Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on February 05, 2003, 10:48:45 AM
-
- Video of chemical weapons sites being cleaned up, over 30 of them
- Some were being unloaded even as UN inspectors arrived
- Death threats against scientists
- Subbing in Iraqi intel agents for scientists
- Faking deaths of Iraqi scientists
- 30k liters of Anthrax
And thats just 30 min. into it boys and girls...
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15811
-
...nuke em
-
i belive
-
- Mobile storage facilities on train tracks
- Weaponized anthrax spray tests using Mirage jets
- 4 tons of VX missing
- Taped conversations:
- Video of trucks hauling chemicals away from Al-Musayyib Chemical Complex
- Video of bulldozed and freshly graded earth, Al-Musayyib Chemical Complex
-
Maybe we need to switch tactics. How about:
With Iraq's ongoing buildup of chemical and biological weapons exposed, it can now be clearly seen that Iraq is nothing more than a tool of the US intended to conquer the Middle East. All nations of the world must rise up against Iraq and defeat this evil attempt to dominate the region.
Think that might work?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe we need to switch tactics. How about:
With Iraq's ongoing buildup of chemical and biological weapons exposed, it can now be clearly seen that Iraq is nothing more than a tool of the US intended to conquer the Middle East. All nations of the world must rise up against Iraq and defeat this evil attempt to dominate the region.
Think that might work?
:)
-
Naa, have not credibility....
Maybe before Desert Storm, but now...
:)
-
Originally posted by Naso
Naa, have not credibility....
Maybe before Desert Storm, but now...
:)
Lost you Naso...
-
Originally posted by Naso
Naa, have not credibility....
Maybe before Desert Storm, but now...
:)
Well, what if I add lefty lib to my sig, would that help? ;)
-
he has them, you can count on it.
One thing he learned from Desert Storm is that his conventional army and weapons were usless against the US.
Do you really think he'd sit idly by all these years and do nothing?
-
Ahh, hell, there's just too much to post, follow this link:
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15811
-
Could spell disaster for the US troops if he used them ... and why shouldn't he? He's got nothing to loose.
And UK troops. Remember we have a third of our regular army in, or on their way to the Gulf right now.
But like you say, if the UN says go, I say go.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And UK troops. Remember we have a third of our regular army in, or on their way to the Gulf right now.
.
Rgr....
-
Old news.....nothing new....same old accusations....doesn't prove a thing....prolly fabricated.....just proof that more inspections are needed.....give the inspectors more time....Amerikans are warmongers....its all George Bush's falt.......
Just predicting the Euro-trash response. ;)
Wab
-
you forgot the line about OIL ;)
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Just predicting the Euro-trash response. ;)
are u sure? :D :D
-
Missed Powell's presentation Ripsnort, thanks for the info and link.
:)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
are u sure? :D :D
POLAND RULES !!! :)
-
>you forgot the line about OIL
Doh! How could I have missed THAT one!?!
Amended: "Amerika just want to steal Iraq's oil!!!!!!"
> are u sure?
No. Its possible that there are some who still have a shred of self respect and common sense in the UN.
All evidence to the contrary.
Wab
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lost you Naso...
Eh eh, was pointing that the "Iraq is US puppet" as argument was lost when US (not only US, even Italy was there) attacked Iraq after Kuwait invasion.
Too late to use it :)
Here is the post I was pointing to (forgot to quote it):
Maybe we need to switch tactics. How about:
With Iraq's ongoing buildup of chemical and biological weapons exposed, it can now be clearly seen that Iraq is nothing more than a tool of the US intended to conquer the Middle East. All nations of the world must rise up against Iraq and defeat this evil attempt to dominate the region.
Think that might work?
-
so this is how a circle jerk gets going.
-
A question for all the fellows who say that if the UN says go you say go. What if all the security council says go, but China and Russia veto? or just China even. Do you still say no go anyway?
I think we should give the UN a week and if they haven't decided yet we pull out of that useless organization and kick them out of NY. I think paris would be a much more fitting place for their capital.
Another question, how many Iraqi's have to die before the UN decides to go help?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
so this is how a circle jerk gets going.
Plenty of 'em going on here in other threads, seems I noticed you in one or two.
-
A circle jerk alright and you just cant wait to guzzle all the goo right out of the middle huh Dolf?
-
I was watching this at work on one of our projects when this old broad who works across the isle comes over and asks
"Is anything new?"
I say "Yeah allot of evidence he has stuff he should not"
She interrupts "Yeah but we gave it all to him and that's just how we work, we are always helping these guys then getting mad at them" And she walked away... lol
I could not help but thinking what a moron, she was not interested in what was said she already had her mind fixed..
EvIL AmERIkA....
-
Euro-trash is a great TV show.
GScholz - no problem. I'm not on my way over there. ;) I just hope they all come back safe.
What if all the security council says go, but China and Russia veto? or just China even. Do you still say no go anyway?
Err... hate to point this out to you, but Russia and China are on the security council last time I checked. If the security council says go, then China and Russia must have agreed or abstained.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
so this is how a circle jerk gets going.
(http://www.attrition.org/gallery/computing/forum/sit_in_corner.jpg)
-
Is circle-jerking like circle-strafing? I hate it when people do that in BF1942 or MOHAA.
But I've never seen anyone circle-jerking. Is it something worth doing?
-
its an american term i guess. where a group of guys sit in a circle and masterbate.
the meaning was the war hawks all agree with each other and thus it must be so, a circle jerk probly starts in a similar mannar by simmilary moraly ajusted individuals. and they like each other so much.. well just seems to go beyond brotherly, sitting around ( in a circle?) listening to rush linbau lie saying and doing what comes natural ( in this case mentaly but its still jerkin off no?)
in my oppinion :)
-
War was never formally declared GScholz, neither by the Taliban nor Afghanistan. Maybe it was by OBL in the name of Islam. Anyhow, the US is simply mopping up a bunch of terrorists/criminals.
The world IS a very dangerous place.
-
"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."
Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.
welcome back to 1939.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."
Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.
welcome back to 1939.
HUH!? Powell was a military commander in the Gulf war. Fully supportive of ousting Iraq from Kuwait.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
welcome back to 1939.
In case you were looking for confirmation...Yes, you are a dipshit.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Err... hate to point this out to you, but Russia and China are on the security council last time I checked. If the security council says go, then China and Russia must have agreed or abstained.
If China, France or Russia will say "no" - then it will mean "no" to the whole attempt to justify another unprovoked agression.
Permanent Security Council members have a right to veto any decision.
It's not 1950, we can't afford military assistance against agressors, so we'll never let them use UN as a cover for another war. And they will not dare to throw China out from SC meeting again.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
HUH!? Powell was a military commander in the Gulf war. Fully supportive of ousting Iraq from Kuwait.
Rip, wasn't it an American TV film where they said Powell and Shwarzcopf were against US taking part in a war, they even stated they have to call reservists, thinking Bush will never afford that, to prevent US troops from going there? I thought it's a well known story.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Rip, wasn't it an American TV film where they said Powell and Shwarzcopf were against US taking part in a war, they even stated they have to call reservists, thinking Bush will never afford that, to prevent US troops from going there? I thought it's a well known story.
LOL! Well known in your circle of friends maybe. ;)
-
Of course Britain and most of the civilized world will be square behind us.
Russia will begrudgingly come along (because they want some latitude to deal with their Chechen problem).
China will abstain. They will eventually want our cooperation to help deal with those whacko nuclear armed goofs on their own southern border.
Germany lost her rights to ever have a real say in anything again after murdering 6 million Jews. She don't get a vote. And rightfully so.
The only question is if those cheese eating-surrender-monkeys (frogs) are going to act unilaterally and block the will of the rest of the world community with a veto. If so, we'll just go without a UN resolution but at least we can say we tried and were blocked by frog obstructionism.
Wab
-
i remember it more like they stonewalled him untill he gave them anything they wanted . the only logical way to fight . they knew all about viet nam.
i dont believe they were aginst the war at all .hell i dont know anyone who was. a soverign nation was invaded we all went to fix the wrong.
-
Originally posted by SOB
In case you were looking for confirmation...Yes, you are a dipshit.
SOB
Seconded.
Not only is Bush Hitler... but now Powell is who? Hess?
This is very confusing... can we go back to reality please?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
AKIron, the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban soldiers WAS members of the armed forces of a nation state.
You are mistaken. The legal government of Afghanistan led by president Rabbani was overthrown by taliban, but was still controlling land in the North, had a reprresentative in the UN and embassies all over the world.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The world IS a very dangerous place.
mostly harmless.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Will Iraqi soldiers captured be granted POW status? Will they be labeled "unlawful combatants"? If so WHY? If not WHY? What is the definition of an "unlawful combatant"?
They were treated as POWs iaw the Geneva Convention during the Gulf War I believe GScholz. Though it was not a war declared by the US but rather a UN action.
I wish things were so simple in Afghanistan. As you know, the Taliban was harboring Al Queda. War should have been formally declared by the US imo as it should be now against Iraq.
Arrogant it may seem, but if the UN isn't aligned with the goals of the US then why should we remain a member?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."
Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.
welcome back to 1939.
Guess that puts into prespective what Stalin said to the Ukranians in 1932.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Germany lost her rights to ever have a real say in anything again after murdering 6 million Jews. She don't get a vote. And rightfully so.
Wab [/B]
You Sir, are an idiot.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Will Iraqi soldiers captured be granted POW status? Will they be labeled "unlawful combatants"? If so WHY? If not WHY? What is the definition of an "unlawful combatant"?
Thy have to be neither treated as defined by the geneva convention nor granted civil rights. They're of a lower rac...er religion.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LOL! Well known in your circle of friends maybe. ;)
Rip, I sell this to you for the same price I bought it.
Saw it in a TV documentary, read it in several articles, including translated.
If it's wrong - then I want to know who and why was telling this to us.
Akwabbit, if Russian representative will not veto the "war" resolution - Putin will have serious problems at the next elections. I mean he'll have to do something to be elected again. We will have serious demonstrations and maybe even riots if he'll support agressors.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It's not 1950, we can't afford military assistance against agressors, so we'll never let them use UN as a cover for another war. And they will not dare to throw China out from SC meeting again.
OMG Now he is saying the UN aided South Korean "agressors" in the Korean War.. Boroda you do know the North invaded the south with Stalin's full support. Are you that badly brainwashed? You would be such a pathetic waste of human flesh if you have actually let your mind get destroyed by propaganda so much.
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
Guess that puts into prespective what Stalin said to the Ukranians in 1932.
What did he say? I'm curious.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Northern Alliance occupied 15% of Afghanistan. The Taliban government was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic. The argument that they were not the legal rulers of Afghanistan is questionable ... at best.
UAR have fallen apart 20 years before Taliban appeared.
Rabbani was a democraticaly elected president.
Funny to hear that NA occuped the land where they lived for hundeeds of years.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
OMG Now he is saying the UN aided South Korean "agressors" in the Korean War.. Boroda you do know the North invaded the south with Stalin's full support. Are you that badly brainwashed? You would be such a pathetic waste of human flesh if you have actually let your mind get destroyed by propaganda so much.
Grun, US and it's supporters threw PRC out of security council meeting and used SC "resolution", signed in absence of two permanent members, as a reason for an armed agression in Korea.
Now tell me about "evil commies" who were no more then targets for hordes of yankee strategic bombers until USSR and PRC helped them.
Grun, both sides say that it's another who attacked first. Please remember all that mess started when US forced "democratic" elections in American occupation zone and put their puppet government there.
Go read some books.
-
UN votes for "peace in our time"
-
Boroda the NK forces overran all of SK in an incredibly short time- there is no way that was just a defensive reaction to SK agression. The NK executed a preplanned invasion with suport of Stalin - there is no discussion of that. They caught the SK and small US forse completely unprespared and routed them accross all of SK and nearly into the sea in a matter of weeks. This was no reaction to SK agression.
How dare the USA impose democracy and freedom on people? They should have installed a communist government instead...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It should read "United Arab Emirates". My bad.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are orthodox Islamic theocratic countries. Pakistan is a platform for the American influence in Central Asia that have bred Taliban for years using American experience during Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Do you think US could not have recognized the state of Panama after sending their cruisers and marines to create it?
Taliban are a bunch of Moslim fanatics used by USA and Pakistan to "stabilize" the situaton in Afghanistan and stop the total war and slaughter that started there when USSR withdrew it's 40th Army in 1989.
-
You Sir, are an idiot.
Really? Another one of those "it never happened" crowd eh?
Perhaps you have another explanation on why a country the size and importance of Germany was conspicuously denied a voting seat on the Security Council?
Boroda,
Russia MIGHT abstain, but I gauruntee you that they will not veto.
Wab
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Boroda the NK forces overran all of SK in an incredibly short time- there is no way that was just a defensive reaction to SK agression. The NK executed a preplanned invasion with suport of Stalin - there is no discussion of that. They caught the SK and small US forse completely unprespared and routed them accross all of SK and nearly into the sea in a matter of weeks. This was no reaction to SK agression.
How dare the USA impose democracy and freedom on people? They should have installed a communist government instead...
Grun, you already answered all your questions in your post.
1) There were no Soviet or Chineese troops in NK in summer 1950.
2) SK government thought that US will immediately support their in a war against NK, because they got their seats from the occupation administration.
3) They were mistaken, just as Kim Ir Sen was mistaken about Stalin's help. You have to read diplomatic correspondence between USSR and DPRK. Stalin said something like "It's your problem, you have to solve it yourself". Mao was saying the same things in the beginning. Only after a complete collapse when the "UN" forces landed in Chemulpo Stalin sent 64th IAK PVO (fighter corpse, anti-aircraft defence) to Korea, to perform strictly defencive tasks.
4) The conclusion can be that both sides had obvious reasons to attack, thinking about their "big brothers" who will have to support them. The outcome was pretty obvious: Americans tried to bomb NK "to stone age", while USSR was protecting it from air raids.
Grun, try to find different sources on this problem. I understand that in your "free press" and "democratic society" it's next to impossible to find anything that contradicts with Party line, but using Internet you can try.
-
Wow Boroda you still cannot accept that you NK communist buddies invaded SK in an attemt to opress its people and force them to live under communism...
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Boroda,
Russia MIGHT abstain, but I gauruntee you that they will not veto.
This will mean total disappointment for Russian people. The most popular question will be "how much did THEY pay and who got the money".
I have already read Ivanov's statement. "We strongly insist on continuation of inspectons".
The case is that the status quo is the only thing that satisfies Russian government. As long as Iraq is under embargo the oil prices are stable and moderately high.
-
I thought the free elections were supposed to be held in ALL of Korea, but you know how those communists go for a "free election" and thus it was only held in the South whereas a communist state was intact in the North by the time the Soviet Union left. USA left South Korea in 1949 I think and the North started making intrusions into the South and since the South didn't have any military aircraft, could not do anything about it. Then the North invaded the South to place all of Korea under communist rule and actually had control of the whole country except a small pocket on the Pusan peninsula. Then McArthur makes a landing and cuts the logistics of the North in half and then the march north to re-take all of South Vietnam. It is only THEN that the south invades the North and dang near reaches China when they enter the fight and push the South back south. Simplistically, that's how I always understood it. So I guess the South really started it with an invasion with their imposing military force which includes zero tanks, artillery pieces and no military aircraft. I suppose it was the USA that was sending troops on bicycles up to Hanoi and invading North Vietnam too in that war.
Also, I've seen documentaries on the existence of the Loch-Ness Monster, Big-Foot and Elvis is still alive...don't believe every documentary.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow Boroda you still cannot accept that you NK communist buddies invaded SK in an attemt to opress its people and force them to live under communism...
GH, you still can not accept that your SK puppet-"democratic" buddies invaded NK in an attemt to opress its people and force them to live under American occupation...
GH, it's all only words. Just like in good ol' 70s. "All the progressive humanity as one..." etc. ad nauseum. (on and on untill you feel sick, if you don't know this little Latin).
I have grown out of this when I was 18.
-
from - http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1950/06-25to08-03-50.html
June 25, 1950
At approximately 4 a.m. (Korean Standard Time) on a rainy Sunday morning Democratic People's Republic of Korea Army (DPRK - North Korea) artillery and mortars open fire on Republic of Korea (ROK - South Korea) Army positions south of the 38th Parallel, the line then serving as the border between the two countries. The opening barrage is followed shortly by tank/infantry attacks at all points along the Parallel. At 11 a.m. North Korea announced a formal declaration of war and what is now known as "The Korean War" officially began. In this announcement North Korea claimed ROK forces on the Ongjin Peninsula attacked North Korea in the Haeju area (west) and their declaration of war was in response to this attack. This claim was bogus.
U.S. President Harry S. Truman was notified of the invasion and returned from his home in Independence, Missouri, to Washington, D.C., arriving in early afternoon. Meanwhile the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to north of the 38th Parallel.
June 26, 1950
Uijongbu falls to North Korean forces. South Korean government - President Syngman Rhee and cabinet - leave Seoul for Taejon.
President Truman meets with State Department and Defense Department officials. He authorizes General Douglas MacArthur to:
(1) send ammunition and equipment to prevent the loss of Seoul,
(2) provide ships and aircraft to evacuate American citizens, plus Air Force fighters and Navy ships to protect the evacuation, and
(3) send a survey party to Korea to study the situation and determine how best to help the ROK government and military. Later in the day President Truman expanded his instructions by ordering General MacArthur to use Air Force aircraft and Navy ships against all North Korean military targets south the 38th Parallel. General MacArthur issues an "alert order" telling all combat units in the Far East to prepare for possible deployment to Korea.
June 27, 1950
U.S. Ambassador Muccio & staff leave Seoul for Suwon. ROK Army headquarters leave Seoul for Sihung-ni (about 5 miles south of Yongdungp'o) without informing their U.S. advisors with the Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG.) KMAG follows ROKA Hq to Sihung-ni shortly thereafter. After discussions, most of ROKA Hq and KMAG return to Seoul a few hours later.
During the late evening, the U.N. Security council passes a resolution calling for member nations to give military aid to South Korea.
Meanwhile, in compliance with President Truman's order to provide help to South Korea and the use of U.S. air and naval forces south of the 38th Parallel, General MacArthur sent a fact finding group, headed by Brig. General Church, to Korea. This group left Japan at approximately 4 a.m. and arriving at Suwon in the early afternoon where they set up a temporary headquarters.
A U.S. Air Force F-82 shoots down a North Korean Yak fighter for the first U.S. air victory of the war. Two more North Korean aircraft are shot down a few minutes later in this same battle.
June 28, 1950
ROKA engineers blow the Han River Bridge at approximately 2:15 a.m. trapping the bulk of 3 ROKA divisions fighting on the outskirts, plus ROKA Hq and KMAG personnel still in Seoul. Somewhere between 500 and 800 people - civilian & military- are killed in the explosion. All trapped KMAG were able to escape across the Han River later in the day via still-operating ferries, arriving in Suwon late that afternoon, where KMAG senior personnel briefed Gen. Church.
North Korean force entered Seoul in the early afternoon and street fighting ensued but by midnight Seoul was in North Korean hands.
So Boroda, the poor NK army was forced into taking Seoul within 3 days of those darned SK aggressions?
LOL
-
Umm Boroda how long ago did you leave Russia?
I'd take American 'occupation opression' anytime over the Russian paradise.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So Boroda, the poor NK army was forced into taking Seoul within 3 days of those darned SK aggressions?
LOL
Its almost as good as "Powell and Scharwzkoft were against ousting Iraq from Kuwait". Entertainment at its finest. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow Boroda you still cannot accept that you NK communist buddies invaded SK in an attemt to opress its people and force them to live under communism...
No No No, you misunderstand. They were just trying to extend the friendly hand of Socialist brotherhood..
Next thing ya know we will hear how '68 was just a group hug for the Czechs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There hasn't been a declared war since WWII, including the first Gulf War.
AKIron, the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban soldiers WAS members of the armed forces of a nation state. They were captured while defending their nation from a US/UK/Norwegian/Swedish etc. etc. etc. invasion. The Al-Qeada fighter were indeed terrorists, but the Taliban soldiers were part of a regular army and should have been granted POW status. No matter how much the Taliban regime supported terrorism. These men were defending their homeland.
Will Iraqi soldiers captured be granted POW status? Will they be labeled "unlawful combatants"? If so WHY? If not WHY? What is the definition of an "unlawful combatant"?
Uhh... Actualy I think a Uniform and some sort of organisation is required under the GC. Most didnt have uniforms..and had no clear chain of command. This made them irregulars I'm thinking. They where handled pretty civily actulay because a guy you capture who is outta uniform and has been fighting you can be excuted.
I'm not real sure about all this...been a long time.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Umm Boroda how long ago did you leave Russia?
I'd take American 'occupation opression' anytime over the Russian paradise.
:rolleyes:
A guy from Angola? Salute!
Studied here? Where? People's Friendship?
Are you sure that UNITA could be better then MPLA? I can admit it could be, but it's not obvious.
JFYI: I didn't leave Russia. It's not a paradise, but it's MY country.
Tell me one plain thing: were there any Soviet troops in NK in Summer 1950?
TahGut: again, you have sources only from one side. After reading some correspondence between Soviet Foreign Ministry (not Stalin!) and Kim Ir Sen I came to a conclusion that USSR was against that war.
-
Oh come on! We all knew Powell had this card up his sleeve:
(http://www.somethingawful.com/goldmine/02-04-2003/LS!.jpg)
-
No worries Bat, Borado's just pissed because the former USSR couldn't do toejam in 10 years of illegal occupation of that country...we cleaned it up in a couple months.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How dare the USA impose democracy and freedom on people?
Fair point Grunherz, fair point. Can't say I can answer it though.
-
TahGut: again, you have sources only from one side. After reading some correspondence between Soviet Foreign Ministry (not Stalin!) and Kim Ir Sen I came to a conclusion that USSR was against that war.
I wouldn't argue that. I would bet that the USA wasn't in favor of having a war either. That is all beside the point though.
No matter where my info comes from the time frame to Northern occupation of Seoul is not in question.
Now try to make so called Southern aggression make sense with actual Northern occupation. Hard to stretch the facts that far.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
TahGut: again, you have sources only from one side. After reading some correspondence between Soviet Foreign Ministry (not Stalin!) and Kim Ir Sen I came to a conclusion that USSR was against that war.
Funny how you point to sources from the "other" side as if nobody would actually take the time to look them up to call roadkill.
Well, I looked them up and call roadkill. Here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b5a1.htm) is a fascinating website that documents and translates direct communiques between North Korea and the USSR during the period 1949 to 1950. Let's look at some of the findings.
First, to answer your assertion that a North Korean attack came as the result of South Korean aggression (LOL!), the paper has this to say:
It is interesting that the Soviet ambassador confirms the
interception of South Korean attack orders but notes that no attack occurred. Other documents in this collection show that through June 1950, North Korean leaders repeatedly claimed to have intercepted offensive orders from the South, even though the attacks did not materialize. Some of these interceptions could well have been genuine, since South Korean leaders in the months before the war often expressed their desire and intention to reunify the country through military means. However, if Stalin had made an attack from the South a necessary precondition for a North Korean military action, the steady stream of such reports is more easily understood.
So let's see... Stalin denies initial North Korean requests for permission to invade South Korea unless they are attacked, and out of the woodwork come dozens of reports of impending South Korean attacks that never materialize. Shocker! I wonder why South Korea would "suddenly" become an aggressor state to North Korea when aggression was the one pretext required by Stalin for invading them. Put two and two together, Boroda.
Next we find that:
Document #3 also suggests that by 11 September 1949,
following the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea in June,
Stalin had warmed to the idea of a military campaign in Korea, at
least on a limited scale.
So as early as 1949, the USSR warmed to the idea of military conflict to reunite the Korean peninsula. Why was Stalin opposed to a war of aggression right away? Well, because recently declassified communiques between North Korean and Soviet officials show that:
Document #5, the Politburo decision of 24 September 1949, confirmed the response Shtykov was ordered to make to Kim Il Sung’s reply for an offensive military action. One should note that the Soviet leadership did not question the goal of bringing the rest of Korea under DPRK control; the issue was only whether the attempt to do so would bring disadvantageous results.
In other words, Stalin was in favor of a North Korean offensive so long as it would come at little cost to the USSR or its interests in the region.
I'm curious, Boroda, how you could possibly read such evidence and conclude to the contrary that the USSR supported a North Korean invasion of the South. Seems to me like you're selectively picking and choosing what you read with the expectation that nobody here will take the time to check your facts. Now, I fully expect a response from you explaining that the website I posted misinterprets/translates the first person communiques, or how it's hopelessly mired in Western biases. I expect no less.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Baroda is like our own little commie propagandist, spewing the most ridiculous crap and (this is the best part!) he believes it.
Comedy gold!!
-
Does anyone real think the US decision makers really care if some third world country decides to support. Regardless of security council, whether Russia veto, China veto, or whoever, US is going to do what needs to be done.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What did he say? I'm curious.
I think he said "guess whos not coming to dinner"
A Man-Made Famine raged through Ukraine, the ethnic-Ukrainian region of northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River region in 1932-33. This resulted in the death of between 7 to 10 million people, mainly Ukrainians. This was instigated by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his henchman Lazar Kaganovich. The main goal of this artificial famine was to break the spirit of the Ukrainian farmer/peasant and to force them into collectivization. The famine was also used as an effective tool to break the renaissance of Ukrainian culture that was occuring under approval of the communist government in Ukraine. Moscow perceived this as a threat to a Russo-Centric Soviet rule and therefore acted to crush this cultural renaissance in a most brutal manner.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Really? Another one of those "it never happened" crowd eh?
Perhaps you have another explanation on why a country the size and importance of Germany was conspicuously denied a voting seat on the Security Council?
Boroda,
Russia MIGHT abstain, but I gauruntee you that they will not veto.
Wab
Nope, I don`t deny the atrocities commited by germans in WW2. However, that`s 60 years ago, and even without stating the current population was for the most part not even born then, the germans in general are not willing to start that toejam again.
As for not having a vote, well history may be the reason. Other than that, we`re not a military power to be considered ATM. I still cant take that all-germans-are-nazis roadkill you`re giving me.
Americans all but wiped out the "Native Americans", you recall that. Should I base my argument on that ?
-
That's my Morale Officer....cheering us all up!
:)
-
"Well we've heard from former and current inspectors, terrorism experts, Middle Eastern experts, generals and defence analysts as to why the evidence is credible - now over to the French to tell us why it isn't..."
-
As for not having a vote, well history may be the reason. Other than that, we`re not a military power to be considered ATM. I still cant take that all-germans-are-nazis roadkill you`re giving me.
I never said all Germans are Nazi's. I did say that given your countries behavior over the last century, the world community felt you couldn't be trusted with a voting seat on the Security Council.
So, for the most part, your countries opinion on international issues is pretty much irrelavent.
And your countries opinion on moral matters is even more so.
Wab
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
I never said all Germans are Nazi's. I did say that given your countries behavior over the last century, the world community felt you couldn't be trusted with a voting seat on the Security Council.
So, for the most part, your countries opinion on international issues is pretty much irrelavent.
And your countries opinion on moral matters is even more so.
Wab
Than I'm really asking me why many of u neo conservatives are so angry about the germans not to support this war?
If the USA will declare war on Iraq without UN does ur country still will have a seat at the UN? I really hope not!
-
Originally posted by Duedel
If the USA will declare war on Iraq without UN does ur country still will have a seat at the UN? I really hope not
Whadda ya know, something we can agree on.
-
UN ...iraq must disarm , please, .........and let us have" peace in our time"
USA .....iraq will disarm, or else
iraq .....we don got no steeking weapons, and you lying yankee pig dogs can't find them, hahaha
-
U have to understand I'm not (like Schröder) totally against war. I'm pro war if UN is pro war.
But to be really honest my knowledge (like urs) came from the media. So I (and u ) dont know nothing!
I'm not saying that the media is doing propaganda but they only know what the goverment is telling. So whats the truth?
Germans are mislead by propaganda in 1933 so we are very critical about news that came from some country that may have other interests than rescueing the Iraqies.
But one thing is for sure: Mr. Hussein is a dictator and one of the most worse!
My main concern is that if the US is declaring war on Iraq without the support of the UN there will be much more terrorism in the world.
To go alone (with the UK) is dangerous and not deliberate.
It could lead to an increased hatred of the western countries by many muslims.
This surely would be the opposite Mr. Bush wants. I'm curious about what will happen...
-
Originally posted by Duedel
My main concern is that if the US is declaring war on Iraq without the support of the UN there will be much more terrorism in the world.
Duedel, the Islamic extremist terrorist in the world today don't need a reason or even an excuse to commit terrorism. The US will be blamed by them whether the UN backs an invasion of Iraq or not.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
To go alone (with the UK) is dangerous and not deliberate.
It could lead to an increased hatred of the western countries by many muslims.
Based on quotes from Musilim leaders around the world including ones living in the west, do you really believe that it matters if the UN approves or not?
***************
"God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America."
From videotaped statement broadcast by Al Jazeera, October 7, 2001
***************
"We issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it....We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."
From World Islamic Front Statement, February 23, 1998
***************
"Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian clergyman highly respected among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, said "Muslims against suicide bombings are people who are alien to Sharia (Islamic laws) and religion." Friday August 3, 2001"
I am against America until this life ends, until the Day of Judgment;
I am against America even if the stone liquefies
My hatred of America, if part of it was contained in the universe, it would collapse.
She is the root of all evils, and wickedness on earth.
Who else implanted the tyrants in our land, who else nurtured oppression?
****************
prominent government official cleric Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik
"Oh Muslim Ummah don't take the Jews and Christians as allies.
Jewish women as slaves he says:
Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?
****************
Ustad Abu Bakar Ba'asyir told Singapore's Sunday Times that the largely Roman Catholic Philippines deserved to be the target of a jihad
"I advocate jihad because it is important in the Koran," the 64-year-old Ba'asyir was quoted as saying in the interview with the Singapore newspaper.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Duedel, the Islamic extremist terrorist in the world today don't need a reason or even an excuse to commit terrorism. The US will be blamed by them whether the UN backs an invasion of Iraq or not.
Yesteryear:
Death to Israel! Allah is great, Allah says Israel must be destroyed!
Today:
Death to Israel, USA ! Allah is great, Allah says Israel, USA must be destroyed!
Tomorrow:
Death to Israel, USA, UN! Allah is great, Allah says Israel,USA, UN must be destroyed!
{Rinse, repeat}
Bring it baby.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And UK troops. Remember we have a third of our regular army in, or on their way to the Gulf right now.
But like you say, if the UN says go, I say go.
"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests"
France should no longer be considered our ally (http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/4/171345)
I don't want to ever go before the UN again when our national interests are at stake. The UN is useless, why should we need there approval? Screw the UN.
I want the US to leave the UN and stop all funding for the UN. I want all our international aid to any country to be conditional on their support and alliance to the US.
I'm tired of all the US food aid we give the world being labeled "UN" food aid. We pay for it, we should have the US flag on all the food and aid we give. If those countries don't like it, then they don't get our aid.
Ahhhh, feel so much better now! :)
-
"NK was just defending itself from American aggression" My god I didn't even think most modern North Koreans still believed that . Wow I hadn't realized that Boroda was so completely brainwashed . Most americans are so naive that they don't believe people like him exist .
When you tell the average american on the street that 80% of the Egyptian people believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by jews, they don't believe you .
I think most americans would benefit from a holiday in cambodia .
-
Suave when you spend your entire life misinformed, it's easy to see things in weird ways.
Boroda is not the only example here though, I can see many similar signs in the euro vs usa threads here. People just don't know what they're talking about and that's sad.
Oh, and Gscholtz it's Capoeira Angola, Texas.. :p
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the USA is unwilling to abide by the majority vote in the UN (which is the basis for democracy btw.) then yes, you should withdraw from the organization.
[/b]
The UN is not a democracy (hint: how many voters have veto powers in a democracy)
IF the US leaves the UN you are of course welcome to withdraw you funding, but at least pay what you owe them now. The rest of the UN would have to compensate for the loss of the USA contribution, shouldn't be too difficult.
[/b]
I too think the US should leave the UN. The UN will never survive if the US drops out, and I think the UN idea should be abandoned. The UN might have been a good idea at some point, Im not sure, but right now it sure is not. The idea to have nations like Sudan or Iraq working on human rights is just insane. The notion that pissant nations like Uganda have as much influence (=voting power) as Japan, Germany, Brazil, Italy is rediculous.
-
stupid brain :mad:
-
Originally posted by Suave
"NK was just defending itself from American aggression" My god I didn't even think most modern North Koreans still believed that . Wow I hadn't realized that Boroda was so completely brainwashed . Most americans are so naive that they don't believe people like him exist .
When you tell the average american on the street that 80% of the Egyptian people believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by jews, they don't believe you .
I think most americans would benefit from a holiday in cambodia .
Funny you should say that Suave. I've had 3 friends of mine go to North Korea and they say all of the people are so brainwashed they actually told each one of my buddys that the S. Koreans led by the American aggressors invaded the North.
I also agree with ya on Cambodia, I spent 5 weeks there a couple years ago. Did you visit Tol Sleng prison? (probably misspelled that:)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Then I guess Norway isn't a democracy after all. Our politicians can ask "cabinet questions" and thereby block or even depose the elected government. Our King can veto any governmental decision up to 3 times.
[/b]
Maybe now would be a good time to read up on the word "democracy" and see what that means? Just because your elected politicians have the right to call a vote of confidence on the current government, and vote to have it removed from office is not "un-democratic", on the contrary, it is a very normal part of any parliamentary democracy. Same thing with head of states and veto powers. The US president has a veto too, does that make the US un-democratic? What happens after the 3rd veto from the King btw?
Hmm, do you support a "democracy" where the rich have more voting power than the poor?
No, what gave you that idea?
I just said the UN should be abandoned. because the idea of a democracy "one country, one vote" is rediculous when it comes to world politics.
-
So do you think there is a difference between a system where a veto can be overturned by a vote, and a system where a veto is absolute?
So you agree that the UN should be abolished? Great.
The number of votes should depend on number of citizens?
Yeah brilliant idea, lets give all the power in the world to China, India and various other suspect 3rd world nations.
-
Enter emoticons
Emoticons: (chorus)
-We are the tools of the unskilled writers. When someone fails to express himself through the written language he resorts to us. You should not hate us, because we only exist because of your own shortcomings.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Enter Hortlund and two soldiers
Hortlund:
-Private, take those disgusting "emoticons" out back and shoot them.
Emoticons:
-Oh noooo
:eek::eek::eek:
Soldier:
-Yes Sir!
Exit soldiers and emoticons
*sound of gunfire*
Hortlund: (turns and faces the audience)
-I know that some of you are scared. That some of you doubt your own ability to express yourselves through the written language. But we all feel like that from time to time.
I have myself full confidence that if all do their duty,if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our bulletin board, to ride out the storm of emoticons, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years
if necessary alone.
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of me and my merry men
That is the will of this bulletin board and indeed the entire internet.
The HTC Empire stand together as one linked in our cause and in our need, we will defend our bulletin board, each other like good comrades to the utmost of our strength.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the emoticons and all the odious apparatus of their rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be,
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets,
We shall fight in the hills;
We shall never surrender.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! Hortlund, nice try. When you're in minority democracy is a squeak right ...
I was going to say something along the lines of "moron" or "idiot".
So I'll do just that
Look moron, the only reason a democracy works is because it is based on laws that are upheld by the police and the army.
There are no such thing in the relationship between nations.
So tell me you idiot why any nation would want to give up parts of their independence just because another nation has more citizens?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And UK troops. Remember we have a third of our regular army in, or on their way to the Gulf right now.
But like you say, if the UN says go, I say go.
Well we will let the UN call go, just so long they get off thier
arse and say go.
The UN is not credible imo.
Good thing they are saying go, we are not impotent on this matter like some french speaking folks on the tube.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If China, France or Russia will say "no" - then it will mean "no" to the whole attempt to justify another unprovoked agression.
Permanent Security Council members have a right to veto any decision.
Yup the have the right.
We will be glad to do it without them.
Give it till the weekend then we will strike, be ready.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Changing the Subject [SNIP]
I congratulate you on your ability to cut and paste.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the USA is unwilling to abide by the majority vote in the UN (which is the basis for democracy btw.) then yes, you should withdraw from the organization.
.
LOL! Siaf_csf :D ;)
Damned, in a perfect world!
We should have withdrawn 10 years ago.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
- Look moron, the UN is right now trying to decide whether or not to attack Iraq for violating UN resolutions. Idiot.
So? Does that have anything to do with what I said? Dont think so huh...
The UN is not capable of enforcing anything on anyone. At most the UN can say "ok, all you member nations, you may declare war on country X now if you want...please" or "it's ok if you start sanctions against country X"...but thats it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It's exactly the same. The government (in Norway at least) can't ORDER the police to arrest someone. They can however make law, and thereby give the police the right to arrest someone for violating that law. You're supposedly a judge, how many mute laws does Sweden have that the police never acts upon?
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Can you just drop this silly argument and leave it at that? You are only coming across like a complete moron/total idiot (take your pick).
A couple of philosophical questions for you to ponder over:
-How many mute laws are laws per se?
-Does the police have the right to arrest someone or the obligation to do so?
(The police doesnt have the right to arrest someone for violating the law. The police are obligated to arrest someone for violating the law in 95% of the cases, and they have a choice in the remaining 5%. If you want find a law book and try to the different words "shall" and "may". The go find a dictionary and look up the difference between "shall" and "may".)
-
(http://www.attrition.org/gallery/computing/forum/hijacklive.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You persist with the personal attacks, a sure sign of a sore looser.
...rather than spewing your idealistic "how things work in a perfect society" drenched in infantile insult spittle,
hehehehe
"oops"
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You're arguing that world democracy is a bad idea. Let me take a guess ... you voted against Sweden joining the EU ... didn't you.
[/b]
Yeah, I am arguing that a world democracy is a horrible idea. Its borderline insane actually. Why? Because I dont want the Chinese and Indian population decide over my life.
I voted yes to Sweden joining the EU. Imagine that huh...
But are they doing it?
the police does NOT arrest people for violating certain laws. Be it because of lack of resources or different priorities. It's the same with the UN. In a PERFECT WORLD member states would be required to act on the UN resolutions. Unfortunately most nations who otherwise would act, doesn't find it within their BUDGETED capabilities, or have other PRIORITIES.
Exactly what are you arguing about here? Somewhere along the line I stopped paying attention to your ramblings, and now I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you still maintaining that there are no difference between international relations and the relationship between the citizens and government of any given nation?
Frankly I have no interest whatsoever to debate Norwegian police crime fighting priorities with you. Sorry.
The Point I'm trying to make is twofold:
1) In the relationship between the various nations of the world, there are no binding laws, only treaties. If any nation violates treaty, there are no "police" to take them to "court".
2) The UN does not have any powers whatsoever, and they are completely dependent on the actions of the various member nations.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
In other words, Stalin was in favor of a North Korean offensive so long as it would come at little cost to the USSR or its interests in the region.
Well, this is how it probably was.
Tell me WHERE did I say I believe that SK attacked first!?
The situation was very complicated (as it usually happens), and both sides (I'd better say four sides) were trying to reach their goals, that can hardly be defined as "good" or "evil".
I'll look at your link, it must be intersting. What I read about that period are mostly materials from Russian Presidental Archives published in several books on post-war history, heavily Western-biased. Obvious bias in comments and attempts to substitute facts with propaganda slogans gave me the feeling I am reading a Soviet times cheap popular history abridged for high school... So I tried to read documents and try to understand what is between the lines. You know, when I see something like "This time the bloody Stalin's regime..." it makes me feel sick like "Capitalist countries led by American imperialists..." did in Soviet times.
If you take Western version of history, obviously as filled with propaganda as Soviet version, for granted - why can't I believe in Sovet version simply because I KNOW that USSR was not an "evil empire" as the enemy said?
Now back to the original topic.
What surprises me is why US acts so bold and primitive now. In 1950 they didn't let PRC to the SC meeting, obviously leaving USSR out too, in 1999 they made Russia to suggest a resolution to stop bombings instead of discussing their "peacekeeping" terror bombings (hehe I use Goebbels's term here) before they started.
Looks like now they are going to show everyone that they don't give a flying f@#k about UN decisions. A next logical step to the brave new world when noone will feel secure.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
On this point you are mistaken. There are international laws concerning trade, war and crime. Several international tribunals exist and an international trade court formed by the ICC. As for the "police", the USA is now trying to get a "deputy badge" from the UN, a badge I myself once wore, but you are right about the "police" being a voluntary effort.
[/b]
Why do people insist on talking on subjects they have no real knowledge of? Isnt it embarrassing to make a fool of yourself all the time? I mean there is a reason why I dont post in the threads about cars. I DONT KNOW toejam ABOUT CARS. Why oh why cant people accept their limitations and leave it at that?
I went over this with Dowding (albeit on a slightly different subject) and now another international law expert pops his head up.
I truly truly dont want to have to repeat all the basic fundamentals of international law yet once again. I dont.
If I put it this way: You are horribly wrong in your statement. Will you accept that and drop this subject? No huh?
Before I have to do yet another small essay on international law, ask yourself this question:
Have you heard about an permanent international crime court? If yes, have you also heard that the US have chosen not to participate in that one? If yes, how is that possible if there is an international law that is binding?
Another question. Have you heard about the Vienna convention on the law of Treaties? How can something be a law if it is up to any nation to chose to follow it or not?
The short answer to your questions about various courts is this: Those courts exist only because certain nations have decided to set up those courts, and follow their desicions, and the desicions of those "courts" are only binding if the nations involved accept said desicions. If you want, look up the international court of justice, case 1986 ICJ p 14 NICARAGUA vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That one should tell you exactly how international law works. Short recap:
Nicaragua -
US is mining our harbors, funding guerillas inside our borders and have an illegal embargo against us. All these things are in direct violation of international law.
US-
We dont recognize this court, now sod off.
Court-
err ummm well...
-
Originally posted by devious
.
Americans all but wiped out the "Native Americans", you recall that. Should I base my argument on that ?
Half of the US Army in the 1800's were German;)
-
Originally posted by Monk
Half of the US Army in the 1800's were German;)
And, depending on how far back one wishes to go with this...the Russians came over on the land bridge in Alaska and beat the crap out of the native indians, and pushed them to central Mexico (as well as bred with them, giving us our "Native Indians" as we have today)
-
Boroda.
If you could work this stuff up into a 3 minute monolog I think we can get you booking on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. They're always looking for new comedians. You could be the next Yakov Smirnov!
You do realize that the Soviet Union's Ambassador was BOYCOTTING the Security Council meeting when the Korean resolution passed, right?
HE DIDN'T SHOW UP for the meeting BY HIS OWN CHOICE.
Oh, wait... you will never believe that will you? After all, Gorbachev lied about Stalin ordering the mass murder of Polish POW soldiers at Katyn Forest and a few other places.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Really? Another one of those "it never happened" crowd eh?
Perhaps you have another explanation on why a country the size and importance of Germany was conspicuously denied a voting seat on the Security Council?
Boroda,
Russia MIGHT abstain, but I gauruntee you that they will not veto.
Wab
So why not exclude USSR as well?..They killed more of their own people than Germany did.
-
My impressions of Powell's presentation.
The satalite pics were rather undetailed.I thought you could read a newspaper from up there?..I saw better close ups when JFK was showing Cuban missles.
The recorded conversation sounded fake...It losey went something like...
General X:This is General X.Do you have any of the banned stuff where you are?
General Y:Uh,do you mean the banned stuff?
General X:Yes,the banned stuff.Can you move it and destroy it please?
General Y:So you are asking me to get rid of the banned stuff?
Sounds like something from an old Cheech and Chong record.
How do we know it wasn't "Joe Iraqi" joking on the phone with someone else?...Inadmissable IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Why do people insist on talking on subjects they have no real knowledge of? Isnt it embarrassing [/B]
Did anyone else get a chuckle out of this?
-
So why not exclude USSR as well?..They killed more of their own people than Germany did.
(shrug) ok.
Wab
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Why do people insist on talking on subjects they have no real knowledge of? Isnt it embarrassing to make a fool of yourself all the time? I mean there is a reason why I dont post in the threads about cars. I DONT KNOW toejam ABOUT CARS. Why oh why cant people accept their limitations and leave it at that?[/B]
Hehe never seems to stop you in the evolution threads ;)
edit: Damn MT beat me to it!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Boroda.
You do realize that the Soviet Union's Ambassador was BOYCOTTING the Security Council meeting when the Korean resolution passed, right?
HE DIDN'T SHOW UP for the meeting BY HIS OWN CHOICE.
Toad, I know that. I mean that PRC representative was NOT allowed to attend the meeting. There are different ways to react on such things, and boycott is a pretty obvious decision to show your attitude to such a sabbath of "democracy".
You seem to deliberately skip anything i talk about. Looks like you are some kind of a mutant radio reciever, combined with the defect record player, repeating the same line about Katyn for the 15th time.
You can believe Gorbachev. You can repeat you antisoviet mantras to reach ideological nirvana. You can even completely shut off your brain, but you probably already did so.
I don't care. I try to use critical thinking, and thanks to my country - i am able to find any source from any side.
I pity you. As any Soviet citizen from the past you are limited to one official POV, and, unlike him, you can't afford a slightest blink of criticism.
What did you read about Katyn Forest massacre? Only your beloved Goebbels's version. i have read several books about it, from all sides, and believe me, this is the only way to make conclusions. You simply do not qualify for an argument.
I seem to protect Soviet views because I want to disturb your stagnant brain, and maybe finaly some day you'll look around and see all the crap that they feed you us. But every day I am getting more and more convinced that it's all futile.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
So why not exclude USSR as well?..They killed more of their own people than Germany did.
STFU and never talk about the things you don't have a slightest idea about. You'll definetly look smatrer.
-
Originally posted by Suave
"NK was just defending itself from American aggression" My god I didn't even think most modern North Koreans still believed that . Wow I hadn't realized that Boroda was so completely brainwashed . Most americans are so naive that they don't believe people like him exist .
When you tell the average american on the street that 80% of the Egyptian people believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by jews, they don't believe you .
I think most americans would benefit from a holiday in cambodia .
Suave, so you think that DPRK was sending hundreeds of strategic bombers to blow up Hoover Dam?
Maybe you still think that bombings of Hanoi, Haifon, Tripoli, Belgrade and countless other places were the act of self-defence of the little poor helpless North American United States?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
[I seem to protect Soviet views because I want to disturb your stagnant brain, and maybe finaly some day you'll look around and see all the crap that they feed you us. But every day I am getting more and more convinced that it's all futile. [/B]
I thought the Soviet views were as dead as the Revolution that formed it.
"A society based on disinformation is doomed to repeat its failures unless it looks to itself for the truth."
Before you get all upset with that comment remember we have the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News and the Enquirer not only to report the news here but to also make it up.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
U have to understand I'm not (like Schröder) totally against war.
Schroeder himself isn't against war. He's just brainwashed by the greens and the left wing of his party.
-
Boroda,I was responding to Wabbit's assertation that Germany doesn't deserve a say in UN cause they were led by an evil regime some time ago.I used Stalin's USSR as an example of why this is not a good idea.No slight was intended on the people of either nation.
BTW,you would look a lot "smatrer" if you checked your spelling.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Hehe never seems to stop you in the evolution threads
You guys need to check up on the facts. Its not me who post out of my bellybutton there... (hmm, I like that expression)
The last E vs C thread ended when no one could explain the conflict between Darwins theory and the Punctuated equilibrium theory. Santa said something like "now I will go to my books and study hard, and soon I will return with a good answer to this question". That was something like 2-3 weeks ago.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The UN is not a democracy (hint: how many voters have veto powers in a democracy)
democracy comes from greek "demos" - people. In this simple definition there's nothing that disallowes a veto. If you take it literally, even the USA aren't a democracy, beeing lead by a president that didn't get even the votes of half the people. In a real democracy there aren't any leaders - people lead themselves.
Originally posted by Monk
Half of the US Army in the 1800's were German;)
And the result of the vote for the official language was almost German, too.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Suave, so you think that DPRK was sending hundreeds of strategic bombers to blow up Hoover Dam?
[/b]
No I think they were invading a peacefull country for the purposes of enslavement . Communists regimes have a nasty habit of trying to annex their neighbors .
Maybe you still think that bombings of Hanoi, Haifon, Tripoli, Belgrade and countless other places were the act of self-defence of the little poor helpless North American United States? [/B]
Yes of course, democracies have only ever gone to war to liberate themselves and their freedom loving neighbors .
I only reply because I find your brainwashed point of view fascinating. You are an example of just how utterly the truth can be corrupted .
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
"A society based on disinformation is doomed to repeat its failures unless it looks to itself for the truth."
Vey well said.
We destroyed such a society. Your turn now.
BTW, do you expect any state or government to be based on truth? The only way to get rid of it is to open your eyes and try to see the whole picture.
Originally posted by ygsmilo
Before you get all upset with that comment remember we have the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News and the Enquirer not only to report the news here but to also make it up.
If I understand you correctly - you just said what I wanted to. They don't report news (basic facts and information, the closest to the concept of "truth"), but MAKE them, feeding you the filtered and processed information.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Vey well said.
If I understand you correctly - you just said what I wanted to. They don't report news (basic facts and information, the closest to the concept of "truth"), but MAKE them, feeding you the filtered and processed information.
Thats what I said but the difference is that our Government does not tell the media what to say, if anything the media looks to exploit anything that is NOT the truth or not precieved as the truth. With the media society we live in, ratings are the only thing that they care about thus the bigger the scandel, the better the story the more you can charge to show a female hygine product advertisment in prime time.
-
our media may have its own agenda, but it has little to do with what the government wants.
In fact any time they can come of with a scandal on the government they race to see who can publish it first...
I think if you where born here you would be a area 51, UFO, government out to get us, type of guy! lol
Hell look at the what the media did in the 60s here, out and out lied to make it look like we where losing the war!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Boroda,I was responding to Wabbit's assertation that Germany doesn't deserve a say in UN cause they were led by an evil regime some time ago.I used Stalin's USSR as an example of why this is not a good idea.No slight was intended on the people of either nation.
Sorry. I am just tired about the fact that average Westerner thinks that Stalin more people then the whole population of the USSR. My country should now be an uninhabited wilderness.
And frankly speaking I am going slightly furious in this "discussion".
Originally posted by SirLoin
BTW,you would look a lot "smatrer" if you checked your spelling.
It must be a compliment. Thanks.
It's dificult for me to read through all this endless posts, my "Lingvo" dictionary crashed and I am drinking beer. I'll be very happy if you'll point me at spelling mistakes in private messages.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well you certainly had, and still have, the right to withdraw from the UN. Why didn't you?
They wouldnt let me be Boss...
:(
-
From an article (http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/today/news_26.html) in today's paper:
Powell withheld some critical details Wednesday, such as the discovery by the intelligence agencies that a member of the royal family in Qatar, a key ally providing air bases and a command headquarters for the U.S. military, operated a safe house for Zarqawi.
The Qatari royal family member was Abdul Karim Al-Thani, the coalition official said. The official added that Al-Thani provided Qatari passports and more than $1 million to finance the network.
Support from prominent Qataris to al Qaeda is a sensitive issue. With Qatar providing the U.S. military with its most significant air operations center for military action against Iraq, the Pentagon has cautioned against a strong diplomatic response from Washington, U.S. and coalition officials say.
We have much more damming evidence of ties to terrorism for Qatar than Iraq, yet we look the other way in Qatar's case because they will aid us in toppling Hussein? How does this make sense?
If there was anywhere near this much evidence linking the Iraqi goverment to terrorism, I'd pick up the flag and get behind the President. As it is, I am not convinced that Hussein is such a threat to us that we are justified in sending people to die in order to take him down.
-
Originally posted by Suave
No I think they were invading a peacefull country for the purposes of enslavement . Communists regimes have a nasty habit of trying to annex their neighbors .
Your country has a nasty habbit of bombing civilians "to stone age" anytime it seems safe enough.
About "annexing". ever heard how the state of Panama appeared? You think that US-controlled elections in SK that lead to separation of country in two parts was really "democratic"?
Originally posted by Suave
Yes of course, democracies have only ever gone to war to liberate themselves and their freedom loving neighbors .
I only reply because I find your brainwashed point of view fascinating. You are an example of just how utterly the truth can be corrupted .
Yeah. Freedom loving neighbours in Yugoslavia. Great.
"Dobro dolzhno byt' s kulakami,
S hvostom, s ogromnymi rogami..." etc.
Truth is always corrupted. Try to develop your own POV.
-
Boroda has trust issues in regards to governments, in his case that is understandable . He thinks that the governments of the USA and USSR were very similar when it came to the media, information and propoganda . I hope one day he will join the rest of us and realize that they were in fact polar opposites .
-
Yep Boroda, the USA created Panama, good thing for the free world that we did to. BTW Panama ejoys a free democracy, just as they allways have. We're still defending their freedom to govern themselves, seems there are some marxist militants out there that are trying to change that .
Oh and about sk. That's it, america "controlled" the elections, you see the south koreans really wanted to be slave laborers for a communist regime. But damn USA just had to rig the elections :rolleyes:
-
OK, you know the Soviet Union MISSED the security council because it was BOYCOTTING the UN. Good.
Do you know WHY they were boycotting?
The Russian delegation to the Security Council did not attend the meeting because they were boycotting the United Nations for recognising Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan as the official government for China.
Taiwan wasn't expelled from the UN as the representative government of China until 1971; long after the Korean War had ended.
AS for Katyn, there's massive, indisputable evidence that Stalin ordered the execution of the Poles. Evidence that was available and proven long before the Soviet Union under Gorbachev formally admitted to the crime.
the Soviet Union under Gorbachev formally admitted to the crime.
You should feel special... you're probably one of the last folks on earth that know of Katyn that continue to deny that the Soviet Union was responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of Polish POW's. POW's captured, by the way, by a Soviet Union that violated the following agreements it had with Poland by attacking them in concert with the Nazis.
When the Soviet Union invaded Poland there were in effect the following treaties and agreements between the governments of Poland and the Soviet Union:
The Peace Treaty between Poland, Russia and the Ukraine signed in Riga, on March 18, 1921, by which the Eastern frontiers of Poland were defined.
The Protocol between Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Rumania and the USSR regarding renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, signed in Moscow on February 9, 1929.
The Non-Aggression Pact between Poland and the USSR signed in Moscow on July 25, 1932.
The Protocol signed in Moscow on May 5, 1934 between Poland and the USSR, extending until December 31, 1945, the Non-Aggression Pact of July 25, 1932.
The Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed in London on July 3, 1933.
Why would they ignore these treaties? Because they had a new one with their new pals, of course.
On August 23, 1939 Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. Secret protocols of the treaty defined the territorial spheres of influence Germany and Russia would have after a successful invasion of Poland.
Oh... wait... that never happened right? No Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty?
Like I said... you could make millions on the comedy circuit.
You don't use "critical thinking" and you apparently NEVER "use a source from any side" except the Stalinist disinformation side.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Hortlund, I really think you should look up the word "international". Hint: it doesn't mean "the whole world".
[/b]
So when you are talking about an international democracy...exactly what are you talking about?
This all started when I pointed out that the UN is not a democracy. You then presented some ludicrous idea that "The number of votes [in world politics] should be based on population"
Then you talked about a "world democracy" whatever that is then since we are not talking about the entire world apparently...could you please sum up your position here because from where Im sitting, you're just rambling incoherently.
Of course there are nations that choose not to recognize international law or courts, however there are many who do. If not, why does the ICC courts process more than 500 cases of international trade disputes every year? If a country signs a treaty with a number of other nations that treaty IS binding, and if said country later refuses to abide by the treaty the other nations can collectively punish said nation as they see fit in accordance to the treaty. This does not however mean they have to punish that nation. Yes the USA have selected not to participate in an international crime court, so the USA will not fall under its jurisdiction, however many countries are willing and THAT makes it international.
[/b]
If you look back and try to remember why we are arguing abut this in the first place, its because I pointed out that there is no such thing as international law, no such thing as international police, and the only reason democracy works in various nations is because the it is based on laws that are upheld by the police and the army.
Your reply to that was this quote:
"It's exactly the same. The government (in Norway at least) can't ORDER the police to arrest someone. They can however make law, and thereby give the police the right to arrest someone for violating that law. "
Now you are apparently saying that it is based on treaties (=not laws), and the subjects to those treaties can chose whether they want to comply with the various desicions or not. But if they break the treaties other nations can punish them if they want. Now please tie that quote together with the one I just quoted. What is "exactly the same"? For the situation to be the same, there would not be any laws in Norway, instead every citizen would have to enter into a treaty with every other citizen. Then if one citizen breaks a treaty with someone, the other citizens may punish him if they want. How is that exactly the same?
The EU in its present form is an international governmental organization. Are you arguing that the EU can't legislate law? Are you arguing that the EU couldn't punish a member state if it didn't abide by its resolutions? The same can be said of the UN, also an international governmental organization, but one that's not as entwined in the member states national government organization as the EU is.
[/b]
Yes, I am arguing that the EU cannot legislate law. What the EU can do is order member states to legislate law in the various member nations. I am also arguing that the EU is not an international governmental organization, the EU is a number of member states that have entered into several treaties with eachother, nothing more, nothing less. The EU can punish a member nation if it doesnt follow the rules, as long as that member nation accepts the punishment. if the member state says "screw you", the EU can call for sanctions or whatever, but the EU cannot force any member nation to do anything.
Basically your analysis of the EU and the UN is filled with flaws, and you seem to lack a basic understanding of what those organizations are and are not capable of doing.
Your persistent attempts to humiliate me is really not becoming you Hortlund, but I do recognize its purpose. I also understand why you chose to become a judge (if you really are one) rather than a prominent lawyer earning the big bucks, you couldn't argue a point if your life depended on it. I don't think I'm the one that's embarrassing himself in this thread.
I think you are doing a pretty good job of humiliating yourself actually. As for your analysis of my ability to argue a point...lets just say that I think that analysis is about as thought through and valid as your analysis on the relationship between domestic and international law...
-
Always amazes me the number of people who are so keen to go to war. Of course, those very same people will be sitting on their fat tulips watching the war on CNN. I wish there was a way of getting the more vocal ones on the front lines...I'd bet they would pipe down real quick.
I suspect the people who will be doing the actual fighting will put a bit more thought into it. They may be prepared to fight because that is their job...but I doubt very much that they want war.
P.S. Any of you "keeners" veterans of other wars? Didn't think so.
bowser
-
Originally posted by bowser
Always amazes me the number of people who are so keen to go to war. Of course, those very same people will be sitting on their fat tulips watching the war on CNN. I wish there was a way of getting the more vocal ones on the front lines...I'd bet they would pipe down real quick.
I suspect the people who will be doing the actual fighting will put a bit more thought into it. They may be prepared to fight because that is their job...but I doubt very much that they want war.
P.S. Any of you "keeners" veterans of other wars? Didn't think so.
bowser
Bowser,
I have to say you are wrong. No disrespect bud, but where do you think the warmongers go? - They go to the military where they can fight. If you visit any combat unit (not support or reserve unit - no disrespect meant to them either) you will find a unit very eager to put their training to the real test. I have seen light combat, had friends die in combat and will deploy in a couple of days to probably see more combat. While I would not classify myself as a "warmonger" I do not regret having to go at all. I have men in my unit who have seen heavy fighting in Somalia with the Ranger Bn. and Delta Force and they are eager to go. I've known Vietnam veterans with multiple tours (that means they wanted to go back) Many people call this foolish and don't understand and to them I don't try to explain it.
-
Originally posted by bowser
P.S. Any of you "keeners" veterans of other wars? Didn't think so.
This is a silly statement. I expect that support for military action in Iraq varies from veteran to veteran. To presume otherwise is foolish.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
bowser.. I'd go back. In fact, now that my kid is an adult, my ex sulf-sufficient and the majority of my life behind me, I'd rather go and maybe insure that some young kid didn't have to.
i suspect that most VFW's feel the same way.
-
"Always amazes me the number of people who are so keen to go to war. Of course, those very same people will be sitting on their fat tulips watching the war on CNN. I wish there was a way of getting the more vocal ones on the front lines...I'd bet they would pipe down real quick.
I suspect the people who will be doing the actual fighting will put a bit more thought into it. They may be prepared to fight because that is their job...but I doubt very much that they want war.
P.S. Any of you "keeners" veterans of other wars? Didn't think so. "
Sorry I have to disagree.
I think it is time for war, but I was hoping and still hope that another way will be found, I do not want our boys to die, nor do I want to pay for this, but sometimes thats what has to be done.
The boys who do have to go.
I support you all the way!
-
Hang, I think he'd be amazed at how many of us old fahrts tried to volunteer after 9/11.
-
I cannot see someone who has experienced the horrors of war firsthand, recommending that somebody else go through the same experience. How often have we all seen veterans who have actually been on the frontlines state that their only wish is that nobody has to go through what they did.
I applaud those willing to make the supreme sacrifice themselves when war is the only alternative...which it sometimes is. They have more guts then I probably would ever have. My criticism was of those who are much too eager to offer up others for sacrifice, knowing damn well they would never do the dirty work themselves.
bowser
-
Your attempt to humiliate me got you laughed at by two other board members, and you regularly attract ridicule and dismissal on this board. I don't see anyone laughing at me. I understand if you refrain from further comment on this issue.
[/b]
hehe, sig material...
-
GScholz just use the ignore function.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
- Ok, I'll connect the dots for you. You stated the UN was not a democracy, hinting that no one have veto powers in a democracy. Ccvi stated, as I have tried to explain to you, that democracy and veto powers are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.
[/b]
Please explain how you think that works. Lets assume that the people vote on their new government. Give 5 persons veto power. Explain what happens if 95% of the population votes for candidate A, but one person vetoes that desicion. How is that democratic in your version of democracy?
What CCVI said, and what you fail to understand, was (and still is) completely irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that the word "democracy" comes from greek "demos" is so hopelessly irrelevant to the question whether a democracy can be a democracy if some voters have veto rights. One might think that you would have realized that when CCVI was saying that the USA is not a democracy, or that in a real democracy people dont have leaders.
I suspect this will go right over your head though.
My personal opinion is that the various member states of the UN should have a number of votes that in at least some degree reflect the size of the nations population, i.e. the number of people that will be affected by the outcome of the vote.
A "World Democracy" is a union of all Earth's nations ... a utopia for sure, but maybe conceivable in the future. I just found it strange that you would reject this idea and still vote yes for the EU, an international democracy, which will become the same on a lesser scale. Just to forestall any outcries of confusion on your part let me just emphasize that World=The Whole World while International=Two or More Countries ... get it?
[/b]
You are seriously weird. I have never had that much sympathy for the cosmopolitans, franky I see that as some freaked out hippie dream. But thats just my opinion. The reason I voted for the EU is the simple fact that I want my country to be a part of the EU for as long as the EU exists, because it beats the alternative, and it is beneficial for Sweden as a nation and Swedish economy. If you think I voted out of some idealistic conviction, you are wrong.
But this is of cource completely irrelevant.
- Once again I will connect the dots for you Hortlund. If we take the EU as an example, Norway is, as you probably know, not a member state, yet we have access to EU's internal market as if we were. This is because Norway has a TREATY with the EU (for which we pay dearly I might add). Norway does not however have any privileges when it comes to the EU Governmental processes or lawmaking. Sweden is a member state, and as such has these treaties embedded in its LAW, and as a member state have a say in EU's decision-making and lawmaking.
- If a person is a member of a nation state, i.e. a citizen ... like Norway, he is subject to Norwegian law, and able to participate in the politics and rule of Norway. If said person is not a Norwegian national he does not have the privilege to participate, and is not subject to Norwegian law. A person can however obtain a visa (treaty), and thereby become a temporary citizen of a nation, subject to its laws, but without any privilege in matters of state.
- See the similarities? Norway-treaty-EU=person-visa-nation, Sweden-member-EU=person-citizen-nation?
[/b]
Geez... you really dont have a clue do you? I mean this is getting really embarrassing. Please oh please drop this subject you weird weird person. This is quite frankly among the most idiotic ramblings I have ever seen on these boards, and that says alot. If you really want, I can take this quote apart piece by piece and show you how insanely wrong you are...but do you really want that? I mean how fun can it be to have someone tell such very fundamental facts like "anyone within norwegian jurisdiction is subject to norwegian laws irrelevant of nationality", the fact that you didnt know that is just breathtaking. (let me guess, now you will say "that is not what I meant" or some other pathetic and lame excuse). And your idea that a visa is the same thing as a temporary citizenship is...cute...but not correct.
You really should know when to STFU and sneak out of a discussion...
- So what you're saying is that the EU does not write down its own laws, but forces the member states to embed them in their laws? Isn't that EU lawmaking? Ever heard of The Court of Justice of the European Communities? The EU has on numerous occasions exerted force to make Norway comply with EU directives and law.
[/b]
Again you seem unable to understand the basic difference between a law and a treaty. Again you seem to fail to understand that any international court cannot force anyone to do anything in the same way a national court can force the subjects of that law to do whatever.
I am saying that EC directives are roughly in this form:
Rules:blah blah blah,
now the member nations have [time limit] to incorporate these rules into their domestic law.
You should also try to read up on the difference between the EU and the EC, it gets even more embarrassing when you talk about EU directives or EU law.
- So you're saying the EU is NOT an governmental organization? Norway does not deal with Sweden, Germany, France or any other member state of the EU. Norway deals with the EU Parliament, yes the EU has a PARLIAMENT. And on several occasions this Parliament has threatened to deny Norway access to EU's internal market, which would be detrimental to Norway's industry, especially the seafood industry. The EU is a parliamentary democracy of nation states, soon to be a parliamentary federation of European states.
[/b]
Yes I am saying that the EU is not a governmental organization. The EU is a cooperation between various member states. The difference is enormous, yet you seem unable to understand that.
If Norway is dealing with the EU Parliament, that might explain why Norway is left out in the cold, like the retarded cousin you dont really want to play with, but who insists on coming over to your house. You ought to do some reading up on the powers of the EU parliament.
Just out of curiosity, what is your impression of the desicion making progress in the EC? What is your impression of the desicion making progress in the EU? Do you understand the difference between the EC and the EU? Do you understand the difference between the European council, the European commission and the counsil of ministers and the counsil of the European union?
I seriously doubt it, and your posts give clear indication that you dont know jack toejam about what you are talking about.
- It is kind of sad that you have so little knowledge of the very organization you voted for Sweden to join. My posts have been filled with facts and realities. Your posts have been nothing but hypotheses and cynicism. Here a link to the official info site of the EU, read up ... wise up.
[/b]
hehehe, well at least you are funny.
-
Originally posted by straffo
GScholz just use the ignore function.
hehe, is that how you "win" your arguments straffo?
-
I forgot : after you have to got to the user cp (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/usercp.php?s=)
and click on the
I don't want to see this thread anymore link (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/member2.php?s=&action=removesubscription&threadid=77950)
-
Hortlund you can post what you want.
It's just ostracisme and it work great.
-
Well, I cant blame that guy for ignoring me really. Much easier than having to reply to that post I suppose...
-
Originally posted by Suave
Yep Boroda, the USA created Panama, good thing for the free world that we did to. BTW Panama ejoys a free democracy, just as they allways have. We're still defending their freedom to govern themselves, seems there are some marxist militants out there that are trying to change that .
interesting to read such beautifull things.
Panama was created because the government of Columbia refused to admit American conditions for the construction of the Panama channel. How can you speak about any "free democracy" there when the "democratic" government there was installed by American bayonets and cruisers?! And the country was invaded and occupied several times in XX century, removing one "democratic" government and setting up another, more "democratic".
-
Toad, you will probably never understand many emotional things about us, as well as motivations other then you usually follow.
About Katyn': for the 25th time I say that I DON'T f#$king know, but all the "documents" provided by Gorbachev (a well-known liar and traitor) are obviously fake. Damn, they are printed on forms used in 1950s!
AS for Katyn, there's massive, indisputable evidence that Stalin ordered the execution of the Poles. Evidence that was available and proven long before the Soviet Union under Gorbachev formally admitted to the crime.
Before Gorbachev it was proven only by German Ministry of Propaganda. So far the only reliable document is Burdenko's comission report, signed by Allied representatives too. I don;t know.
When USSR "invaded" Poland the Polish state ceased to exist. The land "occupied" by USSR was taken by Poland during the war of 1919-20.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
interesting to read such beautifull things.
Panama was created because the government of Columbia refused to admit American conditions for the construction of the Panama channel. How can you speak about any "free democracy" there when the "democratic" government there was installed by American bayonets and cruisers?! And the country was invaded and occupied several times in XX century, removing one "democratic" government and setting up another, more "democratic".
Mostly true. TR wanted his canal, and he didn't let a little thing like National sovreignty get in his way.
-
Please stop argueing about what I wrote. If I type something it's usually to tease some people with the truth :D
When I was at university I attended a lecture about making choices. Not held by a psychologist, politician, economist or social paedagogue but by a mathematician. One of the few things I remember is that there is no fair way of making a choice unless very limited boundary conditions are met, which usually isn't the case in the real world. Draw your own conclusion ;)
-
I'm pretty sure some shrinks playing AH are having fun reading this thread :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."
Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.
Well... Boroda is right about one thing- Powell was against military action in Kuwait. He wanted to give the resolutions more time and see if it couldn't be solved diplomatically.
I saw it not too long ago on WETA.
-SW
-
WOW YOU GUYS SURE CAN TALK :D
And after reading this whole thread I've learned..
WOW YOU GUYS SURE CAN TALK :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
About Katyn': for the 25th time I say that I DON'T f#$king know,
You may be one of the very few people left that don't.
Memorandum on NKVD letterhead from L. Beria to "Comrade Stalin" proposing to execute captured Polish officers, soldiers, and other prisoners by shooting. Stalin's handwritten signature appears on top, followed by signatures of Politburo members K. Voroshilov, V. Molotov, and A. Mikoyan. Signatures in left margin are M. Kalinin and L. Kaganovich, both favoring execution. (http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/pg62.gif)
Human Rights Monitor (http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/monitor.htm)
In 1943 the Germans exhumed around 4000 corpses, and made it public as irrefutable proof of Soviet barbarity. In 1944 Soviet authorities exhumed the bodies again and thereafter steadfastly maintained that the Germans had in fact committed the crime. Not until the fall of the Soviet Union did the new leaders of Russia acknowledge that in 1940 their government had ordered the murder of 27,000 Polish officers.[/color]
Stalin's Killing Field (http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/art6.html)
...During April-May 1940, the Polish prisoners were moved from their internment camps and taken to three execution sites. The place most identified with the Soviet atrocity is Katyn Forest, located 12 miles west of Smolensk, Russia. For years historians assumed that the grounds of an NKVD rest and recreation facility were both an execution and burial site for nearly a fifth of the unfortunate Poles who found themselves in Soviet captivity. Post-Cold War revelations, however, suggest that the victims were shot in the basement of the NKVD headquarters in Smolensk and at an abattoir in the same city, although some may have been executed at a site in the forest itself. In any event, the Katyn Forest is--and will probably long remain--the main symbol of the atrocity, even if it was not the actual killing field...
...Professor Stanislaw Swianiewicz was the sole survivor of Katyn. He was waiting to board a bus to the forest area when an NKVD colonel arrived and pulled him out of line. Swianiewicz was an internationally recognized expert on forced labor in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, who had been born in Poland when it was still part of the Russian empire, and had studied in Moscow. He ended up in Siberia, and after the war emigrated to the United States, where he taught economics at the University of Notre Dame. At least one CIA analyst remembers the professor from his days in South Bend.
Those who died at Katyn included an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 NCOs, seven chaplains, three landowners, a prince, 43 officials, 85 privates, and 131 refugees. Also among the dead were 20 university professors; 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots. It was their social status that landed them in front of NKVD execution squads. Most of the victims were reservists who had been mobilized when Germany invaded. In all, the NKVD eliminated almost half the Polish officer corps--part of Stalin's long-range effort to prevent the resurgence of an independent Poland....
...The next major discovery turned up in an unexpected place--the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. While conducting research on Katyn at the Archives in spring 1990, a Polish-American art and antiques expert named Waclaw Godziemba-Maliszewski was given a copy of an article entitled "The Katyn Enigma: New Evidence in a 40-Year Riddle" that had appeared in the Spring 1981 issue of Studies in Intelligence. It was written by CIA officer and NPIC analyst Robert G. Poirier, who used imagery from Luftwaffe aerial photoreconnaissance during World War II to uncover evidence of the original crime and a Soviet coverup during 1943-1944. 16 The imagery, selected from 17 sorties flown between 1941 and 1944 and spanning a period before, during, and after the German occupation of the Smolensk area, was important evidence. Among other things, it showed that the area where the mass graves were located had not been altered during the German occupation and that the same area displayed physical changes that predated the Germans' arrival. It also captured the NKVD on film bulldozing some of the Polish graves and removing bodies. Poirier speculated that the corpses had been removed and reburied at another site. [/color]
Largest of seven mass graves. Five layers of 500 murdered Polish officers buried here by the Soviets.
At the National Archives, Godziemba-Maliszewski located the same imagery that Poirier had used. He also found additional shots of Katyn and the other two execution sites at Mednoye and near Kharkov. He discovered much additional imagery, new collateral evidence, and eyewitness testimony, resulting in important new conclusions about what actually happened at Katyn.
After completing further research, in January 1991 Godziemba-Maliszewski turned over copies of the imagery and Poirier's article to scientists at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. They in turn passed the information to the Polish Ministry of Justice. The Ministry had to be convinced that the article and photographic evidence were bona fide and that Godziemba-Maliszewski was not, as some suspected, a CIA agent! Stefan Sniezko, Poland's deputy general prosecutor, then gave an interview to the German newspaper Tagesspiegel [Daily Mirror], published on 12 May 1991. This was the first public disclosure of the Luftwaffe imagery and its utility for identifying burial sites in the USSR.
The disclosure had an immediate impact in Germany, where media interest in Katyn had been running high since the 1980s, and in the USSR as well. Armed with this "smoking gun," a Polish prosecutor assigned to investigate Soviet crimes flew to Kharkov (now Kharkiv), where the Ukrainian KGB, under watchful Russian eyes, assisted in identifying a series of sites, including Piatikhatki, where prisoners from the Starobelsk camp had been executed. Ironically, for a second time the German military had provided evidence, albeit unwittingly, of Soviet complicity in the massacre.[/color]
The new evidence put additional pressure on the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation to reveal the full truth. In 1992, Moscow suddenly "discovered" the original 1940 execution ordered signed by Stalin and five other Politburo members-- in Gorbachev's private archive. 17 Gorbachev almost certainly had read it in 1989, if not earlier. 18 In October 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin presented a copy of the order along with 41 other documents to the new Polish president, former Solidarity leader Lech Walesa.[/color] In doing so, he made a point of chiding his arch enemy Gorbachev, with whom he was locked in a bitter domestic political battle. During a 1993 visit to Warsaw's military cemetery, Yeltsin knelt before a Polish priest and kissed the ribbon of a wreath he had placed at the foot of the Katyn cross. 19 In a joint statement with Walesa, he pledged to punish those still alive who had taken part in the massacre and make reparations--a promise that has not been kept. Meanwhile, Soviet and Polish teams were permitted to excavate at Katyn and the other two sites, on a selective basis, where Polish prisoners had been executed. In 1994, a Soviet historian published a book that for the first time called Katyn a "crime against humanity." 20
Continued...........
-
....No one knows for certain what prompted the new charge, but it may have been a preemptive reaction to more revelations about Katyn and new evidence of Soviet crimes in Poland.In 1997, a Russian and a Polish archivist collaborated on a compendium of documents entitled Katyn: Prisoners of an Undeclared War. 27 Then, in 1998, a Russian-Polish research team issued a series of previously classified secret police reports with the title Eyes Only for J.V. Stalin: NKVD Reports from Poland, 1944-1946. The reports detailed a second wave of terror unleashed during the postwar occupation, showing that the crimes committed during 1939-1941 were not an aberration but part of a single imperial design.[/color] Soon thereafter, a group of Polish members of parliament spent 10 days in Russia, trying unsuccessfully to obtain an official acknowledgment that the Soviet Government had engaged in genocide. In the meantime, more graves filled with Polish corpses were found near Tavda and Tomsk, east of the Urals. [/u][/color]
Russians cannot look at Katyn without seeing themselves in the mirror of their own history. Thus official Moscow resists using the "g" word (genocide) to describe the atrocity. When Gorbachev's advisers warned him in 1989 that Poland's demand for the truth contained a "subtext . . . . that the Soviet Union is no better--and perhaps even worse--than Nazi Germany" and that the Soviet Union was "no less responsible" for the outbreak of World War II and the 1939 defeat of the Polish Army, they were also thinking of undercurrents in their own country. 28 Russian intellectuals were already beginning to equate Communism with fascism and Stalin with Hitler. Reports of vandalized war memorials and looted battlefield cemeteries underscored growing popular disillusionment with the cult of triumphalism built around Stalin and the USSR's victory over Nazi Germany. 29 Now some Russian revisionists go so far as to claim that Hitler's invasion launched a preventive war aimed at forestalling Stalin's plan to strike Germany first--a view that even Western historians reject. 30 ....
Katyn: An Interpretation of Aerial Photographs (http://www.wgsr.uw.edu.pl/zts/katyn_en.htm)
God's Eye: Aerial Photography and the Katyn Forest Massacre by Frank Fox, Professor of History (http://members.aol.com/katynphoto/)
...Not until the fall of the Soviet Union did the new leaders of Russia acknowledge that in 1940 their government had ordered the murder of 27,000 Polish officers. For the grieving Polish nation that knew this truth for half a century there was the unfinished task of finding the burial places...
....God's Eye describes the painstaking and unheralded work of a young Polish-American photo-interpreter, Waclaw Godziemba-Maliszewski, who was instrumental in the effort to locate the remains of the brave soldiers. It began when he came across a hoard of German aerial photographs at the National Archives and began to unravel one of the most closely guarded secrets of the Russian intelligence services -- the burial sites of the Polish officers. For the past ten years he has been supplying the Polish authorities with information that has enabled it, in spite of opposition and interference from the Russian side, to locate many of the remains....
As I said... you must be one of the last that continues to deny the obvious truth.
-
Cliff notes please Beetoadle.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Cliff notes please Beetoadle.
Allow me...
DA ROOSKIES DUNNIT
-
Cliff's notes are in Blue.. just for you.
And Boroda too.
Should have a nice denial here by this time tomorrow.
;)
-
I ignore any posts that go to hoopty colors.
-
Well, guess you'll just have to ignore this one then.
Don't worry, Boroda will provide entertainment later for you.
-
No, I read that. I just wont read the thread. Im sure it's riveting.
-
More for Boroda:
Lots of photos and explanations here.
Uncovering the Past (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/002/uncoveringthepast.html)
In the months following the Soviet invasion there were widespread arrests, deportations, and executions. The first victims were associated with the defeated Polish government and army. More than a million Poles were rounded up and sent to labor camps in Siberia. Only a small percentage survived. Katyn was just one episode in this tragedy. ...
....Snapshots, military commendations, medals, and personal effects found on the victims at Katyn. The dates cited in personal diaries and letters helped Red Cross investigators determine when the massacre occurred.
Funny how all the diaries end about the same time, isn't it?
-
(http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/images/decret_c.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad
(http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/images/decret_c.gif)
Damn.
It's a well-known fake. If you can read Russian, please read "Katyn Detective" by Yuri Mukhin.
http://homebooks.by.ru/politics/KATYN.RAR
It's full of neo-communist roadkill about "corrupt bourjeous Poland" etc, but if you'll look at the facts he gives there - you'll find out maaany interesting things.
This "resolution" means that Kalinin and Kaganovich signed "Pro" ("Za"), and others signed "against".
You have to understand Russian just a little to see it. Basic knowledge of Cyrillics is enough. Believe me, it's easy to remember 33 letters that are used in Russian and Bulgarian.
If other "documents" you have are of the same quality - then I pity you. So far you quote nazi "researchers", and completely miss Burdenko's commision report provided to Nuremburg international tribunal, and signed by Allied representatives. More to say, some European journalists that took part in nazi "investigation" confessed that they signed the reports only because of direct threats to their families.
Funny to see how this Goebbels's roadkill is so popular in the US.
I can imagine that Stalin had some reasons to execute Polish prisoners, just like Poles did to Red Army POWs in 1920, but I see no reasonable evidence that proves it.
-
As I said Boroda, you could make millions on the Comedy Club circuit.
Just be yourself and tell the world the "truth" about the Soviet Union.
:D
-
Oh, yes....... since
Boroda: "Gorbachev (a well-known liar and traitor) "
Gorby's a liar and a fake, what does that make Yeltsin?
He admitted Soviet Responsibility for Katyn too. In public.
:D
-
.........and how did the Germans get through Russian lines to bury all those dead Poles East of the Urals at Tavda and Tomsk?
-
Originally posted by Toad
.........and how did the Germans get through Russian lines to bury all those dead Poles East of the Urals at Tavda and Tomsk?
BRILLIANT!! :D
I'd like to see the reply to that one. My guess is along the lines of "what bodies? that is just a lie."
-
I'll wager the response will be "didn't happen" and give you two to one odds.
;)
Anything damning the Soviet Union for the slaughters it has deliberately performed simply "didn't happen." It's all made up evidence.
-
Gorbachev was a well known liar, traitor to the Stalinist cause and homosexual. He was also a predatory sheep molester and was fond of wearing a suit jacket with a pair of stone washed wrangler jeans.
You can't trust him an inch.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As I said Boroda, you could make millions on the Comedy Club circuit.
Just be yourself and tell the world the "truth" about the Soviet Union.
:D
My hat off for a former cold-war military who was brainwashed daily for many years, probably unalble to rad anything that doesn't have an "approved for US military personell" stamp on it.
"Time is six PM, long arrow up, short arrow down".
Are you too dumb to admit that I understand some things that you use as arguments that you are too dumb to read? Sorry, a stupid that understands he's a stupid isn't a stupid, so it's not about you.
The real problem with you is that you simply don't read my arguments because I am your enemy and can't be trusted. Great mental conditioning, my Father's mind is much more flexible, despite of 44 years in the Army and the age of 76.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, yes....... since
Gorby's a liar and a fake, what does that make Yeltsin?
He admitted Soviet Responsibility for Katyn too. In public.
:D
Yeltsin is lucky that he and his family are immune to any judicial cases regarding his and his family's actions during his presidency.
Once again: it COULD happen. But there are more then enough evidence that it didn't.
JFYI: Yeltin also "directed" a symphonical orchestra in Germany. In public.
He was a symbol in 1986-91. Now he's a good example of how power and alcohol can ruin a man.
-
Originally posted by Toad
.........and how did the Germans get through Russian lines to bury all those dead Poles East of the Urals at Tavda and Tomsk?
I don't know what you are speaking about. I can ask people from Tomsk, we have one in wbfree.net team.
But I know that Polish prisoners were held in a Nilova Pustyn' monastery on lake Seliger, and they still were alive in 1941.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Gorbachev was a well known liar, traitor to the Stalinist cause and homosexual. He was also a predatory sheep molester and was fond of wearing a suit jacket with a pair of stone washed wrangler jeans.
You can't trust him an inch.
Dowding, for millions of Russians (I can't talk for the majority) thinks that Gorbachev is a traitor who ruined everything our people achieved at the price of enormous losses and sufferings, and literally sold everything to the West.
"Freedoms" he declared turned into slavery for millions.
It's a very difficult question to discuss.
-
You forget that I was in Moscow and Leningrad in 1990, and I saw enough to tell me how 'free' the average Russian was. It was a real eye opener as a kid, and made me appreciate how much we take freedom for granted in the West.
Relatives of mine were there in 1984 as part of some Mine-workers socialist fellowship or something and they share a similar view to me.
-
I wonder if Boroda really believes what he is saying or if he is merely trolling?
If he honestly believe what he is saying, then the russians are still masters of the good 'ol brain washing technique. In that case I pity him.
-
Steve, Boroda's responses are directly porprotional to the amount of vodka he's had and who's with him at the internet cafe when hes posting.
He's actually pretty competent when yah get him on a keyboard by himself.. when he posts 'in committie' he's a freakin hysterical Ensign Chekov.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Yeltsin is lucky that he and his family are immune to any judicial cases regarding his and his family's actions during his presidency.
Once again: it COULD happen. But there are more then enough evidence that it didn't.
JFYI: Yeltin also "directed" a symphonical orchestra in Germany. In public.
He was a symbol in 1986-91. Now he's a good example of how power and alcohol can ruin a man.
How typical to attack the man as a drunk while sidestepping the issue of undoubtable Russian guilt for Katyn.
There is LOTS of evidence and it all shows the Russians as mass murderers of Polish prisoners of a war that was launched against them by Russia despite numerous Polish treaties and alliances with Russia.
I'm sure you are proud.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I wonder if Boroda really believes what he is saying or if he is merely trolling?
If he honestly believe what he is saying, then the russians are still masters of the good 'ol brain washing technique. In that case I pity him.
As Toad already noticed, I don't represent an official point of view.
Communists think that it's no doubt a nazi crime, official "historians" say it's "bloody Stalin", I say I don't know.
The problem is that people like Toad (very similar to an "ideal Soviet citizen") take many things as a matter of blind faith. He was told that Russians are evil - then they all are evil. Like many modern commies who want to tear me apart when I say that Americans are nice and friendly people.
And Hortlund, I often really say things that I dpn't believe myself.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Steve, Boroda's responses are directly porprotional to the amount of vodka he's had and who's with him at the internet cafe when hes posting.
He's actually pretty competent when yah get him on a keyboard by himself.. when he posts 'in committie' he's a freakin hysterical Ensign Chekov.
I usually browse this BBS when at work. Never been to any internet cafe.
And I usually drink beer here :) not vodka. Vodka requires serious food and company.
I didn't see the old Startreck series, for me Checkov is only a character from old OS/360 game.
I get "hysterical" when I face animal anticommunism, and blind hatred towards my country and it's history. Katyn is one of the examples of how West adopted Goebbels's inventions and how our new-fangled "democrats" agreed with nazi propaganda and obvious fakes made in the 50s. Believe me, it's absolutely obvious that "documents" that Toad shows here have absolutely different meaning from what he says. You just have to understand Cyrillic.
-
Originally posted by Toad
How typical to attack the man as a drunk while sidestepping the issue of undoubtable Russian guilt for Katyn.
There is LOTS of evidence and it all shows the Russians as mass murderers of Polish prisoners of a war that was launched against them by Russia despite numerous Polish treaties and alliances with Russia.
I'm sure you are proud.
So you say USSR attacked Poland, not Hitler?!
That's great. I'm sure next time you'll say that we killed Kennedy and Lincoln.
Almost anything Stalin did since late-30s was a matter of survival for the whole nation. If he didn't get Eastern Poland - then in 1941 nazis could probably take Moscow and go further to their Archangelsk-Astrakhan' line.
Speaking about Yeltsin, most of his actions since 1993 can't be explained using common sence.
-
Boroda,
Don't want to set you off on another rant, I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position.
I'm not interested in the reasons, justifications, context etc. I'm just trying to clarify a factual point.
Yes or no please. Did the Russains kill the Polish officers at Katyn? Yes or no please.
Regards,
Wab
-
Boroda, what about Beavers book on Berlin?
Yes or no, did the Soviet army commit criminal acts of murder, rape, torture and plunder against German civilians in 1945?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Speaking about Yeltsin, most of his actions since 1993 can't be explained using common sence.
Well, he did select Putin, and that is one of the best leaders (propbably the best) you have had since Chrustjev.
-
Of course they did, Hortlund. In the same way that Germans commited criminal acts of murder, rape, torture and plunder against Russian civilians from 1941 onwards.
Neither of them held a monopoly on barbarity.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Boroda,
Don't want to set you off on another rant, I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position.
I'm not interested in the reasons, justifications, context etc. I'm just trying to clarify a factual point.
Yes or no please. Did the Russains kill the Polish officers at Katyn? Yes or no please.
Regards,
Wab
I don't know.
I don't want to believe either nazi propaganda of obviously "edited" communist version. All I want to do here is to show Toad that the nazi version he so strongly supports is a roadkill, and a pretty obvious lie.
Frankly speaking I WANT to believe that Katyn' is nazis work. I hope you understand why.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Boroda, what about Beavers book on Berlin?
Yes or no, did the Soviet army commit criminal acts of murder, rape, torture and plunder against German civilians in 1945?
Hortlund, I kindly advise you to put that book on a shelf with Mein Kampf and other nazi/cold war propaganda crap.
Something must be wrong with my English. Soviet soldiers were not angels, but the "data" Beaver gives is a nonsence. 100000 rapes in Berlin confirmed by some mysterious "doctors", in a city where any medical aid was provided only by Soviet field hospitals.
The main difference between nazis and Soviet Army was that rapes, tortures and plunder were not an official policy, and were severely punished, while nazis officially stated that any crime against civilian population will NOT be prosecuted. I gave you documents.
-
Actually I think it was 2 000 000 rapes performed by soviet soldiers from the first time they set foot on German soil in 44-something to the end of the war (stretching a bit past that date too).
Ok, have you read the book "Stalins Revenge" about the battle for Eastern Prussia in 45? Propaganda too? Were there any occations of rape, plunder, murder, torture of German citizens, or is that all propaganda?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Of course they did, Hortlund. In the same way that Germans commited criminal acts of murder, rape, torture and plunder against Russian civilians from 1941 onwards.
Neither of them held a monopoly on barbarity.
Neither US, British, Japanese, Italian, or any othes do.
The case is that nazis held a monopoly on planned elimination of whole nations and ethnic groups, and total demolition as official programm.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually I think it was 2 000 000 rapes performed by soviet soldiers from the first time they set foot on German soil in 44-something to the end of the war (stretching a bit past that date too).
This means that almost every Soviet soldier was a rapist and could have been executed by military authority? I can hardly believe this.
Originally posted by Hortlund
O`k, have you read the book "Stalins Revenge" about the battle for Eastern Prussia in 45? Propaganda too? [/B]
The title speaks for itself. To the same book shelf with the rest.
Koeningsberg battle was a bloodbath :( My Grand Uncle died there... He was 17.
-
No, 2 000 000 rapes is not the same thing as 2 000 000 victims or 2 000 000 perps.
I have read dozens of accounts of German women being raped for hours and hours by entire platoons of drunken russian soldiers. I have read hundreds of accounts of German civilians being shot, tortured, raped.
Your grand uncle was killed in Köningsberg? Im sorry to hear that.
My Grandfather lost his entire family fleeing from East Prussia to Germany in 45. Grandfathers two brothers (aged 7 and 14), two sisters (aged 16 and 20), his mom and dad and uncle and uncles family. Raped, tortured, murdered. By "someone unknown" then, since it wasnt any soviet soldiers...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
My Grandfather lost his entire family fleeing from East Prussia to Germany in 45. Grandfathers two brothers (aged 7 and 14), two sisters (aged 16 and 20), his mom and dad and uncle and uncles family. Raped, tortured, murdered. By "someone unknown" then, since it wasnt any soviet soldiers...
This explains a lot :(
Words like "war is war" are useless here :(
Do you think it could be better if your family could have some slaves from my family in Ukraine (if they could fit in 10% quote not to be eliminated) and the city where I was born was wiped off the face of Earth as planned? Or if it was my pregnant Grandmother to be killed, while she survived only because some "blonde knight" missed her car bombing a hospital train going East, to evacuation? Or if my Father didn't make a 300km horse ride from Rostov in 1941 and was killed as thousands of civilians there, only because Grandfather was a Red Army officer?
-
This thread has been a Boroda flamefest for some time now. Could this thread please be locked in favor of a properly titled one?
-
Boroda, I understand what you're saying.
I've been sitting here not really knowing what more to say. I mean what is there to say.
My grandmother lost 7 brothers during the war. The youngest was 4. My grandfather lost almost all his relatives. He was 17 when the war ended.
I know you have similar stories from your family.
Words are useless as you say.
-
Thank you Hortlund.
Sorry.
Peace.
-
I don't know.
I don't want to believe either nazi propaganda of obviously "edited" communist version. All I want to do here is to show Toad that the nazi version he so strongly supports is a roadkill, and a pretty obvious lie.
Frankly speaking I WANT to believe that Katyn' is nazis work. I hope you understand why.
Fair enough. I don't know either.
I strongly suspect the Russians did it, but I can understand you hoping they had not.
I guess you Godless Bolsheviks can actually be reasonable when you try really really hard. ;)
Wab
-
Originally posted by Boroda
we killed Kennedy
I've always suspected that. ;)
-
It isn't the "Nazi version."
That's just more BS smokescreen.
Boroda's own government... both Gorbachev and Yetlsin..... ADMITTED THAT THE NKVD UNDER STALIN'S ORDERS KILLED THE POLISH POW'S.
Let's see now. All historical research shows the Soviet Union did it. The government of the Soviet Union ADMITS doing it.
Gee........ I wonder who did it?
Yas gotta be kidding me!
And I LOVE the "we had to take our half of Poland or else the Nazi's would have gotten closer to Moscow!"
Gosh, did you ever think of HELPING POLAND FIGHT THE NAZIS?
Wouldn't THAT have been even more effective at keeping them away from Moscow? Instead of KILLING the Polish Army, you guys could have helped them KILL the GERMAN ARMY!
Wow! What a concept!
But then Molotov-Ribbentrop had already sliced up Poland's carcass between the Nazis and the Soviet Union before the first trigger had been pulled.
...... this despite all the prior treaties between Poland and the Soviet Union.
-
Toad, give it up. Sometime people want to make up their own facts to support their own view of the world. ;)
Something tells me Boroda can never admit Katyn was a Russian atrocity.
The fact that the Stalinist regime was ready to murder millions of its own people, nevermind a bunch of foreign soldiers, really doesn't seem to hold much sway, apparently.
-
Nope. I'll never give this one up.
That's exactly how those guys got as far as they did. They kept lying and we all just assumed everyone knew it. Pretty soon, their lies became the only words out there and they acquired a patina of respectability.
I have no hatred for the Russian people at all. I suspect they are quite like us in most respects.
But you CANNOT deny history. They allowed their government to execute MILLIONS of human beings in the name of Communism both within and without their own country.
The Polish Prisoners were just ONE act. Boroda can deny it all he likes. Unfortunately for him, the forensic evidence, the modern research and THE ADMISSION OF GUILT BY HIS OWN GOVERNMENT[/COLOR] makes him look pretty silly.
The treatment of their own citizens is even more horrendous.
But then..... The Ukraine Famine, The Gulag Archipelago... those didn't happen either did they? ;)
-
First of all, I want to say that i't's extremely difficult to talk to fanatics who are so completely brainwashed and full of hatred that was cultivated from childhood years.
Originally posted by Toad
It isn't the "Nazi version."
That's just more BS smokescreen.
IT IS A NAZI VERSION.
Toad, you are repeating Goebels's lies, COMPLETELY avoiding evidence confirmed by YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT in 1944.
I understand that later nazis became "not-so-bad", while "asian hordes of jewish bolsheviks" suddenly turned to be a deadly enemy. BTW, I am happy to know you're still scared. One day we'll come and make you all eat borsch (c) GH :D
Originally posted by Toad
Boroda's own government... both Gorbachev and Yetlsin..... ADMITTED THAT THE NKVD UNDER STALIN'S ORDERS KILLED THE POLISH POW'S.
Damn, US and other Allied governments already agreed it was done by nazis! Toad, how can you disagree! Shame on you!
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see now. All historical research shows the Soviet Union did it. The government of the Soviet Union ADMITS doing it.
You call nazi ministry of propaganda fakes a "historical research"? Well, the research is worth the historians.
Originally posted by Toad
And I LOVE the "we had to take our half of Poland or else the Nazi's would have gotten closer to Moscow!"
Gosh, did you ever think of HELPING POLAND FIGHT THE NAZIS?
Toad, I live less then 10km from the place where nazis were stopped in December 1941 in Khimki on Leningrad highway. Now this place is inside the city border.
Helping Poland to fight nazis? I thought that it was UK and France who guaranteed the security of Poland. And it was UK and France who did their best to lead the talks with USSR in summer 1939 to the dead end. That's why we had to sign a non-agression treaty, because UK and France didn't want to talk about joint opposition to Germany and sent incompetent retired generals and politicians to Moscow only to delay any possible agreement.
Originally posted by Toad
Wouldn't THAT have been even more effective at keeping them away from Moscow? Instead of KILLING the Polish Army, you guys could have helped them KILL the GERMAN ARMY!
Wow! What a concept!
Toad, I wonder if you know what you talk about. Who fought nazis in Wojsko Polsko together with Soviet Army? Maybe Albanians? Maybe my Grandfather provided artillery support for Zulus wearing Cofederate caps in Koscushko division?
Originally posted by Toad
But then Molotov-Ribbentrop had already sliced up Poland's carcass between the Nazis and the Soviet Union before the first trigger had been pulled.
Sources please. I mean documents.
I also want to know why UK, France or US didn't object about Soviet "invasion" in Poland. Maybe because USSR simply took back the lands occupied by Poland in 1919-20? Why the hell do you call it "agression" when your own government didn't do it in 1939?!
Please think about one little thing: why should I agree with some amazinhunk "democraticaly" elected into the government of my country when you "disagree" with great people like FDR?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nope. I'll never give this one up.
That's exactly how those guys got as far as they did. They kept lying and we all just assumed everyone knew it. Pretty soon, their lies became the only words out there and they acquired a patina of respectability.
Toad, you tell me about "only words out there"!? You are unable to read MY sources, while I understand yours, and more to say, read dozens of classical WWII history books by Western authors, that were translated and published HERE since 50s. I think that you'd better stop making fool of yourself. You know nothing about life here except some stupid Hollywood movie crap.
Reading and seeing all that roadkill about my country anyone can come to a conclusion about WHO was the real master of lies.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sources please. I mean documents.
Why should he bother trying to obtain documentary proof for you? In the past, all of Toad's efforts in this regard have met with your claiming that the scanned documents were clear forgeries and lies.
It's impossible to reason with you on these matters, because no matter what evidence we present to you, you either discount it as Western propoganda or disregard it as counterfeit. And I'm talking primary sources, not just some Western historian's interpretation of evidence.
Amazingly, you continue to perpetuate this myth of an anti-Russian bias among Western historians even when the history has been written by Eastern Europeans or Russians. I'm curious how you would explain Volkogonov's unflattering portrayal of Stalin based on previously classified archival material. Maybe he holds a grudge against Stalin because his father was murdered under Stalinistic purges... but wait! Those purges never happened because the entire country would be empty now, so maybe he's just a Western lacky trying to appease his Western-friendly political masters. That must be it!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
That's a fair point, Toad. But you'll never get what you want - some people build their lives on shifting sands, but will point-blank refuse to believe they are shifting at all. Even if you supply them with all the structural engineer's reports in the world.
What a silly analogy. Oh well... ;)
I've enjoyed reading about Russian communist history. It's shown me how weak people can be and how they can create a hell for millions of others without remorse. It's also showed me how strong people can be in the face of such adversity. I have a lot of respect for your average Russian.
My favourite story is that of Beria. The animalistic butcher directly responsible for the murder of so many, was still convinced there had been a mistake when the bullet ordered for him by Stalin was passing through his head. There's something satisfying about that given what he had been responsible for before. Perhaps the only redeeming feature of Stalin's regime was that all the hatchetmen went the way of their victims sooner or later. Except for Molotov. The rest of it makes dismal reading. Not much to feel good about, really.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
My favourite story is that of Beria. The animalistic butcher directly responsible for the murder of so many, was still convinced there had been a mistake when the bullet ordered for him by Stalin was passing through his head.
Are you certain of this? I'm pretty sure Beria was arrested and executed months after Stalin's death... mostly on trumped up charges pushed by Malenkov and Kruschev. They viewed him as a legitimate threat to Party (and as such, their) control over the USSR.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Ooops, you're right. :) I must thinking of someone else, an earlier hatchetman. There were quite a few while Stalin was around.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
My favourite story is that of Beria. The animalistic butcher directly responsible for the murder of so many, was still convinced there had been a mistake when the bullet ordered for him by Stalin was passing through his head. There's something satisfying about that given what he had been responsible for before. Perhaps the only redeeming feature of Stalin's regime was that all the hatchetmen went the way of their victims sooner or later. Except for Molotov. The rest of it makes dismal reading. Not much to feel good about, really.
Dowding, what you say is not true.
Beria is a very interestig and tragic figure even among other Stalin's teammates (forgive me this word please).
He was sentenced and executed as a British spy. Did you know your country had such spies? James Bond is just a kid compared to him. ;) The accusation was an obvious fake, just as many others.
But the real cause for an execution was Beria's policy after Stalin's death. His main idea was to get rid of the Party as a "leading force" and the main power is control of everything. He started to release political prisoners. Looks like he wanted to release tension and allow some step-by-step democratic reforms. No doubt that Party leaders realised how dangerous he was for them and arranged a coup supported by the Army and enormous authority of Zhukov. There are some evidences that Beria was not brought by the jury, but shot down during the arrest because it was too dangerous to hold him in jail.
I can't tell much about Beria's "crimes", noone was innocent in that times, but I can assure you that it was Khruschev's decision to make him responsible for most of the repressions. You can look at the dates when he was the People's Commissar or Minister of internal affairs. His main job after the war was to organize strategic scientific projects: the Bomb, rockets including guided SAMs and ballistic missiles, other stuff. But Khruschev was so angry about him that he ordered to wipe him away from the Mausoleum tribune in a film about Victory Parade.
In 2000 Beria's case was sent to Military counsil of Supreme Court, for possible reabilitation from the official accusations. The fact that accusations were fake is obvious. But the jury stated that every sentence is correct and he indeed was a British spy. I hope it can give you an idea of how the things are here now. Everything suddenly went upside down, but common sence didn't appear. What I am trying to find is the thin line where both points of view meet and where truth can be found. That's why I say I don't know about Katyn.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Ooops, you're right. :) I must thinking of someone else, an earlier hatchetman. There were quite a few while Stalin was around.
You probably thought about Yezhov.
-
Just to make things clear.
My Grandfather was arrested in early-30s as a "member of a former Tsar's officers coup". He was released and all charges abandoned after spending two years in BAMlag and continued to serve in the Army, but as a major, not a brigade commander, and became a commander of a military horse farm near Rostov.
My Grand-grandfather was arrested in 1939 and accused of sabotage on his railway line. He was declared an "enemy of the people" and never came back.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
In 2000 Beria's case was sent to Military counsil of Supreme Court, for possible reabilitation from the official accusations. The fact that accusations were fake is obvious. But the jury stated that every sentence is correct and he indeed was a British spy. I hope it can give you an idea of how the things are here now. Everything suddenly went upside down, but common sence didn't appear. What I am trying to find is the thin line where both points of view meet and where truth can be found. That's why I say I don't know about Katyn.
Without a doubt, Beria was not a British spy. The charges against him were ludicrous and a matter of convenience, so in that respect it's unfortunate that his sentence wasn't properly reconsidered. That said, history shall nonetheless judge him for the butcher that he was regardless of the veracity of the actual charges against him.
I don't lend too much credence to the idea that he was pushing for democratic reforms. After Stalin, almost every Soviet power player with a hope of grabbing power positioned himself as a "democratic" reformer to contrast with Stalin. Malenkov and Khruschev did the same. Beria's reform efforts were strategic attempts to diminish the power of the Party and shift it to those organizations under his direct control.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Boroda
First of all, I want to say that i't's extremely difficult to talk to fanatics who are so completely brainwashed and full of hatred that was cultivated from childhood years.
Yes, we've all noticed that Boroda.
We'll keep trying to talk to you anyway.
I am suprised you admitted it, however.
-
Match, game; set.
Nicely served, Toad. ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
IT IS A NAZI VERSION.
Toad, you are repeating Goebels's lies, COMPLETELY avoiding evidence confirmed by YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT in 1944.
[/b]
Tough luck for you, isn't it? The Germans were exactly right; it was the NKVD that did it.
The US government? Boroda, I suggest you read this thesis in its entirety. It is well written, EXTREMELY well documented with footnotes and with an extensive bibliography. There is no "uncertainty", no "confusion" AND NO MISTAKE about the NKVD being responsible for the mass murder of Poles at Katyn and AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
You can hide behind your BS but you aren't fooling anyone... not even yourself.
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:fsdquNE9YWkC:[url]www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/special.studies/katyn.massacre/katynlrc.wp5+fdr+coverup+Katyn+Forest+Massacre.+Final+Report&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
THE KATYN MASSACRE: AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE AS A PUBLIC AND HISTORICAL ISSUE IN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN, 1940-1993
...On 27 April 1942, the U. S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Admiral William H. Standley, also formally requested the Soviet government to clarify the fate of missing Polish pisoners of war. The request was received and rebuffed by no less a personage than Andrei Vyshinsky, who had been the Soviet prosecutor of the victims of the Stalinist purge trials of the late 1930s. Inquiries were also made by the British at this time.3 All these questions remained unanswered for another year...
.... Under bitter pressure from its people within and outside of Poland, the Polish Government-in-Exile demanded an investigation and called on the International Red Cross to examine the site. The Red Cross agreed, but only on the condition that such an investigation would be acceptable to all governments. The Soviet government vetoed the proposal, of course, and broke off diplomatic relations with the London Poles on 25 April 1943, accusing them of "a hostile attitude towards the Soviet Union." However, it should be noted that the Poles had not specifically accused the Soviets of the murders. They had only asked for an impartial inquiry. 11...
...Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill did not dispute the Nazi charges, he told General Sikorski, "If they are dead nothing you can do will bring them back."21
American President Franklin D. Roosevelt was unwilling to accept the validity of the Nazis' charges. When Captain George Earle, a personal friend of Roosevelt and a former naval attache to Bulgaria, later expressed to the president his desire to publish evidence implicating the Soviets (which he had received in Sofia), Roosevelt gave him a written order not to do so. After Earle indicated he might "go public" about Katyn anyway, he was soon there-after abruptly and otherwise inexplicably posted to the Samoan Islands for the remainder of the Second World War.22....
...One of the most morally significant and saddening episodes in the Katyn affair was a lengthy, secret memorandum authored by the British Ambassador to the Polish Government-in-Exile, Sir Owen O'Malley. It was circulated among senior members of the British Cabinet and Foreign Office who attached cover comments, such as "This is a brilliant, unorthodox and disquieting despatch . . . ."28 It confronted the British government with a basic question about the moral integrity of its declaration and conduct of the Second World War. As Paul observed,
O'Malley's memorandum stirred the consciences of senior statesmen deeply for two reasons. First, his evidence against the Soviets was overwhelming. And second, he developed a persuasive argument that the crime could cause the British enduring "moral repercussions."29
The memorandum pointed out that collaborating with the Soviets in the coverup of their atrocity would destroy the Allies' claim to moral ascendancy in their crusade against Nazi Germany and could compromise the moral credibility and the legitimacy of the expected postwar war crimes trials. Also--as importantly for Goebbels in his propaganda exhortations--the refusal by supposedly democratic and humanitarian Western countries to consider the evidence and condemn such a massive and hideous Soviet atrocity could serve as further proof of a special, persecutory malevolence toward the German people in the Allied prosecution of the war....
...Also published in 1993 was the English translation of a 1991 Russian book by Literaturnaya Gazeta special correspondent Vladimir Abarinov, The Murderers of Katyn. Abarinov's chronicle of the Katyn killings from the perspective of the Soviet NKVD was based on his research of Soviet archives. His book included the sensational allegation that U.S. State Department functionary Alger Hiss was "the Soviet agent" who "lost" Lieutenant Colonel Van Vliet's report.131...
...In 1988, thirty-five years after the last coverage of Katyn during the Congressional hearings, Facts on File noted the significance of Gorbachev's refusal to acknowledge Katyn during his visit to Poland of that year.136 In 1989, it reported the Polish government's accusation that Stalin was responsible for the crime.137 In 1990, it described the Soviet government's admission and expression of regret for Stalin's massacre of the Poles, and it included the discovery of the second mass grave in a forest outside Kharkov.138
The 1991 volume of Facts on File described the article in the British newspaper Observer about the executioners of Kalinin, the third killing site to be identified.139 In 1992, there was an article about Russian President Yeltsin's release of Stalin's Katyn execution order. Significantly, it was titled "Polish Genocide Orders Revealed."140 Most recently, in 1993, Facts on File described Yeltsin's visit to the Katyn Memorial in Warsaw and his laying of the memorial wreath as "a symbolic gesture of Russian penance."141
There's all the evidence AND documentation referenced to sources you need right there.
Here are books available on Amazon.com that you will find enlightening.
Make SURE you read this one: Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre -- Zawodny, J.K.
As a scholarly issue in the West, Soviet guilt for the Katyn Massacre was thoroughly investigated and conclusively established as a Soviet atrocity by Professor Zawodny's book in 1962.
Then there are these too:
Katyn Killings: In the Record -- John H. Lauck; Hardcover
When Fish Begin to Smell -- Matthew Heald Cooper; Hardcover
Katyn -- Louis FitzGibbon; Unknown Binding
All on Amazon, just waiting for you.
Boroda: Toad, I live less then 10km from the place where nazis were stopped in December 1941 in Khimki on Leningrad highway. Now this place is inside the city border.
[/b]
This isn't about the Nazis. Their war crimes are well documented and acknowledged by both you and I.
This is about the Soviet Union's slaughter of ~ 25,000 Poles. Murder. Slaughter. Of Prisoners.
That's why we had to sign a non-agression treaty, because UK and France didn't want to talk about joint opposition to Germany and sent incompetent retired generals and politicians to Moscow only to delay any possible agreement.
Yeah, I know. It's never the fault of the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union invaded Poland there were in effect the following treaties and agreements between the governments of Poland and the Soviet Union:
The Peace Treaty between Poland, Russia and the Ukraine signed in Riga, on March 18, 1921, by which the Eastern frontiers of Poland were defined.
The Protocol between Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Rumania and the USSR regarding renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, signed in Moscow on February 9, 1929.
The Non-Aggression Pact between Poland and the USSR signed in Moscow on July 25, 1932.
The Protocol signed in Moscow on May 5, 1934 between Poland and the USSR, extending until December 31, 1945, the Non-Aggression Pact of July 25, 1932.
The Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed in London on July 3, 1933.
But of course, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty had already sealed Poland's fate. Secret protocols of the treaty defined the territorial spheres of influence Germany and Russia would have after a successful invasion of Poland.
The Soviet Union had no intention whatsoever of helping the Poles fight the mutual menace, the Germans.
Oh, no indeed. The Soviet Union had EVERY INTENTION of helping the Germans... their new friends.... kill Poles and Poland.
History, pal. Just facts. As it really did happen.
If the Poles weren't too happy about it... who would be surprised? They'd been lied to and stabbed in the back by the attack of the Soviet Union.
Maybe because USSR simply took back the lands occupied by Poland in 1919-20?
You want to discuss the "rightful ownership" of Eastern Poland?
Sure! That would be fun! What year do you want to start from?
I'm guessing 1795, right? The third partition?
Too funny. Yeah, let's do THAT discussion too!
-
That link was working before, I tested it.
Did another google search and found another link to the same article. Easier to read at this site too.
Katyn Massacre: An Assessment....... (http://sunsite.sut.ac.jp/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/special.studies/katyn.massacre/katynlrc.txt)
In case you can't read the link, allow me to give you his Source Documents. After all, you've asked for "Documents". Here you go.
Documents
Cowper, Steve. Governor of Alaska. "Executive Proclamation: A Day to
Remember Katyn" [30 April 1988]. Juneau AK: 1 April 1988.
Great Britain. War Office. "Vilnyus-Minsk." 1:1,000,000 map on one
sheet. np: Survey Production Centre, Royal Engineers, 1954.
Khatyn. Minsk: B'elarus, 1982.
U.S. Congress. Congressional Record. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office, 1943.
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, Committee on Un-American
Activities. Lest We Forget! A Pictorial Summary of Communism in
Action: Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Ukraine, Soviet Union.
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960.
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Katyn
Forest Massacre. The Katyn Forest Massacre: Hearings before the
Select Committee to Conduct an Investigation of the Facts,
Evidence and Circumstances of the Katyn Forest Massacre, 82d
Congress, 1st and 2d Session, 1951-1952. 7 parts. Washington DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Katyn
Forest Massacre. The Katyn Forest Massacre: Hearings before the
Select Committee to Conduct an Investigation of the Facts,
Evidence and Circumstances of the Katyn Forest Massacre, Final
Report, 82d Congress, 2d Session, 1952. 7 parts. Washington DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.
U. S. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States,
1943, Volume III, Diplomatic Papers. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1963.
Newspaper and Wire Service Articles
"American Polish Leaders Brand Russia a Nation of Liars and Old
Conspirators." Chicago Tribune, 28 April 1943, 19.
Associated Press. "U.S. Report Says Airmen Taken to Soviet Union."
Springfield State Journal-Register (IL), 28 September 1993, 2.
Binyon, Michael. "Katyn Veteran Tells of Secret Police Murders." Times
(London), 7 October 1991, 8.
Bohlen, Celestine. "Russian Files Show Stalin Ordered Massacre of
20,000 Poles in 1940." New York Times, 15 October 1992, 1.
"British Try to Patch up Polish-Red Rukus." Macomb Daily Journal, 29
April 1943, 1.
Burns, John F. "Soviet Union Irked by Nordic Visitors: Some in an
Antinuclear Group Boycott Rally over Link to World War II
Massacre." New York Times, 1 August 1982, 4.
Clendenning, P.M. "Glasnost and the New Soviet History of World War II:
`Blank Spots' To Be Revealed." The Soviet Observer, 16-29
February 1988.
Coatney, Louis R. "My Turn: Sunday, April 24th: A Day to Remember
Katyn." Juneau Empire, 21 April 1988, 5.
Conradi, Peter. "Katyn Forest Was Burial Ground for Russians in 1930s."
Reuter News Agency, 2 August 1989.
Daniszewski, John. "`Katyn' Unspoken by Gorbachev." Juneau Empire, 12
July 1988.
"The Dark Forest of Katyn." [Editorial] New York Times, 16 August
1982, 14.
Darnton, John. "Polish Dissidents Quietly Mourn Wartime Massacre." New
York Times, 4 May 1980, 3.
Echikson, William. "Katyn: The `Blank Space' Soviet Leader Did Not
Fill." Christian Science Monitor, 12 July 1988, 7.
Fein, Esther B. "The Deep Forest of Katyn Keeps Its Bleak Mystery."
New York Times, 7 July 1989, A1.
Gans, Charles J. "Polish Official Raises Issue of WWII Massacre."
Juneau Empire, 11 March 1988.
"General Sikorski with Mr. Churchill." Times (London), 16 April 1943,
3.
"Gorbachev Hands over Katyn Papers." New York Times, 14 April 1990, A5.
Gurnov, Aleksandr. "Brzezinski, Matlock Attend Katyn Memorial Service"
[in Russian]. Moscow Television Service. 30 October 1989, 1800
GMT. FBIS-SOV-89-211.
"Historian: Soviets behind Massacre." Macomb Journal, 22 August 1989,
11.
"In the Soviet Paradise." [Editorial] Washington Post, 25 June 1984,
A10.
"Katyn Forest Murders." [Letter] Wall Street Journal, 23 November
1987.
Kaufman, Michael T. "Poland Erects Ambiguous Memorial to Victims of
Katyn Massacre." New York Times, 10 April 1985, A8.
Kaufman, Michael T. "Poles Uncover a Mass Grave and Open Wartime
Wound." New York Times, 16 July 1987, A14.
Levin, Bernard. "Britain's Complicity in a Chronicle of Shame." Times
(London), 23 April 1990, 12.
Levin, Bernard. "Stalin's Authorised Massacre: History Will Not
Believe That Men of Our Century Could Organise Mass Murder in Cold
Blood as the Russians Did at Katyn." Times (London), 13 April
1993, 14.
McEwen, Andrew. "Katyn Photographs Found in U.S. Archives." Times
(London), 18 July 1989, 10.
MacKenzie, Donald. "The War Today." Macomb Daily Journal, 27 April
1943, 4.
"Moscow Denies Charge." New York Times, 16 April 1943, 4.
"Moscow Paper Blames Soviets in 1940 Deaths." New York Times, 23 March
1990, A9.
"Moscow's Statement on Katyn Massacres." New York Times, 15 October
1992, 6.
"Nazis Accuse Russians." New York Times, 16 April 1943, 4.
"Nixon Sees Khatyn, a Soviet Memorial, Not Katyn Forest." New York
Times, 2 July 1974, 3.
"Pact with Russia Angers Some Poles: Draft Is Silent on Question of
Stalin's Acts During War." New York Times, 22 May 1992, A7.
Pear, Robert. "Book on Massacre of Poles Gets U.S. Funding." New York
Times, 18 September 1988, 4.
Perlez, Jane. "Yeltsin Seems to Accept Polish Bid for Role in NATO."
New York Times, 26 August 1993, 3.
"Poland Charges Soviets with WWII Massacre." Chicago Tribune, 8 March
1989, A1.
"Poles Gather to Pay Homage to the Dead." Anchorage Times, 2 November
1987.
Rosen, James. "Newspaper: Soviets Guilty of Katyn Massacre." United
Press International, 21 March 1990.
"Russia and Poland." [Editorial] Times (London), 28 April 1943, 5.
"Russians Join Walesa to Honor Katyn Dead." New York Times, 24 May
1992, 7.
Schwartz, Stephen. "Intellectuals and Assassins--Annals of Stalin's
Killerati." New York Times Book Review, 24 January 1988, 3, 30-
31.
"Soviet-Polish Historians Address `Blank Spots.'" Pravda, 12 March
1988, 2nd ed., 4.
"Soviets Blamed in '42 Massacre." Chicago Tribune, 17 February 1989, 4.
Stone, Norman. "Katyn: The Heart of Stalin's Darkness." Sunday Times
(London), 15 April 1990.
Tarnowski, Andrew. "Poles Challenge Soviets to Open Files on Katyn
Massacre." Washington Times, 23 March 1988.
"Terrible Mystery of Katyn: Edging Toward the Truth." New York Times,
17 July 1989, A1.
"USSR Requested to Investigate Katyn Murders" [in Polish]. Warsaw
Television Service, 12 October 1989, 1830 GMT. FBIS-EEU-89-197.
-
"Yeltsin Acknowledges Soviets Held U.S. Prisoners during Vietnam War."
Macomb Journal, 16 January 1992, 8.
Zhavoronkov, Gennadi. "Secrets of Katyn Forest." Moscow News [in
English], 6 August 1989, 15.
Books
Abarinov, Vladimir. The Murderers of Katyn. New York: Hippocrene,
1993.
Alliluyeva, Svetlana. Only One Year. New York: Harper and Row, 1969.
Anders, Wladyslaw. An Army in Exile. London: Macmillan, 1949.
Anderson, Terry H. The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War,
1944-1947. Columbia MO: University of Missouri Press, 1981.
Anschel, Eugene, ed. American Appraisals of Soviet Russia, 1917-1977.
Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1978.
Aronsen, Lawrence, and Martin Kitchen. The Origins of the Cold War in
Comparative Perspective: American, British, and Canadian
Relations with the Soviet Union, 1941-48. New York: St.
Martin's, 1988.
Ash, Timothy Garton. The Polish Revolution: Solidarity. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983.
Association of Graduates, USMA. Register of Graduates and Former Cadets
of the United States Military Academy. West Point NY: The
Association, 1990.
Beichman, Arnold. The Long Pretense: Soviet Treaty Diplomacy from
Lenin to Gorbachev, with a Foreword by William F. Buckley, Jr.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1991.
Beitzell, Robert. The Uneasy Alliance: America, Britain, and Russia,
1941-1943. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.
Bell, P.M.H. John Bull and the Bear: British Public Opinion, Foreign
Policy and the Soviet Union, 1941-1945. New York: Edward Arnold,
1990. 214p
Bengston, John Robert. Nazi War Aims: The Plans for the Thousand Year
Reich. Rock Island IL: Augustana College Library, 1962.
Bolek, Francis. Who's Who in Polish America. New York: Arno, 1970.
Bruner, Jerome S. Mandate from the People. New York: Duell, Sloan and
Pearce, 1944.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Com-
munism in the Twentieth Century. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1989.
________. The Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University, 1960.
Calvocoressi, Peter. World Politics since 1945. 6th ed. London:
Longman, 1991.
Checinski, Michael. Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism.
Translated in Part by Tadeusz Szafar. New York: Karz-Cohl
Publishing, 1982.
Churchill, Winston S. The Second World War. Vol. 1, The Gathering
Storm. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948
________. The Second World War. Vol. 4, The Hinge of Fate. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1950.
Combs, Jerald A. American Diplomatic History: Two Centuries of
Changing Interpretations. Berkeley CA: University of California
Press, 1983.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties.
New York: Macmillan, 1968.
________. Stalin: Breaker of Nations. New York: Viking, 1991.
Crowl, James William. Angels in Stalin's Paradise: Western Reporters
in Soviet Russia, 1917 to 1937, A Case Study of Louis Fischer and
Walter Duranty. New York: University Press of America, 1982.
Czapski, Josef. The Mystery of Katyn. Bombay: The Indo-Polish
Library, 1946.
Davies, Norman. White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Russian War, 1919-
20. New York: St. Martin's, 1972.
Davis, Lynn Etheridge. The Cold War Begins: Soviet-American Conflict
over Eastern Europe. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press,
1974.
Dawisha, Karen. Eastern Europe, Gorbachev, and Reform: The Great
Challenge. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge, 1990.
Dawisha, Karen, and Philip Hanson, eds. Soviet-East European Dilemmas:
Coercion, Competition, and Consent. New York: Holmes & Meier,
1981.
Deriabin, Peter. Watchdogs of Terror: Russian Bodyguards from the
Tsars to the Commissars. New Rochelle NY: Arlington House, 1972.
Dmytryshyn, Basil. USSR: A Concise History. 4th ed. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984.
Dooley, Tom. Dr. Tom Dooley's Three Great Books: Deliver Us from Evil,
The Edge of Tomorrow, The Night They Burned the Mountain. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970.
Douglas, Roy. From War to Cold War, 1942-48. New York: St. Martin's,
1981.
Doyle, Edward, Terrence Maitland, and the Editors of Boston Publishing
Company. The Vietnam Experience: The Aftermath, 1975-85.
Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1985.
Drexel, John, ed. Facts on File Encyclopedia of the 20th Century. New
York: Facts on File, 1991.
Duiker, William J. Vietnam since the Fall of Saigon: Updated Edition.
Athens OH: Ohio University, 1989.
Dyadkin, Iosif G. Unnatural Deaths in the USSR, 1928-1954. New
Brunswick NJ: Transaction Books, 1983.
Engel, David. In the Shadow of Auschwitz: The Polish Government-in-
Exile and the Jews, 1939-1942. Chapel Hill NC: University of
North Carolina Press, 1987.
Erickson, John. The Road to Berlin: Continuing the History of Stalin's
War with Germany. Boulder CO: Westview, 1983.
________. The Road to Stalingrad: Stalin's War with Germany, Volume 1.
New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
________. The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History,
1918-1941. New York: St. Martin's, 1962.
Facts on File, Inc. Facts on File: A Weekly Digest of World Events
with Cumulative Index, various annual volumes. New York: the
publisher, 1941-present.
Feher, Ferenc, and Agnes Heller. Hungary 1956 Revisited: The Message
of a Revolution--A Quarter of a Century After. London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1983.
Feis, Herbert. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin: The War They Waged and
the Peace They Sought. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press,
1957.
________. From Trust to Terror: The Onset of the Cold War, 1945-1950.
New York: W.W. Norton, 1970.
Fischer, Louis. The Road to Yalta, Soviet Foreign Relations, 1941-1945.
New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
Fitzgibbon, Louis. Katyn. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971.
Fleming, D. F. The Cold War and Its Origins, 1917-1960. Vol. 1, 1917-
1950. New York: Doubleday, 1961.
Frankland, Mark. The Patriots' Revolution: How Eastern Europe Toppled
Communism and Won Its Freedom. Chicago IL: Ivan R. Dee, 1992.
Freidel, Frank. Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny.
Boston: Little, Brown, 1990.
Freidin, Seymour. The Forgotten People. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1962.
Gaddis, John Lewis. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War,
1941-1947. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.
Gardner, Lloyd C. Architects of Illusion: Men and Ideas in American
Foreign Policy, 1941-1949. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970.
________, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and Hans J. Morgenthau. The Origins
of the Cold War. Waltham MA: Ginn-Blaisdell, 1970.
Geremek, Bronislav. "Between Hope and Despair." In Eastern Europe ...
Central Europe ... Europe, ed. Stephen R. Graubard, 95-113.
Boulder CO: Westview, 1991.
Glantz, David M. Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep
Battle. London: Frank Cass, 1991.
Goodman, Elliot R. The Soviet Design for a World State. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1960.
Gormly, James. L. From Potsdam to the Cold War: Big Three Diplomacy,
1945-1947. Wilmington DE: Scholarly Resources, 1990.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Vol. 28. New York: Macmillan, 1983.
Gross, Jan T. Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's
Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. Princeton NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1988.
-
Halle, Louis J. The Cold War as History. New York: Harper and Row,
1967.
Hammond, Thomas T. Witnesses to the Origins of the Cold War. Seattle
WA: University of Washington Press, 1982.
Heller, Mikhail, and Aleksandr Nekrich. Utopia in Power: the History
of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present. New York: Summit
Books, 1982.
Herz, Martin F. Beginnings of the Cold War. Bloomington IN: Indiana
University Press, 1966.
________. How the Cold War Is Taught: Six American History Textbooks
Examined. Washington DC: Georgetown University, 1978.
Irving, David. Accident: The Death of General Sikorski. London:
Kimber, 1967.
Jagodzinski, Zdzislaw. The Katyn Bibliography. London: Polish
Library, 1982.
Jones, Bill. The Russia Complex: The British Labour Party and the
Soviet Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977.
Joubert, Alain. Making People Disappear: An Amazing Chronicle of
Photographic Deception. Washington DC: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986.
Keesing's Publications, Ltd. Keesing's Contemporary Archives: Weekly
Diary of Important World Events, various volumes. Bristol UK:
the publisher, 1944-1992.
Kennan, George F. Memoirs: 1925-1950. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.
________. Memoirs: 1950-1963. Vol. 2. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972.
________. Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin. Boston: Little,
Brown, 1961.
Khrushchev, Nikita S. Khrushchev Remembers. Translated and edited by
Strobe Talbott. Introduction, commentary and notes by Edward
Crankshaw. Boston MA: Little, Brown, 1970.
Kitchen, Martin. British Policy towards the Soviet Union during the
Second World War. New York: St. Martin's, 1986.
Kolko, Gabriel. The Politics of War: The World and United States
Foreign Policy, 1943-1945. New York: Random House, 1968.
Komorowski, Eugenjusz Andrei. Night Never Ending. Chicago: Henry
Regnery, 1974.
Krasnov, Vladislav. Russia beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National
Rebirth. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1991.
Krok-Paszkowski, Jan. Portrait of Poland: With 78 Color Plates.
Photographs by Bruno Barbey. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1982.
LaFeber, Walter. America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-56. New York:
Wiley, 1967.
________. America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1980. 4th ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980.
________. The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and
Abroad since 1750. New York: W.W. Norton, 1989.
________. Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947: A Historical Problem
with Interpretations and Documents. New York: John Wiley, 1971.
Lane, Arthur Bliss. I Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador
Reports to the American People. Belmont MA: Western Islands,
1948. 276p
Lauck, John H. Katyn Killings: In the Record. Clifton NJ: Kingston,
1988.
Levytsky, Boris. The Uses of Terror: The Soviet Secret Police, 1917-
1970. Translated by H.A. Piehler. New York: Coward, McCann &
Geoghegan, 1972.
Levering, Ralph B. American Opinion and the Russian Alliance, 1939-
1945. Chapel Hill, NC: 1976.
Lukacs, John. New History of the Cold War. 3d ed. Garden City NY:
Doubleday, 1966.
________. 1945: Year Zero. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978.
Lukas, Richard C. The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under German
Occupation, 1939-1944. Lexington KY: University Press of
Kentucky, 1986.
________. The Strange Allies: The United States and Poland, 1941-1945.
Knoxville TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1978.
Mackiewicz, Joseph. The Katyn Wood Murders. London: Hollis & Carter,
1951.
McCullough, David G. Truman. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
McNeill, William Hardy. America, Britain, & Russia: Their Cooperation
and Conflict, 1941-1946. Survey of International Affairs, 1939-
1946. New York: Johnson Reprint Company, 1970.
Maddox, Robert James. From War to Cold War: The Education of Harry S.
Truman. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1988.
________. The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War. Princeton NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1973.
Mastny, Vojtech. Russia's Road to the Cold War: Diplomacy, Warfare,
and the Politics of Communism, 1941-1945. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1979.
Mayer, S.L. Hitler's Wartime Picture Magazine: Signal. Englewood, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of
Stalinism. Translated by Colleen Taylor. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1971.
________. On Stalin and Stalinism. Translated by Ellen de Kadt.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Middleton, K.W.B. Britain and Russia: An Historical Essay. Port
Washington NY: Kennikat Press, [1947,] 1971.
Mikolajczyk, Stanislaw. The Rape of Poland: Pattern of Soviet
Aggression. New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill, 1948.
Milne, Alan A. Peace with Honour: With a Special Preface for the
American Edition. New York: Dutton, 1934.
Mortimer, Edward. The World that FDR Built: Vision and Reality. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988.
Official Index to the Times. London: Times Publishing Company,
Quarterly.
O'Neill, William L. A Better World: The Great Schism: Stalinism and
the American Intellectuals. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Paul, Allen. Katyn: The Untold Story of Stalin's Polish Massacre. New
York: Scribner's, 1991.
Pogonowski, Iwo. Poland: A Historical Atlas. New York: Hippocrene,
1987.
Polish Cultural Foundation. The Crime of Katyn: Facts & Documents,
with a Foreword by General Wladyslaw Anders. London: The
Foundation, 1965.
Pospelov, P.N. Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union: 1941-1945, a
General Outline. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974.
Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. New York: H.W. Wilson,
Annual.
Root, Waverley. The Secret History of the War: Vol. 3, Casablanca to
Katyn. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1946.
Rozek, Edward J. Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.
Rubinstein, Alvin Z., ed. The Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union. 3d
ed. New York: Random House, 1972.
________. Soviet Foreign Policy since World War II: Imperial and
Global. 2d ed. Boston MA: Little, Brown, 1985.
Sabrin, B.F. Alliance for Murder: The Nazi-Ukrainian Nationalist Part-
nership in Genocide. New York: Sarpedon, 1991.
Sainsbury, Keith. The Turning Point: Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, and
Chiang-Kai-Shek, 1943, The Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran Conferences,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Schochet, Simon. An Attempt to Identify the Polish-Jewish Officers Who
Were Prisoners in Katyn. New York: Yeshiva University, 1989.
Seabury, Paul. The Rise and Decline of the Cold War. New York: Basic
Books, 1967.
Shainberg, Maurice. ("Major Mieczyslaw Pruzanski") The KGB Solution at
Katyn. Franklin Lakes NJ: Lincoln Springs Press, 1989.
Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of
the Third Reich. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960.
Shotwell, James T., and Max M. Lazerson. Poland and Russia, 1919-1945.
New York: King's Crown Press (for the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace), 1945.
Shulman, Marshall D. Beyond the Cold War. New Haven CT: Yale
University Press, 1966.
Shultz, George P. Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State.
New York: Scribner's, 1993.
Sikorska, Helena. The Dark Side of the Moon. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1947.
Simons, Thomas W., Jr. Eastern Europe in the Postwar World. St.
Martin's, 1991.
Sleeper, Raymond S. Mesmerized by the Bear: the Soviet Strategy of
Deception. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1987.
Smith, Gaddis. American Diplomacy during the Second World War, 1941-
1945. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965.
Sodaro, Michael J., and Sharon L. Wolchik, eds. Foreign and Domestic
Policy in Eastern Europe in the 1980s: Trends and Prospects. New
York: St. Martin's, 1983.
Steven, Stewart. The Poles. New York: Macmillan, 1982.
Stevens, Edmund. Russia Is No Riddle. New York: Greenberg, 1945.
________. This Is Russia--Uncensored. New York: Didier, 1950.
Strausz-Hupe, Robert, and others. Protracted Conflict. New York:
Harper, 1959.
-
Subject Index to Periodicals. London: The Library Association, Annual.
Sword, Keith, ed. The Soviet Takeover of the Polish Eastern Provinces,
1939-41. New York: St. Martin's, 1991.
Syrop, Konrad. Spring in October: The Story of the Polish Revolution,
1956. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957.
Szymczak, Robert. "The Unquiet Dead: The Katyn Forest Massacre as an
Issue in American Diplomacy and Politics." Ph.D. diss.,
Carnegie-Mellon University, 1980.
Taubman, William. Stalin's American Policy: From Entente to Detente to
Cold War. New York: W.W. Norton, 1982.
Taylor, Telford. The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trisals: A Personal
Memoir. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
Thomas, Hugh. Armed Truce: The Beginnings of the Cold War, 1945-46.
New York: Atheneum, 1987.
Thompson, Kenneth W. Interpreters and Critics of the Cold War.
Washington DC: University Press of America, 1978.
Tolstoy, Nikolai. Stalin's Secret War. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1981.
Toynbee, Arnold, and Veronica M. Toynbee, eds. The Realignment of
Europe. Survey of International Affairs, 1939-1946. London:
Oxford University Press, 1955.
Tucker, Robert C. Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-
1941. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990.
Ulam, Adam B. Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917-
73. 2d ed. New York: Praeger, 1974.
________. The Rivals: America and Russia since World War II. New
York: Viking, 1971.
________. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking, 1973.
Vali, Ferenc A. Rift and Revolt in Hungary. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1961.
Vennema, Alje. Viet Cong Massacre at Hue. New York: Vantage Press,
1976.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. Edited and
translated by Harold Shukman. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991.
Wandycz, Piotr S. The United States and Poland. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1980.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged. Springfield MA: Merriam-Webster, 1986.
Weisberger, Bernard A. Cold War; Cold Peace: The United States and
Russia since 1945. Introduction by Harrison E. Salisbury.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984.
Welch, William. American Images of Soviet Foreign Policy: An Inquiry
into Recent Appraisals from the Academic Community. New Haven CT:
Yale University Press, 1970.
Werth, Alexander. Russia at War: 1941-1945. New York: E.P. Dutton,
1964.
Wheeler-Bennett, John W., and Anthony Nicholls. The Semblance of Peace:
The Political Settlement after the Second World War. New York:
St. Martin's, 1972.
White, Ralph K. Fearful Warriors: A Psychological Profile of U.S.-
Soviet Relations. New York: Free Press, 1984.
White, William L. Report on the Russians. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
1945.
Williams, William A. American-Russian Relations, 1781-1947. New York:
Rinehart, 1952.
________. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. New York: Dell, 1972.
Wittlin, Thaddeus. Commissar: The Life and Death of Lavrenty Pavlovich
Beria. New York: Macmillan, 1972.
________. Time Stopped at 6:30. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965.
Wolfe, Alan. The Rise and Fall of the `Soviet Threat': Domestic
Sources of the Cold War Consensus. Washington DC: Institute for
Policy Studies, 1979.
Wolfe, Bertram. Communist Totalitarianism: Keys to the Soviet System.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1961.
Yergin, Daniel. Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the
National Security State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977.
Zawodny, Janusz K. Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest
Massacre. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame, 1962.
Magazine and Journal Articles
"Almost Certainly by Russia." The Economist, 25 September 1976, 26.
Bell, P.M.H. "Censorship, Propaganda and Public Opinion: The Case of
the Katyn Graves, 1943." Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society 39 (1989): 63-83.
Bethell, Nicholas. "The Cold Killers of Kalinin." Observer (London), 6
October 1991, 23.
Burks, G.V. "Book Notes and Bibliography." American Political Science
Review 57 (September 1963): 1106.
Chelminski, Rudolph. "Katyn: Anatomy of a Massacre." Reader's Digest,
May 1990, 69-79.
Cloud, Stanley W. "Who Was Left Behind? A Newly Discovered Document
Fuels the Argument over the Fate of American POWs." Time, 26
April 1993, 39.
Cockburn, Alexander. "Purging Stalin." New Statesman and Society, 3
March 1989, 16-17.
Conquest, Robert. "Excess Deaths and Camp Numbers: Some Comments."
Soviet Studies 43, No. 5 (1991): 949-52.
Croog, Charles F. "FBI Political Surveillance and the Isolationist-
Interventionist Debate, 1939-1941." The Historian 54, No. 3
(Spring 1992): 441-58.
"Dead Leaves on an East Wind." The Economist, 23 January 1987, 42.
"Death in Katyn Forest." Time, 17 July 1972, 31.
"Defeat of Patriots at Warsaw Widens Polish-Russian Breach." Newsweek,
16 October 1944, 48-50.
"For a Polish-Russian Dialogue: An Open Letter." New York Review, 28
April 1988, 60.
Freeman, Ralph. "An Eye Opening Mission to Moscow." Presbyterian
Layman, January/February 1986, 8.
Garrett, Crister S. and Stephen A. "Death and Politics: The Katyn
Forest Massacre and American Foreign Policy." East European
Quarterly 20 (Winter 1986): 429-46.
Graebner, Norman A. "The Cold War." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
18, No. 6, June 1962, 39-40.
Historical Abstracts: Bibliography of the World's Historical
Literature. Part B, Twentieth Century Abstracts, 1914-1992,
Volume 43, Index, 51. Santa Barbara CA: ABC-CLIO, 1992.
Hudson, G.F. "A Polish Challenge: A Review Article." International
Affairs 26 (London) (April 1950): 214-21.
________. "Who Is Guilty of the Katyn Massacre? Examination of the
Evidence Leaves Little Room for Doubt." The Reader's Digest, July
1952, 127-30.
-
Hutchins, Christopher. "Minority Report." Nation, 9 October 1989, 375.
"Inquiries: Katyn Forest Murders." Newsweek, 1 February 1952, 25-26.
"Investigations: Eyewitness to Massacre." Time, 18 February 1952, 19.
"Katyn as a Weapon." New Republic, 14 April 1952, 7-8.
"The Katyn Cover-Up." Observer (London), 6 October 1991, 23.
"The Katyn Forest Massacre." Time, 26 November 1951, 25.
"Katyn Killings: The Real Story." U.S. News & World Report, 5 December
1952, 20-22.
"Katyn Memorial: Cover up." The Economist, 25 September 1976, 26-27.
King, Curtis S., with Capt. Michael Bigelow. "The Eagle and the Bear:
The Russo-Polish War of 1920." Command Magazine, November-
December 1989, 43-51.
Knight, Robin. "Pluralism's Bitter Fruit: Blaming the Jews." U.S.
News and World Report, 10 September 1990, 56.
Lebedeva, Nataliya. "Documents: Stalin, Sikorski, et al." Interna-
tional Affairs (Moscow), January 1991, 116-32.
________. "The Katyn Tragedy." With an introduction by Alexander
Chubaryan. International Affairs (Moscow), June 1990, 98-101.
Lewis, Peter. "A Massacre in Need of Confession." McLean's, 26 May
1980, 8.
"Lesson in Maneuver." Time, 10 May 1943, 35-36.
Long, Buck, and Lawrence V. Cott. "Alan Cranston's Big Lies." The
American Spectator, April 1990, 16.
Morris, Stephen J. "The `1205 Document:' A Story of American
Prisoners, Vietnamese Agents, Soviet Archives, Wash-ington
Bureaucrats, and the Media." The National Interest, No. 33, Fall
1993, 28-42.
Nagorski, Andrew. "At Last, a Victory for Truth: Moscow Admits to an
Infamous Massacre." Newsweek, 26 October 1992, 41.
Nove, Alec. "How Many Victims in the 1930s." [Part I.] Soviet Studies
42, No. 2 (April 1990): 369-73.
Nove, Alec. "How Many Victims in the 1930s." [Part II.] Soviet
Studies 42, No. 4 (October 1990): 811-15.
Poirier, Robert G. "The Katyn Enigma: New Evidence in a 40-Year
Riddle." Studies of Intelligence (Spring 1981): 53-64.
(Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 1981.)
"Poland." Facts on File 53, No. 2752, 25 August 1993, 636B3.
"Poles vs. Reds: Allied Unity Put to Test by Row over Officer Dead."
Newsweek, 10 May 1943, 29-30.
"Polish Tragedy." Review of An Army in Exile, by Wladyslaw Anders.
Time, 25 July 1949, 82.
Radevich, Stepan. "The Case of Sixteen." [Part I.] International
Affairs (Moscow), May 1991, 114-27.
Radevich, Stepan. "The Case of Sixteen." [Part II.] International
Affairs (Moscow), June 1991, 107-18.
Radevich, Stepan. "`Mute Witnesses' Speak Up." International Affairs
(Moscow), December 1991, 120-34.
Remnick, David. "Dons of the Don." The New York Review, 16 July 1992,
45-50.
"Row with the Reds." Newsweek, 3 May 1943, 42-44.
"Russia: A Day in the Forest." Time, 7 February 1944, 27-28.
"Russia Must Choose." Time, 20 March 1944, 20.
Skubiszewski, Krzysztof. "View from Warsaw." International Affairs
(Moscow), January 1991, 52-58.
Smith, M. Brewster. "The Personal Setting of Public Opinions: A Study
of Attitudes toward Russia." Public Opinion Quarterly 11 (Winter,
1947-48).
"Soviet-Polish Break: Old Border Quarrels Should Not Tempt Us to Turn
Our Back on Europe's Problems Again." Life, 10 May 1943, 30.
Stanglin, Douglas, and Peter Cary. "Secrets of the Korean War: Forty
Years Later, Evidence Points to Stalin's Deep Involvement." U.S.
News & World Report, 9 August 1993, 45-47.
Sword, Keith. "Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe." Slavonic and East
European Review 69 (January 1991): 81-101.
Szayna, Thomas S. "Addressing `Blank Spots' in Polish-Soviet Rela-
tions." Problems of Communism (November-December 1988): 37-61.
Szymczak, Robert. "The Failure of a Revolution: The Soviet Invasion of
Poland, 1920." International Review of History and Political
Science, (August 1984): 1-30.
Szymczak, Robert. "A Matter of Honor: Polonia and the Congressional
Investigation of the Katyn Forest Massacre." Polish American
Studies 41 (Spring 1984): 25-65.
Szymczak, Robert. "A Soviet Gamble: The Katyn Case at the Nuremberg
War Crimes Tribunal." International Review of History and
Political Science 26, no. 4 (1 November 1989): 21-39.
Tolz, Vera. "The Katyn Documents and the CPSU Hearings." Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty Research Report, Vol. 1, No. 44, 6 November
1992, 27-33.
Valkenier, Elizabeth Kridl. "To Tell the Truth." The New Republic, 22
May 1989, 20-21.
Vinton, Louisa. "The Katyn Documents: Politics and History." Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 4, 22
January 1993, 19-31.
Walsh, Warren B. "What the American People Think of Russia." Public
Opinion Quarterly 8, Winter 1944-45, 513-22.
Watkins, James O., Jr. "Peace Notes Is Read." Peace Notes, 25 May
1985.
Watkins, James O., Jr. "Presbyterian Peacemaking Program." Auke Talk,
October 1984.
Watson, George. "Rehearsal for the Holocaust?" Commentary, June 1981,
60.
Wheatcroft, S.G. "More Light on the Scale of Repression and Excess
Mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s." Soviet Studies 42,
No. 2 (April 1990): 355-67.
White, William L. "Report on the Russians." The Reader's Digest,
December 1944, 102-22, and January 1945, 106-28.
"Who Killed Katyn?" Newsweek, 24 November 1952, 28-29.
"Why Young Bill White Became Expendable." Saturday Evening Post, 26 May
1945, 112.
"`You Cannot Shoot Us All.'" Time, 17 June 1946, 28-29.