Poles furious after Russia blames them for starting WWII

[Penguin]

Lies about Katyn revealed
Evgeny Novikov. June 18, 2012 the Court took a sensational decision that granted under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, "documents", pointing out that in the execution of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn blame Stalin and the Soviet side, were fake. Silent PC liberal "Echo of Moscow" silent "Facets" silent "Novaya gazeta". But this top-level international sensation. Now what to do with all these?
Russia is not responsible for the mass murder of Polish officers at Katyn - this decision was made recently, the European Court of Human Rights. Decision sensational: it turns out that the last 20 years the management of our country tirelessly kayalos of a crime in the 40's made by someone else. It turns out that the documents on the Katyn massacre, which appeared in the late 80's out of the sleeve Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev, no more than a fake - the court did not even took them into consideration.

Soviet Russia Today: Lies about Katyn revealed


mmmm, funny.... can't find the alleged (by Evgeny Novikov) EUCHR decision in its case law files ...

A search of the EUCHR caselaw notes for 2012 reveals only 3 hits on the workd Katyn. All deal with:

Failure adequately to account for fate of Polish prisoners executed by Soviet secret police at
Katyń in 1940: violation

Janowiec and Others v. Russia, nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, 16 April 2012

On 24 September 2012 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the applicants
supported by the Polish Government.

This is confirmed in a variety of documents. See
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_INDEX_2012_ENG_904387.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_2012_09_155_ENG.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2012_ENG.pdf

Admissibility checked via Hudoc
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"display":["1"],"dmdocnumber":["888268"]}
This is in fact the only hit in HUDOC on Katyn

The Country profile of Russia yields:

Janowiec and Others v. Russia

21.10.2013
The case concerned complaints by relatives of victims of the 1940 Katyń massacre – the killing of several thousands of Polish prisoners of war by the Soviet secret police (NKVD) – that the Russian authorities’ investigation into the massacre had been inadequate.
The Court held:
By a majority, that it had no competence to examine the complaints under Article 2 (right to life);
By a majority, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading Treatment);
Unanimously, that Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for examination of the case).
Press release available in Polish and Russian.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Russia_ENG.pdf (page 2)

Dzhugashvili v. Russia
09.12.2014
The case concerned articles published by the Novaya Gazeta newspaper about the shooting of Polish prisoners of war in Katyń in 1940 and the role which the former Soviet leaders had allegedly played in the tragedy. The applicant, the grandson of the former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, sued the newspaper for defamation of his grandfather, without success.
Application declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Russia_ENG.pdf (page 12)

Here is the verdict by the Grand Chamber in 2013 on the Janowiec case
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-4541478-5482631&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20judgment%20Janowiec%20and%20Others%20v.%20Russia%20-%20judgment%20delivery.pdf

From this:

In 1990 the USSR officially acknowledged the responsibility of the Soviet leaders for the killing of
Polish prisoners of war and a criminal investigation into the mass murders was started. The
proceedings lasted until September 2004 when the Russian Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office
decided to discontinue it. In December 2004, 36 out of a total of 183 volumes of files from the
investigation were classified as “top secret”. The text of the decision to discontinue the Katyń
criminal investigation was also classified.
...
On 26 November 2010, the Russian Duma adopted a statement about the “Katyń tragedy”, in which
it reiterated that the “mass extermination of Polish citizens on USSR territory during the Second
World War” had been carried out on Stalin’s orders and that it was necessary to continue “verifying
the lists of victims, restoring the good names of those who perished in Katyń and other places, and
uncovering the circumstances of the tragedy...".
...
Decision of the Court
...
Article 3
In its case-law, the Court had accepted that the suffering of family members of a “disappeared
person”, who had gone through a long period of alternating hope and despair, might justify finding a
violation of Article 3 on account of the indifferent attitude of the authorities towards their quests for
information. However, in the applicants’ case, the Court’s jurisdiction only extended to the period
starting in May 1998, the date of the entry into force of the Convention in Russia. After that date, no
lingering uncertainty as to the fate of Polish prisoners of war had remained. Even though not all of
the bodies had been recovered, their death had been publicly acknowledged by the Soviet and
Russian authorities and had become an established historical fact. It necessarily followed that what
could initially have been a “disappearance” case had to be considered a “confirmed death” case.
The magnitude of the crime committed in 1940 by the Soviet authorities was a powerful emotional
factor. However, from a purely legal point of view, the Court could not accept it as a reason for
departing from its case-law on the status of family members of “disappeared persons” and
conferring that status on the applicants, for whom the death of their relatives was a certainty. The
Court therefore considered that their suffering had not reached a dimension and character distinct
from the emotional distress inevitably caused to relatives of victims of a serious human rights
violation. The Court accordingly found no violation of Article 3.
...
Article 38
...
While the Court was not well equipped to challenge the judgment by national authorities that
security considerations were involved, the concept of the rule of law required that measures
affecting fundamental human rights had to be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings
before an independent body competent to review the reasons for such a decision. However, the
Russian courts’ judgments in the declassification proceedings did not contain a substantive analysis
of the reasons for maintaining the classified status. The courts had referred to an expert report
issued by the Russian Federal Security Service which had found that the decision terminating the
criminal proceedings included material which had not been declassified, but they had not scrutinised
the assertion that that material should be kept secret more than 70 years after the events.
Moreover, the courts had not addressed in substance Memorial’s argument that the decision
brought to an end the investigation into a mass murder of unarmed prisoners, one of the most
serious violations of human rights committed on orders from the highest-ranking Soviet officials.
Finally, they had not performed a balancing exercise between the alleged need to protect the
information held by the Federal Security Service (a successor to the Soviet KGB which had carried
out the execution of the Polish prisoners of war), on the one hand, and the public interest in a
transparent investigation into the crimes of the previous totalitarian regime, on the other hand.

The bolded statement of this 2013 ruling do not suggest that there is any doubt on the part of ERCHR on who committed the Katyn massacre (which you would have expected had the court ruled in 2012 that Katyn was not on the shoulders of the NKVD but rather the Polish state)

Case closed.

wikipedia? LOL .... Try use that in any accredited institution and see how quickly your work will be blacklisted and thrown out.

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Daily Mail Online

Wikipedia info on global warming unreliable: Study | Zee News

Speaking as a PhD: Only if you are an idiot and can't tell what kinds of sources are appropriate to use at what stages of your (academic) research!

You don't go refer to an encyclopedia (not even Encyclopedia Britannica) in an academic paper. But that doesn't mean academics do not or cannot use them..

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.
Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.
The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about.

What's Wrong with Wikipedia? § Harvard Guide to Using Sources

... and who am I to argue with Harvard University Library?

 

[jamahir]

You just split at more them 20thoused murdered people

i don't want to do any such thing.

all i am saying is there must be neutral investigation into that event... only thing is blind hatred should not prevent people to look at alternative explanations.

it is for many polish citizens and russia to settle this thing once and for all.

 

[Gazprom]

Soviet Russia Today: Lies about Katyn revealed


mmmm, funny.... can't find the alleged (by Evgeny Novikov) EUCHR decision in its case law files ...

A search of the EUCHR caselaw notes for 2012 reveals only 3 hits on the workd Katyn. All deal with:

Failure adequately to account for fate of Polish prisoners executed by Soviet secret police at
Katyń in 1940: violation

Janowiec and Others v. Russia, nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, 16 April 2012

On 24 September 2012 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the applicants
supported by the Polish Government.

This is confirmed in a variety of documents. See
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_INDEX_2012_ENG_904387.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_2012_09_155_ENG.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2012_ENG.pdf

Admissibility checked via Hudoc
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"display":["1"],"dmdocnumber":["888268"]}
This is in fact the only hit in HUDOC on Katyn

The Country profile of Russia yields:


http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Russia_ENG.pdf (page 2)


http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Russia_ENG.pdf (page 12)

Here is the verdict by the Grand Chamber in 2013 on the Janowiec case
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-4541478-5482631&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20judgment%20Janowiec%20and%20Others%20v.%20Russia%20-%20judgment%20delivery.pdf

From this:

The bolded statement of this 2013 ruling do not suggest that there is any doubt on the part of ERCHR on who committed the Katyn massacre (which you would have expected had the court ruled in 2012 that Katyn was not on the shoulders of the NKVD but rather the Polish state)

Case closed.






Speaking as a PhD: Only if you are an idiot and can't tell what kinds of sources are appropriate to use at what stages of your (academic) research!

You don't go refer to an encyclopedia (not even Encyclopedia Britannica) in an academic paper. But that doesn't mean academics do not or cannot use them..



What's Wrong with Wikipedia? § Harvard Guide to Using Sources

... and who am I to argue with Harvard University Library?

Now,you become a PHD . This is hilarious. Phd in what ? Cut ,copy ,paste from wiki.

And EUCHR? What organization is that?I hope not another kangaroo court of the EU totalitarian technocracy.
Though the EUCHR sources seem much better compared to a wiki source lol.

 

[bobo6661]

i don't want to do any such thing.

but you did with the link ...

all i am saying is there must be neutral investigation into that event... only thing is blind hatred should not prevent people to look at alternative explanations.

What neutral investigation? You meen who? Oh maby Switzerland should do it i think they are the more neutral ...
But what do you wont to know more ? The land near katyn was cleaned long ago ... there is no alternative it was just plane massacre(all victims where polish officers,profesors,medics,etc so it was delibrate genoside off polish intelligents that could be a threat to them) ... nothing special in those years and by those people

it is for many polish citizens and russia to settle this thing once and for all.

so the ambasodor made the day with the statment all i see in polish forums is more hate ... yee he done his job good now more polish people love them ...

 

[Penguin]

weren't there the polish communists within poland??

Communism in Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Communist Party of Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Election results:
Polish legislative election, 1919 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Polish legislative election, 1922 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Polish legislative election, 1930 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bobo6661]

Now,you become a PHD . This is hilarious. Phd in what ? Cut ,copy ,paste from wiki.

And EUCHR? What organization is that?I hope not another kangaroo court of the EU totalitarian technocracy.
Though the EUCHR sources seem much better compared to a wiki source lol.

says russian totalistic
European Court of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
yes yes sputnik news is more creditable...

 

[flamer84]

A Lord Of the Rings book has more truth than Russia's versions on history.

 

[Penguin]

Now,you become a PHD . This is hilarious. Phd in what ? Cut ,copy ,paste from wiki.

You on the other hand: nothing from nowhere.

(posted for educational purposes only)

And EUCHR? What organization is that?I hope not another kangaroo court of the EU totalitarian technocracy. Though the EUCHR sources seem much better compared to a wiki source lol.

European Court of Human Rights
That is the organisation which the author of the article 'Lies about Katyn revealed' claims has decided that Russia is not responsible for the mass murder of Polish officers at Katyn
That author happens to be a) an obscure character, known for being b) Belarussian and c) anti-western. All factors to take into consideration when reading his article on Katyn, Poland.
That is the article quoted by jamahir, supposedly credible source to the contrary of the Katyn synopsis I provided.

Now, if you - like you countryman - have nothing further substantive to add, I have better things to do and would like to move on.

I bid you good day.

 

[jamahir]

Election results:
Polish legislative election, 1919 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Polish legislative election, 1922 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Polish legislative election, 1930 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i personally don't understand why you present election results here, but i suppose you have your reasons.

good evening to you.

 

[Gazprom]

You on the other hand: nothing from nowhere.

(posted for educational purposes only)


European Court of Human Rights
That is the organisation which the author of the article 'Lies about Katyn revealed' claims has decided that Russia is not responsible for the mass murder of Polish officers at Katyn
That author happens to be a) an obscure character, known for being b) Belarussian and c) anti-western. All factors to take into consideration when reading his article on Katyn, Poland.
That is the article quoted by jamahir, supposedly credible source to the contrary of the Katyn synopsis I provided.

Now, if you - like you countryman - have nothing further substantive to add, I have better things to do and would like to move on.

I bid you good day.

ECHR and human rights, Another axe to grind . Homosex,transgender lol. Am I supposed to take this seriously.

And PHD in what ? Wiki copy ,wiki paste.

says russian totalistic
European Court of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
yes yes sputnik news is more creditable...

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday became the first Russian or Soviet leader to join Polish officials in commemorating the anniversary of the murder of thousands of Polish officers by the Soviet Union at the beginning of World War II.

Mr. Putin cast the executions as one tragedy out of many wrought by what he called the Soviet Union’s “totalitarian regime.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/europe/08putin.html?_r=0

nuff said .

ussr not russia.

 

[Penguin]

i personally don't understand why you present election results here, but i suppose you have your reasons.

good evening to you.

Obviously to show you the proportion of voters for communist parties PREWAR (i.e. before Soviet control). You are welcome.

ECHR and human rights, Another axe to grind . Homosex,transgender lol. Am I supposed to take this seriously.

You can attempt to sidetrack untill you see blue in the face, it doesn't work.

And PHD in what ? Wiki copy ,wiki paste.

Unlike your own glorious contributions here, you mean?

(Clearly, I am not going to provide highly detailed personal info online)

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday became the first Russian or Soviet leader to join Polish officials in commemorating the anniversary of the murder of thousands of Polish officers by the Soviet Union at the beginning of World War II.

Mr. Putin cast the executions as one tragedy out of many wrought by what he called the Soviet Union’s “totalitarian regime.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/europe/08putin.html?_r=0

nuff said .

ussr not russia.

Nice 180 degree turn. Like the above sidetracking, it won't work. But thanks for posting this, as it confirms the Soviet Union's responsibility.

Present day Poland clearly isn't the Poland of the 1930s either so I wonder what that Russian ambassador was on about then ... Poles furious after Russia blames them for starting WWII Why don't you go post about that, eh?

 

[Gazprom]

Obviously to show you the proportion of voters for communist parties PREWAR (i.e. before Soviet control). You are welcome.


You can attempt to sidetrack untill you see blue in the face, it doesn't work.


Unlike your own glorious contributions here, you mean?

(Clearly, I am not going to provide highly detailed personal info online)


Nice 180 degree turn. Like the above sidetracking, it won't work. But thanks for posting this, as it confirms the Soviet Union's responsibility.

Present day Poland clearly isn't the Poland of the 1930s either so I wonder what that Russian ambassador was on about then ... Poles furious after Russia blames them for starting WWII Why don't you go post about that, eh?

. Look at what the ambassador said. But then PHD on wiki copy,wiki paste don't understand..nugh said to the PHD who use wikipedia.

 

[Penguin]

. Look at what the ambassador said. But then PHD on wiki copy,wiki paste don't understand..nugh said to the PHD who use wikipedia.

Perhaps you can provide the word by word statement. It varies depending upon which media you look at.

Sergei Andreev accused Poland -- which lost the highest proportion of its population in the conflict -- of "blocking the creation of an anti-Nazi coalition" which made it "co-responsible for World War II".
The ambassador also justified the Soviet invasion of Poland after Hitler and Stalin secretly agreed to divide up the country between them, as necessary to "guarantee the security of the Soviet Union".
And he said the Soviet decision to crush the Polish resistance as the war ended was motivated by the need to have a "friendly country at its borders".

Poland 'co-responsible' for WWII, says Russian ambassador - Yahoo News

Sergei Andreev - the Kremlin's representative in Warsaw - argued that Poland was 'co-responsible' for the devastating conflict, despite arguably being its greatest victim.
The Baltic nation was subject to two consecutive invasions inside of three weeks in 1939, a series of events which dragged Britain into the conflict and ended the policy of appeasement.
First Nazi Germany stormed into Poland from the west, followed just 16 days later by a Soviet Union army from the east.
The two powers had struck a secret deal to carve up Poland and its surrounding nations between them, though the agreement later collapsed and the nation became a battlefield once more.
Historians estimate that some six million Poles, half of them Jewish, died in the war - equivalent to around one sixth of the total population.
Despite the huge price paid by Poland and its people in the conflict, Andreev still advanced the point of view that Poland was to blame for its own suffering because it didn't do enough to oppose Hitler.
He also tried to excuse the Soviet invasion of Poland as an act of self-defence, prompting furious recriminations from the Polish government, accusing the Kremlin of attempting to re-write history.

Russian ambassador Sergei Andreev accuses POLAND of starting World War Two | Daily Mail Online

Sergey Andreyev said Poland had blocked a coalition against Nazi Germany several times in the run-up to war.
He also said the USSR's invasion of Poland in 1939 was not an aggression.

Mr Andreyev said that Poland had stood in the way of an alliance against the Nazis.
"Therefore Poland partly bears responsibility for the catastrophe that ensued in September 1939," he said, referring to the Nazi invasion of Poland.
He appeared to be referring to Poland's refusal to allow the transit of Soviet troops through its territory.
Mr Andreyev also said that the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland later that month was not an aggression but "to ensure the safety of the USSR" when the outcome of the German invasion of Poland was already clear.

Russia and Poland in spat over World War Two cause - BBC News

 

[Gazprom]

Perhaps you can provide the word by word statement. It varies depending upon which media you look at.



Poland 'co-responsible' for WWII, says Russian ambassador - Yahoo News


Russian ambassador Sergei Andreev accuses POLAND of starting World War Two | Daily Mail Online


Russia and Poland in spat over World War Two cause - BBC News

BBC,Daily mail ,yahoo. All oiligarch controlled with an axe to grind. But then our resident 'phd' of cut,copy,paste don't understand.

 

[Penguin]

In academic research the role and place of encyclopedia's in general is well described and accepted.

how Wikipedia articles are written is beside the point. What matters is their reliability, just as it is for any other source. If anything, studies over the years suggest that Wikipedia is at least as reliable as other encyclopedias, and sometimes more so. In cases where it is unreliable, the failure is not the nature of Wikipedia, but the irresponsibility of the writer who used a source without checking it. In this respect, Wikipedia is no different from any other potential source

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/How-reliable-is-a-Wikipedia-citation

Use Wikipedia Effectively for Research
Started in 2001, Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia with entries that can be created, added, and edited by anyone. Wikipedia is great as a general encyclopedia, but at the college level, your professors are looking for more than that. When it comes to academic research, there are some great ways Wikipedia can help you, but using a Wikipedia entry as a source can compromise the quality expected in an academic assignment.
Always be sure to read your assignment carefully and identify the types of sources your instructor has asked you to use. Does the assignment call for a specific type of resource, such as a article in a scholarly journal? Would an online encyclopedia be appropriate for the assignment? Be sure to ask your instructor if you are unsure what sources to consult.
And if you are ever in doubt about the reliability and credibility of a resource or need assistance finding a proper resource, do not hesitate to Ask a Librarian!
How Wikipedia Can Help You
Some advantages of Wikipedia include:

• Gather Background Information
  Wikipedia's varied subject matter and embedded links can be used to generate ideas and learn new terminology associated with your topic. However, you must recognize that you will need to consult and cite a credible source to verify the information you've found, such as a library database or encyclopedia.
• Generate Search Terms
  Wikipedia can be used to help generate search terms to use in for searching in library databases. Take a look at the embedded links, bolded words, or items listed in the table of contents.
• Consult Entries Bibliographies
  Most Wikipedia entries will include a bibliography at the bottom of the page that details the various sources used to compile the entry. These resources could be helpful sources for you if they are compatible with the requirements of your assignment and are reliability.

Why Wikipedia May Not Be The Best Source
While Wikipedia has its uses, there are reasons your instructors don't want you to cite Wikipedia in your assignment. These include:

• Reliability
  Because Wikipedia's content is user-created and contains no mandatory review process, users have no guarantee that the information presented is accurate and credible.
• Authorship
  Unlike other resources, authors are not required to provide credentials or other information indicating their expertise on a given subject area. This compromises the credibility of the entries.
• Bias
  Although Wikipedia works to maintain a neutral point of view, pages that have been recently edited or are controversial can be very biased.

Use Wikipedia Effectively for Research

Posting on a forum doesn't equate publishing and does not require the same level of documenting and referencing as an academic paper or article does. Again, for an academic paper, you don't refer to wiki. You can use wike to identify relevant source materials. A wiki with no further references to literature is useless. A well documented wiki can be priceless when getting started on a topic.

BBC,Daily mail ,yahoo. All oiligarch controlled with an axe to grind. But then our resident 'phd' of cut,copy,paste don't understand.

Fine. Yet another dodge and weave. So, why don't you show something from different media, media you trust? Clearly you ran out of substance many posts ago. Good night.

The Russian Ambassador in Poland has retracted their statements regarding the guilt of Warsaw at the beginning of the Second world war

The Russian Ambassador in Poland has retracted their statements regarding the guilt of Warsaw at the beginning of the Second world war | Last news from Russia

Russian ambassador says he regrets words that offended Poles - Yahoo News