/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2913947
btw, when you explore "archival evidence" of Soviet crimes, be especially vigilant about PROJECTS of letters, reports, orders, etc etc. You can spot forgeries quite easily like this

>>2913921
>we have forensics
Burdenko commission had 100 times as many forensics as Nazi commission on Katyn

>we have eyewitnesses
Soviets brought to Nuremberg 100 times more eyewitnesses, though

>last time the victims were seen was in spring 1940 during the Soviet occupation
Wrong, eyewitnesses saw them in 1941, both Soviet and German accounts support this

>Even the US was involved in the cover up.
Real conspiracy theory territory here

>>2913949
>Burdenko commission had 100 times as many forensics as Nazi commission on Katyn
Who cares about the number? Besides, many of the Burdenko witnesses recanted in the 1990s.
>Soviets brought to Nuremberg 100 times more eyewitnesses, though
The Soviets only called three people to the stand, none of whom were actual eyewitnesses to the killings.
>Wrong, eyewitnesses saw them in 1941, both Soviet and German accounts support this
The 1943 investigation found letters and newspapers that abruptly ceased in the spring of 1940.
>Real conspiracy theory territory here
How? The US suppressed information it had that pointed to Soviet culpability. This was elucidated in the Madden Committee, and the documents they based their findings on were declassified in 2011.
>>2913947
I don't get it. Are you saying the letter is a forgery simply because it was never sent? Also, not sure why you think the only proof is some letter. lol

>>2913959
>I don't get it. Are you saying the letter is a forgery simply because it was never sent?
I know you are trolling rn, but I have seen people like this. I wonder, if this is naivety or stupidity

>>2913962
Why do you think the letter is fake then?

>>2913959
>>2913962
Also, listening to bad signal's content on youtube on Katyn, 90s methods of extracting evidence for Soviet guilt was something else. They NEVER got any eyewitness of Soviet crimes to sign ANYTHING. They were all afraid of giving a punishable by law official statement, lol. "My fingers do not bend, so I had my interviewer sign papers admitting Soviet guilt for me!"

>>2913963
Because it was never sent, duh. It's not a real document because it was never officially verified. It's like signing papers with your own signature, instead of a forgery like I mentioned earlier - one is official document you can get persecuted for, and another is AT BEST a case of reputation damage, with USSR no longer existing to hold you accountable

>>2913964
>>2913965
>90s methods of extracting evidence for Soviet guilt was something else. They NEVER got any eyewitness of Soviet crimes to sign ANYTHING. They were all afraid of giving a punishable by law official statement, lol.
Yes, but those witnesses were never fundamental to proving Soviet culpability. It's not like the testimony they gave to the Burdenko Commision wasn't made under duress either (much more duress). Besides, not all witnesses were coerced. For example, although he wasn't part of the original Burdenko Commision, Dmitri Tokarev who was the NKVD chief in Kalinin at the time openly admitted to ordering the execution of some 6,000 Poles to Russian investigators.
>Because it was never sent, duh.
That makes no sense. You can write a letter and change your mind about sending it. I don't even know what the letter in question even is, but your basis of denying its authenticity is incredibly dubious and indicative of a confirmation bias.

>>2913965
>>2913964
The KGB guy who did this shit later went to live in Poland, and Poles rewarded him for his service by letting him and his family starve and beg in the streets, despite receiving medals from Polish president. Lol, lmao even, from a KGB operative to a beggar in Poland, what a career advancement!

>>2913966
>Tokarev admitted
<actually, never signed the admission papers
AHAHAHAHA

>>2913968
What do you mean? He was under oath.
https://diedreiraben.substack.com/p/wodzimierz-woynski-protocol-of-d

>>2913966
>hose witnesses were never fundamental to proving Soviet culpability
They were. There never was any documental evidence of SOviet guilt, in fact, all the documental evidence proved Nazi guilt, including Nuremberg Trials' results. As it is well known, Nuremberg trials put the blame for Katyn on Goring, and Goring was supposed to be hanged for it.

>You can write a letter and change your mind about sending it.
Then it does not belong to argumentation about rapes in Poland. It's not an official document with signatures, there are HUGE doubts about letter being real in the first place

>>2913970
He didn't sign anything, lmao. Watch the video. He did say all this shit, and then NEVER SIGNED IT. This means he wasn't under any oath

By the way, katynfiles site claimed that German Nazis didn't shoot Polish POWs almost ever, and they didn't even force them to work in labor camps, Germans were very chivalric towards Polish POWs and didn't torture or torment them.

>"It was really unlike Soviet caricatures about Nazis shooting thousands of Polish POWs!"

>>2913975
Doesn't Poland have laws against rehabilitation of Nazis? Can somebody notify Polish authorities of Romanov from katynfiles for his rehabilitation of Nazis?

>>2913971
>They were.
No, it wasn't. Beria and the Politburo memos with Stalin's signature from 1940, and the Shelepin from the 1950s. Of course, you say these are forged, but where is the German equivalent? Some show trial the Soviets staged in the 1950s and three witnesses at Nuremberg WHO WEREN'T EVEN EYEWITNESSES TO THE KILLINGS?
>including Nuremberg Trials' results
There wasn't a ruling.
>Nuremberg trials put the blame for Katyn on Goring, and Goring was supposed to be hanged for it
It was dropped.
>Then it does not belong to argumentation about rapes in Poland.
Why not? How does changing your mind about sending a letter mean said letter is fake?
>It's not an official document with signatures
Why does a document need signatures for it to be real? That makes no sense.
>there are HUGE doubts about letter being real in the first place
Such as? I don't even know what the letter is. lol. Do you?
>He did say all this shit, and then NEVER SIGNED IT.
Where is that in the transcript? The interrogator tells him the law about giving a false testimony and the interrogation continues. If he refused to sign something wouldn't that mean criminal liability?

>>2913977
>Beria and the Politburo memos with Stalin's signature from 1940
PROJECTS of orders of politburo, lmao?

>Shelepin from the 1950s
That's a proven forgery, too

>where is the German equivalent
Yeah, dude, that's how mass murders actually happen - Germans destroyed paper trails, but left behind corpses and circumstantial evidence. Soviets, meanwhile, only have forged documents for mass murder of Poles, ordered from the very top.

You are being very fucking stupid

>There wasn't a ruling.
>It was dropped.
It wasn't dropped, ever. There was a ruling as well. Consult OP >>2913192 for obvious fucking questions that arise if you insist on Nuremberg dropping Katyn during Nazi trials, lmao

>changing your mind about sending a letter mean said letter is fake?
>Why does a document need signatures for it to be real?

Because without a signature there is no RESPONSIBILITY for the letter, meaning IT COULD BE A FORGERY, a RUMOR, or PIECE OF PROPAGANDA

>If he refused to sign something wouldn't that mean criminal liability?
No, it would mean he wasted interrogator's time, but it's not a crime

Katyn denialists continue to being retarded, lmao

>>2913977
>PROJECTS of orders of politburo, lmao?
>That's a proven forgery, too
How? Who forged them? They were just sitting in the Soviet archives lol.
>Germans destroyed paper trails
Actually, not really. We have plenty of documents on the Einsatzgruppen executions the Germans carried out.
>It wasn't dropped, ever. There was a ruling as well.
Where is Katyn mentioned in the final ruling?
>Because without a signature there is no RESPONSIBILITY for the letter, meaning IT COULD BE A FORGERY, a RUMOR, or PIECE OF PROPAGANDA
So any letter without a signature is a potential forgery? That would be the vast majority of writing.
>No, it would mean he wasted interrogator's time, but it's not a crime
Refusing to give testimony is a crime. The interrogator literally says that.

>>2913977
>>2913978
>>2913981
Okay, Beria memo. Literally went through a forgery expertise, which literally called it a forgery. Physical evidence: it was written on two different typewriters, with first 3 or 4 pages not matching last page in context and typewriter.

Shelepin one literally calls one of camps to be near Kharkov, while in reality it was 250 km away in Russia, not Ukraine. This kind of a mistake is impossible for a Russian. This mistake alone is enough, but there were plenty more, like a supposedly top secret document for Khruschev being sent using normal mail, lol

>They were just sitting in the Soviet archives lol.
It's not unheard of for "archival evidence" being literally inserted into archives

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16525
During 2005 to 2006, The National Archives undertook an investigation in response to allegations that certain documents cited in three books by Martin Allen and held in The National Archives were forgeries. The investigation, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police and forensic services, identified 29 forged documents in total.

The three works citing the forgeries are:

Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies (London, Macmillan, 2000).

The Hitler / Hess Deception: British Intelligence's Best Kept Secret of the Second World War (HarperCollins, London, 2003).

Himmler's Secret War: the Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler (Robson Books, London, 2005).

The investigation was catalysed by correspondence received by the National Archives in October 2004 from an eminent Second World War historian that cast doubts on the authenticity of these documents. A limited examination was made but no firm conclusions were drawn from it at the time.

In June 2005, Mr Ben Fenton, a journalist with the Daily Telegraph, wrote to The National Archives also questioning the authenticity of some of the documents cited in the book 'Himmler's Secret War'. This newspaper requested that the five documents be forensically tested at a private laboratory at its own cost, which The National Archives agreed to allow under its supervision. The results indicated that all five documents were forgeries.

A further investigation identified an extra 24 National Archives referenced documents cited in Martin Allen's books. These documents were forensically tested in government laboratories and also found to be forged documents.

The Metropolitan Police investigation evidence was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided in 2006 not to pursue a conviction in the courts.

The forged documents were extracted from the files in which they were found during the investigation in 2007 and have been placed in this record series.

>>2913981
>Refusing to give testimony is a crime. The interrogator literally says that.
That's for PROVEN witnesses. When investigation orders you to write a testimony, and you refuse it. Tokarev wasn't a witness, and he didn't provide a testimony. Furthermore, a case against CPSU, for which Tokarev shit was created in the first place, never actually took Tokarev's testimony, namely because it wasn't signed, lol

>>2913981
>Where is Katyn mentioned in the final ruling?
Where is Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, you retard?

>Come back to the thread the next day
<WTF where did these CIA guys come from

>>2913916
>If you were going to kill thousands people
Except they did in other executions and they used nagants or TT's if on hand.
>I am a Nazi for saying the Soviets imported German munitions
No, for saying Goebbels "guesses correctly". You already determined in your head he was right.
>Not the point
The point being nobody really believed what the nazis were saying because they knew they were lying, exaggerating and just plain fantasy bullshitting their way in their broadcasting.
>opinion is useless
Yet you somehow value the opinion of nazis when they are just as tribal as hasbarabots
>Proofs
You make special pleading for nazis but not the soviets.
>Castro loved Franco (and the CIA at one point).
Days of mourning is just diplomatic courtesy. Funny how they opened embassies after Franco's death. If he loved Franco, why not open them before his death? As regards CIA, yeah, before the revolution kek. What do they teach you at Langley? Or are you a pollack? You seem too invested in ascribing soviet guilt here.
>So it did exist by your own admission
I was steelmanning you and even then you came up short. Far more examples, like what?

>>2914220
>Funny how they opened embassies after Franco's death. If he loved Franco, why not open them before his death?
I incorrectly assumed the embassies were closed. Turns out they were manned by charge d'affaires and not ambassadors, my bad.

>In spite of Franco's anticommunism, Cuba and Spain held diplomatic relations after Fidel Castro came into power and became Prime Minister of Cuba in 1959.[6] In 1960, Prime Minister Castro expelled the Spanish ambassador Juan Pablo de Lojendio e Irure[7] after an argument on TV, where Castro accused the Spanish embassy of supporting counter-revolutionary groups in Cuba.[8] The Spanish ambassadorship in Cuba would remain vacant for the next 15 years, however, diplomatic relations between both nations continued at the level of chargé d'affaires.[9]

>When the United States decreed an embargo against Cuba in 1960 and 1962, its Latin American and European allies followed suit, however, Francisco Franco did not place an embargo on Cuba. American pressure against the Spanish embargo breach was deflected by the renegotiation of the American military bases in Spain in 1963.[citation needed]

>>2914220
There's like one or two RUSSIANS, not even Poles, with butthurt about Stalin and who prefers it if Soviets killed Poles in Katyn, not Nazis, to the point of denying Nuremberg trials.

Or at the very least they are continental European, because they have the same assumptions about what counts as normal in legal proceedings that they fall under katynfiles' Nazi simps' spell and believe in sentencing requiring Katyn to be there - while Anglo-Saxon aka Inquisitorial court operates different, and so Anglos/Americans should expect the court to be on the side of indictment, also trying to find guilt instead of being a neutral observer and a true judge, like in continental Europe. So, if Katyn is in indictment, like many other examples, like murder camps, Warsaw city, numerous POW executions, torture, etc etc, it means that court did not strike it out of the indictment, meaning sentencing, whether it has or not Katyn, implies guilt over things that are still in the indictment. It's even in the Nuremberg trials' rules! In plain text!!! But then katynfiles said "nuh-uh, it doesn't count!", and retards became enthralled by their false nazi worshipping statement

>>2913964

I am surprised nobody posted a link to the series.

Imo the whole thing is very confused. In their memoirs both Kaganovich & Molotov independently cite 3000ish Polish officers executed in 40 for crimes commited in the Polish-Soviet War two decades earlier. But that number is 5-7 times less than what is often claimed for Katyn.

>>2914250
Molotov has no memoirs, it was a forgery by a starving journalist. Kaganovich probably the same, needs researching

>>2913983
>Literally went through a forgery expertise, which literally called it a forgery.
Is that the one commissioned by the Communist Party of Russia. Yes, that expert didn’t actually examine the original document but rather a copy of the document. Thus, he had no way of examining the age of the paper and ink, which is how you actually exposed forged documents. Nevertheless, his conclusion actually found no evidence of technical forgery, but this was misrepresented by the party.
https://katynfiles.com/content/romanov-rp-5.html
<During microscopic examination (MBS-10 microscope, magnification up to 32X) of images of page-by-page fragments of typewritten text, no signs of technical forgery of their originals were found.
>it was written on two different typewriters, with first 3 or 4 pages not matching last page in context and typewriter
Not sure how reprinting the last page proves a forgery, but OK. See above link.
>Shelepin one literally calls one of camps to be near Kharkov, while in reality it was 250 km away in Russia, not Ukraine. This kind of a mistake is impossible for a Russian.
I believe Shelepin did not have the execution records in front him, which explains the mix up. And POWs were actually executed in Kharkov. So the mix up is just sloppy writing.
Shelepin also later confirmed the document’s authenticity.
https://katynfiles.com/content/romanov-rp-6.html
>It's not unheard of for "archival evidence" being literally inserted into archives
The difference is there’s no evidence of the Katyn files being forgeries.
>>2913986
Where in the transcript does Tokarev refuse to sign? The interrogator never fives him anything to sign in the first place, according to the transcript at least. Here it is again: https://diedreiraben.substack.com/p/wodzimierz-woynski-protocol-of-d
>>2914220
Don’t dodge, faggot. No one is saying they never used their own munitions lol. You said a Nagant is comparable to the Walther in efficiency. So answer the question. Would you rather have the pistol with the magazines or the revolver and load every round individually?
>No, for saying Goebbels "guesses correctly". You already determined in your head he was right.
Goebbels guessed right because his guess is in line with the evidence we have now. The Germans DID sell Walthers to the Soviets and the Soviets often DID prefer foreign weapons.
https://historical-fact.livejournal.com/88653.html
https://katynfiles.com/content/romanov-7-65.html
>The point being nobody really believed what the nazis
Who cares about the Nazis? Even all the relevant parties at the times believed it was the Soviets, including the Polish government in exile, and the Western Allies (see Madden Commission). Nuremberg also rejected the Soviet story.
>Yet you somehow value the opinion of nazis when they are just as tribal as hasbarabots
>You make special pleading for nazis but not the soviets.
Cope.
>Days of mourning is just diplomatic courtesy.
Cope status: reinforced.
>Far more examples, like what?
Rather focus on Katyn for now. Don’t feel like derailing the thread and getting into other shit. You can consider this a “victory” for you.

>>2914403
Possibility to kill POWs does not equal that Soviets did it. Instead of factual evidence, your side of the argument consists entirely of "sloppy" bureaucrats, sold Walthers that may have been used here and there, a honest mistake of putting Kharkov "close to" Tver that was 250 km away, etc etc.

>katynfiles
Yep, that's the guy I was talking about. Retard at katynfiles grasps at straws, and with him, his whole brainwashed nazi-loving reader list

>conclusion actually found no evidence of technical forgery, but this was misrepresented by the party.
No, expertise straight up said that they've found the evidence of typewriter that was used for inserted pages to also be the typewriter used for other contentious documents, decades apart from 1940, lol. I bet romanov-retard simply didn't mention it, didn't he? As is his usual modus operandi to sell you lies

>>2914410
>Possibility to kill POWs does not equal that Soviets did it.
It’s not a possibility. We know the Soviets did it. All the evidence indicates that. Feel free to start presenting evidence that it was a Nazi crime. The whole denialist camp never tries to put together its own coherent narrative, just try (and fail) to poke holes in the existing one. Like we have so much evidence for the Nazi Einsatzgruppen shootings, so it shouldn’t be hard.
>Retard at katynfiles grasps at straws, and with him, his whole brainwashed nazi-loving reader list
How is Sergey Romanov a Nazi? He also writes for Holocaust-Controversies blog which attempts to debunk Holocaust denial. You are mentally ill.
>expertise straight up said that they've found the evidence of typewriter that was used for inserted pages to also be the typewriter used for other contentious documents, decades apart from 1940, lol
I just quoted you Molokov’s conclusion. There was no forgery lol.

I don't know what is more pathetic: Hounding on a dead state, or taking a bullet for a dead state?

didn't happen & they deserved it & it will happen again

>>2913916
>How is a revolver more efficient than a pistol? If you were going to kill thousands people, would you rather have the revolver, in which you have to load each round individually, or the pistol with a magazine?
You guys talk like mob lawyers at a trial while a bunch of made guys start ratting each other out in the 90s. Eh, your honor, some punk kid claims he saw my client drop that weapon years ago meanwhile he was using it to shoot at cans and impress his friends

>>2914403
>romanov katynfiles
Concession accepted. You must be a pollack who doesn't understand english because when I said they already used nagants and tokarevs in executions, they made that decision for me.
>cope
Stalin was too nice to the "occupied countries". That's my cope.

>>2914434
Good to know you have no rebuttal other than to appeal to dogma.

>>2913770
Agree tbh. I don't really know or care who did it. But if the Germans did it then it was because they saw Poles as subhuman and wanted to exterminate them as a people. If the Soviets did it it was because they correctly saw the aristocratic and bourgeois officer corps of the Polish army as oppressors of the Polish workers and peasants.

>>2914549
Good.

>>2914412
There is no evidence for Soviets doing it. Katyn denialists literally refuse Nuremberg trials, lie about the trials, and thrn pretend that their theory, built on conspiratard levels of assumptions - Soviets terrifying everyone into forgetting the poles, nkvd shooting with german bullets and pistols, treating tokarev refusing to sign as a proof that he signed (lmao), that "documents" having a billion inconsistencies means no doubt over their authenticity, that Katyn not in Nuremberg's final verdict means Nuremberg refused it, while ignoring lack of Dachau, Buchenwald, etc, which are only mentioned in indictment as well, etc etc - that this shit theory is the original, legally, widely accepted position, when in fact it's just a widespread conspiracy theory ala holodomor

You are a retard grasping at straws, ignoring evidence, ignoring arguments, repeating a tired debunked over and over. You can't even answer OP properly - who the fuck did Dachau and Buchenwald, which are not in Nuremberg's final verdict, just like Katyn? It's an obvious Nazi war crime, committed exactly like Nazis did everywhere else

>>2914412
If a nazi rehabilitator romanov defends holocaust, there is a big suspicion in regards to holocaust. You shouldn't let shitters like him defend history

Lmao, i've dragged you through dirt a couple years back, and yet here you are again with your nonsense stance, with zero changes in argumentation. You simply fucking ignored all the evidence to start your bullshit anew

Expertise did, in fact, say that "Molotov's" letter was written on 2 typewriters. And that one of typewriters was used for other contentious documents, decades apart from "Molotov's letter". Furthermore, it contains a myriad of errors, you can watch bad signal for a point by point investigation.

I also put an example before about forgeries in British archives, and how newly found documents were put into a book as a sensation. This is EXACTLY how anti-communist authors operated for decades, especially in the 90s

>>2914549
Rape? You mean, that allegation which was based on unsigned, unsent letter, the use of which you defended by assuming WITHOUT ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ASSUMPTION that it was a real letter, and that it only was unsent because of le evil terrifying KGB? This is a fucking conspiracy theory, it's not an argument, you are just plain NOT ALLOWED TO USE THIS SHIT in an argument, neither will court ever accept unsigned, unsent letter like that

>>2914412
>How is Sergey Romanov a Nazi?
He said that Germans treated Polish POWs chivalrously and that there weren't any executions, apart from some excesses.

>Like we have so much evidence for the Nazi Einsatzgruppen shootings

What evidence?

Soviet "evidence" of Soviet guilt is nonsense on every level, ripe with errors, aberrations of memory, random numbers, assumptions, full on comedy like "my pa escaped his execution order by the NKVD, got apprehended when ran away, and put into a penal battalion, where he died 3 years later!", shit like claiming that German pistols, bullets, ropes, mean that NKVD was trying to false flag pristine clean Germans who never committed any crimes towards Polish POWs, nuh-uh

What German evidence of war crimes? Like what quality are we talking about here? We know for a fact that Germans hid mass executions under claiming that Zyklon-B, despite the quantities used, was merely an agent to fight lye infestation on their prisoners. Because, you know, Jews were a dirty race ( /s for fuck's sake, don't you dare to ban me again for quoting Nazi argumentation)

Oh, and you know in what context Romanov put the "clean chivalric Nazi regime" argument? In the context of trying to explain how Nazis woouldn't commit a massacre of Polish POWs in 1941, lmao. Imagine being such a piece of shit that you'd claim that Nazis didn't kill POWs in 19-fucking-41. It's a straight up lie, you are being fed literal shit by a Nazi propagandist Romanov

Oh, and by the way. According to forgeries, Soviets through troikas have executed 1800 Polish POWs, but researchers have only ever established the identity of 22 of them. That's the approximate extent of overexaggeration of Soviet crime punishment system - by a factor 100

>>2913192
Out of 58 Nazi war crimes in the indictment that mentioned time and place - ala Buchenwald, Katyn, Aushwitz - only one made it's way into the final verdict. Can you guess, which one?

That's right, the execution of British POWed pilots. I guess Nazis weren't responsible for anything else but killing 50 British pilots, huh

This is what Romanov shithead is doing by claiming that Nazis weren't persecuted for their crime at Katyn by Nuremberg court - rehabilitating Nazis of all their PROVEN crimes

>>2914641
1946, Hess' defence tried to present to the court a photocopy of secret Soviet-German pact. Court refused to take this document into account, citing that AUTHENTICITY of this document cannot be verified, since defence refused to name the person who provided them this document, meaning that that person was supposed to be called in to the court for questioning, with all the fun stuff applying to them, like criminal punishment for lying in court, LMAO

>>2914549
Liquidating the Polish ruling class so that Polish workers and peasants can rule the country for themselves isn't genociding Poles, its liberating them. It's exactly what the Russians had done to their own parasitic rulers in their revolution.

>>2914769
if you kill your enemies, they win

>>2914629
>>2914633
>>2914634
>>2914638
>>2914640
Alright, good to know you have no evidence that the Nazis did Katyn other than DA BOOLETS and FORGERIES!!!11!!
>>2914769
Yeah, that was it. It totally had nothing to do with Germany and the USSR splitting Eastern Europe into "spheres of influence" as part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Fucking campist retards.

>>2914960
Leaving aside all the actual reasons for why the Soviets signed Molotov-Ribbentrop in the first place (i.e. the total rejection Poland and the West of an anti-Nazi alliance and the fact that Poland's eastern territories had been seized from Soviet Russia in a war of aggression), that has zero bearing on my argument. The Soviets integrated those territories into the USSR and thereby made them socialist, which obviously necessitates the elimination of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie as a class. What exactly is the nature of your objection? Just shooting them all may have been excessive, but these people were class enemies. Neutralizing them was necessary, even if it didn't need to be quite so brutal. They had done the exact same thing to this class of people in Russia. Was that a bad thing too?

>>2914960
It fucked over japan, who had just signed the anti comintern pact with germany

>>2914960
>campist
Campists are historically progressive. There are good camps and bad camps. Stop trying to impose a universal standard on cops and robbers. One is good, the other is bad. If you think you are not a campist, you belong to the third-camp of inept losers.

>>2914995
>Leaving aside all the actual reasons for why the Soviets signed Molotov-Ribbentrop in the first place (i.e. the total rejection Poland and the West of an anti-Nazi alliance and the fact that Poland's eastern territories had been seized from Soviet Russia in a war of aggression), that has zero bearing on my argument.
The USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to effectuate its imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe (it's a meme that imperialism must require a profit motive), as well as to buy time for an eventual offensive war on Germany. The apologetics you give about the USSR ostensibly wanting to ally with the West has no bearing on the fact that the Soviets were always going to attempt to expand its borders westward.
>What exactly is the nature of your objection?
Crimes like Katyn were measures taken by the state capitalist Soviet bureaucracy in asserting its imperial control over newly-annexed Eastern Poland. It had nothing to do with letting "Polish workers and peasants" rule the country, which is some idealist trash, but rather eliminating one strain of bourgeois class rule in favor of another another.
>Was that a bad thing too?
Yes, although the circumstances aren't really the same.
>>2915088
>One is good, the other is bad.
Binary thinking like this is for retards, so it makes sense you believe this.