Posted under History & Political Philosophy
Why do we refer to the DC regime as the Evil Empire? Here’s one example:
The US has long held in its possession verified documentation proving the 1940 Katyn forest massacre of several thousand Polish POWs was committed by the Soviet Union. Why did Washington conceal it: to cover-up for its wartime ally Josef Stalin. …
The released papers now prove that the US officers informed their country of the concealed murder scene and the evidences some months after their 1943 visit.
The historians who spoke with the Associated Press called it “the most dramatic revelation” as it shows that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his administration were getting information early on from credible US sources illustrating it was the Soviet Union behind the massacre.
The finding further supports suspicion that regardless of the verified knowledge, Roosevelt chose not to make it public and wrangle with Josef Stalin, an ally whom the Americans were counting on to defeat Germany and Japan during World War II.
After all, what’s a little genocide between friends?
The purpose of the Katyn Massacre was to deprive Poland of its intellectual elite, which would certainly have led resistance to a communist takeover of their country. Stalin’s orders were to execute 25,700 Polish “nationalists and counterrevolutionaries.” The victims were Poland’s officer corps, men who in civilian life were an educated and motivated elite the Soviets had to eliminate.
Not only does the Katyn Massacre provide a shocking illustration of DC’s brutal history, it also sheds light on the true nature of leftist ideology. It’s a sham. For all their talk about the “equality of all people,” deep down, lefitists know their ideology doesn’t match reality. People are not equal. Some are smarter, stronger, or faster than others. That’s why the procrustean ideology of the left is inevitably doomed – human nature mocks it.
Bruce on 11 Sep 2012 at 2:23 pm #
Of course all people are equal. Some are just more equal than others.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Sep 2012 at 2:45 pm #
Bruce,
Yes, and isn’t it funny that it’s the “enlightened ones” who think they’re superior?
Feltan on 11 Sep 2012 at 3:03 pm #
This is all very specious.
The article states: “… now prove that the US officers informed their country of the concealed murder scene and the evidences some months after their 1943 visit.”
Really.
So we visited Katyn, Poland in 1943 while it was under German occupation and well behind the front lines even though we were at war with Germany?
In reality, the events surrounding Katyn were murky for a long time. There were indeed reports that Russians had liquidated a large portion of the Polish officer corps (remember, they also liquidated THEIR OWN officer corps in purges prior to WWII). However, there was also equally valid assertions that the Nazi’s had perpetrated the crime. It wasn’t until later that proof emerged.
I don’t think it would have been responsible or prudent for Roosevelt to act on partial information, on a unsubstantiated suspected atrocity, against a nation that had been defeated before we were in the war. Keep in mind that Roosevelt was dealing with confirmed reports of Japanese ill treatment of U.S. POWs, plus emerging evidence of the German atrocities in the concentration camps. Compared to these atrocities, exactly how would expect him to react to this?
Indeed, instead of showing DC to be reprehensible, it shows good judgment and restraint from rushing to a conclusion that, despite the article’s false assertions, was far from certain.
I am not an FDR fan, but this complaint doesn’t pass an initial smell test.
Regards,
Feltan
Kirt Higdon on 11 Sep 2012 at 3:40 pm #
Feltan, you need to read the whole article; I’ll admit the part quoted is ambiguous and potentially misleading. The officers who visited were POWs who were taken there by their German captors, apparently because the Germans wanted witnesses whom the allies would believe since the allies obviously would not just take the Germans’ word for it. As far as Roosevelt covering it up, I find nothing admirable in that. Rulers typically conceal their own crimes and those of their allies and exaggerate or just invent crimes of their enemies. All sides at war do this. Lying and covering up crimes to promote hatred and killing is thoroughly evil.
Feltan on 11 Sep 2012 at 4:48 pm #
Kirt,
I agree that the article is ambiguous, and unfortunately so was my comment concerning the POWs taken there.
As the President, would you trust the word of two POWs taken to see an atrocity site by your enemy? I certainly would not.
The point being that I don’t believe this article provides any facts that Roosevelt “covered up” anything. As a matter of history, he had a report from two POWs, and that he chose not to denounce an (at the time) ally based on this report.
I would have done the same thing until I had better and more trustworthy evidence.
Regards,
Feltan
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Sep 2012 at 7:27 pm #
Feltan,
FDR sent Commander George Earle to investigate. Earle concluded the Soviets did it on Uncle Joe’s orders. However, FDR censored the report. When Earle wanted to publicize his findings, FDR had Earle sit out the rest of the war in Samoa.
Once again, truth was the first casualty of war.
Feltan on 11 Sep 2012 at 8:06 pm #
HB2,
That report is not in question. However, Earle made the report based on 2nd/3rd hand knowledge by people from Eastern Europe who had a beef with Soviet Union to begin with.
Would a responsible commander-in-chief denounce an ally based on that?
Come on. I think you are stretching things here.
Remember, as the war came to an end and U.S. troops were liberating death camps, it must not have been hard to assume the Nazi’s did this too.
Regards,
Feltan
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Sep 2012 at 10:14 pm #
Feltan,
Just the fact that a monster like Stalin was an ally pretty much closes the case, don’t you think?
Worse, subsequent presidents had conclusive proof that they guarded. That makes them complicit as well.
Feltan on 11 Sep 2012 at 11:42 pm #
HB2,
Stalin was a monster. The alliance with the Soviet Union during WWII wasn’t really one of our choosing, they were at war with Germany when Germany declared war on us. It would have been foolish to snub or ignore them; remember that 80% of the German army was on the Russian front. If Russia had collapsed, there is no way we could have effectively invaded Europe and brought the war to a close.
The sad fact, really it is sad, is that Katyn was an afterthought given all the atrocity that took place in Europe. It is no secret that the Soviets killed millions of their own, the Germans killed millions too. Twenty-five thousand executed POWs gets lost in a sea of horror.
I don’t think there was any plot to hide this. It was simply a confusing situation where blame was ambiguous for years after the war. Sure, there were reports — but there always are. What do you know for sure at the time? We know now, but hind sight is 20/20.
Regards,
Feltan
Weaver on 12 Sep 2012 at 9:17 pm #
Feltan,
A “democracy” isn’t supposed to lie to its citizenry about something like this.
Feltan on 12 Sep 2012 at 11:46 pm #
Weaver,
You have multiple reports of an incident. Some reports blame the Germans with whom you are at war and who’s death camps you have liberated. Other reports blame the Russians who are not nice either, but are your ally.
Exactly how is it a lie for the then President not to blame the Russians? He did not have the advantage of hindsight, and certainly didn’t know what we all know now.
Roosevelt was a bum in a lot of ways (like trying to pack the Supreme Court), but the facts just don’t support the charge in this case.
Regards,
Feltan
RonL on 13 Sep 2012 at 3:36 am #
Not harping on Soviet atrocities during the war made sense. The failure to teach these to the American people during the Cold War, and especially afterward, when more facts became available was a tragic mistake. I can’t tell you how many young adults this that reports of Soviet atrocities were mere Cold War propaganda.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 13 Sep 2012 at 9:38 pm #
The Soviet tried to pin Katyn on the Germans at Nuremberg, but the judge(s) insisted the defense still had rights to cross examine. When the Soviets were unable to remove that point, they quit the allegation.
In this context, Nuremberg, at least as a side point, was a massive cover-up of Soviet crimes. As RonL fails to note, though I am sure he knows, this puts other atrocities of the Eastern Front offered at Nuremberg and thereafter, where information was supplied by the Russians, under the need for further examination–which is illegal in some countries where study of Soviet atrocities can fall under the rubric of ‘equivocation’ interpretations of various speech codes.
Of course, the Polish Army was not exactly spotless in its battles against the Wehrmacht and the Reds (let alone in invading Czechoslovakia right after Munich) so it does take work to make sense of it.