Talk:Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

infiltration

i infiltrated (urban exploration) a part of the memorial (under the "flags"). i've taken photos...it is pretty interesting, i think it is mostly just for maintenance of the memorial, though. if this might be of any use to the article, post in reply here and ill set up a way to see the photos...

Names of the two memorials

I've moved the monument to its own article (Soviet War Memorial, Berlin) and expanded it, but this now raises the question of what we should call the yet-unwritten article about the Tiergarten monument. I've provisionally added links to Soviet Memorial, Berlin-Tiergarten, but realize that this pairing might not be ideal. There seems to be little consistency on the use of names of either, so we might want to move them both to Soviet War Memorial, Berlin-Treptow and Soviet War Memorial, Berlin-Tiergarten or a similar parallel formulation.

The Memorial to Polish Soldiers and German Anti-Fascists, Berlin might also want a less verbose title, but I have to finish writing it first.

 ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

in de.wp the articles are named de:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Tiergarten), de:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Treptower Park) and (not yet existing) de:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Schönholzer Heide) (but there is already an image: commons:Image:Berlin Ehrenmal Schoenholz.JPG). In Commons there is also a gallery for the Tiergarten memorial: commons:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Tiergarten). greetings. --BLueFiSH ✉ 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we might want to follow this precedent, although perhaps retaining the "Berlin" in the title as well. I think "Berlin-Schönholz" might do just as well without the "Heide", that's how I've heard it described, and an article about it would be good (I walked past it an hour ago, I should have taken pictures) though the other two I mentioned are more pressing. I might write the Polish memorial article tonight, as I took some pictures a couple of days ago.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomb of the unknown rapist

---

Women of the (East) German wartime generation still refer to it as the "tomb of the unknown rapist" due to the mass rapes by Red Army soldiers in the years following 1945.

---

Now obviously the text is referenced, see for example the end of this article

Therefore I'm a bit alarmed to see a number of IP addresses deleting that information using various motives such as: "It doesn't matter how someone calls a monument to a child savior. Place this info elsewhere"

Now to this latest deletion by Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs), after my request for an explanation at talk. The edit summary was: [1] "You may have problems. It was discussed and explained long before". I have two issues with this. 1. Please be civil. 2. I can not see the issue discussed anywhere, except as the edit summary of the anonymous included above. It is fairly WP:Notability that a monument is called "Tomb of the unknown rapist. To want to remove that information you have to do more than simply delete with some vague referal to "discussed and explained long before". Discussed where?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably don't get a point why this monument stands in the Treptower Park. It is dedicated exactly to soldiers who managed to keep humanity instead of revenge for what German Nazis did in the Soviet Union . Look, the soldier holds a child who he just saved. Placing such an info disgraces the memory, I dare to say, of these holy people. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Beatle. This is outrageous. Please go Washington Monument article and add its characterization as a "patently phallic structure" referenced to The Economist (see [2]). Then please let us know how it went. And note that that is the monument to a politician, no doubt a positive figure, but still politicians are routinely mocked. This here is a monument of a different kind. All German people I met, and I met many, understand the difference. I hope Wikipedia editors would draw some conclusions. Thanks, --Irpen 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously an emotional subject for some. You would have done better by challenging the source, which is the only possible weak point in the inclusion of the sentence, and not some emotional appeal to saintly soldiers.

May I humbly request that we ask for a third opinion, preferably from someone not connected to editing central or Eastern Europe topics?

For the sake of clarity I would like to also answer your post, Irpen. There is a huge difference between a newspaper giving a national monument a derogatory name, and having the entire female population of an occupied nation giving a derogatory name to a monument erected by conquerors and occupiers. So, we have here an alleged "child-saver" monument erected to give tribute to the Russian army. To explain why the population who have to live with this document gave it a derogatory name is easy to understand:

[3]Sadly, it was the weak and defenseless, the villagers and townspeople of Eastern Germany, who first felt the impact of the Soviet army. Pumped up with Zhukov's rhetoric, Soviet soldiers unleashed a campaign of terror in the Eastern German lands of Pomerania, Silesia, and East Prussia that was barbaric even by the standards of an already ghastly war. Not only were Germans abused, terrorized, and driven off their land, but they were murdered in large numbers, and women in particular were made into targets of abuse. German women were raped in unimaginable numbers, then often killed or left to die from their wounds. Some women's bodies were found raped, mutilated, and nailed to barn doors. Hundreds of thousands of women have given testimony to the rapes they endured at the hands of the Russians; historian Norman Naimark has estimated that as many as 2 million may have been sexually assaulted. Worse, most women were victims of repeated rapings; some were raped as many as sixty to seventy times.

[4]In any case, just as each rape survivor carried the effects of the crime with ther until the end of her life, so was the collective anguish nearly unbearable. The social psychology of women and men in the soviet zone of occupation was marked by the crime of rape from the first days of occupation, through the founding of the GDR in the fall of 1949, until - one could argue - the present. The German women's fear of russians and the association of Soviet troops with rape and looting became the central [East] German argument against closer ties with the Soviet Union.

Based on that I see very clearly why a Soviet monument giving tribute to Soviet troops would have acquired a widely used derogatory nickname. I think the German nickname of the monument placed in Germany is notable enough to be included, despite the risk of offending the sensibilities of some people living in a country far away from the monument. However, I don't intend to risk getting sucked into an edit cold-war with "anonymous" editors and others, so I suggest we ask for a balanced review from hopefully neutral, non central/eastern Europe related, sources.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that something being "referenced" does not warrant the automatic inclusion left and right. Material should not just be referenced, but covered properly. Proper coverage means, among other things, correct choice of articles and avoidance of forking. This has nothing to do with "offending sensibilities" but with maintaining the articles encyclopedic.

I don't see why you brought up the refs above from elsewhere. Soviet atrocities are covered in various article of wikipedia. Some users you know well inject the material indiscriminately in articles left and right. There are bunch of "Soviet occupation", "Soviet repression", etc. forks where the same material gets repeatedly pasted by users into existing articles where it is off-topic or through creation of new fork-articles under POVed titles. Your references to Soviet atrocities above may be related to the articles on such topics. What did you want to prove by using them at the talk page of this article? That Soviets did bad things? We know that and this is not the subject of this discussion. We are talking here about the propriety of adding some questionable stuff into an article about the monument.

I gave you an example of the material being referenced but deemed unsuited for the inclusion in the particular article about an architectulal subject. Phallic references to the Washington monument are very common. We do not include them into there. This here is the exact same situation.

I always welcome asking for more feedback but please avoid some general remarks that are easy to perceive as dismissive to the group of editors because of their ethnic and cultural background. Before this discussion gets an infusion of some users who follow me around, let's resolve this amicably and use some common sense. --Irpen 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should resolve this amicably. Let me respond to you topic by topic.

1. Why did I include the quotes and references to the Soviet troops behavior here at the talk page? Mainly due to the editor who received your support. In particular due to his motivation that "Placing such an info disgraces the memory, I dare to say, of these holy people.". I felt it was necessary to point out that that opinion rimes badly with what scholars think of the those people. Maybe there were some that did nothing bad, and even did good. But the monument symbolizes the whole group, and on average the group did extremely despicable things.
2. Yes, I've gotten to know the certain people you refer to very well, and perhaps I overdid it a bit with the quotes here on the talk page. I've actually started contemplating whether their behavior might not actually have started rubbing off on me, and others, which is a very scary thought. They really should have been permanently blocked a long time ago.
3. I don't see that the comparison you make to the apparent phallic symbolism of the Washington monument is relevant. It is so obvious from the shape that it would add very little value to the reader to know that others have made the connection. To be able to look up which monument the locals in Berlin are referring to when they mention the "tomb of the unknown rapist", on the other hand, is very encyclopedic in my opinion.
4. I did a little digging, after my remark on the weakness of the references, and I believe you are right that it should not be included in this article. But not for the reasons you state. The reason is simply that I've come to the conclusion that for now the sources can only with certainty be used to include the name in relation to the much smaller monument with its tombs, in the center of Berlin: Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten). see these references: [5], [6]. Apparently Beevor, who is the source for the second link, also refers to the monument in the center of the city, i.e Tiergarten.
5. I hope as you say we can resolve this amicably before the "traveling circus" that seems to be following both of use around , in my case only one since two years or so and in the last few months frequently closely assisted by a second more eloquent one, arrives here. I propose that the alternative name be reinstated in the Tiergarten article, and dropped as not reliably enough referenced in this article. I hope that solution should also be good enough for "Beatle Fab Four" since the Tiergarten monument seems unrelated to any child-savers. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the discussion is a bit old now, but are there any reliable German sources for this alternative name? Yaan (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that this "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" debate is again rearing it's ugly head again. Another page for my watch list. The inclusion of "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" has to be dealt with as per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I find a total of 1 scholar result for that term, and 4 book results (2 of which look like self-published books), and 2 news results. I would remind people that there is enforcement in place due to this Arbcom on subjects such as this, and I won't hesitate to report any user who re-inserts said information, first without discussion, and having some damned solid sources for the inclusion of said material. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE? Certainly not, scholarly cited criticism of a notable monument by local people is certainly notable on its own too. As for WP:UNDUE, you might be concerned about placing this tidbit to a too prominent position. I could offer a compromise -- moving it away from the section on layout, to a section of criticism. How about that? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unknown Rapist, part 2

Women of the (East) German wartime generation still refer to it as the "tomb of the unknown rapist" due to the mass rapes by Red Army soldiers in the years following 1945.[1] [2][3]” is a FACT cited with multiple reliable sources. Because it is only given a single sentence, it is not given an "undue weight." Furthermore, this FACT reflects the attitude of the locals who live with this monument in response to a significant historical event in the aftermath of the Second World War (mass rape of German civilians). It is pretty clear that the only reason why this FACT is labeled "unencyclopedic" and thus removed is because certain editors take this FACT as a personal insult from other editors (the only other reason I can think of is that certain editors are deliberately trying to cover up factual information, but I prefer to assume good faith). It is an objectively stated FACT that gives readers more information of how this monument in German territory is seen by Germans. Perhaps other attitudes Germans have towards the monument can be included, but there is no justifiable reason to continually delete this FACT. --24.240.181.122 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking for a counterargument I can only offer you this. The material you want to include is hate speech, however sourced it is. There is no limit to the amount of well sourced hate speech from Eastern Europe that is available. It is my view, that we should reject all of it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for being so blunt, but your judgment regarding hate speech has been found rather bad before. I wouldn't rely on said judgment if I was you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts which are uncomplimentary are not hate speech. PetersV       TALK 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hate speech"? "KGB Internet Troll Squad"? I assume this is satire. Either way, I lol'd. --24.240.181.122 (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you lol'd, because you are using this article as a WP:BATTLEground. To show your sincerity, please add to Vietnam veteran that they are also known as baby killers, because the results show that this is a term used to describe this group, more than the term tomb of the unknown rapist is used to describe this war memorial...615 book results, 233 scholar results, 1,260 news results, 28,800 web results. Now compare that to tomb of the unknown rapist; 1 scholar result, 4 book results, 2 news results and 132 web results. Once you finish lol'ing, and insert baby killers into Vietnam veteran, then we can discuss inserting a WP:FRINGE term used via an absolute minority of people to describe this monument, which needs to be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the news article referenced, is not on this monument, but is a review of the book which is being used as a reference. So it can't be used as per WP:V. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) I think it's more than fair to mention that while the Red Army reached Berlin first, what was done to its civilian population was reputably documented to be more pillage and rape than to liberate. The Germans didn't erect the monument after all. Perhaps if the Red Army hadn't raped countless thousands of women while making the world safe from Nazism, the nickname might not exist. Let's not whitewash what happened during the liberation of Berlin.
   The challenge is to include the additional content in a manner that the reason for the moniker is quantified and qualified (for example, 5 raped = undue, I have seen estimates of 80,000 to well over 100,000 raped just in Berlin = not undue), and done in a manner which does not denigrate those of the Red Army who made the ultimate sacrifice being an honest soldier defending their homeland. This news article on a book regarding such war crimes presents a NPOV account which concludes with the pejorative in question, note, used by women of the era.
   Arguing against including the dark parts of the Soviet legacy is nothing but whitewashing. That this dark legacy doggedly follows the Red Army is the fault of none but the Red Army and the consequence of nothing but its actions.
   Enter "monument" (denkmal) and "rapist" (vergewaltiger) in German into Google and the very first match is an article about a study regarding the hundreds of thousands of German women raped by the Allies—and we know who got there first. (Google translation here). PetersV       TALK 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reproduce here exactly where it calls this a "tomb of the unknown rapist" or anything remotely similar, because I do believe you have just engaged in a little WP:OR/WP:SYN. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article I referenced. I am providing additional information that should be part of the narrative so that the moniker is placed into context. Explanatory narrative is not original research or synthesis, it is good article writing. PetersV       TALK 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is basically a review of the book which is used as a reference. It's not independent reporting by the DailyTel. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) Further investigation shows tomb/monument/statue/memorial + unknown rapist/rapist Russian in wider use in Germany referring to Soviet era statues the Soviets built to honor themselves, the key word being "rapist." So this is not a phenomenon we can simply delete as hate speech, as pejorative, as denigrating, etc. What makes this instance particularly notable is that it refers to something the Soviets built in the German capital.
   As for the "not independent reporting" it's then simple enough to reference the book not the article. PetersV       TALK 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's get constructive

It's not constructive to hold lengthy warm and fuzzy talks without ever reaching a decision. Let's collect different ways to resolve this issue, and then discuss -- and perhaps poll -- on the specific resolutions.

It seems to me that so far, there are three main approaches recommended:

1. we could delete the whole sentence;

2. we could keep the sentence where it is;

3. we could move the sentence to a section of criticism.

Are there any other viable resolutions that should be considered? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba seems offers a fourth viable resolution below:

4. move the sentence to a separate article, say Critical views of Soviet war memorials in Germany, and leave only a link to that article -- and perhaps a brief summary -- here.

Are there any other options? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What it boils down to is:

a. Do we mention in the article that Germans consider the Red Army to have been rapists? Makes "occupiers" bland by comparison, or...

b. Do we delete all mention of Germans considering the Red Army rapists because the Germans ostensibly deserved what they got?

as the two camps here appear to be boiling this down to...

a. = Rapists

b. = Liberators

and never the twain shall meet.

   Personally, I believe the most NPOV course here is to record the German appellation in the context of the wider phenomenon. It's not that this particular Soviet monument in Germany was for a rapist and others are considered being for liberators, they all appear to be considered to have been built to honor rapists. PetersV       TALK 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that Tomb of the Unknown Rapist can then in fact be included on ALL Soviet war memorial articles? --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that while "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" applies to the Treptower Park memorial, the article narrative should

• provide historical context at least in order of magnitude numbers of women raped, numbers in particular for Berlin if reputably sourced; and
• indicate that this case of "rapist" appellation is not unique among Germans and exists for other Soviet war memorials in Germany.

Rather than something so obscure that mere mention is WP:UNDUE, the pejorative name here is indicative of a far deeper resentment and animosity stemming from countless thousands of acts of rape (which act has since been classified to be a war crime). PetersV       TALK 05:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I should mention before I get denounced for Baltic Russophobia that I didn't come into this discussion with an opinion either way. However, the results of doing a bit of searching in German made it clear that the pejorative Russavia et al. argue against is not WP:UNDUE but is, in point of fact, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. PetersV       TALK 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is WP:SYN. You have taken "Fact1" (fringe view) and mixed it with "Fact2" to reach "Fact3" which doesn't place "Fact1" in the non-WP:FRINGE view category. It's original research in order to get around WP:UNDUE. It's that simple really. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) I'm sorry, Russavia, but your "fringe" is my real phenomenon of German resentment; your "synthesis" is my writing informative narrative--unless you are advocating that it's a German fringe theory that hundreds of thousands of German women were raped by the Red Army. Your Google search limited to the English language which you use to attach "WP:FRINGE" to the pejorative name proves nothing. You appear to want to delete anything indicting the Red Army raped anyone--there are accounts of individual women being raped 60, 70, or 80 times, and, as I said, estimates on the order of 100,000 women raped in Berlin alone, the setting of the monument. Sweeping something like this under the carpet is not an editorial option, to do so would be editorially and, indeed, morally reprehensible. PetersV       TALK 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To the original question, I support moving the pejorative, appropriately referenced, to a criticism section (#3). As to whether there needs to be a more general article on this German phenomenon is a separate discussion. PetersV       TALK 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A good news article on book on the fall of Berlin, 'They raped every German female from eight to 80'. Fringe? Undue? Absolutely not. PetersV       TALK 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is undue because this is an article for the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), not Rape of all German women between 8 and 80 by Soviet troops, or other such article. It is an article for the War Memorial. It's undue. Unless more sources can be found which state that it is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist, the pejorative is undue as per all the reliable sources out there which discuss this monument, which again is the subject of the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this, from RFE/RL:

Beevor says an examination of Soviet archives confirms Gesse's [Soviet WWII war correspondent] allegations. He describes where he got his source material.

A certain amount from the archives of the Ministry of Defense, a large amount from the Central State Archive -- and this is very significant because one has reports from the NKVD chiefs of the army groups of the front advancing on Germany and into Germany reporting back to [NKVD chief Lavrentii] Beria, and these reports are then passed to Stalin stating that Germans interrogated by the NKVD say that virtually every woman left behind in East German territory is being raped by Red Army troops. There is no indication, there is no comment on this. There is nothing to say that this is slander or a lie or anything like that. This is presented as fact."

Evidence from the Soviet archives should be enough to erase doubts about the significance of historical events or the pejorative nickname for the monument.

  (post-edit conflict) To contend including the pejorative is WP:UNDUE is totally unsupported. "Undue as per all the reliable sources out there"? Something which briefly mentions the article isn't going to say everything there is to say about it. Absence of something from a number of sources proves neither non-existance nor insignificance. To contend it does is using syllogisms to advance your editorial viewpoint. PetersV       TALK 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Digwuren, what's the page number for the Beevor ref? Or at least the chapter? Once I've verified that this checks out, I don't see a problem with a brief mention of the controversy surrounding the monument. These sorts of monuments often are controversial, and the fact that Beevor has bothered to mention it shows that there remains some sort of local feeling (not surprising, given the vast quantity of women who got raped at the time). One sentence not in the lead is hardly WP:UNDUE, given that your average western reader is more likely to have heard of the monument through Beevor's massively popular book than through any other means. Moreschi (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book at hand, sorry. Perhaps you could ask Pẽters? 62.65.238.142 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are basing "more likely to have heard of the monument" on what exactly? Apart from your own conjecture. So it is highly unlikley that the average "western reader" that they would have heard of the memorial from any of this, or this, or this? And I do recall that Germany is also in the "western world", and it has not been demonstrated that the war memorial is known as the "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" in German language sources anything past fringe views. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, note, I have pointed out on several avenues that Baby killers is a well-known and widely used term for Vietnam veterans, but not a single editor is game enough to add that to the article, even sources more than demonstrate that it was a widely used term. Why don't we add the sentence..."Vietnam veterans are called baby killers by those opposed to the war", and leave it at that, and see how long it stays there for. Would you support the inclusion of that into that article? Would you insert it yourself? Or do we find a couple of sources (of which there will be some), and put in the articles of Vietnam War memorials that they are known as "Baby killers memorials"? Because this could then be justified by putting the fact that were called baby killers together with a couple of sources which mention the term in relation to memorials, and to hell with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, because the sources imply all but as such anyway. This has nothing to do with whitewashing or anything of the like, but realising that we are discussing an article on the war memorial, not on the war itself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)