Rapings commited by the soviet Soldiers

[British Free Corps]

Please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it.

Sorry, David. I could think of no other reason for my estimates/inaccuracies...

[David Thompson]

Gen. Erwin Rommel asked: "And there are any reports of Rape commited by the Ameriacn soldiers?"

Of course. All armies have criminals in them. Individual American soldiers stole and murdered too. The more pertinent question is whether the crimes were allowed as a matter of military or state policy, or were so widespread as to demonstrate a general breakdown of proper military discipline.

[David Thompson]

British Free Corps -- No apology is necessary. My post on avoiding insults was directed to witness and Einsamer_Wolf, not you.

[xcalibur]

Thank you guys for all the Information.

And there are any reports of Rape commited by the Ameriacn soldiers?

Absolutely. Off the top of my head I know there were nine US soldiers executed for the crime of rape in the ETO. If you need a citation for this I'll dig it up and post it.

[Gen. Erwin Rommel]

What ETO means? and where they commited the rapes?

And Thanks

[xcalibur]

What ETO means? and where they commited the rapes?

And Thanks

ETO=European Theater of Operations. These particular cases occured in Germany in 1945.

Something to note: I'm not saying here that these were the ONLY cases of rape committed by Us forces, they are the one which resulted in trial and susequent execution of the accused.

[witness]

British Free Corps -- No apology is necessary. My post on avoiding insults was directed to witness and Einsamer_Wolf, not you.

David -honestly I don't see that I was insulting anybody anywhere in my posts in this thread .
If you refer to the the following quotation

In this way, the barbarianism of the Soveits was wider reaching and affected many more innocent peoples. The Germans were clearly the lesser of two evils

which I called " sheer nonsense " then I insist that the nonsence it is and not at all a personal insult .
Regards.

[David Thompson]

For witness and Einsamer_Wolf -- After several exchanges of posts, I said: "Please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it."

British Free Corps mistakenly thought that he was the target of this post. I responded by saying: "My post on avoiding insults was directed to witness and Einsamer_Wolf, not you."

This statement was inaccurate as to witness and Einsamer_Wolf, and for that I apologize. Neither of you made any insulting remark. I should have restricted my statement to the original post: "Please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it," and confined my remarks to that.

The reason for making the remark in the first place was this: Historical problems are often complex, and the truth is hard to find even with a great deal of work and a searchlight. When people like you or I get caught up in an emotional and personal exchange of posts, passion sometimes makes the truth even more difficult to uncover.

In my case, I did not have the excuse of passion. I was tired from trying to post and proofread Grossadmiral Doenitz's testimony -- a task attended with many additional mistakes on my part. As a result, I lapsed into a conventional admonition to witness and Einsamer_Wolf about personal insults which they did not deserve. I am not going to go back and edit out my mistake, because mistakes are something you must live with and learn from. Gentlemen, again you have my apologies. And again, if you can, please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

For witness and Einsamer_Wolf -- After several exchanges of posts, I said: "Please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it."

British Free Corps mistakenly thought that he was the target of this post. I responded by saying: "My post on avoiding insults was directed to witness and Einsamer_Wolf, not you."

This statement was inaccurate as to witness and Einsamer_Wolf, and for that I apologize. Neither of you made any insulting remark. I should have restricted my statement to the original post: "Please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it," and confined my remarks to that.

The reason for making the remark in the first place was this: Historical problems are often complex, and the truth is hard to find even with a great deal of work and a searchlight. When people like you or I get caught up in an emotional and personal exchange of posts, passion sometimes makes the truth even more difficult to uncover.

In my case, I did not have the excuse of passion. I was tired from trying to post and proofread Grossadmiral Doenitz's testimony -- a task attended with many additional mistakes on my part. As a result, I lapsed into a conventional admonition to witness and Einsamer_Wolf about personal insults which they did not deserve. I am not going to go back and edit out my mistake, because mistakes are something you must live with and learn from. Gentlemen, again you have my apologies. And again, if you can, please keep the discussion on the historical topic, and avoid personalizing it.

How did i stray from the topic?

EW

PS and yes I get personal when one suggests that my interpretation of history is derived from nazi propaganda. Ergo--the use of the F word

[witness]

David I really appreciate your reply.And also no apology was necessary.
As for the passion I agree -I am very passionate about this issue by the obvious reasons.
You wrote

Historical problems are often complex, and the truth is hard to find even with a great deal of work and a searchlight.

I agree. But it is my personal conviction that the grief and destruction which was caused by the Nazi invasion to Russia is beyond any measure and could not be compared with the retribution ( not always just with which I completely agree ) of the Red Army.It is the truth for me.
The Nazi soldiers came burning and killing with nothing to revenge for .
The Red Army soldiers were avengers for their relatives and comrades.
Unfortunetely Avenge is often blind .
And again I would like to emphazise this word - unfortunetely.
Best Regards

[Peter H]

Thank you guys for all the Information.

And there are any reports of Rape commited by the Ameriacn soldiers?

Absolutely. Off the top of my head I know there were nine US soldiers executed for the crime of rape in the ETO. If you need a citation for this I'll dig it up and post it.

Reported US rape cases in ETO:

According to the publication "The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany":

"Between July 1942 and October 1945, 904 rape cases were charged in the European theater, 552 of them in Germany. All told, 487 soldiers were tried for rapes committed in the months of March and April, 1945.

German rape convinctions in Occupied France in 1940 were also around the 400 figure mark.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

http://www.argo.net.au/andre/osmarwhiteENFIN.htm

[Johnny]

Oleg,

Dude! You're reading to much into what I was saying. I never claimed there were any plans for DDR in 1945. Read what I wrote one more time and I'm sure you'll agree.

as for the official party policy and what they actually enforced in their propaganda can be seen here:

(my own translation)

" Kill, kill! There is not a single German that is innocent, not the living and not the unborn! Follow comerade Stalin's directive and crush the fascist beast in it's pit, forever. Break with force the racial pride of the German women. Take them as your rightful booty. Kill, you brave forward-rushing red-army soldiers."

"The Germans are not people. From now on the word 'German' is the worst cuss for us. From now on the soldier fires his rifle when he hears the word 'German'. We will not speak. We will not become upset -we're going to kill. If you havn't killed a German each day, then your day is ruined."

Written in July 1942 by the Russian propagandist Ehrenburg.

1.this is not an official party line - this an alleged writing of Ereneburg - one I could never locate a Russian orginal of.
2. For the original Party line see the Antonov-Stalin order
3. It was your idea to bring DDr into this.

Allrhight now Oleg, listen up.

1:Ortwin Buchbender, Das tönende Erz (Stuttgart 1978) page 305. Russian original from Heinz Newratil, Vertreibungsverbrechen an Deutschen (München 1982) page 99-100...
The other one is from Ahrens, page 16.

2: My point being that the official party line was quite diffrent from the actual one. Just like the official Nazi policy was to relocate jews in the east.

3: As I stated "And to show who was boss in what was later (to be) the DDR". Now where in this sentance did you find me claiming there were plans for a DDR in 1945? (And why not throw in 1944 while we're at it?)

Booyah...

[Roberto]

Roberto

I do find your apologism for teh Soviet scourge of Germany troubling, if not offensvie.

I think that's a lot of nonsense you're writing there. In view of my having taken the trouble to translate Manfred Zeidler's article for this forum, see the thread

Red Army Killing and Rape Crimes on German Soil
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

you obviously haven't looked at yet, I consider your statement an insult and expect an apology.

Roberto I apologize to an extent. It does seem to me, however, that you go to great lengtsh to diminish the excesses of the Red Army.

Better don’t push it, Wolf. I have no intention of diminishing the Red Army’s crimes. But I have a strong preference for evidence and solid investigation and research over tendentious speculations. The events in question were too horrible to blow them up beyond their actual dimensions.

I wouild like top remain a friendly repertoire with you, notwithstanding our apparent disagreement as to who ois the lesser of the two evils--a subject that I am most adament, even somewhat maniacal about. I have since skimmed the article in question. As to whether it is over 1.5 million or 100,000, I really do not follow the article's methodology.

I don’t see the problem. The article addresses the Red Army’s killing and rape crimes on German soil and analyzes their causes. It’s sources on the death toll of such crimes east of Oder and Neisse, where the worst atrocities occurred, are as solid as one could ask for: a report of the German Federal Archives dated 28 May 1974, attached to the decree of the Federal Minister of the Interior of 16 July 1969, and the scientific expulsion documentation of the Vertriebenenministerium (Ministry for Expulsion Affairs), prepared in the late 1950s. The latter, which yields higher figures, contains estimates based on death records, demographic data and presumably arguable assumptions. The former is based on an investigation which took the trouble of detecting and investigating 3,300 crimes sites and evaluating the depositions of all available witnesses on events that occurred there.

I do not know why, however, estimates reached by de Zayas would be wrong.

And I can’t tell why they should be right, until I’ve seen how they are substantiated and what they are based on. A discrepancy between sources as huge as we have here calls for clarification. Either the German Federal Archives and/or the Federal Ministry for Expulsion Affairs badly bungled their job – which I consider highly improbable –, or de Zayas sucked his figures out of his thumb, or you have misunderstood your source. So I’m looking forward to a comprehensive quote from de Zayas’ book that will enable us to clarify this issue.

I skimmed the article you mentioned, and it seems to me that the numbers he arrives at are impossibly conservative--only allowing for deaths that are certified by eye witness or otherwise recorded.

You didn’t skim carefully enough, otherwise you would have noticed that Zeidler refers to two reports:

[…]On hand of eyewitness reports from the various document collections related to the eastern lands, the Koblenz Federal Archives[my emphasis] established about 3,300 crime sites in the area east of the Oder and Neisse. For 2,620 of these sites it was possible to establish a number of about 24,500 persons who had met a violent death either at their places of home or during flight. For the remaining about 700 crime sites deaths could be recorded, but their number could not be exactly established. [Footnote: Report of the Federal Archives dated 28 May 1974, attached to the decree of the Federal Minister of the Interior of 16 July 1969, in: Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen, edited by the Cultural Foundation of German Expellees, Bonn 1989, pages 17 to 55, here pages 38 and 55]. The editors of the scientific expulsion documentation of the Vertriebenenministerium (Ministry for Expulsion Affairs)[my emphasis] calculated that between 2 and 3 per cent of the population staying behind in these area “were shot or killed in another way in the first weeks after the Russian occupation”, which would correspond to an absolute number of 75,000 to 100,000 victims of violence. To these there would have to be added about 19,000 further deaths from the areas outside the Reich borders [Footnote: As above, page 39. In an ‘Overall Survey for Clarification of the Fate of the German Population in the Expulsion Areas’ there were recorded by name, in the Oder-Neisse areas: 44,603 who were violently killed, 32,907 who died during deportation and 27,847 who died in camps. As above, page 41.][…]

I don’t see what could be wrong with the former source’s approach of evaluating testimonials. Nor do I see what could be wrong with the approach taken by the latter, which seems to be an estimate based on presumably founded assumptions and/or extrapolation of partial data. I strongly doubt that Mr. de Zayas – assuming you understood him correctly – has anything as solid to rely upon.

Most incredibly, the passage concedes that "Not included herein are the victims on the area of the Soviet Occupation Zone in the weeks and months after the middle of April 1945." This could be how many tens or hundreds of thousands of people!

Didn’t you refer de Zayas’ figure to East Prussia alone, my dear Wolf?

Your objection is somewhat hard to understand in the face hereof.

As to your speculation that tens or hundreds of thousands could have been killed in the Soviet Occupation Zone in the weeks and months after the middle of April 1945, it seems extremely unlikely that this was so not only because of the much shorter period of time (mid-April to mid-May, as opposed to mid-January to mid-April 1945 for crimes east of Oder and Neisse) during which such atrocities would have been committed. By the time the Red Army reached the Oder, as Zeidler points out, the Soviet leadership had taken serious steps to rein in its troops and put an end to Ehrenburg’s hate propaganda. Such measures did not immediately become fully effective, of course. Zeidler, my translation:

A Change of Policy

A political calculation favored the violent behavior, insofar at was restricted to the region east of Oder and Neisse. It resulted from the fact that the postwar fate of these areas had already been decided about in a secret, (people’s) Polish - Soviet border agreement of 27 July 1944, due to which both partners had no interest in a sparing treatment of the German population remaining there. On the contrary: an ethnic cleansing of these regions through a flight unleashed in the course of the combat actions was even bound to be considered a desired effect. This changed radically only with the Red Army’s advance onto the territory of the later Soviet Occupation Zone in the course of the “Berlin Operation” since 16 April 1945. [b9Now the task was to build a constructive relationship towards the German people on the soil of the own occupation zone and to give clear signs in this direction. On 14 April 1945 Ehrenburg was thus publicly lectured on grounds of his destructive hate - and revenge propaganda by the propaganda department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The political proclamations to the troops at the beginning of the offensive on Oder and Neisse now emphasized, contrary to what had been the case during the January offensive at the Vistula, the proletarian internationalism and the “brotherly alliance with the German workers”. “Hate against the Germans, hit the Germans!” was now considered “the slogan of ordinary, i.e. bourgeois patriotism”.[/b][my emphasis] [Footnote: F.J. Bokov, Frühjahr des Sieges und der Befreiung (“Spring of Victory and Liberation”), Berlin 1981, page 150.]
Another signal followed on 17 April 1945, when a decision of 3 February of that year was modified to the effect that the recruitment and deportation of forced laborers from the German population was stopped. Three days later Stalin himself, in a directive of his headquarters to the soldiers of 20 April headed “About the Change of Behavior of Red Army Troops towards the German Prisoners of War and the Civilian Population”, pointed out the need of a change for the better in this respect: “A more humane behavior towards the Germans”, it was stated therein, would facilitate “the conduction of military operations on their territory and diminish their resistance”. Furthermore a population frightened to death would organize itself in bands, which was also “of disadvantage for us”. Even ordinary members of the NSDAP should not be bothered if they showed themselves loyal towards the Red Army. Only the leaders were to be arrested “if they have not yet managed to get away”.[my emphasis] In parallel to this proclamations were issued to the German population not to give credence to rumors about “Bolshevik atrocities” and massive deportations, together with the advice to neither flee now follow any evacuation orders.
The signals from above had thus unequivocally been given. Yet the new line in the relationship towards the Germans could not immediately become effective against a tendency for revenge and retaliation that the army had been inoculated with for years, for which reason there were many excesses and rapes also west of the Oder and Neisse. But now the leadership had a clear political interest in making every effort to prevent or stop them.[my emphasis] The propagandistic overdose administered to motivate the troops in the end turned against Moscow’s interests as an occupying power and eventually did lasting damage to the image of the USSR among the population of the two German postwar states.
It fatally corresponded to the character of the Stalinist system to bring about political changes of course through the use of its bureaucratic-propagandistic apparatus on the administrative way without taking into consideration the victims, individual suffering and the natural sluggishness of human habits. The events discussed here cannot be detached from this context of the political system.

THis is particularly so when many Germans were repatriated to Stalinist Gulags!

Just how many, Wolf? And how many of those died, how many returned? Do you have any good sources on these deportations?

Ultimately, it is probably not possible to arrive at an exact figure.

Sure, but this shouldn’t keep us from trying to achieve the best approximation that evidence allows for. Nor should it be an excuse for blowing up or playing down the death toll according to what better serves someone's pre-conceived notions.

Estiamates during the entire war on the Eastern Front arte speculiatve. Take for example the oft thrown around figure that 20 million Russian died at the hands of the Nazis, either through combat or atrocity. This was the figure thrown around for decads. I rememver seeing it in my grandfather's Time Life book on World War II as a boy.

It was the figure officially communicated by the Krushchev government, if I remember correctly, and post-Soviet research has shown it to be somewhat on the low side, i.e. the Soviet government was reluctant to reveal the true death toll to either its own people or the outside world. Neither the old official figure nor the new ones established by Russian and foreign scholars can be called merely "speculative". They are based on population statistics, death registers, recently revealed Red Army casualty statistics, reports of Soviet investigation commissions and much documentary evidence from the German side. Extrapolation of partial data on the basis of reasonable assumptions is one thing, speculation another.

Then the Iron Curtain falls, the Russian disclose thousands of documents, revealing Stalinist purges, blcoking units other things that indicate the Soviet regime was responsible for millions of deaths.

Boy, I’d sure like to see those documents and how you derive millions of deaths during to wartime purges and blocking units therefrom. Until given a convincing demonstration, I’ll file this assertion under "wishful thinking", if you don’t mind.

There is thus no way to know for certainty the nubmer to Soviet deaths are attributable to the Germans because of combat or atrocity, and those which are attributable to Stalin's policy.

The same goes for this one. There’s enough evidence from the German side to establish with a fair degree of certainty, on the basis of such evidence alone or by using it to complement or cross-check evidence from the Soviet side, what crimes were committed by the German invaders/occupiers and how many victims they claimed. As to your murderous blocking detachments killing millions of Soviet soldiers, let’s have a look at the research of British historian Richard Overy.

[…]After the war it was forbidden to publish any details about Order Number 227, though it had been distributed to all fighting units. Not until 1988 was its existence first revealed to the Soviet public. The order did not fit with the post-war image of Soviet heroism and self-sacrifice, for it not only called for a fight to the death, but promised the severest punishments for those who flinched. Anyone caught within the net of the order, the ‘panickers’ and ‘cowards’, were liable to summary execution or service in shtrafbaty, penal battalions. There were penal units for senior officers who shirked their duty and separate units for junior officers and privates, modelled, according to the order, on German practice during the winter fighting in 1941.[my emphasis] Stalin also authorised so-called ‘blocking units’ (otryadi zagrazhdeniye from the regular Red Army troops, whose task was to prevent panic and desertion and keep soldiers fighting. They were supposed to co-operate with the thousands of NKVD troops who had been performing the same task without a specific order. In practice these new units found themselves carrying out menial tasks or guard duty in the rear when they were desperately needed at the front. On October 29 they were cancelled by a fresh order. The NKVD troops continued to track down anyone accused of slacking or cowardice. Guilt did not need to be clear. The practices of the pre-war terror were re-imposed to keep Soviet soldiers fighting. The slightest infringement could be interpreted as sabotage; desertion was punishable by a death sentence, meted out by hundreds of summary courts-martial. Over the course of the war 442,000 were forced to serve in penal battalions; a further 436,000 were sentenced to periods of imprisonment.[my emphasis] How many died at the hands of their own side, either shot, or lost in the suicidal missions assigned to penal battalions, may never be known with any certainty. Latest Russian estimates put the figure as high as 158,000 sentenced to be shot during the war.[my emphasis] The penal battalions were given the most dangerous work. They were sent ahead through minefields or on air attacks into the teeth of German defences. They could be reinstated only if they were wounded. ‘Atoned with his own blood’ was added to their reports.[…]

Even Holocaust figures are based on levels of European Jewry before and after--nothing more.

This assertion betrays a considerable degree of ignorance on the subject matter addressed, which some close reading of the pertinent threads on this forum will hopefully help to remove.

This is of course only related to describe the inherent difficult in arriving at figures during this time and place of history. Any number that ever comes close to the unknowable truth will be approximate only, just as ultra-conservative numbers will greatly diminish the true numbers of dead simply because many atrocities cannot be verified with scientific exactiude.

There’s still a difference between figures supported as best as possible by acknowledged sources of forensic and historical evidence – documents, eyewitnesses and physical traces in the former, these plus demographic calculations in the latter case – on the one hand and unsupported speculations on the other.

In the meantime, allow me some time to read de Zayas again, ro at least crucial portions related to this discussion.

Please take your time to transcribe whatever you consider pertinent. I would very much like to see to which of the above mentioned categories Mr. de Zayas’ figures belong.

MInd yout hat I am not a professioanl historian--I have other things going on.

So have I, an amateur like yourself. But I have this aversion to wild, unsubstantiated assertions being thrown around on a forum that is supposed to be a historical one.

Best regards,

Roberto

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Oleg,

Dude! You're reading to much into what I was saying. I never claimed there were any plans for DDR in 1945. Read what I wrote one more time and I'm sure you'll agree.

as for the official party policy and what they actually enforced in their propaganda can be seen here:

(my own translation)

" Kill, kill! There is not a single German that is innocent, not the living and not the unborn! Follow comerade Stalin's directive and crush the fascist beast in it's pit, forever. Break with force the racial pride of the German women. Take them as your rightful booty. Kill, you brave forward-rushing red-army soldiers."

"The Germans are not people. From now on the word 'German' is the worst cuss for us. From now on the soldier fires his rifle when he hears the word 'German'. We will not speak. We will not become upset -we're going to kill. If you havn't killed a German each day, then your day is ruined."

Written in July 1942 by the Russian propagandist Ehrenburg.

1.this is not an official party line - this an alleged writing of Ereneburg - one I could never locate a Russian orginal of.
2. For the original Party line see the Antonov-Stalin order
3. It was your idea to bring DDr into this.

Allrhight now Oleg, listen up.

1:Ortwin Buchbender, Das tönende Erz (Stuttgart 1978) page 305. Russian original from Heinz Newratil, Vertreibungsverbrechen an Deutschen (München 1982) page 99-100...
The other one is from Ahrens, page 16.

see what- you did not post anything

2: My point being that the official party line was quite diffrent from the actual one. Just like the official Nazi policy was to relocate jews in the east.

I see you deem writng of the "Red Star" correpsondednt more official than order by the Defense Commisar.

3: As I stated "And to show who was boss in what was later (to be) the DDR". Now where in this sentance did you find me claiming there were plans for a DDR in 1945? (And why not throw in 1944 while we're at it?)

Booyah...[/quote] .

2: My point being that the official party line was quite diffrent from the actual one. Just like the official Nazi policy was to relocate jews in the east.

I see you deem writings of the "Red Star" correspondent more official than order by the Defense Commissar. Interesting approach . Now if you only could show that it was in fact the case.

3: As I stated "And to show who was boss in what was later (to be) the DDR". Now where in this sentance did you find me claiming there were plans for a DDR in 1945? (And why not throw in 1944 while we're at it?)

You sentence implies that were plans for DDR and that Red Army sh9wing who would be the boss. I pointed out that since there no such plans then “showing who is the boss” does not make any sense.