Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany/Archive 4

Addendum
I'll had have make some minor supplement to Yelena Senyavskaya statement, which should be defined as hypothesis. The next sentence starting with: "She explains that the calculation used to derive the statistic... "

If she is just explaining the case, who is than defining that this method of calculation has no validity? If its an academic publication, the citation to the russian scientific faculty should be given and not by herself. Thanks 79.141.160.64 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that you Sayerslle? -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle added the same which tag. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please? I just add the obvious for improvement, which seems generally coincident in others opinion. 79.141.160.64 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle is banned and you are an IP user who randomly shows up and makes a similar edit. It is not hard to understand what is going on... -YMB29 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing else to contribute to the improvement, please leave any false accusations beside. Thanks 79.141.160.64 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make accusations of WP:SOCK, try running a simple global contributions search for both IP 79.141.160.64 (who has been a contributor for a few years) and Sayerslle. Other than this one article, they don't even work on similar articles or areas. Yes, you're quite right, it's "not hard to understand what is going on...": you are in full battle mode and a blinded to any possibility other than the fact that everyone else is wrong and you are being persecuted by a cabal (I'll leave it up to your highly active imagination to work out which cabal is persecuting you).


 * In the meantime, stop attacking and casting aspersions on other contributors simply because they deign to consider what you perceive to be RS not to be RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So now you are even defending an IP user? The IP made almost the same edit as Sayerslle... -YMB29 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More biting? You're not aware of the fact that IP's are human, too? As already noted to you, the IP you're accusing of sockpuppetry has an edit history over a few years. He/she may not be an experienced editor but, having checked their history, there edits have been constructive and in good faith. If I feel suspicious of an IP, I will always check their history first. Had this been a new IP, or potentially a sleeper account working similar areas and articles, I would most certainly have on side for querying potential block evasion... but I don't jump to conclusions and go straight for the throat without any supporting evidence. In this case, it was very, very easy to find the disparity between the IP and Sayerslle. You're not only doing damage to your own credibility by so doggedly trying to prove that the content you believe merits addition is not undue and outside of the mainstream, you're also hounding other editors and have exacerbated the unpleasant, abusive, brow-beating atmosphere that has driven good editors away from Wikipedia because they end up being burnt-out.


 * Even at the current ANI, you've been told by various editors that your attitude is going to come back to bite you, and still you persist in finding communications between various editors and drawing 'aha!' conclusions that communication automatically means 'neutrality' has been compromised. No, it has not. Just as you've jumped to the easiest conclusions regarding this IP and Sayerslle, you haven't examined years of communications between all of these editors you believe to be 'like-minded'. Dig a little deeper into the archives of the articles, RfCs, deletion reviews, etc. and you'll be surprised by the number of times your 'like-minded' cabal have had protracted disputes. The difference is that an effort is made to stay civil, WP:LISTEN to the other arguments, be prepared to moderate your view, be prepared to apologise where it's appropriate and, even if you still think the overwhelming consensus is wrong, get over it and move on with improving other articles.


 * Wikipedia is a long-term, ongoing project. Scholarly research and understandings of balance don't remain static, so neither should be. Please make an attempt at being productive on articles you are less emotionally involved in. If that means dropping certain topics for the moment, then please do so or you will only end up eaten up by your disruptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Was this mini-essay necessary? With all your knowledge of what proper behavior is here, you have barely contributed anything to the content, and it seems like the point of your presence here is only to lecture me.
 * Anyway, that kind of history for an IP user usually indicates that the IP belongs to some public place, like a library. -YMB29 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Zaremba, Mark Solonin

 * , - it's probably a summary of the author's research presented in his book .Xx234 (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The spring of victory. Forgotten Stalin’s crime Xx234 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A victim's accountXx234 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Polish description of situation in Pasłęk.Xx234 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Silesian Inferno: War Crimes of the Red Army on Its March into Silesia in 1945 : A Collection of Documents
 * Thank you for the links, . At the moment this article is under heavy dispute but, once this has calmed down, these are well worth looking into (particularly as they reference further scholarly research into the subject). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian means Soviet
Russian included Ukrainian, Belarus, even Jewish.Xx234 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the use of "Russian" in this article is incorrect (misleading). These were Soviet troops consisting of battalions from various republics of the USSR. However,, where is the term "Russian" used in this article in lieu of Soviet. There's an instance of "Russian babies" (in inverted commas per the quoted source). Other than that, it's only criticism of a harsh evaluation by recent historians, who happen to be Russian, covered by the term "Russian". Where else is "Russian" used as a substitute for "Soviet"? Iryna Harpy (talk) -- 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Many times (including rape of Russian women), mostly quoted eg. from Naimark. Xx234 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that comes directly from him. We can change that, but we don't know, maybe he really meant ethnic Russians only. -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be joking.Xx234 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Psychological War
Alexandr Senyavsky, Yelena Senyavskaya. Historical '''Memory as a Battlefield. Military History of Russia of the 20s Century in the Context of a Psychological War and Modern Geopolitics.''' http://www.historyfoundation.ru/en/fund_item.php?id=13
 * Alexandr Senyavsky, Yelena Senyavskaya claim they fight a psychological war. Xx234 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what it says in the description. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Знакомьтесь: профессор Сенявская, фальсификатор Mark Solonin http://echo.msk.ru/blog/solonin/1078262-echo/. Xx234 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A serious Russian article http://www.perspektivy.info/print.php?ID=55536 .Xx234 (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Solonin's blog entry was already discussed here. Blogs and personal websites are not RS. -YMB29 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And Russian state propaganda is RS. Happy reading!Xx234 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the article by Дубина? She has published "Болезненная тема Второй мировой войны: память о сексуальном насилии по обе стороны фронта [Текст] / В. С. Дубина // Вестник РГГУ. - 2011. - № 17. - С. 47-56" which makes her reliable. I'm not able to compare the two texts but I can assume that they are similar, can't I? Even if you reject the text, it contains a list of sources, some of which can be used here. Xx234 (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Political elite in power also has a great influence over historical memory and assessment of military actions of the past, as in its foreign policy it is oriented either at sticking to or at reconsidering the outcomes of the wars of the past. As a rule, in this process current geopolitical political, economical and other interests are involved. - it's not about USA or EU, it's about Russia.Xx234 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Senyavskaya in Western sources
Senyavskaya is cited a lot in Western publications: Plus she is praised here:


 * From Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945, by Merridale:
 * Among the most energetic exponents of this is Elena Senyavskaya, of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, whose generous help and warm encouragement of colleagues, including me, has fostered an entire school of new research.


 * From Soviet Women on the Frontline in the Second World War, by Markwick and Cardona:
 * In Moscow, the extraordinarily generous support and advice of Professor Yelena Senyavskaya, Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, was vital to the success of this enterprise.
 * In seeking to depict their mindset we have taken a cue from the 'military-historical anthropology' pioneered by the Russian scholar Yelena Senyavskaya, whose analysis of the 'social psychology' of the 'frontline generation' seeks to portray the 'human factor' in the war.

So can all the talk about her not being reliable or fringe, references to what someone wrote about her in a blog, and ridiculous comparisons to sources like Kavkaz Center stop now? This is what is said about her in Western reliable sources. Ignoring this would mean that you are obviously POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the sources/quotations above tells that Senyavskaya is a reliable source, specifically on the subject of this page. On the other hand, Mark Solonin tells here that Senyavskaya has received a payment to intentionally misinform her readers. More specifically, she quoted a non-existing order by Stalin about Soviet rapes in Germany. This document simply never existed, but was invented by another falsifier of History. She knew that the "document" was invented, but still used it, explicitly for the purpose of disinformation. Based on info in the publication, there is no doubts that text of the order is fake. Frankly, your insistence and prolonged edit wars to keep her claims in Wikipedia is a damage to the project and a violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link I posted before about how Solonin selectively quoted her?
 * Anyway, it is the blog entry you found versus reliable sources.
 * And you are the one complaining about damage to wikipedia...
 * You should restore the text you reverted and apologize, or at least admit that you were wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Solonin, all public orders by Stalin were widely published and well known. However, this particular "order" can not be found anywhere. If it can, please give the source. If I understand correctly, this "order" was invented by this man and only repeated by Senyavskaya who knew that it was fake. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, the same infamous man (Medinsky) funded the "research" efforts by Senyavskaya. P.S. This is not to say that your other sources, such as this is any better than Senyavskaya and Medinsky. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted in the link I posted earlier, Solonin did not include Senyavskaya's full note, where she says that the order cannot be found in the archives, but probably, based on many other sources (including Western), was given and exists somewhere. In other words Solonin mislead others to paint her in a bad way, which is similar to what you are doing.
 * Again, you should restore the text and apologize. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just a blog post by an anonymous poster who admits he is not historian. But what does he tell, exactly? That Senyavskaya insisted that the order by Stalin actually existed, although there is no any documented evidence of this order whatsoever, and she knew about it. This is not very different from Solonin, even though this blogger is trying to "disprove" him.My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, nobody cares about Solonin's blog here. Only reliable sources matter. -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, but even Senyavskaya herself said in her article that (a) the order by Stalin actually exists and (b) there is no any documented evidence of this order whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The original document is not found, but other sources, including Kopelev and Solzhenitsyn, refer to it. Also, the orders issued by Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky to their Fronts are obviously derived from it.
 * However, this is irrelevant, as this is "cherry picking" by Solonin, and now by you, to find something bad to say about Senyavskaya. -YMB29 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see for yourself that Solonin simply did not quote the full note:
 * В Центральном архиве Министерства обороны РФ текст приказа Сталина от 19 янва­ря 1945 г. «О поведении на территории Германии» также пока не обнаружен. Зато ссылка­ми на него пестрят зарубежные издания, упоминали о нем диссиденты Л. Копелев и А. Солженицын. Неоспоримо доказано существование приказов командующих фронтами Жукова, Конева и Рокоссовского со сходным содержанием, датируемых концом января 1945 г., и это косвенно подтверждает, что в каком-то виде (письменном - под грифом «со­вершенно секретно», или устном, что тоже возможно) такой приказ Сталина также суще­ствовал, но пока не найден подлинник, нельзя отвечать за точность его цитирования.
 * So even if we are supposed to take the blog seriously, which on wiki we can't, the falsification was done by Solonin. -YMB29 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, she mentioned names of Kopelev and Solzhenitsyn, Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky. But she did not provide any references to any publications by these people, which would mention this order by Stalin. I assume that's because they did not mention it. She is fake. But it was not me who said she is fake, but a well known historian quoted above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a professional historian, but a publicist, who mislead readers in his blog. Blogs are not RS, especially for information about a living person. You have been here for a long time, so you should know this. Here I will help you: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. -YMB29 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat that none of the authors (your links above) tells that Senyavskaya is a reliable source, specifically on the subject of rapes by Soviet Army. On the other hand, Mark Solonin tells that Senyavskaya has intentionally misinformed her readers on this subject (see here, this is his official blog post on Echo of Moscow and therefore qualify as RS to source his opinion). What is the controversy? Yes, exactly as follows from your quotation above, she insists that an order by Stalin actually existed, while it does not exist. And of course she claims that mass rapes did not happen, which contradicts all other serious sources about this, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Google Scholar search finds 70 mentions of her (including her own publications) in the academic sources, mostly citations. Most citations are from Eastern European authors but there are some Western academic publications who treat her as a reliable source, e.g. . I would not consider her reliable enough to refer controversial info as a fact but she is certainly authoritative enough to include her attributed opinions. BTW the same is true for Mark Solonin, he is not an academic author and many of his opinions disagree with majority of academic historians. It certainly do not preclude us to insert his attributed opinions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply being cited in multiple RS does not make anyone or anything a reliable source (here is an example). It is important what exactly a historian claims. If views by someone, for example by Solonin, corresponds to something generally accepted in the field, that's fine. However, if someone calls well established facts, such as mass rapes in Germany "Goebbels propaganda" (this is main idea of the publication by Senyavskaya ), then at least this particular claim belongs to WP:FRINGE. None of the "Western sources" above supported her idea about the Goebbels propaganda by the ... West.My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources discussion
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)
 * I don't understand the last point you were trying to make.
 * You have not provided a source that directly says that Dyukov is revisionist. You say that "the bbc article associates him..." That is your interpretation of it.
 * See WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * dyukov has been discussed before on wp apparently []http://www.academia.edu/5164635/Hegemonic_representations_of_history_and_digital_agency_giving_meaning_to_The_Soviet_Story_on_SNS] with regard Latvian film about Soviet history - 'Alexander Dyukov, a politically active Russian historian who has severely criticized “The Soviet Story”. Dyukov has admitted: “After watching two thirds of the film, I had only one wish: to kill its director and to burn down the Latvian Embassy.” - a bit of a hot-head  at the very least - the bbc  article is not my interpretation in my opinion - we aren't going to agree - I guess its who lives longer between us and still give s a flying f***how he is described on this article . hes obviously got his agenda - or do you not accept that - hes 100% without any partial opinions. 'Yet it is true that the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation, which is being carried out by Kiev’s authorities in Southeastern Ukraine, is associated with the mass deaths of civilians'  - he may be impartial, its very hard to say for sure - but however impartial he always seems to slag off the side that doesn't love stalin/putin/Russian imperialism -  Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is too off-topic here.
 * You obviously got your opinion about him, but wiki users should not try to spread their truth (see WP:TRUTH); we go by what the sources say.
 * Also, why are there so many users that edit articles about the Ukrainian conflict coming here? Was there a link to here posted in one of those articles or something else is going... -YMB29 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 'see WP:TRUTH); we go by what the sources say.' - yes, and I provided a bbc source for his having a revisionist outlook - and its you saying 'fuck that bbc source, it says what I say it says - he has nothing to do with revisionist history - he is just historian - no bias whatever  I know the truth ' - so its my source versus your truth really. - Sayerslle (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that you need a source that calls him revisionist, and not derive this based on what the BBC said. -YMB29 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it does - maybe you don't get the English 'idiom' if you aren't a native English speaker - its very clear what the article is saying about dyukov - its not me deriving anything - I think hes an out and out  propagandist and Russian chauvinist idiot but that's not what the bbc source says - the source says hes part of Russian revisionist approach to history - why not start a RFC? - 'does this bbc source justify dyukov being called a revisionist historian? is it fair, or part of  a Nazi junta plot against Russia and its greatest historians/philosophers' ?  Sayerslle (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To put it simple, these people (e.g. Dyukov and Senyavskaya) do not represent the opinion by Russian historians in general. Those are revisionist nationalist historians cherry-picked by YMB29 to support his views, just as Yuri Zhukov. I believe their views should not appear anywhere as WP:FRINGE except articles about themselves. This is basically the same discussion, over and over again. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well again your opinions about what historians are good or bad do not matter here. If you have real evidence from reliable sources that they are no good, provide them here to discuss. Otherwise, such accusations violate the BLP policy and are just examples of POV pushing.
 * Also, based on what Sayerslle said, it looks like you two are pushing the anti-Russian POV in the Ukrainian conflict articles and bringing in that POV here. If this is true, it will not lead to any good... -YMB29 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "If you have real evidence from reliable sources that they are no good, provide them here to discuss". Yes, I did it here, but without any result. However, some of your historian/sources are completely unknown to mainstream scholarship and therefore no one ever bothered to disprove them, unlike many other publications currently quoted on this page, which were widely published and discussed. This is just another argument that your sources are "undue". In essence, you are trying to criticize mainstream international sources using national (nationalist) sources no one knows about - they were not translated to other languages (discussion below).My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Foreign language sources are allowed here you know. You did not provide any evidence, only your opinions. Only prominent Russian historians are used here. If you don't like them, that is your problem. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to revive this dispute, but I question the necessity of this sentence, which is currently in the article:

"He explains crimes such as acts of sexual assault as inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them."

Full disclosure: I have followed this protracted and messy dispute for quite a bit. While I have absolutely no intention of rekindling the debate over the sources, I have trouble seeing how this statement by Rzheshevsky contributes to the sentence, given that it is essentially a "And you are lynching Negroes" statement that adds no value to the discussion of the Red Army.

To avert another argument, I am not going to edit this part out without a firm and unambiguous consensus, on account of the extensive debate on sources. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I have no problem with including reliable Russian sources that don't spark another edit war. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on content introduced
I've reverted this additional content per WP:BRD.

Given the controversial nature of the subject (particularly in light of recent edit warring), I'm wary of WP:UNDUE and, even more importantly, potentially WP:TROJAN content being introduced. The content was both unsourced and, if deemed DUE, would require further qualification of/elaboration on the alluded to "rape discourse".

Do other editors have objections to the removal. If so, please state your case for inclusion, RS worth introducing, and whether you'd consider that the inclusion should be delineated as DUE within specific constraints, or allowed to be developed in broader terms. Thank you, in advance, for any input regarding the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna, The addition was unsourced. Period. We DO NOT discuss wikipedian's opinions about the subject. We do not discuss someone's "case" for inclusion. Any Stalinist or Putinist can give you seven pages of "case" (and a Russophobe will not fail at that, too). We need none of that. We discuss the SOURCES on which article content may be based (whether the source is reliable, whether the wikipedian correctly interpreted them, whether the source is given due weight, etc.) - üser:Altenmann >t 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really worth discussing unless it's sourced ("Historians"). This has been so controversial on WP that I'm wary about additions. GABHello! 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that other editors are in agreement with the removal. I agree that I really shouldn't have indulged this out of courtesy. I'll conclude with stating that WP:POV content doesn't get a look-in per WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Title needs changing
Let us change the title to Rape during the occupation of Germany after WWII' or similar. I found this article while looking for the rapes in Germany after WW I (one), trying to fact-check claims in Occupation_of_the_Rhineland.

Zezen (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It started during WWII. "After WWII" would be incorrect. --Off-shell (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, then Rape during the occupation of Germany related to WWII or similar. Just to limit the period in the title itself. I have just updated a related article about rape in Germany after WWI, FYI. Zezen (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the current title is WP:PRECISE. There are no other historical incidents meeting with this description in scholarship and common usage. The fact that you stumbled on the occupation of the Rhineland is a lateral argument. Unnecessarily lengthy names should not be used as a 'just in case' measure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Germany was occupied a couple of times. Indeed, during WWI Occupation_of_the_Rhineland there were many occupying soldiers convicted for rape, too. I guess there were other post-war periods as well. Why is this title WP:PRECISE then if it is an occupation, one of many? Zezen (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the WP:TITLE is "Rape during the occupation of Germany". Only the massive scale of rape during the end of WWII occupation is a high profile, specialised subject in academia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me, Iryna Harpy, congrats and good nite. Zezen (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to pardon me if I've misconstrued your response as a personal attack, but it certainly comes across as being one. I don't WP:OWN the article, and was going to add that if it isn't deemed to be common knowledge by other editors, you're welcome to discuss the matter. If it is deemed to be necessary, an appropriate name would then have to be identified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

? No, I am not being ironic. You have convinced me, and so I congrat you on your good arguments. Nothing else. A spade is a spade here. Zezen (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the qualification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My deletion

 * Here

IMO the text is WP:SYNTH. The part of the book in question describes Soviet military violence during the "liberation" of Baltic states. It describes drunkedness, looting, violence, pogroms, etc. The quote of a random soldier is to illustrate this general attitude to hostile Balts (unlike, as he writes, Poles or Czechs) and not about specifically rape of women in Germany. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Anybody is quite welcome to write a more generic article about WWII Soviet Army rapes after crossing the Soviet borders. This book (by Alexander Statiev) speaks about this in Baltic States and in Kresy Wschodnie. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the deal with Grossmann's quote?
I understand there is a socking issue, but, in two words, what's wrong with the reverted text besides being sloppily written? I searched talk archives, but I don't see it discussed. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Two words: appalling WP:SYNTH. Here is a PDF of the pages being cited. The previous incarnation of this content can be found here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reading it right now in JSTOR. The article makes a point IMO missing in section Rape during the occupation of Germany. I will try to summarize it here when I am done reading. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW another gap: Atina Grossmann (de:Atina Grossmann). - üser:Altenmann >t 04:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that there is content from the article worthy of examination in the social effects (I'd already looked her up, and she's certainly seems to have solid credentials). The use of a comprehensive article examining complex nuances which had become entrenched in psyche/zeitgeist of that epoch in order to come up with that piece of trashy synth reading as if the majority of German women were playing the system in order to have freebie abortions is unconscionable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I may have been the first to delete that text a couple months ago. I thought the text grossly misrepresented the Grossman article, and I'm glad others seem to have agreed.  I'm also happy you're trying to include content from the Grossman article since it was an excellent article. Sorry for not having taken the initiative myself earlier.  Mdlawmba (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm done reading. I agree it is an excellent article. Unfortunately I see it rather as an essay than a research article. It has lots of points and findings and quotes, but, as my brain works, it is difficult for me to incorporate it here. At least now I know what it says and I may be a helper/double-checker if it will be cited. Now, what I found of note (and not forgotten yet:-) (bits and pieces on random order): Well, that's all what I memorized. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be critical of the documentary of Helke Sander. She does not question the facts from the d'tary, but rather its presentation:
 * She does not deny neither the fact thew Germen women were victims, nor questions the numberr
 * She counter-agrues Sander's claim that she was "breaking the silence"
 * she objects to the role the d'tary, by its way of presentation, plays in presenting Germany and its Volk as victims rather than perpetrators (NB: not victims of Soviets, but victims of Reich ; in fact, she notes, raped German women were victims of the collapse of the Nazi Reich rather than of Nazism per se)
 * the language of d'tary reinforces the Nazi propaganda myth about barbaric Slav/Mongol hordes (e.g., an interview with a "well-bred, civilized" Russian veteran shows his back, but the one ranting about sexual exploits looks exactly as if from Nazi reels about barbaric Russian POW)
 * in her opinion the d'tary pretends to put forth the idea that the fate of women is common in all wars, but in a kinda hypocritical way
 * She notes the fact that the rapes were expected: both predicted by Nazi propaganda as a way to reinforce the morale of the defense and by unofficial decriminalization of non-medial and non-eugenic abortions
 * the guilt of Russians seems to be reinforced by their "cultural inferiority" (russians did rape, while Americans had chocolate; as if somehow coercion of a deprived woman to sex by a chocolate is somehow morally more superior than plain rape)
 * The fact that in rape reports Russians all described as Asian/Mongol is explained by the imprinted ideas of both "Arian purity" and Nazi propaganda stereotypes; in particular, Americans rapists were mostly described as Negroes and French as Moroccans
 * At the same time raper reports invariably included socio-economic reasons, which Grossmann explains as reminiscences of the times of Weimar Republic
 * As I mentioned, she writes the d'tary did not "break the silence". Immediately post-WWII there was plenty of memoir, and in these rape was a mundane yet another reality of suffering: destroyed houses, hunger, plunder, etc., a nonnotable part of the "consumer basket", so to say. Of course, in horrendous cases women committed suicide, but at the same time, at city water pumps women exchanged jokes about stupid Russisch and how to dupe them or about sentimental Russisch easily fascinated by children, etc.   Only in  modern discourse of "higher civilization" rape was singled out.
 * By German women, Russians were generally classified in two polarized groups, drunk barbarians and cultivated officers (whose consensual sex was sought for as a protection from rape), while Americans were commonly described as primitive and vulgar. (I myself remember a "love story" film about a German girl and Yankee soldier; they had a date on a beach; she took off her necklace before sex, lost it, he found it first and quickly dug it into sand... etc.... single mother ... etc. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC))
 * The narrative of German women in a crooked way absolved Russians of personal guilt: surely one cannot expect different behavior from these drunk primitive barbarians, and allowed women "to distance  from the horror of their own experience" and to "maintain the conviction of their own superiority".
 * After the postwar mess was a bit cleaned up, the talk about Russian rapes was muted. This has an evident explanation in East Germany, but the same happened in the West, despite the fact that it could have been a handy Cold War propaganda tool
 * Still the rape story lived on, both in personal communication, and numerously in novel and film, as well as in gov't documents.

Miriam Gebhardt
Considering that Wikipedia is based on mainstream views, is there any reason Miriam Gebhardt should be considered as anything other than WP:FRINGE. Where her estimates have made some small impact on 'shock jock' journalism, her estimates have been consistently described as completely over the top and nonsensical. I'm removing the additions as WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Iryna Harpy how about mentioning her as fringe and attributing her views to her? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Any statement based on the cited source should avoid misrepresenting the tenor of that source. It states "'The total is not the result of deep research in archives across the country. ... Gebhardt makes the assumption [my emphasis] that 5 percent of the 'war children' born to unmarried women in West Germany and West Berlin by the mid-1950s were the product of rape. ... Gebhardt further assumes [my emphasis] that on average, there are 100 incidents of rape for each birth. The result she arrives at is thus 190,000 victims. Such a total, though, hardly seems plausible [my emphasis] . Another estimate ... arrived at a number of 11,000 serious sexual assaults committed by November, 1945 ...'" The source would probably support inclusion in Wikipedia of the estimates published by Gebhardt, but mainly in relation to the critical reception of the book – which would probably belong in the article on Miriam Gebhardt. The English article largely corresponds to a former version of the German article (translated in March 2015). The current German article (de: Miriam Gebhardt), much of which was added in August 2015 by de: User:Verlagsgruppe Random House, contains more information on the author and her works.--Boson (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As per 's arguments, there has been criticism of her methodology for gleaning statistics. In terms of the WP:BALANCE of this article, her work is only prominent as the result of WP:RECENTISM. In my estimate, that makes it WP:UNDUE for an article that deals with content sourced from multiple historians over many years. I can't see any real function for sensationalist figures as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It's fine for her bio, and her claims are already referenced there (although the same IP hopper who has reverted me here again, has added the figures to her bio in a WP:PROMO fashion). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why during the occupation of Germany only?
What about the other mass rapes in Hungary (also in friendly Yougoslavia)?Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not the topic of this article. See Soviet war crimes for other locations.--Boson (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Naimark
Which book of Naimark is quoted?Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the references to link to the bibliography. This should now be clear. --Boson (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The study of violence committed against German civilians
The thesis is false, Western Germany documented crimes described as Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50).Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reworded this section to better distinguish between statements in Wikipedia's voice and views expressed by others. --Boson (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Soviet literaturę?
It's not about Soviet, I have replaced it with Russian language.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Decades of silence ???

 * A Woman in Berlin was published in 1954 in the USA, in 1959 in German.
 * Representations of Flight and Expulsion in East German Prose Works says that even GDR literature suggested such rapes.Margarete Neumann Der grüne Salon (The Green Salon), Novel, 1972 - the mother is raped and commits suicide. Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand the victims didn't speak at the time, but victims of WWII didn't speak in general, it was the time of forgetting and living.
 * Discourse - Elizabeth Heineman. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the Article is mainly about rape committed by Soviet Soldiers?
American, British, French and Canadian Soldiers raped German women, children and men too and in the same way. There are now a lot of books about this topic.--Aaron Grünberg (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Find some information from one that counts as a reliable source and put it into the article. Britmax (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Category
The article on Genocidal rape is quite clear; Germany is not discussed there. I removed the category as it appears to be out of scope for this article (diff). Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The intro to the article states: "Genocidal rape is a term used to describe the actions of a group who have carried out acts of mass rape during wartime against their perceived enemy as part of a genocidal campaign." I would say the Soviets, would fit in a defacto sense, if not a de jure one. With that said, we must go by what the RS sources state and not gut feeling or what a Wikipedia article states, as that is WP:OR and non-RS, as you know. Kierzek (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we are discussing the use of the category (as being challenged for this article here. Per WP:WINARS, the article on 'Genocidal rape' is not a definitive list of the application of the term. While it may seem to be a harsh evaluation, it is used by scholars specialising in this specific subject, therefore it is certainly applicable. It's not up to editors to parse the usage in mainstream scholarship. The category has been in place since early 2015, and the article has certainly gone through serious edit warring since that time. Of course, consensus can change, but I'd appreciated some serious policy-based discussion before removing it. The recent spate of WP:JDL removals here and here don't cut the mustard. I have no hard-line stance on its use, but I'd like to here from other editors who know the subject before accepting or rejecting this WP:BOLD removal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the category because it struck me as non-defining. Pls see WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (emphasis in the original).


 * The term is mentioned in the article once, in this section: Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany, which is not sufficient to establish "genocidal" (i.e. "as part of a genocidal campaign", per Genocidal rape) as a defining characteristic. Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Like, I'd consider this a WP:WINARS interpretation applied to the use of a category. It could be argued that the issue of 'genocidal rape' in the context of the Soviet army has been understated in this article as the result of serious edit warring in the past, and I don't think that counting how many times a very serious term - and all of its implications and ramifications - is 'mentioned' in the body of the article is an effective gauge for estimating how serious the discourse (as applied specifically to the Red Army and the upper echelons of the Soviet hierarchy's attitude and motives) actually is. The subject of genocidal rape is not cut-and-dried, nor is it up to us to proscribe its use based on circular arguments. Given the gravity of the subject, I would not condone the use of the category in any frivolous manner, but the usage does actually match the discourse . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Pascale Bos materia
Here are the relevant passages from Bos:

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed
This Russian language source is weak and should be used with care; but I left it and simply corrected the statement: I do not see anything about many thousands of Soviet soldiers convicted (it does provide the number of officers). My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Discourse
The text is difficult to understand, To begin with something, it tells: "The way the rapes have been discussed by Sander and Johr in their "BeFreier und Befreite"[1] has been criticised by several scholars." But what exactly "been discussed by Sander and Johr". Page does not tell it. What exactly has been "criticised"? That does not make any sense. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is in a terrible state. The first problem is it relies heavily on primary sources (memoirs, Alexievich (who is a brilliant writer, but by no mean a scholar), which is not good for WP, it doesn't place the event in a historical context, and it doesn't explain properly a feminist agenda of Sander and Johr. Actually, the idea that rape stories were taboo is not true: they were not taboo in West Germany, this issue was not considered deserving too much attention (mass killing as a result of American bombing, expulsion, poverty, were considered much more serious evil).
 * It is also should be explained that German woman were neither victims of Nazism nor neutral bystanders: most of them passively (and actively) supported Hitler and benefited a lot from the Third Reich's policy. The Americans considered woman populated cities a legitimate target for strategic bombing, and we should not be too surprised that German woman fell victims of the overall brutality of land warfare (whereas Americans focused on strategic bombing, Soviets took a major brunt of land warfare, but they were not bombing cities massively). I have sources (secondary scholarly sourcses) in support of my claims.
 * It is necessary to discus the plan, and after that to rewrite it.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the thing: this page does not tell anything about "a feminist agenda of Sander and Johr", but it "disproves" it. I personally have no idea what is the "feminist agenda of Sander and Johr". I do not suggest to rewrite anything significantly on the page (and not particularly interested in the subject), but just did a minor fix. Citing a book by the Nobel prize winner (Aleksievich) on this page is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A feminist agenda (as Bos and others see it) is an attempt to represent this story as a rape of some generic woman (an innocent victim, by definition) by some generic man (a universal sinner). Totally ahistorical and hypocritical attempt.
 * By the way, in her film, Sander carefully avoid mention of rapes of Soviet woman by German military, although she herself admits up to 1.5 million children were born in occupied territory of the USSR from German fathers. She refuses to admit that all of that were result of rapes, and she believes the sexual contacts were only partially coercive. She does not apply the same approach to German woman, although the whole statistics of rapes was based on three thousand children allegedly born from Russian fathers. About a million vs three thousand!
 * With regard to Alexievich, she is not a scholar, she is a writer. Usage of primary sources should be limited in WP. It is our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever "the feminist agenda" is, it must be described on the page with refs prior to criticizing it. That is assuming such "agenda" belongs to this page. And, no, the books by Aleksievich are secondary sources (yes, they are based on eyewitness accounts, just as many other secondary RS). For example, the well known book by Ales Adamovich is also a secondary source. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I make an understandable version of this section. If want to write it better, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed picture accredited to organization closed down in 1939
I removed the picture of the inset box, which was related to suspected rape victims. The picture was ascribed to Sicherpolitzei as photographers. But that organization was reorganized into another Nazi organization in 1939, the year of the start of the war. Thus, this is inappropriate in terms of time sequence, as the present article is regarding actions in the 1945 and subsequent occupation of Germany. This apparent contradiction needs to be resolved before the picture is restored to the article.Dogru144 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"after being thrown out of a first-floor window."
The phrase "after being thrown out of a first-floor window" is confusing. Is it a British English "first floor" ie "second floor" in American English or the "first floor in American English ie the "ground floor" in British English? -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted most part of this edit (a single edit of a red-linked account, possibly a sock of user YMB29). No, this is not properly sourced. Two paragraphs were "referenced" to this. The last one was sourced to a book, but without pages, and I could not find cited text. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I can look for the Information with the way back machine and what page number that is onJack90s15 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a reference by any reasonable account. Do you agree? Book - we must check what it actually tells, I could not find this claim in the book at all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * what I mean is I will look for was stated and find the source for it yes I agree 404 error is  not a sourceJack90s15 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that you found correct links, but none of them qualify as RS, but rather as propaganda-style opinion pieces published in newspapers that are much worse than Daily Mail, and most of them by people no one knows about (like Дарья Горчакова, Сергей Турченко, etc.). In particular, these sources do not qualify as RS :  . Do you know Russian (all of them are Russian language source), can you evaluate their reliability, and do you insist they qualify as RS? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you titled text referenced to such sources as "studies". Those are not studies. You need strong academic sources to call something "studies". My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello I hope you are having a good night or day wherever you are. I did use a proper translation tool and they are quoting Russian scholars on the Subject and 5 other Sources are using news articles and one of them is using the one that used.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Дарья Горчакова, Сергей Турченко who signed these opinion pieces are Russian scholars?? Whatever was sourced to BBC is fine - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The people who Gave their opinions what if we change it to scholarly opinions that way it's in the sources Voice not Wikipedia's. Could we compromise to that so we can have all the sources from different opinions since 5 other Sources are using news articles  and one of them is using the one that used.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, these comments are just personal opinions on the internet by a couple of guys no one knows about. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * what if we change it to opinions on the subject Since some are news articles on the subject and we only quote two other Russian scholars,Jack90s15 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss,


 * Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions,so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC))


 * According to Russia historian A. Dyukov:" The Germans did not experience a fraction of the horror that their soldiers staged in the East. Despite some excesses, which were firmly suppressed by the Command, the Red Army as a whole behaved toward the people of the Reich with humanity". The Russian soldiers are credited with feeding the German population, rescuing children, and helping to restore normal life in the country.[23]


 * Colonel Ivan Busik, Director of Russia's Institute of Military History, cited Soviet Army General Ivan Tretiak, who said there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened.

Tell me what you think how does the edit look to you? Jack90s15 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We are talking about 3 different sources/links (see above), not 5. If there are two more, please tell what they are. Those 3 clearly do not qualify as RS for this page. An opinion by Dykov (if it were reliably sourced, but it is not) might be placed to a page about him, not here, since he is a fringe author. "you are making enemies" is a confrontational comment on your part, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jack, you need to take a step back and listen to the editor My very best wishes, she knows RS sources, when it comes to Soviet/Russian material. BBC is okay. If it was added in the past by YMB29 and you have reintroduced it, then it certainly should be reverted. I leave it to the two of you at this point to work out. Kierzek (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * what I trying to say with The BRD page is that I am ready to listen to what you have to say about this and work this out. and Most people would not who know Oleg Rzheshevsky is either. that why I was thinking what if we just quote Makhmut Akhmetovich Gareyev Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR.?

(According to Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR Ivan Tretiak,  said there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that 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.)Jack90s15 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is showing the reader the opinion of someone of was a higher up in the USSR about the mass rapes what do you think about this? maybe in the Memoirs part of page?Jack90s15 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to quote an opinion by an expert, his opinion should be reliably sourced to secondary RS. It was not. Another question if an opinion by this person qualify as "fringe" or not, and if it really provides an important information about the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the war rapes in Berlin and other parts of Germany were well documented and essentially a matter of fact. Any source that flatly deny it (for example, "not a single case of violence") should be viewed as "fringe". The exact numbers and details may be disputable My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok I was thinking Since they were memories I can put them in the memory section like this,


 * According to Mahmoud Gareev, Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR:

he had not heard about sexual violence. He said that after what the Nazis did to Russia, excesses were likely to take place, but that such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He notes that the Soviet military leadership on 19 January 1945 signed an executive order calling on the avoidance of a rough relationship with the local .Gareyev said that Beevor copied Goebbel's propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldier


 * According to General Ivan Tretiak:

there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that 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.

The rapes did happen I do not denial them that I why am asking. If you are ok if I pit the memories in to that part of the page, Since it shows the reader what Higher ups who were there thought about what happened with the RapesJack90s15 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying that the subject of Soviet rapes during occupation of Germany is "Goebbel's propaganda" (view by Makhmut Gareev) is a WP:FRINGE view. But in any event you would need a secondary source better than that. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Then what about just quoting the post-war memory and not the secondary opinion they give? that'source is also used on this page besides for those two people.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * According to Mahmoud Gareev, Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR:

he had not heard about sexual violence. He said that after what the Nazis did to Russia, excesses were likely to take place, but that such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He notes that the Soviet military leadership on 19 January 1945 signed an executive order calling on the avoidance of a rough relationship with the locals


 * According to General Ivan Tretiak:

there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that 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


 * can we agree on quoting just the memories they give and not the opinion? Since Anthony B is not a post war memory ? in memory's part of pageJack90s15 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that you did a compromise are you OK with the one I did?Jack90s15 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because you create "false balance" -see WP:GEVAL. The view by Gareev might be included (because you insist) only very briefly - as I did. If you want to include more memoirs, I can only support it. But those should be actual memoirs, like here, not the official views by Soviet generals or something censored by Glavlit.My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed that one and left the actual memory of a general who was interviewed about it is that one ok?Jack90s15 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you did something opposite. You removed a brief summary of his fringe views/opinion, but instead provided long quotation - see WP:GEVAL. That's why we should use scholarly sources on the subject, and this is not Gareev. One could use this article by Mark Solonin who is indeed a Russian scholar on the history of WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did remove Gareev and left the post war memory of Ivan Tretiak if you are not ok with that I will remove it.Jack90s15 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think one should either remove the views by Tretiak and Gareev or describe them very briefly. I can fix it later. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did Shorten it, what were you thinking of doing?Jack90s15 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that 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)Jack90s15 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not add this in to make it shorter
 * Look, you just placed unreliably sourced and completely false claims by Tretiak and Gareev to the page. They either do not belong at all to the page as "fringe" or should be mentioned exactly as I did here, i.e. very briefly per WP:GEVAL. If you want to use "Russian sources", that's fine. Use this article by Mark Solonin. Or you can use these English language books:,  My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did say what was in the source it did say that in the source. How would you write it? for the memory's section to keep it Very brief? I did look over the solonin source I would like to see what you would put for the memory's part of page Jack90s15 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I found a better source it is from Elinor florence,Jack90s15 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(Elinor Florence grew up on a Saskatchewan grain farm, a former World War Two training airfield near North Battleford.


 * After earning her English degree at the University of Saskatchewan, she studied journalism at Carleton University. She launched her career at her hometown newspaper The Battlefords Advertiser-Post, followed by The Western Producer in Saskatoon, The Red Deer Advocate in Alberta, The Winnipeg Sun in Manitoba, and The Province in Vancouver, British Columbia.


 * Weary of city life, Elinor and her husband moved their young family to the mountain resort town of Invermere, British Columbia. For the next eight years, she was a regular writer for Reader’s Digest.)

and she Interviews people who lived Through world war 2 is this source ok with you?Jack90s15 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * and that probably is a sock puppet they posted the Same stuff I will Report Since you said it may be a banned userJack90s15 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My Very Best Wishes, your edits come across as problematic because all you've done is delete material from another point of view. There are allegations of massive, extraordinary sexual violence by Russian soldiers during WW2 but it's an indisputable fact that many people dispute the allegations.
 * Your insistence that svpressa.ru (Svobodnaya Pressa) is somehow flawed and cannot be used in the article is not something that is held by researchers and experts concentrating on Russia. Svobodnaya Pressa is cited in "Russia’s New Ground Forces: Capabilities, Limitations and Implications for International Security" by Justin Bronk, described as "Research Fellow specialising in combat airpower and technology in the Military Sciences team at RUSI" Bronk cited this article from Svobodnaya Pressa in particular. The contents of the material on svpressa as cited in this article also appears on the web portal of the Russian Writers' Union


 * Look, you just placed unreliably sourced and completely false claims by Tretiak and Gareev to the page.
 * They were there and accurately reported what they witnessed, like it or not.
 * That's why we should use scholarly sources on the subject, and this is not Gareev.

Svetlana Alexeevich is not a scholarly source. You insist on leaving out the observations of Tretiak and Gareev because they dispute the narratives that you endorse, but you're perfectly perfectly cool with leaving intact the non-scholarly content of authors like Alexeevich. That's inconsistent and partisan. Fuzzythroat (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A scholar citing an extremely unreliable source X (X could be something like Kavkaz Center or whatever) does not prove X is an RS. This is easy to fix. I will do it later. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The source I put was from a reliable source for the Memories part of page. were you acknowledging the other person?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Elinor Florence is an author and journalist. Before publishing her bestselling novel, Bird’s Eye View, she edited several daily newspapers and wrote for many publications, including Reader’s Digest Canada. Elinor lives in Invermere, British Columbia.https://www.dundurn.com/authors/Elinor-FlorenceJack90s15 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, she might be a good author (I have no idea), but the source you cited is blog: . Also, there is a huge number of eyewitness accounts. I do not mind citing a few, but they should be just a few and cited from books by notable authors like Aleksievich (a Nobel prize winner) or historians who wrote multiple books on WWII like Solonin. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @ My Very Best Wishes, you have expressed further partisanship and outright double standards. Essentially, your viewpoint is, "Russians are bad guys who do bad things." My friend, you're perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want, but you can't go around smearing credible sources who've commented on this topic as "unreliable". You're also missing the point completely. Svobodnaya Pressa is not the point at all, the point is that it cites completely credible sources such as Gareev, who has a PHD in history and military science and is the president of Russia's Academy of Military Sciences. Gareev participated in the frickin' war and was in Germany at the time these alleged events happened. He's the author of "M.V. Frunze: military theorist", "The ambiguous pages of the war: essays on the problematic issues of the history of the Great Patriotic War" and also the author of "If War Comes Tomorrow?: The Contours of Future Armed Conflict". The dudeis an accomplished scholar and a war veteran, so I reckon there is probably no one on the planet more qualified to comment on this issue than he.
 * You have also completely misrepresented what Gareev, Tretiak and other sources said said. Gareev was frickin' there, you weren't there, and you have no authority to smear him as fringe: "Лично я участвовал в освобождении Восточной Пруссии. Говорю как на духу: о сексуальном насилии тогда даже не слышал" - HE DID NOT SAY that not a single case of abuse or violence never took place in occupied Germany!!!!!!!! Fuzzythroat (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "your viewpoint is...". No, I do not have such viewpoint. As about Garrev, yes, as you cited, he said "I have never ever even heard about the sexual violence during this time [WWII]]". He contradicts all others and even himself (he tells about orders in the Soviet Army to prevent it). His writings are NOT a credible source about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You quoted only passages from Alexevich's book that makes Russian soldiers look aggressive and violent while simultaneously removing a passage from the very same book illustrating that Russian troops showed compassion and humanity towards local Germans. This indicates that there is a bias from you.
 * You again distorted, misrepresented, and falsified what Gareyev said. He did not say, "Not a single case of violence ever took place in occupied Germany". What he stated was, "Personally, I participated in the liberation of East Prussia. I speak as if in spirit: I didn’t even hear about sexual violence then." He talked solely about his experiences and thoughts during the liberation of East Prussia. And the fact that he did not witness or experience mistreatment of German locals in 1945 does not mean that he wasn't exposed to such stories after the war in 1946, 1947, 1948 or 2011. He didn't contradict himself at all. Observing a Soviet policy designed to punish and prevent mistreatment of German locals absolutely does not mean that he contradicted himself when he stated that he personally did not witness mistreatment and violence towards German civilians in 1945.
 * "His writings are NOT a credible source about anything"
 * Your understanding of history, historiography, as well as the use and credibility of sources isn't particularly sophisticated. To assert that Gareev is not a credible source on anything is not only dishonest, but also demonstrates a lack of intelligence. This is from the into to his book: "The appearance of General Makhmut Gareev's book on the contours of future armed conflicts is timely...Gareev has authored a well-crafted study of those contours, focusing on the political, economic, social, and technological trends which will affect the evoluton of military artof the next ten to fifteen years. The book is a well-argued case of the need for foresight to guide military doctrine, force structure, and force development...General Gareev, one of the leading theorists of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, brings to his chosen topic a wealth of practical experience as a soldier, trainer, military historian, and forecaster" Fuzzythrot (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this addition, I think it is correct to add witness testimonies telling both about rapes and about the absence thereof, as well as about the measures taken by Soviet authorities. However, I think all quotes should significantly cut in size.

I also find some sources are hardly reliable. Whereas Gareev is quite notable author (he is cited by, e.g. David Glantz), this particular statement was found in some obscure web site. I failed to find an independent confirmation of these words published in reliable peer-reviewed sources. A better reference would be desirable, otherwise, I would suggest to remove it. The same is true about this web site - a brief look at the main page demonstrates that it is hardly reliable. If some information deserves to be included in this article, it is quite possible to find another, more reliable, source saying the same.

I also think it would be correct to place Solzhenitsyn's words about revenge in a historical context: it is quite correct that Soviet propaganda declared the goal "to kill Germans". However, it is necessary to keep in mind that time when this slogan was invented: it was a time when any German a Soviet citizen could have met was a legitimate military target (all Germans were either military, or auxiliary personnel). Later, when the hostilities moved to German territory, the focus of propaganda has changed, however, that was not done timely. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Article being flagged for copyright problems
Not sure if it's because of quote spam or just out right copy pasting...but it needs to be addressed before someone puts it up for deletion. Pls refer to here for the different copyright concerns.-- Moxy 🍁 03:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that link looks like it copied from the Wikipedia article (specifically this revision), rather than the other way around. – bradv  🍁  03:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is possible. ..but there are 7 links to different sites....need to click every example. If you compare it to a copy from last year we don't get such a warning.-- Moxy 🍁 03:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , just checked all of them - they're all either quotes or copies from our article. – bradv  🍁  03:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's quote spamming causing the problem.....should fix the lazy additions since last year as per MOS:Quote. I will take a look.... first we should fix the sourcing problem.... Old topic like  this has many academic publications to use.... simply no need for dead websites.-- Moxy 🍁 03:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bradv: there was no copyright violation; this is obvious. As about the quotations, see may comments above. This is mostly a sourcing problem. In particular "Sex liberation and erotic myths... " by Сергей Турченко no one knows about is not an appropriate source for this page. This revert made 4 times by user Jack90s15 in violation of 3RR rule) is not fixing a vandalism by an IP, but insertion of poorly sourced content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It was on there for a while and no one seemed to have a problem with soviet field reports the same source is still used on the page that's why I asked for page protection. I am not here to make enemies with people the Copyright problem was here before me I hope we can all work this out.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was only just a few day ago when you created such section . Regardless, it does not matter for how long the poorly sourced materials were on a page. The longer the worse. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the time it was it was a while but I don't want to argue about this I want to work to together on this with you can we? Jack90s15 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Please find better sources if you want to include this content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the war time memory that was from the same Book that is used for the other twoJack90s15 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This text was included in a single edit made by a suspicious red linked account . Unless you can personally check the cited Russian original and confirm translation, this should be removed. I read the book and do not remember it there. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that was from a Sock to that banned user? Jack90s15 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, possibly. Someone created an account to make a single edit in an article on a highly contentious subject. As a rule of thumb, you should never restore edits made by such accounts if the edits are removed by other contributors, unless you personally checked the underlying sources and can evaluate their reliability. Otherwise, you are guilty of WP:PROXYING. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is about the Aleksvich book then please provide the appropriate page number for the quote - it's not on page 236 and I can't find the quote using searches.  Volunteer Marek  23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is probably a translation of an older edition of the book where all content related to this subject was censored. Unfortunately, I do not have newer edition (in Russian) handy. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added what is used on the  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn page for the Eyewitness accounts and added the proper  AttributionJack90s15 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What's going on here is ugly. Alexeivich absolutely did not intend to write a book portraying her compatriots as monsters, but the careless and cherry-picked reading of it by the pharmacological researcher with his "rUsSiAnS r bAd" perspective tries to portray the book as such. The 2013 edition of Alexievich's contains:


 * 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 убедили, 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. Раз зашли в дом, хотели чаю попить. Много домов стояло пустых, они все бросали и убегали. Мы давай искать чашки, находим сервиз и видим рисунок наш — знакомые колоски такие… Читаем: „СССР, г. Одесса“. Мы так чай и не попили…»
 * "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." Fuzzythrot (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is correct. By the way, the wave of suicides before the advancing Red Army is a well documented fact. It would be correct to collect quotes pro et contra. However, we cannot inflate the article, and cannot provide to many quotes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not create a quotation farm from a single book. While a couple of quotations from the book of A (included long time ago) are fine, including this third long quotation, which is not a particularly informative, is over the top. Hence removed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits by Moxy
Hi. Regarding your

"Some Russian historians disagree, claiming that the Soviet leadership took some action."

I checked page 480 of the reference and it does not support this claim. First, it says nothing about Russian historians. Second, it says the opposite about taking action. For example, it quotes McLynn:

"Beginning in East Prussia in January 1945, reaching a crescendo in the two-week battle for Berlin and continuing after the end of hostilities, rape ran at epidemic levels. The Red Army’s officers had neither the will nor inclination to stop it. During the battle, 130,000 women were raped, 10 percent of whom committed suicide. In the 1945 campaign in Germany, Beevor establishes, with unimpeachable scholarship, that at least 2 million women were ravished, many in gang rapes."

and it also says:

"Anthony Beevor emphasizes that the wave of rape during the initial occupation stemmed from revenge but then became a case of “the spoils going to the victor.” Stalin and other official sknew of the problem but took no major action to halt it."

Can you please clarify? 99.199.43.208 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I added one source that does talk about how the Soviet leadership did take some action about the rape. From the bcc that as been on here for years also, no need to quote the same information two times.76.65.155.9 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I added the relevant section of the BBC article and removed the duplicate sentence. 99.199.43.208 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I added some more to opening and thanks for fixing the duplicate sentence.76.65.155.9 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Methodology
For obvious reasons, this topic is infinitely fraught and infinitely complicated {These two articles are not irrelevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse}, and perhaps discussing its methodology is more important than discussing what are taken to be facts? Incidentally, something I only know from the hearsay of a German woman born in 1942 is that the Americans in her sector didn't spare German Jews. Also, I feel uneasy about the article being so disconnected from the context of rape of Russian women by Germans during the German invasion of Russia. Fuficius Fango (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I’ve found that author Walter S. Zapotoczny, Jr. has very poor book reviews on Amazon, some of his books being rated as low as 1/5 or 2/5. The reviews generally criticise his works for being poorly written, not providing a comprehensive review of the topic, and filling many pages with appendixes and trivial information. I’ve haven’t looked into the books my self; I thought I’d post this here as a warning, and maybe someone can do a source check. JackAlpha26 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Additions to the lead
you recently added a few paragraphs of new content to the very beginning of this article. I have now reverted you twice, with you re-reverting in between. As you have not been using edit summaries, it is hard to know why you feel this content merits inclusion, or why it can be included despite a lack of sourcing. In the hopes of avoiding a full edit war, I am hoping you will join this discussion to justify your edits and possibly build consensus for including your work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk) I would love to share with you some information. Stalin has signed special order and communicated by phone to generals on 19th January 1945. Zhukov, Konev, and Rokossovsky have ordered their armies to follow these rules. Some sources: http://www.great-country.ru/rubrika_myths/vov/00027.html

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41521130.html "Am 29. Januar ließ Marschall Schukow in allen Bataillonen seiner 1. Belorussischen Heeresgruppe einen Ukas verlesen, der es den Rotarmisten untersagte, "die deutsche Bevölkerung zu drangsalieren, die Wohnungen zu plündern und die Häuser niederzubrennen". Zugleich sollte die Verlesung eines schon früher erlassenen Stalin-Befehls den Warnungen vor Ausschreitungen Nachdruck geben: Offiziere und Rotarmisten aller Truppen! Wir gehen jetzt ins feindliche Land, Von jedem wird Selbstbeherrschung verlangt, jeder hat tapfer zu sein, wie es einem Kämpfer der Roten Armee gebührt, Die auf von uns besetzt-am Gebiet zurückgebliebene Bevölkerung, unabhängig davon, ob es Deutsche, Tschechen oder Polen sind, soll nicht belästigt und nicht beleidigt werden, denn die Schuldigen werden nach Kriegsgesetzen bestraft. Im besetzten Feindgebiet darf kein intimer Verkehr mit Frauen stattfinden Für Mißhandlungen und Vergewaltigungen werden die Schuldigen erschossen."

Heeresgruppe Mitte Abt. Ic/AO 'Sowjetische Befehle über Verhalten der RA auf deutschem Boden' 3 Feb. 1945 (т.е. "Советские приказы о поведении Красной армии на немецкой земле")

По немецким территориям есть две Директивы Ставки ВГК: от 2 апреля 1945 г. № 11055: «Войскам, действующим на территории Австрии, дать указания о том, чтобы население Австрии не обижать, вести себя корректно и не смешивать австрийцев с немецкими оккупантами.» и от 20 апреля 1945 г. № 11072. «Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования приказывает: 1. Потребовать от войск изменить отношение к немцам как к военнопленным, так и к гражданскому населению и обращаться с немцами лучше. Жестокое обращение с немцами вызывает у них боязнь и заставляет их упорно сопротивляться, не сдаваясь в плен. Гражданское население, опасаясь мести, организуется в банды. Такое положение нам не выгодно.»

В хрущевском официозе История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941-1945 гг. Т. 5. М., 1963 приказ Сталина не упомянут. В брежневском официозе История второй мировой войны 1939–1945 гг. Т. 10. М., 1979. с. 144-145 ссылается на: Наше мщение. // Красная Звезда. М., 1945. №33, 9 февраля, с. 1: http://libinfo.org/newsr/newsr130.djvu Нельзя представить себе дела таким образом, что если, скажем, фашистские двуногие звери позволяли себе публично насиловать наших женщин или занимались мародерством, то и мы в отместку им должны делать то же самое. Этого никогда не бывало и быть не может. Наш боец никогда не допустит ничего подобного, хотя руководствоваться здесь он будет отнюдь не жалостью, а только чувством собственного достоинства.

http://www.airo-xxi.ru/gb/doklady/doklad01.htm#_ednref28 Большевик. 1945. № 2. С.5.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) also, please read № 284. Приказ о порядке использования трофейного народнохозяйственного имущества № 04  19 января 1945 г. http://militera.lib.ru/docs/da/nko_1943-1945/14.html
 * Thank you for providing some sources. Many are primary documents from during or soon after the war. We need to be cautious not to overuse such documents per WP:PRIMARY. If you find those sources to supplement current content sourced to reliable, secondary sources, I believe the article would be strengthened by their inclusion. Having skimmed through your links, I didn't easily find anything to support some of your content. For example, your edit began with: What I have found so far in your sources does not support that content. Is the part about Eisenhower's message an interpretation of a reliable source, or your own interpretation? How about the labeling of the USSR's role in the war as the "main thing" being displaced in memory? In general, your content could benefit from inline citations, so that it's clear which source can verify each sentence or paragraph. You can learn more about how to do that at WP:Citing sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic Heritage of the Rapists?
What was the ethnic heritage of the Soviet Soldiers who committed (mass) rapes? There is some rumor that the Majority of them were Non-Europeans just like Tatars, Azerbaijanis, Kalmyks, Tuwinians, Buryatians and Yakutians.--92.74.225.126 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 May 2019 and 1 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Australyeah.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting out the section on the rape by the Soviet troops
The section on the rape by the Soviet troops is very large making it "out of proportion to the rest of the article." Per Splitting, such sections can be made into a new stand alone articles where more details can be inserted. Such a move is also encouraged by WP:SPINOFF. Furthermore, the current size of the article is ~ 47 kB, prompting more attention to the size issue. -- M h hossein   talk 13:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Soviet section is big enough to warrant an entire article of its own. Also, as per Splitting: "Below 50 kB, an article may not need splitting based on size alone." I think that applies here (47kb). DemianStratford (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For editors who are wondering why this is being brought up here, it's because it was brought up at Talk:American_rape_of_Vietnamese_women. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Polish! Czech! Slovac! crimes
Widely known about illegal violance agianst german and austrian cicvilian in East Prussia, Pomerania, Bohemia, Sylezia, Sydets and inner area in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Dmitriy Tehlin (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Mongolian." Who wrote this bullshit?!
The source (Grossman) clearly says that the description of "Mongol rapists" was a standard formula used by German woman as an argument for getting abortion. According to the Goebbels' racial hygiene laws, abortions were allowed only if there was a risk of "contaminating" "high quality Aryan blood" with the Untermensch blood. This law was still in effect in the occupied Germany, and German woman "''drew upon the Nazi racial hygiene discourse which banned "alien" (artfremd) offspring (indeed, when rapes by other occupation forces were certified, the perpetrator was frequently identified as Negro if American or North African if French). They availed themselves of the rich repertory of Nazi racial imagery of the barbarian from the East, especially the Mongol from the Far East, associated with the cruel frenzy of Genghis Khan. A letter from July 24, 1945:
 * "I hereby certify that at the end of April this year during the Russian march into Berlin I was raped in a loathsome way by two Red Army soldiers of Mongol/Asiatic type."

''(...) In a matter-of-fact but also desperate manner, women mobilized existing discourses, entangled them, and deployed them to tell their own stories for their own purposes. ''" I am going to remove mentioning of "Mongols" as the words that were taken out of context. Actually, by quoting these words out of context, Wikipedia reproduces Nazi racist myths. If someone wants to add this info, let's discuss it first on the talk page. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I am shocked. Whoever wrote this racist bullshit, I am going to report them immediately if this text (The first Soviet troops to fight in Berlin consisted mostly of Mongolians. ) will be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently, these edits were made by a sock. I remove it completely. Some of the sources used by that sock may be useful, so I moved the quoted text here for future usage in a proper context.
 * Atina Grossman in her article in "October" describes how until early 1945, the abortions in Germany were illegal except for medical and eugenic reasons and so doctors opened up and started performing abortions to rape victims for which only an affidavit was requested from a woman. It was also typical that women specified their reasons for abortions as being mostly socio-economic (inability to raise another child), rather than moral or ethical. Many women stated they were raped but their accounts described the rapist as looking Asian or Mongolian. German women uniformly described the rapists as of  "of Mongolian or Asiatic type".
 * Evidence of Central Asian troops committing rape in Berlin was recorded. In April 1945, Magda Wieland took shelter in the cellar of her apartment house. She described that the first Soviet soldier to find her was a young 16 year-old Central Asian male, who raped her. It was reported that a Soviet commander was greatly embarrassed by wholesale rape of German women by ethnic Kazakh soldiers who were by far the worse offenders and were described as being Mongol Hordes. Another recorded case involves German director Schmidt, who burst into Villa Franka, and yelled at Russian commander Isayev "Your soldiers are raping German women!". The raped German victim pointed at a Kazakh soldier being the perpetrator, and was arrested at the spot. The Kazakh soldier in return claimed he wanted revenge against the Germans who killed his two brothers in battle.
 * A woman who lived in Berlin recalled:
 * "The front-line Russian troops who did the fighting – as a woman, you didn't have to be afraid of them. They shot every man they saw, even old men and young boys, but they left the women alone. It was the ones who came afterwards, the second echelon, who were the worst. They did all the raping and plundering. They stripped homes of every single possession, right down to the toilets." Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)