Talk:War crimes against Germans on the Eastern Front

I'm done with this page, and I'm not going to say anything else about it. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, I don't think we should declare suicide a racist act. I think even if they were living in Nazi Germany, committing suicide because of rape need not be mocked. I know that this article is for educating people about context and to prevent Holocaust denialism, but it is extremely disheartening to see victims blamed for their deaths because they were on the wrong side. So I won't change it myself, but I wanted to say how I felt. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've felt the same way. The article goes into why the traditional approach to rape in war is wrong in this case. Reputable sources have established that racism was one of the causes of shame in being raped. Also, it's not rape victims who are being blamed for a racist suicides; it's also men and women who were never raped, but who committed suicide in advance of the Red Army. There were also many women who murdered their children before committing suicide. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. This article is justifying rape, which is an unjustifiable act. It's offensive to me that German women would have somehow been more deserving of rape because they were somehow inherently more racist and evil. We need to tone down the vindictive nature of this article, this is an educational resource not a tool for shaming dead people. One rape doesn't make another okay, not even 1 million rapes makes another okay. This is how I feel. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This article does not say that Germans "deserved" to be raped. It restates what reputable sources say about this topic, which is that acts of violence, not limited to rape, were committed against Germans by occupied populations who suffered genocide (including mass rape) at the hands of the Germans. This does not justify those acts of violence. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to downplay German committed atrocities, I merely suggest that it is wrong (and off-mission) for this article to attempt to justify atrocities committed against Germans, but instead provide them in their real historical context and prevent people from using them to deny the holocaust. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not justifying any atrocities committed against Germans; it simply states that they happened and why, according to mainstream (non revisionist) sources. What exactly do you mean by "real historical context?" This article already provides historical context. Are you proposing adding information on how Neo Nazis exploit the events described here? I already added a section on that. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thecontext provided in the beginning is fine, I don't object to that part, it's the victim blaming after, suggesting that rape victims were just using their stories to escape responsibility, that they weren't like other rapes because they were woman approved, that is what I find puzzling. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about specific women using experiences of rape, I'm mentioning that in general Germans used all atrocities committed against them to avoid admitting their role is perpetrators of atrocities. The reaction of women in the Red Army alone does not make the events of mass rape here different from other mass rapes; reputable sources have said that these events are different and should not be considered a typical example of men raping women in war. To do so would be victim blaming to the millions of women in the Soviet Union who were raped and often murdered by the Germans. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't see how that is rape apologetics? The rape of one woman does not justify another, nor does it make it any less traumatic for the victim. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. I never said that it justifies rape for women to support it. All I said was that women in the Red Army supported rape, and that it supports conclusions made by reputable historians. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete

I mentioned this on another page and though I should include it.

"OMG (s)he's talking about rape again" is a pretty shitty reason to not have an article debunking Nazi myths.

–Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes

• Totally off mission article that touches on rape and nazis and thus is over-egged by our local obsessive. Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Could easily be condensed into a single paragraph and merged with maybe a Holocaust denial article. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this can be condensed into a paragraph without compromising important information. It's already at the bare minimum of what I can write about the subject while still feeling comfortable that I've covered the important stuff. As someone with experience on the subject, I think this is important. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is already a summary as-is. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• what powder said--^Mikal_lakiM 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• I find WWII to be a very interesting topic, but this is definitely drifting from the mission. Much of this could be put into other articles (Stalin, Holocaust Denial, etc). --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In such a case, and this goes with Mikal's proposal as well, the article should be included as it is now but in a section of Holocaust denial, or possibly an article called Backdoor methods of Holocaust denial Red herrings in Holocaust denial is already very long and this wouldn't fit there as well. This is more of a backdoor tactic then just a red herring. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As per Powder and Gatsby. The article as written veers uncomfortably close to "well, the Germans had it coming to them" even if it doesn't say so outright. In theory it could be cleaned up but even so the topic itself is off-mission. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It says what reputable sources say. Try reading the books cited, particularly Bessel. There's a big difference between saying that the Germans were subjected to the same treatment they inflicted on other people and saying that they deserved it. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No

1. This deals with countering Nazi pseudo history, exactly as does Holocaust denial. Any personal interests in the topic are not relevant. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Goat

I've stripped out the weapons-grade crazy. I'll leave it to others to decide if the rest is worth keeping. Robledo (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "weapons grade crazy" is supported by several reputable sources. Additionally, omitting historical context is victim blaming to the victims of Nazi genocide. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a thirteen line paragraph giving the historical context at the start of the article. Additionally, I've no interest in any source that engages in spurious editorialising about people's motivation in committing suicide, nor in any source that tries to argue that these war crimes are some kind of special case because of previous Nazi atrocities. Robledo (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's your own personal view. You need to find reputable sources that share that view and that refute the claims of the sources I cited. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that this is a tertiary source, and I am not putting my own personal views into this. I only include what sources say. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

If this is "off mission," then so are articles like Holocaust denial, and I don't see this user proposing deletion there. So far his arguments consist of Ad Hominem attacks that I'm writing about Nazis and rape. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a current anti-science thing that people currently do. This is an article about undisputed (but totally overegged by you) history. Go edit wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Portraying Germans as victims is a backdoor method of Holocaust denial that is currently engaged in by various pro Nazi revisionist historians. Red herrings in Holocaust denial touches on topics like this one. Your arguments here consist mainly of Ad Hominem, including your previous one. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you put it there, you obsessive fuck. [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many more examples of backdoor Holocaust denial that I did not put there. You're just obsessing about me obsessing about rape. You're just acting like a bully right now and making Ad Hominem attacks and not presenting a good argument. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to downplay German committed atrocities, but I think the point of this article should not be to attempt to justify the atrocities against the Germans as reasonable retaliation, but instead provide the true context and prevent people from using the atrocities committed against Germans to justify holocaust denial. Right? 72.227.65.112 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This article does not justify the atrocities committed against Germans. It repeats what reputable sources say, which is that the atrocities have been used by Germans to portray themselves as victims, and that they should not be separated from their historical context. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The article does contain some instances of justification. For example, it says that the expulsion of the Germans was "understandable" given German war crimes. I think the article is on-mission, because it can be used to "set the record straight" in regard to pseudo-history, but it definitely needs to be a bit more neutral. Kimberly (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree comepletely. The bit about the rapes not being "normal" rapes because they were endorsed by Russian women is particularly jarring. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Kimberly– I agree with your point that we should ensure neutrality, and I gave thought to the use of "understandable" there; we do need to be careful with phrasing and how it might be biased. I wouldn't say that example is particularly justifying, since it's possible for atrocities (such as the explosion of Germans) to be understandable, but considered morally wrong at the same time. We can understand why Poles would beat up Germans being forced out, but that doesn't make it right.

@72.227.65.112– I mentioned above that the reaction of women is not the only reason for that conclusion, and that reputable sources have made that conclusion. As a tertiary source, the article would not contain its own independent conclusions like that. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

On being "obsessed"

I've turned down topics and redone topic proposals to write academic papers on this subject, mainly for the reason that I didn't want to think about it. I wrote this here because I think it's important to have a publicly accessible summary of it. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing cited content

Please do not remove content that is cited, especially by multiple sources, without first presenting a counter argument on this talk page and offering your own reputable sources that refute the information on the page that you plan to remove. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop treating this article as your own personal fiefdom. It's ours now. If you don't want people to change it, put it on a blog. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not treating it as my own property. People should not remove content that is cited by reputable sources unless they can prove that the information is incorrect. Regardless of whether I wrote it, I would tell people that. This isn't Conservapedia; users need to provide evidence. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disputed content

From section: Suicide

Removed revision

Such suicides, particularly after mistreatment by soldiers of the Red Army, were racist acts rather than the result or fear of trauma. Nazi women who committed suicide after being raped did not do so because of trauma, but because of the shame of being subjugated by people of a race who they considered subhuman. This is supported by the suicide of Germans in the areas that had not yet been overrun, and who therefore obviously had not experienced trauma.

This has been removed a few times and should be discussed before being replace. Personally, it's cited by multiple sources, and anyone refuting it should provide their own reputable sources that counter it. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

From section: Analysis

Removed revision

The rapes committed during this time are also not a typical example of men raping women during war, but rather the result of the victims of genocidal murders and rape encountering the perpetrators of those atrocities. This is supported by women in the Red Army who openly approved of the rape of German women, and the way that Red Army soldiers focused violence particularly against active members of the Nazi party and anyone believed to be connected with the Nazi military.

This is supported by eight sources. It's also a very important point raised by both Beevor and Bessel, particularly the latter. The only reason I'm putting it here is to avoid an edit war. It's highly improper not to mention this, and I would say omission is victim blaming toward the victims of Nazi genocide. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Victim blaming"

The content that some people are saying is "victim blaming" is not, and is supported by reputable sources.

The irony here is that removal of "victim blaming" content in fact results in an article that is far more victim blaming to the victims of Nazi genocide in the Soviet Union. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Giving the impression that the Red Army just entered Germany and started killing, looting, and raping plays directly into the hands of Holocaust deniers and Neo Nazis and is victim blaming to the people who suffered and witnessed Nazi genocide. –Александр(а) (Talk

Discussion to republish the article

I had a talk with Reckless Noise Symphony where she said that she thought this article could possibly be useful and that she would have joined the discussion if she had seen it before it was deleted. I also recently had a discussion with Arcane where he said that he disagrees with the deletion.

Here's what he said:

for the article that was deleted, I feel you have a legitimate complaint, especially since the article is extensively crossreferenced from reliable sources, presents the data rather evenhandedly, and makes clear that war crimes against the Germans were also perpetrated by their own side (Hitler wanted Germany to go down in flames with him towards the end of the war and ordered his own subordinates to make that happen, which many of them thankfully ignored) as acts of self destructive defiance to those who might soon conquer them, so I would strongly lobby for the reinclusion of the article.

When I published the article at Bigotry Wiki, I asked him to look over it to make sure that it's not biased, and he said that it was appropriate. Here's what he said:

Also, most of the sources (I didn't check them all) seem on the level and the information is presented reasonably enough. As for the section on suicide, it doesn't seem all inaccurate to me, as I have also read of similar accounts towards the end of the war.

I think it's worth discussing the possibility of republishing the article, probably starting from the Bigotry Wiki version that Arcane made edits to, though we can still make changes if necessary. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW he had this to say after reading this talk page:

I feel you were unjustly attacked and bullied over a subject that you tried to be civil and reasonable about, and I'm frankly disgusted at how you were treated

–Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Support republishing the article

• Inquisitor Ehrenstein – It's about a topic that frequently gets exaggerated, misinterpreted, and cherry picked by people with a pro Nazi agenda. I think it's a good article for countering pseudohistory and crack theories. I also think it needs to be a stand alone article because Holocaust denial and Red herrings in Holocaust denial are getting a bit long by RW standards and are already confusing to navigate. Plus this is specialized and it would result in being ahistorical if we tried to "condense" it in order to ham-fist it into Holocaust denial. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Arcane – This article should be restored, or at the very least given another discussion concerning it's restoral.

But, before I go into my position, I just want to take a moment to show everyone something.

This article is an off-mission joke by an obsessive aspie who needs to just go away. Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the above statement by Hipocrite turns my stomach. This is RationalWiki, as in, a wiki that espouses and promotes reason and rational thinking, and resorting to ad hominem and dismissing the effort of a good faith editor is not only disgusting, it also violates RationWiki's standards of wiki conduct. In fact, I'll cite them below:

We prefer and encourage that users and editors become a part of the community. We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users.

Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem. In particular, attacks incorporating racist, sexist and homophobic language and insults are not tolerated.

The above stated, that statement by Hipocrite is violation of RW's code of conduct. However, that is not the only thing that I found unfair concerning discussion of the article.

Totally off mission article that touches on rape and nazis and thus is over-egged by our local obsessive. Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Off mission? We have articles about Rape and Nazis, and while the merits of the article can be justly debated, insulting an editor does not positively contribute to that discussion.

Also, while I won't go into the merits of why the article needs to be restored from a factual standpoint (IE cited the crux of my arguments rather well), I will add that I feel the discussion contained a lot of attacks on the author of the article as opposed to the article's merits, and if it is rejected again after another discussion, this minus personal attacks and ad hominem, I would not contest that, but after having read the above discussion, I believe the article's deletion was based on bias and bigotry against the author, so I support article's restoration both due to the article's merits (which I find satisfactory) and also due to the vile disregard for RW's own rules, which poisoned the discussion unjustly against the author of the article. Arcane (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Arcane

• Wehpudicabok – Well, I read Ehrenstein's summary, and a little bit of the article itself, mostly the section on what claims have been made by neo-Nazis and why they are false, and I'm going to go ahead and support restoration. I still don't really understand why this was deleted. Countering historical misinformation is on-mission. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support: I do think the article is mission-worthy. However, as the community has already had a vote and deleted it, I will not start drama over this issue. (Also, at Ehrenstein, I am a male). Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to republishing

• For fuck's sake. In case you didn't get the message Ehrenstein, people are tired of hearing you go on about Nazis and rape. They're tired of you calling them "Nazi sympathetic" and "Nazi apologist" when they don't buy into your endorsement of atrocities against Nazi era Germans. It seems like this has been said dozens of times, & still doesn't seem to have sunk in. This screed barely has anything to do with RW's missions, and it has some serious problems with attitude & perspective. I don't think it's something RW wants to be associated with. Furthermore, there are already at least two copies of it at RW (in essay and user space), which is at least one too many, and at least two copies of it elsewhere (Bigotrywiki, WWII Wikia). Be satisfied with that & stop trying to force it on RW. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling anyone here Nazi sympathetic, and I don't endorse atrocities against Nazi era Germans. I take it your objections have to do with attitude and perspective. Those can be changed. What do you think we should do to improve attitude and perspective? BTW, Arcane was the one who told me that we should revisit this. I only brought it up again because he said that he thought it was wrong for it to be deleted. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 14:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you do endorse atrocities against Nazi era Germans. Only a couple of weeks ago you told us "The Germans were a nation of monsters" and "We could have shoved them into their ovens to punish them for murdering millions of people". And, given that Arcane is the same guy who egged you on in your libelling of a RW editor as a prospective rapist, I'm really not impressed that he supports you again on this. You must know that RW users are losing patience with you & your hobby-horses; my advice is to stop stirring up trouble and raking up old quarrels that you can't win. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with this page, I'm not saying anything else here. As for that page you reference, I said that's how I feel at times, but I know it to be wrong. Anyway, I'm done with this page; I'm not doing anything to continue to upset users here. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I never egged anyone on to libel. I was incensed at personal attacks on someone's arguments, which, based on my view of things, seemed one sided and prejudicial. As for encouraging libel, I had no part in doing so. I merely asked that if IE should have proper evidence of such accusations before leveling them at anyone, and any action taken were not encouraged or authorized by me on that account, my only contribution to that situation, if any, was counseling moderation and restraint, specifically against accusations without sufficient proof. My primary concern is over the article I feel was unfairly deleted without due consideration of its merits and with personal attacks done to it's author. If evidence I am wrong can be presented, I will review it, and should the facts warrant, I too will cease any objections and leave this subject well enough alone and will consider the matter closed. Arcane (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Weaseloid, I looked up the essay that was deleted, and you quote mined your second quote: We could have shoved them into their ovens to punish them for murdering millions of people, but what would that have solved? It would have done nothing but turn us into monsters who shove people into ovens out of rage. (emphasis mine on the part you excised from your quote)

Question:How is this hateful? This statement, when taken as a whole, expresses that people should not be punished regardless of their level of guilt in a crime due to rage, lest it turn us into monsters. Not all the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, so this statement saying we should not want to punish the German people (as a collective) as an act of revenge for crimes committed by only those amongst the Germans who were guilty for that atrocity lest we become guilty of the same or even worse crimes, which is the meaning I gathered when considering the statement in context, and which I don't find to be objectionable. Arcane (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Arcane

• Everything Weaseloid said--Mikal | lakiM 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Don Quijote against the windmills. See my comment in the discussion belowTh. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 13:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I revised my opposition to republishing a bit. The article may be on-mission, since there seems to be some controversy between Russian historians and media, like the Daily Fail weigh in on the matter. It is also to some interest of gender studies. Yet I do not think that the article in its current state should be republished. There are just too many serious flaws and misrepresentations in the article as it is now. For instance: Beevor is frequently used as a source by IE, yet he seems to be one of the historians who is targeted by russian historians as a 'Pro-Nazi-historian'. That is by no way reflected in the article. There are many other serious flaws, which are mentioned in my posts in the discussion section below. There would have to be a lot of work put in rewriting the entire article and checking the references. A workload which so far, only the user, who actually caused these flaws is willing to take upon him. I also don't see the point in putting this much work into it, when there is allready a rather balanced and well researched article on wikipedia about this topic.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 10:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender studies isn't on mission except as it relates to the mission. I know that's tautological, but it bears saying since gender studies is a far broader field than those few aspects of that butt up against our mission. History suffers from this over breadth problem in spades. The disagreement you note doesn't belong on RW so far as I can tell. I do believe that a short non-rambling non-editorializing piece on sexual misconduct as part of a war campaign would be ok, but it's not so clear that happens. The dissertation, which is all I could find to read among IE's sources (using a print-only Russian language source on RW is ... ridiculous), does give some background to the scope of problems relating to sexual misconduct, like number of Russian children fathered by Germans, but there's no support for that being anything other than what happens when Germans go to war. Shrug. I lament that the disclaimer in this essay isn't enough to distance us from Ehrenstein's crankery. 13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"but there's no support for that being anything other than what happens when Germans go to war." Or when anyone else goes to war. The shorter version of this article reads: Soldiers rape. That's it. It always has happened, and, barring some revolution in the way that human psychology, masculinity, and warfare combine to produce that phenomenon, it always will happen. It's tragic, but its not anywhere near on-mission. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait. Now the we see this about what Ehrenstein wrote, why should we permit it to be shuffled away to the essay space, as if that should protect it from the deletion that was already voted for? 13:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Beevor is in fact very exonerating toward the Red Army. There's probably just a few pro Soviet cracks who are pissed that he doesn't support their view enough. Occasionally I see some horrible pro Soviet revisionist website that tries to use the number of soldiers prosecuted for rape as the actual number of soldiers who committed rape. Even when sticking to the facts, it was mainly rear units and undisciplined soldiers who committed rape. As for what Powder points out, given the scale of German atrocities in the Soviet Union and the fact that many soldiers were victims of those crimes, it would be profoundly ahistorical to try to portray this as just another incident of mass rape in war. Furthermore, other sources including Bessel point out that crimes such as looting and vandalism were a direct result of Soviet rage that the Germans who had everything had invaded and murdered millions of people. Unless I'm wanted to revise the article, I'm going to go now. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion 2

We already voted on not having this article. And here you are, writing about Nais again. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have another two users who support having the article, one of which is fairly firm about it. Three users isn't enough, but we might be able to convince some users that the article is worth having. Plus we can demonstrate that I've actually done my homework on the content, so people can stop having objections to the conclusions it makes. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm walking onto a minefield by posting here, but I don't understand why people were opposed to this article. The article counters misinformation about an important historical event. That sounds to me like something we should have, but I admit I don't know the history behind the article. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 04:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your support. Is it alright if I add this comment to the support for republishing section? –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer if you did not, mostly because I'm still trying to understand what is being said. I don't feel that I understand it well enough to vote yet. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 04:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell, what happened was the Germans went into the Soviet Union, murdered 20 million people through starvation, mass shootings, torture, burning, and killed another 7 million soldiers, raped 10 million women and brutally murdered many of them, then when the Soviet Red Army invaded Germany, some of the people who had been forced to endure this committed violence against the Germans, though the Soviets tried to restrain their soldiers as opposed to the Germans who had encouraged murder and rape as a policy of genocide. Over 10,000 Germans were killed and a maximum estimate of 1.5 million women were raped. Pro Nazi revisionists exaggerate the atrocities of the Red Army and separate them from their historical context to give the impression that the Soviet Union just suddenly came in and started doing all sorts of violence to the Germans in order to advance their own anti Jewish/Slavic/Communist agendas. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To add further summary, the article in question details the above and also debunks various forms of Nazi/anti-German revisionism of what actually happened to the Germans/Soviets while also trying to be candid regarding any actual atrocities committed by both sides during WWII, separating the facts from fiction in a hopefully impartial fashion and without favoring either side. Arcane (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Arcane

–Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Ustaše was considered to be on mission, and it's far more on-mission questionable than this is. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not whether it's on-mission or not, but whether you can find enough people that you haven't driven away from your side by calling them names and being an annoying wikilawyer. Sophie^Wilder 17:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Sophie. I'm mostly here because I feel the article can stand on its own merits and felt the process used to have it deleted was full of bias and hatred against the author. To be fair, I don't believe ANYONE should be calling anyone names, be it anyone cited on this page, and if they did, whoever was responsible was clearly in the wrong. I'm somewhat new to this debate, so I'd like to make it clear I'm mostly here because I believe the article needs a second judgment, and despite what it's author may or may not be guilty of, I believe the article is worth fair consideration based on its message, even if no one likes the messenger, and I feel the article was rejected because of bias against the messenger, not because it was given a fair ruling before being rejected. Besides, the author (Inquisitor Ehrenstein) has already stated their and left, so I'd like to make it clear I'm speaking for myself here: does anyone plan to consider giving this article a second (and hopefully impartial) look based on its merits regardless of what anyone feels for the author, or are my efforts in vain? If so, I will withdraw from this discussion and consider the matter closed. Arcane (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Plenty of reasons have been given why this article & its message aren't welcome here. If you want to ignore them & pretend it's all about personalities, fine, but that doesn't reflect how most users feel about it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Weaseloid. I shall not trouble this page with any further attempt at an argument, would like to thank everyone who was willing to respond to my input, and shall consider this a lost cause and a closed issue. Arcane (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Arcane

I read through the essay on IE's userpage and see quite a few problems with it. For instance: I found the following sentence to be quite odd: "It has been estimated that at least 10 million Soviet women were victims of rape by the Germans." This claim is backed up by Gertjannsen. I skipped through the dissertation but could not find this number anywhere. So there's the first problem: IE seems to be misquoting at least one, if not more things. Gertjannsen by the way makes the claim that up to 1 million German women might have been raped, which to some extent takes a bit of the impact away from your first Nazi claim/rebuttal table.
I think it is also highly problematic to speculate about the reasons for Germans suicides. Saying that rape victims did not commit suicide because of trauma, but because of racist motives, and basing this claim solely on the fact, that people in yet unoccupied parts of Germany also commited suicide caused by the fear of the Red Armay, is not good logic. You could simply ask, why plenty of men also committed suicide. Were they afraid of rape as well?
The paragraph "Assistance by the Nazis to the mass murder and rape of Germans" is highly problematic. IE take away any responibility from the Red Army here, thus debasing the Red Army (to some extent I had the impression IE was talking about uncontrollable animals, but whatever) and partly buying into the Nazi propaganda IE hates so much.
Foremost though, I just don't see the point of the article since IE just claims that Nazi-revisionist say such and such, but he never seems to back these claims up, apart from a youtube video by David Duke. It seems to me that he is so passionately fighting an enemey, that might not even be there. The most basic thing would be to back up the Nazi claims with some citations. Ok, I hope this screed was understandable enough. I think I stayed factual and did not take part in any ad hominems. So cheersTh. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 13:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just did more than skip through the dissertation since I'm now deeply suspicious of IE's personal integrity. The strongest claim Gertjejanssen makes is as she concludes: "Sexual violence, rape, assault, abduction into sexual slavery, and mutilation all occurred, affecting hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of people." I can't find any support in the dissertation for IE's prior claim that "rape was extremely common and was even used as a weapon to break Soviet resistance," though this one is much more difficult to search for. It would imply that rape was used as part of an organized military campaign, which I haven't seen any good support for and find unlikely. In any event, I am so sick to death of this editor going on and on and on about rape and Nazis. 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

After I read your comment Nutty, I looked at Gertjejanssens thesis' abstract (which I can be found here and which I should have done from the start) and came to realize, that IE seems to not have read said thesis, since it disagrees with him on many important points. Just a little selection: "Although rape was not a formal military tactic by either army, there was a tacit understanding that men had a right to rape." "I challenge three major interpretations: [...] 3) that the motivation to rape is only about power and not sexual desire." "Despite the great diversity of experiences, the irony in trying to make sense of all the combinations of perpetrators and victims is that the perpetrators were frequently intoxicated. Based on an array of archival sources, including memoirs, testimonies, German police reports, and several rape cases, it is clear that the consumption of alcohol was widespread and contributed to the ubiquity of sexual violence. With alcohol people were more willing to break regulations, such as the Rassenschande laws, and they could have experienced heightened sexual desire. With alcohol, one’s beliefs could have become more or less accentuated. Since the differentiations between, for example, Jew, Orthodox Russian, or Latvian, did not always involve obvious external distinctions, alcohol would have rendered it even more difficult for perpetrators to calculate who the person was."

While I am to some extent thankfull to IE for pointing me to this interesting thesis, I am also troubled, that he would distort Gertjejanssens main points like he did.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Troubled? yes. Surprised? Not in the least. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I was done, but since you took the time to respond here, I'll answer your question and the moved on. I read that particular information somewhere else but hadn't reviewed the citation. I think it might have said something like "up to ten million," and not having read the original source,I didn't have a good way of rephrasing. Also, Beevor and Kershaw both support 1.4 million Nazi women, so an estimate of 1 million would not be Nazi sympathetic. Given that reputable sources explain reasons for Nazi suicide and murder of their children, I think that omitting that would be ahistorical. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You assert that "Beevor and Kershaw both support 1.4 million Nazi women." You have a demonstrated history of misrepresenting facts. Why should we believe you now? Hipo^crite 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what this person says. The article is now an essay that contains objectively false claims. Nobody wants to go to the library and go through the rest of his cites. The question is whether something like this even belongs in essay space. It shouldn't be a sneaky way to avoid scrutiny that may result in deletion or a dumping ground for shit that was deleted for good cause. However, even assuming that 100% of what Ehrenstein says is true, "debunking" "Nazi-sympathetic" academic claims doesn't come anywhere near RW's mission. Something like the claim, where it supportable, that rape was used as a means of establishing the Nazi regime during WWII might be appropriate in the Nazi article as a simply-made claim about means of enforcing authoritarianism. But that's a no-go here. Ehrenstein succeeds admirably at getting every bit of negative attention he wants, leaving the rest of people who care to suffer with his nonsense. Fuck this guy. 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More documentable error from our resident misrepresenter: "a maximum estimate of 1.5 million women were raped." Just false. Hipo^crite 16:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

I propose that Ehrenstein be topic banned from writing in main, essay, or their talk spaces about rape and Nazis. I'm putting this here because it's where people who are concerned with this discussion are presently looking and I don't want to unnecessarily enlarge things unless there's a reasonable consensus on this page that something needs to be done about this person. 16:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've pretty much done that. The only reason I posted here today was because I didn't want TH to feel like I was ignoring him, after he took the time to write out a thoughtful post. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 16:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"I've pretty much done that" and then you do it again anyways. Saying "im sorry im sorry" while also still stabbing the guy doesn't make it any less still you stabbing the poor fucker. --Mikal | lakiM 16:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)