Talk:Red Army atrocities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please post comments regarding article at the bottom of the page.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

Fleeing from the advancing Soviet forces, possibly more than two million people in the eastern provinces of Germany (East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania) died, many of cold and starvation, but many were killed by Soviet forces, or killed while being caught up in combat operations. But the fact is that the Nazis had invaded Poland and later the Soviet Union to enslave them all and take all their land but now the Nazis had lost the war and were forced to give up the land, in any case many times less Germans died then Soviet did in the occupation of land. [17] [18] [19]

That entire paragraph, to me, instead of seeming like an explanation as to WHY they did it, seems more as though the author is attempting to state that the Soviets were obliged or morally allowed to commit such crimes. Ameise -- chat 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the last sentence is extremely POV. There is a user, who has logged in from multiple different IP addresses, who continues to try and inject this sort of statement. You can tell it is the same person because of the "enslave them all and take their land" comment which he/she uses each time the POV statement is added. It is hard to block because he/she keeps coming from different IPs. There are a number of apologists who want to keep defacing this article in the name of "So what, Nazis were worse." Only thing to be done is to keep vigilant and keep trying to fix it. --Jaysweet 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandal was at it again, i restored the article to the 8 March revision by Pewpewlazers --Dani Fëanor 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandals are who remove the information and try to white wash the nazi crimes. The Article contains infomration about the red army but also contains about the nazies, the vandals are those who remove the crimes made by the nazies but keep the crimes made by the red army. And the infomation is the truth and verified by sources and people who removed sourced facts do so because they do not like it, it is not peoples place to remove 100% true facts just because they do not like what it says. It is 100% true that the nazies wanted to inslave all the soviets, are you perhaps saying that it is not true? All the information is 100% true and sourced so it stays. Anyone who removes it does so because he does not want people to know about the German crimes, anyone who removes it does so because he likes the nazies and wants to remove anything negative about them. Curalkeeps 12:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is whitewashing nazi crimes. There are entire articles devoted to the exploration of what the nazis did. This article, however, isn't about nazism and your POV commentary doesn't belong here. Please read WP:CIV before you continue to call other editors nazis. IrishGuy talk 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Are you saying the nazies did not do this things, by removeing the information you are golrifying the nazies perhaps you liked the nazies. And yes there are articles about the nazi crimes but in those there is also information about the other side. And it is not POV it is fact Curalkeeps 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Exactly what is being contested here?

1. It seems to me that whoever wrote this page had access to a number of references. Do you have any references for your "heavily contested" statement about the number of rapes of German women by Russian soldiers?

2. The author of this article mentions 2,000,000 dead. This is basically a mirror of what is said at the expulsion of germans after world war II article. Why did they need to be evacuated before the Red Army? Possibly Nemmersdorf explains why. The accusation against bad evacuation by the authorities rings like a bad rationalisation to me.

3. The sinking of the ships. The articles mentions that despite killing a huge number of civilians, Since the ships were either lightly armed or convoyed, their sinkings have not been classified as war crimes.¨What do you contest about this text?

Be more specifik in your charges aginst the current text, preferably with references, or I will have to remove the tags. Stor stark7 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And I will remove "fleeing" and "sinking" parts, then. No doubt deaths of civilians are tragedy, but the aricle title puts the full blame onto "red hordes". I will tolerate the article "as is" for now, as a place to collect raw material, but if you start insisting on it being the ultimate truth, you will have a serious opposition, colleague. `'mikka (t) 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The German ships were loaded with soldiers as well as civilians - it isn't as clearcut as the text is trying to make it. Rmhermen 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While Mikka's point is not addressed some red linked user who made no entry at talk to explain himself [removed the tag. Morover, the article underwent no change at all and as such, the points raised at talk could not be possibly addressed. Nor they are refuted as no entries were made at talk as well. I am restoring it.

Besides, the article totally fails to bring things into context or to represent the variety of sources as it is entirely based on unlisted German sources and Beevor.

I have no problems with Beevor per se. However, the results of his research are controversial and are not typical western scholarship view. Still, it is entirely encyclopedic to have an article about Beevor's view on things, but such should be not this article but the article titled Anthony Beevor or not yet written article about his book that should be titled such that it is clear that it is the article not about the events in general but about the version presented in the particular book. Anyone is welcome to start such article under Berlin - The Downfall 1945, which is how his book was called.

We have a good perecedent for such practice: the articles Alfred-Maurice de Zayas and the article about his book called A Terrible Revenge. Until Beevor's conclusions become near universally agreed upon, his views similarly belong either to the articles about him or his books. If, however, Beevor is used as a source for other articles, it has to be balanced by other sources that are more mainstream. --Irpen 23:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to changing the article title to the title of Beevors book. The sources he used are as far as I know German sources, which is logical since the witnesses/victims are mainly German. All Beevor did was bring the subject more into the popular light in english speaking countries. This has also been done by sources such as Martha Hiller book [Marta Hillers] first published in the 1950's and republished a few years ago. Historian Norman Naimark, and others, have previously presented the same 2,000,000 rape victims numbers. Quote: "Naimark's research supports the estimate made by German historians Barbara Johr and Helke Sander that Soviet soldiers raped as many as two million German women between the time their counteroffensive reached German territory and well past the formal end of hostilities (see Johr and Sander, eds., Befreier und Befreite, Krieg, Vergewaltigungen, Kinder [Munich: Verlag Antje Kunstmann, 1992])"[1]. As far as I can tell the only place where the rape events are not commonly accepted by now as fact by historians/people is some countries of the former Soviet Union, i.e. where the Red Army personel came from. (At least Russian politicians seem to dissent) But even the famous Russian author Solzhenitsyn wrote about the rapes in his texts. Some of the external-links refer to articles prompted by Beevors book, but only one clear reference. The only use of Beevor in the main text is in regards to the motives for the rapes, which I now have added the reference for. The rapes in Hungary have their own listed sources. And I've also added a listed source for the 2,000,000 German rape number (the reference, by William I. Hitchcock, refers to Naimarks research). All Beevor does is confirm what other sources already have concluded, and we've not even included his confirmation in the article. Thus I believe your argument regarding the rapes is now void.
As regards Mikka's objections. The sinking part has already been removed from the article, leaving just the "fleeing" part. The civilian deaths as a consequence of Red Army actions is of course a tricky subject. The paragraphs currently states an estimate of deaths, and some causes; combat-operations, cold and starvation, and murder by Red Army personel. I think it should stand as it is, as a seed for further fleshing out by editors with access to sources which can quantify how many victimes there were to the different causes of death. A quote from William I. Hitchcock's book. "Not only were Germans abused, terrorized, and driven off their land, but they were murdered in large numbers, and women in particular were made into targets of abuse. German women were raped in unimaginable numbers, then often killed or left to die from their wounds." [2]. A quote from another text "Masuria’s planned evacuation had scarcely begun before it was cut off by the rapid Soviet advance. Most of its people were overtaken by Red Army units while trying to make their way westward in horse-drawn wagons or on foot. These treks were often looted and demolished; females, regardless of age, were raped , and males (regardless of age) often shot." Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe Essentialy, large-scale attrocities were commited, the only real question is "how large-scale". In view of this I think the NPOV tag should be removed. --Stor stark7 Talk 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Since there's been no further objections in 15 days I'm removing the NPOV tag --Stor stark7 Talk 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

To keep a lookout for translations:

  • Überleben war schwerer als Sterben. Ostpreußen 1944-1948, von Erika Morgenstern

(Survival was worse than death. East Prussia 1944-1948)

  • Befreier und Befreite. Krieg, Vergewaltigung, Kinder, von Helke Sander, Barbara Johr.

(Liberators and Liberated. War, Rape, Children)

Stor stark7 12:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A woman in Berlin

Editorial reviews:

  • From Publishers Weekly, see link.

From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com. See link

[edit] New edit/ Naval Warfare

I'd like to edit the following section to the article:

1. In retaliation to German attacks on civilian transport ships, 2. the Soviet High Command ordered to violate international rules of Naval Warfare in particular not to respect indicated and listed hospital ships.**

  • IMT-protocols Nuremberg, No.40, p.50/51
  • de Zayas, "Die Anglo-Amerikaner und die Vertreibung der Deutschen", Ullstein, 1988.

Still I don't have sources for the first part (yet).--Number 17 13:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinking of Steuben, Gustloff, Goya

Those were tragedies, not atrocities, and they have no place on this page. The ships were travelling without any protection under international law, in convoy, carrying combat capable soldiers as well as civilians, and they were valid military targets. Andreas 15:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Gustloff was a military training ship for personal of U-boats and was carrying soldiers. --Molobo 17:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to want to defend it, it goes. Andreas 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the link to the book on the sinking of the ships, since that was orphaned now. Andreas 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


                        Wilhelm Gustloff            Steuben               Goya

Soldiers (not wounded): 980 300 500

Wounded Soldiers: 200 2000 500

Civilians 8800 2000 6000

Wilhelm Gustloff was transporting 980 soldiers for combat mission. On Steuben and Goya soldiers were on board only to organise a mass evacuation of a wounded and nervous crowd. Soviet state of knowledge: They (Commander and High Command) knew a mass evacuation was taking place and ships were crowded with refugees. The sinkings may not be classified as war crimes as they don't match certain legal criterias. But at least the sinkinks of Steuben and Goya remain atrocities. --Number 17 23:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. These were ships that were travelling in protected convoy, without illumination. They were fair game. If you believe their sinking violated 'certain legal criteria' you are welcome to point out which one these were. The ships were valid targets under the laws of war as they applied and were implemented by all nations active in the war then (see also Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. If the Nazi leaders responsible for this cock-up had wanted to protect their own citizens they could have sent them as hospital ships. Andreas 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if they were legal targets or not. This article is named Red Army Atrocities and not Red Army War Crimes. To sink refugee transport ships in intention to kill a large number of civilians is an atrocity, even if the ships were convoyed, armed with FLAK, illuminated, 980 soldiers on board, not declared hospital ships. Now the text gives all necessary information so the reader can decide by himself wether he sees those sinkings as atrocities or not.--Number 17 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it is gone again. I suggest you try:

a) a dictionary to see the definition of atrocity and how legal acts of war connect to it and b) to build a consensus before re-adding disputed information.

Otherwise we can go back and forth adding and deleting the information. At the moment I do not accept that the sinkings have a legitimate place on this page. Make a better case for their inclusion. Andreas 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between war crime and atrocity? 1.Atrocity = Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness. 2.Atrocity = An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners. Even the second definition matches with the sinkings, as they were an act of unusual cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians.--Number 17 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They were not. The Soviet commander of the sub had no way of knowing what kind of ship he attacked, or who was on board, other than it was an enemy ship travelling in convoy. Under your definition any sinking of a merchant ship (merchant seamen are civilians) by any sub in any war was an atrocity. Civilians got killed e.g. in the sinking of the SS_Athenia. Hence the skipper of U-30 committed an atrocity. I think not. These sinkings have no place on a page called 'Red Army Atrocities'. Your idea to let readers make up their mind also does not fly - this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. We are dealing in verifiable facts. Andreas 08:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet state of knowledge

1. background knowledge

The German High Command didn't even try to hide that they were evacuating more than 2 million people via the Baltic Sea in a time period of 4 months. So the Soviet High Command and the Commander of the sub knew a mass evacuation was taking place.

2. Size, shape and speed of the ship

Readily identifiable from a 700 metre distance no German battleship ever had a shape comparable to the Wilhelm Gustloff's. At this time the only German battleship which was similar in length was the Gneisenau but not even close in height, speed and shape.

3. Noise of the crowd

When the first torpedo hit Wilhelm Gustloff’s bow, the noise of a crowd of several thousand (women mainly) screaming in fear of death was audible. In a distance of 700 metres it’s still 25 to 40 dB, depending on weather conditions. As the submarine was on the surface the Crew and the Commander heard it. Yet they launched torpedo 2, 3 and 4. (One of those 4 torpedos failed to fire.)

Andreas:"The Soviet commander of the sub had no way of knowing what kind of ship he attacked." Source your claim.--Number 17 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. That does not mean this ship is carrying mostly civilian evacuees. 2. That does not mean this ship is carrying mostly civilian evacuees. 3. This Article indicates the three torpedoes were fired within seconds from each other. The article will also back up my claim. Andreas 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This article, which coincidentally claims it was no atrocity, gives wrong informations:
A. The distance was 700 not 1000 metres.
B. Launching the torpedos, S – 13 was on the surface (Heinz Schön, SOS Wilhelm Gustloff. Die größte Schiffskatastrophe der Geschichte, Motorbuch Verlag Pietsch, 1998, ISBN 3613019000 p. 106)
C. Although very detailed it doesn’t give the information that one torpedo (named "for Stalin") failed to fire.
D. I don’t know of any sources concerning the time period between the launches in case of Wilhelm Gustloff’s (yet). But this I know for sure: If you want all torpedos to hit at the same spot you have minimum time period of a few seconds between the first and the second torpedo. But if you want them to hit different spots like e.g. the bow, machine deck, etc. you need an aiming period of at least 15 seconds (+ missfire).
E. One of those torpedos was named „For Leningrad“.
Sure the commander didn’t have the 100 % probability that this ship was carrying civilians mostly. Knowing of Hitler’s evilness he could have thought this may be a fake troop transport. But knowing of 1.and 2. the probability of being a civilian transport ship crowded with evacuees increased, whereas the propability of being a (fake) troop transport decreased. 3. gave him 100 % probability, here’s 4:
4. Knowing he just sunk a refugee transport ship, the commander of the sub decided to attack the rescue ship Hipper which had to break off then, leaving many people to die.--Number 17 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

B. The article does infer the sub was on the surface. D. So, that still does not give you time to note what you have hit. E. So what? 4. You still have no proof that he knew he sank a refugee ship, and attacking escorts was standard practice. Since the German heavy cruisers had contributed to successful German defense actions before, they were prime targets.

You are still not adressing the fundamental point - the Gustloff was a legitimate target. Attacking it was a legitimate act of war, and can not in any way shape or form be compared to rapes, which were not legitimate acts of war. It therefore has no place on this page. That the sinking was a tragedy is without doubt, but it was not an atrocity. Andreas 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estimations

I have clarified some of the things in the article, namely that the 2,000,000 figure is an estimate. Nobody was counting, and readers can make their own mind up based on the documentation provided how reliable the estimate is. Also, not all of the 2,000,000 estimated rape victims died afterwards, but the text before my edit read as if that was the case. It was also incompatible with the 2,000,000 total death toll estimation in the following paragraph. Andreas 08:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As an aside - these edits do not mean that I endorse the information provided in the paragraphs that I edited. Andreas 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The originator of the article, whom I presume had read the sources he provided, left it as this [3]. Later, another contributor, seemingly seriously lacking reading skills, changed it to this [4]. You should have reverted that vandalism (intentional or unintentional), instead of contributing to it. The original statement of deaths due to rape, directly or indirectly, was 200,000. So what we have here are (roughly) 2,000,000 rape victims, of whom 200,000 died. I've also reinserted the mention, that you removed, that the Soviet Union troops were completely separated from the residential population in 1947. If you'd bothered to read the external link[5] you'd seen a reason for why this was done: "By the late 1940s - the rapes went on for three years or more - the Soviet troops had left behind them a broken people. According to some reports, 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected with venereal diseases, while Beevor cites one doctor who said that, of the 100,000 women estimated to have been raped in Berlin, a tenth of them died, mostly from suicide. The mortality figures for the approximately 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, he says, are believed to have been much higher."
Blablabla contributing to vandalism. What you need to get is that ALL the numbers are estimates. Period. Nobody was counting during the refugee treck period. Nobody was counting during the battle of Berlin. The only people who could have counted after the war ended were the Soviet controlled health administrations in East Germany, and they were the last people who would have counted. I have seen this discussion many times, and as of now NOBODY has come up with a report that uses anything other than estimations. So the original statement was talking about an estimate as well. As for your link, it again goes back to Beevor, nothing else. 'According to some reports' is weasling at its best, by the way. I don't really know why I respond to some anonymous git who accuses me of contributing to vandalism anyway, but there you have it. Andreas 08:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't have a cow man. I was just pointing out that you were very careless when using the erroneous 2,000,000 "rape deaths" number as the cause for your edits. An now you go and add aditional text: " ...or killed while being caught up in combat operations." Ok, you seem to have knowledge in the area to be able to add that information. How many are "estimated" to have died in "combat operations"? The only number I've seen regarding what possibly might count as "combat operations" are those located here [6] as a reference in this article Expulsion of Germans after World War II. On page 5, The West German Ministry for Refugees and Displaced Persons report divides the deaths from the expulsion areas into two: 2,111,000 expulsion "losses"; 1,100,000 "war losses", making for a total of 3,211,000 dead in the expulsion areas. Shouldn't you revise the number of casualties uppwards, maybe all the way up to the to the 3,211,000 number, when adding "combat operations" to the causes of deaths? That is if we can equate "war losses" with "caught up in combat operations". Please tell me you based your text additions on a source. Any source at all?
The addition is based on texts dealing with the combat operations that quite clearly state that refugee trecks were caught in combat operations, due to the failure of the local administrators to evacuate in time. E.g. Duffy's 'Red Storm on the Reich', or Pantenius 'Letzte Schlacht an der Ostfront'. It is impossible for me to know what the ministry counted as war losses. Is a refugee treck shot up by a Soviet fighter bomber a war loss or an expulsion loss? I'd say the former, the ministry and others may disagree, and with good reason too. That would just confirm however that not all 'expulsion losses' are due to atrocities. Or is it always an atrocity? What if the pilot ID'd it as a horse-drawn supply column? I would present the upper number in any case, and the breakdown, and leave it at that after indicating that an unknown number of the deaths are due to atrocities, and that individual accounts indicate that this unknown number is probably quite high.

My original edit was based on a simple point. "2,000,000 German females who then later died from injuries sustained, committed suicide, or were murdered outright. " This was the sentence that led to the edit. You can stand on your head, but it won't make the fact go away that this sentence says that 2,000,000 German females died from being raped. If you have a problem with that, address it to whoever made the erroneous edit removing the 200,000 figure that lead to that sentence. BTW - the document you linked is unreadable for me, since it opens in a tiny window. Congrats to the cretins who came up with the most complicated solution possible for presenting a simple PDF file. It's good to see EU money well spent. Andreas 10:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit peeved at that myself. You can make the window slightly larger by clicking the "+" at the top, second to the right of the window. Thereafter you just have to use the magnifying glass at the second to top, to the left, to zoom in on parts of the pages. Not the most efficient way to read the thing I know, but with some effort it is doable.

[edit] Would some poetry be applicable?

I feel that an excerpt from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s poem Prussian Nights might add some colour to this rather drab stub. From [7] "The little daughter's on the mattress,/Dead. How many have been on it/A platoon, a company perhaps?"

I found a slightly larger portion of it here[8]:

Twenty-two Hoeringstrasse. It's not been burned, just looted, rifled. A moaning by the walls, half muffled: the mother's wounded, half alive. The little daughter's on the mattress, dead. How many have been on it? A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl's been turned into a woman, a woman turned into a corpse. . . . The mother begs, "Soldier, kill me!"

Stor stark7 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


No! Those soviet soldier reports may be true may be not. In any case they (like the book of beevor mainly) are based on anecdotal evidence. When it comes to numbers expressed in millions, it's only good for propaganda. The atrocities on the Eastern front are based on reference 1 to 6, which are statistical studies with full disclosure of methodology and raw data.--Number 17 10:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The revenge motive

The revenge motive for the atrocities is disputed, and the new introductory text should be rephrased to reflect this. From [9]: ...he was "shaken to the core" to discover that Russian and Polish women and girls liberated from concentration camps were also violated. "That completely undermined the notion that the soldiers were using rape as a form of revenge against the Germans," he said. --Stor stark7 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose that it be changed from this:

When the Red Army entered German territory it exacted often brutal revenge for German atrocities in the territory of the Soviet Union, including engaging in plunder, rape, and murder of civilians. While the laws of the Red Army officially prohibited such activities, the leadership nonetheless tolerated them.

To this: When the Red Army entered Axis territory it engaged in plunder, rape, and murder of civilians. While the laws of the Red Army officially prohibited such activities, the leadership nonetheless tolerated them. The common notion is that this activity was a revenge for German atrocities in the territory of the Soviet Union. This explanation is disputed, at least with regards to the mass rapes.

The change proposal is based on the fact that 1. Germans were not the only victims, the Hungarians were also subject to rape. 2. Beevor challenges the revenge notion based on his dicovery that the rapes were indiscriminate (Polish and Russian women were also victimised). I feel he is a good enough source to take his challenge to the motive seriously. --Stor stark7 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the revenge motive is quite clearly documented, even though Beevor challenges it. It should stay, even though it may not serve as sole explanation. Regarding Hungary - it was a fully signed up member of the Axis, and had been almost from day one of the war against the Soviet Union, with two successive field armies employed on Soviet territory. Andreas 09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand your reply. Do you agree to my change proposal, or dispute it? The proposed version changes "german teritory" to "axis teritory", and also mentions that the common explanation is revenge, but that this is disputed. Thus the motive remains, but gains nuance. --Stor stark7 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy with the proposed change, if you could show that e.g. rapes occurred in Romania and Manchuria/Korea as well. I think your current proposal regarding the disputed nature of the claim is a bit weasely - you should state who disputes it and why. Andreas 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One more go:

When the Red Army entered German and Hungarian territory it engaged in plunder, rape, and murder of civilians. While the laws of the Red Army officially prohibited such activities, the leadership nonetheless tolerated them. The common notion is that this activity was a revenge for German atrocities in the territory of the Soviet Union. This explanation is disputed by military historian Anthony Beevor, at least with regards to the mass rapes. Beevor claims that his findings that Red Army soldiers also raped Russian and Polish women liberated from concentration camps completely undermines the revenge explanation. --Stor stark7 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections to this phrasing, I've inserted it into the article --Stor stark7 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using Beevor as a a source (NPOV)

Using Beevor's book as a source is iffy at best. It's a work of journalism, not a history. It seems as if most of the links at the bottom of the page more or less lead to Beevor as their original author or inspiration. Cossack 02:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not listed as a source but under further reading and external links. It confims the 100,000 rape vicims of Berlin which are based on Charité archives and Landesarchiv Berlin.--Number 17 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't confirm anything. Beevor's claims are barely substantiated estimates at best. Cossack 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong claim

"Red Army atrocities committed in Germany and throughout Eastern Europe by the end of the World War II and in its aftermath are still a taboo in Russia [1]"

It is not a taboo. It is considered as the western dirty agitprop lie. Using the word "taboo" in the sentence implies that it is a fact that is forbiden to speak of. And weven in the link presented the Russia's ambassador said that it is "obvious lies and insinuations". So the correct phrase would be "Daniel Johnson believes that Red Army atrocities committed in Germany and throughout Eastern Europe by the end of the World War II and in its aftermath are still a taboo in Russia [1]" --Nekto 08:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Subsection required

I think that we should include a subsection that would deal with cold war propaganda and myths(as a matter of fact, I believe that many articles dealing with the history of cold war should include a subsection for historiography). While I am more than certain that soldiers of the RKKA looted, raped and murdered civilians (both in the USSR and abroad) just like soldiers of any other army (even the most democratic ;) (up to 650 thousand dead civilians in Iraq and counting), I happen to think that "estimates" that are being provided as a guide to scale ( i mean 2 million could be 3 million or 1 million, but not like 50 thousand) are inflated, as is the case with most cold war era "research" about the evils of the Soviet Union. Also, the article contradicts itself saying that a)"When the Red Army entered German and Hungarian territory it engaged in plunder, rape, and murder of civilians, although the laws of the Red Army officially prohibited such activities" and b)"After June 1945 the Soviet high command imposed punishments for rape ranging from arrest to execution". If this is describing some kind of juridicular (pardon the spelling) reform, it is not clear from the article, elsewise, it is wrong - because the notion is that rape was not punished until June 1945 when the "Soviet high command imposed punishments for rape" However, there are documents from the Soviets of that time, which describe how the RKKA was protecting civilians, and what problems there were. As soon as I rediscover where I found it I will post it (prolly russian only, but if you can get by with the crummy grammar of a text translator...) With respect, Ko Soi.

Interesting proposal. It may perhaps be interesting to note that the phrase "they raped every woman from eight to eighty" comes verbatim from the Goebbels reports on Nemmersdorf or Mayakovskoye, which we now know to have been a largely set up operation. It may be interesting to note that for various reasons, Soviet soldiers DID listen to German radio and heard the Goebbels propaganda about Nemmersdorf - not only about the rapes, but also about how the Soviet army had even killed French POWs, while most Soviet soldiers knew there were French pilots fighting on their side. Also with respect, I have decided to add the Fisch book to the references. --Pan Gerwazy 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend I personaly knew a lot of survivers of the Second World war and all of them had stories to tell about the red army raping women and that whent on, far inthe time of the Russian occupation of Germany and Austria.

If you speak about Goebbles, please speak too about Ilea Ehrenburg.

Johann

What's wrong with Ilya Ehrenburg? Why you compare a journalist with the German Propaganda Minister? 62.5.202.26 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

I tried to clean up the numerous grammatical, usage and spelling errors but someone undid all my work. I also tried to make the tone of the article more neutral, but we are now back to hearing about how the "nazies" invaded Poland to "ensalve" its people. I seem to remember an agreement struck by Molotov and Ribbentrop that resulted in a virtually simultaneous invasion of Poland by both Russia and Germany. I don't know if any of the specific claims about atrocities are true or verifiable and I'm not interested in which dictator (Stalin or Hitler) succeeded in killing more Russian and German civilians. I do know that the obvious historical and language errors suggest to even the casual reader that the page is useless as a reference, and it is therefore a shame that so many have invested so much in an article that no one in their right mind would rely on. Good luck.--Gibbon2007 06:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the "nazies/enalve" sentence and did some other copy-edit. I agree with you Gibbon. While the facts in this article are correct and are reasonably sourced, the tone seems to have an apologist undercurrent. For instance, why the sentence reminding us that other wars have had rapes and murders? I don't know anything about this subject -- that's why I clicked on this article, heh -- so I also don't know anything about whether these claims are true or verifiable. But yeah, as it stands now, this article is not very useful. --Jaysweet 21:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

What are your thoughts on merging this page with the Red Army article? It seems to be a subservient point to the history of the army itself. The facts listed here could quite easily be incorporated into the main article. Republicson 08:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OLD COMMENTS

About the whole article "red army atrocities)

This article is scandalous. It is absolute nonsense that the germans (here refered as nazis... or better said nazies... ) "killed" 20 million russian civilians... and raped more women than the Red Army... and that they "would take all women between 15-25 and send them to brothels, all women between 25-50 were sent back to the third reich to work in factories and all women over 50 were killed on the spot" is pure speculation. And many other points in this text are simply nonsense. The crimes of the nazis were terrible, but they are at least well documented and acknowledged while the crimes of the polish, czechs and the red army on the germans are still hardly known and not acknowledged at all. This wikipedia text supports the allied construction of history and is simply unworthy and biased.

Moabit

EXPLICATIVE REMOVED People like you should be prohibited from editing Wikipedia. You should first learn some history, and stop spreading your propaganda.


There is no questions that there were some rapes of German women, but the exact number is hotly contested. Freezing of evacuees is not fault of the Red Army but the people who had organized the evacuation, similar with the ships that were legal military targets. I have put NPOV tag abakharev 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And I add the factual accuracy too. --Irpen 05:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

@Bakharev Perhaps you should first read the statements of your own countymen like Ehrenburg, Kopelev and others before you write this bullshit. The red army did act like a bunch of criminals. DBA 09/09/06

@DBA The Red Army defeated the Nazis and gave a few good lessons to the Japanese. So why don't you kindly show some respect to the people who fought so bravely for the freedom of humankind. With respect, Ko Soi.

@Ko Soi What "good lessons to the Japanese" are you talking about? Do you even remember when the USSR joined the war against Japan? And, me being ironic, I do show respect for mass-murderers and rapists who fight for that kind of freedom like in GDR 1953, Hungary 1956, CSSR 1968, Afghanistan 1979 and their holiday-camps named the GULAG. Just in case you really do show respect for that, you should seek mental treatment as soon as possible. Some good advice: NEVER talk about things you do not understand. DBA

@DBA Please do calm down and stop insulting people. @Ko Soi It sounds like you really do not recognize the red army's part in conquering eastern europe. Looking at Katyn and others it is hard to belive that they "fought bravely for freedom". It is of no use to discuss who got more people killed -Hitler, Stalin or Mao- but we all should recognize that they were mass-murderers and comitted their crimes with the help of ten-thousands or even millions of followers. Brasseur 11.13.06

You guys are seriously messed up if would rather side with murdering Nazi criminal scum than with the Red Army that liberated Eastern Europe and eliminated the greatest threat to humanity. You can really tell when liberal activists have run out of things to protest when they start making up stuff to excuse Nazi actions.

Look, even Milovan Djilas made an official complaint to Stalin about the behavior of the Red Army, and the Red Army had only a very minor presence in Yugoslavia, a Soviet ALLY. The Red Army committed a large number of well documented atrocities.

This isn't about taking sides, it's about providing information about verified activities. Acknowledging the unneccessary civilian deaths from the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo is not "taking the side of" or "excusing" Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. History is not a black and white exercise in establishing good and evil, and if you insist on seeing it that way, you're going to be very unhappy with wikipedia. Detruncate 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the holocaust

It's not even necessary. Nothing in this article pertains to what Nazi soldiers or the German government did to Jews. It could maybe be justified if you're taking the "revenge" angle, but Soviet soldiers probably didn't know about the holocaust. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pewpewlazers (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Link to the holocaust

It's not even necessary. Nothing in this article pertains to what Nazi soldiers or the German government did to Jews. It could maybe be justified if you're taking the "revenge" angle, but Soviet soldiers probably didn't know about the holocaust.--Pewpewlazers 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust is not only about "jews". More Soviet citizens died in the holocaust then "jews". About 6 million "jews" died out of which 3 million were soviet and above that 10 million non jews Soviets died Curvemakes 08:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
And even more Soviet Citizens died under Josef Stalin reign of terror, but those two things have nothing to do with this article. --Dani Fëanor 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No less people died read the Stalin article, Some 8-10 million Soviets died as a direct and indirect result of Stalin, and 30 million Soviets died as a direct and indirect result of Hitler. And the holocaust link is a must because it is a war crime Curalkeeps 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't your read the Stalin article yourself? it clearly states that estimates range to up to 60 Millions whom have died under the Stalin regime, stop trying to spread historical revisionism and apologetic propaganda. --Dani Fëanor 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Tell me how you can not see that it says that the early estimates were totally and absolutely wrong. You should read the Stalin article again it clarly says the 60 million were way wrong and based on Anecdotal evidence "Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence" Anecdotal evidence. There are a few interesting things here one is that the 60 million was placed to point out to people how wrong and comical it was and 2 is that you do not see this. Also that you are praising the Germans and glorifying their crimes when you remove any mention of the German crimes. You should stop with historical revisionism the 60 million were comical figures basted on Anecdotal evidence And the person who removed the link to the holocaust has also added some very interesting links to the holocaust denial page. The fact that you keep on removing the Nazi crimes that you can not see that the Stalin page says that the 60 million were completely wrong and 100% wrong and that you are praising the Germans glorifying them at every turn proves that there is perhaps something here that should not be here. Curalkeeps 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't necessarily have a problem with a link to Holocaust in the external links section. Both are WWII atrocities that occurred on a massive scale, so I can see how they are marginally related.
What is POV is telling the reader that the Red Army atrocities are justified because the Holocaust. Let the reader make up his or her own mind. (Or, if you are Curalkeeps, just call them a naize and maybe then they'll agree with you) --Jaysweet 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


The most interesting fact here is that Dani was proved 100% wrong and it was proved that he can not read. The Stalin page clearly says that the 60 million were comical estimates made based on fictional facts. That is the most important thing here that Dani was wrong. Nothing is justified by anything who said anything about justification, just you. The holocaust page has a section about holocaust denial so this page has a section about German war crimes. Curalkeeps 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make up lies and then call them fact, I never claimed that Stalin killed 60 Millions, i stated that it is estimated that he killed up to 60 millions, you chose to believe he only killed between 8-10 Million? its fine with me but don't attack other people claiming that they have said other things than they have said. By the way, if you read the sources of that article it also lists a number of sources, most listing between 20-30 Millions as the death toll of Stalin's regime, and many listing 50+ millions. So please stop making false accusations and personal attacks on people here or i will be forced to report you. --Dani Fëanor 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


And those early estimates were wrong it says so right in the article "anecdotal evidence" but you do not see that because do do not want to see that "anecdotal evidence". It clearly says that the early eastimates were wrong "anecdotal evidence". It says anecdotal evidence what part of anecdotal evidence do you not understand The early eastimates were proved absoutely wrong, no one in their right mind is saying 60 million today can you not read? "Most" pre 1991 are extremly high and you choose to use them because they are high, read the article the archives which were opened after 1991 give a total of 3 million so I am beeing extremly generous when I say 10 million. Never forget for one second that it is you who are makeing accusations so I maybe should report you for calling me a vandal when in fact it is you who are the vandal when you censor the page and see things that are not there. Here is the qoute Handsthere 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation or other causes in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims." Handsthere 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you see here but for me it is as clear as day the 60 million are wrong and the real number is 3 million but maybe in your censor world where everything is censored you do not see the part of anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence Handsthere 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


And If I may point out yet again where you are wrong the first beeing "it clearly states that estimates range to up to 60 Millions whom have died under the Stalin regime" which was proven 100%, the second time you where you are wrong yet again is to say 20-30 million, the maximum it says in the article is 15-20 million there is no number 30 in the article so again like you have been so many times before you are wrong Handsthere 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I never called you a vandal Mr. Handsthere, oh wait you must be Curalkeeps under a different name, whats happening? trying get "support" by using multiple accounts? Oh and the article does indeed state about the findings in the achieves it also clearly states that those archives are believed to be unreliable, in the end it says that a minimum of 10 Million deaths are attributable to the regime, so the upper limit of your extremely generous "holy truth" is actually the bare minimum of what is generally considered as serious estimates. Also please do contact moderators and administrators, most people here already told your that what your are trying to insert in this article is extremely biased and thus not allowed by wikipedia rules, i am sure that they see it in the same way. --Dani Fëanor 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


It clearly says that the 60 million are wrong that is true but, the 10 million is if you add the famine to Stalin. But why do you not show me where it says 30 million all I see that a person who used the 30 million before was forced to turn it down to 20 million after the wall went down. He used the 30 million based on his 1968 works. So the most super anti Soviet person there ever was had to turn down his 30 million to 20 million. Early estimates are just that estimates, I could estimate that "Bob" has killed 100 million people but that just an estimate. (There is no Bob I just made him up.) Also please confirm that you undesrstand what anecdotal evidence is do you understand the words?. Yupp we are the same well kinda, we use the same computer but not the same person we discovered wiki at the same time and well things happen. Curalkeeps 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that Handsthere and Curalkeeps are the same person, but I must admit this looks very suspicious. The surreptitious use of multiple accounts to do this sort of thing is a very serious accusation, so I am not going to make that charge without more evidence.

Let me just say to both of you, though (Handsthere and Curalkeeps) that you are walking on thin ice. The rant about the "naizes" and their war crimes, while somewhat factual, has no place in this article, and has an obvious POV-pushing tone. The subtext is that it doesn't matter how many Germans were raped and killed, because the Nazis were worse. Whether you agree with that eye-for-an-eye argument or not, it's a POV, and it doesn't belong in this article.

Curalkeeps, I am going to review the history now and consider reporting you for repeated vandalism and/or WP:3RR. I can't remember if you technically violated WP:3RR or not... so let me check. --Jaysweet 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, upon further review I do not yet see anything that is worthy of reporting to an administrator. Curalkeeps, Handsthere, let's keep it clean. I am sorry you feel the way you do, but your rant about the "naizes" will not stand. It has been reverted by nearly half a dozen serious editors, and I can assure you that even if Dani and I went on a long vacation, other serious editors would continue to revert this rant. Please do not continue to re-add it. --Jaysweet 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


You all live in fantasy land, first you not only remove the the sourced facts you also remove links to the german war crimes and nazi war crimes, wh? Because you live in fantasy land. You belive Stalin killed more then Hitler which is so insane but you live in fantasy land, just the logistical feet of doing that would have been imposible you have no idea where the 60 million number comes from but use it because it is so high. The Nazis who only wanted to kill were only able to kill 18 million in the holocaust over 6 years yet Stalin was able to kill 60, you have no touch with reallity. I know where the 60 comes from it was 50 and it was not directly killed in the 80s there were many books written by people like you who just wanted to live in fantasy land the 50 million was thought to be how many people were not born, women who did not have children because the situation was better not to have too many children etc, that is how you get the 50. You all see to live in fantasy land, as do many people on wikipedia which only proves that wikipedia is not a place for facts but a place for people who "feel" somthing to write about what feels right for them. Curalkeeps 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag vs. deletion

Are you serious??? I'm all for assuming good faith, but that little rant about the "naizes" is so ridiculously inappropriate, I can't believe we're even discussing it.

Curalkeeps, if you want to talk about Nazi war crimes, there is an extensive article about them here. This article is about Red Army atrocities, not Nazi atrocities. To say that I "like naizes" because I want that deleted from this article would be like saying that everyone who has edited the articles about oranges is a "naize" because they didn't mention the Holocaust there either.

But really, why are we even discussing this??? This is not legitimate disputed content that we can come to a consensus about, this is blatant vandalism. The serious editors should continue to revert it out and then report Curalkeeps for a three-revert violation and be done with it. --Jaysweet 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right i was acting in good faith, it was probably very naive of me to attempt to reason with this vandal, i fully support your stance and will revert further acts of vandalism. --Dani Fëanor 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say, though, I do admire your patience very much :) The hilarious part is that I am way more pissed off about being called a "naize" then I would be if I was called a "Nazi". ha ha ha hah... ;D --Jaysweet 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The holocaust page has a huge section about holocaust denial so this page should have a section about the nazi crimes, Dani Fëanor can not read as stated above he is the vandal removing information and he can not read because it clearly says in the Stalin article that the early estimates were based on functional estimates and were completely wrong. What is interesting to note is that you are the vandals for removing information just because you do not like what it says not the other way around. You are the vandal Dani never forget that and never forget that you can not read as proved above about the Stalin section the fact that you could not understand that the early numbers were just that early numbers based on comical and fictional estimates, by calling me a vandal when in fact it is you who are vandalizing this page is the most comical thing, and I have never called anyone a nazi it is very funny to read how one of you make up one thing and the other uses the made up thing as the truth. If I may repat myself no where have I called anyone a nazi it is very funny to see that you make up something and then that you use your own made up story as the truth. You seem to imagine things that are not there. No one is saying anything about justification you just made that up, no one called anyone a nazi you just made that up and the blatant vandalism is the removal of facts because you do not like what it says.Curalkeeps 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV title

The title Red Army atrocities sounds POV. Let's change it to something like Crimes of the Red Army or Red Army war crimes.- Gilliam 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is "war crimes" really any better than "atrocities" though? ;) Still, you make an excellent point... I noticed that Nazi war crimes redirect to the Nuremberg Trials, which is much less POV... but I don't think there's any equivalent here. Hmmmm..... I'm not against Red Army war crimes but I don't think it's much of an improvement. Any other thoughts??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaysweet (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
War Crimes does sound slightly more balanced, though if the name its changed we should definitely start adding all the war crimes by the red army, from during the Bolshevik revolution to the war in Afghanistan and until the disbandment of the Red Army when the soviet union fell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dani Fëanor (talk • contribs) 04:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Adding New Links and Correcting Old Links

I'd Like to Propose adding links to and from:

List of Soviet Union perpetrated war crimes

Treuenbrietzen Massacre

And Nemmersdorf link currently redirects to Mayakovskoye i propose that the link is subsituted with a direct link to the Nemmersdorf massacre --Dani Fëanor 04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 23 people died at Nemmersdorf. "The massacre" was pure Nazi propaganda the civilians were caught in the cross fire read the article, but then again I do not see you writing articles about the Nazis killing civilians who were caught in cross fires, if every time people were caught in cross fires were mentioned then the Nazi war crime page would be the longest page on the internet. You clearly have some ideological reason or personal to add such pure and absolute Nazi propaganda. You will probably write that millions died when in fact it was 23 who got caught in the cross fire.Curalkeeps 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, Curalkeeps, you got that wrong. Read it again. 23 civilians were killed by the Soviet army. 13 executed because they did not want to leave an air shelter. And 10 more civilians were killed in the village - we do not know how or why. (We probably will never know - but the two German sources are very credible on this one.) Nemmersdorf was not the massacre that Goebbels described. For one thing, the Soviet army was not in the village long enough to commit those rapes and so on. And yes, far more civilians, refugees, not from Nemmersdorf, including +- 50 French prisoners of war were killed near the bridge in the crossfire. I should know - I did a lot of research reading horrible accounts usually written by neo-nazis to find all this.--Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Expansion of Article

Treunebrietzen massacre

Longer Version:

The Treuenbrietzen massacre took place during the last days of April and the first days of May 1945, after a tough battle in which the Red Army took and lost control of the village on more that one occasion the Red Army rounded up around 1000 mostly male civilians and executed them in the nearby forest. These executions were allegedly made as retaliations for the death of an high ranking soviet officer during the battle for control of the village. [1]

Shorter Version:

During the last days of April and the first days of May 1945 the Red Army rounded up around 1000 mostly male civilians from Treuenbrietzen and executed them in the nearby forest. [2]

(Since the reference shortcut does not work properly in the discussion pages here is a reference link to the article (Note: Article is in German) [10]) --Dani Fëanor 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that you are so interested in Glorifying the Germans, you probably had your German grandfather bounce you on his knee and tell you how he gloriously fought against the Bolshevik Jews, it is so easy to see why you do the things you do, to bad you did not listen to what the fuehrer said before he shot himself. The Nazis killed many times more then 1000 people, 1000 killed males would have been done every hour on the hour of the civilian population during Barbarossa. Also the article was added by the person who created this article and who I think you are because otherwise how the hell would you know where to find the link or about the story it is clear that you are Stor Stark 7 and trying to create extra accounts so to think there are more people out there with your views, atleast have the balss to edit from your real account Stor Stark7Curalkeeps 10:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Curalkeeps- Please abstain from ad hominem attacks, such as the first sentence of the above.
I know this makes no difference to you, but I have no German ancestors and in fact my girlfriend is a practicing Jew. So I really have no incentive to be minimizing the Holocaust here. But you know, since I disagree with you regarding what is appropriate for an article about crimes committed by the Soviets during WWII, that makes me a "naize" anyway, right? --Jaysweet 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the article since no objections about the content were made, im thinking about adding a couple of lines about the Nemmersdorf massacre now.--Dani Fëanor 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) As is clear from the German Wikipedia article on the Treuenbrietzen massacere (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massaker_von_Treuenbrietzen), the number of victims quoted here is in the high range of the number of victims claimed. 125 is the number of people buried at the churchyard there.

Note that during the temporary re-occupation by the German army, 127 Italian prisoners of war who were left behind by the retreating Red Army, were executed by the German army ([11]). In some parts of the world, "Massacre of Treuenbrietzen" refers to that killing, by the way. If that is not mentioned "because we are not dealing with nazi atrocities" here, mentioning Treuerbrietzen is quite simply historical revisionism. Oh, and this thing is being used locally to get rid of a memorial obelisk in honour of the soviet soldiers who died there. ([12] for more detail) WP:NOT a soap box.--Pan Gerwazy 10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a demographic problem. Treuenbrietzen had fewer than 6,000 inhabitants! See [[13]] Note that 80-125 victims causes a problem with notoriety, because in at least one West European country (Belgium) the normal tariff for a German officer killed by the resistance was ... 100 Belgian civilians to be taken at random off the streets and executed a few days later. I also think (having read the news articles quoted on German wikipedia) that it is not 100% certain that the German civilians were killed in reprisal for a Russian officer being shot and NOT killed in reprisal for the Italian POWs. So that is another problem to be considered.--Pan Gerwazy 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] russian apology

was there ever one? or is only japan being hounded on such issues? 2 million raped compared to 2 hundred thousand by the japanese. you think there would be more outrage.

apology for what? cold war lies?

As an aside, one of my sources on Treuenbrietzen claims that there have been joint commemorations of April 1945 by Italy, Germany and Russia. Just mentioning it. Do not know what the Italians should apologize for, of course, but some people seem to believe that pacification is better than standing on soap boxes. Sorry for doing that now myself, but I suppose you did want some sort of an answer?--Pan Gerwazy 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "rape inciting ehrenburg"

questionable website has this about Ehrenburg as supposed citation for this characterization

So ließ sich Ilja Ehrenburg in einem Flugblatt zu der Äußerung hinreißen: »Die Deutschen sind keine Menschen. Von jetzt ab ist das Wort >Deutscher< für uns der allerschlimmste Fluch ... für uns gibt es nichts Lustigeres als deutsche Leichen.« Ähnlich schrieb er in der Soldatenzeitung »Krasnaja Swesda« am 24. Oktober 1944: »Wir befinden uns in der Heimat Erich Kochs, des Statthalters der Ukraine - damit ist alles gesagt. Wir haben es oft genug wiederholt: Das Gericht kommt! Jetzt ist es da.« Und: »Es genügt nicht, die Deutschen nach Westen zu treiben. Die Deutschen müssen ins Grab hineingejagt werden. Gewiß ist ein geschlagener Fritz besser als ein unverschämter. Von allen Fritzen aber sind die toten die besten.«

I am not sure how Ehrenburg gets blamed for rapes by this -I removed the term "rape inciting" 68.60.68.203 12:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again proves why knowing German is a good idea. There is a lot of discussion about this text at [14]. For those who do not know enough German to wade through all that, let me summarize. Basically, as an entire text, it is a falsification. Ehrenburg did however write the first part. (usually quoted in English as "Now we know Germans are not human") But he wrote that in 1942! The first sentence looks horrible, but of course, it is a reference to German officers who not long before had claimed Russians were not human "because they eat each other" (forgetting why the Soviet prisoners of war did that, of course). In the entire 1942 text, Ehrenburg starts by hinting at these officers saying Russians are not human and then goes on: "Мы знаем все. Мы помним все. Мы поняли: немцы не люди." Of course, starting Ehrenburg's citation with that last (half-)sentence is questionable. Apart from the fact that it is rather doubtful Ehrenburg would have incited Russian soldiers to rape German women in 1942 ... --Pan Gerwazy 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just outright saying the works are "rape-inciting" comes across as pretty POV. Good catch to remove that. Link to the source and let the reader make their own decision. --Jaysweet 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The second and third parts are not only bad translations (some of this was first translated from Russian into English, then from English into German) but especially dubious in what they omit: "We do not want revenge, we want justice" and adminitions to leave children and ... women alone. In fact, putting these excerpts together, written under such different time schedules, leaving out important information, is far worse than misquoting. Well, it is all there on the German talk page. I am thinking of adding a link used in that discussion, as I am not sure that everybody will see how dubious the Ehrenburg thing is. --Pan Gerwazy 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IIWW only?

Unless this aritcle is renamed, it should cover attrocities of the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are leaning towards a rename anyway, because "atrocities" is a little bit POV... But so far we haven't come up with one that has gained any momentum. Do you have any suggestions? --Jaysweet 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The word 'crime' is more often used and apparently considered more neutral, per Category:World War II crimes and particulary Category:Soviet World War II crimes (which is where this article should be).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that since there has never been a formal investigation, you can't honestly call it a crime without original research. Maybe "Alleged WWII Red Army war crimes"?? --Jaysweet 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, alleged is rather problematic. Certainly some of the crimes have been investigated; for example many of the crimes against the Polish people which took place under Soviet occupation(s) are investigated now by the Institute of National Remembrance. That said, Red Army was not involved in many crimes after Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), and such incidents as the Katyn massacre were carried by NKVD and such. I'd suggest doing a WP:RM for Red Army crimes (WWII) or similar and see what the interested editors think. Although personally I'd suggest that the article should be expanded with Red Army crimes from other wars - eventually we will need article on that anyway.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. This article should be be titled as "Red Army atrocities in Eastern Europe during World War II". Otherwise, this is a really huge topic that should start from book "Red Terror in Russia" written by Sergei Melgunov, include use of chemical weapons against civilian population by Red Army under leadership of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko during Tambov rebellion (mentioned by Victor Suvorov), etc. One only should be careful to separte atrocitices committed by Red Army detachments and NKVD.Biophys 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For later phase WWII and post-WWII, see Northern Group of Forces.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on sources

"Bundesarchiv Koblenz [1], Ostdokumentensammlung , Ost-Dok. 2 Nr. 8,13,14; Ost-Dok.2/51, 2/77,2/96 ^ Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv Freiburg [2], Akten Fremde Heere Ost, Bestand H3, Bd. 483, 657, 665, 667, 690 ^ Archiv der Charité and Landesarchiv Berlin[3] ^ Archiv der Charité and Landesarchiv Berlin[4]"

- these are archival sources, which qualify as original research and should be removed.

"Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ostmitteleuropa, 5 Bde, 3 Beihefte, Bonn 1953-1961"

The exact volume and page are not specified. Who knows what his rare edition really tells? I think it should be removed as suspicious.

"William I. Hitchcock The Struggle for Europe The Turbulent History of a Divided Continent 1945 to the Present ISBN 978-0-385-49799-2 (0-385-49799-7)"

This cannot be relied upon as the the relevant part (about Naimark) is not sourced.--Sergey Romanov 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia policy says nothing about sources having to be easily accessible, rather that one should assume good faith. If the german sources are deliberately false then eventually someone with access to the information will correct the problem, if indeed there is one. So, I for one oppose removing them. (I assume that any other policy would lead to for instance sources in Russian being not permissible)
(2) William I. Hitchcocks book. I do not understand your argument. Why do you say that it has to be sourced? Wikipedia policy is to rely on secondary documents published by reliable publishers. William I. Hitchcocks book meets that qualification so there is no problem, it is a valid reference. If you still have a problem with it we can of course also add an additional reference directly to the Naimark book in question.
  • Norman M. Naimark. "The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949." Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1995. ISBN 978-0-674-78405-5.
Quote: "Naimark's research supports the estimate made by German historians Barbara Johr and Helke Sander that Soviet soldiers raped as many as two million German women between the time their counteroffensive reached German territory and well past the formal end of hostilities (see Johr and Sander, eds., Befreier und Befreite, Krieg, Vergewaltigungen, Kinder [Munich: Verlag Antje Kunstmann, 1992])"H-Net review of Naimarks book.
(3) The Soviet Union casualties, I'm not sure they belong in this article, but if they are going to be allowed to stay here they need to be properly referenced, as everything else in this article is.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have already given my rationale - archival sources are not published, they're original research, and this forbidden. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution
Naimark is fine, Hitchcock not. H. is not an authority on rapes and he doesn't give sources (at least in the URL given). Naimark researched the issue and there seem to be no objections against his scholarship yet, so he is a reliable source _on this issue_, unlike Hitchcock.
Moreover, there is a problem with language. "...historian Norman Naimark has estimated that as many as 2 million may have been sexually assaulted." "May have been" "sexually assaulted" is a far cry from "2 million raped", since sexual assult includes an attempted (but failed) rape, and "may have been" is not "have been". Therefore, you cannot simply include Naimark's book unless you've read the relevant part yourself and verified whether he talks about 2 million rapes, 2 million sexual assaults and whether he uses any qualifiers as "may have been". I'm sure you understand that the issue is not so trivial as to be careless about sources. --Sergey Romanov 16:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I won't object if you move the apparently primary sources down to "further reading" or create a "resources" section.
I don't think there's any "authority on rapes". What exists are historians, some of which may have looked closer at rape issues. Apparently at least 1. "Johr and Sander", 2. Naimark, and 3, Antony Beevor have done so. I'll go out on a OR limb here and say that the likelihood of a rape attempt not being completed in the circumstances was negligeable. Attempted rape mainly occurs when the woman manages to fight off the assailant, or he is scared away by others coming. I don't see that possibility as realistic against groups of armed victorious soviet soldiers. My interpretation of Hitchcock is that he meant rape but used a politer phrase when using "sexual assault" I interpret his "may" as implying that he sees uncertainty as to the numbers of victims. But then we also have the HNET review, considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, which states that "Soviet soldiers raped as many as two million German women". The sources already include "Johr and Sander". Maybe we should include Anthony Beevors confirmation of the 2 m. number as well. Naturally we can also include any sourced Russian published scholarly refutations of Beevors rape confirmation, if any such exist (ramblings of politicians need not apply). Anyway, I'll leaf through my copy of Naimarks book when I get it back to provide a page citation, (I'm in the process of moving between countries, so it might take a few weeks.)--Stor stark7 Talk 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the German Wikipedia page can be useful for further work Verbrechen der Roten Armee--Stor stark7 Talk 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will remove the archival resources per "no original research" policy. Both Hitchcock's and H-Net review's language seems to indicate that 2 million is a maximum number - if the reading of Naimark himself shall prove this to be true, this nuance should be put into the main text.
Beevor's "confirmation" should not be included as he relies on Johr and Sander. His book is about Berlin, not about how many women were raped on liberated territories. Thanks for your future help in checking out Naimark.--Sergey Romanov 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather depressing reading. The rapes chapter spans 71 pages. Although it has provided me with some material. We need at least two additional chapters, 1. The motives for the rapes. 2. The Soviet authorities response to the rapes. And maybe a 3rd chapter, although it is not as important, the consequences of the rapes (abortions, pregnancies, longterm hostility towards the soviet union etc. As I see it, we can develop the article in one of two ways. Either 1. Country by country, or 2. by types of atrocities, e.g. first all rapes in affected countries (which must have been all countries, even in the little northen corner of Yugoslavia that Soviet soldiers entered was soviet rape common, and a separate chapter for other atrocities, such as plain murder.

Naimark: Page 132, 133 Quote:It is highly unlikely that historians will ever know how many German women were raped by soviet soldiers in the months before and years after the capitulation. It may have been tens of thousands or more likely in the hundreds of thousands. It is even possible that up to 2 million women and girls suffered this crime of violence, most while being uprooted from their homes in East Prussia, Silesia, or the Sudetenland, others while living in the Soviet zone of occupation.(300) In any case, just as each rape surviver carried the effects of the crime with her till the end of her life, so was the collective anguish nearly unbearable. The social psychology of women and men in the soviet zone of occupation was marked by the crime of rape from the first days of occupation, through the founding of the GDR in the fall of 1949, until-one could argue-the present.End Quote.

Footnote (300) says. See especially Barbara Johr, "Die Ereignisse in Zahlen," in "Befrier und Befreite". p.59.

So, Naimark essentially says that it is possible, but not certain, that Barbara Johrs 2,000,000 rape victims estimate is right.

Rapes are mentioned elsewhere in the book also, but I don't have the time right now to go through the whole book to see if he qualifies himself on the 2,000,000 number elsewhere.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Re: "Maybe the German Wikipedia page can be useful for further work 
   Verbrechen der Roten Armee
   --Stor stark7 Talk 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)! 
   Agree! I have just started to do so.: Red Army atrocities (WWII)--Dionysos 07:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Red Army atrocities (WWII)

This longer article should be merged into this stub-lenght one; there is no reason to have long subarticle and tiny main.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree, this article can serve as a connecting point, a "main" attrocities article if you will, providing a summary of specialized articles dealing with atrocities such as those during the October Revolution, Russian Civil War, Winter War, WWII, Berlin uprising, Prague Spring, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Soviet war in Afghanistan, and whatever other activities that I have missed. As it is this article is short only because it now only covers material spanning a period of perhaps 8 years (and very poorly at that, for example no mention of activities in the far east during WW-II). Eventually it will grow into a proper main article once it considers the other 60 or so years of the Red army.
As a separate point, we probably need an article dealing with crimes that can not be directly attributed to the Red Army, for example the deliberate starvation to death of millions of Ukrainians during the collectivization (see Holodomor), and the general killings of people in occupied nations, such as History_of_Estonia#Period_of_Soviet_and_German_occupation. Maybe an article called Atrocities committed by the Soviet Union or equivalent is needed to summarize what it was all about...--Stor stark7 Talk 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Red Army atrocities (WWII) can not be merged into any existing article: The article Red Army atrocities should be as Stor stark7 Talk sates above. Furthermore Red Army atrocities should be somehow connected to something like: Soviet military crimes, because the Red Army from 1946 on, had been called “Soviet Army”.

Additionally: Dear Piotrus, Please, stop making any changes to any article without prior discussion. The same goes for adding or removing templates. Whenever a template states: Template:Under work, you can not just remove the template and afterwards claim: There were “ugly empty sections”. If you can not contribute to the article with facts, just leave it to those who can. --Dionysos 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The template

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Red Army atrocities. (Discuss)

was removed, due to lack of any

discussed reason why it had been implicated in the first way. Nobody is actually willing to discuss the changes already made, but maybe those to be done. --Dionysos 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/Talk%7ERed_Army_atrocities_01b2.html"