Talk:German military brothels in World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Forced Prostitution section[edit]

This may be have occurred because of a machine translation or two separate edits, but the wording in this section made it seem that all the women in military brothels were former prostitutes. If any were forced, anywhere in the whole area occupied in 1939-1945, then one must say that "some" were forced. Therefore, I changed the statement regarding former prostitutes. Logically, some of the women may have been former prostitutes (but were they forced to work in the military brothels?), and some were forced. I also added English translations of the titles of the two German references.

The section needs to be examined by someone with more knowledge.

Roches (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some, if not the majority, of workers in military brothels were already prostitutes. So I would question the accuracy of the claim that they were "self-evident war-rape sites". It is any more self-evident that for the military brothels run by the Americans in Europe and Japan - or the Middle East now. Some of the women may have been raped, but not all, and not necessarily at all brothels. There are trafficked women being raped at many civilians brothels in Europe now - that doesn't make all brothels "rape sites". (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether they had previously been sex workers has nothing to do with whether they had any choice under the Nazi regime. It can be sexual slavery and rape either way. (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Buisson[edit]

I have some concerns with the following sentence

"Patrick Buisson pointed out, that under german occupation France was undergoing a sexual revolution. Because of their well trained bodies and better hygiene the German soldiers were very attractive to the french women."

This part of the article is very POV. Who is Patrick Buisson? It is not directly relevant to the brothels. I do understand it may have some relevance to sexual diseases. However, as I understand it the problem of diseases which the creation of regulated brothels sought to control was the soldiers using unregulated prostitutes not them having sex with French civilians. I think this should be removed as it unbalances the article at present. I could see it added in if the article was to expand significantly and a new section on the sexual background to the whole situation was added. Polargeo (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV, it's relevant fact and true to the source. The source is absolutely reputable. Patrick Buisson ist relevant for the question of sexual intercourse between soldiers and French inhabitants and also the spreading of diseases. The diseases in turn led to the idea of controlled prostitution.

During the Poland Campaign there were no such brothels. The idea to set up these brothels came up in the course of the Battle of France. That's why Buisson is relevant. There was an extensive sexual contact between German soldiers and French women, also prostituion on occasion. For many women being supported by German soldiers became a question of survival. Diseases spread. From there on contact was regulated. The OKW didn't want to suppress sexual desires of their soldiers. The reason to establish the brothel was the idea to practice a health control. The original idea was not to exploit women, but prevent diseases.

Further Reading: Insa Meinen, "Wehrmacht und Prostitution im besetzten Frankreich", Bremen 2002

But that's according to France. The situation in Eastern Europe was a little different. Women often had to be recruited. We have to differ between France and Eastern Europe. -- (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is absolutely not relevant but more that it is fairly unbalanced having this sentence in the middle of an article on brothels. Much of the other stuff in this article is fact. This sentence is opinion and we should differentiate opinion from fact. Again I state the control of brothels was to stop German soldiers from engaging in uncontrolled prostitution activities this sentence does not link in at all with the article at present. Polargeo (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

Native English speaker here. "German soldier's brothels in World War II" is a bad grammatical mistake. It suggests ONE soldier used several brothels. Please change it to "German soldiers' brothels in World War II" to indicate the plural. Chumchum7 (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And in my opinion "German military brothels in World War II" would be better English language usage. That said, the use of the word 'brothel' might suggest consentual, paid sex. Given these were rape centres and most victims had been rounded up in a Lapanka, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe this as either "Sexual slavery in Occupied Europe" or perhaps "Nazi rape centres" ? Chumchum7 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree military is better in English. As for the other stuff. I don't think you are right but I also don't think Linksnational (who created this article) is right. I think it is a grey area. It is easy to say yes they are all willing prostitutes but is this really the case? It does seem very doubtful, but that is another issue to be dealt with separately. Polargeo (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So please go ahead as per WP:BOLD and correct the mistake in the title to "German soldiers' brothels in World War II" or improve it to "German military brothels in World War II" -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, the whole article needs to be re-written because it is in extremely bad English. Chumchum7 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I may do this but would prefer to leave it for a while longer to get other opinions on the best name for this article. There have been far too many quick moves and redirects in this area without proper consideration already. Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see you're a native speaker. I'll leave it in your capable hands. I'm out of here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, probably, but this seems like a reasonably-uncontroversial move. Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing against the move. It is a good one. I was just holding back whilst the article creator was still blocked. I initially opposed this article entirely but I consider bumping articles around all over the place to be less beneficial than a sure consensus move to a long term title. hopefully this is it :) Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I have a case of mission creep. I didn't want to get sucked in to this but then decided to add a See Also and consequently stumbled upon a couple of very similar articles to this one such as Sexual enslavement by the Nazi state in WWII and German camp brothels in World War II. Likely candidate for a MERGE. Over to you SarekOfVulcan, or Polargeo if you are now convinced about WP:BOLD ;) -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been plenty enough BOLD already. Time to build consensus. I think I nearly got myself blocked along with Linksnational for undoing his moves/redirects/POVedits which is why you will note the hint of caution in my words. See my discussion with Linksnational here Polargeo (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is okay Chumchum7 you have just discovered the articles that have been under debate between me and Linksnational. I don't think there is a case for a merge as camp brothels and soldiers' brothels are very very different situations and to cover them in the same article is not a good solution. However, I do think that the situation and current state of all of these articles will need reviewing because Linksnational has edited from a POV which has been extremely sympathetic to Nazi Germany, if not technically incorrect, although his warring has been against policy. Polargeo (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. Ok, good luck. If there's genuine pro-Nazi POV I suggest you do a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alert if you havn't already -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed far right publication[edit]

I removed claim by Junge Freiheit that women in those brothels were prostitutes. Junge Freiheit is classified as far right by German state, and is not reliable source for such claims.Reliable publications on this subject by scholars present a different picture anyway.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm rewriting sections of the article to attempt to it less stilted for native English readers. I will just put 'rewrite' if I'm just reordering words, and other changes will have explanations. I hope other editors will get involved and this doesn't become an undofest. Rsloch (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

Often operating in confiscated hotels and guarded by the Wehrmacht, these facilities used to serve travelling soldiers and those withdrawn from the front according to an author.[3][4]

In many cases in Eastern Europe, the women involved were kidnapped on the streets of occupied cities during German military and police round ups,[3][4] according to another author.

Doesn't this according to an author stuff count as weasel words? It's using a source, yet distancing oneself from it and casting doubt on it. I thought the deal was to take reputable sources at face value. And simply not use disreputable sources. Catsmeat (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)