Putin: Katyin massacre was payback

[CountDeMoney]

U.S. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, who has advocated greater Russian recognition of the atrocities, said there can be no justification for the murder of innocent people.

"I think trying to rationalize the massacre in any way is unwarranted. You can't justify that under any scenario. It was senseless and there was no just cause. Those are the facts," Cardin, who chairs the U.S. Helsinki Commission, told The Associated Press.

Now I feel better about voting for him.  Way to go, Ben.


And Katyn was all about payback for 1920.  And to eliminate an officer corps that could have conceivably fought as an insurgency against the Soviet, kicking their asses all over again.  No way was Stalin going to risk the chance of another Polish asskicking.

[Martinus]

Btw, the greater context of Putin's remark was that he has always wondered why the hell Stalin killed Polish officers in Katyn, and that's the best explanation for his motives he came up with. It was done during a press conference after the celebration (during the celebration Putin was not making such remarks, but condemned the killing as an atrocity, however said that Stalin also killed a lot of his own subjects).

So while I hate Putin like anyone, this criticism is I think based on his remark being taken out of context.

[CountDeMoney]

Putinapologist fag.  You're a treasonous fag to your nation.

[Agelastus]

Btw, the greater context of Putin's remark was that he has always wondered why the hell Stalin killed Polish officers in Katyn, and that's the best explanation for his motives he came up with. It was done during a press conference after the celebration (during the celebration Putin was not making such remarks, but condemned the killing as an atrocity, however said that Stalin also killed a lot of his own subjects).

So while I hate Putin like anyone, this criticism is I think based on his remark being taken out of context.

Thanks. I was waiting for someone to add context to the remarks before posting.

I agree. Assigning a motive for an action does not equate to a denial that the action was an atrocity (especially when you have said it was an atrocity earlier the same day.) I'm quite willing to jump on Putin for the shit he does do - I don't have to attack him for things he hasn't done as well.

[Warspite]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

[DGuller]

Btw, the greater context of Putin's remark was that he has always wondered why the hell Stalin killed Polish officers in Katyn, and that's the best explanation for his motives he came up with. It was done during a press conference after the celebration (during the celebration Putin was not making such remarks, but condemned the killing as an atrocity, however said that Stalin also killed a lot of his own subjects).

So while I hate Putin like anyone, this criticism is I think based on his remark being taken out of context.

Of course you're going to say that, you're practically Russian.

[Agelastus]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

What debate? An atrocity is an atrocity. Both sides behaved like animals, and probably still would if they had the chance; all their current rhetoric does is amuse the neutral bystander.

[Warspite]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

What debate? An atrocity is an atrocity. Both sides behaved like animals, and probably still would if they had the chance; all their current rhetoric does is amuse the neutral bystander.

Well as it turned out, "Both sides behaved like animals" was one of the key arguments in not doing anything, so the one side that had anything close to a multi-ethnic makeup got its ass kicked genocidally. Impartiality is dangerous when it is misguided.

[Razgovory]

Btw, the greater context of Putin's remark was that he has always wondered why the hell Stalin killed Polish officers in Katyn, and that's the best explanation for his motives he came up with. It was done during a press conference after the celebration (during the celebration Putin was not making such remarks, but condemned the killing as an atrocity, however said that Stalin also killed a lot of his own subjects).

So while I hate Putin like anyone, this criticism is I think based on his remark being taken out of context.

Of course you're going to say that, you're practically Russian.

He was a playground informer.

[Agelastus]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

What debate? An atrocity is an atrocity. Both sides behaved like animals, and probably still would if they had the chance; all their current rhetoric does is amuse the neutral bystander.

Well as it turned out, "Both sides behaved like animals" was one of the key arguments in not doing anything, so the one side that had anything close to a multi-ethnic makeup got its ass kicked genocidally. Impartiality is dangerous when it is misguided.

Impartiality doesn't prevent proper intervention; lack of political will or good sense does that.

[The Brain]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

What debate? An atrocity is an atrocity. Both sides behaved like animals, and probably still would if they had the chance; all their current rhetoric does is amuse the neutral bystander.

Well as it turned out, "Both sides behaved like animals" was one of the key arguments in not doing anything, so the one side that had anything close to a multi-ethnic makeup got its ass kicked genocidally. Impartiality is dangerous when it is misguided.

Impartiality doesn't prevent proper intervention; lack of political will or good sense does that.

Hitler left a political will and what good did it do him?

[Agelastus]

Impartiality doesn't prevent proper intervention; lack of political will or good sense does that.

Hitler left a political will and what good did it do him?

Being deliberately obtuse is no substitute for genuine wit.

[The Brain]

Impartiality doesn't prevent proper intervention; lack of political will or good sense does that.

Hitler left a political will and what good did it do him?

Being deliberately obtuse is no substitute for genuine wit.

You're on the wrong board, honey.

[Martinus]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

What debate? An atrocity is an atrocity. Both sides behaved like animals, and probably still would if they had the chance; all their current rhetoric does is amuse the neutral bystander.

It's a bit of a different perspective. During the war of 1920 both sides indeed behaved like animals, albeit in a different manner - Soviets killed PoWs, raped and pillaged; Poles didn't care about sanitary and health conditions of the Soviet PoWs, resulting in 20 thousand deaths. It's a fact Poles largely fail to acknowledge.

Now, Katyn was not only 20 years later, but it was the NKVD coming and arresting not just Polish officers, but civilian intelligentsia, and then putting a bullet into their heads. I think it is debatable whether this qualifies as genocide, but it is pretty damn close to some sort of a "cultural genocide" by physically destroying the elites.

[Agelastus]

I don't know. While in theory you are right, often context is used as a backdoor justification or way of undermining the severity of an atrocity. Just look debates over Srebrenica.

What debate? An atrocity is an atrocity. Both sides behaved like animals, and probably still would if they had the chance; all their current rhetoric does is amuse the neutral bystander.

It's a bit of a different perspective. During the war of 1920 both sides indeed behaved like animals, albeit in a different manner - Soviets killed PoWs, raped and pillaged; Poles didn't care about sanitary and health conditions of the Soviet PoWs, resulting in 20 thousand deaths. It's a fact Poles largely fail to acknowledge.

Now, Katyn was not only 20 years later, but it was the NKVD coming and arresting not just Polish officers, but civilian intelligentsia, and then putting a bullet into their heads. I think it is debatable whether this qualifies as genocide, but it is pretty damn close to some sort of a "cultural genocide" by physically destroying the elites.

All very well, and well taken, except that I was responding to a comment on, and talking about, Bosnia/Srebrenica not Poland/Katyn.