Talk:Rape during the Soviet occupation of Poland

Neutrality
This article is totally non-neutral, full of biased wording, lacks any sensible numbers and yet claims there was "unprecedented scale". There is no evidence from the Soviet side presented, and thus the account of events is unbalanced. The main sources seem to be mostly journalist, non-academic articles, with few additions from "Instytut Pamięci Narodowej", a Polish institution which has an aim to increase national sense of Poles as victims. Of the three references to Naimark, two seems to be definitely referring to the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany, rather than to Poland, and the third refers to Naimark's work about Germany as well. This combination of sources is very close to WP:SYNTHESIS. Grey Hood  Talk  16:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. TFD (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I cleared all non-scholarly sourcing, and material dependent upon non-scholarly sourcing. If you believe Naimark is misquoted, please help improve the encyclopedia—I'm not myself aware of specialist Polish rape studies by historians, it is normally contextualised in comparative terms with Germany.  I could swallow my bile and pull the hateful Beevor Berlin to leave this article at least as a place holder awaiting the real specialist historical studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems some of the sources you've removed still remain in the Rape during the occupation of Germany. I'd propose to fix that section as well, and turn this article into a redirect to that section, unless it is shown that Polish rapes constitute a notable and separate event from German ones, and if more sources deemed reliable are presented in addition to Naimark. Grey Hood   Talk  23:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think that this article, before Fifelfoo's removal, was written in a very POV manner. Also, I think the article title has at least a mild case of schizophrenia. But, this is possibly a notable topic in itself, and the sources which were removed are reliable - the problem is not with the sources but how they were being used in the article. Also also, IPN is widely regarded as a reputable respectable and reliable organization and its characterization by Greyhood above is inaccurate. Since there's no online links provided I can't verify for sure, but just judging by the title of one of the IPN publications, it seems to be about how the Soviet army was perceived rather than specific factual info about what it did. The other publication "Grzegorz Baziur, "Armia Czerwona na Pomorzu Gdańskim 1945–1947."" has to be purchased. Having said all that it does also seem like there was a whole lotta SYNTH going on with respect to the Naimark source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Institute of National Remembrance, which has its own article. I question whether we should build an article primarily on reports from a prosecution service.  TFD (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a research institute.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a research institute with clear political agenda. It is not exactly typical for research institutes to be involved in lustration and other such stuff. I presume that many respectable people work there, and much of their work is based on a good factual base. But we should prefer neutral scholarship, and while we can't do anything with the fact that every human and every historian is inherently biased to a certain extent, the cases of such clear and direct manifestation of aims going beyond pure science should be dealt with extreme caution. Grey Hood   Talk  15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no it isn't. The Institute established its credibility as independent of political influence early on, for example, with their investigation of the Jedwabne massacre where they more or less ended up supporting Jan T. Gross's contentions (though they noted some exaggerations) which was extremely unpopular both with the politicians and the general public at the time. They are generally regarded as very reliable by academic community and indeed are part of that community (employees of the institute are pretty much all PhDs in History or related fields). Of course they have critics - if your job is to go digging in uncomfortable past then somebody's not going to like it. The lustration part is only a very small part of what they do, if they do it at all, and is completely irrelevant for our purposes.
 * Anyway, all of this was covered at WP:RSN and other places once or twice already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The very fact that this Institute is so often featured on WP:RSN indicates the potentially problematic nature of its work. PhDs in History unfortunately don't grant that there are no political motivation. In the USSR, there was for example, a very important Institute of Marxism-Leninism full of highly decorated scientists, and yet we have to use the sources from this institute with extreme caution due to its political motivations. The similar case is the early Soviet historiography. As for the Institute of National Remembrance, I believe even in the Soviet Union there were no research institutes with prosecution powers. That would have been something like "NKVD Institute of Anti-Soviet Crimes". Grey Hood   Talk  14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "often featured on WP:RSN". Even if it was, the fact that some people have IDON'TLIKEIT objections does not make the institute problematic, just some editors. And I have no idea why you're comparing it to the USSR - today's Poland is obviously nothing like the USSR - as actually exemplified by the fact that the Institute, while government funded, is independent of political control, which would've been impossible in the USSR. You're comparing apples and oranges. The comparison with the NKVD is simply insulting, pretty much a logically fallacious Godwin's law violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if something sounds insulting to you, but a comparison of one institution involved in prosecution with another institution involved in prosecution is a very natural thing. Like a comparison of apples and oranges by some common feature or function, such as their nutrition value or sphericity. And, as a general note, the phrase "while government funded, is independent of political control" is oxymoron. Funding is one of the primary means of control. This holds true, of course, for all government institutions in all countries. Not all countries, however, have such unusual institutions as the Institute of National Remembrance. Grey Hood   Talk  15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am impressed with how politely this discussion proceeds (a rather unusual thing for an EE issue), and I would like it to continue in the same vein.
 * Secondly, I do not see any oxymoron in the words "while government funded, is independent of political control": funding per se does not always imply a control (and the story of the Jedwabne massacre is a good indicator of that). However, any institutions of this type, even privately owned, such as Hoover Institute may have some political bias, or even a political agenda. In addition to that, even if this institute adequately reflect the moods in the Polish society, that does not warrant neutrality, because the Polish society, as well as societies of many nation states, may be (although not necessarily is) intrinsically biased.
 * Thirdly, whereas I spent considerable time to find any information about WWII rapes in Poland, I found nothing specific in English (non-Polish or non-Russian literature). Naimark is hardly sufficient, because he focuses mostly on Germany and former German territories, so he discusses Poland only tangentially. Therefore, the danger exists that if we will find no non-Polish literature on the subject, the article may have intrinsic national bias. A possible way to balance it would be to add some Russian sources, however, most sources I found are primary ones, so we hardly can do that.
 * Fourthly, as far as I know, Stawiski plans to propose a new version of the article, where he will try to address all issues that have been raised during this and RSN discussions. I suggest to wait for his version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For some strange reason, Paul's comment shows up in the edit history and the editing window but does not appear on the page. Weird.

Anyway. ''as a general note, the phrase "while government funded, is independent of political control" is oxymoron. Funding is one of the primary means of control.'' - in totalitarian or authoritarian societies like the Soviet Union, sure. But not generally in democratic societies. For a comparable example, see the Brookings Institute (which is roughly in the same vein - government funded but widely cited in academia, with lots of academics working there - and a better analogy than the Hoover Institute), or the research done by the Federal Reserve, or hey, any state university in the US. IPN personnel are academics, and as such guard their independence very strongly. Comparing them to the NKVD is hyperbolic, false, and yes, insulting.

@Paul - I'm not sure if the "institution reflects the moods in the Polish society" (if one can even ascribe "moods" to a group as diverse as "Polish society"). Certainly with the investigation of the Jedwabne massacre they bucked Polish public opinion. A whole number of lesser known cases could be given as further examples. Again, they are regarded as reliable and unbiased by the academic community.

To add, I'm also a bit wary of Naimark being used here. I think he generally is a bit problematic, even on articles such as Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany, but he does meet the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparisons may lead us very far away, so I'll stop that interesting but dangerous line of discussion. As for the funding and control question, this hardly has to do anything with authoritarianism or democracy - basic principles of life, such as who pays the piper calls the tune, generally hold true for all societies. But this is another spin-off theme.
 * That's good that IPN has shown ability to produce research contrary to the Polish public opinion in some cases. But still its involvement in lustration remains a serious red flag. That's not something expected from a neutral research group.
 * Returning to the primary topic, I share Paul's concerns on the problems with referencing and balancing. Also, there is a question of notability, which hardly could be established without neutral sources and at least some numbers. Grey Hood   Talk  16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I already said above, I do agree that the way that the article was initially written was unbalanced and used POV language. I think the notability's there but would probably want to look around some more. The lustration thing here is a red herring. Let's see what the rewrite looks like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that notability has been shown. We have a chapter in Naimark's book about Soviet rape in Germany, but we need to show that there is literature specifically about this topic.  TFD (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence from the Soviet side presented, and thus the account of events is unbalanced.

Are you serious?

Why don't we just get Neo Nazi input for all the articles about the Holocaust, and say that they're unbalanced until they say it didn't happen? It's obvious that you think we should do that. Don't get upset, you're a closet Nazi and you've just been exposed. Don't try to deny it because there's no retracting your true face that you just exposed.


 * --Anonymiss Madchen 01:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course! Absolutely serious. Holocaust is very much documented on Nazi side and thus can be verified. Random unverifiable insults from people that by some magic were silenced for half a century is not a data, but pretty obvious pushing of someone's agenda. --Rowaa&#91;SR13&#93; (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a serious scholarly debate in the literature of post-1989 Russia, and elsewhere, about Soviet impressions of mass rape, murder and looting. The central issue is the relative role of second echelon versus frontovik units in mass rape.  Additionally, there is a healthy debate over the variety of motivations and methods used by mass rapists, and the cultural significance of these.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS/N
For a further discussion regarding this, go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. — Stawiski (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Update
The article has been entirely re-written as of 27 March 2011 after an in-depth discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. It was expanded more than 9x from 1,694 bytes to 15,786 bytes, based on reliable, secondary sources about the topic. All significant viewpoints expressed online have been thoroughly researched to avoid imbalanced coverage. At least two of the flags, reinstated on 27 March 2011 following the expansion, i.e. "notability" and "toofewopinions" need to be dealt with in accordance with WP:DRIVEBY due to already long enough "cooling off" period. — Stawiski (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexism and insanity
Are you seriously attempting to call this a liberation? Why not call the Holocaust a liberation! I will be undoing this blatant Mochtegern-Nazi action, which is absolutely no different from Holocaust Denial; in fact, is Holocaust denial.


 * --Anonymiss Madchen 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a Liberation from the German Occupation by the Soviet Army. The Red Army Soldiers sacrified their lives to defeat the German Occupants and were personally not interested in occupying Poland. The decision of Occupying Poland was made by the political Regime of USSR but the PiS Regime of Poland today portraits the Red Army Soldiers as ideologically convinced Communists who wanted to spread Communism like Teutonic Order Knights who missionized the Pagans in the Baltic Regions to spread Christianity there. And why you talk about Sexism? The Majority of Red Army Soldiers didnt comit rape or other sexual violence against German Civilians of both genders. The Majority of the Soldiers who committed these crimes were actually West, Central and North Asians anyway.--92.74.225.126 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Name
The name is problematic, as the "liberation of Poland" is a POVed term. Many scholars (and others) argue that Poland was not liberated, but occupied by a different hostile power (Soviet Union). I am not sure what would be the best name, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 01:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the Battle of Berlin was an excellent example of the hostilities between this hostile power and Polish armed forces. Yes, the territory of Poland was occupied by the Soviet troops, and that was normal, taking into account the de facto lack of actual authorities there. However, national government had been installed there almost immediately, and this government was recognised internationally. Of course, I am not going to argue that it was a really democratically elected government, or that it was fully independent from Soviet Big Brother. However, one should keep in mind that pre-war Poland was also not a democratic state, and that many de jure independent states (e.g. most Latin American states) were de facto American semi-puppet regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps people have already had this discussion at other WWII Poland related pages, in depth, with weighting of the highest quality reliable sources, and considered discussion of naming policy? Would an editor know of this and be able to abstract the past debate and its results? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Normally we should name topics according to what they are called in the sources used for the article. All the sources appear to be in Polish.  Could someone translate them?  Are any of them specifically about this topic?  TFD (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sort of. First source, by Janusz Wróbel, is entitled ""Wyzwoliciele czy okupanci? Żołnierze sowieccy w Łódzkiem 1945–1946." which in fact does mean "Liberators or Occupiers? Soviet soldiers in Lodz region 1945-1946". Nota bene the "farmhands" discussed in this article were German women though the article also talks about rape of Polish women. It also discusses the fact that a good portion, though not all, of these were carried out by deserters. Anyway, the article doesn't really address the question it poses in its title beyond first couple paragraphs where it more or less presents the fact that a view that it was a "occupation" exist and explains why. It doesn't explicitly accept this view though the jist of the article suggests that it does implicitly accept it. Second and third paragraphs more or less says that the Soviet army was initially seen as "liberators" but soon the perception changed to them being viewed as "occupiers" (nothing surprising in that).
 * The Polityka source, with the article "Women's Gehenna" doesn't talk much about the "occupation" vs. "liberation" issue. At one point it uses the phrasing "during the Winter offensive". In another it talks about "women of the liberated countries". Btw, Polityka is a fairly left-wing magazine, here the article appears to be written from a somewhat academic-feminist point of view.
 * The Wingfield and Bucur/Jolluck source (also from a academic-feminist point of view) is in English so you can see for yourself, though some sections are not available on gbooks.
 * Baziur source is simply entitled "Red Army in Gdansk Pomerania" so the title also doesn't address the terminology. I have this actual article somewhere but I'm too lazy/busy to look for it. A google search can probably bring up an online version.
 * Krogulski, as translated in the reference section, uses something like "occupation by our allies".
 * Pagacz-Moczarska source is entitled "Occupied Krakow" but here "occupation" means "Nazi occupation".
 * Naimark is an English language source and he of course uses the term "occupation" to refer to the presence of the Soviets. Personally I don't like this source for other reasons, but there you go.
 * Niesiobedzki source's title is given in the references correctly: "Jak to z tym „wyzwalaniem” było (What sort of "liberation" was it)". This source very much takes the "occupation" side.


 * Personally I dislike either "liberation" or "occupation" as they're both POV, IMO. But it's not easy to come up with a suitable third alternative. Maybe something like "...at the end of WWII in Poland".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. IIRC, past discussions has indicated that we should avoid both "liberation of Poland" and "occupation of Poland" for the 1945 context. Both terms are occasionally used, but for example, while modern Russian historiography stills likes the term liberation, modern Polish one prefers occupation (ex. Golon 2004, Północna Grupa Wojsk Armii Radzieckiej w Polsce w latach 1945-1956. Okupant w roli sojusznika (Northern Group of Soviet Army Forces in Poland in the years 1945-1956. Occupant in the role of an ally). Many modern sources speak of "liberation" in quotation marks, for obvious reasons. For those reasons, I'd caution against using one of those variants and claiming "it is supported by a source", because it is very easy to find a contradictory source. Overall, unless it is relevant to the article (ex. Northern Group of Forces), I strongly suggest using more neutral formulation, such as one proposed by Martin Tammsalu below. When writing about that period, myself, I use similar formulations (Soviet/Eastern Front westward push/offensive, etc.). PS. Of course, 1945 context is different from the much more universally recognized occupation in '39 following the Soviet invasion of Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Rape during the Soviet offensive in Poland? --Martin (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just add the (1944-1945) clarification, to distinguish this from the Soviet 1920 and 1939 offensives. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article informs about the rapes in Central and Western Poland and Annexed (Odzyskane) Lands since 1945, nothing about Kresy and 1944.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why this article still contains the word "liberation"?? This is an awful example of POV as we all know what kind of "liberation" it was. There are vast numbers of publications in this matter that clearly explains this matter.95.83.253.100 (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rape during the liberation of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www3.uj.edu.pl/alma/alma/64/01/02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dębska Kuźnia
Dębska Kuźnia was in Germany till 1945, the inhabitants may have been Silesian.Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please be clearer. The whole of Poland was ruled by Nazi Germany till 1945. What "Silesian"? Polish or German? The events described here happened after the flight.  Poeticbent  talk 17:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)