There had been only a few hundred bodies discovered by the Russian authorities, buried in the Katyn Forest area, and not the 10,000 claimed by the Nazis or the London Poles. All were dressed as Polish officers and had been executed with a single shot delivered to the back of the head. The ammunition used was of German manufacture, a fact that even Goebbels had to acknowledge in his diary. He attempted to explain this inconvenient fact away by claiming that German ammunition was sold to pro-Nazi factions in the Baltic States, and that it was this ammunition which was captured and used by the Red Army in its murder of these men in March 1940. However, this is revealed as a ‘lie’ by the fact that the Red Army had not entered the Baltic States until three months after the alleged incident was supposed to have taken place in the Katyn Forest, and therefore did not have access to German ammunition. Another obvious inconsistency evolved around the apparent age of the bodies. Were the bodies killed in 1940 by the Russians as the Nazis suggested (and the London Poles believed), or after July 1941 by the German invaders (as the Soviet authorities alleged)? Until July 1941, the Katyn Forest area had been a well known picnicking place for the people of Smolensk. It was only after July 1941 that the Nazi occupiers placed barbed wire around the area and prevented free movement in and out. Prior to July 1941, there was certainly no reported evidence of the presence of massed graves in the forest. What adds weight to the Russian claims of a German initiated massacre is the relative ‘freshness’ of the corpses, even in early 1944, despite the claims of General Anders, who never visited the Katyn Forest, or made any mention of Soviet brutality toward either himself or his Polish men whilst in Russia. Anders was of the opinion that the ‘type’ of soil in the Katyn Forest had inadvertently ‘preserved’ the bodies, giving the false impression of their death being nearer in time to the examiners, than was really the case.
In fact, the concept of Eurocentricism itself ought to be split into two distinct types. One may be designated as epistemic, i.e. a Eurocentric perspective
The simple fact of the matter is that nothing of any real relevance happened in Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989. The Western media was present at a minor demonstration that was eventually dispersed by the Chinese authorities. Contrary to Western misrepresentation, people are allowed to protest in China, and exercise this right all the time. There have been many such protests both before and after Tiananmen in China, many of which could be construed as far more significant for various reasons as that which occurred in Tiananmen in 1989, but which the Western press have completely ignored.
Philips Matthews made an excellent speech quoting Stalin, stating how grateful the Soviet was for the European (and USA) support during the Great Patriotic War, and how he (Stalin) valued the efforts of the Western forces as they invaded France and began to fight their way across Europe, freeing it from Nazi control. Stalin said that the Soviet people drew strength from this show of support. The Mayor of Southwark, Abdul Mohamed, spoke about the importance of the defeat of fascism and communities living in peace, whilst the Russian Embassy representative – Minister-Counsellor Alexander Kramarenko – made a very poignant speech stating that as long as Russia exists, the Soviet sacrifice will never be forgotten. He spoke at length about the importance of the defeat of fascism in 1945, and how it is important to remain forever watchful in the present time. He reminded the crowd that fascism had re-emerged in the Ukraine, and that it was a threat to world peace. Indeed, the Ukrainian delegation refused to visit the memorial on the same day as the surviving veterans (who had fought for their freedom in WWII), but instead elected to lay their wreath a day earlier. The only speaker who was noticeably out of place was Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes representing the current and highly rightwing ConDem Coalition government of the UK. Simon Hughes is the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties, and yet ironically attracted controversy in 2013 with his pro-Christian, homophobic rhetoric, which he used when expressing his opposition to gay marriage, and the principle of equality between gay and straight people.
Hobsbawm’s work is popular throughout the bourgeois system because it undermines the very Marxism it claims to represent, through the careful and clever presentation of many small, but important misrepresentations of Marxist philosophy and its application. The over-all effect of this policy is a movement away from a correct Marxist analysis and toward a thoroughly (and for Hobsbawm a comfortable) bourgeois interpretation. His deliberate and illogical separation of the Russian Communist Revolution from that of the Chinese Revolution is bizarre in its certainty, and smirks of Eurocentric bias bordering on the racist. Whatever Hobsbawm motivation for this flawed analysis, it is obvious that he does not adhere to the Marxist principle of ‘internationalism’.
Life continues in the obvious (everyday) manner relating to Chinese culture, and there is no real understanding of the deeper psycho-spiritual energy that is in operation. This is as it should be, as the entire transformation process avoids the trap of ego-awareness and the psychological structures that operate through materialist paradigms, seeking personal aggrandisement and power.