Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Rape during the occupation of Germany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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^Talk 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)

Nationalistic¹ Russian Deniers

Reguarding the Controversy section.

It's so sad that history has finally exposed a few nationalistic extremists¹ (not all Russians)¹ 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.

¹See, no blaming Russians.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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 [1]. 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. [2], by Kevin Alfred Strom and entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. 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)

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 soldiers¹, I'm sure that most of the victims and many Germans would agree.

¹Germany 1945

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 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)

Recent changes

This text [3] is totally misleading. There were no hospital reports about 2 million rapes, and the eruption of the abortion numbers was not due to the rapes. All statistics is based on the fact that 1,156 "Russian children" were born in the Berlin area. The number of 100,000 raped women was obteined based solely on that fact, and on the general assumptions about the percentage of successful abortions, the probablility of pregnancy after the rape, and similar general information. The number of 2 million rapes in Germany as whole was obtained based on extrapolation of the Berlin data assuming that the rape frequency was similar in the rest parts of Germany. In any event, it is quite necessary to remember that all estmates are based on 1,156 "Russian children".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I recall "2,000,000" is Breevor's number for number of German women and girls raped by the Red Army, the calculation of which scholars have deemed to be "impeccable," and which is, furthermore, widely referenced in other sources. When I have a chance I'll look it up and put that in, along with text appropriately representing the source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, there appear to be sufficient references as it is for the 2,000,000 #. I'll read more closely when I have a chance. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This calculations have been criticised (you can find the quotes in the talk page archives), and therefore, by no means are "impeccable". Try to read the sources more closely. If you have no access to them, try to look through the talk page archives: the procedure that has been used by Sander&Johr (the only attempt to do any objective estimate) was described by me (I provided a full quote from their book).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I appear to have reworded things incorrectly. I agree with what has been said here. However, the paragraph still reads: "estimates of the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers in Berlin alone is around 2 million," which is incorrect according to several of the sources I read. Even if it was, the second sentence following it, which reads: "At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin," struck me immediately as confusing and in disagreement with the first quote. More comprehensible and/or accurate may be to say something to the effect of: "At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin alone [by Soviet soldiers(?)], based on surging abortion rates in the following months and contemporary hospital reports, although broader estimates place the number of women raped closer to 2 million." But again, 2 million seems to be the approximate estimate German Reich-wide or German Reich-wide only by Soviet soldiers. GTSDurango (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at this inconsistency. As far as I know, the number of 2 million rape in Berlin is not supported by the sources used. Thus, BBC tells that "it is estimated that up to two million German women were raped during the last six months of World War Two, around 100,000 of them in Berlin. ". Heineman (The hour of woman) says "Estimates of the numbers of rapes at the hands of Soviet soldiers range widely, from the tens of thousands to 2 million", however, she speaks about Germany as whole, not about the Berlin area. In other words, the words "in Berlin alone" should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Between yourself and Zloyvolsheb, it appears the necessary edits have been made. GTSDurango (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

While a little progress has been made, this article excessively contextualizes rape by the Red Army and even engages in victim blaming. The article abandons any pretense of neutrality by engaging counter-argument upon counter-argument in an obvious attempt to categorically discredit accusations against the Red Army. It is telling that no similar arguments are included about rapes by other Allied Powers. Russian/Soviet voices denying the rapes are given ample room (including charming anecdotes about the humanitarian spirit of the Red Army), but not a single quote from a single woman/rape victim is included - They are completely erased! Mind you, along with the rapes the Red Army committed in Poland, Hungary, upon concentration camp survivors, and even in the Soviet Union, the fact that the rapes occurred en masse is not considered controversial among mainstream historians. This article deliberately hides that fact - it's like reading an article on evolution written by creationists. With its excessive contextualization and erasure of women's voices, this article is nothing short of offensive. Given the extreme lack of importance the article places on women's testimony, is probably no coincidence that all the recent editors appear to be males.Udibi (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

By contextualizing the rapes committed by the Red Army, the article simply follows what the reliable sources say. There is no reason to discredit accusations against the Red Army, it is sufficient just to explain that (i) the massive rapes had been perpetrated by the army that bore the major brunt of the WWII, (ii) that the rapists had been previously been the witnesses (or even the victims) of much more brutal crimes committed by Wehrmacht/SS, (iii) the relatives or friends of almost every rapist were either killed, expelled, raped, or deprived of their homes by the Germans. None of these conditions are applied to the armies of the Western allies, and by omitting them we commit the sine against historical truth.

Re victim blaming, taking into account the "i-iii" listed by be, it is hard to tell who was a victim and who has to be blamed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now even the discussion attempts to further contextualize and diminish the Red Army's crimes! The Red Army's crimes remain crimes - there is always a context and a reason for any crime committed by anyone. What Wehrmacht or SS soldiers did or did not do in no way justifies or sufficiently contextualizes-away rapes committed against women aged 8 (and lower) to 80+. Unfortunately that is what this article in its present form attempts to do. On top of that, this article about rape gives no voice to the raped and only offers voices of the perpetrators that dismiss the accusations. It's rather perverse, misogynistic, and revisionist. A more appropriate, balanced, and meaningful way to tackle this topic would be to give a straight-forward account of the wide-spread rapes/violence by the Red Army, including accounts from various women/victims. After that, background/context should be given to help understand why this happened, but never in a way that implies that crimes do not remain crimes. In addition, a section on Soviet/Russian ways of interpreting/handling on the violence/rapes would be informative as well. In its current form, this article does Wikipedia a disservice and is yet another example of a biased and amateurish account of history that cements Wikipedia's reputation as an unreliable source of information. It is only by tackling these types of issues effectively that the Wikipedia community can prove it can be a viable source of information.Udibi (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that the article, like most such articles on Wikipedia, only seems to approach this topic in terms of nationality. There are so many ways to define people; nationality is but one of dozens (and more) that apply to any one person. On a tangential note, but I think it helps illustrate my point, in bombing Germany during the war, British and American forces deliberately targeted working class neighborhoods in large cities in order to kill as many civilians as possible. Ironically, in doing so, they were targeting "districts [that] were the heart of anti-Nazi resistance in anti-Nazi cities like Hamburg."^[1] How does the argument that attempts to contextualize-away the rapes by the Red Army look in that kind of light? Other than originating in the same country (or not in the case of many immigrants, prisoners, etc), what direct correlation is there between crimes committed by Wehrmacht and SS soldiers (who also could be from various countries, btw) that directly explains why raping girls, women, and old ladies (who may or may not have even been of German ethnicity) is a justifiable act?Udibi (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources do contextualize the rapes. And explaining the reasons behind those rapes doesn't mean the moral justification, (i.e. it is about why that happened, and not about that being "a right thing to do"). Crimes remain crimes, but it is necessary to understand why they happened. GreyHood ^Talk 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What I have put forth is that it is fine to contextualize - everything in history should be contextualized. My problem is that this article contextualizes through and through, so much so that the history and the facts themselves are lost. It would be more appropriate, accurate, and proper for the issue to be presented factually at first and then have a context. Again, the fact that this article is highly misogynistic seems to be lost on my fellow editors. All anyone seems to see is justification that makes it all fine. Instead of history, we're getting history-infused versions of classic rapist's excuses such as "She was asking for it!", "I was drunk", "She's just a whore anyhow", "She had it coming!", and worse. Moreover, my fellow editors also willingly forget that the Red Army did these same rapes against women throughout Eastern Europe - so Nazi crimes in the USSR only offer a partial, incomplete context/explanation in the first place.Udibi (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now even the discussion attempts to further contextualize and diminish the Red Army's crimes! The Red Army's crimes remain crimes - there is always a context and a reason for any crime committed by anyone. What Wehrmacht or SS soldiers did or did not do in no way justifies or sufficiently contextualizes-away rapes committed against women aged 8 (and lower) to 80+. Unfortunately that is what this article in its present form attempts to do. On top of that, this article about rape gives no voice to the raped and only offers voices of the perpetrators that dismiss the accusations. It's rather perverse, misogynistic, and revisionist. A more appropriate, balanced, and meaningful way to tackle this topic would be to give a straight-forward account of the wide-spread rapes/violence by the Red Army, including accounts from various women/victims. After that, background/context should be given to help understand why this happened, but never in a way that implies that crimes do not remain crimes. In addition, a section on Soviet/Russian ways of interpreting/handling on the violence/rapes would be informative as well. In its current form, this article does Wikipedia a disservice and is yet another example of a biased and amateurish account of history that cements Wikipedia's reputation as an unreliable source of information. It is only by tackling these types of issues effectively that the Wikipedia community can prove it can be a viable source of information.Udibi (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the links that have been inserted into this illustrate EXACTLY and explicitly the POV that this article, in its current form, rams down readers' throats. Namely, the rapes were justified punishment, all Germans were Nazis (soldiers and civilians, adults and small children alike), any attempt to delve deeper into the issue is tantamount to Holocaust denial and equal to denying misdeeds by Germany and the Axis. This is nothing short of extremist spin. It is very easy to blow these assertions out of the water - for one, it is a simple fact that the Red Army's rampage affected all the nations of Eastern Europe, civilians, refugees, and even holocaust victims in Axis and Allied countries alike. This article needs drastic revision.Udibi (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Udibi's profoundly a-historical suggestion.

Contextualizing the supposed crimes, as claimed by Udibi, is not the same thing as diminishing those acts of punishment inflicted on the Nazis for murdering 20,000,000 people. I find his reference to SS Paramilitary as soldiers to be deeply disturbing, a-historical, ill-informed, and suspicious, as SS Paramilitaries were not soldiers and were not even part of the military. While Nazi acts of genocide do not in themselves justify rape, they make it very understandable why people who assisted in the worst mass murder in history were punished by the surviving victims. Related, the Nazis were very popular and had massive support from the population, who in turn offered no resistance to the Nazi regime; he who keeps silent consents; these women were therefore active supporters of the Holocaust. It would not have been difficult for them to fight against the Nazis in some way, and they should not receive sympathy for not doing so and allowing 20,000,000 people to be murdered. I really see no problem of revisionism here. I recommend that other editors be very wary of this proposal to create a self proclaimed more appropriate, balanced, and meaningful way to tackle this topic as it may lead us to perpetuating the moral equivalency arguments of covert Holocaust deniers.

I think we also need to consider whether this is not just a case of hundreds of thousands of German women getting lucky with their liberators (a view shared by many Germans, described in The Fall of Berlin 1945) and then telling local Nazi leaders or Werewolf members that they were raped, in a regime where they could not openly have any sort of relationship with Russians.

--Anonyma Madchen 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That was disturbing. No wonder Wikipedia has no legitimacy on historical matters. You jump all over me for a liberal use of the word "soldiers" and then go on to say that rapes are "supposed "crimes"" and that the raped women, perhaps, merely "got lucky". Really? Really!? You have the audacity to make such profoundly insane, misogynistic, revisionist, sick-fantasy statements and then have the nerve to call my suggestions (basically that women should have a voice), a-historical. It is all so absurd and indefensible that I can only assume you are a troll and therefore worthy of nothing but being ignored.Udibi (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I was only pointing out that your use of the term soldier was incorrect, and that it can lead to a general acceptance of the SS as legitmate soldiers, an already dangerously common view. I was not "jumping all over you" by providing a technical insight which is significant. And additionally, I never in any way called all rapes supposed crimes; I simply pointed out that German women who viewed themselves as liberated from Nazism or war lived under a regime which would have deported them to concentration camps for having any sexual involvement with anyone considered untermenchlich, could have decided to reward or celebrate with the liberators and then obviously for their own protection claimed that they were raped when Nazis came asking about it. Additionally, they could have been Nazis, or related to Nazis, and would not have been able to confess Russophilia. Do you realize that I am a racially German girl living in the United States? The level of emotion in your personal attack demonstrates a level of fanatism that is very strange. I also never addressed and therefore never condemned you suggestion that women should have a voice. If that is something that you want, than it is on you to persue it; we are busy with our own research and cannot do yours for you. However, I will warn you that you should be very cautious about believing anything written by German women, as they may likely be Nazis, and will have a very biased approach to recording the mass rape by the Russians, and would likely outright exaggerate it; many Nazi women openly admit to Western historians that they greatly exaggerated the rape of the Red Army for pro Nazi and anti Communist causes for Gobbels.

I am not a Communist, nor ethnically Russian, so I do not understand why you think I am being revisonist. If you have your own agenda, please share this with us.

I also advise you to aplogize for your personal attack, as I will be reporting you to ANI.

Anonyma Madel 22:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Anonymiss Madchen, you must be a nut case to make the statements you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.24.71 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tomb of Unknown Rapist" claim removed

It is regrettable that this "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" insult is rearing its ugly head yet again even though on the talk page of the memorial it was demonstrated how problematic it is to insert such material in this encyclopedia. I have therefore removed this in accordance with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE . Only one result for this allegation shows up in Google Book search, and this source is a self-published book by someone who is not an expert on the topic. More importantly, there are zero results for this "Tomb of the unknown rapist" claim in the scholarly literature compiled by JSTOR. Professional journalistic work has been done showing that rather than insulting the Russian soldiers, large numbers of Germans actually express their gratitude for the "liberation of the German people from fascism on the Soviet war memorial in the Treptow park." by laying flowers and wreaths as the Treptower monument. Chairwoman of the antifascist union of Treptow district, Ellen Hendler told a RIA Novosti correspondent, "We will never forget the feat of Soviet warriors who liberated not only their Motherland but the German nation too, as well as many European countries from the 'brown plague',"

And what the monument depicts is documented, recorded historical fact about how a Russian soldier Nikolai Masalov and countless others like him risked his life to rescue a German child. All of this is completely irreconcilable with the alleged "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" nickname with its crazy implication that the man it represents, Nikolai Masalov, was a rapist.

(p.25) "The main statue is by Soviet sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich. The 13m tall monument is of a Russian soldier holding a child, with a sword over a broken swastika. The inspiration for the monument was Nikolay Masalov, a Soviet soldier who saved a German girl whilst under fire."

So not only is the "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" slander not substantiated by reliable sources, it is contradicted by professional journalists who have actually documented the sentiments of a significant portion of the German citizenry that pay tribute to the

Still the notorious nickname exists. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See the relevant talk page for the monument linked above, where consensus was established. The alleged nickname would have to be classified as fringe since it does not appear in any scholarly literature in the English language. This is while journalists confirmed the gratitude showed to Russians on the part of large sections of the German population, whose representatives lay flowers at the monument. The monument itself represents a documented historical fact about how a Russian soldier rescued a German girl, not an alleged rapist. Instead of disputing the issue here, see the talk page at the article for the memorial.

I'll give you that, the claim in its current form seems poorly sourced. Which means it should be re-designed to actually represent the abundance of cited sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

bias

Why is there non mention of British rapes in the occupied zones????????217.16.113.220 (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight

The section titled "Soviet Army" gives undue weight on the narrative of mass rape committed by the Russian soldiers. There are prominent citations of a journalist named Svetlana Alexievich. And this book describes flaws about her work:

Неудивительно, что к началу перестройки об истребительной войне, которую вели нацисты против всего нашего народа, забыли. Забыли, конечно, историки и политики. Народная память об ужасе нацистского геноцида еще была жива, и когда писательница Светлана Алексиевич собирала рассказы о минувшей войне, респонденты рассказывали ей такие подробности преступлений оккупантов, от которых можно сойти с ума. Алексиевич могла стать первым отечественным исследователем истребительной политики нацистов{784}. Однако поведанные ей рассказы она сделала символом не преступлений оккупантов, а абстрактных ужасов войны. Никто не спорит с тем, что любая война страшна; однако важно понять, что миллионы уничтоженных советских граждан — это жертвы хладнокровной политики обезлюживания, а не войны{785}.

In addition, there are the controversial claims of Natalya Gesse mentioned in the article. But against this, there is only one citation of a Russian whose assessments of the behavior of his fellow soldiers completely contradict the above claims. I have therefore removed the Alexievich quotes because the following section sufficiently shows the conflicting sides of the issue: the arguments that Russian soldiers harmed people and Russian soldiers helped people.

Natalya Gesse claimed that Russian soldiers raped German females from eight to eighty years old. Russian women were not spared either. In contrast, Russian war veteran Vsevolod Olimpiev recalled, "The Soviet soldiers' relations with the German population where it had stayed may be called indifferent and neutral. Nobody, at least from our Regiment, harassed or touched them. Moreover, when we came across an obviously starving German family with kids we would share our food with them with no unnecessary words." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.169.69 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Red army soldiers were the bulk of the rapists. Do you contend that? Please do not remove material before consensus here on the talk page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

See the relevant sources cited in the article, which dispute the mass rape narrative. The mass rape allegations originate from controversial sources published in the West, hotly disputed by Russian experts. Moreover, I never said anything about who or who was not a rapist, but merely questioned the quality and reliability of certain sources and the amount of weight given to each side. Please do not distort my argument with rhetorical questions about the occurrence rapes because that is not the issue I raised.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely they are 'hotly disputed by Russian experts'... --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean "hotly disputed by Russian experts in disputing...". The plain facts are not in dispute. @75.51.170.140, personal accounts are neither representative of or an encyclopedic accounting of the whole. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aleksievich

Whoever added the quotations found in Aleksievich's book has taken a very flawed approach toward the book. I found this book online and also here and after briefly skimming through, the very same book that allegedly provides evidence to the rape narrative also contains the following quote below. I could not find the alleged quotes from this article in her book.

The book is also available in English via Progress Publishers, which is only available on Google as a snippet. Interestingly, I was able to come up with a Google snippet of the English translation of the Russian text I found below, but was not able to do so for the quotes in the article, which is very suspicious.

Anyway, from Aleksievich's book:

Вспоминает Вера Павловна Бородина, младший сержант, телеграфистка: "Немцев пугали, что мы звери. Они топились, перерезали себе вены. Целыми семьями. Мы их отхаживали… Остановились в одном доме. Пусто. Хозяев нашли на чердаке — мать и дочь. Они повесились, потому что их убелили, что, как только придут русские, начнется изнасилование, грабеж, убийство, Сибирь, лагеря…И вдруг этого ничего нет! А им было известно, во что превращен Сталинград, во что превращена вся Россия, им показывали в кино. И они, конечно, предполагали, что все это начнется теперь на немецкой земле. Для них было удивительным отсутствие у нас мести

Neither Russian nor English is my first language, so I don't think too highly about my translating skills. This is what I came up with, which paints a completely different picture from the impression given in the very selective quotes found in this article.

"Vera remembers a telegraph she got from Sergeant Borodin: "The Germans were afraid that we are animals. They cut their wrists and stoke - whole families. We stopped and searched a house - nothing. Then a mother and daughter were found in the attic. They were frightened about as soon as the Russians arrive, there will be rape, robbery, murder, Siberia, prisons. But suddenly, nothing! They knew what became of Stalingrad, which transformed into the whole of Russia - as they saw in the cinema. And of course, they imagined that the same thing would happen now on German soil. Our refusal to take revenge amazed them."

Whoever added the quotes from Aleksievich NEEDS TO READ THE BOOK and avoid misrepresenting its contents and the arguments advanced by Aleksievich, whose name seems to be unfairly blackened by this article, which led me to unfairly question her motives and outlook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Forget it. Target achieved. Dehumanization of Russians is needed to prop-up a new war effort, so it shall be done. Who would bother with truth these days ... 46.13.56.75 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this controversy has not been cleared up, I will be replacing the non-existent quotes of Aleksievich's with the one that actually exists [And of course, they imagined that the same thing would happen now on German soil. Our refusal to take revenge amazed them] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.6.245 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"In literature" section

The mentions of rape in David Brion Davis's essay "The Americanization of Mannheim" and Elie Wiesel's Night are discussed by historians in addition to Solzhenitsyn's poem in connection with the subject of war rape after WWII [4]. For this reason alone, it makes little sense to remove them if there is a separate section for "literature." The point is that Europeans were simply brutalized by six years of war and atrocity, so that post-war Germany was raped by soldiers from every side and even the displaced laborers originally brought to the Third Reich as slave labor. If somebody feels that the situation was otherwise, it should be discussed before removing. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Davis' essay refers to one single rape, which is WP:UNDUE. In my view this section should be deleted entirely as it doesn't add anything substantive to the topic. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that interpretation of the guideline happens to be the correct one, but okay -- and what more does Solzhenitsyn's mention of a rape in a poem add instead? Unless a reason for maintaining the apparent inconsistency is provided, I will remove him on the same rationale. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rapes committed by Polish troops

The article currently describes the rapes committed by American, French, and Soviet troops. The rapes committed by Polish troops, who took part in the occupation of Germany's eastern provinces, such as what is now Opole Silesia, should also be discussed. The phenomenon is clearly discussed in scholarship, as seen from the following instances:

Naimark, Norman (1995). The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. pp. 75-76:

The desperate situation for German women in Silesia was in general exacerbated by the Poles, whose 'desire for retribution' was often as intense – for very understandable reasons – as that of the Russians. More often than not, the incoming Polish authorities were even less concerned about the safety of German women than were the Russian officers, to whom the German population turned for protection. . . . Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles' behavior. Polish soldiers, stated one report, 'relate to German women as to free booty.'

Jankowiak, Stanislaw (2001). "Cleansing Poland of Germans: The Province of Pomerania, 1945-1949". In Philipp Ther & Ana Siljak (Eds.), Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 89:

Sadly, the rape of German women was one of the most common crimes, since the soldiers saw rape as a means to revenge the nightmares of Nazi occupation. Despite strict measures, rape was never entirely stamped out. In Pomerania, these actions caused conflicts with the Red Army, whose commanders often contested decision made by the Polish authorities.'

Gibney, Matthew J. & Randall Hansen (Eds.) (2005). Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to Present. Santa Barbara, USA, and Oxford, UK: ABL-CIO. p. 199:

One young woman from Stettin watched Russian soldiers shoot her father and heard them rape her mother and sister as she hid. On a train to Berlin, she was raped by Russian soldiers, then by Polish soldiers, and saw a Polish soldier crush the head of a crying infant against a post while raping its mother.

Fidelis, Malgorzata (2010). Women, Communism, and Industrialization in Postwar Poland. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 136:

After 1945, Poland acquired both the German and Polish parts of Upper Silesia. . . . In 1945, the Soviet and Polish armies chose to ignore the national and ethnic complexities of the region and treated the entire Upper Silesian population in much the same way as that of Germany. They destroyed Silesian infrastructure and robbed and raped their population.'

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the general problem of the fact that you're cherry picking quotes and sources (looks like you're doing a google searches and scraping anything relevant that pops up, just to dilute the Soviet role in the rapes, by trying to spread some of the blame onto Poles and Jews) there's problem with most of these sources individually:

Naimark - as already discussed, Naimark is quoting a report by a German organization from Breslau. Check the archive for a discussion related to this source.
Jankowiak is referring to the generally bad conditions under Soviet control.
Hansen and Gibney - this source is actually by Hansen and Ohliger. First this is a ABC-CLIO publication, or in other words a tertiary source. Second Hansen's views are pretty controversial. Third this is quoting de Zayas who's also got a lot of baggage when it comes to this topic and who himself is quoting a contemporary tabloid - this is essentially sensationalism being pulled through a wringer of several authors to make it look semi-respectable in the end. I'm not familiar with Ohliger.
Fidelis - This is a very general quote and it refers to "Soviet and Polish armies". At best it's unclear.VolunteerMarek 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the discussion in archives you're talking about. I just pressed Ctr+F and typed in "Breslau" for Archive 1, Archive 2, and Archive 3, but nothing comes up. Norman Naimark is a very good historian at Stanford U. whose book is published by Harvard University Press, so please point out exactly what you're talking about. Jankowiak is clearly talking about Polish troops whose "actions caused conflicts with the Red Army." The other sources talk about the same and are merely provided to illustrate the phenomenon, but the source I actually had in mind using is Naimark. Please explain what report you are referring to and what your gripe with the excerpt provided is. Also, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. Thanks. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I do not understand why quoting a report by a German organization makes Naimark unreliable or unacceptable. As far as I know, the data on the rapes committed by the Soviet troops also come mostly from the reports of German organisations.

With regard to other quotes, I think most of them, as well as the quotes that are already present in the article, do not belong to it: we need to use much less emotional language. Emotional pressing is hardly relevant here, because otherwise we will need to use give a description of the historical context of those event (i.e. the WWII, especially, the German atrocities) at the same emotional level. I am not sure that would be correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that cherry picking quotes in this article is unproductive. However I do believe that the article lacks background section, without it the occasional reader might be inclined to believe that these events were exceptional in WW2.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that cherry picking what should be put in (as well as left out of) the article is not helpful. This is why I propose using what is said by Naimark, a reliable secondary source. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A real Alexievich quote

From Svetlana Alexievich's personal site.
http://alexievich.info/booksEN.html

Junior Sergeant Vera Pavlovna Borodina, telegraph operator, recalls:
"The Germans were told that we were beasts to frighten them They drowned themselves or cut their veins, whole families at a time We nursed them back to health... Once we stopped in an empty house We found the owners a mother and daughter in the attic. Thet had hanged themselves, because they were convinced that, as soon as the Russians came, rape, pillage and murder would begin, that they would be sent to camps in Siberia.
"And then nothing of the kind happened! But they knew what Stalingrad had been fined into, what the whole of Russia had been turned into, they had been shown it in the cinema. And, of course, they imagined that the same thing would happen now on German soil. Our refusal to take revenge amazed them.
"On one occasion we looked into a house and wanted a cup of tea. Many houses were standing empty-the people had abandoned everything and fled. We began looking for cups, found a tea service and saw a familiar design-ears of wheat. The trade-mark read "Odessa, USSR". So we didn't have a cup of tea, after all..."
— Svetlana Alexievich, The War's Unwomanly Face

Gun Control (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems that there are several versions of her book, see [5] and [6]. At least one of the quotes you deleted without discussion was removed from the 1985/88 version due to the censorship, see [7]. I am not sure which version is available from her home page - but we should go with the print edition anyway. --Sander Säde 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha - the quotes are from 2008 Russian version. --Sander Säde 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you now it's in the book? The quote I found is verifiable. It's in Google Books. http://books.google.ru/books?hl=en&id=bzlnAAAAMAAJ&dq=Our+refusal+to+take+revenge+amazed+them Why not add it to the article?Gun Control (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The quotes you removed were not from the English version of the book you linked, they were from the Russian 2008 publication. So actually you cannot claim they aren't in the book, as you've never checked the 2008 version.

The link from your last comment is to censored 1988 English version and I don't think it should be used, when we have (hopefully uncensored) 2008 version.

The quotes in question were inserted in 2011, [8] - by Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs), summary stating that they are from a Russian edition. I'll notify him of this discussion. --Sander Säde 06:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand you point. If there are two opposite stories in the book, they should either both be in or both be out.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ANqGycNtbd4C&lpg=PA1280&pg=PA1280#v=onepage The quote seems to have been taken out of context by the person who added it. It's an episode. He made it look like a common practice. Gun Control (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This newer Russian edition provides new materials that were previously omitted for censorship reasons (as explained in the book). Bottom line here is simple. There was a direct quotation from a published book with ISBN number and page. Everyone is welcome to check. It must be noted that Svetlana Aleksievich is well known Soviet/Russian/Belorussian author, so there is no pro-German POV in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted MVBW's edits because the edit summary was totally false: I see no consensus on this talk page on that account. Gun Control's concern is totally justified: a quote taken out of context creates an impression that that was a common practice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not talk about consensus in my edit summary [9]. I only meant that my statement was in fact supported by RS, but the statement by the puzzling SPA "Gun Control" above (that Aleksievich did not wrote this) was not supported by anything. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, speaking about claims by Soviet soldiers (as quoted by Aleksievich), yes, that was exactly their (not my) point that such things were a very common practice. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

numbers of rapes

There seems to be a contradiction in the article:

At the top it says: for which estimates range from tens of thousands to two million.
Later: Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000. (with citation)

I'd like to propose the first quote to be changed to: for which estimates range from hundreds of thousands to two million. --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As there was no opposition to my suggestion I have conducted the change. --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protected until 27 January

There was a report at WP:AN3 on 22 December about this article. That led to a 24-hour block of one editor. Since the report was closed, there have been a series of new reverts by several parties. The purpose of AN3 is to stop revert wars, so it seems that we have failed. I'm glad to see a discussion on talk though it is unsystematic and might be better served by an WP:RFC. At least there should be proposals for specific wording. This protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. Note that the article is also under WP:ARBEE which allows for page bans if there is evidence that some participants can't edit neutrally. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather Opinionated

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be rational, objective and fair.

Personal opinions such as

"In postwar Germany, especially in West Germany, the war time rape stories were used in an attempt to situate the German population on the whole as victims." etc.

therefore really don't belong here.

It is irrational as it promotes the view that Nazi atrocities were a merely German matter: That view is somewhat outdated. It's common sense now, that the history if WWII has not yet been fully told. For example, Hitler founded his idea on the "science" of the American Eugenic Movement. The Holocaust was organized by IBM, Hitler's Willing Executioners. The Blitz was to a not small degree enabled by General Motors, Hitler's Car Builder. Etc. Read "Nazi Nexus" by Edwin Black for a start. (Grad A-investigative journalism by a descendent of Holocaust survivors who was nominated for the Pulitzer Price:[10]

It is biased: Creating hierarchies of victims and promoting the notion that only certain group's suffering is important while that of others (like Germans) is not, is highly biased. It is also against Human Rights, which are applicable for all individuals, not matter of their nationality. It's therefore highly problematic if a Wikipage is misused for promoting the view that some victims of WWII are so unimportant that they even are not to be named victims. It really shouldn't matter if a 12 year old German girl is raped to death, a 12 year old Jewish-Girl is gassed to death in the Holocaust or a 12 year old British girl is bombed to death by a V1 or V2.

It is unfair: In the end, if the suffering of one group is more important than the other, then what kind of human rights do you stand for?

Would the writer therefore please correct the article in line with Wikipedia standards and discuss his personal views elsewhere. Thank you very much.

Slate2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slate2015 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Coat racking

This article is being coat-racked with reviews of Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945. This article is not about Beevor's book and it isn't the only source here, so anything related to reviews of his book should be moved to that article. --Nug (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Beevor is being heavily used as a source here and is the main modern source of the accusations, so what is the problem? -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. There are 67 cites in the References section, only three are Beevor. Just search the page for "Beevor". The only place where "Beevor is being heavily used as a source" is the text criticising Beevor that has been coat racked to this article. --Nug (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Beevor is a relatively recent source and the most publicized, so of course there will be more responses to his works.

That does not even matter. Russian historians are commenting on the accusations of mass rape, which is the subject of this article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does, Russian historians are commenting on Beevor's accusations of mass rape, they are not addressing any of the other authors cited. This is text is attributed to Beevor:

"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.[15]"
"According to Antony Beevor revenge played very little role in the frequent rapes; according to him the main reason for the rapes was the Soviet troops' feeling of entitlement to all types of booty, including women. Beevor exemplifies this with his discovery that Soviet troops also raped Russian and Polish girls and women that were liberated from Nazi concentration camps.[32]"

and this is the text criticising Beevor:

"In an interview with BBC News Online, Oleg Rzheshevsky, a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, argued that in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Beevor's use of phrases such as "Berliners remember" and "the experiences of the raped German women" is better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." He admitted that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes yet. Rzheshevsky further stated that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge," but that did not happen.[24] In his later review of the book, he charges that Beevor is merely resurrecting the discredited and racist views of Neo-Nazi historians, who depicted Soviet troops as subhuman "Asiatic hordes." According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.[26]"
"Hero of the Soviet Union Army General Ivan Tretiak had said that there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Although Tretiak wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on the humane treatment of the population were implemented, and discipline in the army was strengthened. With such a huge army group in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars."[26]"
"Makhmut Gareev, President of the Academy of Military Sciences, who participated in the East Prussian campaign, states that he had not even heard about sexual violence. He explains that after what the Nazis did in the USSR, excesses were likely to take place, but such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He also notes that the Soviet military leadership signed an executive order on 19 January 1945 that demanded to prevent cruel treatment of the local population. According to Gareev, Beevor simply copied Goebbels' propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldiers."[26]"
"Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid.[28]"
"Senyavskaya further argues that the fact that Beevor uses Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen," however, "authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."[28]"
"Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"[35]"

Clearly there is WP:UNDUE coverage given to criticism of Beevor's book. It belongs in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, not here. --Nug (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You would have a point if the other authors were not making the same accusations as Beevor. They all accuse the Soviet Army of mass rape and Russian sources make arguments against such accusations. It does not matter who they were made by. -YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Then that is WP:OR, because these historians are specifically addressing Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945 where he claims "that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone" and you are synthesising that to other authors. --Nug (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That specific statistic is only one of the things they are addressing. Beevor is not the only one who uses that statistic. Actually, he uses many of the sources published before his book that are cited here, so his book is also kind of a summary of earlier Western source on the subject. -YMB29 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Having read through the article, I have to agree with Nug that this has been turned into WP:COATRACK. Take it to the article on Beevor's book. The content has now well overstepped both WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And can I ask what brought you to this article?

It looks like you are simply repeating Nug's arguments without actually understanding what the issue is. -YMB29 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, no WP:PA or WP:BADFAITH assumptions and stick to the issue at hand. Clearly there is now no consensus that this material remain in the article. Your contention that Beevor's book is a "kind of a summary of earlier Western source on the subject" and these Russian historians in criticising Beevor's book is in turn criticising earlier Western sources is just classic WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've only just spotted your bad faith comment, YMB29. What brought me here? Would you care to take a look at the article's history page: it's been on my watchlist for quite some time and, yes, I do know what is at issue. No WP:ASPERSIONS, and certainly WP:NPA. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is unwarranted and unacceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if you really were acting in good faith, you would not have made that revert without consensus or at least actively discussing the issue. A quick comment that you support Nug is not a serious attempt at discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they are criticizing the portrayal of the Soviet Army and accusations of mass rape, which are not only made by Beevor.

As for consensus, it is not established by reverting alone, especially when users randomly show up to make reverts, quickly repeating the same arguments as you. There is no way you can get away with ignoring WP:BRD. -YMB29 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they are criticizing Beevor's portrayal of the Soviet Army and accusations of mass rape. You should abide by WP:BRD, you added new text related to Beevor and now you have been reverted by two editors, stop complaining. There is no consensus for your addition. --Nug (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the changes long ago and everyone was fine with them until "new" user MiGR25 started reverting. The burden is on you to show that consensus has changed.

Also, repeating dubious arguments over and over won't make them true... -YMB29 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CCC, consensus can change at any time. That three people have already reverted your edit is ample proof consensus no longer exists for your text. --Nug (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Read carefully. WP:CCC says editors may propose a change to current consensus, not force it by edit warring.

You are going to ignore user CurtisNaito, who undid the revert by the "new" user MiGR25[11]? -YMB29 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

CurtisNaito's edit just proves no consensus exists. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Last I heard Beevor is still alive, and devoting such a large amount of text to criticising him outside the relevant articles such as Berlin: The Downfall 1945 and equating his conclusions to Nazi propaganda oversteps both WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. --Nug (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, so to justify your revert you are now claiming that there is a WP:BLP violation against Beevor. You just keep making up new excuses...

They are commenting on his book, not him personally. However, some sentences have nothing to do with Beevor, like this one:

According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.

How do you explain removing that? -YMB29 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that I was pinged recently. I personally favor inclusion of the material. I believe that Rzheshevsky at least has written about this subject in his 2002 book on the Battle of Berlin, and that he and Makhmut Gareev can be considered as reliable sources on the subject of rape by the Red Army during this period. To me the rapes are the central topic of the sources in question. Because Beevor's popular book on the Battle of Berlin gave considerable attention to this issue, the issue of the rapes, the book became a lightning rod for controversy, but ultimately the criticisms being made are not specifically against Beevor and his book but really they are criticisms of the common theory that mass rapes during the occupation of Germany occurred at historically unprecedented levels, one topic among many which Beevor discusses in his book on the Battle of Berlin. If users are worried about violating coat rack, I think there are other legitimate ways the material can still be included. I wonder if we could put a subcategory under "Controversy in Russia" for "Reaction to Beevor's Berlin". There were certainly many Russian historians who reacted negatively to it at the time of release, but again it was not the book as a whole or the man himself who was the main target of the criticism, it was the ideas he put forward concerning rape during the occupation of Germany. I view it as being part of the broad historiographical debate on the issue which continues today.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the argument "ultimately the criticisms being made are not specifically against Beevor and his book but really they are criticisms of the common theory that mass rapes during the occupation of Germany occurred at historically unprecedented levels" is simply unsourced personal synthesis. Since the sources in question explicitly discuss Beevor's book and their arguments address Beevor's conclusions, that criticism cannot be extended to other authors. For all we know these critics may well accept what other authors write, we don't know and we shouldn't synthesise otherwise. Despite the popularity of Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin, not much of it is used in this article, just three sentences are attributed to him, yet we had over six paragraphs devoted to criticising his book and his conclusions. That's just simply overboard in terms of WP:BALASPS and misleads the readers that this criticism is applicable to the topic of mass rapes in general rather than Beevor's book specifically. The article Berlin: The Downfall 1945 is the place for that criticism, not here. --Nug (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the other authors do not write about mass rape in Germany just like Beevor? What do they write about, mass rape in Antarctica or something? Can you stop with the dubious arguments...

As for mentioning Beevor in the text too much, that could have been easily resolved by adding an explanation about Beevor's popular book on the subject and that it attracted lots of criticism. However, you decided to just revert large pieces of the text, including parts that don't mention Beevor at all (see the example above). You still did not answer my question about this. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, it seems you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This isn't an article about Beevor's book. Beevor contributes three sentences to the article and you want to insert over six paragraphs of rebuttal of Beevor's book. That oversteps WP:BALASPS. It is WP:SYNTH to suggest that criticism of Beevor's book is equally applicable to other authors. Now that the article is protected, Ed suggested that you try to build some consensus by offering some alternate text here for discussion, otherwise you are just going around in circles. --Nug (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You should have thought about consensus before you started reverting...

You have ignored what I said again, including the question I asked you. -YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Continuing your shameless lie that I had reverted anything on this page does not help your task in building the consensus that clearly does not exist at present. --Nug (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So per WP:NOCONSENSUS the article has to be returned to the previous state.

You are the one lying that you did not revert.

When are you going to answer my question about removing text that does not mention Beevor? -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All involved here should remember to discuss the content, not the editors, here. If you want to raise concerns about user conduct, there are other venues available. If the tone of the debate degenerates any further, I foresee blocks in the near future. Huon (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt (per vast majority of sources) that such crimes indeed had happened on significant scale. Therefore, opinions by Gareev, Dyukov and Tretiak, who in essence denied everything, belong to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority view. Rzhevsky basically tells that it is was OK ("robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war") and does not provide any factual information, just as others. Therefore, I think this removal was correct. Dyukov should also be removed. For example, we do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not use these "scholars" on this page, but only in pages about themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2014

This edit request to Rape during the occupation of Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting that the article be restored to the previous state, before the controversial removal of text[12], because there was no consensus to make that change.
WP:NOCONSENSUS says that in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
It is also important to note that the last revert[13] was made by a user who barely took part in discussion and hardly edited the article before.
I am not seeking to push my version of the article, but only asking that the consensus policy be followed.
I think this will send a message that changes cannot be forced through without reaching a consensus by discussion and/or dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done, "commonly results" is not the same as "must be implemented while discussion lasts". Discuss the issues, establish a consensus on how to cover the criticism of Beevor and on what parts of the references that were removed may be re-used in a more general context, then let's implement that. It's far too early to declare that we can't reach a consensus here. Huon (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: Well lack of consensus was admitted by Nug above, and while consensus may still be achieved, there was no consensus to remove a large piece of text in the first place.

My point is if someone wants to change something in the article text, it is up to them to prove their case and seek consensus. That is what WP:BRD and the consensus policy are all about.

Furthermore, as I pointed out above[14], under the cover of "removing text only relevant to Beevor's book", text that is directly relevant to this article and does not mention Beevor at all was also removed. -YMB29 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Following EdJohnston, "At least there should be proposals for specific wording." This, of course, goes for all involved, not just for YMB29. I do not think it's a good idea to use WP:NOCONSENSUS as a defense for avoiding a discussion of the issues. Huon (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not talking about avoiding discussion, but about a clear violation of policy that is for some reason being allowed here. -YMB29 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if I am going to be the only one proposing new text, no one will reply, and when I will attempt to eventually add it to the article, it will be reverted. -YMB29 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is not appreciated. If you wish to have any form of WP:CIVIL discussion, your comment on the contributor smacks of WP:OWN, or are you simply trying to make a WP:POINT as to my WP:COMPETENCE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You think posting links to different wiki policies in each of your edits makes you look more competent than other users?

If you want to show that WP:BATTLEGROUND does not apply to you and you are not here just to revert on behalf of Nug, why don't you give proposals that the admins have called for above or at least answer the question that Nug still has not answered above (about removing content where Beevor is not even mentioned)? -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You have enough experience to be aware of the fact that the discussion process does not have to take place at the pace you choose to set (particularly as it's a busy time of year for many of us). Instead, you've adopted the attitude that it's a race. I'm actually logging off for the day and will get back to it when I have time. Strange as it may seem, this is not the only article I'm involved with, and certainly not the most contentious, therefore requiring immediate input because it's spiralling off the charts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see me demanding that it should be done immediately? I simply suggested that you post something of value to the discussion. It does not have to be done now. -YMB29 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for changes

Why don't you propose some text here on talk? If you can propose more general text replacing text that was focused on Beevor, and agree to move material about his book such as Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Criticism_of_statistics (which is entirely about Beevor's use of statistics) to the article Berlin: The Downfall 1945 where it belongs, then I think some progress can be made. --Nug (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You are again claiming that text relevant to the article is only relevant to Beevor.

I am not the only one who should be proposing changes, see Huon's comment above. Are you going to propose something constructive, and not just removal of text?

Also, how many times do I have to ask you to answer my question above? -YMB29 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also proposing constructive changes, the removal of text that should be in the article Berlin: The Downfall 1945. For example, how is the following three paragraphs explicitly rebutting Beevor necessary when Beevor's claim on the number of rape victims takes up a total of one single sentence:

Criticism of statistics

Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid.[27]

Senyavskaya further argues that the fact that Beevor uses Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen," however, "authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."[27]

Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"[34]

How is that text applicable to what any of the other authors have written? If you could propose some alternate text that discusses the topic, and not about Beevor and his methodology, then we can make progress. --Nug (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about this particular text, but about the text you removed. Stay on topic. This can be discussed later, although the solution would probably be the same. -YMB29 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The topic has always been about having six paragraphs rebutting Beevor when the article only attributes three sentences to his viewpoint. This can all be discussed together. I propose that these six paragraphs be summarised into three sentences to provide fair and proper balance. --Nug (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That would mean deleting a lot of relevant information.

How about adding more text on Beevor's book and explaining its impact? At the same time, the number of times Beevor is mentioned can be reduced. -YMB29 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding more text to the article on Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945, do you have a source that explains its impact? --Nug (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are sources already in the article that explain it.[15][16] -YMB29 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, we can add it to Berlin: The Downfall 1945#Criticism and add a link to it from here (with a brief summary), no need to duplicate it in full here. --Nug (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that article already explains the impact of the book and the reaction to it. I am talking about adding a brief summary here and then adding the text you removed (maybe trimmed down a little), because that criticism is relevant not just to Beevor, but to the topic of this article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well the quickest way to the end point is if you indicate the trimmed text you want. Is the text in the section Criticism of statistics really necessary here? It is already repeated in Berlin: The Downfall 1945#Criticism so why not just mention it a single sentence and pipe a link to it, something like "...several authors criticised Beevor's methodology..." --Nug (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is in another article does not mean that it does not belong here too. Only a part of the text you removed talks about Beevor, so at least the majority of it has to be restored.

As for the statistics section, I will see what can be removed from there, but most of it has to remain since statistics are mentioned a lot here and Beevor is not the one who came up with them. -YMB29 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But the text is explicitly discussing Beevor's use of statistics, it would be WP:SYNTH to say that it would be applicable to statistics mentioned by others. --Nug (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Even though the numbers are the same? -YMB29 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The other authors provide different numbers, all below Beevor's estimate of 2 million. The text is criticising Beevor's use of statistics to arrive at that 2 million number. --Nug (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do you see different numbers? -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant sentence is "the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers ranged up to 2 million.[1][8][9][10][11]" and cite a number of authors. Obviously Beevor supplied the upper end of that range and that is what your Russian historians are objecting to, they are not saying no women were raped at all. --Nug (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The statistics (2 million total, including 100,000 in Berlin, and 1.4 million in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia) are the same for all sources. They come from a German book by Sander and Johr. Beevor used their numbers in his book (Senyavskaya mentions this) and the other sources use them too, either directly or through Beevor. -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

However, we should be talking about the text that was deleted first:

In an interview with BBC News Online, Oleg Rzheshevsky, a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, argued that in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Beevor's use of phrases such as "Berliners remember" and "the experiences of the raped German women" is better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." He admitted that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes yet. Rzheshevsky further stated that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge," but that did not happen. In his later review of the book, he charges that Beevor is merely resurrecting the discredited and racist views of Neo-Nazi historians, who depicted Soviet troops as subhuman "Asiatic hordes." According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.

Hero of the Soviet Union Army General Ivan Tretiak had said that there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Although Tretiak wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on the humane treatment of the population were implemented, and discipline in the army was strengthened. With such a huge army group in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars.

Makhmut Gareev, President of the Academy of Military Sciences, who participated in the East Prussian campaign, states that he had not even heard about sexual violence. He explains that after what the Nazis did in the USSR, excesses were likely to take place, but such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He also notes that the Soviet military leadership signed an executive order on 19 January 1945 that demanded to prevent cruel treatment of the local population. According to Gareev, Beevor simply copied Goebbels' propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldiers.

The sentences in bold do not mention Beevor and are directly on topic for this article. So why were they deleted? Was it by mistake? -YMB29 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep:

"According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity."

that's okay with me. The other two are just personal anecdotes of two veterans given undue weight, there could be thousands of other personal anecdotes (from the 4,148 Red Army officers Rzheshevsky says were convicted for example) that don't deny mass rapes occurred. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well this is true for Tretiak, but Gareev is a military historian, so his opinion should count here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Gareev [17], "he had not even heard about sexual violence" [during this war]. That statement qualifies him as a war crimes denier. We do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not cite Soviet crimes deniers, like Gareev and others (including Dyukov) on this page, but only in pages about themselves. This all was correctly removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And what proof do you have that he is a war crimes denier? Your opinion is not proof...

He is just talking about his personal experience.

Also, constantly making ridiculous comparisons to the Holocaust does not help you prove your point of view. -YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The proof is his own statement ("he had not even heard about sexual violence" [during this war]). This kind of WP:FRINGE must and will be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How does that statement make him fringe? -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Consider a modern-day "historian" who tells that "he had not even heard about extermination of Jews" during the Holocaust as a reason to downplay the crimes by Nazi. Would we included his opinion in the page Holocaust? No. Same is here. This is not to compare very different historical events, but simply as an illustration of WP:FRINGE policy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So if the historical events are very different then maybe you should not make that comparison...

You are reading only one sentence and ignoring the rest of what he says. He does not deny that these crimes occurred. -YMB29 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in the diff under discussion he tells that the crime indeed took place. Just the opposite. That means one of the following (multiple choice): (a) he is a crime denier, (b) someone who inserted this text quoted him out of context to "prove" that the crimes did not take place, or (c) the both. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You again did not read carefully: such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. -YMB29 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

One must read the entire diff (above) to conclude what he is telling. Now, speaking about similar article by Senyavskaya, we discussed it here. Neither her article, nor Gareev are appropriate sources for this and other related pages (so, yes, that was an appropriate removal of highly biased text), in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well your arguments so far have been based on the misrepresentation of what they have said.

The text was removed not because it was considered "highly biased," but because of "coat racking." -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with the latter. This text was correctly removed for four reasons: (a) the coat racking, (b) "undue", (c) POV-pushing/ highly biased text, and (d) use of inappropriate partisan sources that are hardly reliable. There is no misrepresentation of the sources, however. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There was misrepresentation by you; you only see what you want in them.

Read the discussion above. It was only about "coat racking." Anything else you brought up is another topic and it is up to you to back up your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is no agreement to make any of these changes [18]. To the contrary, the opinion by Dyukov should be removed per arguments above and elsewhere. Please stop reverting to old version without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove it in the first place. Just because the article was protected with the text removed, does not mean there was a new consensus.

Again, the text was removed because of coat racking concerns, which were addressed and a compromise was reached, see above.

So if you want to prove your case, go ahead, but please no more comparisons to Holocaust denial... -YMB29 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the protection recently expired, so I suggest you keep discussing your new concerns here on the talk page (which you have been doing so far). Removing text without consensus and after there was a compromise to restore some of what was removed, won't do any good, unless you want the admins to get involved again. -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you simply renewed edit war, immediately after expiration of protection. I already stated my opposition to these edits and explained why. If admins or other users do not want to be involved, there is nothing I should do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again your opposition has nothing to do with the edit warring that got this page protected.

How can I be edit warring if it was agreed that the text should be added back, as it had nothing to do with coat racking? -YMB29 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The sentence "A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army fought their way into the Third Reich" is misleading. Sexual violence and rapes in Central Europe started in 1939 with invasion of Poland where German forces in Selbstschutz engaged in mass rapes of Polish girls and women, and was later continued by forced prostitution, catching women for brothels and concentration camps brothel system for Wehrmacht soldiers. This increased after 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Union and its forces engaged in mass rapes against Soviet women, which was documented but not persecuted during Nuremberg trials as one of many war crimes that were ignored(if somebody requests I can try to dig up the source that actually mentions this). The current sentence is completely taken out of context of World War 2 and misleads the reader into thinking that this was something that happened in 1944-1945 only and from the hands of Allies, while the fact his that these incidents were far smaller than what Wehrmacht engaged in Central and Eastern Europe. I remember that long time ago, this article had brief background section explaining sexual violence in WW2 which allowed to present the information in neutral way.I did want to start an article on German rapes during WW2 long time ago(noted this already in March 2013[19]) and perhaps I should. In the meanwhile let's think of way to correct this misleading sentence into soemthing that will actually reflect the situation in WW2--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discourse section

the discourse section is not very good in my opinion. the third paragraph for example attacks a certain book or article, in a kind of 'what about-' way - and is maybe spurious - maybe the writers were only addressing the rape of german women in 1945 , and their article was not about anything else . - the whole section basically uses Pascale Rachel Bos's views and Elizabeth heinemans views only as pre-eminent and the final words - while the only other work mentioned is set up as a kind of straw man - it seems a section entirely set up to say the rapes were used for a purpose after the war to deflect from german guilt or something, and then 'what about -'something else, - the section is very unsatisfactory somehow -it is about a billion miles from giving an account of the discourse around this subject I should think - I know that is part of the problem with the way Wikipedia is written over time and the sources already there have a role probably in a rounded section - its just as it is it looks kind of weighted with a certain agenda and has very few sources - the majority of it is just Bos's and heineman's opinions and the writing leaves little doubt that one is meant to nod and say , yes Bos and heineman have said the final words, Sayerslle (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Germany ?

What is Germany here?

Weimar Germany
Germany in 1938 (Austria, Sudetenland)
Any land taken by Wehrmacht?

Xx234 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Rape during the liberation of Poland

The rape during the liberation of Poland took place before the rape during the occupation of Germany or was parallel. I believe that See also is too little.Xx234 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

also raped Russian and Polish girls and women - victims were of many nationalities.Xx234 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

senyavskaya in english

per an edit summary I have been asked to ask for a translation of senyavskayas article here - is there a RS translation of the points she makes - or is it just trusting that a wp editor is translating her article competently? Sayerslle (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I can provide it, but not having it is not a reason to revert the text. A quotation tag would have been enough. -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what Sayerslle is asking. It's a legitimate request for cite checking per WP:NONENG. If a reliable translation is not provided for the benefit of non-Russian editors (and readers, for that matter), the source and related content in the article may most certainly be struck. It may be verified that the source exists but, as you'd know, that does not automatically mean that it should be included (let the page decide). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I can understand if new text is reverted for this reason, but not something that was in the article for a long time. Such reverts are disruptive and, given the recent admin intervention here, may be reported next time. -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the translation of the relevant parts:

...he [Beevor] refers to the book "The Liberators and the Liberated" by Helke Sander and Barbara Johr, where the calculations are done based on data not from two of the main hospitals in Berlin, but from a children's clinic; in other words, a quite conscious distortion is made to add solidity. Not to mention the fact that the data is very questionable, because the system of Barbara Johr's calculations is based on arbitrary extrapolation of the number of children born in 1945 and 1946, who were examined in one Berlin clinic and whose fathers were listed as Russian, on the total female population of eastern Germany, 8 to 80 years of age. This does not hold up to any criticism. The result of this generalization of individual cases implies that every 6th East German woman, regardless of age, had at least once been raped by Red Army soldiers.

Even when A. Beevor refers to actual archival documents, it proves nothing. The Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defense really does store materials from political departments with reports that contain the gathered protocols from Red Army, Komsomol and Party meetings with descriptions of cases of deviant behavior by the military personnel. These are hefty folders, the contents of which are disheartening. However, they were compiled thematically, as evidenced by their names: "Incidents and Immoral Phenomena" for a certain period and in a certain military unit. By the way, these names already show that such occurrences were considered by the army leadership not as a behavioral norm, but as extraordinary events requiring decisive action.

-YMB29 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Original text:

...он ссылается на книгу Хельке Зандер и Барбары Йор «Освободители и освобожденные»[23], где подсчеты делаются на данных не «двух главных берлинских госпиталей», а одной детской клиники[42], т.е. «для добавления солидности» совершает вполне сознательное передергивание. Не говоря уже о том, что эти данные весьма сомнительны, так как система расчетов Барбары Йор, основанная на произвольной экстраполяции числа детей, чьими отцами названы русские, рожденных в 1945 и 1946 гг. и обследованных в одной берлинской клинике, на общее количество женского населения Восточной Германии в возрасте «от 8 до 80 лет», не выдерживает никакой критики[25]. Результат такого «обобщения» единичных случаев подразумевает, что «каждая 6-я восточная немка вне зависимости от возраста была минимум один раз изнасилована красноармейцами».

Но даже там, где Э.Бивор ссылается на реальные архивные документы, это ничего не доказывает. В Центральном архиве Министерства обороны РФ действительно хранятся материалы политотделов с донесениями, в которых собраны протоколы красноармейских, комсомольских и партийных собраний с описанием случаев девиантного поведения военнослужащих. Это пухлые папки, содержимое которых представляет собой сплошную чернуху. Но они и комплектовались именно «тематически», о чем свидетельствуют сами их названия: «Чрезвычайные происшествия и аморальные явления» за такой-то период в такой-то воинской части. Кстати, уже эти названия показывают, что такого рода явления рассматривались армейским руководством не как поведенческая норма, а как чрезвычайное событие, требующее принятия решительных мер.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

like I wrote at the start of this - I meant a RS translation - that could be just you and google translate. its rather specific criticism too and belongs more readily imo at the article about beevors specific book. Sayerslle (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't trust my translation, go get one yourself. See WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.

This is not an excuse to revert the text, as well as all of my other edits. -YMB29 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

so its fringe material, on a fringe site, that you have translated. ffs. this place is getting like LIfeNews and RT - that NOENG says 'in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians,' - did you do that? (the whole page will just be Russian denialism - see also 'no Russian involvement in eastern ukraine' - 'no russian involvement , no buk or anything in Mh-17 crash' ) Sayerslle (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian denialism...

The original text has been added. -YMB29 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did quickly check this publication by Senyavskaya, since I read Russian (see last part of this discussion). In my opinion, that was terrible. She repeats various statements from the Soviet (censored!) primary sources, such as "all German women are whores" («Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали» ... Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии») to justify her views that mass rapes were not at all committed (as stated in the beginning of her article) or that everything was consensual. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the same false arguments and accusations won't help you prove your point. -YMB29 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

why does she write 'all german women are whores' whats the context for her repeating something outrageous like that? Sayerslle (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

She does not say that. That is a false accusation. -YMB29 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Все немки развратны - how do you translate that? Sayerslle (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them "whores". She quotes memoirs, which were censored in the Soviet times, and "forgets" about memoirs by Soviet soldiers that were published in post-Soviet era and faithfully described these atrocities (see here for example). This is all junk science, not research. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Sayerslle (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth again... Anyone who can read Russian will see this.

"Все немки развратны" does not mean that all German women are "whores." It is from an archival document that is listed in a special section for quotes from documents. This is not the author's opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MyVeryBestWishes wrote 'She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them "whores". ' - he didn't say it was the author's opinion did he? - and the NOENG by the way says 'in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - I don't think that means you put the original on the talkpage - it surely means in article space? Sayerslle (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, why would it suggest to clutter the article?

He wrote "She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them 'whores'", which is not true. -YMB29 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, man, that is exactly what she wrote: "«Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали»[74], – такое мнение бытовало в советских войсках и подкреплялось не только многими наглядными примерами, но и их неприятными последствиями, которые вскоре обнаружили военные медики.". This is her opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, what she does (I do not mean her opinions, but her manipulations with sources) could be considered a scientific misconduct. That's why Soviet/Russian PhD in humanities are usually not recognized at the West. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The only manipulation here is by you. She talks about a common opinion of German women in the army, but not that they were "whores" as you claim. -YMB29 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How come? You just said above [20] "She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them 'whores'", which is not true". I provided a direct quotation in Russian where she said exactly that. Now you accuse me that "the only manipulation here is by you". Please strike through your statement. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That phrase from a document translates as "all German women are morally corrupt," and you know this, or are you going to tell me that you don't know Russian well? -YMB29 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No. I am sorry, but direct quotation in Russian (above) means exactly that (a woman who willfully engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse - "Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали"), except that one should not use incorrect translation from Google. And here is English definition of this term [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not going to convince a Russian speaker that "развратны" is exactly the same as "whores"/"whorish". -YMB29 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

what does 'morally corrupt' imply anyhow when applied to 'all german women'? - you are choking on flies and swallowing elephants in all this pov pushing of yours. Sayerslle (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian text in question does not claim that all German women were simply "morally corrupt". This is incorrect translation by YMB29. It claims that [all] German women "liked to sleep with everyone", which in this context means they liked to sleep with Russian liberators ("Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали"). In addition word "развратны" was used in a combination with claim that they intentionally transmitted venereal diseases to Russian soldiers ("Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии"). This is not just "moral corruption". (link to Russian publication). My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No where does it say whore, no matter how hard you try to make it sound so. -YMB29 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what is your point? That the source is no good because it quotes a document that says bad things about German women? -YMB29 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

- are you saying senyevskaya has no particular bias at all then ? - has she any sort of reputation? -like say antony beevor? - is she really not just an apparatchik/historian? where are her views discussed seriously by other historians? - is she not utterly fringe? - pushed forward out of all reason and proportion by you for pov reasons. its UNDUE - maybe there is no RS translation of her work -so wp has to trust 'YMB29' that its translation is accurate, - because she is a non-entity in the academic community at large. Sayerslle (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well your opinion is not enough to label a source or view fringe.

If you don't trust my translation, that is your problem. Go get someone else to translate the text for you.[22]

Also, the sentence you keep adding to the intro (NKVD files have revealed...) goes against the guidelines in WP:LEDE and that claim is already mentioned later in the article. So this is a good example of your blind POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

the lead is meant to contain stuff also found in the article, to reflect aspects of the article - - if I don't trust your translation , if your translation is crap, that's wikipedias problem , not mine, - it needs a RS translation , as disputes over what is written by senyevskaya demonstrate - the rule says 'in articles it should have the original text if a wikipedian translates ' - you just ignore that and say it doesn't mean what it says , - its difficult to find out about her , perhaps you could help in this and indicate any information about her - preferably in English - it isn't difficult to find info about antony beevor is it - are you taking the dyukov 'revsiionist' to RFC or are you just going to 'sneaky' edit war and take out reliably sourced info by the way? because YOUDONTLIKEITSayerslle (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are all over the place with your replies, which shows that you are not interested in having a real discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the frequent claims by YMB29 that "your opinion does not matter" is wrong. To the contrary, WP:NPOV requires that contributors knew the subject, read a number of different sources and honestly summarized their content, which requires understanding of the subject. On the other hand, a contributor who continuously insists on including opinions published only in his favorite "national" sources and language (so that others can not even read and properly evaluate their sources) goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you are able to read it... I always provide translations when asked.

Are you trying to equate your opinions with those in reliable sources?

How am I going against NPOV if I have added alternative views? Where do you see me removing other views?

You are the one who is violating NPOV. It requires that all significant views are included, while you are pushing to have views that you don't like removed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Significant points of view, not the WP:BOLLOCKS you're POV pushing in order to create WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes's translation is correct. Translations follow the implications indicated in context. You're welcome to ask a native Russian speaker to define "развратны" without a context, and the definition can have a myriad of meanings dependent on the context. We're not parsing the text word by word, but are conveying the blatant meaning within the context. I've read it, and it is absolutely unmissable.

Now according to Mark Solonin, who certainly has a profile in the Anglophone world, Елена Сенявская is a falsifier of history. Between you, Yelena and Mark - taking into account your trying to dodge your own contradictions about the text you're trying to pass off, and which I've read with a raised eyebrow - I suspect I know who my money's on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So your money is on what an engineer with no academic degree in history wrote in his blog? And you are the one complaining about BOLLOCKS...

There is a difference between calling someone a whore and saying that they are morally corrupt. If you don't believe me, go and try that in real life and compare the reactions you get... However, what does this have to do with the topic I don't know. -YMB29 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear, you are selling Solonin short as being "just and engineer". He certainly has been received as a specialist in WWII history by a number of countries: the Russian Federation included.

Pray do explain to me how you've differentiated between 'whore', or 'slut' and established the interpretation as being 'morally corrupt' when, in the context, it refers to promiscuity (i.e., sexual promiscuity to be precise)? The relationship to the topic is the use of content from an 'historian' who smacks of having created a revisionist history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat things I have already said and don't want to discuss those bad words, because they have nothing to do with the topic. This was only brought up because user "My very best wishes" attempted to use a misquote to paint Senyavskaya in a bad way.

So not having a degree in history does not prevent Solonin from being a WWII specialist in your view, while Senyavskaya, who has a higher doctorate in history, is no good... The obvious question is what makes Solonin a better source? Just because his views match yours?

Once again you are continuing to throw insults and accusations, as well as sticking up no matter what for like minded users whom you edit other articles with, without actually contributing anything constructive here. -YMB29 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna. Good catch!. Based on that, Senyavskaya is guilty of forgery. Any references to her "work" must be excluded from WP articles. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on a blog by Solonin... -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to refer to blogs, you may be interested in reading this: Amateur-historian Mark Solonin, Falsifier. -YMB29 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a reliably sourced text by Mark Solonin at the Echo of Moscow. There is no doubt that he wrote this. We have a page about Mark Solonin, who unlike Senyavskaya, is a relatively well known historian. On the other hand, you provided here a link to opinion by an ordinary guy who, according to his own admission [23], is not at all a professional historian. More important, this is not merely an opinion of Solonin. He provided a factual proof in his text. Therefore, all nonsense by Senyavskaya must be removed per policy, and I am sure it will be removed. Now, speaking about your argument here, that proves nothing. For example, Kavkaz Center is an unreliable extremist source, but it was referred to in hundreds books. Edit warring to place FRINGE or extremist sources back to multiple pages is a highly problematic behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you are comparing Senyavskaya to Kavkaz Center... Was not Kavkaz Center considered a good source by you before?

Echo of Moscow is RS, but its blogs are not. That entry is a copy and paste from Solonin's website anyway.

Solonin is an amateur-historian, who is considered fringe in Russia. Senyavskaya is a professional historian, who is cited and praised in Western publications. What Western publications cite Solonin? -YMB29 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

where is she 'praised' in Western publications? You'll be saying she is all powerful and all knowledgeable next Sayerslle (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See below. -YMB29 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

mentioned - equals - praised. Sayerslle (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not just mentioned. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

against German civilians

Some editors believe that German society was divided into civilians and army. Such opinion is obviously false, there were millions of militarized Germans, esepecially SS. Volkssturm was set up, not by the traditional German Army, but by the Nazi Party.
There were millions of uniformed and sometimes armed civilians in Germany in 1944/1945, e.g. many forms of police, foresters, NSDAP activists, German settlers in occupied areas (Zamość region).
Millions of German women were Nazi activists, police informers, Holocaust clerks. League of German Girls members joined sometimes Volkssturm. Xx234 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be evaluated within the scope of the article. Trying to introduce too many factors because 'it's complicated' will inevitably lead to WP:SYNTH. I don't see how such complexities can be addressed without creating other main articles addressing any variable based on RS without turning this article into a POV fiasco suggesting that the women who were raped somehow deserved it. Developing other articles is a good idea, but stuffing swathes of off-topic content into this article is a very, very bad idea, and will end up as a coatrack for revisionist, apologist nonsense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean many articles describing German society as civilians plus army, which is false, there were millions of uniformed and armed people outside the Wehrmacht. Many German and Austrian civilians participated in Endphaseverbrechen, which were parallel to the evacuations and expulsions.

I haven't written that all victims deserved their fate (Magda Goebbels did deserve and she wosn't the only one). However the stereotype of poor German women without any connection to Nazism is wrong, many women participated in the system. Xx234 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

^ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/01/the-wartime-toll-on-germany/2661/

[1] ttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/01/the-wartime-toll-on-germany/2661/

[1]