Posted on 10/28/2007 2:26:34 PM PDT by lizol
Wajda's "Katyn" shown in Moscow
28.10.2007
Polish Embassy in Moscow is again the venue of the screening of "Katyn", a movie on the Katyn Forest Massacre by Oscar winning Polish film director Andrzej Wajda. Katyn was shown there for the first time yesterday.
The audience, mostly diplomats, human rights activists and artists were moved. "Poles, forgive us," said Russian human rights activist Siergiej Kovaliov after he saw the film.
In 1940, over twenty two thousand Polish POWs - both military and civilian - were executed by the Soviet NKVD. The movie tells a fictional story of the victims and their families.
Katyn is scheduled to be shown in Russian cinemas in march next year.
According to the Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) genocide is defined as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
So - if the Soviets wanted to destroy a part of “national, ethnical, racial or religious group” which means the social elites of particular nations - to turn the rest into “new, Soviet people” - that was also an act of genocide (against Ukrainian, or Russian, or Polish people).
But what really astonishes me is the fact, that Russia has any problem with accepting such a point of view?
And that other nations are afraid of doing so - being aware, that this would spoil their relations with Russia.
But what really astonishes me is the fact, that Russia has any problem with accepting such a point of view?
And that other nations are afraid of doing so - being aware, that this would spoil their relations with Russia.==
Your definition of genocide is so wide that the any revolution is ment to be called as the genocide.
For example: American Revolution of 1760th was “...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ...” the ethnical group of British.
French Great Revolution of 1790th was “...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ..” the social group of french nobles.
Any war is the genocide from the start.
For example: the latest Iraq war is “...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ..” the ethnical group of the Sunni Arabs.
So it means that Pole soldiers is committing the genocide of Sunni Arabs in Iraq just now. How do you like it?:)
And so so on. I may give you the hundred of such examples just because you include into your definition of genocide just any hostilities which one group may do to another. So any hostility are commited with intent to destroy. And if it concerns the big group of people then we can always to find the indications to name it the genocide.
But really the genocide is just the real extermination of one ethnical group by another. Over. Otherwises there are just the atrocities. The punishable crimes but not genocides.
According to your definition - the deeds of the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, when they slaughtered 20-25% of the nation within 4 years were not genocide.
As tho the French Revolution - I have no doubts, that what the revolutionaries did to the noble men and those, who did not supported the revolution was a genocide (see for example the way how the Revolutionary government treated royalist, Catholic peasants in Vendee in 1793, which has been widely recognized, as the first modern example of genocide).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e#Claims_of_genocide
Same applies to Soviet Russia.
Are you aware of backround of the event?
Was that a genocide by your opinion?
According to your definition - the deeds of the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, when they slaughtered 20-25% of the nation within 4 years were not genocide(or terrorism).
As tho the French Revolution - I have no doubts, that what the revolutionaries did to the noble men and those, who did not supported the revolution was a genocide (see for example the way how the Revolutionary government treated royalist, Catholic peasants in Vendee in 1793, which has been widely recognized, as the first modern example of genocide).==
As I told before under your widen definition everything is the genocide (or terrorism) now. But the strict definition do not recognise those acts above as the genocides.
The widen definitions are misleading at least but give to thier users the great points for the propaganda. That is why they are used today.
Funny but recently I red that the IED bombing which Iraqi insurgents do in Iraq against occupation forces and loyalists was called as the “terrorism”:). Another case of the widen definition in case of the propaganda.
The strict definition calls the terrorism the attacks on the innocent civilians only. But the propaganda-widen definition calls the “terrorism” the attacks on the armed forces of the occupaying army. Funny isn’t it? Some duped people on West engulfs it:). So as your “genocide”:).
Lizol let us be strict and not succumb to ANY propaganda. No matter from whom it is comming.
If he did it, because he didn’t want to keep them as POWs, neither to free them - that would be a crime of war.
If he did it, because they were OTTOMAN POWs - that would be a genocide.
Definitely that was a crime against humanity.
If he did it, because they were OTTOMAN POWs - that would be a genocide.==
WHo knows what was his first thought and intention? Maybe Napoleon just prevented by this the possible insurgency on his back lines. “Do not leave the alive enemy behind”. It is the american saying.
If you red the Stalin-Beria papers on Polish POW officers killings then you may find that those guys think same way. They prevented the hostility and possible insurgency which may stem from those officers if alive. Stalin let go all polish POW soldiers (much bigger numbers) but in same time decided to shoot all officers to leave first without command.
It is atrocities but hardly genocide.
Definitely that was a crime against humanity.==
If we recognise Golodomor and polsih POW officers killings as teh genocides then we should do same for each and every war and revolution or inasions which happened to be during all times. I think it will be quite long list. And many items there will be done by Poles or Ukranians themselves. For example Soviet POWs in 1920th or Ukranian UPA attacks on polish civilians in Volyn region. Each nation today may find many and many cases like these.
So what we will have then? Just many and many more points to hate each other nothing more. It will damage the peace greatly and stem hatred.
If ... because they were OTTOMAN POWs
So you're distinguishing intention of the criminal to name the crime.
The difference between the Russian and the Polish attitude towards Katyn is of the very same nature.
An additional isssue was that he had given word of honour he would have let them live.
Requiring a word of honour from the POWs not to fight aganst Napoleon wasn't considered an option due to a reason unknown to me.
That's true, of course.
he wanted to destroy the elite of the Polish nation
That's not that obvious. Probably, he just didn't want to take the trouble - "dead men won't bite" (c).
If that was Stalin’s idea - he could easily send them to Vorkuta, or to some other equally nice place.==
Maybe.
But he ordered to shoot them - as he wanted to destroy the elite of the Polish nation - to melt the rest into Soviet crowd.==
Those officers were only elite Poland had? I did never think over that.
In Russia we always think that the military officers or generals sometime are quite limited in thier views. The civilians: the writers, the painters, the musicians, the scientists are the elite.
Military officers are quite educated but in very narrow terms. Just to most effectively kill other military with weaponry to command thir soldiers.
So Stalin-Beria just wanted to get rid of the possible insurgents. No wonder they let go home polish soldiers. Thought that without thier command they are not dangerous.
I wonder what Germans did with thier polish POWs. They took them in much bigger numbers then Soviet Union? Why you do not request the genocide accpectance in case of those POWs?
Stalin spent a lot more time during the war thinking about after the war than the other Allies.
At Katyn, the Soviets killed the cream of the crop — the military officers who would be candidates for future leaders. And then, in the final push to Warsaw, the Red Army waited on the opposite side of the Vistula while the Polish resistance rose up against the Nazis; they decided to let their enemies kill each other off.
That way, the only Poles who were left with the skills and ambition to lead post-war Poland were the communist cadres Moscow had in its pocket.
And then, in the final push to Warsaw the Red Army waited on the opposite side of the Vistula while the Polish resistance rose up against the Nazis; they decided to let their enemies kill each other off.
1. I doubt that Stalin could have foretold the actual war events at Katyn's time. Probably he wanted to conquer Poland but hardly in the way it happened.
2. Soviet Union had a territory dispute over Western Belarus and Ukraine. At first Poland won a war and kept the territory for 20+ years. But the USSR got it later after Poland had lost WWII. The Polish POW who were probably killed by NKVD consisted of military, civil officers and colonisers. Those people were likely to rebel, so getting rid of them had political sense.
The USSR wanted to decapitate the Polish leadership. If the USSR survived the war, its agents would be the only leadership left. If it didn't survive the war, it wouldn't matter.
The record of the wartime summits -- Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam -- supports the notion that Roosevelt was looking forward to the end of the war, Stalin looking past it, and as usual Churchill was the only person in the room who got the whole picture.
The USSR had a long history and a consistent pattern of preparing leadership cadres for other countries. They eventually had a formal institution -- Patrice Lumumba University -- for that express purpose. When the Japanese were driven from Korea, Kim Jung-Il returned from Moscow to his homeland. Ho Chih Minh spent most of the '30s and '40s in Moscow before returning to Indochina. Mao Zedong never spent time in Russia, but was inspired by its example and sought its advice.
In the chaos of post WWII liberation and decolonization, the communists were the best-organized and best-funded group on the ground in a number of countries, because they'd planned for it. it is not a stretch to believe that they were applying that strategy in Katyn in 1940. But for the Truman Doctrine and US efforts, they might have gotten Italy and Greece, too.
Not every war crime is a genocide. There are other atrocities.
Genocide is an attempt to eradicate a people or a culture. The Nazis attempted to eradicate Jews in Poland. They did not attempt to eradicate Poles. (Though, if they’d succeeded in eradicating European Jews, they would probably have turned on the Slavs next).
Genocide is an attempt to eradicate a people or a culture. The Nazis attempted to eradicate Jews in Poland. They did not attempt to eradicate Poles. (Though, if they’d succeeded in eradicating European Jews, they would probably have turned on the Slavs next).==
I agree with this. So as Soviets didn’t attempt to eradicate Poles. Katyn massacre is the warcrime but not genocide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.