Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Fog Over Katyn Forest
Wall Street Journal ^ | 4/13/10 | Bret Stephens

Posted on 04/13/2010 2:01:04 PM PDT by Winged Hussar

Today, the facts about Katyn are not in doubt. In the spring of 1940, 22,000 Polish prisoners of war—most of them army officers, but also thousands of leading members of the Polish intelligentsia—were systematically murdered by the Soviet secret police on direct orders from Joseph Stalin.

...In one of history's richer ironies, the massacre was first discovered and publicized by the Nazis in 1943. That made it that much easier for the Soviets to dismiss the revelation as German propaganda to cover up a German crime, a line the U.S. and Britain were only too happy to adopt to propitiate their wartime ally. The behavior of the Roosevelt administration was particularly disgraceful: As Rutgers Professor Adam Scrupski has noted, the U.S. Office of War Information "implicitly threatened to remove licensure from the Polish language radio stations in Detroit and Buffalo if they did not cease broadcasting the details of executions."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: holocaust; katyn; poland; roosevelt; stalin; wwii

Left wing icon Franklin D. Roosevelt, no better than a common Holocaust denier


1 posted on 04/13/2010 2:01:05 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Jawohl, Herr Roosevelt, Katyn did not happen, the Russians were not there, the Russians did not know about it, and they were only following orders anyway.


2 posted on 04/13/2010 2:02:54 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

The more I learn about Roosevelt, the more I distrust the MSM - who perpetrated lies about this looser since the beginning. Interesting that we’re just now learning that congress rejected this idiot’s proposal for more government screwing up following WW2.

Is there nothing that a liberal can do that is correct?


3 posted on 04/13/2010 2:04:47 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Well, he did need the Russians to not only hamper the Germans on their eastern front, but to also provide a diversion to occupy Japan. Basically, the enemy of my enemies is my friend, so I can understand the downplaying of this.


4 posted on 04/13/2010 2:04:49 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Soooooo, bearing false witness against an entire country is OK, if it’s expedient?

How does this reconcile with your tagline?


5 posted on 04/13/2010 2:07:50 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 446 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Now we’re supposed to believe that the Russians will honor treaties. Riiigghhht. We were bitten once during Glasnost, and yet no wise, because we have a Progressive in the White House.


6 posted on 04/13/2010 2:09:06 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

It is not like our country has not overlooked things before or since fdr. Crap, look at all the trash countries we are in bed with today, whether it be for business or the war on terror.


7 posted on 04/13/2010 2:09:08 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Yet you feel compelled to apologize for FDR.


8 posted on 04/13/2010 2:10:13 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 446 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Not apologizing, it is just the way things are, and it is something done by presidents on both sides of the isle.


9 posted on 04/13/2010 2:11:34 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

And it’s not any more right now than it was then.


10 posted on 04/13/2010 2:13:16 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that FDR was one of our worst presidents ever. It was hard getting there, since even Repubs make a habit of publicly genuflecting in his memory. But there it is.

Worst president ever. Turned an economic downturn into a cataclysm. Watched the Japanese and Nazis prepare for war for eight years and did nothing to prepare. Hid what he knew about the Nazi death camps. Hid what he knew about Katyn.

Worst president ever.


11 posted on 04/13/2010 2:14:22 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

I’m like you, shell-shocked everyday by new revelations that shatters every taken for granted assumption I used to hold. Suddenly night is day and light is dark and up is down and good is so so so bad and ugly that it’s unbearable!


12 posted on 04/13/2010 2:16:38 PM PDT by parisa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Is there nothing that a liberal can do that is correct?

Well, they did say Obama was just like FDR.

13 posted on 04/13/2010 2:17:14 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“And it’s not any more right now than it was then.”

I agree, but by raising a stink over 20,000 Pols may have caused many times that in American/Allied lives, if not the war. I don’t envy those that sit in the big chair in the slightest.


14 posted on 04/13/2010 2:18:23 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

If the stink had been raised when Russia invaded Poland, the issue would not have come up.

FDR and Churchill should have restrained the Allied war effort (and aid to the USSR), allowed the Nazis and Communists to fight to the death, and then finished off whichever was left standing (with atomic weapons if it lasted into late 1945). Millions of lives that were lost during the Cold War would have been saved.


15 posted on 04/13/2010 2:23:08 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marron

Close race with the current resident...


16 posted on 04/13/2010 2:29:28 PM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“Soooooo, bearing false witness against an entire country is OK, if it’s expedient?”

You mean the Nazi Germans? Anything that helped them go down faster seems to be ok. Besides, lies are absolutely standard as a war tactic. What do we have, what did we do, where are we attacking.
Lots of false news reports were filed as the Gulf war kicked off. 82nd airborne parachuting deep inside, Marine amphib landings on the coast, etc etc,,, all false. All helped deceive the enemy.

Exposing the soviets then would have only played into nazi hands. Our soldiers would have paid the price. The eastern front was pretty much where the German soldier died in that war. Not even close. Besides,, whats it matter, the Germans mass murdered uncountable Poles, so why not smear em with it?


17 posted on 04/13/2010 2:36:48 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marron

FDR was a deeply flawed man, and ranks at the bottom as far as presidents go. However, while it is clear that FDR ignored Katyn, it must be acknowledged that Churchill did also. In fact, since Poland was a close ally with England, it could be argued that Churchill is more central to the cover-up in the West.

I greatly admire Churchill. The Katyn cover-up was not his best moment, even for the motive to defeat Hitler. From what I understand of him, I cannot assign the same motivation to FDR.

The NappyOne


18 posted on 04/13/2010 2:38:01 PM PDT by NappyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Then there’s the SS St. Louis. By the way, Roosevelt knew about the camps in 1942. But didn’t say anything because he didn’t want it to be “a Jewish war”.


19 posted on 04/13/2010 2:38:36 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar; Da Coyote; DonaldC

Dr. Joseph Goebbels who headed the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda said in his diary on April 14, “We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU, for ant-soviet propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from aboard are gruesome. The Fuehrer has also given permission for us to hand out a dramatic news item to the German press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of this propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks.“

I wonder where people such as FDR and Harry Hopkins ever concocted a perception they could develop a personal relationship with the Soviet’s any more than they could with the Nazi’s?


20 posted on 04/13/2010 2:41:50 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

“should have restrained the Allied war effort (and aid to the USSR), allowed the Nazis and Communists to fight to the death, and then finished off whichever was left standing”

One prob, American GIs and treasure were used to clean up the european mess, so makes sense to do it the way that was best for AMERICA, not the best way for Poland, Germany, England,, etc. Do you have any idea how many more GIs would have died to defeat a Red Army that had just defeated the Nazis. OR to defeat a Nazi army that had prevailed in conquering the USSR?

That would have been a meatgrinder unfair to ask an American to die in. Better to join up like we did, wipe out the Nazis, then deal with a cold war. MUCH cheaper in American blood to do what we did.


21 posted on 04/13/2010 2:44:37 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar
A Polish Assassination in Theory

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2010/04/polish-assassination-in-theory.html

22 posted on 04/13/2010 2:48:18 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike

It kinda worked out for us though. More sucky for Europeans, but heck, THEY created the whole stinking mess in the first place. The Germans lost about 75% of their soldiers on the Eastern front. The unsavory alliance with the USSR actually served us well. More better that they fight all those nazis, than they were all sitting on Omaha beach waiting for us with freshly oiled weapons.


23 posted on 04/13/2010 2:53:37 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NappyOne
However, while it is clear that FDR ignored Katyn, it must be acknowledged that Churchill did also. In fact, since Poland was a close ally with England, it could be argued that Churchill is more central to the cover-up in the West.

Churchill also had a hand in the assassination of General Sikorski.

24 posted on 04/13/2010 2:55:00 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

“Well, he did need the Russians to not only hamper the Germans on their eastern front, but to also provide a diversion to occupy Japan. Basically, the enemy of my enemies is my friend, so I can understand the downplaying of this.”

I can’t see as how Japan was diverted. They were pretty busy handling that whole conquering the Pacific world thing at the time. As for Germany, what, were the commies not going to fight back when the nazis invaded them had Roosevelt allowed Americans to be critical? Okay, we didn’t know at the time that the nazis would invade (though it wouldn’t take a Nostradamus to guess). But what would we expect preventing Americans from criticizing the Soviet’s to benefit us had they not? Would it make them more likely to enter the war on their own terms? What would Stalin care about Polish immigrant groups thousands of miles away? What would he care about the American leadership, for that matter? Why would we sway him one way or another?

After we had exerted our power across the globe and entered the world elite after the war, we ended up (temporarily) licking their boots and it got us nothing. Nothing! I hardly think licking their boots beforehand made any difference, either.


25 posted on 04/13/2010 2:55:17 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

“It is not like our country has not overlooked things before or since fdr. Crap, look at all the trash countries we are in bed with today, whether it be for business or the war on terror”

True as that may be, I’m at a loss as to why we’d have bothered with the commies at the time. I realize the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the Soviets were either going to go on being buddies with the nazis or they weren’t. We had, so far as I can see, absolutely no say in the matter. You can argue that, assuming the Soviets cared a fig about what some random American citizens said (which is a huge assumption), had we dishonored them they would have been less apt to deal with us in the future. Except if you’ll recall, we had this 50 years of what people called a “cold war” with them anyway, despite our politeness.


26 posted on 04/13/2010 2:59:56 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marron

And then, FDR signed the Yalta accord condemming much of Europe to Communist oppression for another 50 years.

He was no friend of “free men”.


27 posted on 04/13/2010 3:00:21 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

“I agree, but by raising a stink over 20,000 Pols may have caused many times that in American/Allied lives, if not the war.”

What? That makes no sense. If the Soviets had abandoned the allies because of it, the Germans would have invaded them anyway. And, fine, we didn’t know that, but you’re forgetting how little we mattered at the time. No way the Soviets alter their grand strategies based on how nice we are to them. All that, and the Soviets were sorta used to being outcasts at the time, which partly explains why they were so willing to team up with their sworn enemies and fellow oucast Germans. We didn’t even recognize them as a legitimate country until shortly before that point, so forgive me if I doubt whether they’d be very upset if we shouted about their evil from the rooftops. They hated us in any case, if you happened to miss the next half-century after the war.


28 posted on 04/13/2010 3:05:54 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“Do you have any idea how many more GIs would have died to defeat a Red Army that had just defeated the Nazis. OR to defeat a Nazi army that had prevailed in conquering the USSR?”

I can’t imagine it would’ve been much worse. The Soviets in ‘45, or whenever they’d have bested the nazis, would’ve been in worse shape, I bet, than the nazis in ‘44. Likewise the nazis had they beat the commies. People truly lack the proper persepctive as to how thoroughly the European theater of the war was determined by the nazi/commie conflict. The casualties there were astronomically greater than what resulted from the clash between the Americans/British/French/Dutch/etc. and Germans.

“Better to join up like we did, wipe out the Nazis, then deal with a cold war.”

Yeah, but we didn’t really “deal with” the cold war. We just let the commies sit there. Which kinda made killing all those nazis worthless, because we didn’t lift a finger to stop the guys who swooped in and did the exact same thing.


29 posted on 04/13/2010 3:11:58 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“The eastern front was pretty much where the German soldier died in that war.”

Which had absolutely NOTHING to do with U.S.-Soviet relations. Either they would have gone to war with Germany or not. How they felt about us had nothing to do with it.


30 posted on 04/13/2010 3:13:33 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Re: “Do you have any idea how many more GIs would have died to defeat a Red Army that had just defeated the Nazis. OR to defeat a Nazi army that had prevailed in conquering the USSR?”

The Nazi army that had conquered the USSR (and Hitler couldn’t have used his whole army with, for example, the U.S. and British Armies on his borders in France) would have been thinned out by a couple of million men, thus making it easy to defeat. The same for a Red Army that, without U.S. and British aid, succeeded in invading Germany.

What I meant was that, after liberating France, we should have let the Nazis and Communists do most of the dying at each others’ hands, and then finished off the winner—which we would have had the means to do in August 1945. 20 kilotons on either Berlin or Moscow would probably have done the job.

This would have prevented the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and thus saved something like 80,000 American lives.


31 posted on 04/13/2010 3:18:49 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

At the beginning of the war, something similar in reverse may have been Stalin’s motivation, to let Hitler, the French and the Brits wipe each other out, and then scoop up the pieces. It didn’t quite work out as planned, but he did manage to scoop up half of Europe anyway.


32 posted on 04/13/2010 3:22:36 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: marron

It was a blessing in disguise that the French capitulated as quickly as they did, or else Stalin’s plans would have come to fruition.


33 posted on 04/13/2010 3:23:32 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

We would have benefited greatly from healthy cynicism and paranoia impacting all our contacts with Stalin. The treaty in 1939 between Stalin and Hitler should have been the guiding light for all our subsequent negotiations.

True the Europeans behaved very badly. The French watered their pants as Jodl invaded the Rhineland with only three battalions.

Particularly, the Polish got the shaft. They provided key insights into breaking the Enigma code, and on the day when Britain committed all its fighter reserves to defeating the Luftwaffe, they piloted one of every ten of the Hurricanes and Spitfires.


34 posted on 04/13/2010 3:37:14 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

>20 kilotons on either Berlin or Moscow would probably have >done the job.

Pure speculative nonsense. We didn’t have the weapons to spare on what was the successfully concluded European War.

>This would have prevented the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and >thus saved something like 80,000 American lives.

More nonsense. Starting a war with Soviet Russia would have
been cvriminally insane with an active invasion of Japan
imminent.

The Western world was close to the end of the tether. Britain in terms of treasure, US in terms of the resources
and manpower devoted to war, munitions and other activities
that weren’t making our economy greater.

Honestly, some of the revisonism in this forum is breathtaking. May some people need to discuss with some
WWII vets who were up close and personal with the whole thing.


35 posted on 04/13/2010 3:40:18 PM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Another topic is about why it was good that we nuked Japan is that it avoided us having to fight in Japan twice.

By that, I mean had we not dropped the bomb, and instead had to invade Japan, most likely the Soviets would have also been part of the invasion. And most likely there would have been an agreement to divide Japan, ala Germany, Korea, and Vietnam. Then there would have been a Japanese Civil War, between Communist North Japan, and US-backed South Japan, just as in Korea.


36 posted on 04/13/2010 3:46:52 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
The atomic bomb would have rolled over the Soviets just as easily as it did the Emperor. There would have been no meat-grinder. Especially if the Soviets and Nazis had bled themselves in that manner.
37 posted on 04/13/2010 3:55:17 PM PDT by wbarmy (I decided to be a sheepdog when I saw what happens to sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson