Talk:Soviet war crimes (WWII)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Estonia Soviet war crimes (WWII) is part of the WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Started on April 2nd, 2007 as a translation from its German counterpart, expanding the article Red Army atrocities in such a way, that a new articel had to be created. --Dionysos 10:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I may jump in and do some copy-editing to try to tone down a bit of the POV that seems to have carried over - "per se criminal government" and "inhuman civil war" were the first two that jumped out at me. I'll try to leave everything factual intact, but make it more neutral in overall tone. This isn't enough of my area for me to really fact-check stuff, but that sort of smaller improvement is something I can do. The Dark 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

The title of the article itself, "Red Army atrocities" is inherently not NPOV. Propose this gets moved to "Red Army war crimes" or something like that. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity (I’m not trying to be a wiseguy or anything like that), but why move this to “Red Army war crimes”? What’s wrong with “atrocities,” emotive connotations?

Also, I’d like to know “per-se criminal government” and “inhumane civil war” (especially the latter) are POV. These are serious questions, as I’d like to be enlightened about how expressions can be interpreted as POV. This might help avert future edit controversies when the POV character of a word or phrase is not obvious to those of us not practiced in spotting such things. Thanks, Jim_Lockhart 07:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, "war crimes" was just a suggestion. But as you pointed out, "atrocities" has an emotive connotation, which I believe should be avoided. There might be a better term for it, but I'm don't have enough experience editing in these kinds of topics to say. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

“War Crimes” is juristically described terminology, stretching from stealing somebody’s watch to mass executions during war times. I am just afraid, with the article named as “War Crimes of the RA”, some people will come forward, claiming this title was POV, because nobody of the Red Army has ever been convicted of such crimes by a legal court. Surely, this article is not about Soviet troops stealing watches … but about atrocities.

“per se criminal government”: Well, a government composed of such illustrate and infamous figures like Stalin, can be considered a “per se criminal” one. Would anybody complain if any government, in which Hitler has been a member, be called “per se criminal”?

“inhumane civil war”: Why should this be considered being POV? Has there ever been something like a “humane” civil war? --Dionysos 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of what crimes was Stalin convicted? I will admit it was a brutal government, and one whose actions most likely were criminal, but to actively state it was a criminal government is something which is not neutral when dealing with this topic, nor is it cited to an attributable source. As for the civil war, if there is no humane civil war, than calling it inhumane is redundant and unnecessary. If there is such a thing as a humane civil war, than evidence needs to be cited as to what made the Russian Civil War inhumane in comparison to other civil wars. The Dark 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

@ The Dark Of what crimes was Hitler convicted? Actually just of treason in 1924. Nevertheless, you have a strong point here. Any proposals “to tone down a bit”? As a non native English speaker I’d appreciate any help with my clumsy English, anyway. Best regards --Dionysos 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changes to the article are to be made in what way?

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 “under construction”, you can not just remove the template and afterwards claim that 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 “Mergeto|Red Army atrocities” 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)

I too find Piotrus’s removable of the “under construction” notices and empty headings to be arbitrary and unilateral and wonder why he did that. Why can’t we let Dionysos finish his translation before we tear this apart? I thinking “being bold” is fine, but at the cost of common courtesy? Best, Jim_Lockhart 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rapes

Dear Stor stark7, thank you so much for contributing to the article! The way you edit, it is editing facts! --Dionysos 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with Romania. I haven't been able to find any specific information on how severe the rape problem was there. Naimarks book points to Romania and Hungary as being hardest hit before the RA entered German soil, especially in comparison with Bulgaria. In another place he talks of the relatively good discipline of the army that was in (or went through, cant remember right now) the Slovakia region (of Czechoslovakia) compared to the poor discipline of the army that entered Romania. However, besides those hints, he provides no hard data as to how many were raped. I think we should keep the heading Romania as an empty reminder and hope someone, perhaps a Romanian, can provide some info. I'm afraid I'm at a loss to do so. Naimark has some good info on the motivations for the rapes in Germany (revenge was just one of many complex reasons). I'll dig into that when I get some time over. --Stor stark7 Talk 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
C'est bien .--Dionysos 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which german wikipedia article are you translating here?

Which article are you claiming to be translating here? There are clearly a large number of POV additions if it's supposed to be a translation of de:Verbrechen der Roten Armee (Zweiter_Weltkrieg). Just as an example I can't find any trace of the following POV sentences in the German article.

Not as much as its most prominent enemy the Wehrmacht, successor of the Reichswehr and built up on centuries of military traditions, but rather like the the Nazi's Waffen SS, the Red Army was in total ideologically orientated and indoctrinated. Moreover, it had been created in 1918 by a per se criminal government of the communist Soviet Union to fight an inhumane civil war, namely the Russian Civil War, in an inhumane way. Just this fact made the Red Army, from its very beginning on, an army, carrying out morally devastating orders. As a result war crimes, lootings, rapes, abductions and murders of civilians were common for the Red Army.

I'd recommend you first complete the translation before you start expanding the article.--Caranorn 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Caranorn,
The more I got into the German article the more it became clear to me that some changes an edits are to be made, indeed. In the German article you also won't find anything like:
Neither by any international military jurisdiction the Red Army’s leadership or any of its members have ever been charged with, nor has anyone of those ever been convicted of war crimes by a court of law.
Actually, to avoid POV some expanding is necessary. Moreover, the rules how to present an article on German Wiki differ from those must be applied in the English issue.
With best regards yours--Dionysos 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problematic use of references

Checking through the references provided for this article I find that three in the Background section do not explicitly state what they are supposed to source.

1) The The Communist Party and the Red Army reference deals with the theory of organising a centralised army for the Soviet Union. This is a political paper written well before WWII and as such cannot source the statement: Not as much as its most prominent enemy the Wehrmacht, successor of the Reichswehr, but rather like the the Nazi's Waffen SS, the Red Army was in total ideologically orientated and indoctrinated from its first day on. Note how the SS were for most of the war a volunteer force while the Red Army was entirely conscript.

2) The [1] Reference provides casualty statistics for the Russian Civil War. It does not provide any material to back up that: Moreover, it [Red Army]had been created in 1918 by the government of the communist Soviet Union to fight an inhumane civil war, namely the Russian Civil War, in an inhumane way.

3) The [2] Reference talks about casualties of all combatants of WWII. At no point does it back up the Next to sometimes badly equipped infantry units, barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on attacks en masse, inflicting heavy losses among their own troops. claim. Astonishingly enough this sentence seems to be part of the translation from german language wikipedia (though that article doesn't use this general source).

The first two cases are worst because they seem to be an attempt to hide a POV edit by providing a bogus source, hoping no one would bother to check it out. The third could probably be backed up (at least in part) by other sources. Though claims like barely capable of standing up against... would still have to be toned down. On the other hand, to be fair, you at least didn't try to read a motivation into those Soviet commanders' as the german language article does "und zum anderen an der rücksichtslosen Doktrin der Armeeführung, die, im Bewusstsein der großen Masse an zur Verfügung stehenden Menschen, den Kampf auf Kosten der eigenen Soldaten führte."

Anyhow, you have to avoid Original Research as much as possible, particularly with controversial claims. I just removed the single wikilink from an actual encyclopedic article to this article as currently this article is violating a number of policies and should at best be merged with the older Red Army atrocities article.--Caranorn 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Caranorn,
First of all I have to thank you for your suggestions to improve the article. I have always taken your criticism seriously as in this case:
Re.: 1 & 2. “This is a political paper written well before WWII” … that’s why it is mentioned in “Backgrounds”. It clearly describes the roots of the Red Army, written by its founding father. Is there any better way to describe the political indoctrination of this army, than this way? Is there any better way, than citing the original source?
Of course, the Red Army in WWII was built up mainly by conscripts long before WWII. Does this make any difference to the fact, that this army was politically indoctrinated and relayed on traditions of brutal and inhumane warfare? Should I even describe in which way these conscripts were actually forced to perform their office?
Do you really want me to describe in detail why Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Estonians, etc. preferred to join as volunteers the Waffen-SS rather than leaving their homes and children to the Red Army without at least a devastating fight?
Re: 3. I am not willing to discuss something like: Does the Earth circle the Sun? I really try to tone down and just present facts. Why on earth did such enormous losses occurred in the ranks of the Red Army, anyway?
However, I shall do my very best to improve the article the best way I can.
sincerely yours--Dionysos 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Caranorn,
After reconciliation (and improving the article):
As an ideologist and supporter of Communism you are probably not in the position to judge certain aspects of this article. As a prove, I’d like to point out your aggressive tone: “The first two cases are worst because they seem to be an attempt to hide a POV edit by providing a bogus source, hoping no one would bother to check it out”. Without any doubts, this is a serious accusation. Even worse, it is not backed up by any recognizable evidence. It is just an unqualified accusation and quite anything like “toning down”.
On behalf of those still remaining believers in Communism, please, do not betray their funny (in the outcome always horrible and inhumane) ideas by denying facts about the per se criminal Red Army, founded by Trotsky and brought up by Stalin to its finest hours in 1945..
--Dionysos 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets put it simply. Do those two references in any way provide the information you try to back up? Does the difference between your edits and the German language article point to a POV? Does your second paragraph constitute a personal attack? Actually lets ignore the third question as it's entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. Are your additions, beyond the translation of the German language article, neutral and sourced. if they are not neutral then they have to be toned down. If they are not sourced they either have to be removed or a different and reliable source has to be found.
Lastly, what do you mean by After reconciliation (and improving the article). I made my first comment on these issues on April 11, first worrying about the article's neutrality (and whether it was a direct translation of the German language article as first claimed) and the subsequent astonishment at finding misleading references (I at first thought more were questionable as the disputed ones are to be found in the first section, while the later sections (at least at the time I checked those) seem to be appropriately sourced). Since then none of your edits to the article seem to have remedied any of those problems. Though you did explain that you intended to expand on the article after completing your translation (which I therefore assume to be done). There is only one reason why I haven't tagged this article as disputed, tagged certain sentences as unsourced etc. That reason is that I don't wish to start a conflict and have so far hoped that you were editing in good faith and would eventually address the points I raised. I still hope you will attempt to abide by wikipedia guidelines and rules.--Caranorn 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay after waiting another 3-4 days I now deleted the questionable references (could only find 2 out of the 3 mentioned above, one must have been deleted in a previous edit), added three fact tags and a disputed section tag. Unless there is some actual improvement to this section I plan to delete the disputed paragraph (not the entire section). Note that I still feel the entire article should be merged into Red Army atrocities, but lets try to work one step at a time.--Caranorn 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Caranorn,

Why did you delete this section (which I was free to rewrite)?:

As a matter of fact the Red Army had to take much more casualties than any other military force during World War II. Next to sometimes badly equipped infantry units, barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on attacks en masse, inflicting heavy losses among their own troops. In accordance to orders of Soviet High Command retreating soldiers or just those who hesitated to advance must fear to be shot by following NKVD units:
Stalin’s order No 270 of August 16, 1941 states, that in case of a retreat or surrendering, all officers involved are to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men were threatened with total annihilation and reprisals against their families.

I added 4 more refs to it, which is probably enough even for you.

It seems quite obvious why you removed the order No. 270 but did not explain in any way why you did it. Clearly, that must be called vandalism.

Again: Trotsky’s military writings are the best way to prove in which way the RA was created as a political army from its first day on. Leon Trotsky’s theories how to create the RA are the basics of this army and represent the only “traditions” it was based on. To quote the founding father of the RA himself is just formidable background information, not be missed in this article.

Please, do not delete refs and later claim there are still some to be made.--

The tag problematic use of references may be removed soon, since there is no longer problematic use of references.

Merging the article in Red Army atrocities is discussed on the talk page of the latter. It does not make any sense to create an enormous article, covering all atrocities of RA from the Russian Civil War up to the crimes committed in Afghanistan in the 1990s in just one article. Dionysos 09:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The only material I removed were the disputed references. The section you accuse me of removing was deleted by User:24.85.227.117, you could probably have noticed that I mentioned that a third reference was disputed but that I couldn't find it in the article.
Note I have absolutely no interest in falsifying history as you seem to believe.
By the way, after looking at the casualties reference once again I noticed that indeed two sources (Rummel and Figes) seem to give that 9/1 civilian to military casualties (I assume the 10/1 statement was a slip of logic, one I also at first followed) rating, so that reference is indeed no longer disputed (assuming you leave the 9/1 text). I still feel the Trotsky reference(s) is/are irrelevant to the topic, he was indeed the father of the Red Army, but the Army was purged of any elements supposedly supporting his ways (in fact the purges went much further) and Trotsky himself was murdered on Stalin's orders before Germany's invasion (and therefore WWII in the East). Note that the material is factually correct, but the context is problematic.--Caranorn 12:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Caranorn,
I’d like to apologize for my harsh wording. Hopefully, you recognize that I take your objections seriously. I have made several changes due to them. As for Leon Trotsky: You are right and I know about the Great Purge and the rest. But all this did not change the actual system Trotsky had created, for example THE MILITARY COMMISSARS. The RA was created as the military arm of the communist party and it was still the same in 1939. I highly recommend that Trotsky’s military writings are kept as a source, until I find some additional information on this as a quote. This is in my opinion very important to preemptively close the door to some Stalinists glorifying everybody in the RA as a heroic freedom fighter and talking about a “Great Patriotic War” which had never taken place but is propaganda at its worst.
Obviously you are not willing to deny facts. I have also to bag your pardon for presuming this and also for my non existing mathematical skills. After all, I think we have reached somewhat like an agreement. If so, fell free to remove the tag.
--Dionysos 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed the tag now as the only part I still see as a serious problem is the difference between Trotsky's plans for the Red Army and the Red Army of 1939-45. No one else seems to have a problem (or actually be interested in the topic) with that paragraph so I'll let it rest.
Note, I probably got into this debate on the wrong foot (notably because I at first thought you were still in the progress of translating yet had introduced that additional paragraph...). So I will also apologise for being too aggressive, though I'd like to note that the major reason why I include my political adherence on my personal page is to explain that I'm somewhat biased but will always try to be fair... One of the reasons actually being that I much prefer a different form of communism then that adopted in the Soviet Union.--Caranorn 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Caranorn,

I had entered our little dispute having the talk and development of Red Army atrocities in mind. That article had been bombarded by Stalinists and in the end those idiots f…ed it all up. So I decided to create a somewhat new one in secrecy, adding refs as much as necessary. Still I have to do the POWs’ part. Doing so, I would be delighted if I could relay on your skepticism as well.

Re. Translation of the German article: I use it just as a guide line. To me it sounds a little bit like POV. Moreover, it’s much harder to bring accurate information in this matter to non-Axis-people as to those, who know from own experience about the taste of “Ivan is coming”. Therefore, many things had to be changed … in comparison to the German issue there shall be a somewhat new (and hopefully) even more accurate article on En-Wiki in the outcome.

--Dionysos 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P. S.: I can ensure you, by the way, that Soviet commanders very well exploited the huge resource of human beings of the Soviet Union in furtherance to win the war for Stalin, no matter the costs. Even Women-Regiments were deployed to the front and sacrificed in suicide missions, probably just to undermine moral of Wehrmacht troops. I can even present adequate sources, proving cannibalism by Red Army soldiers, eating captured German soldiers, already in 1941. … But just let us tone down and leave it to others, documenting and explaining all this tragedy when time has come.

Sincerely yours

--Dionysos 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dionysos,

What are you trying to do here? To point out that all Russians (Soviets, communists etc.) were criminals and murderers? To present some researchers as the only true source of the history? Anyway it doesn't seem to me as trying to write a neutral article covering the true facts. You are trying to bring some evidence of how the Red Army conscripts were brought into the army. Let me tell you that a lot of young people in the USSR joined the army as volunteers, some teenagers even tried to conceal their true age in order to join the war. And this is not Soviet propoganda, these facts are widely accepted. Moreover, quite a lot of what you have said here would hurt the feelings of many Russian and other nations' people, who had their relatives killed or injured during the war (arguably, this would enclude all contemporary Russian population and a lot of people in the CIS). I'm sure that this is not what you really want to do, but it does seem so. Unfortunately, I'm not a specialist in the history of the WWII and I wouldn't be able to contribute much to the article (and being Russian, I would probably quite hard for me to make non-POVed edits), but I would be glad if someone would try to cite some other sources or at least try to show how the figure of 2 mln raped women was derived. By the way, I'm not a communist and in no way I would approve the war crimes that REALLY happened, no matter who commited them.

With all respect, --Shakura 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poland 1944

When Red Army entered Poland it engaged in wholescale rapes, plunder, banditry and murder of Polish people not only in 1939 but also in second occupation after 1944 when they started winning the struggle for occupation of Poland with Nazis. There are several articles now describing crimes of the invading Red Army , hopefully more will come-could someone add section on atrociites made upon Polish people by Soviets in this time period in this article ?

I do agree! Hopefully, even more will come up from countries as Romania, Hungry, Bulgaria, Slovakia, etc.. Not to mention Austria, Lithuania, Estonia and Lithuania and others. All of them had to take the regular murder, raping, looting and tortures of completely innocent children, women and older people by Red Army soldiers. Furthermore, we should indeed pay some more attention to the role of Polish Red Army regiments (succesors of the Anders Army) and their atrocities in the Ukraine and in the Baltic States of 1943-45.--Dionysos 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting source

This is from last talk show by Yulia Latynina [3] This is Russian (maybe this needs to be translated and included in this article) (this is from memories of Russian writer Leonid Ryabichev; Germany, February 1945):

"Во всех комнатах трупы детей и стариков и изнасилованных и застреленных женщин. Изнасилованных наступающими российскими войсками. В нашем дому три больших комнаты. Две мертвые женщины и три мертвые девочки. Юбки у всех задраны, а между ног донышками наружу торчат пустые винные бутылки. Я иду вдоль стены дома. Вторая дверь, коридор и еще две смежные комнаты – на каждой из кроватей, их три, лежат мертвые женщины с раздвинутыми ногами и бутылками".

Перед эти Рабичев описывает другую картину – как его машина едет вдоль шоссе, и вдоль всего шоссе, на котором Красная армия настигла беглецов, этих женщин, этих девочек не сотнями, а тысячами насилуют. И как его люди становятся в эту очередь. Цитирую:

«Женщины – матери и их дочери – лежат справа и слева вдоль шоссе, и перед каждой стоит гогочущая армада мужиков со спущенными штанами. Обливающихся кровью и теряющих сознание оттаскивают в сторону. Бросающихся на помощь им детей расстреливают. Гогот, рычание, смех, крики и стоны. Потрясенный, я сидел в кабине полуторки, шофер мой, Демидов, стоял в очереди, а мне мерещился Карфаген Флобера, и я понимал, что война далеко не все спишет. А полковник, тот, который только что дирижировал, не выдерживает и сам занимает очередь, а майор отстреливает свидетелей, бьющихся в истерике детей и стариков». Biophys 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Estonia

I have tagged this article to WikiProject Estonia. However, I'm not entirely sure of this classification. What is the consensus? Digwuren 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoners of War section

In view of the information at [[4]] (also note the talk page, which has evidence on the Soviet Union adhering to the Convention), this needs a re-write. Saying that the Soviet Union only adhered in 1955 is in any case silly, in view of the fact that the SU was a signatory party to the 1949 Convention and ratified it in 1954. The United States only ratified in 1955.

[edit] Unrestricted submarine warfare

Would you please prove that Marinesko committed a crime? Alexander Marinesko doesn't accuse him.Xx236 13:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilya Ehrenburg

The quoted article is about many things, why this sentence has been selected? It shouild be removed.Xx236 13:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systematical removals

It seems that many people know how to not write about Red Army crimes, so they are many people eager to remove. What about a postive program of describing the crimes? The article about Wehrmacht contains paragraph Wehrmacht#War years#War crimes.Xx236 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)