Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sayerslle (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 2 February 2015 (→Proposals for changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:43, 2 February 2015 by Sayerslle (talk | contribs) (→Proposals for changes)(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.

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)

I've only just spotted your bad faith comment, 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 WP:ASPERSIONS, and certainly WP:NPA. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is unwarranted and unacceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 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. -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. I view it as being part of the broad historiographical debate on the issue which continues today.CurtisNaito (talk) 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 WP:BALASPS 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 Berlin: The Downfall 1945 is the place for that criticism, not here. --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, it seems you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. 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 WP:BALASPS. It is WP:SYNTH 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. --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 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. --Nug (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So per WP:NOCONSENSUS 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? -YMB29 (talk) 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. Huon (talk) 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 WP:FRINGE/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 this removal was correct. Dyukov should also be removed. For example, we do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not use these "scholars" on this page, but only in pages about themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Article protected until 27 January

There was a report at WP:AN3 on 22 December about this article. 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 WP:RFC. 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 WP:ARBEE which allows for page bans if there is evidence that some participants can't edit neutrally. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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.
WP:NOCONSENSUS 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.
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.
I am not seeking to push my version of the article, but only asking that the consensus policy be followed.
I think this will send a message that changes cannot be forced through without reaching a consensus by discussion and/or dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Huon (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@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 WP:BRD 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. -YMB29 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Following EdJohnston, "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 WP:NOCONSENSUS as a defense for avoiding a discussion of the issues. Huon (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not talking about avoiding discussion, but about a clear violation of policy that is for some reason being allowed here. -YMB29 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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. -YMB29 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is not appreciated. If you wish to have any form of WP:CIVIL discussion, your comment on the contributor smacks of WP:OWN, or are you simply trying to make a WP:POINT as to my WP:COMPETENCE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 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)? -YMB29 (talk) 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. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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 Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Criticism_of_statistics (which is entirely about Beevor's use of statistics) to the article Berlin: The Downfall 1945 where it belongs, then I think some progress can be made. --Nug (talk) 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? -YMB29 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also proposing constructive changes, the removal of text that should be in the article Berlin: The Downfall 1945. 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. --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 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. --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding more text to the article on Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945, do you have a source that explains its impact? --Nug (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are sources already in the article that explain it. -YMB29 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, we can add it to Berlin: The Downfall 1945#Criticism and add a link to it from here (with a brief summary), no need to duplicate it in full here. --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 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 Berlin: The Downfall 1945#Criticism so why not just mention it a single sentence and pipe a link to it, something like "...several authors criticised Beevor's methodology..." --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But the text is explicitly discussing Beevor's use of statistics, it would be WP:SYNTH to say that it would be applicable to statistics mentioned by others. --Nug (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Even though the numbers are the same? -YMB29 (talk) 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. --Nug (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do you see different numbers? -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant sentence is "the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers ranged up to 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. --Nug (talk) 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. -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

However, we should be talking about the text that was deleted first:

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.

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? -YMB29 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep:

"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."

that's okay with me. The other two are just personal anecdotes of two veterans given undue weight, there could be thousands of other personal anecdotes (from the 4,148 Red Army officers Rzheshevsky says were convicted for example) that don't deny mass rapes occurred. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well this is true for Tretiak, but Gareev is a military historian, so his opinion should count here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Gareev , "he had not even heard about sexual violence" . That statement qualifies him as a war crimes denier. We do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not cite Soviet crimes deniers, like Gareev and others (including Dyukov) on this page, but only in pages about themselves. This all was correctly removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And what proof do you have that he is a war crimes denier? Your opinion is not proof...

He is just talking about his personal experience.

Also, constantly making ridiculous comparisons to the Holocaust does not help you prove your point of view. -YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The proof is his own statement ("he had not even heard about sexual violence" ). This kind of WP:FRINGE must and will be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How does that statement make him fringe? -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Consider a modern-day "historian" who tells that "he had not even heard about extermination of Jews" during the Holocaust as a reason to downplay the crimes by Nazi. Would we included his opinion in the page Holocaust? No. Same is here. This is not to compare very different historical events, but simply as an illustration of WP:FRINGE policy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So if the historical events are very different then maybe you should not make that comparison...

You are reading only one sentence and ignoring the rest of what he says. He does not deny that these crimes occurred. -YMB29 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in the diff under discussion he tells that the crime indeed took place. Just the opposite. That means one of the following (multiple choice): (a) he is a crime denier, (b) someone who inserted this text quoted him out of context to "prove" that the crimes did not take place, or (c) the both. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You again did not read carefully: such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. -YMB29 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

One must read the entire diff (above) to conclude what he is telling. Now, speaking about similar article by Senyavskaya, we discussed it here. Neither her article, nor Gareev are appropriate sources for this and other related pages (so, yes, that was an appropriate removal of highly biased text), in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well your arguments so far have been based on the misrepresentation of what they have said.

The text was removed not because it was considered "highly biased," but because of "coat racking." -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with the latter. This text was correctly removed for four reasons: (a) the coat racking, (b) "undue", (c) POV-pushing/ highly biased text, and (d) use of inappropriate partisan sources that are hardly reliable. There is no misrepresentation of the sources, however. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There was misrepresentation by you; you only see what you want in them.

Read the discussion above. It was only about "coat racking." Anything else you brought up is another topic and it is up to you to back up your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is no agreement to make any of these changes . To the contrary, the opinion by Dyukov should be removed per arguments above and elsewhere. Please stop reverting to old version without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove it in the first place. Just because the article was protected with the text removed, does not mean there was a new consensus.

Again, the text was removed because of coat racking concerns, which were addressed and a compromise was reached, see above.

So if you want to prove your case, go ahead, but please no more comparisons to Holocaust denial... -YMB29 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the protection recently expired, so I suggest you keep discussing your new concerns here on the talk page (which you have been doing so far). Removing text without consensus and after there was a compromise to restore some of what was removed, won't do any good, unless you want the admins to get involved again. -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you simply renewed edit war, immediately after expiration of protection. I already stated my opposition to these edits and explained why. If admins or other users do not want to be involved, there is nothing I should do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again your opposition has nothing to do with the edit warring that got this page protected.

How can I be edit warring if it was agreed that the text should be added back, as it had nothing to do with coat racking? -YMB29 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

this sentence 'They have encountered vast criticism from historians in Russia and the Russian government.' - is sourced to a telegraph article that mentions one russian ambassador railing at antony beevor- it doesn't seem to mention 'vast criticism from Russian historians' - just this Russian apparatchik and saying the subject is 'taboo' - a very different thing to suggesting Russian historians have taken on these claims critically - its just a Russian ambassador saying ' oh shut the fuck up beevor,' basically - Sayerslle (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article has more on that, and that sentence is just a summary of the section. -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

and in that section what is there really - btw I clicked on the Dyugin bloke and the wp article says hes a 'revisionist' and hasn't even got a degree - so the 'vast criticism' is dodgy revisionism and a bit of bluster from a couple of Russian historians - and even when when you read some of that , you get stuff like 'well, that was to be expected' kind of thing - the section is weak, lets face it. Sayerslle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you need to do more research into this to get a better understanding. Rushing in and making conclusions is unwise.

The wiki article says that Dyukov was called revisionist by the Estonian press, so it is not fair to call him revisionist. I don't know if he has an academic degree or not, but this does not prevent Antony Beevor from being called a historian.

Most prominent Russian historians criticize these allegations and their view is significant. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

oh I see , - well if RT (TV network) say he's a good historian I'm sure he's great. Sayerslle (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What does RT have to do with this? -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

oh yeah, a bit of a non-sequitur - I looked up this historian and I just saw a few RT stories kind of 'sticking up for him' so to speak , and thought , oh well if RT defend him, he must be great - (my sarcasm because actually I regard RT as a pile of pus). Sayerslle (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevant here... -YMB29 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the source provided does not call Dyukov a revisionist-negationist, so the revisionist label should be removed. It might be a violation of the WP:BLP policy. -YMB29 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

you asked about RT so I replied and then get told its irrelevant - well, I was just explaining to answer your bleedin' question - and the source associates him expressly and directly with revisionist history, read it again - so the revisionist label should not be removed - (whether it should be historical revisionism or historical revisionism (negationist) is a judgment call I guess - the bbc ref clearly associates him with a strain of negationist-style historical discourse - the revisionist label , of whatever stripe, should stay and is sourced whatver Sayerslle (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You brought up RT here yourself.

Revisionism is mentioned with a question mark in the article and it does not directly call him revisionist. This is not enough to label him as revisionist. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed this a little per my previous comments (see above), but left Gareev as a compromise. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I see that you are continuing your disruptive behavior. You just removed a large piece of text that others have spent time editing. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

did you get this section from this monindependencefinanciere.com piece? just asking -or has monindependencefinanciere translated this wp? what is your source for her mentioning Ralph Keelings book as influential? Sayerslle (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No one made a claim about whether it was influential or not. Senyavskaya mentions it as one of the examples of the early Cold War publications. I mean you wanted an example, right?

I don't know that website. -YMB29 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how Dyukov's comment about repressions is relevant here. This is coat racking. It is like saying that "Antony Beevor, who is not a real historian, writes..." or "Atina Grossmann, who claims that Goebbels' anti-Bolshevik propaganda turned out to be mostly correct, says..." -YMB29 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, - the ref clearly associates him with revisionist history - - you wanted a ref for him being a revisionist and now you say whats that got to do with anything -he has an agenda , the bbc article associates him with a certain strain of historical writing current in Russia - and when you say 'who said it was influential'?! - your edit was that senyevskaya said works like his powered a myth of Russian rape - so that means she is arguing it was influential - ffs - its like you aren't even following the point of your own edits. Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather Opinionated

As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be rational, objective and fair.

Personal opinions such as

"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.

therefore really don't belong here.

It is irrational as it promotes the view that Nazi atrocities were a merely German matter: 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: )

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.

It is unfair: 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?

Would the writer therefore please correct the article in line with Misplaced Pages standards and discuss his personal views elsewhere. Thank you very much.

Slate2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slate2015 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army fought their way into the Third Reich"?

The sentence "A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army fought their way into the Third Reich" is misleading. Sexual violence and rapes in Central Europe started in 1939 with invasion of Poland where German forces in Selbstschutz engaged in mass rapes of Polish girls and women, and was later continued by forced prostitution, catching women for brothels and concentration camps brothel system for Wehrmacht soldiers. This increased after 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Union and its forces engaged in mass rapes against Soviet women, which was documented but not persecuted during Nuremberg trials as one of many war crimes that were ignored(if somebody requests I can try to dig up the source that actually mentions this). The current sentence is completely taken out of context of World War 2 and misleads the reader into thinking that this was something that happened in 1944-1945 only and from the hands of Allies, while the fact his that these incidents were far smaller than what Wehrmacht engaged in Central and Eastern Europe. I remember that long time ago, this article had brief background section explaining sexual violence in WW2 which allowed to present the information in neutral way.I did want to start an article on German rapes during WW2 long time ago(noted this already in March 2013) and perhaps I should. In the meanwhile let's think of way to correct this misleading sentence into soemthing that will actually reflect the situation in WW2--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa

Categories: