>>28320>I seriously doubt anyone needs to rely on Göbbels' diaryNobody said that
>I'm not aware of anyone doubting the existence of said bullets You're not familiar with Cold Warrior Katyn hysteria of the 80s trying to dismiss any evidence of German involvement being a "soviet fake" including supposedly the bullets being not German
>they omit a crucial part of it I am well familiar with the entire Goebbel's entry and it's intentional obfuscation
>By including it, it doesn't look that way at all. I disagree, it only looks more suspect; German bullets were found,shit it's gonna be hard to imply the USSR in this.
>He clearly doesn't write as if the Germans actually shot the Poles You're hyperfocusing on a single excerpt and it misrepresents the argument being made - Goebbel's entry regardless of how you take it, is an admittance of German ammunition at the site, removing any doubt that any ammunition there was Soviet as some have claimed to my knowledge. THIS alongside other evidence only confirms the main argument of Nazi guilt, not that it is proof on its lonesome. That is the argument being made.
>He did not, and could not, "recognize" who was actually responsible for the Katyn executions Yes, he could as the very fact of the German's "suddenly uncovering" a massacre site in 1943/44 supposedly from 1939 in a territory that was under German occupation since 1941 is suspicious at best.
It is so improbable that the only logical conclusion is that the Germans were false-flagging their own massacre as a desperate measure thought of at the last minute to drum up support in Europe to fight the USSR, when it would be more logical to have unveiled the "Soviet Crime" earlier, when Soviet-Allied relations were almost nonexistent. so his words remain relevant, as the President of the United States of America, one of the 2 most powerful nations of the time dismissed a claim that they could simply have not given any attention to, as they had martial control of propaganda and news and could have simply kept it quiet. The USSR and USA wouldn't be breaking an alliance over that regardless as the Nazi threat over-ruled moralistic outcry during a war, or in layman's terms, the Katyn provocation was a futile attempt even if the German's had been truthfully accusing the USSR.
>He was a "practical" bourgeois politician<To say the Soviets were responsible for Katyn would be very inconvenient during the war See above. He could have simply ignored it as it wouldn't be very inconvenient at all.
>FDR privately invoked them when talking about negotiations with the Soviets over Poland-related subjects.There you go; a diplomatic excuse, but hardly something he needed
>he could have scarcely gained much in 1943-44 by claiming the Soviets were responsible Again, he could have simply ignored it.
>I'm only focusing on things There-in is the problem, this becomes nitpicking (no offense), because the limited knowledge of the subject means that without the full context you can make conclusions that are not actually correct, that's how a lot of anti-communist writers use half-truths to create utterly fictional narratives.
> I'm sure there are individuals who you could argue with at length on any facet of KatynTrue, I've had some good debates and discussion even here (on /edu/ and 8ch /leftypol/)
>Sergey RomanovGod not that twat, I'm quite familiar with Romanov's "criticisms" and they are the definition of nitpicking and straight up evidence dismissal. For example he dismisses packet No.1 by claiming that the Poles denied its existence, in spite of the fact that this wasn't the argument Grover Furr presents nor Muhin. It is literally just a set of blogposts that collectively are maybe a few dozen pages in length, against books and articles that are ten times larger. I'm not even going into the "Criticism" of TubusShow led by Егор Иванов wherein he basically claims that all "documents" of Soviet guilt, many of which are proven fakes are actually real and true, denying any questioning of their veracity by bringing up false equivalencies of the Nuremburg trials in regards to Nazi Crimes, which had no relevance to the argument at all. It is of even less interest to me to argue with such a person than one mostly ignorant of Katyn, since in the case of Romanov, he's a typical representation of Liberast anti-communist hysteria - a firmly cemented ideologue utilizing bad faith arguments, believing in "documents" only if they confirm his hatred for Stalin and ignoring the points and arguments being made to instead attack it by derailing with obfuscative questions and deflection. When a tubusshow video asked for proofs he brought up a different set of 'documents' when Tubusshow tried to request these proofs from the archives for themselves, they were nonexistent. When TubusShow brought up an important point about the labour of transplanting large trees from one place to another (mind you in a time when mechanization was still developing) and this being one of several key issues in an anti-NKVD narrative, Romanov instead brings up some nonsense about a mass grave that was burned in X amount of time as testified in Nuremburg in 1947… only the issue is that a mass-grave being burned and a massgrave being "hidden" by transplanting trees en masse is completely fucking different sets of logistics. burning a corpse isn't that hard - a hole, some fuel and a fire, then push dirt over the hole. Unlike replanting a fragging tree.
The example his arguments against Igor are only a taste of similar bad faith argumentation that he gives Muhin and Furr and smacks of dedicated intellectual dishonesty on the same level as Werth or Timothy Snyder.
>if you ever wanted to go onto /marx/ and debate about, say, the Moscow Trials, I'd have no problem with that.Sure, I'll take you up on that some-time, although it's been a LONG time since I've refreshed myself on the overall materials while debating.