Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

rape by an army?

Shouldn't the topic read: mass rape of German woman by Soviet Red Army **soldiers**? Or the entire article changed to "mass rape of German woman during WWII"? --JanBarkmann (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's metonymy. Phoenix of9 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Technically yes, but a bad one. A town is conquered by an army, but a soldier is shot by another solder, not by the army. --JanBarkmann (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The mass rape was very prevalent tho, practically by the entire occupying army. Phoenix of9 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Using the term Soviet Red Army unfairly blames the Soviet Union as many of the Soldiers were in fact not from the Soviet Union. Furthermore there was no official document ordering the rapes. This is a good example of German propaganda found on many of the wiki articles --American Dood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.94.131 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but that's nonsense. Soviet Red Army is neutral, just as the title (and generally applied) War crimes of the Wehrmacht or Japanese war crimes. More specific war crimes in the Korean War or Vietnam War by the US army, US (army) troops/forces/units is applied, just as members/troops/divisions is mostly applied on the articles of massacres by the Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS (both not in titles). But it's not 'specific' here because it was so prevalent and not limited to certain troops/divisions/... unlike small-scale massacres. And what's this nonsense about Red Army soldiers who were not from the Soviet Union? It's not about Soviet citizenship... --Semilanceata 05:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

estimations in the sources 2-6

2 million is only an upper estimation!

  • ^ Elizabeth Heineman. The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany's "Crisis Years" and West German National Identity. The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 354-395. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2170395
"Estimates of the numbers of rapes at the hands of Soviet soldiers range widely, from the tens of thousands to 2 million. Whatever the precise numbers, rape was a common" `a5b (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ^ Kuwert, P., & Freyberger, H. (2007). The unspoken secret: Sexual violence in World War II. International Psychogeriatrics, 19(4), 782-784. doi:10.1017/S1041610207005376.
I have no access to the letter, but Kuwert says me in private mail about the article: ". It has to be underlinend that the counts are just estimations, as nobody counted each rape in the colapsing Germany of 1945." `a5b (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"it is estimated that up to two million German women were raped during the last six months of World War Two, around 100,000 of them in Berlin. " `a5b (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ^ Hanna Schissler The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949-1968 [1]
"estimates ot the numbers of Soviet rapes range widely, from tens of thousands to two million." (this is the same phrase as in 'Elizabeth Heineman'. `a5b (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
here is the " Historians estimate that at least 2 million German women were raped at the end of World War II. ", but they say ' Historians believe ' and links to Kuwert 'Dr. Phillip Kuwert, a senior physician'. This is not a science article or a historic book, but a variant of "Yellow journalism". `a5b (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian sources

Per WP:RSUE, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. The sources used here are Russian websites. They mainly appear to be excerpts from "The Great War Slandered - 2: Nothing for Us to Repent!". Which is hardly a neutral or reliable source. It's main author is considered controversial and revisionist. WP:RSUE states: English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. There are multiple English academic published sources already in the article that contain all relevant information to the article, if the things in these Russian sources were truly notable and not fringe, they would be in them. Finally, WP:RSUE requires that if a non-English source is used, a translation should be provided, preferably by a published reliable source. Therefore I'm removing the sources and content for these reasons. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV all points of view should be presented. The existing English sources, especially in the way they are currently cited, present only one point of view. So the Russian sources are needed to present the Russian point of view. There are no English equivalent for this part of the story, so per WP:RSUE we can use the Russian sources.
>"The Great War Slandered - 2: Nothing for Us to Repent!". Which is hardly a neutral or reliable source.
Why do you think it is less neutral or reliable source compared to English sources? Each side has its point of view, the whole matter is quite controversial, and we can hardly decide which sources are really "neutral or reliable", so we should stick to presenting all points of view.
>It's main author is considered controversial and revisionist.
By whom?In Russia, for example, the situation is exactly the opposite, Beevor and his like are considered revisionists. If we can't decide who is "revisionist" we should present both points of view.
>Finally, WP:RSUE requires that if a non-English source is used, a translation should be provided, preferably by a published reliable source.
Well, this is a sound argument at last. I'll put the deleted Russian part of the story here to the talk section, and hope someone will provide translation in future, or I'll make it myself.
Per WP:NPOV all points of view should be presented. This isn't an accurate summary of the rule. WP:NPOV. Dogweather (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. - from WP:NPOV. In our case we clearly have two points of view, and both are MAJOR points, though the version presented in the current English sources is obviously more known to the Anglophone world. And non-representing of a closely relevant point of view and the counterarguments of Russia and other post-Soviet states is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Greyhood (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You say "clearly", but that's just it: it's not clear to most of us. Citation, please, in a language we can read.Dogweather (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll not have time to provie you with citations right now. You can always use online translation, by the way.
>it's not clear to most of us.
It is clear from the simple logic of the situation. 1) There are allegations of Soviet Army in war crimes, that are pushed into public attention by historians like Beevor. ==> 2) There, naturally, is disagreement with these allegations in the post-Soviet states, most notably in Russia, which is a legal successor of the Soviet Union. ==> 3) The Russian point of view is obviously relevant and must be presented, since without it the article turns into one-sided POV pushing. Greyhood (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
By applying logic we would be doing original research, which we can't do. We simply find and cite reliable sources that directly support the assertion in the text. Dogweather (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

These claims are widely disputed in Russia. [1][2].[3] [4] [5] Critics argue that the numbers are based on faulty methodology and questionable sources. It is argued that although there cases of excesses and heavy-handed command, the Red Army as a whole treated the population of the former Reich with respect and loyalty. It is also emphasized that the Soviet military leadership discouraged crimes against civilians and took measures to punish offenders. [6] A war veteran recalled: "The question of seeking revenge on the Nazis dropped out -- it's not the traditions of our people to take reprisals against women, children, and elderly...The attitude of Soviet soldiers to the German population, could be called neutral. Nobody, at least from out regiment, mistreated people."[7]

And I add the NPOV tag until all points of view are represented. Greyhood (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide English-language RS's? Dogweather (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Tons of Wikipedia articles contain non-English sources. It is incorrect to say that the inclusion of non-English sources violates the rules. There are five source cited to support the assertion that the allegations are disputed in Russia. Your claim that the sources are fringe is contrary to the facts.
Please explain why Sander and Johr's propaganda piece "Befreier und Befreite" is included in this article when you claim that Wikipedia does not permit non-English sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.72 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're replying to. English sources are of course preferred, but not mandatory. And for something like this, if there's a substantial opposing viewpoint, then there should be English-language sources that report it. If not, that indicates that maybe there's isn't a serious or substantial opposing view. Dogweather (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel that a revisionist description of the events would constitute a fringe view and, reliable English source or not, does not merit inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It looks like we have plenty of high quality sources that represent an overwhelming consensus. I do think, though, that if we get a RS for the assertion, "These claims are widely disputed in Russia", then that would be a valuable piece of info to add. (To wit: that the claims are disputed in Russia, not that the claims are under doubt or are false, per se.) Dogweather (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
There aren't to many English sources which discuss Dyukov, in my opinion because of the notability and nature of his works. This article from The Baltic Times states in part: A new book by a Russian historian claims Estonia's recollection of the 1941 forced deportations to Siberia is too harsh. In The Myth About Genocide, revisionist historian Alexander Dyukov paints a picture of Soviet repressions as little worse than a family picnic...Dyukov admits that certain repressions did take place but says the way they are depicted in Estonia has been exaggerated, initially for anti-Soviet and later for anti-Russian reasons..."If Baltic nationalists had not cooperated with German special services and had not prepared for acts of diversion, there would have been no need for deportation. It was the activity of nationalists and of Nazi agents that provoked the deportations - and Estonian historians prefer to keep silent about it."...Eesti Ekspress points out that at the time of the first deportations, the war with Germany had not yet begun. At that time, the Soviet Union was itself collaborating with Germany by means of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop 'pact of steel'. Despite that fact, Dykov describes the June 1941 deportations as if they had taken place in a frontline situation... There are multiple Russian sources which discuss him, Irina Pavlova, a historian of the Soviet system under Lenin and Stalin, has commented that Dyukov promotes a new jailer's concept of Soviet history based on his blind faith to the documents provided by the FSB ("Crisis guides"). For reasons such as these, I believe Dyukov's claims should be kept out of the article unless there are reliable English sources to accompany them. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the source; couldn't find relevance to this article. So to summarize: if you find a significant minority viewpoint (not WP:FRINGE) in either an English source, or a high quality foreign language source, you'll get support from me, and a lot of other people for the content. Dogweather (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The Russian Wiki article on Dyukov has many positive assessments of him. Natalia Laktionova of the Academy of Sciences says that "Young Russian historian Dyukov refutes... many of the political and historical myths promoted by Estonian historians." Ilya Altman of the Holocaust Center says that Dyukov "wrote two very important articles that relate to the role of the UPA in the destruction of the Jews in Ukraine".Mendkovich, cited in the article, is with the Center for Contemporary Afghan Studies. As that article shows, there is nothing fringe about him. O.A. Rzheshevsky, also cited in this article, is a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians. Russian newspaper Svobodnaya Pressa is very much a reliable source considering that the NPR and Guardian are cited in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.211.115 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide a quote of what exactly is being cited from Svobodnaya Pressa? Lt.Specht (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
"[S. Pressa is a reliable source because they cite NPR & Guardian..." I disagree. If NPR and Guardian cited them, then that would be evidence of reliability. Dogweather (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: "If Baltic nationalists had not cooperated with German special services and had not prepared for acts of diversion, there would have been no need for deportation." The fact that Baltic citizens actively cooperated with Nazi (including their active role in the Holocaust) is well known. The possibility that that partially affected the decision on post-war deportations cannot be completely ruled out.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
That article deals with deportations that took place in Estonia before the outbreak of war on the Eastern Front. During which time, as the article notes, the Soviets themselves were actively cooperating with the Germans via the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and had themselves sought entry into the Axis, German–Soviet Axis talks. Though I don't see how this discussion relates to this article. I used the source to show that a reliable English source identifies Dyukov as a revisionist historian, In The Myth About Genocide, revisionist historian Alexander Dyukov paints a picture of Soviet repressions as little worse than a family picnic..., and that it also questions his work. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the anon editor who kept restoring the material. Three of the five sources used are from Dyukov, who is discussed above. One of the other sources is a review authored by O.A. Rzheshevsky of Berlin: The Downfall 1945. BBC News Online has an article which has an interview with Rzheshevsky, and discusses him and his claims, "Red Army rapists exposed", in it Rzheshevsky admits that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes. He also makes claims such Beevor's use of phrases such as Berliners remember and the experiences of the raped German women were better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." The article also features rebuttals by several notable historians to Rzheshevsky's claims, which I think is best summed up by Richard Overy, who said the Russians had never faced up to the atrocities committed by the Red Army, "Partly this is because they felt that much of it was justified vengeance against an enemy who committed much worse, and partly it was because they were writing the victors' history." I for one do not think we should be citing the review of a book Rzheshevsky has admitted to not even reading. It also seems that most historians and reliable sources view Dyukov and Rzheshevsky to be fringe and unreliable authors, even by many Russian historians, such as Irina Pavlova, as noted above. As for the Svobodnaya Pressa source, one can not really be sure as whoever cited it did not provide a translation of what exactly was being cited from it, however, I believe the BBC article which I cited covers the text that Svobodnaya Pressa was citing, "There is dispute in Russia concerning these claims.", so I will cite BBC and leave that. In addition more could be added from the BBC article, since it is a reliable source and covers Russian viewpoint on the subject. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't you find that the phrases like "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history" and "the Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty", as cited in this article, are indeed better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research", especially with the fact that there were no elaborated comparison with the other acts "of mass rape in history", and no direct data but just estimates presented for the key figures? Why should we accept such obviously fringe opinions like "the Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty" and at the same time disregard the point of view advocated by professional Russian historians? Dyukov is a well established and professional author who provides a well referenced analysis based on documents, not estimates, and that is enough to include his views here, whatever his opponents think of him. Can you give a large enough number of references that directly call Dyukov and Rzheshevsky fringe and unreliable authors, and preferably neutral references, that is those not connected with the people that advocate the points of view different from Dyukov and Rzheshevsky? Greyhood (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I do. If those assertions ("greatest phenomenon...", etc.) are not supported by the cited sources, then we should add the 'cite needed' tag, and after a period of time, remove. Dogweather (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The article from The Baltic Times directly calls Dyukov a revisionist historian, none directly call Rzheshevsky one, in most sources he is questioned by other historians. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, That description of Dyokov definitely caught my eye. Dogweather (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Dyukov is just on bad terms with them in the Baltic States, as significant portion of his scientific work is dedicated to the collaboration with Nazis by the citizens of Baltic states. The Baltic Times is not a neutral and reliable source in this case. Their point of view on Dyukov may be mentioned in the articles related to the Baltic-Nazi collaboration, but it has nothing to do with the discussion here, and it is not a sound argument to consider Dyukov a revisionist historian. By the way, exactly in the same manner many Russian sources, like cited Rzheshevsky, call Beevor a revisionist.Greyhood (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Something I found interesting regarding Beevor/Rzheshevsky is a Questions and Answers section with Beevor in World War II Quarterly, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, (Volume 5 / Number 1 / Winter 2008). In it (starting on p. 48) Beevor is interviewed by Robert von Mayer and David M. Glantz, for the need for more scholarship on the Eastern Front he talks about how the Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence (TsAMO) at Podolsk have been severely limited to foreigners since 2000. He elaborates on how Rzheshevsky accused him of repeating Nazi propaganda, when "the bulk of the evidence on the subject came from Soviet sources, especially the NKVD reports in GARF (State Archive of the Russian Federation), and a wide range of reliable personal accounts." It also appears that Rzheshevsky was extremely supportive of Beevor's work until he became outraged on his book about Berlin. Seems rather foolish of Rzheshevsky to author a review denouncing Beevor's Berlin book, when he himself has admitted to not even looking or examining the book's source notes, and many of the source notes are from the GARF. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: "It also appears that Rzheshevsky was extremely supportive of Beevor's work until he became outraged on his book about Berlin." Yes, according to Beevor's words. It would be interesting, however, to know what Rzheshevsky himself thinks on that account. In addition, scholars used to support point of views, not persons, so it would be correct to say that, whereas Rzheshevsky allegedly supported Beevor's views on Stalingrad, he strongly condemns Beevor's vision of the Battle of Berlin.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
BBC is not such a reliable source when it concerns foreign news and history, as it reflects a strong Anglo-American, Atlantic bias. Lt. Specht is trying to turn the section about Russian historians' disagreements with claims of mass rape into a debate between Rzheshevsky and Beevor. Many relaible sources are cited to confirm the fact that claims of mass rape put forward by the likes of Sander, Johr, Beevor, and other revisionist western works are highly contested in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to include some modern Russian opinions but I think it violates UNDUE to represent these frienge sources the way they currently are. - Schrandit (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already proven above that they're not fringe. They will be restored and attempts at censoring this article will not be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsummarized undo's by 64.183...

You just undid my copy-editing, which re-introduced several grammatical errors and poor stylistic constructions. I Undid it. You also did not give a reason for the change. Before simply undo'ing someone's work, please discuss it here. Dogweather (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority: logical fallacy / weak logic / original research?

This section from the text looks like an appeal to authority: Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone. According to Natalya Gesse, "the Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty." E.g., ostentatiously naming the authority for the information. My questions: (1) What is Wikipedia's policy for this? (2) Are these Reliable Sources and their info is consensus view? (If so, then maybe this is simply poor style and not a larger problem.) Dogweather (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the Battle of Berlin talk page. You can find a number of sources that discuss the Beevor's conclusions. With regard to Gesse, her statement cannot be treated seriously: does she mean that she is familiar with precise rape statistics in Germany, or she was a witness of all rapes committed by the Soviet military, or she had interviewed all German women? Some authors, including Bird, Grossman and Naimark believe that the rapeh statistics either does not exist or is unverifiable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
They seem fine and are cited by reliable sources, they are really just stating the persons research/view on the matter. If they were something like "Antony Beevor has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone, therefore making it the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", then they would be poor style and need fixing. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A useful quote

"The first case, that of the mass rape of German women at the end of World War II on the (retreating) eastern front and in the capital, Berlin, and the discussion over the meaning of these rapes, was brought to the center of renewed attention through a German documentary film and an accompanying book, BeFreier und Befreite (Liberators take liberties; Sander and Johr 1992) by German feminist filmmaker Helke Sander and historian Barbara Johr. The film itself and the critical discussion it generated in both Germany and the United States serve to illustrate the confusion that can ensue when there is no clear understanding of or consensus on how to interpret wartime rape. The film reveals the pitfalls of a certain kind of feminist analysis in which wartime rape is seen exclusively as a sexist crime, is defined as the worst kind of harm, and is isolated from the racial-political context in which it takes place."
Source Pascale R. Bos. Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992-1993, Signs, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 2006), pp. 995-1025
Did Sander describe the events as "the rape of racially superior German women by racially inferior Russian soldiers"? - Schrandit (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
At least Bos states that:
"The second argument Sander presents for uniqueness is that these mass rapes were especially harmful to the German victims because they perceived the perpetrators as bestial and as racially inferior."(ibid)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary rules on Wikipedia

"If you believe Dyukov represents a minority viewpoint, show reliable English sources which say so."

Please stop with these arbitrary rules. There are countless articles on this site that predominantly consist of foreign language sources. The mass rape narrative is disputed and has a place in this article. It's curious why these extraordinary claims are being made about Russian history are from Anglo-American and German authors rather than experts on the subject from Russia. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that current wikipedia rules seem to favour English sources, especially on certain sensitive topics. I do not agree however, that Russian authors, specifically, are excluded. I think many non-English references are seen as suspect. Tempsperdue (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus to move this article from the current title. The proposed new title might not be ideal, but is preferred to the current title. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army → Rape during the occupation of Germany — Violates WP:weasel,WP:neutrality in article titles. FeelSunny (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support.FeelSunny (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nonsensical proposition, attempting to eliminate key phrases from the article name. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for page move. --Sander Säde 12:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Firstly, the article name is inaccurate, because the name of the Soviet land forced during that time was Red Army, and it had been changed to Soviet Army later, so "Soviet Red Army" sounds as odd as "German Wehrmacht" (not used in WP article names). Secondly, the present article's name implies that mass rapes was the official policy of the Red Army authorities, which is not a majority POV. The present article's name (as well as the article as whole) tends to implicitly equate crimes of the Red Army to those of Wehrmacht, which is a national POV. Interestingly, although according to some sources the number of rapes committed by Wehrmacht soldiers was at least equal to those committed by the Red Army soldiers, no separate article exist on that account (which is correct, imo, because rapes were just a minor part of Wehrmacht's war crimes). In summary, the article's name should be changed to something more neutral. The proposed new name is supposed to cover the rapes committed by all Allies, thereby expanding the article's scope. This idea is good, because many sources are available that describe sexual behaviour of American, French and other occupation forces in Germany and Austria, and provide a comparative analysis of this behaviour with that of the Red Army soldiers. However, before changing the name as proposed we have to come to agreement on expanding the article scope (which, in my opinion, will not lead to dramatic shift of accents, because majority of rapes were perpetrated in Soviet occupation zone). My conclusion is conditionally support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, current title is like calling 9/11 Mass murder of Americans by Al-Qaeda; it's not wrong, it's just a much more inflammatory way of wording it. Proposed title is much more neutral. Recury (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, The current title rises to the level of hate speech in its absurdity. It is indicative, that a Google search for the phrase, without the quotes, returns as the first result a link to something called the Racial Nationalist Library, placing it even above the Wikipedia article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support per Recury. I hope the article is more neutral than this title. --JaGatalk 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for Sexual relations in occupied Nazi Germany/if not this title The article is terribly written and completely distorts the picture of sexual relations in Nazi Germany areas where Nazi regime was ousted by Soviet Army. For lack of better wording I can support this, but perhaps the nominator would prefer a title "Sexual relations in occupied Nazi Germany"? Also I believe an article on rapes performed by German forces in Nazi occupied areas is needed, since they were both larger, longer and far more brutal, thus it is quite fitting that an article should be made, if smaller,shorter event is described in full artilcel.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sander. Proposed title is unnecessary and needlessly vague, this article only pertains to the conduct of the red army, there are other articles on the armies of the western allies. - Schrandit (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - is this really the best article we have on this subject? The title is certainly the first thing that needs changing (especially to get rid of "Soviet Red Army", but generally to make it sound less like a slogan).--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

1. Word "mass". "Mass" is a weasel word. There is a similar article about Allies in Japan, named Rape during the occupation of Japan. There are no mentions of "mass" in the name. Note that article starts with the words "There were a high number of alleged rapes of Japanese civilians committed by Allied soldiers".

I propose to delete the weasel word word "mass" per WP:naming urgently.

2. Words "Soviet red army". Once again, the name of the Rape during the occupation of Japan article includes no mention of "Army of the USA". It would imply all the US army was involved, and that would be a lie. Same here, "Soviet Red Army" in the name implies all the Soviet army was guilty, which is just as wrong.

The title also states that the article only tells about the Soviet servicemen involved in rapes of women in the occupied Germany. At the same time, there are mentions of rapes commited by Western Allies' soldiers in Germany in the article, not covered by the title.

So I propose to delete the words Soviet red army, as they violate WP:neutrality in titles guidline: choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.

I propose we change title to neutral one, that would not pass judgements: Rape during the occupation of Germany.FeelSunny (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Zweiundzwanizig, Horlingstrasse

It’s not been burned, just looted, rifled.
A moaning, by the walls half muffles:
The mother’s wounded, still alive.
The little daughter’s on the mattress,
Dead. How many have been on it
A platoon, a company perhaps?
A girl’s been turned into a woman.
A woman turned into a corpse.
No point in driving on – eh, fellows?
Unless we leave them some mementos?
Well, now we’re getting our revenge, lads.
We’ve hit him good and hard, the foe!

— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Prussian Nights

Proposed title is not descriptive. Undoubtedly there was "regular" rape during Soviet occupation of Germany, does the nominator plan to add them to the article? Also, there were rapes by other occupational forces - albeit a very tiny fraction (at best few percents, at worst less than tenth of a percent) compared to Soviets - would the article describe those as well?

Article currently describes the biggest mass rape spree in history of Europe, which was unofficially condoned by the Red Army. For examples, see general Kolesnichenko's letter that his officers were "healthy men with normal sex drives, who found themselves in constant temptation" - or Stalin's infamous "Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?" about rapes in Yugoslavia, Stalin's comment when complained about rapes in Germany was "I will not allow anyone to drag the reputation of Red Army in the mud". See for more, The Russians in Germany: a history of the Soviet Zone of occupation, 1945-1949, Norman M. Naimark. Harvard University Press, 1995.

And yet nominator wants to change the title so it would "would not pass judgements" (sic)... While the current title is a bit too long for my taste, eliminating key words from it is very unhelpful and useless - not to mention, feels to me like an attempt to whitewash Soviet crimes. How about a neutral and descriptive title, such as Rape of German women by Soviet forces?

Or we could go with a title used in a scientific publication, "Rape of German Women by Soviet Occupation Soldiers", used in A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Soviet Occupation Soldiers by Atina Grossmann. In Women and War in the Twentieth Century: Enlisted with or without Consent, Routledge, 1998.

--Sander Säde 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Article currently describes the biggest mass rape spree in history of Europe-this is incorrect, with 2 mln alledged victims, this doesn't even reach 10 milion victims of rape in Nazi occupied Soviet Russia by German forces[1].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The quote is good, however, I don't think we can be guided by emotions in this case. Let me quote a proverb that was popular among German woman in 1945. Translated from German it sounds like "The Russian on you is better than Yankee above your head". In other words, rapes are better than carpet bombing. And rapes were much less painful for the German nation than mass killings and genocide, committed by Wehrmacht and SS, were for other European people. The rapes had really astronomic scale (although, judging by sources available for me, they were dwarfed by rapes committed by the Germans in the East) however, that was almost nothing as compared to sufferings of other nations due to Germans. German woman themselves realized that, "it is very probable that our husbands behaved not better". In other words, the rapes the article is talking about were not something outstanding when placed into the WWII context. Accordingly, the article's name must be as neutral as possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
While I had hard time tracking down reliable sources about German rapes in Soviet Union (scholarly sources seem to suggest numbers from below hundred thousand to a few hundred thousands), it is irrelevant to the article name and discussion here. Suggested name is not descriptive and is overly wide, so I would like to use either Rape of German women by Soviet forces or Rape of German women by Soviet soldiers. Both of those avoid weasel-words and "judgements", while accurately describing the phenomenon and staying neutral. Or does anyone have a better suggestion? --Sander Säde 07:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. While "mass" isn't totally important it is commonly used in terms of war crimes (see "Mass killings under Communist regimes"). It is not out of place here.

2. Come on. Worries about unresonably undereducated and simplistic readers are a poor excuse to modify a accurate and concise title. - Schrandit (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV sentence

A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army battered their way into the Third Reich This sentence is incorrect-wave of sexual violance started already in 1939 when German forces raped Jewish and Polish females during Invasion of Poland. Later the rapes were continued by German forces in Soviet Union, with millions of victims. Women were also kidnapped in Nazi occupied areas of Central Europe for forced prostitution. I propose adding a background information regarding rape in WW2 to the article, so that the reader doesn't get the wrong impression that this was started by Western Allies and Red Army as it is now implied.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. What concrete modifications do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Western Allies had nothing to do with the genocide of the Red Army. If anything, there were many commanders who (rightfully) wanted to fight the Russian horde. I find it very suspicious that you consider it necessary to explain German war crimes. Why is that necessary in an article that is not about the Holocaust? What you are suggesting sounds very similar to what was said by the political extremist and genocide deniers that I have written literature on.Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a moderator on a currently unused German History forum, which we could discuss issues onAnonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We have other articles dealing with western allied war crimes, this one pertains only to the soviets. Move to "Rape during the Soviet occupation of Germany"? - Schrandit (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, are we lumping the former territories of Germany (i.e. East Prussia) into this article? - Schrandit (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I find it very suspicious that you consider it necessary to explain German war crimes. Why is that necessary in an article that is not about the Holocaust?" Because Holocaust was only a part of German war crimes, and not the biggest one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The Western Allies had nothing to do with the genocide of the Red Army." "Genocide" is a legal term. What authoritative court made a decision that legally characterised the actions of the Red Army?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as how the court who holds the authority to made such a decision only came into being in 2002, no one. Now back to the point - this article is only talking about the Soviets, the title should reflect that. - Schrandit (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I just posted an agreement with Paul about the name, but your suggestion here is also a good reason for name selection. It is possible that we could have a seperate article for Russian Genocide at the end of the war. It is important to remember that the victims were from many countries, including France and Russia.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of sources perform a comparative analysis of the rape (and fraternisation) issue in western and eastern occupation zones. Therefore, some analysis can be added to this article. If this article will be split onto two or more articles, that could not be done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Why? What would stop such an analysis? - Schrandit (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Why this analysis should be stopped? The same sources that discuss Soviet (or American) rapes/fraternisation discuss also distinctions/similarities between these events. Why cannot/should not we discuss them if the sources say that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I said would, not should. What would prevent this analysis if there was more than one article? - Schrandit (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Why such analysis would be better to split between two articles? And why did you take for granted that this article is devoted to only Soviet rapes?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason that having more than one article encumbers analysis. - Schrandit (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with Citations

I'm planning to write a section based on what I read in the book Germany 1945. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me at all. I'll do what I can with Google books, but it's going to be very limited. If anyone can help by adding the page numbers to the citations that would be great.Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See if its in JSTOR? - Schrandit (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The book or similar article? Thanks. I just searched for "Germany 1945" and didn't see the book. -Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Content I Add

The content that I add here will be taken from, or be mostly the same as the content that I add to the non fiction articles on the website Sturmkreig that I am a sysop of. The creator of the site is a personal friend, and he does not mind my use of the content on other sites that I edit. Just wanted to mention thisAnonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It was in the public domain anyway. We just want to have a template on this or the talk page indicating that it was taken from Sturmkreig.

The copyright status of the site has changed, Sturmkreig content is now copyrighted.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

IMO, the neutrality tag can me removed now. Does anybody mind me to do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I have found that the article is currently in favor of deniers of the Russian-Holocaust; it should not be removed.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What concretely do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of stuff about prior acts of genocide in Russia and stuff like that. Using the same logic as those people, the Holocaust article should include a section on bad things Jews have done, which it shouldn't. There were a few sentences, that I caught, that tried to lower the number of victims. The title is also written in the passive voice, which is not only terrible for historical writing, but also gives the impression that rape was committed significantly by the allies, defends the nation that killed 20 million people, and almost seems like some sort of closet Nazi propaganda by trying to create the impression that rape was committed by the allies.
What I really want to see other people add is information on how the Nazis consiously and indirectly assisted in the genocide as punishment for losing the war. I don't think the far right has ever considered that, and I also don't think that the far left has realized it is a fact that they can use against the Nazis. Germany 1945 had a useful amount of information on this.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "defends the nation that killed 20 million people" Please, explain what do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am still waiting for explanation of why the tag is still in the article. Which concrete statements (or other flaws) make it non-neutral?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Name of the Article

The current article name assigns no responsiblity to the perpatrators of genocide. This is something that is consistant with Russian Nazis and deniers of the RuSSian-Holocaust. Honestly, it almost makes it seem like some sort of Nazi attempt to imply that Americans committed rape on a notable scale. We should change the name so that it is not written in a passive voice. The closet Nazi nonsense surrounding this is almost enough to make me go on a Communist Witch Hunt for Nazis.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You've lost me there a bit. In any case, I plan on moving to "Rape during the Soviet occupation of Germany" for now. - Schrandit (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I felt I did a terrible job wording that, but anyway, I think your title idea is much better because it's only a one word change, and it assigns the responsibility. It's especially important because it says who the article is about.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree. Of course, a major part of rapes occurred in the Soviet occupation zone (and the article tells about that clearly), however, the fact that American or French military also committed rapes is well known. As one reliable source describes that, "the difference is that the American and the British ask the girls to dinner and then go to bed with them, while the Russians do it the other way round." ( Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. Source: October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63)
In addition, faceless neutral names are usual for Wikipedia, e.g. Bombing of Berlin in World War II, or Strategic bombing during World War II (not "Anglo-American bombing").
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So add what we know about American crimes to this article or create a new article. In the meantime, this article is specifically about Soviet crimes. Why pretend that it isn't? - Schrandit (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can extend your first proposal further: move what we know about American crimes to this article and move the rest to this article. If we have no separate article for German rapes, why do we need to have the article for Allied rapes? With regard to your second proposal (to create separate articles for Soviet and American rapes), if you think it can be done, please, provide an evidence. Burden of evidence is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We do have some separate articles for well documented war crimes - the fact that we do no have enough doesn't mean that we should kill off the ones that we do have. - Schrandit (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying that this article should be for all rape during the end of the war? And that if it's about only the Russians than it should should be with the Russian war crimes article? That works.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On Genocide Denial

The discussion here was extremely long and taking up a considerable amount of the talk page.

It has been moved here:

User_Talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Genocide Denial (Talk:Rape During the occupation of Germany)

The discussion is currently ongoing.

Description of Actual Events

I think many of you are being too tolerant of the revisionists and rape-deniers who are trying desperately to absolve the Russians of raping German women on an epic scale. That said, the biography of the German fighter pilot Erich Hartmann, the highest-scoring ace of all-time (and survivor of 10 years' illegal imprisonment in a Soviet gulag after the war) provides a chilling description of just one man's recollection of how the Russian soldiers abused German women. In "The Blond Knight of Germany" (Toliver, Raymond F. and Trevor J. Constable. "The Blond Knight of Germany." 1st ed. Blue Ridge Summit: TAB Books, 1970) the authors write:

The Germans were loaded into trucks and driven away from the Pisek area. After a drive of a few miles, the convoy stopped, and Erich and his companions were ordered to get down. They were in a meadow surrounded by Russian soldiers. As the apprehensive Germans tumbled out of the trucks, the Russians immediately began separating the German women from the men. Before the Americans could drive away, they were given a glimpse of the fate to which they had unwittingly delivered German civilian women and girls, innocent of any crime save being born in Germany. The unarmed German men were lined up and a row of half-drunk Red Army soldiers swayingly covered them with rifles and machine guns. Other Russians hurled the women and the girls to the ground, and ripping the clothes from their bodies began raping them in front of their Russian comrades, the agonized Germans and the GI's standing bug-eyed with wonder in the U.S. Army trucks. The Americans seemed paralyzed by the spectacle..." (183-184)

You can read the rest courtesy of Google books here. Suffice it to say, those are the recollections of just one German pilot, albeit a successful one. Of course the perpetrators of these crimes have a disincentive to acknowledge the magnitude of their evil, but as rational, honest humans, it's important that those of us interested in protecting the truth ensure that the neutrality of this article isn't compromised by propagandists from either side.Joep01 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Very impressive. Please, take into account, however, that (i) memoirs are a primary source, and they can be used in WP with great cautions, and (ii) neutrality requires us to complement these memoir with numerous memoirs of the victims of German rapes and murders. Whereas the Soviets mostly raped, the Nazi murdered, and, I believe, everyone knows who started first.
Re Americans. Another German memoir quotes a proverb that was common among German woman in 1945: "The Russian on you is better than the Yankee above you". As you probably understand, it referred to American bombing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why would neutrality require that? - Schrandit (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Because the events should not be taken out of historical context, and because the sources I read on that account (including the sources used in this article) tell that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you extrapolate? What was the historical context? - Schrandit (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The historical context was the WWII in Eastern Europe, and, in particular, German war crimes in Eastern Europe. I don't think additional explanations are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I do. I just read the whole article for the bombing of Hiroshima and I didn't find any historical context presented there. I'm sure countless other examples could be found. More importantly, I read WP:Neutrality and it mentions nothing of your notion of historical context or anything that could be interpreted as such. - Schrandit (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source for itself, and we cannot use the comparison with other articles as a serious argument. Regarding neutrality, the policy clearly states that cherry-picking is not allowed. If some sources which are used in the article state that the rape issue should not be taken out of historical context, and explain what this context was, the article mush reflect what the source say. Note, the sources I used do not whitewash the Soviet military. However, many of them clearly state that it would be incorrect to present Germans civilians and German woman particularly solely as victims, and to make a redundant stress of the rapes. The sources also clearly state that some works devoted to the rape issue are feminist and revisionist attempts works, and that fact should also be reflected. Consequently, the article must say that. That is exactly what neutrality is.
In connection to that, I believe that the article in its present form is rather neutral and the tag should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall saying Wikipedia should be used as a source for itself. Comparison to other articles is very usefull to deterime precedent and probe academic consensus. I know what our revisionist Russian sources have written and I'm pretty well convinced that they fall under WP:FRINGE. - 07:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside the bias implicit in Joep01's comment, I would just like to say that while the publisher TAB Books of Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania may be useful in other areas of Wikipedia, I would not use their books in articles on controversial history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC
P.S – What exactly makes you believe that this story is the authentic recollection of Erich Hartmann, and not just an unrelated incident or even fabrication included in the book under dramatic license by the authors Raymond F. Toliver, and Trevor J. Constable to ennoble their Nazi hero? In Cold War USA there were strict rules on how to write about the Soviet Union, and this book seems to follow them to the letter. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S – I must partly retract my last comment. This is in fact a notable incident, often quoted for the Soviet general who hanged three Red Army soldiers – we could even include a desription of it in this article. As this incident is so well known we must ask why is it only sourced to the memoirs of Erich Hartmann? Are there other primary sources for this incident? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"In Cold War USA there were strict rules on how to write about the Soviet Union"
What are you on about? - Schrandit (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think many of you are being too tolerant of the revisionists and rape-deniers who are trying desperately to absolve the Russians of raping German women on an epic scale.

I absolutly agree.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Examples, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Verification of quotations allegedly from Time Magazine

Can anyone provide a verified reliable source for these statements/quotes

"For the Americans and British, open rape was not as common as among the Soviet troops. The Soviets simply raped any female from eight years up and if a German man or woman killed a Russian soldier for anything, including rape, 50 Germans were killed for each incident, "

"Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how 'Our Boys' conduct themselves, with such complete callousness in human relationships over here." An army sergeant wrote "Our own Army and the British Army ... have done their share of looting and raping ... This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists."

Time Magazine is cited, but I could not confirm.

It looks like the actual source was a text by Kevin Alfred Strom (who does not look like a reliable source). --Boson (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the content of the June 11, 1945 issue. I will have a look inside. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now read through the whole June 11 issue and have located the original source for the "quote":


Note, that the article does not say the Soviets killed 50 Nazis for every Soviet killed, it does not even say they threatened to do so. All it says is that some ex-Nazi in Gemany believed that the Soviets would resort to proven Nazi tactics. Interestingly the issue also has this reference to Lidice.
The issue has one more section on Soviet-German relations:
The fist citation in the second passage ("Our Boys") is correct. It can be found in the Letters section of the November 12, 1945 issue of Time magazine. There is no reason to believe that the unknown serviceman who wrote it was writing about rape or are any other crimes. The preceding letter on the same page by another serviceman however confirms that rapes did happen. (Incidentally the same letters section is referenced in this image description: File:Anschlusstears.jpg.)
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC), updated, 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't use Nazi propaganda. (Anything written by Nazis.) This is just what the deniers want. We can find anything else that will say the same things, if they are true. Also, Nazi propaganda won't include anything about Nazi "assistance" of the genocide, or the crimes against Jews and Holocaust victims.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass rape propaganda and Holocaust denial

The source for the "Time" quotes is this article by Kevin Alfred Strom from 1994:

Strom says his text is based on an article by Austin J. App from April 1, 1946:

Austin J. App is best known as one of the fathers of Holocaust denial, see for example A Brief History of Holocaust Denial by Ben S. Austin.

Another source for rape quotes, used by all four of the cited web pages, is a review of Cornelius Ryan's book The Last Battle, that appeared in Time Magazine on April 1, 1966. The propagandists have however left out the following part of the quote:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – It is indicative of reliability of these revisionist sources, that they quote Time Magazine instead of the book itself. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the stable version of this article is rather neutral: yes, the mass rapes did take place, and they were widely used by post-war German propaganda to present the Germans as the victims, not perpetrators of much more serious crimes. It is also correct that in some recent publications this issue has been raised again, and that in the same, as well as in other publications the authors note that this issue cannot and should not be taken out of its historical context. I propose to restore the stable version and remove the tags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The genocide is used by Holocaust deniers, although they themselves often understate it. They also only focus on the genocide against Germans while ignoring the crimes against German Jews, Poles, and non German Jews. Additionally, Nazis fail to mention the ways that Nazis contributed indirectly but sometimes intentionally to the genocide.

Avoid anything by the Nazis. And don't forget that they contributed to this.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


The motives for the rapes are a separate topic, Anonymiss. As to the quotes, I'd seen part of one of them mentioned before, but I can't remember where. Either in Naimarks book the Russians in Germany, or more likely in the recent "Taken by force". In the Time you find "Sirs: . . . People who read your article will condemn the Russians for being savages and rapists but will not stop to consider the fact that our own Army and the British Army along with ours have done their share of looting and raping. . . . Germany has been picked so clean by our troops . . . that just about the only stores left with anything to sell are the hardware stores, and that is because they did not have much that the men wanted." "This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists"[2]
The Time letter is also used by at least one on-topic book luckily in Google books, and this one is untainted by any allegations, so it should be safe to use it as a source in this article. Carol Harrington Politicization of sexual violence: from abolitionism to peacekeeping[3]--Stor stark7 Speak 20:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Attempting to compare Russian genocide to British and American looting and raping is as disproportionate and minimizing as comparing the bombing of Dresden to the Holocaust.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not compare Russian genocide to British and American looting and raping. We discuss the rapes committed by the Soviet Red Army in a context of Allied war rapes. To speak about Russian genocide you need to provide a serious ground. Until that has been done, please stop using WP pages as a soapbox for promoting your personal views (or the views of minority of writers).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Griffin

While were at it - this quote; "The Most Reverend Bernard Griffin, British Archbishop, made a tour of Europe to study conditions there, and reported, "In Vienna alone they raped 100,000 women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their teens, and aged women."" seems highly possible but for many a reason the suggested source is unusable. Can any one track it down from a legit place? - Schrandit (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denier Austin J. App, in 1946, cites his source as NC Report, October 18, 1945. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A quote

Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims.

— Gregory Stanton

Correct. However, the opposite is not necessarily truth, namely, not every denial imply genocide. In addition, to imply that rapes of German woman by foreign soldiers was genocide, whereas the rapes committed by German soldiers was not is racism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding content from other free sources.

Is there a template or something similar for a standard way of providing credit in the article for content taken from other public domain sites? Specifically from this article. http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Russian-Holocaust

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, read WP:V. The source provided by you is a self-published web site that can hardly be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Most likely, the edits made based on this source will be reverted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also self published. Also, there is no one who takes Wikipedia seriously for anything except trivial information. The fact that you would make such a reaction to a well cited article brings your politics into serious doubt.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is also self published, and that is why it cannot be used as a source for itself. However, despite that fact, Wikipedia is a good source for summary information and for the refs to reliable sources for further reading. With regard to the site you mentioned, it contains just a ref to the Beevor's and Bessel's books. The site itself is not peer-reviewed, and, taking into account that it seems to be written by some anonymous persons, about whom we know virtually nothing, I see no reasons why do we need to refer to this site, not to Beevor book directly. In addition, the attempt to provide credit for some dubious sites (that in actuality gives no additional information) looks an attempt to advertise it. That is unacceptable.
If you need more comments on this site, go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer free license.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Starting sentence misleading

A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army battered their way into the Third Reich.

This suggests unique situation to 1944-1945 and WW2 conflict-but rapes actually first started in 1939 with German invasion of Poland, and were continued during German occupation of the territories in Central Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazi attempt to portray Poles as perpetrators

The section on Poland is a clear attempt by Nazi sympathizers to portray Poles as subhuman by making them appear to be perpetrators of the genocide. In reality, the Poles were victims of the Russians, and the information should be corrected immediately.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Naimark is a reliable source when he writes about the rapes committed by the Soviets and he is not a reliable sources when he writes about the Poles? In my opinion, the section is properly sourced, and it is relevant to the article. If you believe the source is not reliable, please, report to WP:RSN. If the consensus will be that it is not reliable, feel free to remove from the article all materials taken from this book.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Naimark is a reliable source but he is being misrepresented in the text. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I didn't check the content with the source, so if you believe it has been misinterpreted, please, fix that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have an advice for everyone here to examine carefully the userpage of Anonymiss Madchen and perhaps take some action. I see that Paul Siebert has been very kind to AM and already has adviced her to delete the inappropriate stuff, but another one has been added in more subtle form. Perhaps more users should ask Anonymiss Madchen to do this favor for the community? That would be a good starting point for further discussion. GreyHood Talk 01:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ay, that's definitely block worthy. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source (Naimark, pp 74-75), and I found that the section's text more or less correctly reflects what the source says. In my opinion, the section should be restored, although the wording can be made softer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The section was about the "expulsion", decribed in several other articles here. If you find sources about Polish rapes, please return. BTW Naimark is rather pro-German, he has obtained Verdienstkreuz 1. Klasse. He has written a very strange text about "flaming tribal hatred" [4], [5]. Neither the Holocaust nor Generalplan Ost were tribal but modern state deeds. That former KZ inmates or forced workers hated Germans was quite human. Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Xx236 The cited pages in Naimarks book belong to chapter 2, entitled Soviet Soldiers, German Women, and the Problem of Rape. Your argument makes no sense to me. The expulsion of Germans was significant for the rapes, yes. Why exactly should the rapes not be included in the article that deals with rapes just because they were committed in connection to a population expulsion (in modern speech known as "ethnic cleansing")?
@Xx236 If you have a problem with using Norman Naimark, a well respected American historian, please bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard first.
@Volunteer Marek. Your claim that the "Section misrepresents the source" is rather a strong one. I see no misrepresentation, and at least one other editor that also checked the source sees no misrepresentation. Please specify what exactly you believe to be misrepresented in the source? For convenience I include the text here.

The half of Germany under Soviet Union occupation was split roughly in half and one part was allocated for temporary Polish administration, no definitive borders were agreed upon between the victor states. (see Former eastern territories of Germany). In order to ensure that the German territory under communist Polish administration would become permanently de-facto Polish territory, the Polish communists ordered that the German population be expelled "by whatever means necessary".[8] The communist Polish administrators of the occupied territories as a consequence did little to protect the German population from Polish and Russian rapists.[8] "Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behavior. Polish soldiers, stated one report, 'relate to German women as to free booty'."[8]

--Stor stark7 Speak 20:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The only part of that text which alludes to the subject of this article is the last sentence Polish soldiers, stated one report, 'relate to German women as to free booty'. - and in fact, this is presented as what a report states, not a fact. Add to that the problem with Naimark mentioned above. Add to that the fact that there's been tons of stuff written on rape by Soviet troops. This is the first "allusion" to it by Polish troops I've seen. If it's a fact then it should be easy to find other sources to back up the claim. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Cannot agree. Obviously, "Polish authorities" in the occupied, but not annexed territories were the military authorities, at least the authorities acting under some martial laws, so "the Poles" refer primarily Polish military. In addition, Naimark writes about mixed behaviour of the Soviet troops: typically, brutality was interspersed with the examples of the kindness. I am interested to know why these facts were omitted from the article's text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, it wasn't there when I looked at the article. You're right that it should be included. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that you mention it though, I'm having a deja vu. Except I'm pretty sure it's the real thing. I'm almost certain that this conversation has been had somewhere already, regarding this very specific passage from this text. Might have been a different article, same pages from Naimark. I specifically remember the part about brutality being intermixed with kindness. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the behaviour of the Soviet military belonged to two extremes of the spectrum (barbarism and kindness) has been noticed by many sources, including many of those cited in this article. If you want concrete quotes, I can provide them, although it will require some time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not doubting you. I have no problem with that being included in the article. It just wasn't in when I first looked at it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The "expulsions" are a subject of many articles, the same informations are repeated. But here even known German books aren't quoted. Instead the poor sources are rationalised.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[6] Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding copyrighted content

I am a sysop on Sturmkreig, and we have a similar article to this. If I have permission from the site owner, is it alright to add content from the article to this article? Is there a particular way that I should cite content from Sturmkreig?

->Sturmkreig is at Wikkii, Wikia is no longer the host of our site.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, this is a self-published site, and it is not a reliable source. If you have any doubts about that, go to WP:RSN. In addition, you cannot add copyrighted materials to Wikipedia if they do not satisfy WP:NFCC. The fact that you have a permission changes nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Self published sources are acceptable under occasional circumstances. Considering that Russian-Holocaust is well cited and uses reliable sources, there should be no reason to think that it is not suitable.
--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rape of Jewish girls and women

I am conscerned about this recent edit by Anonymiss Madchen. I see 2 problems, 1. it inserts a claim into a sourced sentence where it now would appear that Anthony Beevor discovered that also Jewish women were raped. Maybe he did, but then I find it odd that the original source did not mention this. My second problem is the new source, that presumably contains the claim about raped jewish women. Is "Auschwitz, Inside the Nazi State. Episode 6." considered a valid reference?--Stor stark7 Speak 20:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it is any less reliable than other sources here. Here is a link to it, which can be watched online http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Auschwitz-Inside-the-Nazi-State
--Нэмка Алэкс 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Questionable edits

I just reverted this[7] for following reasons:

  1. The first ref (Auschwitz, Inside the Nazi State. Episode 6.) is unverifiable (Author? Book? Publisher? Page?)
  2. The second ref is a self-published web site that cites mostly Beevor's and Bessel's books. The source is hardly reliable. It is a burden of a contributor to provide an evidence of its reliability.
  3. The third ref (Naimark) tells about rapes committed by "Poles and Russians" (in that order).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to that documentary: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Auschwitz-Inside-the-Nazi-State. It can be watched online, so you can check the episode immediately.
--User:Anonymiss Madchen User talk:Anonymiss Madchen 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The revert that was done portrayed Poles as perpetrators rather than victims, as well as criminals against Germans, which is certainly consistent with Nazi propaganda about slaves
--User:Anonymiss Madchen User talk:Anonymiss Madchen 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If you believe it is a reliable source, go to WP:RSN and ask for third opinion. A burden of proof lies with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I lean against using a documentary as a reliable source. --Habap (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why?
--Anonymiss Madchen Talk 15:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Read WP:SOURCES.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Madchen, documentaries do not footnote the sources of their information, so are difficult to verify. They also can be more interested in making statements that will attract interest than provide truth. Watch the Ken Burns' The Civil War and see how many times a Civil War historian can point out errors - they are frequent. --Habap (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Useful Quotes

Here are two quotes from The Fall of Berlin 1945 that serve well for ending the Communist "we did it for revenge, if we did it" myth. Also, they are good for describing the event.

In the celler, Ellen Goetz, a Jewish friend of Magda's who had sought shelter there when she escaped from the Lehrterstrasse prison after a heavy bombardment, was also dragged out and raped. When other Germans tried to explain to the Russians that she was Jewish and had been persecuted, they received the terse retort, "Frau ist Frau." Russian officers arrived later. ...they did nothing to control their men. -Antony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945, Page 345-346.

Even German Communists were not spared. In Wedding, a left-wing stronghold until 1933, activists from the Julicherstrasse went out to congratulate the Soviet officers commanding the unit to occupy their district, showing party cards, which they had kept hidden during twelve years of illegality. ...the unit's officers raped them "that very evening." -Antony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945, Page 346.

-User:Anonymiss Madchen 03:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the Nazi propaganda about the French and Americans.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please use the talk page specifically to improve the article.Phoenix of9 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the article, you have a claim that the French were equal to the Russians; this is crap.Germany 1945

Additional reasons why the French are not comparable to the Russians:

  • The French did not rape Jews in concentration camps.
  • They did not rape Jews.
  • They did not intentionally raped Jews and make excuses for Antisemitism.
  • They did not rape Poles.
  • They did not rape "untermenschen."
  • The numbers are not even comparable, even when Russian statistics are provided by the most mentally ill deniers.

Also, please remove this claim about 11,000 American rapes. There is nothing other than what looks like an American left-wing extremist book attempting to portray Americans as the enemy that cites the claim. And this claim would put the Americans as worse occupiers to the French, when a non Anti American book states the opposite.Germany 1945

--Anonymiss Madchen Talk 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to portray Poles as perpetrators. They were victims of the Russians.
--Anonymiss Madchen Talk 15:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Re: "The French did not rape Jews in concentration camps." They had little possibility to do that, because most camps were in the East.
Re: "They did not rape Jews." See above.
Re: "They did not intentionally raped Jews and make excuses for Antisemitism." You haven't proven that that took place in the East (I mean not as some exceptional cases, but :as typical phenomenon).
Re: "They did not rape Poles." Because they have no contacts with Poles.
Re: "They did not rape "untermenschen."" This is a Nazi term that is not in common usage now. Please, specify what do you mean.
Re: "The numbers are not even comparable, even when Russian statistics are provided by the most mentally ill deniers." The numbers are not compatible, because French participation in WWII (on the Allied side) was very modest, because France was occupied by Germany and because many French actively collaborated with Nazi, and even fought on German side (Waffen SS Charlemagne). The wording " mentally ill deniers " is also hardly appropriate.
The sources that describe the behaviour of French troops are Naimark (Russian in Germany) and Perry Biddiscombe (Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945-1948). These sources are not Nazi propaganda, and the article's text correctly reproduce what they say. By contrast, your behaviour very strongly resembles anti-Russian (not anti-Communist) propaganda, and you repeatedly insulted (and continue to insult) the whole nation. In addition, by calling this text "Nazi propaganda", you insulted the authors of these sources, concretely, Norman Naimark and Perry Biddiscombe. I warn you that from this moment on you must be very careful about your edits, talk page posts and edit summaries, because if your behaviour will repeat I will have to report you and request for your topic-ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you forget that I am Russian? ...Half Russian. Also, I did not call those sources Nazi propaganda. The only specific source that I insulted was the left wing extremist who thinks that American soldiers committed 11,000 rapes against the Germans. That is clear attempt to make the United States in the wrong and make the Nazis the victims.

--Anonymiss Madchen Talk 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your ethnic origin is irrelevant. You posts are clearly anti-Russian (although you pretend to be anti-Communists). Re left-wing extremists, if you believe the source is not reliable, feel free to go to WP:RSN, and then remove it. If it is reliable and relevant, the information should stay. In any event, the phraseology you use is unhelpful and it demonstrates that you have no logical arguments or sources to support your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I will remove it. And how am I "pretending?"
I am also aware of hating Russians, and it is and has been something that I have been working to minimize. I recently talked to my mom for the first time in five years, because I realized that the way I felt was wrong.
--Anonymiss Madchen Talk 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I already mentioned during our previous discussions that the idea that some concrete nation is bad belongs to one very famous historical figure whom you condemn (at least you claim that). However, that does not prevent you from de facto promoting the same ideas (the only difference is that the Russans occupied the place of the Jews in your concept). The idea that the Russians were/are drunk cruel bastards, and that the Germans fought to protect Europe from those Mongols, is a purely Nazist idea, a literal reproduction of what Hoebbels' propaganda said. Did you ever think about that? Did you ever think that the more some nation is involved into the military conflict, the more brutal it becomes and, in addition, the more opportunities this nation obtains to commit war crimes? Did you ever think that, whereas only 176 Axis divisions were destroyed by the Western Allies, the USSR destroyed 607 Axis divisions, and who did that gigantic job could not be unaffected by that? Did you think about the fact that whereas only five civilians were killed in continental US by the Axis, the amount of Soviet (Russian, Ukrainian, etc) civilians killed by Germans was about 16,350,000, so almost every Soviet soldier lost, partially or fully, his family, his friends, his home? I would say, in the light of what I've written, the rapes and other acts committed by the US troops demonstrate that they were relatively more cruel than their Russian collegues, because, by contrast to the latters, the formers had no reasons for revenge.
This is not my personal assertion. For example, Elizabeth Heineman in her "The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany's "Crisis Years" and West German National Identity." (ref 2 in this article), presents the photo of the German girls being harassed by two Soviet soldiers along with the photo of the row of the buildings devastated by the bombing raids to demonstrate that "Bombings, flight, and rape" (in that order) were a common experience of German women, and the rapes cannot and should not be separated from their historical context. Try to think about all of that, and, again, please, educate yourself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name change proposal

"Rape during the occupation of Germany" does not make sense. There is always rape (unfortunately). There are rapes in Germany now. The difference is, after WW2, there were mass rapes. So the article should be renamed to:

Mass rapes during the occupation of Germany

OR

Mass rapes during or after World War 2 in Germany

OR

Mass rapes during the occupation of Germany in World War 2

I disagree with the proposals above. "Rape during the occupation of Germany" can be read from the title to be an article about rapes committed by occupation forces, and I believe that is what the reader would expect from it. Significant rape was committed by occupation troops when German territory came under occupation during the war, and also for the first years of the occupation after the war. The current title combines war and post-war nicely. I also see no need for including "mass", since for example probably the UK did not engage in mass rapes, but it would nevertheless relevant to include in this article as it expands a section on the prevalence of UK rapes, and the response of UK authorities to them. As to mentioning world war II, I see no need for that either, since this is the most significant occupation of Germany in a very long time. Perhaps there was a notable amount of rapes commited by occupation forces during the occupation of the Rhineland after WWI, but I see no need to let that affect the title of this article.--Stor stark7 Speak 23:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


The problem with the current suggestions is that they do not reflect the rape of Jews, Poles, French slave laborers, Russian concentration camp inmate, and other people considered inferior by the Nazis were also victims. Failing to include them would have two significant negative results:
  1. This page would become a target for Nazis attempting to excessively portray Germans as victims, and failing to include non Germans and German Jews would make the problem worse. Since this article currently includes Polish perpetrators, Nazi editors would exaggerate the role of Poles as perpetrators and obviously fail to include that Poles were victims of the Russians, as well as that Russians were also victims of the Russians.
  2. It would be morally wrong to fail to include all the victims of the Russians. There were not just German victims, and this article is making the issue appear to be a German problem.
For naming the article, we should use "Red Army" or "Communist" instead of "Russian," because that would "blame" Russians less and imply a past military rather than implying that this is something Russians are responsible for. Using "Red Army" or an equivalent would be more specific than Communist or even Russian.
Anonymiss Madchen02:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymiss Madchen (talk • contribs)
I see no reason why the current title would preclude you from including sections on raped Jewish, Polish, Roma, Russian and whoever else that was raped during the occupation of Germany, just as it would not preclude inclusion of sections on rape of Germans by roaming gangs of DP's in occupied Germany. I do not understand what problem you are seeing here, and I certainly do not see any advantage in a name change.--Stor stark7 Speak 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Focusing the article on Germany would limit what people would contribute, since they might feel that discussing mass rape against non German Jews, Russians, and Poles would be off topic. Also, focusing the title on Germany would prevent a lot of the information about the rape of those groups because the actions did not always take place within Germany.
We can always use words like Red Army that avoid placing "blame" on all Russians.
If we don't make such changes to the title, we should definitely consider including a note of some kind near the beginning of the article explaining that the article isn't limited to German victims. People should know about the Jewish, Polish, and Russian victims of the Russians to make them less susceptible to Nazi propaganda that portrays only Germans as victims or even Poles and Russians as perpetrators. Obviously anti Nazism is not the purpose of this site, but the fact is that Germans were not the only victims of the Russians.
Anonymiss Madchen 03:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymiss Madchen (talk • contribs)
Look, we can not let assumptions about the psychology of editors control the naming of articles. Let me know if you find anything supporting your thesis in Wikipedia:Article titles. The current title is reasonably short, to the point, and covers the notable aspects. Your apparent concern that things will be left out because of the title is mall-placed. See for example Rape during the occupation of Japan, where there is also a large section on rape committed by Japanese troops against their Okinawan subjects. As a side-note, you should always be careful with the title, since the wrong title might allow rape-apologists the opportunity to delete items they would prefer not mentioned, e.g. if it includes "during World War II" some rape apologists will pounce on the opportunity to delete all rapes that occurred after May 8, 1945.--Stor stark7 Speak 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest Mass rapes during and after World War 2 in Germany.
--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka AlexTalk 02:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the name should be changed, maybe "Rape by the Red Army during the occupation of Germany"? - Schrandit (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is better.
--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka AlexTalk 15:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Renaming that way requires that we throw out discussions of actions by any other occupying troops and constitutes a POV fork to the article. --Habap (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In my eyes (and apparently in the eyes of most of our sources) we're kind of dealing with two different subjects. We've got very solid sources on the behavior of western troops in occupied Germany at the time. Why not split this into two or more articles? - Schrandit (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good solution to me. The only worry is that some users might feel that an article only about Soviet actions is POV. --Habap (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know who it is that claims that a rape committed by an american serviceman during the occupation of Germany is fundamentally different from the rape committed by a Soviet serviceman? While the numbers of rapes certainly differ, were the motives, responses by victims and authorities, so fundamentally different? My problems with the suggestion:
1. For now we have barely enough material for a stub on an article on for example rapes committed by French forces during the occupation of Germany. Any such creation would immediately get tagged with a request to merge it with this one. If it is as Schrandit says that we've got very solid sources, then I invite him to use them to expand the particular sections before we consider a split.
2. I do indeed believe that it would be POV to single out Soviet forces. I don't think anyone has so far requested that Allied war crimes during World War II should be split into articles for their respective countries. Please also be advised that any attempt to move information from this article into the WWII Allied war crimes article will be met with near instant deletion based on the rationale that the sources do not explicitly call the rapes a "war crime".
3. The reader experience would be best met with a common article that explores the behavior of all occupying forces, and that analyses possible differences in motives, and in the way (if any) the different leaderships acted to lower the number of rapes.
4. I'm sorry to have to put it so bluntly but I still haven't seen anyone provide a logical and coherent rationale behind a split or name change proposal. To me it looks more like a bunch of random suggestions and a semi version of a straw-poll. If you are serious, cobble together a good rationale, and advertise it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur with [[Stor stark7. The title as-is is a neutral reflection of the subject which is supported by its sources as notable. If sources can be provided that demonstrate that rape with one particular group as perpetrator or victim during the occupation is independently notable, then we would have grounds for talking about a separate article and how to make said article abide by NPOV. For this article, the current name establishes the article topic just fine. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
1. - There are already an entire article devoted to rape committed by the French Colonial army, I'm not worried about it.
2. - That article already has been split - see Soviet war crimes and United States war crimes.
3. - Mention can effectively be made of that.
4. - Because we currently have a single article about very different subjects. - Schrandit (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. -Please tell us what article you are thinking of, since the only one I know of is Marocchinate which is very Italy specific, also in the term, and has no connection to Germany.

2. - If that article already has been split, as you claim, then why does it still exist under the "Allies" name? Actually both articles you point to with the claim that they were split out seem to be completely independently developed articles, that also cover much wider time-spans than the WWII crimes article.

4. I still don't see an argument. How are they different? We have the same war, the same time-frame, the same victims, and the perpetrators belonging to the same alliance. The only difference I see is nationality of perpetrators and scale. In my eyes this is not "very different", certainly not enough to motivate a split.--Stor stark7 Speak 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1 - That's the one! It proves that such an article can stand alone.
2 - The "Allies" article is an indexing page and also contains information about actions which were too small to merit a stand-alone article.
I am aware that they were indipendent articles, this article used to be one as well.

4 - Almost all of our sources only deal with one front. Allow me to write a few articles and I'll show you. - Schrandit (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the deleted image

Image confiscated by the US, part of a series belonging to the Sicherheitspolizei, Königsberg, titled "Picture report on Germans killed and raped by Bolsheviks in Metgethen".

Hi Paul Siebert, You are correct in that the caption given in commons for this particular does not mention rape. However, it comes from a series called "Picture report on Germans killed and raped by Bolsheviks in Metgethen]". Since both women very visibly have had their underwear ripped off and their genitalia exposed in the image I assumed it reasonable to caption the image as I did, and did not think anyone would object.

I have however now looked up the original in the library of congress. It turns out the Americans mistranslated the caption in the police files. "Nahaufnahme von den beiden Frauen und den drei Kindern Aufnahme in Hause Jodeit, Metgethen, Horst Wesselweg 23. Auch diese Aufnahme zeigt typische Merkmale der Vergewaltigung." In my German it becomes: Closeup of the two women and three children, taken in Jodeit house, Metgethen, Horst Wesselweg 23. The typical signs of rape are visible also in this picture.[8],[9]

I'll see to it that the commons caption is fixed too.--Stor stark7 Speak 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed "and raped" from the caption. Although your conclusions are correct, it is original research. The image can stay, because the sign of rapes are mentioned in its German description.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul Siebert, It's not very important but I did not do original research. The original upploader of the image had put the source file in the "author" section in the image: "Mounted photos with cover title: Bildbericht über von den Bolschewisten ermordete und geschändete Deutsche in Metgethen ("picture report on Germans killed and raped by Bolsheviks in Metgethen", and with ink stamps: "Der Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei, Königsberg Pr." ("Commander of the security police, Königesberg/Prussia") and "U.S. Government Interdepartmental Committee for the Acquisition of Foreign Publications".". It is also noted in the Library of Congress online file where it says: "Notes: In album: Bildbericht über von den Bolschewisten ermordete und geschändete Deutsche in Metgethen, p. 13." --Stor stark7 Speak 11:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust article doesn't contain pictures of individual victims, appealing to human feelings like here, but rather general views. I'm going to discuss the subject with Holocaust authors.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The same picture is included into the Metgethen massacre, which article has neutrality issues.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If the connection between the image and rape is WP:NOR then why is the image in an article about rape? The first impression I get is that the article is implying without source that the women were rape victims for the emotional appeal. We have no reliable way of knowing these women were raped or by whom. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The library of Congress summary[10] states they were killed during the Soviet assault on Methgen, in 1945. The German caption for the image also provided there lists them as having typical evidence of rape. The Note also provided there explains the image as coming from a picture series entitled pictures of Germans in Methgen killed and raped by Bolscheviks.--Stor stark7 Speak 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Is the German caption coming from Nazi state which published/made those photos ?. Correction-I now see that it does.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Nazi image and claims. Wikipedia is not a place for Nazi propaganda-except the article on such topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't that without consensus. - Schrandit (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia wide consensus I believe that Nazi propaganda can't be presented as fact-you restored original Nazi caption as fact.Besides that you also removed a good chunk on information regarding background of rape in WW2.Please don't do that again.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus that this particular information was Nazi propaganda in this case. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a place for determining what is "fact", so there is no relevant consensus on Wikipedia regarding whose propaganda is factual and whose isn't. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The direct assertion that the victims were raped is not verifiable, but the fact that the caption states they show evidence typical of rape is. If the caption had been added directly by the Propaganda Ministry of Nazi Germany for some sort of pamphlet or poster, then the propaganda argument might hold some weight, but nothing has been put forward here to indicate that.
The possible link to rape is the only rationale for keeping this photo in the article, and since the version with caveat is verifiable (i.e. stating that the caption describes typical signs of rape, not interpreting the caption), I'm adding it back in until consensus can be reached. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth It can be verified that some people claim Obama is a space lizard or that Jews are untermenschen-we don't add such things to articles. In any case-a product of Nazi propaganda needs to be attributed as such.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, we strive to represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If significant, reliable sources indicated that Obama was indeed a space lizard then in such case yes it would be added to articles - and let's take further explanations of policy to your talk page to avoid disrupting the discussion of the article at hand.
Regarding the consensus for this image, the claim that it is propaganda needs to be supported by some sort of evidence that the captioning was done by or under the direction of the Propagandaministerium, not the police. Otherwise, it's not verifiable propaganda by definition. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV notes "published by reliable sources".Nazi sources are not reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
First-hand accounts are evaluated as first-hand accounts, regardless of the political party affiliation of the individuals that gave the accounts. Library of Congress in this case suffices as a secondary source asserting the valid origin of the image and caption, not interpreting the caption as being true or untrue. The caveat is included which states that this is the original caption (instead of simply having the article interpret that they are German victims of rape). This seemed like a valid compromise but you disagree so we don't have consensus yet. At this point we both need to step back and let others chime in to facilitate moving towards consensus. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we make any claims one way or the other, we just present the reader with what the original title was. - Schrandit (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Soviet war crimes

There exists the article Soviet war crimes. The "Rape during the occupation of Germany" is only a part of the crimes. Instead to develop the big article a part of it is selected. Are non-German victims of Soviet crimes less important? Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If the question is about that article, you should ask it on the talk page for that article. It may be that the other rapes are not considered war crimes, though they are crimes that were committed during a war. --Habap (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be not precise. I mean that from general subjects, like "post-war migrations" or "war crimes" certain subjects like migrations of Germans or crimes against Germans are selected and described here, because there exist a group of editors, who have time and knowledge to do this. Are German victims more important because German people have more resources to document the crimes than Slavs have? German Wikipedia doesn't change proportions, maybe because of the political corectness. Here some people aren't ashamed, like they are in German context.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would think that it is only because there are editors with time and information about the Germans, while fewer editors with time and information about other ethnicities. I don't think it is due to any bias, but merely reflective of how well known these things are. Of course, that argues in favor of articles on crimes against the Slavs, so that more people can learn of them. If you've got information, you're more than welcome to create new articles on those or add information to the existing articles. --Habap (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
While I would agree that for example Ukrainian editors are woefully underrepresented here, I would not say that about for example Polish editors who give the appearance of being quite numerous. Ukrainians are also hampered by the preponderance of biased anti-Ukrainian literature produced primarily during the communist era.[11] On Poland on the other hand there are already articles such as one oddly enough originally titled List of Polish Martyrdom sites, and also Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, amongst many similar more specific articles. --Stor stark7 Speak 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1."Polish editors who give the appearance of being quite numerous" - especially among persecuted editors. Germans editors seem to be much better prepared to push their opinions than the Polish editors. 2.Germany invested big money in creating biased "documentation" and the myth of the expulsion. Poland was controlled by the Soviet Union, Polish archives were robbed or destroied. 3. Eastern Poland was to be forgotten, so Ukrainian crimes against Poles and Ukrainians outside contemporary Poland weren't studied in Communist Poland. Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC) $. The best way to oppose Polish nationalists is to document the UPA crimes rather than to claim that nothing happened or Poles were guilty. UPA and SB murdered thousands of Ukrainians.Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Concealing some of Naimark's words

While personally I don't believe him to be a neutral source, it is worth mentioning that Naimark does also add Nazi atrocities, personal suffering of soldiers as part of the reasons for their actions. Nothing like that is mentioned in the text.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since most sources put these rapes into a broader historical context, I support your edits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the neutrality dispute?

Why is that tag there? Phoenix of9 16:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

that was highly irregular

Exactly, pushing a Nazi propaganda picture is highly irregular~, illegal in many countries.Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

recent edits reverted

After reviewing recent edits I had to revert them to the MyMoloboaccount's version [12], because the rationale of these edits was not satisfactory. Firstly, it is quite correct that the rapes must be considered in a broader historical context (what most sources do), so the [13], so the revert made by Schrandit[14], made without any discussion was not justified. Secondly, the persistent attempts of Anonymiss Madchen to blame Russian (not "Soviet") army in genocide (and, especially, to label all edits she disagree with an "Nazi propaganda") is highly inappropriate and goes far beyond the ordinary content dispute. That is my last warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not "blaming" Russians. Nearly all history books use the term "German" in addition to "Nazi" in relation to WWII, and yet that is not "blaming" Germans. Rather, using the term "Nazi" to the exclusion of "German" is an attempt at denial and avoiding placing responsibility. As such, the same applies to this article, where the persistent use of the term "Communist" and the equivalent is an attempt to avoid blaming the perpetrators.
Second, the edits that I have removed were blatant attempts to portray Americans and Poles as perpetrators of genocide against Germans, which is very clearly a false idea that is perpetrated by the Nazis. After reviewing your edits, comments, and statements, it is clear that you have some sort of anti Semitic, anti German motivation for your actions. I will not be intimidated by the threats of a racist. The only person at risk for being reported is you for activities which benefit Nazis, Communists, and other genocide deniers.
I will say this again, since apparently you were not able to process it before. I am a Russian, so even if I did say something "anti Russian," it would be about as racist as a black person using the N-word.
--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka AlexTalk 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, if you want to continue to edit Wikipedia you must learn to understand others and treat seriously your opponents' arguments. You persistently ignore what I am saying, and, taking into account that I had no similar problems with good faith editors so far, the problem is not on my side.
Secondly, you systematically mix the terms mass rape and genocide, which is not always correct and needs a prove in every particular case. In this particular case it is not true, at least the reliable sources available for me (the sources cited in this article) do not support this thesis. Moreover, the sources tell that the idea that mass rapes of German women by Soviet soldiers were the act of genocide was put forward by Nazi propaganda, and that this idea is racist. Therefore, the accusation in pushing racist or Nazist ideas should be addressed to you. Please, stop doing that, because it goes far beyond the normal content dispute.
Thirdly, by contrast to your claims, you do blame Russians. You did that before (on your user page), and you continue to do that now (for instance, here [15] you replaced "Soviet" with "Russian", blaming specifically the Russian nation in war crimes. Again, this is in line with the worst examples of Goebbels propaganda. Try to think about that and stop doing that.
Fourthly, your systematic removal from the article of any mention of the rapes committed by other nations (especially, supplemented by such highly insulting edit summaries as "removing propaganda made by neo Nazi editors" [16], " seriously can't believe that any Neo Nazi would be stupid enough to try to compare French soldiers to Russian people in this article. Nazi propaganda removed"[17]("French soldiers vs Russian people" underlined by me, PS), "Removing Russian Communist/Nazi and German Nazi genocide denial"[18] , etc) indicates that you believe the Russians as a nation are intrinsically evil, and that they by definition cannot be compared with other nations. Again, this is a pure racism. The same can be concluded from earlier versions of your userpage [19] (purely nationalistic b@l$h!t, especially, your laments that Hitler had not been given an opportunity to kill all Russians, that you had removed only after I threatened to report you). Again you do blame Russians, and you are deeply convinced they are subhumans. Your claim that you are half Russian is totally irrelevant.
Fifthly, you treat the US as a Caesar's wife that "must be above suspicion", so any attempt to add any materials about the rapes committed by the American troops is interpreted by you as "Nazi propaganda" ("Apparently in only took a Neo Nazi editor a few minutes to re add anti American propaganda. Removed."[20]) This edit summary contains a double fallacy: adding materials about American war crimes is not necessarily an anti-American propaganda, and anti-American propaganda is not necessarily neo-Nazism.
Sixthly, you removed a well sourced section supplementing that with highly insulting edit summary ("Removing blatant racist propaganda that should not have existed for this long." [21]) This section was written based on scholarly articles written by Heineman, Grossman and Bos, and published in Western scholarly journals, and based on a PhD thesis defended in the reputable Western university. What kind of racist propaganda are you talking about?
Seventhly, you replaced the "from tens of thousands to 2 million" with " from 3 to 6 million" [22] without providing any quotes on the talk page that would explain such a change (Elisabeth Heineman clearly says: "from the tens of thousands to 2 million.")
Finally, you should realise that this my post can be easily transferred to ANI mutatis mutandi, and this may lead to your indef block or even ban. Please, immediately re-consider your editorial pattern, otherwise either I or somebody else will report you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I will not be editing this article any more, seeing as how quickly the truth will be suppressed from it, and considering that I have a new wiki encyclopedia on the topic in development. Also, I could easily debunk each and every claim that you make in your previous post, but I will refrain from doing so.
Regarding the racism against Russians, please explain how using the term "Russian" is "blaming" and "racist" when use of the term "German" in relation to the Holocaust is not racist? Just as failing to use the term "German" in work about the Holocaust is correctly seen as Nazi sympathetic, failing to use the term "Russian" has the same effect.
Are you aware that the user page edit you cite is also fanatically anti Nazi?
Good bye, I will never be editing this article again.
--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka AlexTalk 03:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I will not be editing this article any more, seeing as how quickly the truth will be suppressed from it..." What is truth? If you believe you know the truth, write a book about that, and after that book has been published by some reputable publisher you may add the content you wish using this book as a source. Otherwise, how do you know you know the truth, and why do we have to believe you, and not to numerous reliable sources that contradict to your statements?
Re: "I could easily debunk each and every claim that you make in your previous post" So do that, please. Otherwise, refrain from baseless statements.
Re: "Regarding the racism against Russians, please explain how using the term "Russian" is "blaming" and "racist" when use of the term "German" in relation to the Holocaust is not racist?" Because "Germans" denotes not ethnic Germans, but the citizens of the German Reich. By contrast, "Russians" means ethnic Russians (who constituted just 50% of the population of the USSR.
Re: "Are you aware that the user page edit you cite is also fanatically anti Nazi?" Yes, this page contained the call to kill all Nazi (i.e. the members of some political organisation) and all Russians (the nation). It is unclear for me why did you decided that the Germans, who developed the most disgusting ideology (Nazism) do not deserve annihilation, whereas the Russians, who just distorted a pretty humanistic ideology (Communism) should be destroyed completely. In any event, your anti-Nazi attitude cannot be an excuse for propaganda of genocide (a call to kill all Russians is a propaganda of genocide).
Try to think about all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I've started a thread in Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of Ursula Schele as a source.

This is completely separate from the issue of the apparent attempt to merge this article with an article about German Army rapes in the Soviet Union, this apparent merge-attempt will also have to be discussed, but separately.--Stor stark7 Speak 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_dukov/index.html (in Russian)
  2. ^ http://actualhistory.ru/51 (in Russian)
  3. ^ http://militera.lib.ru/research/dukov_ar/index.html (in Russian)
  4. ^ http://gpw.tellur.ru/page.html?r=books&s=beevor (in Russian)
  5. ^ http://svpressa.ru/war/article/8271/ (in Russian)
  6. ^ http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_dukov/index.html (in Russian)
  7. ^ http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_dukov/index.html (in Russian)
  8. ^ a b c Norman M. Naimark. The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. Harvard University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-674-78405-7 pp. 74-75.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany/Archive_1&oldid=1151050228"