User talk:Inquisitor Sasha/War crimes against Germans on the Eastern Front

Archive

Interesting. Just finished Anthony Beevor's excellent "Berlin - the Downfall" and yeah, it pretty much seems as if the Red Army raped their way across Germany. When they weren't executing their own soldiers, or freed POWs, of course. Even freed slave labourers and concentration camp survivors were fair game. --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 07:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the title.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

07:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's definitely "Berlin: The Downfall." Ok, I left the "1945" out. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 07:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with it? I gave it thought before picking; I wanted to make sure it would be specific to what I planned the article to be about. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 07:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It could probably be broader. As Psy's initial comment points out, the Red Army was a brutal unit and certainly didn't restrict its crimes to Germans: there was a lot of revenge taken against Poland for the aftermath of WWI, for instance. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is the case, such crimes against non Germans are not often exaggerated or exploited by pro Nazi revisionists, and would not be a focus of Rational Wiki. In addition, mixing reports of Soviet soldiers raping non Germans in the same article as reports of the same soldiers raping Germans could be seen as equating the two, which is close to what the revisionists are doing. While I don't believe that it would be as severe as what they claim, I also do not think that it would be desirable. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 08:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So your plan is to exonerate the Russians for raping non-Germans, while saying it's ok for them to rape Germans because they started the war? --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 09:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with equating the two? The nationality of a rape victim is irrelevant.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 12:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

While of some historic interest I'm wondering about the specific mission justification.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be said that if there really is specific denialism and revisionism going on then it's worth mentioning, although it might be better on the page relating to the people doing the revising. I'm certainly not going to spend time on Metapedia finding out if this is the case, though. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be said. However while Holocaust deniers are dickheads, denying that German women were raped in the hundreds of thousands (possibly the millions) with no justification whatsoever is also the act of a dickhead. Some of the comments, such as the one about "equating" the rape of German and non-German women, give me a very uncomfortable feeling. In fact anyone who claims there's a moral difference between the rape of a German woman and, say, a Polish labourer or freed Russian POW is also a dickhead. Rapists are rapists and deserve to be shot in the balls no matter what their victims' passports say.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say there, and I'm very glad that you cleaned things up. My point still stands, though. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by this - and please accept that history is one of my weakest points, so maybe i'm just an idiot, but the author suggests "mixing reports of Soviet soldiers raping non Germans in the same article as reports of the same soldiers raping Germans could be seen as equating the two, which is close to what the revisionists are doing." I'd be highly cautious about this. soldiers rape the conquered. its' what they do. Hell, it's so "what they do", the bible says "go for it! Rape women!" They do it in prison for the same effect "I won". To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to focus on rape, because that is a small aspect of any kind of mistreatment from a conquering country to a subject country. I'm also troubled by how casual yet serious rape itself is taken in this article. Course, that's my shtick.--

Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

While this is true of nearly every example of mass rape, the motivation of the Soviet soldiers was not the typical desire to mindlessly rape women of a conquered enemy. Rather, it was the result of severe trauma experienced during the German occupation of the USSR, which included mass murders and rapes on an even larger scale. While individual women had little to do with the crimes committed by German soldiers in the USSR, they were living in the country that had perpetrated unimaginable cruelty on millions of people. This does not justify in any way what happened, to them, but rather explains the reaction of Soviet soldiers.

It could be said. However while Holocaust deniers are dickheads, denying that German women were raped in the hundreds of thousands (possibly the millions) with no justification whatsoever is also the act of a dickhead. Some of the comments, such as the one about "equating" the rape of German and non-German women, give me a very uncomfortable feeling. In fact anyone who claims there's a moral difference between the rape of a German woman and, say, a Polish labourer or freed Russian POW is also a dickhead. Rapists are rapists and deserve to be shot in the balls no matter what their victims' passports say.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.}

This article is also intended to fight denial among the pro Soviet deniers, which you appear to address in your opening sentence. There is no moral difference in absolute terms between the rape of Germans and non Germans, and both remain crimes. However, there is a difference in the historical context between the rape of Germans and Russian POWs or Polish laborers.

soldiers rape the conquered. its' what they do. Hell, it's so "what they do", the bible says "go for it! Rape women!" They do it in prison for the same effect "I won". To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to focus on rape, because that is a small aspect of any kind of mistreatment from a conquering country to a subject country. I'm also troubled by how casual yet serious rape itself is taken in this article. Course, that's my shtick.--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans

That approach to mass rape applies to many examples throughout history. What sources say though is that such an assessment of these events is inappropriate. Rather, they are the cause of years of cruelty and barbarity perpetrated by the Germans against citizens of the USSR. This does not not mean that the victims of rape were responsible (acts of rape were still unjustified crimes), but explains why mass rapes occurred. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Move to userspace[edit]

Ugly title, questionable content, relevance. Move out of mainspace for the time being...any takers? Ace ⁱ⁹ 09:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles with empty section headers should go into userspace until they're finished. In my experience they take a long time to get filled, if at all. Userfy for now. Sophie^Wilder 10:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Make it so! --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 10:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What's been written so far seems a) irrelevant and b) obnoxious. To claim that prepubescent girls and elderly women were "participants in a murderous regime," as if this somehow excuses them being gang-raped, is more Conservapedia's style than RW's.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape (a temporary condition)[edit]

There are victims of rape who would dispute that point. Sophie^Wilder 10:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point, and in the interest of neutrality should possibly stay removed. The original purpose was to distinguish between murder and rape, when I'm sure that very few people would argue that murder is better. Also, from a feminist perspective, this statement is also wrong as it suggests that rape victims are permanently destroyed. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of section[edit]

I've removed the "Exploitation by Nazi extremists" section because in its current form it was useless and biased. Statements about drawing equivalence between the mass rapes and the Holocaust, for example (they were exactly equivalent - utterly unspeakable, in other words) or nonsense about "one-sided" accounts of rape - as if there are two sides to the story. When I get time I'll try to write a more useful version.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I find these edits inrelation to the above statement to be very concerning [1], [2], and [3]. The first edit replaced a statistic about the number of women raped with an unsourced statistic that raised the number of women raped to an order of magnitude. In total, the number of German women raped throughout the Soviet zone of occupation is likely around 1.5 to 1.6 million, based on the figure cited in The Fall of Berlin 1945 of 1.4 million in eastern Germany. The second edit appears to be correct in the information that in provides, however it removed a great quantity of cited information, which is necessary for verifiability. The third edit of concern, which is explained by the user above, should have been discussed before being performed.

While it's possible that the section Exploitation by Nazi extremists may have been biased, outright deletion was unnecessary. Instead, it would be more productive to discuss specific change that should be made. This is also the section that ties in exactly why this article should exist at Rational Wiki, and why it is on-mission. I also fin d this user's attempt at equating the mass rape of Germans with the Holocaust to be very concerning. While mass rapes of Germans occurred, and they were horrific and inexcusable, it is nothing short of Holocaust denial to attempt to equate the rape of up to two million women with the organized mass murder of 12 million people. It is absolutely essential to remain neutral and not excuse or justify either side, however, the equivalency offered here is exactly in line with the arguments of Holocaust deniers, which this article and our mission intends to fight. Please note that I am not suggeting that this user is attempting denial, only that the argument was flawed and is coincidentally the same. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Mission[edit]

I see that there is an explanatory box at the head of this which states:

The on-mission purpose of this will be to debunk the claims made extremists (sic)

I think that this should be make a little clearer. Exactly which of the mission statements includes debunking "the claims made extremists"? I sorta feel that it should be in there somewhere, but as the box refers to the mission I would be nice to know exactly which part of the RW:MISSION the article will be addressing.--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the claims I plan for now to debunk are as follow:

Exploitation by pro Nazi revisionists who exaggerate or give one sided accounts
Denial by pro Soviet revisionists
Explanation of what the Nazis did during the war that made the mass rape even worse, thereby debunking pro Nazi claims about the mass rape

Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

" Explanation of what the Nazis did during the war that made the mass rape even worse, thereby debunking pro Nazi claims about the mass rape " what?--</s?>Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

wait, nevermind--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
To explain what I mean, seeing that that does appear to not make any sense from the way I explained it, the Nazis did a lot of stuff that made the mass rapes even worse. Most often this was in the form of not authorizing evacuations and hindering efforts to escape. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it may not be a good idea to argue which side was "worse." Saying one was worse leaves the unspoken assumption that the other was better, which I know you're not trying to say. It might be best to steer the article towards showing up the kind of people who say "the Red Army was worse than the SS" to expose any agenda they may happen to have on them. I think parts of this article will have to be worded very carefully before it goes back to mainspace. Sophie^Wilder 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It's always bad when people start trying to make the claim that a particular genocide or series of warcrimes was "worse" than another. As you said, it can imply that one side was "good" when, as in this case, both were brutal dictatorships. It also is demeaning to warcrimes and the victims themselves, especially when the debate turns into an argument over who suffered more. I've seen numerous flame wars break out between Jews and Russians over who suffered more. On an individual level, every victim suffered, and so the whole argument is pointless. Although in your second point you point out that we should be debunking the claims that the Red Army was worse than the SS, which from the standpoint of WWII warcrimes on the Eastern Front, is certainly correct. I agree that words should be chosen carefully, but the best way to address the issue is to make sure that we have plenty of citations from reputable sources on the topic, and that we accurately represent the historical analysis on the topic. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand. You say: "Some of the claims I plan for now to debunk are as follow"

Exploitation by pro Nazi revisionists who exaggerate or give one sided accounts. This is not a claim.

Denial by pro Soviet revisionists. This is not really a "claim".

Explanation of what the Nazis did during the war that made the mass rape even worse, thereby debunking pro This is not a claim.

You seem to feel that if something Metapedia says is wrong then that means that an RW article is justified. That is not the case. For example not every instance of CP being wrong needs an article.--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Post war section[edit]

I realize that the statement here may not be neutral, though we should add sourced information to it, instead of deleting the existing cited content. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Broadening the focus of the article[edit]

I'm broadening this article to include all warcrimes against Germans on the Eastern Front, since this will be more useful. It's still on mission because the focus is to counteract denial. Broadening the article will also allow me to work around my self imposed topic ban, and be able to produce a useful article. –Nazis are bad and I don't like them 04:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

On mission purpose[edit]

This article is intended to debunk pseudohistory, such as is established here by articles like Holocaust denial. The primary goal is to debunk pro Nazi pseudohistory, though debunking pro Communist that cherrypicks only examples of the Red Army as liberators should also be a goal. It should also be stated that the pro Nazi perspective also uses intense cherrypicking of the Red Army committing mass murder and rape, among other strategies such as fabrication and exaggeration. Vergeltung (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought the main intent was that IE can't stop writing about rape. The bus came by/and I got on.

02:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This comment is not the slightest bit constructive, and is therefore trolling.

So should I gather from this comment that you would rather see Nazi myths and propaganda perpetuated then counter them, because fighting racist propaganda would involve examining rape? Secondly, wanting to suppress any mention of rape and how bad it is makes you look pro-rape.

Please do not harass users on the Autism spectrum. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This comment is constructive in that the user in question has a long history of writing material on the theme of rape that has led to tension on the wiki. You should gather nothing from this comment about my historiographical preferences; I simply note that a high percentage of the material you have written addresses rape, and that this has been an issue in the past. I do not wish to suppress any mention of it, but I think in your case, the dwelling on the topic is unproductive and unhealthy.

Please do not use your condition as a blanket shield from all criticism. It's a really tacky move on your part. The bus came by/and I got on.

11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem like you're trying to be reasonable, so I'll keep calm. Thank you. I realize that I have talked about rape a lot, and that has made people uncomfortable. To address your concern, when I come here, I am working on what the mission states, to debunk crack or revisionist or extreme theories. Consequently, I don't do my daily activities here, and all you see are the few things that I consider problems. Outside of the wiki, I don't focus on such problems that much, but to people here, it would appear that's all I do. I'm willing to not talk about how bad rape is in general discussions, if that makes people uncomfortable. However, when it comes to debunking pro Nazi and Nazi sympathetic myths, my first concern is debunking pro Nazi myths. If it involves rape, then I'll talk about rape. I fight against pro Nazi views then worry about whether it seems creepy that I'm talking about rape. That said, I respect your input and I will not discuss rape in ways that are not related to on-mission subjects and relevant to article writing. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Inquisitor Sasha/War crimes against Germans on the Eastern Front

Contents

Move to userspace[edit]

Rape (a temporary condition)[edit]

Removal of section[edit]

Mission[edit]

Post war section[edit]

Broadening the focus of the article[edit]

On mission purpose[edit]

Navigation menu

Search