Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:15, 3 January 2015 editYMB29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,352 edits →Proposals for changes← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:55, 23 November 2024 edit undoRichard Nevell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,151 edits →Sources on these subjects: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
(627 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B1=Yes
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->|B2=No
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->|B3=No
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->|B4=Yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->|B5=No|German=yes|WWII=yes|British-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes|US-task-force=yes|Cold-War-task-force=yes|Russian=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=mid |hist=yes|mil=yes |rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women's Health|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Former countries}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2 |counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=B
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B1=Yes
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B2=No
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B3=No
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B4=Yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B5=No
|German=yes
|WW2=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union |class=C |importance=mid |hist=yes|mil=yes |rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=mid}}
}}

== numbers of rapes ==

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

I'd like to propose the first quote to be changed to: ''for which estimates range from hundreds of thousands to two million.'' --] (]) 06:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
:As there was no opposition to my suggestion I have conducted the change. --] (]) 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

== Coat racking ==

This article is being coat-racked with reviews of Beevor's book ]. This article is not about Beevor's book and it isn't the only source here, so anything related to reviews of his book should be moved to that article. --] (]) 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:Beevor is being heavily used as a source here and is the main modern source of the accusations, so what is the problem? -] (]) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::That is simply untrue. There are 67 cites in the References section, only three are Beevor. Just search the page for "Beevor". The only place where "Beevor is being heavily used as a source" is the text criticising Beevor that has been coat racked to this article. --] (]) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Beevor is a relatively recent source and the most publicized, so of course there will be more responses to his works.
:::That does not even matter. Russian historians are commenting on the accusations of mass rape, which is the subject of this article. -] (]) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes it does, Russian historians are commenting on <u>Beevor's</u> accusations of mass rape, they are not addressing any of the other authors cited. This is text is attributed to Beevor:
::::*''"Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone."''
::::*''"According to Antony Beevor revenge played very little role in the frequent rapes; according to him the main reason for the rapes was the Soviet troops' feeling of entitlement to all types of booty, including women. Beevor exemplifies this with his discovery that Soviet troops also raped Russian and Polish girls and women that were liberated from Nazi concentration camps."''
::::and this is the text criticising Beevor:
::::*''"In an interview with BBC News Online, Oleg Rzheshevsky, a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, argued that in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Beevor's use of phrases such as "Berliners remember" and "the experiences of the raped German women" is better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." He admitted that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes yet. Rzheshevsky further stated that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge," but that did not happen. In his later review of the book, he charges that Beevor is merely resurrecting the discredited and racist views of Neo-Nazi historians, who depicted Soviet troops as subhuman "Asiatic hordes." According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity."''
::::*''"Hero of the Soviet Union Army General Ivan Tretiak had said that there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Although Tretiak wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on the humane treatment of the population were implemented, and discipline in the army was strengthened. With such a huge army group in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars.""''
::::*''"Makhmut Gareev, President of the Academy of Military Sciences, who participated in the East Prussian campaign, states that he had not even heard about sexual violence. He explains that after what the Nazis did in the USSR, excesses were likely to take place, but such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He also notes that the Soviet military leadership signed an executive order on 19 January 1945 that demanded to prevent cruel treatment of the local population. According to Gareev, Beevor simply copied Goebbels' propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldiers.""''
::::*''"Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid."''
::::*''"Senyavskaya further argues that the fact that Beevor uses Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen," however, "authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army.""''
::::*''"Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?""''
:::Clearly there is ] coverage given to criticism of Beevor's book. It belongs in ], not here. --] (]) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::You would have a point if the other authors were not making the same accusations as Beevor. They all accuse the Soviet Army of mass rape and Russian sources make arguments against such accusations. It does not matter who they were made by. -] (]) 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Then that is ], because these historians are specifically addressing Beevor's book ] where he claims ''"that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone"'' and you are synthesising that to other authors. --] (]) 23:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::That specific statistic is only one of the things they are addressing. Beevor is not the only one who uses that statistic. Actually, he uses many of the sources published before his book that are cited here, so his book is also kind of a summary of earlier Western source on the subject. -] (]) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::Having read through the article, I have to agree with Nug that this has been turned into ]. Take it to the article on Beevor's book. The content has now well overstepped both ] and ]. --] (]) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::And can I ask what brought you to this article?
:::::::It looks like you are simply repeating Nug's arguments without actually understanding what the issue is. -] (]) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Please, no ] or ] assumptions and stick to the issue at hand. Clearly there is now no consensus that this material remain in the article. Your contention that Beevor's book is a ''"kind of a summary of earlier Western source on the subject"'' and these Russian historians in criticising Beevor's book is in turn criticising earlier Western sources is just classic ]. --] (]) 01:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I've only just spotted your bad faith comment, {{u|YMB29}}. What brought me here? Would you care to take a look at the article's history page: it's been on my watchlist for quite some time and, yes, I do know what is at issue. No ], and certainly ]. Your ] behaviour is unwarranted and unacceptable. --] (]) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Well if you really were acting in good faith, you would not have made that revert without consensus or at least actively discussing the issue. A quick comment that you support Nug is not a serious attempt at discussion. -] (]) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::No, they are criticizing the portrayal of the Soviet Army and accusations of mass rape, which are not only made by Beevor.
:::::::::As for consensus, it is not established by reverting alone, especially when users randomly show up to make reverts, quickly repeating the same arguments as you. There is no way you can get away with ignoring WP:BRD. -] (]) 02:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::No, they are criticizing Beevor's portrayal of the Soviet Army and accusations of mass rape. You should abide by ], you added new text related to Beevor and now you have been reverted by two editors, stop complaining. There is no consensus for your addition. --] (]) 02:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I added the changes long ago and everyone was fine with them until "new" user MiGR25 started reverting. The burden is on you to show that consensus has changed.
:::::::::::Also, repeating dubious arguments over and over won't make them true... -] (]) 02:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Per ], consensus can change at any time. That three people have already reverted your edit is ample proof consensus no longer exists for your text. --] (]) 03:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Read carefully. WP:CCC says ''editors may '''propose''' a change to current consensus'', not force it by edit warring.
:::::::::::::You are going to ignore user ], who undid the revert by the "new" user MiGR25? -] (]) 04:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::]'s edit just proves no consensus exists. Per ] ''"However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it."'' Last I heard Beevor is still alive, and devoting such a large amount of text to criticising him outside the relevant articles such as ] and equating his conclusions to Nazi propaganda oversteps both ] and ]. --] (]) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::''Lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit'', so to justify your revert you are now claiming that there is a WP:BLP violation against Beevor. You just keep making up new excuses...
:::::::::::::::They are commenting on his book, not him personally. However, some sentences have nothing to do with Beevor, like this one:
::::::::::::::::''According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.''
:::::::::::::::How do you explain removing that? -] (]) 04:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Hello, I noticed that I was pinged recently. I personally favor inclusion of the material. I believe that Rzheshevsky at least has written about this subject in his 2002 book on the Battle of Berlin, and that he and Makhmut Gareev can be considered as reliable sources on the subject of rape by the Red Army during this period. To me the rapes are the central topic of the sources in question. Because Beevor's popular book on the Battle of Berlin gave considerable attention to this issue, the issue of the rapes, the book became a lightning rod for controversy, but ultimately the criticisms being made are not specifically against Beevor and his book but really they are criticisms of the common theory that mass rapes during the occupation of Germany occurred at historically unprecedented levels, one topic among many which Beevor discusses in his book on the Battle of Berlin. If users are worried about violating coat rack, I think there are other legitimate ways the material can still be included. I wonder if we could put a subcategory under "Controversy in Russia" for "Reaction to Beevor's ''Berlin''". There were certainly many Russian historians who reacted negatively to it at the time of release, but again it was not the book as a whole or the man himself who was the main target of the criticism, it was the ideas he put forward concerning rape during the occupation of Germany. I view it as being part of the broad historiographical debate on the issue which continues today.] (]) 05:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Sorry, the argument ''"ultimately the criticisms being made are not specifically against Beevor and his book but really they are criticisms of the common theory that mass rapes during the occupation of Germany occurred at historically unprecedented levels"'' is simply unsourced personal synthesis. Since the sources in question explicitly discuss Beevor's book and their arguments address Beevor's conclusions, that criticism cannot be extended to other authors. For all we know these critics may well accept what other authors write, we don't know and we shouldn't synthesise otherwise. Despite the popularity of Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin, not much of it is used in this article, just three sentences are attributed to him, yet we had over six paragraphs devoted to criticising his book and his conclusions. That's just simply overboard in terms of ] and misleads the readers that this criticism is applicable to the topic of mass rapes in general rather than Beevor's book specifically. The article ] is the place for that criticism, not here. --] (]) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::So you are claiming that the other authors do not write about mass rape in Germany just like Beevor? What do they write about, mass rape in Antarctica or something? Can you stop with the dubious arguments...
:::::::::::::::::As for mentioning Beevor in the text too much, that could have been easily resolved by adding an explanation about Beevor's popular book on the subject and that it attracted lots of criticism. However, you decided to just revert large pieces of the text, including parts that don't mention Beevor at all (see the example above). You still did not answer my question about this. -] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Again, it seems you are ]. This isn't an article about Beevor's book. Beevor contributes three sentences to the article and you want to insert over six paragraphs of rebuttal of Beevor's book. That oversteps ]. It is ] to suggest that criticism of Beevor's book is equally applicable to other authors. Now that the article is protected, Ed suggested that you try to build some consensus by offering some alternate text here for discussion, otherwise you are just going around in circles. --] (]) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:You should have thought about consensus before you started reverting...
:You have ignored what I said again, including the question I asked you. -] (]) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::Continuing your shameless lie that I had reverted anything on this page does not help your task in building the consensus that clearly does not exist at present. --] (]) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::So per ] the article has to be returned to the previous state.
:::You are the one lying that you did not revert.
:::When are you going to answer my question about removing text that does not mention Beevor? -] (]) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
All involved here should remember to discuss the content, not the editors, here. If you want to raise concerns about user conduct, there are other venues available. If the tone of the debate degenerates any further, I foresee blocks in the near future. ] (]) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

== Article protected until 27 January ==

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

== Protected edit request on 27 December 2014 ==

{{edit protected|Rape during the occupation of Germany|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
I am requesting that the article be restored to the previous state, before the controversial removal of text, because there was no consensus to make that change.<br>
] says that ''in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit''.<br>
It is also important to note that the last revert was made by a user who barely took part in discussion and hardly edited the article before.<br>
I am not seeking to push my version of the article, but only asking that the consensus policy be followed.<br>
I think this will send a message that changes cannot be forced through without reaching a consensus by discussion and/or dispute resolution. -] (]) 22:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->


== Beevor ==
:] '''Not done''', "commonly results" is not the same as "must be implemented while discussion lasts". Discuss the issues, establish a consensus on how to cover the criticism of Beevor and on what parts of the references that were removed may be re-used in a more general context, then let's implement that. It's far too early to declare that we can't reach a consensus here. ] (]) 01:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Huon}} Well lack of consensus was admitted by Nug above, and while consensus may still be achieved, there was no consensus to remove a large piece of text in the first place.
::My point is if someone wants to change something in the article text, it is up to them to prove their case and seek consensus. That is what ] and the consensus policy are all about.
::Furthermore, as I pointed out above, under the cover of "removing text only relevant to Beevor's book", text that is directly relevant to this article and does not mention Beevor at all was also removed. -] (]) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


This article extensively uses Beevor. However, according to Ericsson, Kjersti, and Eva Simonsen, (Children of World War II:
:::Following ], "At least there should be proposals for specific wording." This, of course, goes for all involved, not just for YMB29. I do not think it's a good idea to use ] as a defense for avoiding a discussion of the issues. ] (]) 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The Hidden Enemy Legacy. New York: Berg. 2005 ISBN: 9781845202064, page 233) Beevor just takes the figures published by Sander&.
::::I am not talking about avoiding discussion, but about a clear violation of policy that is for some reason being allowed here. -] (]) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Ericsson&Simonsen say:
::::I would not be surprised if I am going to be the only one proposing new text, no one will reply, and when I will attempt to eventually add it to the article, it will be reverted. -] (]) 02:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:"''...Beevor presented ostensibly new research on mass rapes. His figures, however, had been published in 1992 by the German team of Helke Sander and Barbara Johr''".
I am going to replace Beevor (and mass-media that cite him) with the original secondary source. ] (]) 02:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


== The US rape section does not accurately describe the larger estimate. ==
:::::Your ] attitude is not appreciated. If you wish to have any form of ] discussion, your ] smacks of ], or are you simply trying to make a ] as to my ]? --] (]) 04:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::You think posting links to different wiki policies in each of your edits makes you look more competent than other users?
::::::If you want to show that WP:BATTLEGROUND does not apply to you and you are not here just to revert on behalf of Nug, why don't you give proposals that the admins have called for above or at least answer the question that Nug still has not answered above (about removing content where Beevor is not even mentioned)? -] (]) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::You have enough experience to be aware of the fact that the discussion process does not have to take place at the pace you choose to set (particularly as it's a busy time of year for many of us). Instead, you've adopted the attitude that it's a race. I'm actually logging off for the day and will get back to it when I have time. Strange as it may seem, this is not the only article I'm involved with, and certainly not the most contentious, therefore requiring immediate input because it's spiralling off the charts. --] (]) 04:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Where do you see me demanding that it should be done immediately? I simply suggested that you post something of value to the discussion. It does not have to be done now. -] (]) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Currently the page suggests that the estimate of 190,000 rapes by US troops is based on a known statistic that 5% of the births in the post-war period were the result of rapes by American troops. It also unnecessarily says that the figure is based on "extensive research" (all estimates are based on research of varying degrees of intensity), actively painting the other estimates as unreliable.
===Proposals for changes===
Why don't you propose some text here on talk? If you can propose more general text replacing text that was focused on Beevor, and agree to move material about his book such as ] (which is entirely about Beevor's use of statistics) to the article ] where it belongs, then I think some progress can be made. --] (]) 10:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:You are again claiming that text relevant to the article is only relevant to Beevor.
:I am not the only one who should be proposing changes, see Huon's comment above. Are you going to propose something constructive, and not just removal of text?
:Also, how many times do I have to ask you to answer my question above? -] (]) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, I'm also proposing constructive changes, the removal of text that should be in the article ]. For example, how is the following three paragraphs explicitly rebutting Beevor necessary when Beevor's claim on the number of rape victims takes up a total of one single sentence:
:::'''''Criticism of statistics'''
:::''Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid.''
:::''Senyavskaya further argues that the fact that Beevor uses Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen," however, "authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."''
:::''Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"''
::How is that text applicable to what any of the other authors have written? If you could propose some alternate text that discusses the topic, and not about Beevor and his methodology, then we can make progress. --] (]) 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::We are not talking about this particular text, but about the text you removed. Stay on topic. This can be discussed later, although the solution would probably be the same. -] (]) 21:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::The topic has always been about having six paragraphs rebutting Beevor when the article only attributes three sentences to his viewpoint. This can all be discussed together. I propose that these six paragraphs be summarised into three sentences to provide fair and proper balance. --] (]) 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::That would mean deleting a lot of relevant information.
:::::How about adding more text on Beevor's book and explaining its impact? At the same time, the number of times Beevor is mentioned can be reduced. -] (]) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'd support adding more text to the article on Beevor's book ], do you have a source that explains its impact? --] (]) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::There are sources already in the article that explain it. -] (]) 19:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Fantastic, we can add it to ] and add a link to it from here (with a brief summary), no need to duplicate it in full here. --] (]) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Well that article already explains the impact of the book and the reaction to it. I am talking about adding a brief summary here and then adding the text you removed (maybe trimmed down a little), because that criticism is relevant not just to Beevor, but to the topic of this article. -] (]) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Okay, well the quickest way to the end point is if you indicate the trimmed text you want. Is the text in the section '''Criticism of statistics''' really necessary here? It is already repeated in ] so why not just mention it a single sentence and pipe a link to it, something like "...several authors ]..." --] (]) 05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Just because it is in another article does not mean that it does not belong here too. Only a part of the text you removed talks about Beevor, so at least the majority of it has to be restored.
:::::::::::As for the statistics section, I will see what can be removed from there, but most of it has to remain since statistics are mentioned a lot here and Beevor is not the one who came up with them. -] (]) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::But the text is explicitly discussing Beevor's use of statistics, it would be ] to say that it would be applicable to statistics mentioned by others. --] (]) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Even though the numbers are the same? -] (]) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The other authors provide different numbers, all below Beevor's estimate of 2 million. The text is criticising Beevor's use of statistics to arrive at that 2 million number. --] (]) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Where do you see different numbers? -] (]) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
The relevant sentence is ''"the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers <u>ranged up to</u> 2 million."'' and cite a number of authors. Obviously Beevor supplied the upper end of that range and that is what your Russian historians are objecting to, they are not saying no women were raped at all. --] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:The statistics (2 million total, including 100,000 in Berlin, and 1.4 million in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia) are the same for all sources. They come from a German book by Sander and Johr. Beevor used their numbers in his book (Senyavskaya mentions this) and the other sources use them too, either directly or through Beevor. -] (]) 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


However, the source states that "Gebhardt said she arrived at that number of sexual assaults by estimating that of the so-called ‘war-children’ born to unmarried German women by the 1950s, five percent were products of rape.
:However, we should be talking about the text that was deleted first:
She also estimates that for each birth, there were 100 rapes"
::''In an interview with '']'', Oleg Rzheshevsky, a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, argued that in '']'', Beevor's use of phrases such as "Berliners remember" and "the experiences of the raped German women" is better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." He admitted that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes yet. Rzheshevsky further stated that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge," but that did not happen. In his later review of the book, he charges that Beevor is merely resurrecting the discredited and racist views of ] historians, who depicted Soviet troops as subhuman "Asiatic hordes." '''According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.'''''
::'''''] Army General Ivan Tretiak had said that there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Although Tretiak wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on the humane treatment of the population were implemented, and discipline in the army was strengthened. With such a huge army group in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent.''' The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars.''
::'''''], President of the Academy of Military Sciences, who participated in the East Prussian campaign, states that he had not even heard about sexual violence. He explains that after what the Nazis did in the USSR, excesses were likely to take place, but such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He also notes that the Soviet military leadership signed an executive order on 19 January 1945 that demanded to prevent cruel treatment of the local population.''' According to Gareev, Beevor simply copied Goebbels' propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldiers.''


As such "5% of the births in the post war era" should be changed, and replaced with "based on an estimate that 5% of post-war births resulted from rapes, and an assumption of 100 rapes per birth."
:The sentences in bold do not mention Beevor and are directly on topic for this article. So why were they deleted? Was it by mistake? -] (]) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Given that the figure is nearly 20 times the size of previous estimates, it is especially important not to imply that this is a statistical fact that has been proven conclusively by research, which the page currently does. ] (]) 20:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
== Rather Opinionated ==


== Favorable comparison and apologetic language + bias is out of place and should be removed ==
As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be rational, objective and fair.


The statement in the beginning of the "British troops" section trivializes the British crimes by comparing it to Soviet crimes, "while not on the scale of the Red Army in the Soviet Zone".
Personal opinions such as
Also the wording is apologetic, such as "some rapes were carried out by soldiers either suffering from post traumatic stress or who were drunk" (like other soldiers weren't suffering from stress, or being drunk provides an apology).
"However, he adds that probably referred to attacks by former slave labourers (displaced persons) seeking revenge" is also out of place in the section, because it should deal with the British crimes only.
The wording about "probably deserved it" is also not applied to Soviet or U.S. crimes. A clear bias in the section. ] (]) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


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


Not to demean the topic, but I'm skeptical of the source for 1.9 million people being assaulted in Silesia, I feel there has to be more sources since this is an enormous number. ] (]) 17:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
therefore really don't belong here.


:Exactly, it needs to be fixed. ] (]) 10:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
It is irrational as it promotes the view that Nazi atrocities were a merely German matter:
:Where does the article give that figure for Silesia? ] (]) 11:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
That view is somewhat outdated. It's common sense now, that the history if WWII has not yet been fully told. For example, Hitler founded his idea on the "science" of the American Eugenic Movement. The Holocaust was organized by IBM, Hitler's Willing Executioners. The Blitz was to a not small degree enabled by General Motors, Hitler's Car Builder. Etc. Read "Nazi Nexus" by Edwin Black for a start. (Grad A-investigative journalism by a descendent of Holocaust survivors who was nominated for the Pulitzer Price:
<ref>http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa</ref> )


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2024 ==
It is biased:
Creating hierarchies of victims and promoting the notion that only certain group's suffering is important while that of others (like Germans) is not, is highly biased. It is also against Human Rights, which are applicable for all individuals, not matter of their nationality. It's therefore highly problematic if a Wikipage is misused for promoting the view that some victims of WWII are so unimportant that they even are not to be named victims. It really shouldn't matter if a 12 year old German girl is raped to death, a 12 year old Jewish-Girl is gassed to death in the Holocaust or a 12 year old British girl is bombed to death by a V1 or V2.


{{Edit semi-protected|Rape during the occupation of Germany|answered=yes}}
It is unfair:
change "The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million."
In the end, if the suffering of one group is more important than the other, then what kind of human rights do you stand for?
to "The exact number of German citizens raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million." and similar parts in the article (as there's nothing to suggest that German men weren't raped also) ] (]) 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ⸺(])] 05:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)


== Critics about data concerning amount of rapes by Soviet soldiers ==
Would the writer therefore please correct the article in line with Misplaced Pages standards and discuss his personal views elsewhere. Thank you very much.


This article doesn't look really objective. There is a mention of a specific "Russian culture" which is surely patriarchal. Communist after they came to power gave a lot of rights to women. For example, USSR became the 1st country in the world that gave rights for abortion a right that in some countries of the civilized "Western World" (USA) is still restricted! Also, there is basically no critics for the studies mentioned in the article despite the fact that there are enough historians that indicated deficiency in the mentioned researches. Thus, most of the estimates that says millions of rapes are based on the book of Helke Sander and Barbara Johr. However, if you check how did they get these results, you'll see that they took data from single Berlin hospital (there were data if the woman was raped and if the father is Russian). They decided that if the father is Russian then the woman was raped (about 10% of cases based on data). Then, they said that in the entire Germany situation was exactly the same as in this single hospital! I believe that it's not good source based on authority (CRAAP) therefore even if you shall mention it you must show that there serious doubts about quality of this research! Next, this data about 100000 abortions after rape in Berlin. First of all it's not strictly 100000, but 20000 to 100000. Secondly, if the woman stated that she was raped the abortion was free. All she had to provide was written statement. Some historians (Antina Grossman) found several patterns in these statements that indicate that att least some of them were false. All the mentioned sources are already exist and used in the russian page of wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/Насилие_в_отношении_мирного_населения_Германии_в_конце_Второй_мировой_войны#Оценки_числа_изнасилованных. Hope, you'll soon correct the english article so, that readers would be provided with more correct information! ] (]) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Slate2015 <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 11:55, 23 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape during the occupation of Germany article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: British / European / French / German / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II / Cold War Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion not met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Russia / History / Military Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconFeminism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's Health Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
WikiProject iconCold War Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFrance Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Beevor

This article extensively uses Beevor. However, according to Ericsson, Kjersti, and Eva Simonsen, (Children of World War II: The Hidden Enemy Legacy. New York: Berg. 2005 ISBN: 9781845202064, page 233) Beevor just takes the figures published by Sander&. Ericsson&Simonsen say:

"...Beevor presented ostensibly new research on mass rapes. His figures, however, had been published in 1992 by the German team of Helke Sander and Barbara Johr".

I am going to replace Beevor (and mass-media that cite him) with the original secondary source. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The US rape section does not accurately describe the larger estimate.

Currently the page suggests that the estimate of 190,000 rapes by US troops is based on a known statistic that 5% of the births in the post-war period were the result of rapes by American troops. It also unnecessarily says that the figure is based on "extensive research" (all estimates are based on research of varying degrees of intensity), actively painting the other estimates as unreliable.

However, the source states that "Gebhardt said she arrived at that number of sexual assaults by estimating that of the so-called ‘war-children’ born to unmarried German women by the 1950s, five percent were products of rape. She also estimates that for each birth, there were 100 rapes"

As such "5% of the births in the post war era" should be changed, and replaced with "based on an estimate that 5% of post-war births resulted from rapes, and an assumption of 100 rapes per birth."

Given that the figure is nearly 20 times the size of previous estimates, it is especially important not to imply that this is a statistical fact that has been proven conclusively by research, which the page currently does. Crashbrennan (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Favorable comparison and apologetic language + bias is out of place and should be removed

The statement in the beginning of the "British troops" section trivializes the British crimes by comparing it to Soviet crimes, "while not on the scale of the Red Army in the Soviet Zone". Also the wording is apologetic, such as "some rapes were carried out by soldiers either suffering from post traumatic stress or who were drunk" (like other soldiers weren't suffering from stress, or being drunk provides an apology). "However, he adds that probably referred to attacks by former slave labourers (displaced persons) seeking revenge" is also out of place in the section, because it should deal with the British crimes only. The wording about "probably deserved it" is also not applied to Soviet or U.S. crimes. A clear bias in the section. 46.138.32.56 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources on these subjects

Not to demean the topic, but I'm skeptical of the source for 1.9 million people being assaulted in Silesia, I feel there has to be more sources since this is an enormous number. 2603:8001:8DF0:B430:1A0:BEE7:FA5B:CBC1 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it needs to be fixed. 2601:248:5181:5C70:380F:1A89:B647:83FD (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Where does the article give that figure for Silesia? Richard Nevell (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million." to "The exact number of German citizens raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million." and similar parts in the article (as there's nothing to suggest that German men weren't raped also) YapperYaps (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Critics about data concerning amount of rapes by Soviet soldiers

This article doesn't look really objective. There is a mention of a specific "Russian culture" which is surely patriarchal. Communist after they came to power gave a lot of rights to women. For example, USSR became the 1st country in the world that gave rights for abortion a right that in some countries of the civilized "Western World" (USA) is still restricted! Also, there is basically no critics for the studies mentioned in the article despite the fact that there are enough historians that indicated deficiency in the mentioned researches. Thus, most of the estimates that says millions of rapes are based on the book of Helke Sander and Barbara Johr. However, if you check how did they get these results, you'll see that they took data from single Berlin hospital (there were data if the woman was raped and if the father is Russian). They decided that if the father is Russian then the woman was raped (about 10% of cases based on data). Then, they said that in the entire Germany situation was exactly the same as in this single hospital! I believe that it's not good source based on authority (CRAAP) therefore even if you shall mention it you must show that there serious doubts about quality of this research! Next, this data about 100000 abortions after rape in Berlin. First of all it's not strictly 100000, but 20000 to 100000. Secondly, if the woman stated that she was raped the abortion was free. All she had to provide was written statement. Some historians (Antina Grossman) found several patterns in these statements that indicate that att least some of them were false. All the mentioned sources are already exist and used in the russian page of wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/Насилие_в_отношении_мирного_населения_Германии_в_конце_Второй_мировой_войны#Оценки_числа_изнасилованных. Hope, you'll soon correct the english article so, that readers would be provided with more correct information! Egor Bilialov (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: