Untitled Document

	Katyn: The Gebels-led instigation and its present holdovers This is a republication of our newspaper’s article, for we believe that the Katyn case became of current interest by the “recognition” of Russia, of another Stalin’s “crime”. There is an issue about the recognition of the “mistake” (although we were not surprised at all). However we would like to note a couple of things. The first is connected to the notice itself and in general with the information, which is as we all are quite aware, nowadays the term sensationalism is nothing compared to the reverse of facts and the corruption that reigns in information. The second is connected to TAS agency which has become for the West, one of the most reliable information sources. Particularly when it refers to Stalin and the strike of the communist movement, then its reliability reaches heaven. This seems to have the same value in Katyn’s case, which according to Western information that were mentioned in valid soviet sources, Katyn… was Stalin’s work. It seems that only if you hang upside down the representatives and the vindicators of the exploitation and oppression system, they would see the truth as truth and the lie as lie. Fifty years after the end of WW2 the every kind paid penholders of the system try to “rewrite” history. We know that all these are organically included in the whole fronted attack against the peoples by the system. The story is more or less known: In March ’43, Gebels announced the “discover” of a massive tomb in Katyn forest near Smolensk, and the German propaganda tried to present the event as the result of a mass slaughter of the prisoners Polish Army Officers by the Soviets. Naturally it didn’t work out. It was considered –and was – Gebels’ instigation and the slaughter as a Nazi deed (work). Yet, ever since then and from time to time –and nowadays – certain authors tried to achieve what Gebels didn’t. Theories are being modulated and “testimonies” are presented and we are certain that as long as the attack against the peoples will escalate more and more “witnesses” will occur. One might answer the question by referring to the nature and the features of the two armies, the German (particularly SS) and the Red Army. There were hundreds cases of mass slaughter conducted by the Nazi while there isn’t even one to blame the Red Army. Yet, let us see the facts more specifically: One first question is the “definition” that this slaughter could have been conducted “by the Russians”. We believe that it holds the key for the solution of the problem. (The same stands for the time of the “discover”). If the Soviets did it, then they should have done it from November ’39 until June ’41, when the Germans attacked and pushed the Soviets beyond the “territory” (region) the massive tombs were “discovered”. The interpretation given by certain authors was that Stalin wanted to destroy the power of the Polish bourgeoisie and Army by executing the Polish officers. This claim is simply a joke. For, Stalin simply had no Polish bourgeoisie in his hands, while regarding the Polish Army; its biggest part had been captured by the Germans. For the sake of history we’ll mention a few things. A lot have been said about the “invasion” of the Soviets on Poland in 1939 “in the frames of the agreement for the new division of Poland”. Yet, the facts were definite. The German attack in 1.9.39 crashed very soon the Polish Army and the Germans conquered Warsaw and advanced in the occupation of the rest of Poland. When the Red Army passed the border in 17.11.39 the Polish Army had been dissolved and captured and after, as Molotov’s declaration indicated “the Polish government didn’t give any sign of life”. No matter what one believes, one cannot ignore that in the time and the way the Red Army entered Poland, practically confronted only the German Army, by preventing it to occupy the whole of Poland. From this point on there is a certain importance to indicate that the territory the Red Army went was the same that USSR was forced to relent in 1918 by the well known Brest-Litovsk treaty. And definitely, thus they put a longer distance from its border to the drive bases of the coming German attack against USSR. Let us return to the first issue. We mentioned that the definition of the time was the key of the story. For, that period had its specific features. And the definition of those features provided the answer to many questions. The least we could say for the ones trying to find ulterior scope from Stalin during that period is that they rewrite history already “knowing” the features and the result of the war. But then, neither the features of the coming war nor the result were clear. In fact the question of “what this war was going to be” hadn’t been judged yet. Who would ally against whom and on which purpose still remained a question. (Our position regarding this issue is presented in the brochure Yalta or Potsdam). We will only refer to the most significant facts which characterized the then situation and were related to this issue. The German attack against USSR was considered and was unavoidable. The question was the time and the conditions under which it would occur. (With the support of the Western or not). This certainty was dominating and determined the Soviet policy. The coagulation of the anti-Hitler alliance was its prime objective. As we have aforementioned the “Ribentrop-Molotov treaty” was part of the same direction and its main objective was to aggravate the contradiction between Hitler and the Western. Regarding the Western, they kept an opportunist stance from whether they would continue to favor Hitler’s aggression or act against him and how. Only after the crash of France their policy started having a resolute anti-Hitler direction. We would like to underline the follow: The basic question of USSR (and not only) during that period was the issue of alliances. And the basic provision of the Soviet leadership was the quest for support. (And certainly not the creation of new fronts). That policy was not for the Soviet leadership an option, it was a matter of life and death. (Anyone who would like to understand better this side of the issue should only study the plans of the Nazi for USSR and the Soviet people which were known by the Leadership of Soviet Union). The Soviet Union had no reason at all to do this (Katyn) but millions of reasons for the opposite. We believe that the aforementioned provides a crystal answer for the ones who wish to think with political terms. However there were some more facts we intentionally wish to note. After the German attack on Soviet Union, very soon Polish divisions were organized in Soviet territory that fought side by side the Red Army. Many of the officers of those divisions and mainly their commander General Anders were pro-Western. (They… escaped the “slaughter”). Churchill’s visit to Moscow was the opportunity of an agreement, based on which three divisions (with Anders) were transferred to the African front. Until the end of the war totally eleven divisions were organized and fought with the Red Army against the Nazi. If the aforementioned answered the question regarding the Soviet side, there is still something to be answered. What was the objective of the Nazi instigation? The “time” provides again the answer. The “discover” came a little after Stalingrad. When Gebels (and not only he) started seeing the “Russians enter Berlin”. It was when the German rulers started looking to the reverse of the alliances as the only chance to win (or not lose) the war. There were certain parts which started direct negotiations with the Western. Therefore they had to raise for it the “communist danger”. Exactly in this direction the Katyn instigation was subsumed. As another bloody Raichstag. In order to continue it with other instigation. In order to be formulated –again by Gebels- the theory of the “iron curtain”. The same theory that Churchill would use in Fulton Missouri and the western totally made it later their flag. When Gebels murdered his wife and children to avoid “their capture by the Russians” he could not even imagine what a “great” legacy he left and how “useful” it would be for right and “left” authors. Proletarian flag 28/4/90

Katyn: The Gebels-led instigation and its present holdovers

This is a republication of our newspaper’s article, for we believe that the Katyn case became of current interest by the “recognition” of Russia, of another Stalin’s “crime”.
There is an issue about the recognition of the “mistake” (although we were not surprised at all). However we would like to note a couple of things.
The first is connected to the notice itself and in general with the information, which is as we all are quite aware, nowadays the term sensationalism is nothing compared to the reverse of facts and the corruption that reigns in information.
The second is connected to TAS agency which has become for the West, one of the most reliable information sources. Particularly when it refers to Stalin and the strike of the communist movement, then its reliability reaches heaven. This seems to have the same value in Katyn’s case, which according to Western information that were mentioned in valid soviet sources, Katyn… was Stalin’s work.
It seems that only if you hang upside down the representatives and the vindicators of the exploitation and oppression system, they would see the truth as truth and the lie as lie.
Fifty years after the end of WW2 the every kind paid penholders of the system try to “rewrite” history. We know that all these are organically included in the whole fronted attack against the peoples by the system.
The story is more or less known: In March ’43, Gebels announced the “discover” of a massive tomb in Katyn forest near Smolensk, and the German propaganda tried to present the event as the result of a mass slaughter of the prisoners Polish Army Officers by the Soviets. Naturally it didn’t work out. It was considered –and was – Gebels’ instigation and the slaughter as a Nazi deed (work). Yet, ever since then and from time to time –and nowadays – certain authors tried to achieve what Gebels didn’t. Theories are being modulated and “testimonies” are presented and we are certain that as long as the attack against the peoples will escalate more and more “witnesses” will occur.
One might answer the question by referring to the nature and the features of the two armies, the German (particularly SS) and the Red Army. There were hundreds cases of mass slaughter conducted by the Nazi while there isn’t even one to blame the Red Army. Yet, let us see the facts more specifically:
One first question is the “definition” that this slaughter could have been conducted “by the Russians”. We believe that it holds the key for the solution of the problem. (The same stands for the time of the “discover”). If the Soviets did it, then they should have done it from November ’39 until June ’41, when the Germans attacked and pushed the Soviets beyond the “territory” (region) the massive tombs were “discovered”.
The interpretation given by certain authors was that Stalin wanted to destroy the power of the Polish bourgeoisie and Army by executing the Polish officers. This claim is simply a joke. For, Stalin simply had no Polish bourgeoisie in his hands, while regarding the Polish Army; its biggest part had been captured by the Germans. For the sake of history we’ll mention a few things. A lot have been said about the “invasion” of the Soviets on Poland in 1939 “in the frames of the agreement for the new division of Poland”. Yet, the facts were definite. The German attack in 1.9.39 crashed very soon the Polish Army and the Germans conquered Warsaw and advanced in the occupation of the rest of Poland. When the Red Army passed the border in 17.11.39 the Polish Army had been dissolved and captured and after, as Molotov’s declaration indicated “the Polish government didn’t give any sign of life”. No matter what one believes, one cannot ignore that in the time and the way the Red Army entered Poland, practically confronted only the German Army, by preventing it to occupy the whole of Poland. From this point on there is a certain importance to indicate that the territory the Red Army went was the same that USSR was forced to relent in 1918 by the well known Brest-Litovsk treaty. And definitely, thus they put a longer distance from its border to the drive bases of the coming German attack against USSR.
Let us return to the first issue. We mentioned that the definition of the time was the key of the story. For, that period had its specific features. And the definition of those features provided the answer to many questions. The least we could say for the ones trying to find ulterior scope from Stalin during that period is that they rewrite history already “knowing” the features and the result of the war. But then, neither the features of the coming war nor the result were clear.
In fact the question of “what this war was going to be” hadn’t been judged yet. Who would ally against whom and on which purpose still remained a question. (Our position regarding this issue is presented in the brochure Yalta or Potsdam). We will only refer to the most significant facts which characterized the then situation and were related to this issue. The German attack against USSR was considered and was unavoidable. The question was the time and the conditions under which it would occur. (With the support of the Western or not). This certainty was dominating and determined the Soviet policy. The coagulation of the anti-Hitler alliance was its prime objective.
As we have aforementioned the “Ribentrop-Molotov treaty” was part of the same direction and its main objective was to aggravate the contradiction between Hitler and the Western. Regarding the Western, they kept an opportunist stance from whether they would continue to favor Hitler’s aggression or act against him and how. Only after the crash of France their policy started having a resolute anti-Hitler direction. We would like to underline the follow: The basic question of USSR (and not only) during that period was the issue of alliances.
And the basic provision of the Soviet leadership was the quest for support. (And certainly not the creation of new fronts). That policy was not for the Soviet leadership an option, it was a matter of life and death. (Anyone who would like to understand better this side of the issue should only study the plans of the Nazi for USSR and the Soviet people which were known by the Leadership of Soviet Union). The Soviet Union had no reason at all to do this (Katyn) but millions of reasons for the opposite.
We believe that the aforementioned provides a crystal answer for the ones who wish to think with political terms. However there were some more facts we intentionally wish to note. After the German attack on Soviet Union, very soon Polish divisions were organized in Soviet territory that fought side by side the Red Army. Many of the officers of those divisions and mainly their commander General Anders were pro-Western. (They… escaped the “slaughter”). Churchill’s visit to Moscow was the opportunity of an agreement, based on which three divisions (with Anders) were transferred to the African front. Until the end of the war totally eleven divisions were organized and fought with the Red Army against the Nazi.
If the aforementioned answered the question regarding the Soviet side, there is still something to be answered. What was the objective of the Nazi instigation? The “time” provides again the answer. The “discover” came a little after Stalingrad. When Gebels (and not only he) started seeing the “Russians enter Berlin”. It was when the German rulers started looking to the reverse of the alliances as the only chance to win (or not lose) the war. There were certain parts which started direct negotiations with the Western.
Therefore they had to raise for it the “communist danger”. Exactly in this direction the Katyn instigation was subsumed. As another bloody Raichstag. In order to continue it with other instigation. In order to be formulated –again by Gebels- the theory of the “iron curtain”. The same theory that Churchill would use in Fulton Missouri and the western totally made it later their flag. When Gebels murdered his wife and children to avoid “their capture by the Russians” he could not even imagine what a “great” legacy he left and how “useful” it would be for right and “left” authors.

Proletarian flag 28/4/90