure how reliable RT is but it mentions some unearthed documents at this link Agathoclea (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's old news (2010) of old news (1993) - the article refers to the core incriminating documents that were published in 1993 and were available online since 2004 at the latest. In 2010 they just became available at an official Russian site (Rosarkhiv). --illythr (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Coatrack?

Please explain how the text removed qualified to be deleted citing WP:COATRACK. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To me this sounds as a thinly veiled justification for the massacre, which as we now know had nothing to do with any imaginary threat. I would also like to see actual quote.--Galassi (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Galassi is essentially right here. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps more of a WP:UNDUE issue... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If these aren't the only (sourced) sources of such speculation, it may be worth reinstating worded more appropriately. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a sourced analysis of Soviet motivations could be qualified as a coatrack. That said, this particular analysis looks rather far fetched to me. So, what Vecrumba said, I guess. --illythr (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski

Can anyone explain why any serious discussion on the Katyn Forrest Massacre fails to mention Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski, the only surviving witness, who revealed the truth long before the rest of the world finally acknowledged it? 71.231.5.112 (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Because few serious people believe him or any of his story. His book is best treated as a work of fiction. 70.234.229.36 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Likely, although we should probably discuss his story somewhere - he may be notable for his own article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights?

Would it be right to put the recent decision from the European Court of Human Rights on here? http://rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20120412/262781310.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.38.166 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Already there, in the "Recent developments" section. --illythr (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The recent developments section

... is getting ever more unwieldy and less recent. Suggest splitting it into three - "Official investigation", covering the 1990-2004 Prosecutor-General’s Office investigation (this is where the info about case volume transfer should be concentrated). Adding something on the Institute of National Remembrance activities would be a good idea, too. "Further court cases" should cover the post-2004 hearings in Russia as well as the EHCR one. The rest (statements by politicians and the like) should be in a separate section named "Polish-Russan relations" or something like that. --illythr (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"35 out of 183" is still valid, http://m.wyborcza.pl/wyborcza/1,105226,11543437,Wyrok_Trybunalu_w_Strasburgu_ws__Katynia__Rosja_nie.html . Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. No need to add another source, though, that other one is adequate. Ah, got it. --illythr (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Aren't "Further court hearings" a part of "Official investigations"? I would suggest a merger of those two sections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that, as the further hearings concerned different aspects of the case - mainly victim rehabilitation and document disclosure (another point in case would be the failed attempts by Stalin's grandson to sue the head of Rosarkhiv and the State Duma for libel against his grandfather). The basic idea here is to separate the big 1990-2004 investigation with all its fact-finding work, from the subsequent action that focused on the post-1990 events instead of the 1940 ones. I made the header plural because I assume the INR's actions also count (as soon as someone actually writes what they did on Katyn). The Russian article's relevant header is "Investigation by the Prosecutor-General's Office of the USSR and Russia", but that's kinda long, no? --illythr (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New Source

I saw a new article on the massacre today, here), at the Huffington Post. Not sure how useful it will be, or even how much new information (if any) is to be found there, but I know if I don't copy the link somewhere I'll forget about it. So, I'll just leave this here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The gist of it is already laid out in the Western response section. Not sure what else can be added there... --illythr (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I just wanted to make sure I didn't lose the link - hadn't checked the article beforehand. Seems like it's in good shape. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Roosevelt Myth

I would like to add a section from the book The Roosevelt Myth by John Flynn. The two points I want to add to the article is that 1. President Roosevelt visited Stalin, even AFTER it was known of his atrocities in Ukraine, and still said nothing about Stalins claim to fame about having ownership of Poland and Baltic States, and 2. That after the war, he did NOTHING to change this view! Also I would like to add to this section, Americas view at the time on race and its anti-immigration policy towards Poland and what America thought of the Polish people. And I would like to add conspiracies about HAARP and the Polish plane crash. What would be acceptable for the article, and if not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.17.67 (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's a myth, then it doesn't belong in a wiki. Same for conspiracies. If you can back it up with sources (needless to say that your edit would be undone anyway, if it doesn't cite any sources), then you're free to go. Just keep in mind that wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracies and myths. Wheatstack (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

My edition here [10] was reverted. Opinions? MachoCarioca (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks nice and conforms to the wikipedia look and feel. Thumbs up.

Aenchevich (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Asking for approval of additions related Red Cross and Mukhin's book

I would like to add these changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katyn_massacre&diff=536362353&oldid=531332299

The changes:

a) improve the chronological order of some sections;

b) clarify the reason for Red Cross' refusal to conduct the investigation in German-occupied territory;

c) point that the topic is controversial and that there are still authors, journalists and political figures who maintain that the execution of the Polish POWs was not perpetrated by the NKVD.

Sources and references cited.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenchevich (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Volunteer Marek 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Katyn denial theories fail WP:FRINGE for such a prominent inclusion here. That said, a dedicated article on this subject should probably be created. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@Piotrus - My change included three parts... interestingly only the denial part caught your attention? If you do not have comments regarding the other proposed changes, then I take it, it would be ok to add these?

Regarding the “denial”: yes the book and movie I mention are probably a good example of a Fringe Theory.

However, Fringe Theories are not forbidden to appear in Wikipedia articles.

According to the link you cited above: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is... [it] must not be given undue weight...". Nothing in that guideline says that Fringe theories CAN NOT appear in an article. It just states that they need to be clearly identified as being "not broadly supported".

My addition fits this guideline. It does not in any way attempt to argue with the official view on the subject, just points that there is a different point of view among certain circles. The two sentences (literally - two!) I wanted to add about the denial proponents can not possibly give this theory undue weight, given the volume of this article.

Piotrus, Katyn may be a highly sensitive and politicized topic. But wikipedia does not need to be... so please, let's not go into a "double denial" here - it is a fact that some writers disagree with the mainstream view and they have attempted to defend their point of view, to provide some facts and documents and to explain why they disagree.

This information is relevant, it does not contradict with the WP guidelines and it could be interesting for the impartial and unbiased reader of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenchevich (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Elaboration on motivation?

It is still confusing to me what the Soviet's motive for this massacre was and I hope someone can elaborate on this section. Germany invades Poland and so the Soviets kill Polish soldiers? Why the Polish officers and not fight the Germans who invaded territory that they believed was "theirs"? I know that Talk pages are not for debate about content but after reading this entire entry, I find it is still deficient in positing a cause for why this was done, or why Polish officers, journalists and doctors were even abducted. Even just an additional sentence or two would help. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As of spring 1940 the Polish state ceased to exist, its territories divided between Germany and USSR, who were happy to keep it that way. Those who willing to do everything in their power to bring it back were thus a liability to both sides. This was the Beria way of getting rid of that liability. The article already explains this in the second half of the Background section.--illythr (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I mean it's pretty clear - the Soviets would've been overjoyed at having the chance to wipe out half of Poland's most elite cadre of citizens in a single, horrendous, industrious period of slaughter. Once done, the threat of revived Polish nationalism, let alone an actual military, political or even economic threat from the former Polish state, became much diminished for a generation-plus. Azx2 07:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, you say "I know that talk pages are not for debate about content". Well, yes they are. What else are they for? Britmax (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, Britmax. While it's clearly stated that talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, they are absolutely for discussing the article (while of course being polite and welcoming!), which would include "debating" content if it was unclear, disputed, etc. Maybe 69.125.134.86 felt unsure of himself and so compelled to issue that disclaimer. Anyway, I think it's clear at this point what the motivation of the Soviets was, based on this excerpt from the article:

The reason for the massacre, according to historian Gerhard Weinberg, was that Stalin wanted to deprive a potential future Polish military of a large portion of its talent:

"...[the massacre] should be seen as looking forward to a future in which there might again be a Poland on the Soviet Union's western border. Since he intended to keep the eastern portion of the country in any case, Stalin could be certain that any revived Poland would be unfriendly. Under those circumstances, depriving it of a large proportion of its military and technical elite would make it weaker".

In addition, Soviets realized that the prisoners constituted a large body of trained and motivated Poles who would not accept a Fourth Partition of Poland.

At least it seems clear to me. Cheers. Azx2 22:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The chief motive for this criminal proposal was a realisation that the prisoners expected liberation in order to join the struggle against Soviet authority. - perhaps this central point should be more emphasized in the article, instead of Weinberg's opinion. --illythr (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say your contemplation on the motivation of soviets are based to anti-soviet propaganda. You can not prove these statements. They are only your imagination. Also, the document in note d. seems to be falsified. Its first 3 pages and 4-th page are obviously written on different typewriters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.219.199 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Katyn massacre/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Where are the bodies now? What was their final disposition, following their double exhumations? One site refers to the Soviets dumping them in the river. Is this speculation, or supported? This would seem to be a topic worth including in the main article.

Last edited at 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)