Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Anna Beshnova

Adding a section about Anna Beshnova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The section was removed by that editor [1] --Habap (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Please apologize for your personal attack. By calling me "borderline sociopathic" because I have a reasonable hatred of the people who raped my grandmother and killed her family, you are claiming that every soldier of the Red Army is a "borderline sociopath". Please try to think about that. Do you really think that a Nazi is really more of a victim than the millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, and one million Germans, that they raped and murdered? Please think carefully before you answer.

Additionally, borderline sociopath is a medical term, false use of which is libel under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If it were true, it represents a serious privacy violation.

--Anonymiss Madchen 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A point

Every Nazi woman got what they deserved.

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

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

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

"Every Nazi woman got what they deserved." And your misogyny makes you as bad as, indeed, worse, than any Nazi. Soviets raped female children as young as 10. I guess the paedophilia of this war crime is also acceptable because the parents of the girls hated Jews? If you think Nazism, or anything else for that matter, excuses sexual violence - ever - then you are a sociopath and belong behind bars. Plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.224.78.76 (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The current article name is POV, in favor of Nazis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please refrain from perpetuating Nazi propaganda on legitimate websites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean decide what your name is?

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

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

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

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

I changed back my signature. Please continue.

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

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

Russians were Mochtegern-Nazis

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

I will be on the watch for any Holocaust deniers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll stop the edit war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rape of Jews

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

User:Anonymiss Madchen/Rape of Jews by the Russians

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you saying that I am calling all Germans Nazis?

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

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

What are you trying to say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quote

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

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

The quote

Should we add it to the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is English edition [2]. Biophys (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

That is outrageous

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

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

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

You cannot add "what you believe to be accurate information" without making sure that the sources state that. The sentences you modified (e.g. " Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.[25]") contained the references to the reliable sources, so any changes of this text had to reflect what these particular sources tell. For instance, by changing 1.4 to 3.4 you implied that the number of 3.4 was taken from Beevor. However, that is not the case, and that fact could be verified in two mouse clicks (the source is available online). Again, you actions discredit Wikipedia, and the next similar action will lead to sanctions against you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Poland

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

The structure of the article

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

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

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

Some useful quotes:

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

Furthermore, insofar as tales of wartime sufferings are presented as evidence that German "bystanders" were among the victims of the Nazi regime, they have a misleading tendency to distract attention away from the tremendous support German men and women lent the regime before it began the war-or, more precisely, before it began to lose the war. Finally, reminders of "Germans"' sufferings rarely force the listener to understand those sufferings in relation to other traumas caused, facilitated, or at least tolerated by the very people who, by losing the war, eventually experienced pain of their own. On the contrary, stories of "Germans"' sufferings tend to displace reminders of the hundreds of thousands of (German) Jews, Communists, and Socialists forced to emigrate before the war; (German) "asocials" and physically and mentally disabled people killed in the euthanasia program or sterilized against their will; and (German) criminals and political opponents who withstood torture and spent years in prison or concentration camps, often to die there. They draw attention away from the millions of Poles evicted from their homes and villages in order to "Germanize" eastern lands; the tens of millions of Europeans killed in the Germans' aggressive war or imported into the Reich as slave labor; the tens of millions who died in German concentration and prisoner-of-war camps; and the hundreds of millions of weakened, displaced, and traumatized survivors of all of these." (Elizabeth Heineman. The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany's "Crisis Years" and West German National Identity. The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 354-395)

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

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

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

5. "This conflict complicates the film’s discourse because when Sander suggests that wartime rape is in essence universal, rooted in patriarchal oppression, she frames the rapes in an ahistorical fashion and in so doing highlights the victimization of German women and chooses to focus on their victimization only. She thus erases both the larger racist/genocidal context of the war, which was initiated by the Nazis, and the fact that most German women had supported this regime and the war." (Pascale R. Bos. Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993. Signs, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer 2006), pp. 995-1025)

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

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

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

8. "A second matter necessary to establish the context for our story involves the wave of rapes and sexual violence that occurred in Central Europe in 1944/45. As Allied and Soviet troops battered their way into the Third Reich, a negative assessment of all-things-German governed their thinking. Given this "comeas-conqueror" mentality, superimposed upon even more primal desires to break down resistance and reinforce male domination, some soldiers saw fit to brutalize and rape German women, a situation that particularly marked the invasion of the eastern German provinces by the Red Army. With Soviet troops openly encouraged to regard German women as plunder, it is no surprise that nearly two million German women may have been raped.26 Even in western Germany, however, there was a considerable spate of raping by French and American forces, particularly during April and May 1945." (Perry Biddiscombe. Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones ofGermany and Austria, 1945-1948. Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 611-647.)

9. "In the Soviet zones, there was no lack of hatred for Russian occupation troops; the wild raping and looting ofthe spring of 1945 had created a background with no real parallel in the western zones. Even here, however, there was evidence of voluntary fraternization, particularly because Soviet military police (like their French counterparts) turned a blind eye to the formal nonfraternization rules supposed to govern the behavior of Red Army troops.58 After everything that had happened during the initial Soviet advance into Germany and Austria, enforcing nonfraternization seemed pointless. Although fear of the Soviets was pervasive, there was considerable evidence of liaisons between Russians and German or Austrian women; Swedish diplomatic personnel in Berlin reported as early as May 1945 that Soviet officers and troops were often seen arm-in-arm with German girls. Some of these relationships stemmed from fear: women made "friends" with decently-acting Russians to get guardians for themselves and their children; some comprised the same form of semi-prostitution evident in the western zones; some were built on a more genuine emotional interplay, particularly because Soviet troops were often billeted with German and Austrian families. There were, however, few signs ofan anti-fraternization movement; fear ofthe type of severe punishments meted out by the Soviets for even the slightest infractions muted such forms of protest.61 In addition, the fraternization that prompted anti-fraternization sentiments deciined as the Soviets allowed the dependents of Red Army soldiers to live in Germany and Austria, a policy development that unfolded more quickly and on a wider scale than in any other occupation zone." (Perry Biddiscombe, op. cit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 - sounds dandy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which "other theories" do you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re "I do not see anything related to feminism in this specific subject." See, e.g. Pascale R. Bos. Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993. Signs, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer 2006), pp. 995-1025

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

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

The removed text tells:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I have to concede that the text removed by Haymaker [3] did contain the words bolded by you. I respectfully request Biophys to provide satisfactory explanations of how could these words be removed from the quote provided by him.

With regard to the text, taking into account that the amount of sources presented on the talk page are sufficient to speak about a direct connection between the rapes of German women and German actions in the Eastern Europe, I suggest you Molobo to propose the new improved text, which we can discuss here on the talk page and re-add to the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Biophys on his talk page. Let's wait for the answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The bold portion of the text indeed makes such connection and therefore can be included, but remainder of the text (included in my quotation) does not make such connection and therefore was properly removed. That is what I wanted to tell.Biophys (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is illogical. By removal of the part of the text you broke the internal logic of the latter, so it is not a surprise that such a truncated text became poorly connected to the rest of the article. Such an approach is not correct for two reasons: firstly, instead of improving the text you made it worse, and, secondly, you have done that it such a way that this "amputation" was not easy to see (you should have to explain that the part of text had been removed and mark this place with "(...)"). In future, please, refrain from such tricks, which may be interpreted as unfair game.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, a couple of phrases in the middle does not justify whole text. This is WP:SYN. Biophys (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis is a combination of material from multiple sources which is aimed to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Therefore, instead of providing a link to the policy you should have to explain what concrete conclusion is reached or implied in the removed text, which is not explicitly stated in one of cited sources. In my opinion, the key idea (that during a discussion of Allied actions in Germany one should keep in mind the German atrocities in occupied Europe) is presented in the text removed by you, and the rest of the text is just an illustration to that. In summary, I see no synthesis here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the reliable secondary source ("Dangerous liaisons..., quote 9) clearly states that, as a rule, no anti-fraternisation measures were being taken by the Soviet authorities, the quote from memoir about the relation between a German woman and the Soviet officer is hardly representative and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote is actually about attitude of Soviet military personnel, rather than about fraternization. Moreover, there is no any contradiction between the eyewitness account and the statement that as a rule no anti-fraternisation measures were being taken. So, let's keep it. Biophys (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, read the quote #9. The memoirs (primary source) quoted by you tells about some concrete example of anti-fraternisation measure, whereas the quote provided by me (taken from the reliable secondary source) states that that was not a case as a rule. Therefore, your quote is misleading, and it should be added only as an example of exception from the common practice. I see no problem with re-adding it back to the section devoted to the anti-fraternisation policy, however, that can be done only after this section will be written.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The text you deleted was about three "unofficial" days allegedly given for looting and rapes. Biophys (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The text I removed[4] tells:

"One of our officers actually fell in love with a German women. That became known to superiors. He was discharged and sent to the rear. Of course if he would only rape her ... [that would be different]. When we occupied every town, we had first three days for looting and ... That was unofficial of course. But after three days one could be court marshaled for doing this. That officer admitted his guilt after interrogation in special department. Yes, that was treason. How could he fell in love with a daughter of our enemy? They took her photo and her address. Of course..."

Obviously, this is primarily about anti-fraternisation measures, and it mentions the "three days" only tangentially (along with severe punishments if any violation of discipline occurred after that). However, this text is a memoir, and it is reliable only for personal experience of this particular woman. To draw or to imply any more general conclusions from that is not allowed per our policy, and the way you used this quote does exactly what policy prohibits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The scale of the rapes

To the best of my knowledge, the only source that describes the procedure according to which the scale of the rapes had been estimated is Sander and Johr. They did that according to the following data (based on Berlin polulation statistics only, Dr. Reichling's data):

1. Official statistics for the period between September 1945 and August 1946 show a total of 23,124 births (both live and stillborn). Of these, approximately 5% were "Russian children": 1,156 children.
2. Some 10% of the pregnant women had abortions, of which 90% were successful. Therefore, ten times as many women had actually been impregnated: 11,560.
3. About 20% of the raped women became pregnant. Therefore, among those of childbearing age, five times as many were raped: 57,800.
4. In 1945, 600,000 women of childbearing age (18 to 45 years) lived in Berlin. 57,800 of them were raped. That represents 9.5% of this age group.
5. In 1945, 800,000 girls between the ages of 14 and 18 and women over 45 lived in Berlin. If one assumes that 9.5% of those in this age group were raped, that would mean that 73,300 of those younger and older women were affected. (If a 4.75% figure is used, then the number is 36,650.)
6. Conclusions: Of the 1.4 million women and girls in Berlin, between 94,450 and 131,100-an average of more than 110,000-were raped between early summer and fall of 1945.
   (Barbara Johr, "Die Ereignisse in Zahlen," in Sander and Johr, BeFreier und Befreite,p . 54. taken from: Helke Sander and Stuart Liebman. Remembering/Forgetting. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 15-26)]

For every educated person it should be clear that the procedure is totally unreliable: if Dr. Reichling's data are valid, if the assumption is valid that in 90% cases the pregnancies were terminated, if the assumption is valid that the probability of pregnancy after rape was 0.2, if the assumption is valid that for a woman of fertile age, a girl or older woman the probability to be raped was the same, then the results may be valid. The problem is, however, that noone demonstrated that these "ifs" are reasonable. For instance, it is natural to expect that older women were less attractive for young soldiers, so the probability for older women to be raped was lower. (The witnesses' testimonies meant just that even old woman were raped more or less frequently, however, that does not mean that the real frequency was the same). With regards to girls, according to memoirs, mothers took special efforts to hide them, so it is also natural to expect that the probability for young girl to be raped was lower. In other words, the above table is plagued with absolutely unjustified assumption and based on non-verifiable data. In addition, the way Johr presents the data (the number of significant figures: e.g., "approximately 5%" of 23,124 is 1,000, or, 1,200, but in no way can it be 1,156) demonstrates her poor mathematical background. Fortunately, this is not my conclusion: below is the quote that criticises these assumptions (formally, it tells about Beevor, however, since he used mostly Johr's data, the same criticism is applicable to Johr):

"Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, Ioo,ooo in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that I0,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers? (Nicky Bird International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct., 2002), pp. 914-916).

In summary, I suggest to describe the procedure according to which the number of rapes had been estimated in details and supplement it with the Nicky Bird's commentary to allow user to judge about the reliability of these "data". In addition, since the number of 1.9 (not 2, btw) rapes in East Germany was obtained by Sander via simple extrapolation (Hochrechnungen) of the Berlin figures (Grossman, "A question of silence"), the latter fact should also be explained.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I've split off below to a new section as it was discussing a different issue to the one here. In regard to Nicky Bird, who is he(she) and how much weight should we attribute to their comment in what is after all a book review? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Bird is a scholar who published a review on the Beevor's book in the western peer-reviewed journal "International affairs". That is sufficient to conclude that this source is highly reliable. However, if you disagree with this conclusion, you may contest it on the WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it is obvious that Nicky Bird wrote a review of Beevor's book in the western peer-reviewed journal "International affairs", but that review appears to not be cited by anyone else. How do you know Nicky Bird is a scholar? What has he/she published beyond this book review? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you have any doubts in this source, please go to WP:RSN. In addition, what concrete Bird's statements do you find questionable?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's important to know the academic standing of Nick Bird in order to give proper weight to his/her question of "Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?". Is Nicky Bird a widely published and read scholar whose question is based upon solid academic foundation, or a not so widely read amateur historian who may not have a total grasp of the field but happened to have a book review published in this journal? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is important for you, please, do that. For me, the fact that Bird publish the reviews on history books in reputable peer-reviewed journal is sufficient. According to my experience, that type journal do not ask amateur historians to write reviews.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I do not think Nick Bird's book review is scholarly enough to question the results of Dr. Gerhard Reichling, a statistician with expertise in demographic questions pertaining to World War II and its aftermath. You should find something more scholarly such as McCormick's "Rape and War, Gender and Nation, Victims and Victimizers: Helke Sander's BeFreier und Befreite" published in Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies by Duke University Press in 2001. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you question the validity of the Bird's statement, go to WP:RSN. Regarding McCormick, I see no reason why this source is more reliable. However, McCormick fully confirms the Bird's opinion:

"The interview with the statistician, Dr. Reichling, is perhaps the best example of how humorously complex and tentative the search for a statistical estimate can be, and how futile the search for exact numbers is." (McCormic, op. cit., p. 116).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I'm astonished that you insist there is no difference between a mere book review that mentions the rapes in passing and a paper (which I provided) that explicitly examines the issues surrounding the rapes in detail. I think McCormick's paper is a better source for this article that Bird's book review. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, I am astonished that you insist that the fact that the brief review, which, among other questionable moments in the Beevor's book explicitly mentions inverifiability of the Beevor's numerical estimates does not deserve serious attention. I am also surprised to see that you absolutely ignore the fact that McCormic explicitly says that the attempt to obtain any exact numbers are futile, thereby completely confirming the Bird's conclusion. Please, provide any concrete arguments, otherwise I simply do not understand the need in further discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

 ??? I recommend a better source should be used, even identify one (so you should thank me), but yet you still seem to be arguing about something. Most bizarre. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you decide that that source is better, and what is the need in all this discussion if both sources tell essentially the same?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding me right? You can't see a that source discussing Helke Sander's "BeFreier und Befreite" in detail isn't better than a book review that does not discuss Sanders's work but instead Beevor's book. Relax and have a cup to tea Paul. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The estimates has been presented by Beevor and Sander&Johr, and they are being discussed by Bird and McCormick, accordingly, so I still cannot see your point. Your only correct point is that in real life I do prefer tea, not coffee...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Official statistics for the period between September 1945 and August 1946 show a total of 23,124 births (both live and stillborn). Of these, approximately 5% were "Russian children": 1,156 children.
2. Some 10% of the pregnant women had abortions, of which 90% were successful. Therefore, ten times as many women had actually been impregnated: 11,560.
3. About 20% of the raped women became pregnant. Therefore, among those of childbearing age, five times as many were raped: 57,800.
4. In 1945, 600,000 women of childbearing age (18 to 45 years) lived in Berlin. 57,800 of them were raped. That represents 9.5% of this age group.
5. In 1945, 800,000 girls between the ages of 14 and 18 and women over 45 lived in Berlin. If one assumes that 9.5% of those in this age group were raped, that would mean that 73,300 of those younger and older women were affected. (If a 4.75% figure is used, then the number is 36,650.)
6. Conclusions: Of the 1.4 million women and girls in Berlin, between 94,450 and 131,100-an average of more than 110,000-were raped between early summer and fall of 1945.
   (Barbara Johr, "Die Ereignisse in Zahlen," in Sander and Johr, BeFreier und Befreite,p . 54. taken from: Helke Sander and Stuart Liebman. Remembering/Forgetting. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 15-26)]

This whole confusing numerical scientific looking genocide denial thing looks like this:

http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/cremation1

--Anonymiss Madchen 07:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sexual contacts vs rapes

Interestingly, the same source, Helke Sander and Stuart Liebman (1995) speaks about the sexual contacts between German soldiers and Eastern European women using the following terminology:

"It is one of the ironies of history that a war waged for racial purity laid the groundwork for interbreeding on a gigantic scale, and that contemporary Europe in fact appears different than it did fifty years ago. This, too, only becomes clear if we know the figures, although many are admittedly difficult to believe. While we were working with the statistics on children resulting from rape, a rumor suddenly surfaced to the effect that German soldiers had produced approximately a million children with Russian women-meaning, in this connection, with White Russians and Ukrainians as well. Dr. Reichling had come across this in a footnote somewhere as allegedly a statement by Himmler, and he remembered it when discussing the statistics with Barbara Johr. A million children seemed to us a completely misleading number. Henry and Hillel, who also worked on this subject for a long time, thought the number too high. We nevertheless tried to proceed on the basis of this unclear recollection. After months of searching, Barbara Johr had the aforementioned document in her hands, in which (in September 1942) it is asserted that one and a half million Russian women may have experienced consequences from their relations with German soldiers. If every second women who had a relationship with a German had become pregnant, that would mean that women of child-bearing age probably did not use any contraceptive means, that sexual relationships regularly took place, and that there were few or only limited possibilities for abortion.(...) One million children: the number at first sounds greatly exaggerated, but it is surely not inflated, although we cannot at this time prove it. However, after taking note of the problem, I talked with White Russian friends about it; to my surprise all knew of some German children or were directly acquainted with some. (Women colleagues are currently working on a film about this subject.)"

It is interesting to see how different is a terminology used by the authors to describe essentially the same events: in both cases they speak about the pregnancies as a result of the sexual contacts between the soldiers of the occupying forces and the local women. However, whereas they speak about just the relations between German soldiers and Belorussian, Russian and Ukrainian women, they use exclusively the word "rapes" when they discuss the sexual relations between German women and Soviet soldiers. Such a discrimination seems rather insulting and weird taking into account that various cases of semi-coercive, commercial and other kinds of sexual contacts were abundant in occupied Germany, and all pregnancies resulted from this sex (as well as all other undesirable pregnancies) could be terminated free of charge if the woman claimed that she was raped by "a Mongol".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good point which is brought up here, though it is denial.

--Anonymiss Madchen 07:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

To the contributors of the article Anonymiss Madchen has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Thank you for your hard work, and sorry about rough times in the past. I'm going to go edit other articles now. --Anonymiss Madchen 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm going to be bringing in additional experts to assist with the article Due to controversy and repeatedly being bogged down by genocide deniers who conspire against any dissonance and manipulate and exploit Wikipedia policy in order to get away with their genocide denial, I am going to bring in several experts who will assist in exposing the truth, and embarrassing those who committed and support the rape of children. I know at least three people who I am sure will accept my request; I also plan to invite more to come and assist with rewriting this article. --Anonymiss Madchen 07:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Paul Siebert This guy's just like a Holocaust denier in the way he masks his revisionism in casual and practical editing. He recently removed the section by Sascha and commented that it was poorly sourced despite the fact that two of the sources are easily availible online, and another is from a book, which can also be found on Google Books if the page or quote is entered. He's clearly grasping at straws. Would anyone have any objections to sending out a mass text to undo his revisionism when he goes on one of his rampages? Genocide Denial Watch (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC) He was correct. "Poorly sourced" means that the added text was not supported by any sources mentioned in the article. If you want to add something with proper references, go right ahead. And in the future, please refrain from accusing a good editor of something as serious as "Holocaust denier" when you know for a fact this is not true. I highly suggest not attempting some kind of attack on the article either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I was the original writer of the section. I also received the same briefing on Paul Siebert from Alex before registering here. First, the sources were mentioned in the article, if you're referring to the ones about Neo-Nazi historical revisionism, as I was talking about what Neo-Nazis say, and their revisionism. Second, Paul Siebert, assuming what Alex told me is true, is a Holocaust denier, as he denied acts of genocide committed against Holocaust victims at the end of the war. This can be confirmed in Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State and The Fall of Berlin 1945, both of which have been cited here by Alex. Sascha Kreiger (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed changes

These are the changes that are currently being disputed (I left out some of the minor stuff):

• NKVD files have revealed that the Soviet leadership knew what was happening, including rape of Russian women liberated from labour camps, but did nothing to stop it.

This was added by Sayerslle to the intro.[5] First of all, this is unattributed (and he removed the attribution[6]). Secondly, it does not belong in the intro, as the intro is supposed to summarize the article and not mention details. This article is not about alleged rape of Russian women and NKVD files. Also, there is already a similar sentence in the Analysis section: Beevor exemplifies this with his discovery that Soviet troops also raped Russian and Polish girls and women that were liberated from Nazi concentration camps.

• Aleksandr Dyukov, historian and General Director of the Historical Memory Foundation, who according to a BBC article claims Soviet repression has been systematically exaggerated, writes that...

Sayerslle added the bolded part. What does the historian's view on repressions have to do with the topic? This is coat racking and probably is synthesis too. Sayerslle insists on adding this to try to make the historian look bad. Before this, he kept adding the revisionist label, which violated WP:BLP.[7][8]

• Senyavskaya also 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. Senyavskaya further argues that Beevor use of Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but, she explains, 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, while authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."

Sayerslle removed this text claiming that I need to provide the text by Senyavskaya translated into English.[9][10] I provided the translation, but he then said that he does not trust my translation and that it must be done by a reliable source.[11] This is ridiculous and goes against what is stated in WP:NOENG.

• According to Yelena Senyavskaya, mass rape is one of the most widespread anti-Russian myths. She traces it back to Goebbels' propaganda at the end of the war, and then to some publications (such as Ralph Keelings Gruesome Harvest: The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany) in countries that were allied with the USSR, but soon turned into opponents in the Cold War. Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor's methodology and use of statistics. 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?"

"My very best wishes" removed this text[12] based on what someone said about Senyavskaya in a blog.[13] He also did this in other articles.[14][15] Not only is his reasoning based on a blog entry, but the claim turned out to be false, while Senyavskaya is cited and praised in Western sources (see here). Also, note that he removed Bird's criticism too while only mentioning Senyavskaya in the revert summary.

-YMB29 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

True enough. dyukov who according to a BBC article claims Soviet repression has been systematically exaggerated, - you ask 'What does the historian's view on repressions have to do with the topic' - well, the subject of the article is linked to Soviet repression.' - and he saying, surprise , its all exaggerated, so it seems pretty germane to me - Sayerslle (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it linked? Even if it was, that is not a valid reason to include that text. -YMB29 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

well - I disagree. if that's o.k. - considering you want to include paragraphs of verbiage with little of substance but much persiflage I don't think you can lecture others about what it is valid to include. Sayerslle (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So you again respond with a personal attack... -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Im arguing about the content , your edits amount to lots of text I consider persiflage - btw is it right Dyukov has been given some sort of privileged access to FSB archives ? his page on wp says he is considered a revisionist historian anyhow and the FSB give him special access and he writes things about myths, rape is a myth, soviet repression is a myth, etc - everything is upside down imo -its you who are constantly attacking me - everythigns upside down -its like "Pro-Russians began to distrust Putin over his point-blank lying that the Green men are not his soldiers" - its like ' no Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine ' - everything upside down , its complicated world - its like you keep saying stuff like ' edit war sayerslle' - 'personl attack sayerslle' - but just you keep saying stuff doesn't make it the truth - same as putin saying 'what Russians - you can buy unifirms anywhere - ' Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant conspiracy talk. Must you mention the FSB or Putin in every one of your posts? -YMB29 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'all history is contemporary history' - I was commenting on the fact that dyukov has been aligned with a Putin-ist re-writing of soviet history - I thought you wanted to discuss what you consider unwarranted labels on dyukov and i'm arguing it is not irrelevant to seek to label dyukov and it isnt surprising he views the rapes as exaggerated and a myth or whatever because its his style - its echoed in putin saying how the hitler-stalin pact was fine and stuff. Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You can't just ramble on about your personal views. -YMB29 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

the bit around dyukov I added from bbc should stay - if senyavskaya is retained - is this histrf.ru ?a RS , or just a ghetto for regime friendly appartchik historians? ,- if it is retained, it should be with both the original and your effort at translation alongside ( and it made for very difficult reading , was hard to make out the points being made , a RS translation is preferred , the rules do say that ymb29 -and definitely say if a wikipedian translates the article should have the original also, the article, not the talk page of the article, read the rule.)- talking about snyavskaya you've said - 'The documents are brought up to [-] show that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation than the ones in many European countries ' - what does that mean? Sayerslle (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is straightforward. What do you think it means?

The rule says that editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page and When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.

So where the translation and original text are provided does not matter. You are just looking for excuses...-YMB29 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

whatdo i think it means? nothing - I couldn't make anything of it - it is rubbish to me , means nothing , that's why I asked. you don't quote further from the NOENG advice , but stop short In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians - the rest is just saying as far as I can make out that when using non eng language sources, wherever, on talk etc it is good and helpful to have the original and the translation sometimes, if requested for example, - 'that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation' is nonsensical to me , I repeat - as you just evade and are endlessly rude and unhelpful and don't reply to questions I'm not bothering with this anymore. its very clear yu don't want debate or comment you want to make demands and insist on getting your way and the request for comments are a charade to you. Sayerslle (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So I see that you continue making personal attacks, as well as asking off topic questions and making excuses for why you removed valid text. -YMB29 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, this is a completely wrong representation of the disputes by YMB29, as least in all aspects that mention my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what is wrong with it exactly? -YMB29 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is obvious whose edits are not neutral here and who is POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, when multiple unrelated editors revert the edits of a single editor, then that is a sign that single editor is attempting to unduly push a POV. --Nug (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Not when those users have a common history of edit warring and harassment of others together. You should know what I am talking about... -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• the intro is supposed to summarize the article and not mention details. Also, there is already a similar sentence in the Analysis section - you realize that you are contradicting yourself here? Anyway, the fact that NKVD/Soviet leadership was aware of what was happening IS NOT a "detail" but quite pertinent. It's exactly the kind of info that belongs in the lede.
• Dyukov - quite simply, he should not be used as he's not RS. If he's used, then yes, information on who he is should be provided.
• Senyavskaya - two minds about this. Probably something by Senyavskaya should be mentioned. But the attention given to her is clearly WP:UNDUE.
• According to Yelena Senyavskaya... - ditto.

Basically, if Dyukov is removed and the part on Senyavskaya is shortened the problems disappear. They are created because way too much space is being given to fringe sources not representative of academic consensus. As far as the first bullet point goes, that's a non-starter. It clearly belongs in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are complaining about undue weight and want an unattributed accusation from one source in the intro... The claim about NKVD/Soviet leadership is not a common fact, but it is what Beevor says or implies.

You may not like Senyavskaya or Dyukov, but that does not matter. The section above shows that Senyavskaya is an academic source. Do you have any evidence to prove your claims? You can't claim that there is an academic consensus without a source directly saying that, see WP:RS/AC. -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't really care if Dyukov is removed. I can replace him with another Russian historian. However, Senyavskaya is important and I have provided enough evidence that she is a good academic source,[16] so her text should be restored in full. -YMB29 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As already explained to you ad nauseum in Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Coat_racking above, the issue is WP:UNDUE usage of Senyavskaya. --Nug (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it WP:UNDUE if the article is on the topic and the section is about Russian criticism? -YMB29 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so Dyukov is removed. I am re-adding Senyavskaya and trimming down the text. -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? I'm at a loss as to how you have the audacity to treat this as a genuine WP:TALK page. At this point, it has become a journal of all of your opinions and what you've done to the content of the article. There has been no consensus for your WP:POV, and most certainly not for the content changes you're now making. This has ceased to be an encyclopaedic article and has become, instead, a testament to your having taken ownership on your behalf. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works: your opinions are not sacrosanct, nor do you have the right to remove content because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Keeping a record of your POV changes here does not has no relationship to the WP:WEIGHT of your preferred sources and that of mainstream scholarship. Enough of your WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What? You should not waste so much energy on making accusations and personal attacks.

The Russian point of view is significant and should be in the article. Everything is properly attributed, so I don't know what you are complaining about.

Some real progress was being made and then you rush in with your battleground thinking. -YMB29 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Iryna. YMB29, please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Self revert what? Coming back and continuing with disruptive comments right away is not a good idea. I also noted that you called me a Stalinist Neo-Nazi.[17] You should apologize. -YMB29 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that was only a very general comment. As should be clear from the diff, I expressed my agreement with essay by Moreschi (see the link). Yes, I do not like nationalistic disputes. I have been recently involved in a number of such discussions, primarily on the Ukrainian events. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I was the last person you talked to, but I am not going to hold it against you if you stop making attacks/accusations and edit in a constructive manner. -YMB29 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We'll you stop please making baseless accusations in lieu of honest discussion? These look like bad faithed attempts at derailing the discussion when it goes against you. And no, criticism of your actions is not "personal attacks", especially when well deserved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So calling me a Stalinist Neo-Nazi is well deserved? -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So the sentence about NKVD files and Russian women was re-added to the intro. I reworded it, but I still don't think it belongs in the intro (per WP:MOSINTRO), at least the part about Russian women.
I am willing to resolve this through WP:3O or WP:DRN. -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we resolve it through WP:CONSENSUS... which seems to be against you? 3O is for disputes involving two users. DRN is different, but I think in a situation where it's you vs. the world it's not applicable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You talking about "consensus" created by former EEML members? There is enough evidence to show that you continue the edit warring and harassment of others together.

That sentence was added by a user who is now banned for edit warring... -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you stop with the attacks and edit in a constructive matter. -YMB29 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)No, consensus by pretty much everyone but you. And who added that text is irrelevant. The sentence belongs in the lede. Also, don't try to play games. You've been edit warring on this article for months and the only reason you haven't gotten blocked is because you're much better at gaming the system. Which is a reflection on Wikipedia not on content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You know a lot about that... Can you explain why that sentence belongs in the intro? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? -YMB29 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that that's what you're doing. And whether or not the Soviet leadership was aware of the rapes is obviously a key issue here and of course it belongs in the lede. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Soviet leadership being aware of the rapes is questionable; it is an opinion not a fact. Same goes for the alleged rape of Russian women, and this article is not about that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And for the last time, STOP ACCUSING OTHERS OF ATTACKING YOU. Legitimate criticism of your tendentious editing, long time edit warring and WP:OWN issues on this article are NOT "attacks". They are a factual description of your disruptive behavior. It is YOU who's resorting to ad hominem attacks about EEML or whatever to bully your way through - since you are incapable of convincing anyone to agree with you. Oh yeah, and if you've got "enough evidence to show that you continue the edit warring and harassment of others together" then please present it. Otherwise, quit it with the baseless accusations. They're getting tiresome and annoying. Hint: the fact that multiple editors disagree with you is not any kind of "evidence of harassment", it's rather a sign that you're pushing a fringe POV here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? The fact that those multiple editors have a common history of disruption to create consensus among other things does not mean anything? I will present the evidence if the disruption continues. -YMB29 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop making empty threats. The only person being disruptive here is you. You've reverted three times today. Yesterday you pretty much blanket reverted to your preferred version despite several days worth of discussion and clear consensus against you. An obvious instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. About a week ago you also reverted three times per day. And you always come back and revert to your preferred version, discussion be damned. It's pretty obvious from the edit history that you're just gaming the 3RR rule and engaging in tendentious editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I made one revert on each of the last two days. Another baseless attack... -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Albert Axell is a historian, see here[18][19][20]. -YMB29 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That does not establish that he's a historian. What institution did he get his PhD in history from? What scholarly publications in history does he have? He's a journalist who writes popular history books. Best I could find is that he "studied history" while an undergrad a UofWisconsin, which could mean anything from "took a class" to "read a history book in between keg parties" to "majored in it". And even if he did major in it, an undergrad degree in history is not enough to make one a "historian". It might be that I'm wrong but these links don't show it.

I should also mention the fact that you willfully and blatantly misrepresented the Bird source. Don't pull stunts like that again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not misrepresenting if Bird really states that. It does not say "in his negative review of Beevor's book," so I don't know what you are talking about.

As for Axell, he is called historian in sources. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, present it here. -YMB29 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're equivocating on the term "historian". This source [21] calls him a "journalist", as does this source [22]. Here is a review of one of Axell's books [23] which basically, all the standard academic niceties aside, says "you should read a real history book instead".

And yes it is misrepresentation. There's a positive, even glowing review of Beevor's book, and you went and cherry picked out the one sentence which makes it look negative. And it's not even that the sentence does that - it's clear from the context of the review that Bird is just saying "we will never know exact numbers for sure" - but you made it seem like some damning criticism of Beevor. You're playing fast and loose with sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, Bird does criticize Beevor for using the statistics and this is relevant. No one is claim that the review is negative or that he attacked Beevor's book in the article. This is less a criticism of Beevor than it is of the statistics. -YMB29 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As for Axell, one negative review does not change anything. The second source that calls him a journalist does that because it mentions him taking an interview, so clearly in this context he is a journalist. Also, you should note that Mark Solonin and Antony Beevor are called historians on wiki, even though they lack an academic degree. -YMB29 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting: I also noticed the potential comparison. Basically, as Mark Solonin is a recognised scholarly expert in the field of the Soviet Union in WWII and Beevor is also considered an expert, Axell comes off as being an interviewer with an opinion (i.e., a journalist). Trying to elevate him to a scholar of any description is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither Solonin nor Beevor have academic degrees, but you don't care because they fit your POV. I don't know if Axell has an academic degree, but he has written many books on WWII history, so he is not simply a journalist. -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29, stop bombarding this talk page as if it were a forum, forgetting to sign your comments, and not following a recognisable form of threading. You've created so many ec's in the last few minutes that it's ridiculous. Think out what you wish to say, then write your comment. Every aspect of your contributions on the talk page, alone, testify to the fact that you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I posted just before you on a talk page does not make me disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but your months long edit warring, your battleground attitude and your refusal to listen to other people in the discussion does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There was already an RfC essentially on the same subject [24]. The result was essentially "no consensus" to include claims by Senyavskaya and other similar authors, but YMB29 still continued edit warring to include these claims in multiple articles. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait. This was *already* a subject of an RfC which was closed with "no consensus for inclusion". Why are we talking about this again? Why is this an issue? YMB29, if you don't feel like observing the outcome of an RfC, or the discussion of this talk page, that's your problem. But you are clearly being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC result was ambiguous; it did say the sources are credible. However, it was for different article, not about this topic, and the sources were eventually included. -YMB29 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop it. The RfC was closed as "no consensus for inclusion", not "ambiguous". To the extent the "sources were eventually included" was only because you either just wore, bored, and tired out those you were in discussion with (all of whom disagreed with you), or simply because you just waited for a bit of time to pass, then sneaked back in and put them back in there. Was it a different article? Yes, but the issue was the same, and the topic was the same - exactly the same author, exactly the same problems. This is just more evidence of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No, there was no sneaking in, but lots of discussion.

Also the article was Battle of Berlin, not about rape, but this article is about rape. That should be obvious...

Also, I note that you are continuing with you personal attacks. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the same freakin' author, it's the same freakin' issue. It's not like it's hard for anyone to check that, so why are you sitting there claiming otherwise? And one more time, I am not making any personal attacks. I am pointing out that you are engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Which you are, and which you do. Accusing another person of "personal attacks" without basis is a personal attacks itself so I suggest you stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of edit warring to sneak text in without having any idea of what went on in that article is a personal attack.

No one was against the text you reverted in that article. In fact it was not me who first added that specific text. The consensus was to leave the text in the footnote. -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Where did you manage to elicit the bizarre understanding that the "RfC result was ambiguous"? All of the points made by the closing admin were clear that consensus and WP:WEIGHT (as well as attribution) were the overriding considerations. Further to that, please demonstrate that the sources were "eventually included" via consensus. I don't see anything of that nature in the article where this was discussed (other than your very, very recent addition of Senyavskaya as a source). Stop gaming. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read this: "There seems to be no dispute regarding the historians' credentials..."? Also, meat puppetting for other users is never a good idea. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

See above what? The RfC was clearly closed as "no consensus for inclusion". And there's no meat puppeting here. You're just engaged in a stubborn refusal to recognize that no one agrees with you, that consensus is against you.<<-- Note, this was written in response to YMB29's original comment. They then changed it.

Did you read this: "No consensus for inclusion"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But it was still included in the notes after further discussion, and again that RfC only applied to that article, see its specific wording. -YMB29 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not only there was an RfC, but YMB29 was warned, specifically about this subject, by yet another uninvolved administrator [25]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a general notification, not specifically to me. You need to stop with false accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No, as obvious from the diff, that was a warning specifically to you (your name was indicated, and so.). Actually, this is major problem with most of your statements. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not being honest again: "I would remind all users that ArbCom has established discretionary sanctions for cases like these, specifically here WP:ARBEE" -YMB29 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who's being dishonest (again). Quote: "YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue". Yeah, that sure sounds like a "general notification". Gimme a break. What's the point of lying, when it's this easy to verify that you're not telling the truth? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So you accusing me of lying. Keep the personal attack coming...

Warned that there is a "Western scholarly consensus" (not like I was denying it), not an EE warning or something like. -YMB29 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop playing games. YOU just accused someone else of lying, quote: "You are not being honest again". And then you accuse others of making personal attacks. Seriously? I just showed that that was not the case. They were not lying. You were - you were warned specifically, not as part of a general warning. It's easy to check and verify that was the case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying that someone was "being dishonest" and that they were "lying" (as you did) is not the same thing. So why don't you check and verify? I was not warned for edit warring or anything like that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This would have to count as one of the worst attempts at playing at semantics I've encountered for a long, long time. Please provide an honest definition of "being dishonest". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying that someone lied is uncivil, while dishonest is more polite. Do I have to explain basic things to you? -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lol. A lie is a lie, and what's really "uncivil" is the lying itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but falsely accusing others of lying is also uncivil. -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This lesson in 'delicacy' on how to discuss issues on talk pages coming from someone who spends his/her time engaging in aspersions, accusations about cabal mentality, plus every kind of insult under the sun? You're preaching wholesale hypocrisy. Read WP:SPADE and let's start parsing your 'civil' arguments - er, discussions - one by one. You've cornered the civility market in spades! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Please continue... -YMB29 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This warning was issued to YMB29 (and possibly to other users) by an uninvolved admin, in response to questions by YMB29 on his talk page. Now, I agree with Iryna and Marek that YMB29 indeed inappropriately modifies/moves comments made by other contributors, as obvious from these diffs: [26], [27]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new section to make the talk page more readable is not disruptive you know. If you want you can show these diffs to an admin and then I can show mine... -YMB29 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New disputes

American journalist Albert Axell has criticized...

Axell is a historian as stated in reliable sources.[28][29][30] If anyone has evidence otherwise, let's see it. Other sources that call him a journalist don't invalidate the fact that he is a historian according to the previous set of sources.

In his review of Beevor's book, Nicky Bird also criticizes the 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?"

This was removed under a pretext that Bird's review is positive, but I cherry picked something bad he says about Beevor's book. This not a valid argument for removing the text. No where does the text claim that Bird's review is negative; it only specifically says that Bird criticizes the use of unverifiable statistics.

If the users here would stop with the battleground mentality and trying to revert or question anything I add, they would see that I have made valid points. -YMB29 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the fact that there was an RfC in another article on a related topic[31], does not mean that its result applies to this article. The Berlin article only touches on the subject of rape while this article is about rape. So "no consensus" (because of WP:UNDUE concerns) to include it in that article, does not translate to "no consensus" to include it here. The only relevant part of the RfC for this article was that it established that the Russian sources are credible. Again, I am willing to go to DRN for this, and if it is required, we can have a RfC for this article too. -YMB29 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what was established. What was established was that there was no consensus for inclusion because it violated UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In that article only, as the RfC's wording was specific to that article. The sources were later included in the footnote, so it was not final.

Also see: "There seems to be no dispute regarding the historians' credentials." -YMB29 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking is cherry picking. If the review is glowing and you pick out the one possibly negative sentence out of it then that is still misrepresenting the source even if you don't explicitly say "the review is negative".

Axell is a journalist. He's a "historian" in the sense that he's a journalist who writes about history. You're equivocating.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well again find sources for your claims. Here we go by what the sources say.

I am not making any claims about Bird's assessment of Beevor's book. Simply stating that he criticizes the statistics is not cherry picking; it is a statement of fact that is directly relevant to the topic. -YMB29 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Bird's criticism of statistics is in the Berlin article, and I was not the one who first added it there.[32] There was also a long discussion about this back then. So if it belongs in that article why not here? -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Overwriting other editor's comments

YMB29, why did you overwrite My very best wishes' comment here? That is a no-no. You're in such a rush to fight everyone that you're not even concerned with how you approach using a talk page with respect to other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Another personal attack... -YMB29 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What 'personal attack' are you going on about? The page history is irrefutably clear: you overwrote another editor's comment! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Overwrote? You mean removed? I guess you felt like creating a new section just to accuse me. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• YMB29, you indeed inappropriately modified/moved my comments here, and repeated this again over my objections [33]. Do not you see? My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not modify it, but created a new section. I see that my alleged misconduct is the only thing you want to discuss here. Like I said before, keep it coming if you wish. This works against you more than me. -YMB29 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My comment was made in response to your comment, but you moved it twice to a different subsection, over my objections. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well actually you removed my comment.[34] Why did you do that? -YMB29 (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That was explained in my edit summary. I restored my comment. My very best wishes (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not restore anything, since I did not remove anything. However, you removed my entire comment and now you are accusing me of doing what you yourself did. This is further proof of your disruption. -YMB29 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. So, you believe that distorting my words (creating a new section and moving my comment twice to this section over my objections) was OK. You also disagree with the most obvious diffs, such as these [35],[36] (discussion here: [37][38]). Too bad. My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I did not remove your comment like you did mine. On that page it was proven that the accusations are false. You need to admit your mistakes. -YMB29 (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New text

Please provide the exact quote which supports the following text:

"Roberts concludes that, given the scale of the conlfict (sic) and the size of the territory involved, probably tens of thousands of rapes were normal for such a conquering force as the Red Army. He also notes that this was probably the scale of the rapes the German Army was guilty of on the Eastern Front"

Also, what is the context of the discussion here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You think I made it up?

The extent of the Red Army's mass rape of German girls, women and old ladies is difficult to judge. Even before Soviet forces crossed into Germany, Nazi propagandists were predicting that the Asiatic hordes of judeobolshevism would mass rape German womanhood... Tens of thousands of rapes would have been 'normal' for such a conquering army, given the scale of the conflict and the size of countries involved. That is probably the kind of tally the Germans notched up on the Eastern Front, although murder, not rape, was their more typical 'crime of violence'.

-YMB29 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll let you answer that again, and change the article text accordingly, before I file a report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You threatening me? I gave the quote above. What do you want? -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am warning you and I am giving you a chance. What I want is for you to stop grossly misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The only part that was omitted is a quote from Naimark, which does not change the point of what is said. -YMB29 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's like saying that if the sentence is "X is not Y" and you quote it as "X is ... Y" then the "only part that was omitted" is the NOT. The Naimark quote completely changes the meaning, which is obvious. The Naimark quote, which according to you "does not change the point of what is said", says: it may have been tens of thousands or more likely in the hundreds of thousands What Roberts is saying is that "tens of thousands" would've been "normal" for a "normal army". You changed that to pretend that that's what he says the Red Army actually did. Nonsense. The whole point of that para is that the Red Army was NOT a "normal" army in that regard.

The text right after that goes into descriptions of how Soviet soldiers were ENCOURAGED to "take revenge" by their commanders and Soviet leadership. Did you not see that part? It's only like two pages long. And then Roberts provides more numbers where he says that 70,000 to 100,000 women may have been raped in Vienna alone (although he says this is might be exaggerated).

You really need to get out of this habit of lying when it is so easy to verify your claims and show them to be false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you are ignoring the obvious here...

See the text I added: "probably tens of thousands of rapes were normal for such a conquering force as the Red Army." It is exactly the same thing Roberts is saying. He also directly says that the numbers were exaggerated.

I am quoting Roberts, not Naimark. Naimark is already cited a lot in the article.

You should apologize for your accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I did forget to add a relevant piece: After the war wildly exaggerated figures were bandied about as part of an effort to partially exonerate Germany's war record by showing how much the Germans, particularly innocent women and children, had suffered too. However, this is a quote for the first part of the text, which you did not ask for. -YMB29 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, my point with adding the new text was not to suggest that Roberts thinks the alleged scale of rape was normal (this is your interpretation), but to show that he thinks the numbers were exaggerated and that the Germans committed rapes too along with worse crimes. So your accusation ("You really need to get out of this habit of lying") was uncalled for. You should apologize. -YMB29 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You are either incapable of getting it or are stubbornly pretending you don't get it. You are blatantly misrepresenting the source. Not kosher.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like all you are capable of is making accusations... Why don't you try reading what I wrote. -YMB29 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This should be settled now. -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)