Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany

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

Sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Soviet literaturę?[edit]

It's not about Soviet, I have replaced it with Russian language.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Decades of silence ???[edit]

A Woman in Berlin was published in 1954 in the USA, in 1959 in German.
Representations of Flight and Expulsion in East German Prose Works says that even GDR literature suggested such rapes.Margarete Neumann Der grüne Salon (The Green Salon), Novel, 1972 - the mother is raped and commits suicide. Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand the victims didn't speak at the time, but victims of WWII didn't speak in general, it was the time of forgetting and living.
Discourse - Elizabeth Heineman. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the Article is mainly about rape committed by Soviet Soldiers?[edit]

American, British, French and Canadian Soldiers raped German women, children and men too and in the same way. There are now a lot of books about this topic.--Aaron Grünberg (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Great. Find some information from one that counts as a reliable source and put it into the article. Britmax (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Category[edit]

The article on Genocidal rape is quite clear; Germany is not discussed there. I removed the category as it appears to be out of scope for this article (diff). Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The intro to the article states: "Genocidal rape is a term used to describe the actions of a group who have carried out acts of mass rape during wartime against their perceived enemy as part of a genocidal campaign." I would say the Soviets, would fit in a defacto sense, if not a de jure one. With that said, we must go by what the RS sources state and not gut feeling or what a Wikipedia article states, as that is WP:OR and non-RS, as you know. Kierzek (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, we are discussing the use of the category (as being challenged for this article here. Per WP:WINARS, the article on 'Genocidal rape' is not a definitive list of the application of the term. While it may seem to be a harsh evaluation, it is used by scholars specialising in this specific subject, therefore it is certainly applicable. It's not up to editors to parse the usage in mainstream scholarship. The category has been in place since early 2015, and the article has certainly gone through serious edit warring since that time. Of course, consensus can change, but I'd appreciated some serious policy-based discussion before removing it. The recent spate of WP:JDL removals here and here don't cut the mustard. I have no hard-line stance on its use, but I'd like to here from other editors who know the subject before accepting or rejecting this WP:BOLD removal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed the category because it struck me as non-defining. Pls see WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (emphasis in the original).
The term is mentioned in the article once, in this section: Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Discourse, which is not sufficient to establish "genocidal" (i.e. "as part of a genocidal campaign", per Genocidal rape) as a defining characteristic. Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Like Kierzek, I'd consider this a WP:WINARS interpretation applied to the use of a category. It could be argued that the issue of 'genocidal rape' in the context of the Soviet army has been understated in this article as the result of serious edit warring in the past, and I don't think that counting how many times a very serious term - and all of its implications and ramifications - is 'mentioned' in the body of the article is an effective gauge for estimating how serious the discourse (as applied specifically to the Red Army and the upper echelons of the Soviet hierarchy's attitude and motives) actually is. The subject of genocidal rape is not cut-and-dried, nor is it up to us to proscribe its use based on circular arguments. Given the gravity of the subject, I would not condone the use of the category in any frivolous manner, but the usage does actually match the discourse . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Pascale Bos materia[edit]

Here are the relevant passages from Bos:

Excerpt from "Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape"
...It is within Sander’s second line of argument, which stresses the particularity of these rapes—an emphasis not noted much by the critics—that the limits of her feminist explanatory model of wartime rape become even more apparent. Sander argues for the uniqueness of the mass rapes of German women on two grounds. First, on the basis of scale, she argues that the extent of the German women’s rapes was unprecedented (1992, 11–12). Second, she suggests that they were part of an unwritten policy, and, in a sense, a form of genocidal rape: the German women were raped by the Russians not just as women but as Germans. The problem is that Sander can argue for this uniqueness only by obfuscating or underplaying the mass-scale rapes and other forms of coerced sexual contact between German soldiers and Russian women on the eastern front, something she does in the film and in the book (1992, 14–15).[16] Whether all of this sexual contact was forced and conforms to the definition of rape or whether some of it may also have taken the form of instrumentalized sex or of semi-consensual relationships, the scale of it was massive, and at least a large portion of it was not consensual.[17]

The second argument Sander presents for uniqueness is that these mass rapes were especially harmful to the German victims because they perceived the perpetrators as bestial and as racially inferior. While this interpretation by the women is clearly rooted in Nazi racial ideology, Sander does not challenge it, and it comes to function instead as a central problematic figure. These rapes were worse, the women seem to say, because the men who committed them were racially inferior, they were Slavs, or Mongols. In turn, the rapes could lead to impregnation and would result in racially inferior and hence undesirable babies.[18] Here Sander is most explicit in her interpretation of the rapes as genocidal. She does not question the racial rhetoric used by the German women interviewed in the film, and in a sense, she even legitimizes it by focusing in the second half of the film on the difficult fate of the supposedly racially mixed German offspring from the rapes.

This slippage into a genocide model suddenly introduces the war’s racial context, which is only touched on but not analyzed further, and it makes Sander’s narrative of the rapes most troubling, in my view. For when Sander mentions the racial context of the rapes, she does so only partially (Soviet men raping German women) without acknowledging that the genocidal racial agenda of this war was of German rather than of Soviet origin. This racial ideology is indeed central to understanding the war endeavor from the German perspective (both the German men’s justification for raping Russian women and the German women’s interpretation of their rape experience were infused with Nazi race rhetoric).[19] A full picture of this racial context as one of German origin is therefore significant. Providing it only partially means deliberately erasing one of the most pernicious and criminal aspects of the Nazi regime and its intentions: to rid Europe of those it deemed racially inferior and to increase the desired “Aryan” population. Highlighting only the victimization of the German women rather than the motives of the German men seems to deliberately neutralize the guilt of the Germans.

It becomes easy to see how Sander came to stand accused of creating a revisionist version of German history and of reviving an old reactionary German narrative of victimization. Yet the irony is that Sander seems to have pursued an analysis that deemphasized the context of the war, of German crimes, and of German women’s complicity merely in order to get the suffering of the rapes acknowledged as a women’s issue, not to excuse Germany’s Nazi past or even the particular past of these women.
—Bos, Pascale R., "Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992-1993". Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Summer 2006, Vol. 31 Issue 4, pp. 995-1025. 31p

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)