In Reply to: KHATYN or KATYN? posted by Victor Khomenko on August 6, 2000 at 07:02:50:
I was thinking about the "therapeutic" usage of an A-bomb and the slaughther of 10,000 to 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn by the Soviets that you'd mentioned. Perhaps it was as "therapeutic" as the A-bomb you mentioned. An army without command is a dead army. So, 15,000 dead Poles against 100,000 dead Japanese. What's more humain then?
I really don't want to start a discussion over an atomic bomb either. I have a point of view on that, which is probably pretty solid, but another aspect is always interesting to read. As you might've guessed I am something of a pacifist, but I take interest in reading war stories and always go into the Medeival arms and armour wing of the Met.
I read the article about Kh vs. K and to my eyes it's nothing more than yet another revisionist paper. Appearance and disappearance of both places on the Soviet-era maps(of 1950s-70s to boot) doesn't prove or disprove anything. Soviet cartography was as politicised and incorrect as anything. Actually, Soviet maps were notoriously inaccurate. I read several accounts of geologists and geographers doing field research with these maps, noting their tremendous shift, compression and inaccuracy(purposeful, I suppose). One geologist wrote that all the major reserch was done using western maps which, after the field research was over, were to be returned to you know who. Add the freaky secrecy of the Soviet era and you get this article, based on nothing more than speculative and overimaginative thinking.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: KHATYN or KATYN? - Dmitry 09:23:44 08/06/00 (3)
- Re: KHATYN or KATYN? - Victor Khomenko 15:35:23 08/06/00 (2)
- Re: KHATYN or KATYN? - Dmitry 17:07:40 08/06/00 (1)
- Re: KHATYN or KATYN? - Victor Khomenko 18:12:57 08/06/00 (0)