Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 30 June 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / German This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass rape propaganda and Holocaust denial

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

• App's "Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe"

  alternate version

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

• Ravishing The Women Of Conquered Europe – as published by Michael Walsh
• Ravishing The Women Of Conquered Europe – as published on Geocities

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"

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--Stor stark7 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/Russian-Holocaust

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

Yes, Misplaced Pages is also self published, and that is why it cannot be used as a source for itself. However, despite that fact, Misplaced Pages 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)

The 11,000 rapes by US claim.

This sounds a lot like Democrat and Nazi propaganda. Based on the fact that the only source is from a single book that is dedicated entirely to American rapes, it is very likely far left propaganda attempting to make the US an enemy in every war, or even feminist propaganda. Idiots don't even realize that women in the military causes raping the enemy even more. It also sounds like the sort of book that a Nazi would write.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly the stupidest thing written on this page. Allowing women in the military causes rapes? Please cite a single source for that laughable claim. You can back it up with analysis ofsexual violence in militaries such as Britain, Canada, Israel and other pre-a dn post- allowing women to serve in their military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously blaming the victims? --Habap (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How am I blaming the victims? --Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With this Idiots don't even realize that women in the military causes raping the enemy even more. That's blaming the women. You are stating that they get raped because they are in the military, which is blaming the victim for the crime. --Habap (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, allowing women into the military encourages the raping the enemy because men see it as "consent" when women laugh at other women being raped. Same concept as acceptability of making fun of your own race/religion/sexual orientation.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say, allowing men into the military encourages the raping even more... You should definitely re-consider your views, because your thinking is purely ahistorical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Madchen, could you please post evidence of your statement that women in the military laugh when other women are raped. --Habap (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think is was the Betrayal of the Will chapter in The Fall of Berlin 1945. There was also a documentary, it was Hitler's War: the Eastern Front- The End in Berlin

--Нэмка Алэкс 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the laughing woman in Beevor's The Fall of Berlin 1945 on page 345. One female Soviet soldier laughed while male Soviet soldiers raped a German woman. I'd hardly consider a single instance of one woman laughing at a woman being raped as common. --Habap (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (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 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" , . 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 Misplaced Pages: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". The communist Polish administrators of the occupied territories as a consequence did little to protect the German population from Polish and Russian rapists. "Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behavior. Polish soldiers, stated one report, 'relate to German women as to free booty'."

--Stor stark7 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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.

Misplaced Pages 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.

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.

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

Please do not attempt to portray Poles as perpetrators. They were victims of the Russians.

--Anonymiss Madchen 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 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 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)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Mass rapes during and after World War 2 in Germany.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 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 Alex 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 Misplaced Pages:Requested moves.

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.--Stor stark7 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with

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 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

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.,

I'll see to it that the commons caption is fixed too.--Stor stark7 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 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is not a place for determining what is "fact", so there is no relevant consensus on Misplaced Pages regarding whose propaganda is factual and whose isn't. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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)

How this affects Russians now- Punishment

Shouldn't we include a section on how this relates to Russians now, possibly relating to whether or not they should be punished and how? Obviously, it would include both points of view, including the theory that Russians should not be punished. It is very wrong to talk about how Russians raped Jews in concentration camps, yet ignore the fact that they needs to be punished in some way for it.

Please remember that I am half Russian, when considering any possible bias.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 20:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Unless someone has written about that in a reliable source, anything we write on it would be original research. --Habap (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that I am half Russian, when considering any possible bias. It's not at all rare for someone who is half-something to be biased against one half. --Habap (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

recent edits reverted

After reviewing recent edits I had to revert them to the MyMoloboaccount's version , 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 , so the revert made by Schrandit, 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 Alex 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, if you want to continue to edit Misplaced Pages 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 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" , " 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"("French soldiers vs Russian people" underlined by me, PS), "Removing Russian Communist/Nazi and German Nazi genocide denial" , 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 (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.") 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." ) 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" 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 Alex 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 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationalistic Russian Deniers

Reguarding the Controversy section.

It's so sad that history has finally exposed a few nationalistic extremists (not all Russians) as Holocaust deniers! If you read Germany 1945, The Fall of Berlin 1945, and watch Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State, you will understand what the Russians did to Jews, Poles, Russians, Communists, and other victims of the Nazis. You will also realize that the nationalistic Russians who deny the these crimes against Holocaust victims, immediately after the Holocaust (effectively a perpetuation), are Holocaust Deniers.

See, no blaming Russians.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 01:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not every crime against the Holocaust victims is the manifestation of the Holocaust. In addition, generally speaking, rapes ≠ genocide, and rapes of the Jews (at least, if it was not targeted primarily against them) does not constitute genocide per se.

You claim you do not blame Russians. Let me ask you then, whom are you blaming?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know who I am blaming, it is all Communists and Russians who are closet Nazi deniers of genocide. Holocaust deniers are a waste of space. According to Auschwitz, a New History, the people of Eastern Europe have secret admiration for the Nazis for killing the Jews, and the only reason they "hate" the Nazis because they were invaded by them.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 19:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Racist line?

This is a line from the analysis section:

"...Asian societies comprising the Soviet Union, where dishonor was in the past repaid by raping the women of the enemy..."

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with this text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I see some problems, to argue that: "...Asian societies comprising the Soviet Union, where dishonor was in the past repaid by raping the women of the enemy..." and its relationship with WWII NEEDS proper sources.

Let's be honest: all European societies raped the women of their enemies during wartime. It's some basic aspect of warfare: you conquer the castle, town, land of your enemy and after defeating/killing your enemy and what is the first thing you do? You rape his woman and his daughters. The Asians are not different from the Europeans in this aspect. What is and was probably different is that rape is tentatively suppressed in regular armies and punished by military law. However on the Eastern front during WWII both sides cared precious little about it. Many German soldiers raped Russian women as they invaded and the Russian soldiers saw what had happened as they pushed the German army back. Obviously they raped German women as they invaded Germany. What the hell were they supposed to do? What would we do?

What truly matters are the surrounding circumstances: were the rapes punished and suppressed by the officers? What were the official orders from the headquarters? How many were raped? What were the consequences? Flamarande (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The line is sourced from Naimark, pp. 114-115.

Russian culture - and many of the Asian ones associated with it in the Soviet Union - still carries with it many of the characteristics of patriarchal society characterized by Lerner. Rape, especially, has played an important role in the concepts of honor and dishonor that permeate Russian culture. Eve Levin writes, for example, that it was customary in medieval Russia to carry out "vengeance against an enemy by raping his womenfolk."

It goes on to discuss the dishonour incurred by the Germans mauling the Soviet Union and the Russian need to regain their honor by raping the Germans. It's an interesting look into the sociological motivations for the crime. That said, the prominent mention of Asian cultures in the Soviet Union may be WP:UNDUE. --Habap (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So let me resume that: Naimark writes that Eve Lenin wrote that it was customary in medieval Russia to carry out "vengeance against an enemy by raping his womenfolk."

FWIW in mediaeval Europe women were regularly raped in the storming of a city. The English/French/Germans/Spanish/etc would storm a city; loot it and rape all women they could. That was expected; that was normal at the time. I can only wonder why Naimark mentions Russian warfare of the Middle Ages at all? Perhaps because during the middle ages the Russians displayed the exact same ruthlessness like all other European nations did?

Naimark may be mentioning these matters in a greater line of reasoning: the armies of Soviet Union (particularly its discipline and attitudes towards rape) were "more mediaeval" than the western armies. Too bad is the fact that Germans did not commit mass destruction in Western Front, as they did in the east, so that we could compare the retribution of the armies of the western Allies.

Or he simply wants to suggest that: "Hey they are Russians. What were you expecting? They have done this since god knows when." However the fact that all European armies raped women during the middle ages contradicts that line of reasoning.

Either way Medieval Russia matters precious little during WWII and seems to be used as a red herring. Notice that the German army invaded the Soviet Union and raped Soviet women and AFAIK none of the above applies to them. Or does Naimark argue that the German Army raped Soviet women because during the middle ages German armies raped women - like everybody else? Flamarande (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I wish to make clear that I don't own or have read Naimark's book. However those who have read it should read it carefully and use it with caution. To use mediaeval Russian warfare in relation to WWII is unwise.

You are right, it was somewhat premature to endorse the proposed sentence. After reading Naimark's "Russians in Germany" I found that the author's idea has been significantly misinterpreted by in the article: Naimark didn't write that. He wrote that

"Russian culture - as many of Asian ones associated with it in the Soviet Union - still carries with it many of the characteristics of patriarchal society characterized by Lerner. Rape, especially, has played an important role in a concepts of honour and dishonour that permeate Russian culture."

Then Naimark discusses Levin's observations on medieval Russia, Engelstein's studies of Russian nineteen century's legal codes, and concluded:

"Combining the ideas of Lerner, Levin and Engelstein with the vast array of data available on rapes of German women by Russian soldiers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Soviet zone became a final repayment for German invasion and mauling of the Soviet Union."

We can see that Naimark is much less categorical and much more cautious in his conclusions, and he does not link directly the Russian medieval past and the WWII events (although suggests that such a linkage cannot be ruled out).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Time magazine quote

In the Controversy section, one quote reads

"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, "

This is sourced to Time magazine, June 11, 1945 (link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775822,00.html, paragraph 9), but the quote is not there. It does mention reprisals, but doesn't match otherwise.

Russian radio and press reports had at first told a story of tranquility and machinelike precision in Russian-occupied Germany—of more food, of mutual tolerance, if not outright friendship, between conqueror and conquered. Then there was a change in tone. The Berlin mayor broadcast a warning to his citizens that "continued" attacks on Red Army troops would bring stiff reprisals: 50 former Nazis would be killed for each incident.

I am curious where the original quote came from or if the quotes around it were accidental or because it was WP:OR. --Habap (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very serious matter. I checked the article's history and found the following . However notice that your link (above) links only to a single article of the magazine. Perhaps the quote simply comes from another article. However this matter should be checked by someone with access to that particular number (11 June 1945) asap. Flamarande (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This quote seems to come from web pages that are... shall we say, dubious, at very least, e.g. , by Kevin Alfred Strom and entirely unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. It should be removed from the article, unless the quote actually comes from another, a reputable source (I seem to remember reading something similar a long time ago). --Sander Säde 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, dubious at best. I've removed it. --Habap (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany/Archive_1#Verification_of_quotations_allegedly_from_Time_Magazine --Boson (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Beshnova

Adding a section about Anna Beshnova

Should we add a section about what happened to Anna Beshnova since it is related?

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you decided you wouldn't be editing again? I don't know who Anna Beshnova is, but if you wish to add any information, please do it carefully because I think you are on the verge of being blocked for disruptive editing. Please, please read the policies relevant to adding this information before you add anything else: WP:CITE, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:NPOV (also WP:BLP if applicable). If this person received notable coverage, it relates to this article (i.e. she was raped during the occupation of Germany 1945-1949), and you can provide reliable citation, write it up in a neutral manner, it could be added. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I presume this is not a serious question. Or which Anna Beshnova are you talking about?--Boson (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the Anna Beshnova is this one. If this is the one, then she has nothing to do with the subject of this article. This has nothing to do with WWII. Don't include in this article. Flamarande (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur, while the story of Anna Beshnova is tragic, it is more than 65 years after the end of the war, didn't happen in Germany and has nothing to do with this article. --Habap (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it has everything to do with this article. This is an example of karma, and it would be improper to have an serious discussion about Anna Beshnova without including the context under which it happened. BTW, she was a member of the Russian Nazi Pary, so it is unwise to be defending her. Please remember the 6 million.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 01:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I rethought the situation, and I feel that it is relevant and needs to be included. I don't see how it's right to discuss what happened to Anna Beshnova (a Russian Nazi) without the proper context under which it happened.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the article from Russian Misplaced Pages, if anyone can translate it.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%A3%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 19:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anna Beshnova - 15-year Moscow schoolgirl, raped and killed on the night of 30 September 2008 not far from her house in the Mozhaisk district. In June 2009 a citizen of Uzbekistan was accused and found guilty of her murder and rape, and sentenced to 23 years. – What's the connection? → Э (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The very tenuous logical connection is that our friend thinks that the victim is a Nazi and since her assailants were from a country that was part of the Soviet Union, it is a similar crime. Associating the two is original research. It has nothing to do with this article. --Habap (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I failed to find any examples of concrete activity of this girl as a Nazi party member, at least it is almost un-doubtful that she committed no rapes, killings or similar acts that would preclude us from describing her as a victim and not as a perpetrator. At least, such a linkage (if it really exists in actuality) was not more pronounced then the linkage between WWII time German women, who were Nazi party members or, at least, took a personal oath to Hitler.

In addition, I believe Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex has a sufficient evidences to accuse the raped and killed person in being a Nazi. In my opinion, Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex must share this information with us, otherwise her accusations look deeply immoral and highly inappropriate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a terrible case of blaming the victim for the crime. --Habap (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

First, what happened to the original discussion about this topic? Second, why are we discussing what is or is not moral in the talk page for an article? I can point out that Misplaced Pages is not a forum but I'm wondering if anyone will actually read it at all.

The only purpose for this page is to discuss improvements to the article. This article is about rape during the occupation of Germany, and the incident in question happened in 2008. Unless there is some disagreement as to whether the nation of Germany was occupied during the year 2008, this doesn't belong in the article, end of discussion.

The user bringing this up has been repeatedly warned about disruptive editing, repeatedly referred to appropriate policies, and continues to disrupt the encyclopedia just to make a point. I have no interest in this article - I only came here to for background on an RSN post - but when a user continues a brute force push for unencyclopedic original research, it damages Misplaced Pages as a whole. At this point I think the only preventative measure against further disruption is an IP block. Could someone more familiar with this article's history assist in putting together an WP:ANI request? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While the editor in question is disruptive, I do not think it goes to the level requiring an ANI or IP blocking. --Habap (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The section was removed by that editor --Habap (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There may be a connection but it's down to Madchen to quote sources for it, otherwise a rape and murder in Ukraine two generations after the end of the war does not belong in this article. And could I ask Madchen specifically not to remove material from the talk page or it will be restored. Britmax (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The "contributor" who thinks it "unwise" to defend a 15-year-old girl who was brutally raped and murdered simply because she was a neo-Nazi needs to have his head checked pronto... his borderline sociopathic misogyny as far as sexual violence is concerned makes him sound worse than any neo-Nazi. No matter how questionable the girl's politics she did not deserve to go through such an ordeal. No girl does. Ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.164.250.87 (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we say whether or not Nazis deserved it?

Do you think we should add a section saying that Nazi women who were raped deserved it? I think that most people would agree that they did. Also, considering that as Nazis, they provided indirect assistance to the Russian genocide as "motivation" to their own soldiers, I'm sure that most of the victims and many Germans would agree.

Germany 1945

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

These arguments remind me ancient Talion legislation. Of course, it would be ridiculous to write that (unless some reliable source that states that will be presented). What reliable sources tell, however, that the rapes of German woman by the Soviet Army cannot and should not be taken out of their historical context: they were the rapes of the women who belonged to the nation that brought immense sufferings and devastation to other Europeans, and these rapes were committed by the soldiers who bore the major brunt of the war aimed to stop those devastation and sufferings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Nazis and non Nazis. Nazi women definitely deserved to be raped, however, to attribute "context" to the rape of non Nazis is to clearly blame the victim. Non Nazis had absolutely nothing to do with what happened hundreds of miles away, and to try to add this "context" is simply an absurd attempt at victim blaming. Also, considering what sources say in relation to the debunked revenge myth, establishing this "context" is simply closeted antisemitism- a method of covering up crimes against the Jews, German and non German.

Please, explain why acts of genocide against Jews need to be taken in "context" with Nazi war crimes.

According to non outdated sources, this is not a German/Nazi/Russian issue.

--Jüdischen Deutschen 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about trying to push that they deserved it. It is out of place and unnecessary.

--Jüdischen Deutschen 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I will take your failure to answer a simple question as evidence of anti Antisemitism.

--Jüdischen Deutschen 23:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks any woman deserves to be raped is a misogynist piece of ---- and as bad as, indeed worse, than any Nazi.

Atina Grossman's reference

I've restored the paragraph referring to the Grossmann's paper. Narrative is mostly translated from Russian version of the article. If there's a claim that the source does not support the statements, could you be more specific (since I can't find the article in open sources to verify the claim)? Don't just remove the paragraph without further discussion or explanation. Re-phrase to be truthful to the source if possible. cherkash (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A point

Every Nazi woman got what they deserved.

And trying to turn this into a Russian-German issue is Nazi propaganda. This is an issue of the suffering of Jews, Poles, Russian prisoners, and Germans, against a hoard of beasts. This is not a German-Russian issue. In fact, the Germans were probably a minority of victims, considering how many millions of Polish, Jewish, Communist, and Russian victims there were.

--Jüdischen Deutschen 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure addition of the text from another WP article is needed. I suggest to briefly summarise what another article tells, and provide a link to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The current article name is POV, in favor of Nazis

The current name perpetuates the myth that the rape of millions of German girls and women was an issue between the Germans and the Russians. There were thousands of Germans who were either Communist or Jewish, which was known to the Russians, who raped. There were also millions of Poles and Russians who were raped. A name that reflects mass war crimes by the Russians against Germans and millions of people considered inferior by the Nazis would be more appropriate. --Jüdischen Deutschen 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In the civilized world, the word "German" refers to citizenship, not to ethnicity, so I see absolutely no bias here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. The title implies that it was in Germany, which by implication excludes Russians and Poles, and to Nazis, Jews. The current title perpetuates the myth that the Red Holocaust was a German-Russian problem, which is exploited by the Nazis, who certainly do not want people to know that Poles, Jews, and Russians were also victims because it interferes with their Jewish/Slavic conspiracy claims. The way to defeat the Nazis is to make it clear that the millions of German girls and women raped were only a fraction, if not a minority, of the victims. --Jüdischen Deutschen 00:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Red Holocaust was not a German-Russian problem, because the Holocaust was genocide of Jews. The Red Holocaust is an invention of Steven Rosenfielde, and this idea is not supported by majority of scholars. Therefore, the Red Holocaust is a fringe theory and should be treated as such. It is not relevant to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to any other uses of the term "Red Holocaust," only using it as a descriptive term. Also, after researching Rosenfielde, it is clear that he is not a Nazi and that there is no reason to regard any of his work as a "fringe theory."--Jüdischen Deutschen 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The current name is quite specific and shows no bias nor POV. It refers to the well attested mass rape of women in occupied Germany by the invading allied armies. The article includes the RAPE of even Russian POW women and of Polish women IN OCCUPIED GERMANY. The article refers to any rape which occurred in Germany during its occupation by the allies.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet, we end up with at least two separate articles on rape by the Russians, which only address rape. I don't see at all how Rape during the occupation of Germany is "unbiased" and "not POV. It certainly is not interpreted as referring to "occupied Germany." The way that such a title is commonly interpreted as is as being about the rape of Germans. This title serves to perpetuate Nazi propaganda which attempts to make the rape of Germans by Russians appear to be a German-Russian issue, when in fact it is pillaging army issue, which claimed as victims millions of people considered inferior and persecuted by the Nazis.

Please refrain from perpetuating Nazi propaganda on legitimate websites.

EDIT --> I am very familiar with Nazis and their methods and propaganda.

People have also been blaming the Poles in this article for acts of genocide committed against the Germans, when in reality the Poles were victims of the Russians and did not commit rape against the Germans.

--Jüdischen Deutschen 06:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Germany was occupied. It happened during 1945. (Do you agree?)

Women were raped in Germany during that occupation. (Do you agree?)

This article claims to be about detailing those rapes (any which occured) in Germany (and in no other country) during that occupation (and at no other time). If you have a better suggestion for an title on this specific subject please feel free to suggest it.

But the current name does not "perpetuate the myth that the rape of millions of German girls and women was an issue between the Germans and the Russians" as you have suggested. What it does is inform that rapes occured in Germany during an occupation. That is ALL it does. As it doesn't mention Nazi's or Russians this appears to be your own misinterpretation of the title.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make, though it is over simplistic, and makes implications about the victims. While there were Russians, Jews, and maybe some Poles in Germany at the time, there were millions more who were outside the borders, which by your own explanation would not belong in this article. Also, the title Rape during the occupation of Germany implies that only Germans were victims; this is the point that the Nazis are pushing. Combined with this, I am very suspicious of the material you removed reguarded German guilt for the Holocaust. --Jüdischen Deutschen 14:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The title does NOT imply that "only Germans were victims". That again is your own inference. The title only "implies" that rapes occured in Germany at a specific time in history. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The name means rape in Germany, obviously implying only Germans were victims, or at the very least, that is all this article will cover, which would then lead to the implication that only Germans were victims. Please do not rationalize Nazi apologists.

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Rape during the occupation of Germany" to me means any rape that happened during the occupation of Germany. I don't see how you infer from this title who the rapists or victims were. Please explain. Britmax (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Stating in Germany clearly implies that the victims would be German; it's extremely obvious. The only people who I can imagine as claiming not to see the implication are Nazis who would want to keep a name that fits their revisionist position that only Germans were victims.

If this title is totally not POV, than why is this not split up into Rape during the occupation of Russia, Mass murder during the occupation of Russia, The Holocaust in Russia, ect...

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it isn't at all obvious to me. I don't know about anyone else but I'm not going to pay any attention to your views until you decide what your name is. Britmax (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean decide what your name is?

Maybe, it honestly didn't occur to you. However, it's a very easy assumption for people to make, if they aren't looking for technical little details in everything. Honestly, nit picking out a technical definition is the sort of thing a Nazi would do to try to make their work seem unbiased. I am also sure of your good faith, and understand that you would take a technical approach to the names.

Also, being too specific like this will result in an unnecessary number of articles for the same topic. A name such as Mass rape by the Red Army like War crimes of the Wehrmacht includes all of the victims of the Russians, and is non-POV (doesn't avoid saying "who"/written in the passive tense). The current name avoids placing responsibility with the Russians, which opens the way for Nazis to claim Jewish, or more likely "Polish" responsibility for the genocide.

--Anonymiss Madchen 01:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean that when you decide whether you are Anonymiss Madchen or Jüdischen Deutschen and stop signing on using either name I may take you more seriously. Signing on as two editors makes it look as though you are inflating support for your views. Britmax (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed back my signature. Please continue.

EDIT: I noticed that you changed the subject after I started making my point.

--Anonymiss Madchen 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Russians were Mochtegern-Nazis

The Russians committed massive and dirty genocide against specific groups of millions of people total. They acted in the mindset of a Nazi by committing mass genocide. In addition, because the Russians contributed to the Holocaust in their genocide against Jews who were in the camps, any Russian attempts to justify or minimize their actions are therefore Holocaust deniers.

I will be on the watch for any Holocaust deniers.

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not remove a well sourced and non-contested material, otherwise you will be sanctioned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you make threats in addition to engaging in historical revisionism, I will see to it that you are sanctioned for Holocaust denial.

It also isn't "non contested." Obviously. This was debated many times before on this talk page, and you know that.

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

By no means I making threats. I just inform you that you are engaged in the edit war, which may inflict sanctions on you.

Under "uncontested" I meant "uncontested by scholars". Regarding "historical revisionism", to throw such accusations you must prove that the sources I use are non-mainstream and fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop the edit war.

I would need to know what your sources are before I can do that, or say that lack of making that clear is circumstantial evidence that they are fringe or unreliable.

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources can be easily found, because the references (which you persistently remove) are currently in the article's text. Re tens of thousands to 2 million, the source is either Gorssmann or Heinemann.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I need to know specifically which ones you are using/consider reliable.

To address the ones you have listed, Grossmann appears to be some sort of Feminist; a completely irrational, fringe political movement. Why not just ask Neo "Nazis" to come write this article if we're trusting Feminists? I was not able to find out as much on Heineman, but from what I found, she also appears to be some sort of Feminist. Not only are Feminists fringe politically, but they also allow their work to be influenced too heavily by emotion, and they work backwards from conclusion, to evidence.

--Anonymiss Madchen 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape of Jews

I'm going to be writing a section for this article in my userspace, about the Russian deliberate mass rape against the Jews.

User:Anonymiss Madchen/Rape of Jews by the Russians

Please use the talk page for it, so that the related discussions will be confined to one place, and not take up space here.

--Anonymiss Madchen 01:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you to stop. I expect you to remove the previous section, because you seem to return to your old attempts to offend the whole nation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How am I attempting to offend the whole nation? There are people who think the Holocaust is anti German, these people are Nazis.

--Anonymiss Madchen 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You blamed the whole nation in Nazism. That is not tolerable. You must remove that statement, and never return to these allegations again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am calling all Germans Nazis?

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say?

--Anonymiss Madchen 04:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to say anything, I am saying that your posts are clearly anti-Russian--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think it is anti Russian to say that the Russians committed mass rape/genocide against Germans/Poles/Jews? This sounds almost like the claim by Fredrick Tobin that the Holocaust is anti German. Please explain the difference in the following: Mass rape by the Germans in Russia. Mass rape by the Russians in Germany. I don't understand the difference, and I don't see how acknowledging that some Russians along time ago did bad things is "anti Russian."

--Anonymiss Madchen 06:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation to justify this edit and change to present it as an opinion, with attribution. The changed statement represents an unattributed point of view, stated as fact; and it is not supported by the original reference (with quotation).--Boson (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are denying acts of genocide committed against Holocaust victims; this is illegal in many countries.

--Anonymiss Madchen 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from baseless accusations of criminal actions and just provide a quote for what appears to be original research. You inserted the statement "However, revenge was not a strong motivation, based on the rape of Jews." This point of view represents a conclusion made by some person. If the person who made that assessment was you, please remove it. If somebody else made the assessment, please attribute it to that person and provide a quote. If I have misunderstood you, please explain. The original reference does not support the statement, and I could not verify that the reference you added does. --Boson (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A quote

Here is a quote from Germany 1945, based on an interview with a prisoner from the concentration camps:

"He raised up his arms and cried out to God to bring down His vengence of the German nation; to exterminate every German man, woman, and child; to strike to death every living German being; to clense the earth of all German blood unto eternity" P. 165

The quote

Should we add it to the article?

--Anonymiss Madchen 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain the relevance of this quote to the topic "rape during the occupation of Germany"?

By the way, your link did not work for me - at least it did not display the quote.

You may also wish to correct your typo ('clense'). --Boson (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is usual for book.google, because different pieces of text are available for the users in different regions/countries. The book AM are citing does contain these words, however, I do not see how these words confirm the article's statement. In addition, based on the available snippet view I conclude that these words do not express the author's opinion, but, are just an allegoric depiction of the emotions of some single person. If no adequate evidences will be provided in close future, I'll revert the AM's edits back to the old version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment self removed. Moved to my user space, should anyone need it.

--Anonymiss Madchen 05:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I see that you had quite a dispute here. Two suggestions. First, War crimes of the Wehrmacht belong to another article. Second, since the subject is charged, one should really only quote books by reputable authors, rather than blog-like sources like that. Biophys (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So the point is simple. The War crimes of the Wehrmacht are well known and described in detail. But the article about Wehrmacht does not tell anything about Soviet Army, and rightly so. Same applies here. Biophys (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This point is wrong. The war crimes of the Red Army are not mentioned in the War crimes of the Wehrmacht article simply because the scholars do not trace any connection between the latter and the former. Simply put, the Germans started first, so their atrocities were not provoked by any Soviet actions. By contrast, almost every serious scholar who discuss war crimes of the Red Army, makes a reservation that by 1945, virtually every Soviet soldier had been a witness of numerous atrocities committed by the Wehrmacht/SS on the occupied territories, and this psychological trauma deeply affected the behaviour of Soviet military on the occupied German territories. To ignore that would be profoundly ahistorical, and such a proposal is totally unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If a particular source claims the existence of such connection, it can be cited here with regard to such connection. However, simply a description of German atrocities belongs to another article. Biophys (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Paul Siebert here, sources draw connection between reaction of victims of genocidal war of extermination waged by Germany(which included mass rape) and acts committed in the name of that war and during it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Biophys, write it into the article, with citations. No mention of Japanese crimes in article documenting American war crimes though the same emotions were no doubt at play. - Haymaker (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects, I am going to bring here some memories of Soviet soldiers from a book of Belorussian writer Svetlana Aleksievich. No one can blame her of pro-German bias since she collected and published a lot of real life stories about German atrocities. Biophys (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First hand accounts would be primary sources, which must always be used with extreme caution, as our reliance on them would be original research. Also, we should look to academic sources rather than journalists for well-documented historical events in order to prevent accusations of bias or poor sourcing. TFD (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you then agree to remove all current texts sourced to Russian language internet sources no one knows about? I think that would be reasonable. The source I am talking about fits WP:RS as a book by a reputable author that was re-published many times and translated to English and other languages from Russian. According to the policy, The word "source" in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.. An eyewitness account can be included per our policies if published in a reliable secondary source. And of course I am not going to interpret it, but only quote, which is fine even if you consider it a primary sources Biophys (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the desire to use journalistic when academic sources are available. The Second World War ended more than 60 years ago, and has been extensively covered in academic publications. Do you really believe that personal recollections of the war are superior to what historians have written? Do you think that the fact they were related to a journalist somehow elevates them to rs? How do you propose chosing this eyewitness account? (Not sure what specifically you would see removed.) TFD (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you or anyone else is very welcome to bring academic sources. But one can use any WP:RS on the subject per WP:NPOV. What to remove? For example something like that. Biophys (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you really believe that recollections of people about what happened decades ago are a reliable source? In your field of biology, would you rely on someone's recollection of an experiment they conducted decades ago? TFD (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I must place it in the article, so it would be clear what are we talking about. My point is to simply follow NPOV. There was a book by a British historian about Soviet atrocities (an academic source you are probably talking about?). That's fine. Let's also bring some Russian sources. Let's provide some reliably sourced information how Soviet Army serviceman (and servicewoman) felt about this problem. Biophys (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses tell about the events they saw, the historians do generalisations. I see no problem to include witness testimonies describing certain event, however, by no means can we draw (or imply) any general conclusions from that. The fact that some person saw mass rape of young girls cannot per se be a ground for the claim that this phenomenon was widespread. In any event, addition of any material carrying high emotional load should be done with great cautions, and it should be supplemented by neutral commentary of some reputable scholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong agreement on removal of the Wehrmacht section. I am reluctant to accept Russian language sources only because I don't speak Russian and have no way to assess whether or not said sources are reliable. Surely there must be some solid Russian sources which have been translated? - Haymaker (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is English edition . Biophys (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Our policy allows non-English sources if equivalent English sources are not available. Therefore, the fact that no English sources have been provided by no means can serve as a reason for removal of anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rapes and behaviour by German forces need to stay-they form necessary context and reliable sources draw connection between racist war of genocide waged by Germany in the East combined with total disregard for human life and isolated cases of reaction from people affected. Also non-English sources are acceptable and in fact sometimes the only ones we will use as certain historical aspects of WW2 aren't covered by western English sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Russian sources are acceptable if published in books by reputable authors, but not from obscure internet websites where anyone can post whatever he wants. Besides, a lot of edits here (with references to such "sources") were made by an IP that belongs to banned Jacob Peters. Those should be removed. Biophys (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but please obseve Biophys' comment above, "If a particular source claims the existence of such connection, it can be cited here with regard to such connection". Otherwise it violates neutrality and synthesis. TFD (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The background section does mention sources that attribute connection with these German atrocities, and thus explanation of what atrocities they were is needed. Perhaps the section can be shortened. What do you propose?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is classic WP:SYN and POV fork. For example 1st phrase: "As German aggression against Poland started World War II, the first rapes during that conflict were committed by Wehrmacht forces against Jewish women and girls in September 1939". Poland? How this is related to Soviet and other armies in Germany? Biophys (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You write somethng like, "The psychological trauma of German atrocities deeply affected the behavior of Soviet soldiers in the occupied German territories. These atrocities included...." Explain how these atrocities affected the Soviets, rather than provide detailed information about them. Unless the connection has academic consensus, an in-line citation is required (e.g., "according to AB....). TFD (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Very much agreed, the psychological impact of witnessing such events has (I assume) been the topic of scholarly work and avoids possible synth/folk tendencies. - Haymaker (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

All Polish scholars agree that the subject of rape committed by Soviet POVs and the Red Army servicemen cannot be compartmentalized into one type of victim or the other. Please read again the article Rape during the liberation of Poland. Sexual violence against women was a major issue during and after the Winter Offensive across East Prussia, Warmia, Masuria, General Government, Silesia as well as Reichsgau Wartheland. The article indicates, that rape occurred mainly around the Battle of Berlin, which is misleading. Also, the German victims of rape lived side by side with their Polish counterparts in cities such as Katowice, Zabrze, Chorzów, Olsztyn, Gdańsk and many others, a fact Naimark failed to acknowledge. Millions of ethnic Germans were brought to occupied Poland from Eastern Europe as part of Generalplan Ost. Others, arrived there to escape the Allied carpet bombing. All women were targeted in those regions regardless of the ethnic divide among them. Please try to focus on the perpetrators of rape during the defeat of Nazism rather than on the Deutsche Volksliste, because the Soviet rapists didn't care who their victims were. Obviously, the women were perceived as the objects of violence irrespective of their ethnic makeup, which would have been an epitome of racism. -- Stawiski (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is outrageous

I've just found this edit. The source, which is freely available online states "It was far worse in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, which took the brunt of Russian revenge and where the civilian population was decimated and about 1.4 million women were raped." In other words, the number of 1.4 can be easily verified. A user Anonymiss Madchen replaced 1.4 with 3.4, and thereby knowingly committed a direct falsification. This is a severe breach of WP policy. In future, I will have to request for sanctions against the users that do that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not knowingly commit direct falsification; I added what I believed to accurate information. In fact, it was impossible for me to have knowingly committed a direct falsification because I was unaware of this trivial source at the time of adding the information. You repeated name calling (i.e., trying to generalize/intentionally misconstrue anyone who disagrees with you of racism, fringe theory mongering, ect...) is the only thing which is unacceptable and a severe breach of WP policy.

--Anonymiss Madchen 02:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot add "what you believe to be accurate information" without making sure that the sources state that. The sentences you modified (e.g. " 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.") contained the references to the reliable sources, so any changes of this text had to reflect what these particular sources tell. For instance, by changing 1.4 to 3.4 you implied that the number of 3.4 was taken from Beevor. However, that is not the case, and that fact could be verified in two mouse clicks (the source is available online). Again, you actions discredit Misplaced Pages, and the next similar action will lead to sanctions against you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Section posted by me self removed as a good faith edit, and to show self control. It can be found in my user space if anyone needs it.

--Anonymiss Madchen 04:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Poland

While I did not write the Polish section I think it might be worthy of being re-added. I think there is a connection (one that can be established by scholarly writings) between the two events and many contemporary writings focus on areas of Poland that were then incorporated into Germany (mostly thinking East Prussia and Upper Silesia). At the same time, Poland is Poland and Germany is Germany and they both have their own articles. What do you folks think? - Haymaker (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The structure of the article

The structure of the article is absolutely weird: who can explain me, what is the difference between "Controversy", "Analysis", and "Discourse"? What the "Red Army" section is supposed to discuss? Why has the "Historical background" section been removed? What is the purpose of the unsourced "War crime" section? Why had the US and France section been moved to the very bottom?
I suggest to bring the article in accordance with the standards of the common sense. The most reasonable structure, in my opinion, would be:

1. Historical background (the explanation of the specifics of the Eastern and Western fronts, brief description of the Nazi war crimes, including mass murder of Soviet civilians, rapes, etc.);
2. Description of the rapes, including the discussion of the estimates of their scale in the East and West, a subsection devoted to the quotes from the memoirs of both German women and WW veterans;
3. Anti-fraternisation measures of the occupation authorities (both Soviet and Allied authorities took such measures, see, e.g. "Dangerous liaisons..." (Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 611-647)
4. Evolution of the views on the war time rapes in Germany and abroad (wide coverage in post-war years as a tool for victimisation of German nation, silence in 60s-70s, renaissance in 1990s-2000s)
5. Discussion of the contemporary revival of the rape issue in a context of feminism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

PS Although I agree that the Background section was redundantly large, I disagree with its complete removal by Haymaker, especially with his edit summary (there was no consensus to remove it). The part of the content should be restored, so I consider this removal just temporary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Some useful quotes:

1. "German women were not, collectively, simply passive victims of a ruthless regime and a terrible war. Aside from larger questions about women's role in the functioning of the Nazi state, it is worth noting some of the advantages German women enjoyed with the outbreak of war. They profited from a generous system of family allowances that allowed hundreds of thousands of working wives to give up their jobs; the war allowed women to enjoy the introduction of war booty to the consumer economy; some saw in employment with the Reich Labor Service or the military an opportunity for travel, adventure, or a role in realizing the Nazi Party's ideological and political aims; and Germany's early successes allowed women as well as men to feel pride in their country's military prowess (see Figure 1). The war was begun with an intent to win, and German women stood to gain much by being on the victorious side.

Furthermore, insofar as tales of wartime sufferings are presented as evidence that German "bystanders" were among the victims of the Nazi regime, they have a misleading tendency to distract attention away from the tremendous support German men and women lent the regime before it began the war-or, more precisely, before it began to lose the war. Finally, reminders of "Germans"' sufferings rarely force the listener to understand those sufferings in relation to other traumas caused, facilitated, or at least tolerated by the very people who, by losing the war, eventually experienced pain of their own. On the contrary, stories of "Germans"' sufferings tend to displace reminders of the hundreds of thousands of (German) Jews, Communists, and Socialists forced to emigrate before the war; (German) "asocials" and physically and mentally disabled people killed in the euthanasia program or sterilized against their will; and (German) criminals and political opponents who withstood torture and spent years in prison or concentration camps, often to die there. They draw attention away from the millions of Poles evicted from their homes and villages in order to "Germanize" eastern lands; the tens of millions of Europeans killed in the Germans' aggressive war or imported into the Reich as slave labor; the tens of millions who died in German concentration and prisoner-of-war camps; and the hundreds of millions of weakened, displaced, and traumatized survivors of all of these." (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)

2. "Indeed, just announcing apparent "facts" about the massive incidence of rape perpetrated by soldiers of the Red Army which smashed the Nazi war machine is enough to provoke enormous anxiety and resistance among many who are otherwise not averse to documenting the widespread existence of male violence against women."(Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995),pp. 42-63)

3. (On the Sander's film): "Given the refusal really to speak with those interviewed, the imprecisions in the argument are depressing, and they run throughout the entire film. For example, historical space and contemporary space are seldom connected with each other. The spectator's position remains strangely diffuse. Why a trip to Minsk was undertaken at all remains vague. The rape victims of the German military are not questioned; no research is devoted to them. The Russian women of the Red Army are asked only about the rapes by the Russian soldiers and not about how the raped Russian women fared at the end of the war. The film invites the charge of a one-sidedness that operates like revisionism. It too clearly borrows from a revisionist discourse that Helke Sander has left intact." (Gertrud Koch and Stuart Liebman. Blood, Sperm, and Tears. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 27-41)

4. (On the same film, and on feminism) "There are pictures of dead women and a voice says "German women raped by Russian soldiers, Russian women raped by German soldiers. German women, Russian women." She reproaches the propagandistic use of such photos for raping these women again, and yet they're raped once more by her use of the images. Second, the idea of gender wars is not adequate to the historical complexities of the situation. The idea of gender wars is simply Strindberg turned upside down. I also think the whole fear of the Russians in the German population at large, both during and after the Third Reich, is a broader political issue which she doesn't address in the film because it is not a feminist issue." (Annette Michelson, Andreas Huyssen, Stuart Liebman, Eric Santner, Silvia Kolbowski. Further Thoughts on Helke Sander's Project. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 89-113)

5. "This conflict complicates the film’s discourse because when Sander suggests that wartime rape is in essence universal, rooted in patriarchal oppression, she frames the rapes in an ahistorical fashion and in so doing highlights the victimization of German women and chooses to focus on their victimization only. She thus erases both the larger racist/genocidal context of the war, which was initiated by the Nazis, and the fact that most German women had supported this regime and the war." (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)

6. "The main point of critique was that Sander had neglected to provide the broader historical context behind the story of the rapes. In order to highlight rape and gender oppression, her focus is on German women as victims only. Viewers do not know what these women’s roles in the Nazi regime were, nor do they learn of the full context of the war within which these rapes occurred, and as a result the film suggests an ambiguous narrative of cause and effect, of who is a perpetrator and who is a victim, and of how the events can be explained or justified. As such, the film seemed ironically to match both the kind of political rhetoric in which the rapes had been couched in the early years of the Federal Republic and the apologetic reading of the German war that had been contested in the late 1980s in the historians’ debate."

"She thus erases both the larger racist/genocidal context of the war, which was initiated by the Nazis, and the fact that most German women had supported this regime and the war." (Bos, op. cit)

7. "The narrow focus of her narrative, however, makes it incumbent to stress sufficiently the crucially relevant context in which these rapes occurred: the unprecedented savagery with which the Germans conducted the war on the eastern front, including their mass rapes and sexual enslavement of women. As Jirgen Habermas has observed, "Suffering is always concrete suffering; it cannot be detached from its context." That Sander fails adequately to provide this background, both in the film and the book, is a substantial flaw. In fact, the moral offensiveness of Andreas Hillgruber's effort to renarrativize the war's end, one of the topics at the center of the Historians' Debate, was rooted in his similar failure to stress German crimes and their consequences. Her decision to disengage her narrative from those of earlier, German actions on the eastern front was no doubt strategic. By portraying victims whose suffering has not been adequately contextualized, moreover, Sander-perhaps unwittingly-lends support to the recovery of national pathos essential to that restoration of identity which the German Right has placed at the center of its political and cultural initiatives." (Stuart Liebman and Annette Michelson. After the Fall: Women in the House of the Hangmen. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995),pp. 4-14)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that structure of this article must be improved, but this should be done along the lines of War rape. The background information should be on the war rape in general, and not about atrocities from another side (unless a connection with war rapes in Germany was directly made by secondary RS, see discussion above), and certainly not the claims that women got what they deserved because they wanted to profit from the war (as implied in quotation above). And I do not see anything related to feminism in this specific subject.Biophys (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if there has been any confusion on my behalf. I did not aim to move the French/American sections to the bottom, but rather to keep the Soviet information together. I think that at the end of the day, we're talking about two very different phenomenons, none of the literature I have read has examined rape in the east and the west, it has been one or the other. With that shake up in mind, it does look like many of these sections could be condensed. Per the removal, there is myself, Biophys, TFD and AM in favor of removal. While less than unshakable, I felt that was strong enough to move forward.

1 - I agree with Biophys that the background should be about the general phenomenon or war rape in general, lest was stray into revanchism. If a reader wants to keep some sort of a score card let him do it on his own time.

3 - I think anti-fraternization measures should be broken down by national section.

4 - popular culture section could pretty well be melded into this, maybe just called "evolving perceptions of rape" talking about an initial unwillingness to accept that this had happened to the eventual opening up.

5 - sounds dandy.

6 - what do you think about a Polish section? - Haymaker (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points except maybe rape during the liberation of Poland (this section restored by Molobo). The content belongs to Rape during the liberation of Poland. On the other hand, it concerns Silesia and other disputable Polish/German territories. So, it might be reasonable to at least partially restore this section per Molobo. Biophys (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not sure that the amount of voices is sufficient for making a decision about removal. I provided the references to the sources that directly connect the German war crimes with the rapes of German woman. In addition, I am not sure if all users you refer to did support the removal, some of them just noted that the section needs to be properly sourced. In any event, since I am also unsatisfied with the text you removed I do not object against that. However, the background section, which is supposed to be devoted, among other things, to the war crimes of the Wehrmacht/SS as the cause of brutal treatment of German civilians, should be re-written and re-added to the article.

Re 1. The background should reflect what the sources say. As a rule, the sources criticise the Asander's film for reduction of the issue to just the issue of ordinary war time rapes, therefore, the background should not be about the war time rapes in general, but about the WWII crimes in general.

Re 3. Yes, if the sources do so. The sources available for me doesn't do that.

Re 4. Incorrect. There were no "initial unwillingness to accept that this had happened". As I already explained, that issue was widely discussed in post-war years in West Germany. That became taboo in 60s-early 80s, and what we see now is a kind of renaissance.

Re 6. Is it relevant?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the intro, that is one theory but there are others. I don't think we should present it as fact.

Per unwillingness, I mostly looking at the reactions to A Woman in Berlin, I'll try to dig up others. I'm under the impression that this was pretty taboo in the 40s. Do we have sources that definitively examine this aspect of the event? I'll try to dig for a few.

I think Poland is worthwhile as it was in many ways the same phenomenon by the same perpetrators but I'm not dead set on it. - Haymaker (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Which "other theories" do you mean?

Do not dig, just read the Bos' article (the ref has been provided). This source is quite reliable and mainstream.

Re Poland, the phenomenon ("rapes during the occupation of Germany") is quite different.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe, the quote provided by me draws this connection quite clearly. With regard to what someone deserved, I do not think that is the correct way to present the facts. The idea of this quote, as well as of many other reliable sources is quite simple: the story of rapes of German women during late phase of WWII should not distract the reader's attention from the historical context these events occurred in. This idea is being repeated in almost every non-feminist reliable sources, and it must be stressed in the article. In any event, I would like to see your concrete proposals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your source tells that "German women were not, collectively, simply passive victims..." of war, that "they profited from a generous system of family allowances..." and so on, but it does not really tell anything about rapes (so I do not see connection). As about suggested changes, here they are: (1) remove all texts inserted by sock of Jacob Peters (see above); (2) remove current "War crime" section; combine "Analysis" and "Controversy" to "Perception in Russia" section, and so on, and so on, but this is much easier and faster to do and then discuss (we would not have a lot of disagreements about such more gradual changes). Biophys (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot reproduce the whole article for copyright reasons, however, it is clear form the context that the "sufferings" Heinemann means include massive rapes. If you need more detailed quotes I can provide them.

Re "Analysis"+"Controversy" = "Perception in Russia", I completely disagree. The article is profoundly misleading in the sense that it creates an impression that the rapes issue is a subject of controversy only in Russia. In actuality, there are at least three separate controversies: (i) Western/German vs Soviet/Russian views of treatment of civilians by the Red Army; (ii) German post-war views of rapes vs 1960-80s German views of rapes; (iii) contemporary historical vs feminist views of war time rapes in Germany.

Re "War crime section", I see no reason to keep it, especially, taking into account that it is totally unreferenced. It should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re "I do not see anything related to feminism in this specific subject." See, e.g. 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

Re "The background information should be on the war rape in general, and not about atrocities from another side (unless a connection with war rapes in Germany was directly made by secondary RS, see discussion above)" See the quote #2. I would say, the opposite is true: the story of rape of German women is not a story of ordinary war rape, and that must be stressed in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The connection to rapes by German forces has been sourced and there is no need to remove it. While there might be some reduction of the information regarding these atrocities, they must be mentioned. The section on Poland doesn't need to be long, mentioning that first rapes in Europe during WW2 were committed by German armed forces might be enough.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The removed text tells:

As German aggression against Poland started World War II, the first rapes during that conflict were committed by Wehrmacht forces against Jewish women and girls in September 1939; Polish women and girls were also raped during mass executions carried out primarily by the German minority's paramilitary force called Selbstschutz. Later rapes were also committed by German forces on Eastern Front. Although their overall number is difficult to establish due to lack of prosecution of the crime by German courts in Eastern Europe, the recent estimates suggest the number of rapes amounted hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases.

Rapes were rarely prosecuted in practice; in Denmark German rapes were not widespread, and German officials promised to punish them. Rape by Germans of non-German women was not taken seriously, nor was it punishable by death, especially in the eastern European territories.

Historian Szymon Datner wrote in his work about the fate of POWs taken by the Wehrmacht, that thousands of Soviet female nurses, doctors and field medics fell victim to rape when captured, and were often murdered afterwards. Ruth Seifert in War and Rape. Analytical Approaches wrote: "in the Eastern territories the Wehrmacht used to brand the bodies of captured partisan women - and other women as well - with the words "Whore for Hitler's troops" and to use them accordingly."

In Soviet Russia rapes were only a concern if they undermined military discipline. The German military command viewed them as another method of crushing Soviet resistance. Since 1941, rape was theoretically punishable with the death sentence, however this only concerned the rapes of German women and was intended to protect German communities. Estimates regarding the rapes of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht reached up to 10,000,000 cases, with between 750,000 and 1,000,000 children born as a result.

How this is related to rapes in Germany? No connection was established by quoted sources whatsoever. Biophys (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I agree that the removed text is not satisfactory, some introduction that describes a broader context is definitely needed. After reviewing a literature, I found that the sources are subdivided onto three categories: (i) Beevor's and Naimark's books that mention mass rapes; (ii) the Sander's & Johr's film (and book) about the rapes; (iii) the articles that criticise the S&J's approach. The latter sources (some of them I quoted above) stress the fact that the story of mass rapes of German woman should not and cannot be considered separately from the broader historical context. See the quotes ##6, 7. As Liebman and Michelson correctly noted, the Sander's failure to provide a concrete historical background is a critical flaw of her film, and by omitting this background in this article we reproduce the same flawed Sander's concept.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, Biophys manipulated the quoted text. He deleted a key sentence that explains the need for background

As German aggression against Poland started World War II, the first rapes during that conflict were committed by Wehrmacht forces against Jewish women and girls in September 1939; Polish women and girls were also raped during mass executions carried out primarily by the German minority's paramilitary force called Selbstschutz. Later rapes were also committed by German forces on Eastern Front. Although their overall number is difficult to establish due to lack of prosecution of the crime by German courts in Eastern Europe, the recent estimates suggest the number of rapes amounted hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases.

A desire for revenge because of the rapes and other atrocities committed by Nazi German troops has been proposed as one explanation for actions of Soviet troops during occupation of the former Nazi state. Even Christian Democrat German politicians had to concede that in light of the atrocities committed by the German military in Eastern Europe the degree of discipline demonstrated by the Soviet soldiers was amazing.

Rapes were rarely prosecuted in practice; in Denmark German rapes were not widespread, and German officials promised to punish them. Rape by Germans of non-German women was not taken seriously, nor was it punishable by death, especially in the eastern European territories.

Historian Szymon Datner wrote in his work about the fate of POWs taken by the Wehrmacht, that thousands of Soviet female nurses, doctors and field medics fell victim to rape when captured, and were often murdered afterwards. Ruth Seifert in War and Rape. Analytical Approaches wrote: "in the Eastern territories the Wehrmacht used to brand the bodies of captured partisan women - and other women as well - with the words "Whore for Hitler's troops" and to use them accordingly."

In Soviet Russia rapes were only a concern if they undermined military discipline. The German military command viewed them as another method of crushing Soviet resistance. Since 1941, rape was theoretically punishable with the death sentence, however this only concerned the rapes of German women and was intended to protect German communities.

Estimates regarding the rapes of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht reached up to 10,000,000 cases, with between 750,000 and 1,000,000 children born as a result.

I bolded the part that Biophys deleted, thus allowing him to claim that the text has no sources that connect earlier rapes by Nazis to later events. While I agree that the section probably needs a bit shortening, the assertion by Biophys that no sources were in it that make the connection was based solely on his deletion(either intentional or unknowingly) of sources that actually do connect these rapes with later events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ 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.
2. ^ "55 Dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce" Szymon Datner Warsaw 1967 page 67 "Zanotowano szereg faktów gwałcenia kobiet i dziewcząt żydowskich" (Numerous facts of cases of rapes made upon Jewish women and girls were reported)
3. http://web.archive.org/web/20071029144245/http://www.kki.net.pl/~museum/rozdz3,2.htm
4. ^ Atina Grossmann. Jews, Germans, and Allies: close encounters in occupied Germany. Princeton University Press, 2007, ISBN 9780691089713, p. 290
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference bos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Schattendasein der Feindeskinder Die Nachkommen der Wehrmachtssoldaten in den ehemals besetzten Ländern Neue Zürcher Zeitung 2004
7. ^ Surviving Hitler and Mussolini: daily life in occupied Europe Robert Gildea, Olivier Wieviorka, Anette Warring page 90 Berg Publishers, 2006
8. ^ Gertjejanssen, Wendy Jo. 2004. "Victims, Heroes, Survivors: Sexual Violence on the Eastern Front during World War II." PhD diss., University of Minnesota.
9. ^ "Zbrodnie Wehrmachtu na jeńcach wojennych w II Wojnie Światowej Szymon Datner Warsaw 1961 page 215,pages 97-117, 137
10. ^ Seifert, Ruth, War and Rape. Analytical Approaches1, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, archived from the original on 29 May 2009, retrieved March 12, 2010
11. ^ Gender and the World Wars: An Integrated Epoch of Change
12. A 1942 Wehrmacht document suggested that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative), could be identified and claimed to be racially German. (It was suggested that the middle names Friedrich or Luise be added to the birth certificates of male and female babies.) Although the plan was not implemented, such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed beneficial, increasing the "Germanic" racial qualities rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race. The underlying ideology suggests that German rape and other forms of sexual contact may need to be seen as conforming to a larger military strategy of racial and territorial dominance. (Pascale R . Bos, Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993 Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2006, vol. 31, no. 4, p.996-1025)
13. Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany Atina Grossmann page 290
14. http://www.gegenwind.info/175/sonderheft_wehrmacht.pdf
15. http://web.archive.org/web/20071029144245/http://www.kki.net.pl/~museum/rozdz3,2.htm
16. Schattendasein der Feindeskinder Die Nachkommen der Wehrmachtssoldaten in den ehemals besetzten Ländern Neue Zürcher Zeitung 2004
17. 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. 108. Google Books. Chapter 2: "Soviet Soldiers, German Women, and the Problem of Rape".
18. A 1942 Wehrmacht document suggested that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative), could be identified and claimed to be racially German. (It was suggested that the middle names Friedrich or Luise be added to the birth certificates of male and female babies.) Although the plan was not implemented, such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed beneficial, increasing the "Germanic" racial qualities rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race. The underlying ideology suggests that German rape and other forms of sexual contact may need to be seen as conforming to a larger military strategy of racial and territorial dominance. (Pascale R . Bos, Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993 Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2006, vol. 31, no. 4, p.996-1025)
19. Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany Atina Grossmann page 290
20. http://www.gegenwind.info/175/sonderheft_wehrmacht.pdf

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Stub-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• Start-Class Soviet Union articles
• Low-importance Soviet Union articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles