Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CurtisNaito (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 27 December 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:26, 27 December 2014 by CurtisNaito (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aleksievich

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

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

Anyway, from Aleksievich's book:

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

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

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

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

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

Since this controversy has not been cleared up, I will be replacing the non-existent quotes of Aleksievich's with the one that actually exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.6.245 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rapes committed by Polish troops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In literature" section

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

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

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

A real Alexievich quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

numbers of rapes

There seems to be a contradiction in the article:

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

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

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

Coat racking

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone."
"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 WP:UNDUE coverage given to criticism of Beevor's book. It belongs in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, not here. --Nug (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And can I ask what brought you to this article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: