War Crimes of the Red army

[Kunikov]

Jones doesn't address any numbers within his book,

...tho' according to your review he DOES address quantities...

The Red Army's crossing over into Germany proper brings much debate and controversy. What Jones attempts to do, and in truth does very well, is contextualize what Red Army soldiers perpetrated on German territory. In showcasing what Red Army soldiers witnessed on their way to Germany, the enormous amount of death and destruction they came through during the liberation of Ukraine and Belorussia, the liberation of camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz (both of which are discussed by Jones in this book), as well as the regular propaganda campaign waged by the Soviet Union in order to keep up Red Army morale and encourage them to 'kill' the occupiers of their territory and the murderers of their families and friends, there is reason to suspect that such bent up anger and hatred would have an outlet once the German border was crossed. And this is exactly what happened. But Jones also gives voice to those soldiers who attempted to curb the violence, looting, raping, and murder that was going on. He continually implies that this was a minority within the Red Army that contributed to the 'total war' mentality of the time and shows orders coming from the high command and army command that attempted to curb any type of violence and looting against the local population, changing the propaganda of the time from 'destroy the fascist beast in his lair' to a voice claiming the Red Army is an army of liberation. There are some heartwrenching stories presented of Red Army soldiers taking out their hatred on the German population, all too often women, but in each case Jones attempts to contextualize the atmosphere these events occurred in and the reaction of Red Army soldiers to these events, which after the initial euphoria of revenge passed quickly into condemnation, contempt and a questioning of their methods. Many soldiers even attempted to protect the local population, forgetting or at least putting aside the propaganda they had been exposed to for years.

As in comparing one degree of something with another...

'Numbers' and 'quantities' are not one and the same here. As was pointed out already, we'll never know all the details or numbers of what happened. According to the research he's done, it was a minority that committed crimes.

[phylo_roadking]

According to the research he's done, it was a minority that committed crimes.

And that's the point where"numbers" and "quantities" do come together; for instance - 5% would be a "minority"...but so would 49.9999999%...

[Sid Guttridge]

Yes, an interesting and worthwhile review.

With regards the "minority committing war crimes":

Most soldiers kill or injure nobody, even in battle. The USSR mobilized some 34,000,000 men. German civilian dead were in the order of 3,500,000 million (some 600,000 definitely accounted for by Western Allied bombing) and "punishment" rapes are usually given at around 2,000,000. Even if all the deaths were down to murder by the Red Army and there was not a single multiple killer or multiple rapist in it, only about 1 in 7 (about 14%) of Red Army men could have committed these major crimes. However, the likelihood is there was a very much smaller number of Red Army men involved who committed multiple crimes.

So it seems likely that not merely a minority, but quite probably a small minority, committed the major crimes of murder and systematic rape.

[Jan-Hendrik]

"punishment" rapes are usually given at around 2,000,000

2 Mio. raped women or 2 Mio. cases of Rape? Both much underestiminated...

Not to forget that not only german women were victims, but ukrainian, polish, romanian, hungarian etc. women, too!

Jan-Hendrik

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi J-H,

2,000,000 may or may not be an underestimate, but it seems to be a widely used figure.

If you know better, you should explain what your evidence is.

Similarly, if you have any hard facts on rapes elsewhere, you should bring them forward.

Until you do, the statistics we do have indicate that although the alleged crimes ran into the millions, murder and rape cannot have been committed in Germany by more than a minority, perhaps even a small minority, of the 34,000,000 men mobilized by the Red Army.

I am perfectly willing to modify my view, but only on the presentation of some evidence.

[Jan-Hendrik]

I am studying the Eastern Front 1944/45 now for about 20 years....and yes, it was 'the normal' that cities and villages were 'free' for looting and raping after their 'liberation'...and it was the exeption if it did not happened.

Statistics does not exist, as there was no legal authority that could be interested in examining the cases, or to prosecute the perperators.

If you see what territories were 'freed' by Red Army in 1944/45 you could imagine that 10 Mio. raped women would be a low estimination, and as gang rape was the ususal procedre in these cases you may imagine how many cases may have happened...and than you may try to estimante how many percent of Red Army soldiers did not have participated in raping and looting.

Jan-Hendrik

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi J-H,

Yes, "statistics do not exist" for these crimes. You are therefore plucking your accusations out of thin air.

That being so, you cannot reasonably claim that more than a minority of the Red Army committed the crimes of murder and rape.

We do know that about 34,000,000 men were mobilized by the Red Army. We know that a little under 3,000,000 German civilian deaths may be attributable to Soviet actions during and after the war in the principal enemy, Germany. The generally accepted figure for rapes of German women is around 2,000,000.

Add this to the likelihood that many of the crimes were committed by multiple offenders, and it is thus very unlikely that more than a small minority of Red Army men personally committed either murder or rape.

That said, the numbers remain large and discreditable.

[Jan-Hendrik]

The generally accepted figure for rapes of German women is around 2,000,000.

Maybe in the english language area...but what is known there about had happened in the East? Not more than the top of the iceberg

There were several hundert thousend cases of rape just in Berlin after its 'liberation'...and that was a small area

Jan-Hendrik

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi J-H,

1) Where is the figure of "several hundred thousand cases of rape in Berlin" from?

2) How do we know how many Red Army men were involved?

3) Given that the immediate aftermath of the fall of the enemy's capital might well represent the peak incidence of these crimes, why is it incompatible with an overall figure of around 2,000,000?

[LWD]

Given that the exact numbers and frequency has never been and now likely never WILL be quantified - how can you say that there is regular exaggeration? We don't know the numbers, so how do we "know" they've been exaggerated?

Because the oft-quoted number is 2 million, that's well enough established, the statistics it's based on aren't backed up by any factual data. Thus it is an extrapolation and at best an exaggeration that has been parroted for years, if not decades.

It's not really an extrapolation. That occurs when you have several data points and project data beyond them. In this case if you are talking hard numbers there are no data points. Similarly it is perfectly possible that it is an exaggeration but it's also possible that it's not.

[Kunikov]

Given that the exact numbers and frequency has never been and now likely never WILL be quantified - how can you say that there is regular exaggeration? We don't know the numbers, so how do we "know" they've been exaggerated?

Because the oft-quoted number is 2 million, that's well enough established, the statistics it's based on aren't backed up by any factual data. Thus it is an extrapolation and at best an exaggeration that has been parroted for years, if not decades.

It's not really an extrapolation. That occurs when you have several data points and project data beyond them. In this case if you are talking hard numbers there are no data points. Similarly it is perfectly possible that it is an exaggeration but it's also possible that it's not.

In this case it is an extrapolation since the statistic is based on a single clinic/hospital from the Berlin area and then extrapolated out to the rest of Germany.

See the following:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... ape+beevor

Barbara Johr's method. About 110.000 victims in Berlin:
The number of victims in Berlin is based on the statistics of just one clinique, namely "Empress Augusta Vicktoria" childrens clinique (Kaiserin Auguste Victoria Haus - Kinderklinik).

From this table we see that in 1945 there were born 12 (or 13, including a case marked as questionable) children whose farthers were "Russians". That is 12 (or 13) out of total 237 children who were monitored in the clinique.
For 1946 the number are as following: 20 (or 21) children were with "Russian" fathers out of total 567 monitored.

On the basis of this table, Johr postulates that in case of a rape pregnancy followed in 20% of cases, i.e. 118 out of 514.

After this Johr does the following calculation:
The official Berlin statistics states 23124 newborn in the period of Sept.1945 - Aug.1946. According to "Empress Augusta Vicktoria" stats the farthers of 5% of these babies were "Russians". 5% of 23124 = 1156.
90% pregnant victims got abortion. This means 1156*10 = 11560 women victims.
After a rape the chances for a victim to get pregnant were 20%, hense there were raped 11560*5 = 57800 women.
At that time Berlin housed 600 thousands women of fertile age (18-45 y.o.). Then 57800/600000 = 9,5% of them were raped.
Appart from women mentioned in point 4, there were also women of other ages. Girls of 14-18 y.o. and older then 45 y.o. Their total number was 800 thousands women. If we assume that 9,5% of them were raped too, this gives us 73300 additional victims.
Thus out of 1,4 Million female population of Berlin between Spring and Autumn 1945 were raped from 94450 to 131100 women. In average 110000+ victims.

Criticism of Johr's calculation:
I. The whole calculation is based on the data of only one clinique - "Kaiserin Auguste Victoria Haus". It is immpossible to oversee that at the base of the number of thousands and thousands (110.000) victims lais practicaly single instances. F.ex. if we account 9 children in "questionable cases" as "Russian" then there will be 22 "Russian children" out of 237 (9%). This will at the end increase the Berlin number from 110K to 198K in one go.

II. In the first table the line "Father Russian" and "Father Russian/rape" are two different ones. But Johr adds them up together. This is discussible. Though the reason is probably Johr understands term "rape" is it's most widest form. Dating Soviet officer for benefits - rape.
Anyway, according the words in the clinique documentation the number of children born after rape were 5+4 = 9 out of 804 (1945 and 1946), i.e. 1,1%.
If we take this number as a base then the total Berlin number suddenly would drop from 110K to 24K in just one go.
Johr's logic applied without consideration whoud f.ex. give us that other Allied forces only in 1945 raped 50.000 women (5+1+1+4+2 out of 567 gives us 2,2% victims).

III. Johr statement tat 90% of pregnancies after rape were terminated by abortion are not backed up by anything except that people say there were "many" abortions. Johr doesn't explain why many in this case means 90%.
In th mean while the data for the women clinique in Charite, uqoted by Johr, showes 40 abortion out of 118, i.e. 34%. Not 90%. So if we change just this, then the totsal Berlin number goes from 110K to 16K victims.

IV. Undoubtably the peak of the raping occured in April-MAy 1945. Then one could expect peak of births of "Russian children" in Jan-Feb 1946. But according to the data for "Kaiserin Auguste Victoria Haus" there were born more "Russian children" in 1945 than in 1946. How can it be? If these are the children of refugees, then they should not be accounted in Berlin statistics.

V. The logic of Johr's point 5 is plain and simple and can be shortly expressed: They raped everyone from 8 to 80. Such logic beyond good and eveil and deffinately beyond impartial research.

In my opinion such approach where one can play with number the way he wants and where single cases lead to result change by many-many thousands is not the right one.

[LWD]

.. It's not really an extrapolation. That occurs when you have several data points and project data beyond them. In this case if you are talking hard numbers there are no data points. Similarly ....

In this case it is an extrapolation since the statistic is based on a single clinic/hospital from the Berlin area and then extrapolated out to the rest of Germany.
...

It's still arguably not extrapolation although this may only be a semantic point. A least as I was taught in school both interpelation and extrapolation required fitting a curve (which if only two data points were present is a line) and in the former case finding interior values in the latter exterior values. One point simply cannot define a curve and thus no extrapolation. Which means you are being over generous to those who use the approach you stated. Extrapolation is considered a "shakey" tool but it's also considered as useable in some cases. Projecting values from a single data point is considered worse even if the point is "good".

[Kunikov]

.. It's not really an extrapolation. That occurs when you have several data points and project data beyond them. In this case if you are talking hard numbers there are no data points. Similarly ....

In this case it is an extrapolation since the statistic is based on a single clinic/hospital from the Berlin area and then extrapolated out to the rest of Germany.
...

It's still arguably not extrapolation although this may only be a semantic point. A least as I was taught in school both interpelation and extrapolation required fitting a curve (which if only two data points were present is a line) and in the former case finding interior values in the latter exterior values. One point simply cannot define a curve and thus no extrapolation. Which means you are being over generous to those who use the approach you stated. Extrapolation is considered a "shakey" tool but it's also considered as useable in some cases. Projecting values from a single data point is considered worse even if the point is "good".

I'm using the following definition of the word:

ex·trap·o·late   [ik-strap-uh-leyt] verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
2.
Statistics . to estimate (the value of a variable) outside the tabulated or observed range.
3.
Mathematics . to estimate (a function that is known over a range of values of its independent variable) to values outside the known range.

What I'm seeing is a number being inferred 'from something that is known'. If you believe 'extrapolation' is too good a description in this case, that's understandable.

[LWD]

I tned to think of it interms of the 2nd and 3rd defintions which both use the term "range" which implies two or more data points. Usint a single data point even if a great deal of work is done to make sure that point is indeed representataive of the population one is discussing is very shakey. When it appears that little or no such effort has been made it doesn't deserve to be dignifed by even such a questionable label. It is worth remembering however that this means that it is almost completely useless as indictaror of the mean in either direction.

[Kunikov]

I tned to think of it interms of the 2nd and 3rd defintions which both use the term "range" which implies two or more data points. Usint a single data point even if a great deal of work is done to make sure that point is indeed representataive of the population one is discussing is very shakey. When it appears that little or no such effort has been made it doesn't deserve to be dignifed by even such a questionable label. It is worth remembering however that this means that it is almost completely useless as indictaror of the mean in either direction.

In terms of statistics, the 2nd and 3rd would probably apply better. In this case, it's interesting to note that something considerably less valuable than an extrapolation has taken definitive root in the history of the Second World War.