This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Russian & Soviet C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Soviet Union B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Estonia B‑class High‑importance Soviet war crimes is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class. Lithuania Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I read that many German prisoners of war died (mostly of starvattion) while in Russian custody, i.e. that only 6000 of initially 90000 captured during the battle of stalin grad came back alive. That is obviously mistreatment of pows. isnt that a war crime as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.51.203 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Soviets were themselves affected by a famine in that period - a famine largely due to the invasion - I would say not, unless reputable sources suggest otherwise. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, had enough food or medication been available for the Soviet population, the starvation of German POW would be a crime. However, in actuality, it was not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The incessant handwringing over the fate of the poor, innocent Germans (not!) at the hands of the evil, savage USSR (as well as the disingenuous disclaimers by the partisans of a supposedly peaceful, pastoral USSR) should really give way to a more balanced examination of all of the information on both sides, now that the Cold War is 22 years dead. Almost NONE of the articles in Wiki regarding the campaign waged by Nazi Germany and its allies on the USSR, or the counter-campaign by the USSR against Nazi Germany and its allies come anywhere near even -approaching- a neutral PoV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.27.241 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who has good sources is welcome to contribute to this and other articles in Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are political repressions listed in this article that is about war crimes? -YMB29 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wife of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Hannelore Kohl, has been gang raped at age 20 by Russian Soldiers in May 1945. As a consequence, she sustained a serious life long back injury either by being pressed against a stone or throw out of a window. Hannelore Kohl committed suicide in 2001. She had been suffering long and serious illnesses that experts thought of as the consequence of childhood trauma. These details were published in the news journal Der Spiegel, Nr 12, 11 June 2011, pages 36 - 41. Further details are published in the biography "The Woman at his Side: Life and Suffering of Hannelore Kohl" (Die Frau an seiner Seite: Leben und Leiden der Hannelore Kohl) by Heribert Schwan. 2011. München: Heyne Verlag. Werner 13:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In the known (talk • contribs) Werner 13:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight is being given to Senyavskaya's opinion. This is not an article about Beevor's book, and we don't need to devote an entire paragraph to something that can be summarised and combined into the paragraph above. Rzheshevsky's view is given one sentence and so should Senyavskaya's opinion. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should she be given only one sentence when she has an entire article devoted to the issue?

I removed one of the sentences mentioning Beevor, but I don't see why the others should be removed. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of undue weight, why do you think that Kohl's wife should be mentioned here? -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:DUE works. If Senyavskaya's claim that rapes were only a small component of overall Soviet War Crimes is true, then having lots of text about it runs counter to that proposition by making rapes the focus of this article. Rzheshevsky's view is given one sentence, why should Senyavskaya be given more? Kohl's wife is mentioned in Rape during the occupation of Germany, probably undue here. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you make Senyavskaya dependent on Rzheshevsky?

The rapes are already made a focus of the article by other sources. The text cited to her responds to those sources. -YMB29 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is Senyavskaya more important than Rzheshevsky, that you have to give her more weight than Rzheshevsky? --Nug (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a popularity contest... Both are important, but Senyavskaya's criticism is more detailed. -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However WP:UNDUE applies. That's policy. Senyavskaya is just repeating similar things to what Rzheshevsky has said. If people want to read Senyavskaya in more detail they can go to the source cited in the reference section. --Nug (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is not repeating the same thing he says. Even if she did, I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with this. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both are referring to Beevor, and both are claiming he is repeating Goebbel's propaganda. Claiming WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT with respect to WP:UNDUE isn't a valid argument. You have not provided any justification for attributing more weight to Senyavskaya than Rzheshevsky. --Nug (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing they say that is the same is that the accusations originate from Nazi propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given a justification why Senyavskaya should be given more prominence over Rzheshevsky. --Nug (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not explain why she should not. -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed you to WP:UNDUE, the onus is on you to explain why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply in this case. --Nug (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not explain how it applies here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE applies everywhere, it is policy. I agreed with your view that mention of Kohl's wife in this article was undue, so don't suddenly claim you don't understand what WP:UNDUE means. --Nug (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it means, but how does it apply to Senyavskaya? -YMB29 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have given disproportionate coverage of Senyavskaya's views compared with other historians, see WP:BALASPS. --Nug (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Senyavskaya published more on the subject than Rzheshevsky. And you are ok with Naimark getting his own paragraph? -YMB29 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the case, Rzheshevsky has published several books. This thread User_talk:EdJohnston#Reverts_continue has come to my attention, the fact that you have been running a parallel discussion with an admin indicates your bad faith approach to this discussion generally and unwillingness to seek consensus. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is because of your reverts without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What reverts? I've been discussing it here on talk for the last couple of days. You seemed to have complained to an admin during that discussion, which indicates that you believe your arguments are weak and thus need admin intervention to help you get the upper hand. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To refresh your memory: [1][2]. And that is only in this article.

Also, don't get confused; I notified the admin about reverting in the other article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the first edit your cite[3] was not a revert, there was no previous identical version to which that edit reverts to. It was a regular bold edit per WP:BRD. The second edit[4] was a revert, but then you followed up with your own revert[5] before we began discussion on talk. The fact you subsequently attempted to get admin intervention while we were in the middle of discussing the issue on talk indicates an apparent level of duplicity which has poisoned any good faith that may have existed. --Nug (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again the admin intervention was for the other article. Bring it up here over and over is disruptive.

Maybe it would have been wise for you to make changes only after some discussion. I mean if you claim that you were acting in good faith...

Also, a partial revert is still a revert. -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Nug - see my comment here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this was expected... You could of at least tried not to sound just like Iryna Harpy in the other article[6]. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to make two points here.

1. The material about Hannelore Kohl (here) is completely unrelated to Russian historians. This may be "due" or not, but this should be discussed separately. There is no consensus whatsoever to exclude this material (which has been included previously by someone else).
2. There is no doubt (per vast majority of sources) that such crimes indeed had happened on significant scale. Therefore, opinions by historians, who in essence deny everything, belong to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority view. For example, we do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not cite Soviet crimes deniers on this page, but only in pages about themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to holocaust denial is way off. There is no consensus for the mass rape claims; this is just your opinion.

The text about Kohl's wife was added by Nug recently, but he then agreed that it does not belong here, see above.

You should read the previous discussion carefully and not make changes without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Gareev [7], "he had not even heard about sexual violence" [by the Soviet Army]". This has been explained. Now, speaking of Senyavskaya (the initial concern by Nug), this source is particularly terrible: she is trying to promote the ridiculous idea that Soviet soldiers were victimized by European women, because these women were so easy to rape (which undermined moral values of Soviet soldiers) and because these women transmitted venereal diseases [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Where did you get that? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, «Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали» ... Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии», and so on, and so on. Such are sources you are using. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is wrong with that? She did not write that herself, but is just quoting some primary sources. The quotes are part of a section devoted to primary sources. -YMB29 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is using Soviet-era primary sources to justify the following mutually exclusive ideas: (a) that rapes never happened; (b) it was OK to rape them because they deserved it, and (c) European women undermined moral of Soviet soldiers by giving up too easily and by transmitting them venereal diseases. That advocacy piece belongs to WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just your interpretation of it. None of the points you made are true. The documents are brought up to challenge the Western image of the aggressive and primitive Soviet soldier and show that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation than the ones in many European countries. -YMB29 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but direct quotation in Russian (see above) is very clear. She repeats statements like "all German women are whores" to justify her views that mass rapes were not at all committed (as stated in the beginning of her article) or that everything was consensual. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are again misrepresenting what is written there. She does not say that about German women or that everything was consensual. I guess you see only what you want to... -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you claim that I misrepresented the source if she tells in the first phrase of her article that mass rapes by the Soviet Army is a myth that came from the Goebbels and ... Western propaganda? The whole chapter is entitled "According to the recipes by Goebbels" (Here is the quote: "Одним из самых распространенных антироссийских мифов на Западе сегодня является тема массовых изнасилований, якобы совершенных Красной Армией в 1945 г. в Европе. Свое начало он берет еще с конца войны – из геббельсовской пропаганды, а затем из публикаций бывших союзников по антигитлеровской коалиции). My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read carefully. I was not talking about this particular statement of yours. -YMB29 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is not only my opinion. She was caught with falsifying data. She should not be cited anywhere, especially if she criticizes others, which I think is such context counts as a BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is just laughable. Solonin is not a real historian and it is a blog. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Senyavskaya's credibility, see here[9]. -YMB29 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]