In:Political Discourse in Central, Eastern and Balkan Europe
Edited by Martina Berrocal and Aleksandra Salamurović
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 84] 2019
► pp. 39–68
Chapter 3The conflict about the 1940 Katyn’ massacre and the 2010 declaration of the Russian State Duma
Published online: 23 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.84.03wei
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.84.03wei
Abstract
The execution of 22,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in the forests of Katyn’ in 1940 constituted a stumbling block for the relations between the two countries for several decades. Although the investigation conducted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office (1991–2004) already confirmed Soviet responsibility for the crime, Russia refused to recognize the massacre as a war crime or genocide and was not willing to declassify the Russian archive materials and to express a posthumous rehabilitation of the victims. On March 22, 2005, the Polish Sejm protested against this stance by requesting that the Russian side provide access to the Katyn’ files. In April 2012, the European Court of Human Rights recognized the Katyn’ massacre as a war crime. In the meantime, the Russian resistance had weakened: 67 out of a total of 183 volumes of the criminal case were transferred to Poland, and Andrzej Wajda’s film about the Katyn’ crime was shown on Russian television in 2007. After the official expressions of regret pronounced by Gorbačev, El’cin and Putin, the Duma eventually approved a resolution that blamed Stalin and the NKVD for the crime (November 26, 2010).
Besides the historical and legal background, the article is devoted to the analysis of this debate as well as its Polish forerunners and subsequent reactions. Special attention is given to the position of the Communist Duma fraction, which kept denying any Soviet guilt. Moreover, the role of historical (counter)arguments and quotations is examined in detail. Based on a speech-act theoretical approach, the study finally gives a negative answer to the question whether the Russian government and/or parliament have ever delivered a full-fledged apology for the Katyn’ massacres.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The broader context: Political vs. legal interactions
- 3.The Duma Declaration from 2010
- 4.How to do things with quotes
- 5.The role of historical parallels
- 6.Some echoes
- 7.Has there ever been an official Russian apology?
- 8.Conclusions
Notes References
References (28)
Boćkowski, Daniel, and Dzienkiewicz, Anna. (2007). “Katyń – zbrodnia (nadal) chroniona tajemnicą państwową [Crime still Protected as a Official Secret].” In Oprawcy z Katynia [Executioners from Katyn], ed. by Władimir Abarinow, 311–327. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.
Cienciala, Anna, Natalia Lebedeva, and Wojciech Materski (eds). 2007. Katyn. A Crime Without Punishment. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Duma debates. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Gur’janov, Aleksandr. 2015. « Dlja nas vopros o poimennoj reabilitacii ubityx v Katyni ključevoj. » Interview 10th November 2015 [The Key Question for Us is the Question of the Rehabilitation of Each and Every Person Killed in Katyn. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Komersant 2016. Ольга Шкуренко, Как признавали Катынь Журнал “Коммерсантъ Власть” №15 от 19.04.2010, стр. 44. Available at: [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Komorowski 2015. Available at [URL]
Russia-massacre-court 2012. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Final ruling 2013. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Pol’skie politiki 2010. RIA novosti 2010. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Puškov 2015. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Putin 2010. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Rathmayr, Renate. 1996. Pragmatik der Entschuldigungen [Pragmatics of Apologies]. Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.
Rogoża 2012. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Rome Statue 1998. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Semicvetov 2011. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Słownik online. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Uchwała Sejmu 2005. Available at [URL] Disable Redirects= true, retrieved 19 June 2016.
Weiss, Daniel. 2012. “Deputaty ljubjat citaty.” In Rusistika segodnja, vypusk 5: Problemy rečevogo obščenija, ed. by Nina N. Rozanova, 64–75, Moskva: Flinta-Nauka.
. 2013a. “Parliamentary Communication: the Case of the Russian Gosduma.” In Approaches to Slavic Interaction, ed. by Nadine Thielemann, and Peter Kosta, 215–237. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.
. 2013b. “Parlamentsdebatten in der russischen Gosduma: Originalton vs. Transkript [Parliamentary Debates in the Russian Duma: Original Recording vs. Electronic Transcripts].” Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 72: 103–136.
. 2015. “Chula v Gosdume [Criticism in the Russian Duma].” In Chvala i chula v jazyke i kommunikacii. Sbornik statej [Praise and Criticism in Language and Communication. Collection of Articles], ed. by Ljudmila L. Fedorova, 163–186. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo RGGU.
. 2016. “Quotations in the Russian State Duma: Types and Functions.” In: Contemporary Eastern European Political Discourse, Special issue, ed. by Daniel Weiss. Zeitschrift für Slavistik 1: 184–214.
. 2017. “Implizite Argumentation im politischen Diskurs: Metaphern, Vergleiche, intertextuelle Verweise [Implicit Argumentation in Political Discourse]”. In Im Rhythmus der Linguistik. Festschrift für S. Kempgen [In the Rhythm of Linguistics], ed. by Anna-Maria Mayer and Ljilijana Reinkowski, 465–483. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.
Zajavlenie TASS 1990: Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
Zajavlenie 2010. Available at [URL], retrieved 19 June 2016.
